BUSTED: KIEV MPS TRY TO FOOL U.S. SENATOR WITH ‘PROOF’ OF RUSSIAN TANKS IN UKRAINE (PHOTOS)

(Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe)

(Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe)

February 13, 2015

Christian Patriots:

Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe

MPs in Kiev hoodwinked a US senator, presenting his office with photos of columns of Russian military hardware allegedly roaming Ukrainian territory. The photos turned out to have been taken during the conflict in South Ossetia back in 2008.

The photos were “presented to the Armed Services Committee from a delegation from Ukraine in December,” told The Washington Free BeaconSenator Jim Inhofe’s communications director Donelle Harder.

The Americans planned to publish the photos with credits to the Ukrainian MPs, and “they were fine with that,” the spokesperson said.

Yet, after thorough checking, images of the Russian convoys turned to be taken years ago, in 2008 during Georgia – South Ossetia war.

“We are currently making calls to our sources,” Harder said.

“The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice,” Senator Inhofe said in a statement.

“I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008,” the lawmaker wrote.

At the same time the revealed forgery “doesn’t change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood,” the US senator maintains.

The list of members of the Ukrainian delegation that attempted to fool Senator Jim Inhofe does not include high-ranking Ukrainian officials, with probably the sole exception of the commander of the Donbass volunteer battalion Semyon Semenchenko, who visited Washington demanding arms and training for his servicemen.

By RT News
Read more at RT News

More at Christian Patriots:

UKRAINE: ‘ CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT REACHED & HOURS BEFORE ITS START PEOPLE BOMBED & KILLED ‘

d

February 13, 2015

#AceWorldNews –

UKRAINE:Feb.13: Three children have been killed in the eastern Ukrainian city of Gorlovka during shelling, the Emergencies Ministry of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic said.

A shell hit the roof of a one-story house, TASS reported.

About 30 people were injured in Donbass over the last 24 hours after shelling by Ukrainian armed forces, mostly in Donetsk and Lugansk.

Seven people, including three children, died over the last 24 hours as a result of shelling, DPR defense ministry spokesman Eduard Basurin told a briefing earlier on Friday.

“Yesterday, three children died as a result of shelling of a residential house in Gorlovka – a boy, aged 1, and two girls, aged 6 and 12,” the Donetsk News Agency quoted Basurin as saying. “In total, 7 civilians were killed and 15 more injured.”

The Ukrainian forces shelled several settlements in DPR over 40 times in the last 24 hours, Basurin said. “Over the last 24 hours, [we] registered 42 shellings, including 19 in Donetsk, four in Golovka and one in Yasinovataya,” he added.

A peace deal was reached in Minsk on Thursday, and a ceasefire is to begin in eastern Ukraine at 22:00GMT on Saturday.

#ANS2015

U.S. Congress Now Virtually 100% All-In on Ukraine’s War Against Russia; Americans Are at Least 67% Opposed

December 12, 2014

Christian Patriots:

This could turn out to be the path toward a nuclear war against Russia

ukraine-war

Last night, December 11th, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously as the U.S. House had previously voted 98%: to join Ukraine’s war against Russia and against Ukraine’s own ethnic Russians in Ukraine’s southeastern districts, in order to eliminate those resistant Ukrainians and their families.

The U.S. is now throwing down the gauntlet to Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, and daring him to defend openly the ethnic Russians that the U.S.-installed Ukrainian Government is now trying to exterminate in the eastern districts, the places where the present Ukrainian Government is rejected by almost all of the residents.

Those are the districts that had voted about 90% for the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whom the U.S. overthrew on February 22nd in a violent coup, in which the U.S. paid Ukrainian nazis, or racist-fascists of Ukraine’s Right Sector Party, who masked themselves and dressed themselves as Ukrainian security forces and shot from high places into the “Maidan” crowd of anti-corruption demonstrators, for which shootings the U.S. Government blamed the then-President Yanukovych, since the snipers had dressed as if they were from his security-forces. A special session of Ukraine’s parliament or “Rada” was promptly called to appoint a new leader for the country, and they appointed “Yaz” Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland had, on February 4th, instructed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, to get installed as the country’s leader after the coup. Some Rada members were physically threatened by Right Sector gunmen to vote for this change, which then passed overwhelmingly, especially because most of the parliamentarians didn’t even know that the bloodshed had actually been operated by the U.S. However, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Catherine Ashton, sent an investigator in to determine how the overthrow had occurred, and the investigator, Urmas Paet, informed Ashton on February 26th that “behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” In other words: it was someone from the group who wanted to remove and replace Yanukovych. Paet said furthermore, that, “it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” And so there was no investigation, other than Paet’s own. He went on, in very broken English (he’s Estonian) to tell Ashton: “So that it was in this instance disturbing that if it’s us now to live its own life very powerfully, then it already discreditates from the very beginning also this new coalition.” Ashton ignored his comment, and just said that, “what we’ve got to be very careful of as well, [is] that they need to demand great change, but they’ve got to let the Rada [Parliament] function. If the Rada doesn’t function, then we’ll have complete chaos.” In other words: we’re just going to let those sleeping dogs lie. And they did.

Anyway, she knew. The top foreign-affairs official at the EU knew that the overthrow of Yanukovych, and the replacement of him by this new pro-EU Ukrainian Government, had been hired by someone from the West. She knew that she hadn’t ordered it. She almost certainly understood right away, that America’s White House did.

And so, too, unquestionably, did Petro Poroshenko, who in elections that were then held on May 25th in Ukraine’s northwest — the regions where the new Obama-installed regime was accepted by the public — won the Presidency of Ukraine to replace Yanukovych. He, too, knew that, as Paet had put it, “behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” We know that he knows this because Paet also told Ashton at the same time that, “what was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko] told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides.” In other words: this was murdering people at random by firing into a crowd, all the while pretending to be security forces of the Ukrainian Government that the crowd is demonstrating against. That’s Obama’s way of “regime change,” instead of sending in the U.S. armed forces, like George W. Bush did to Iraq. However, virtually all of the U.S. Congress have now voted to donate U.S. weapons to this Ukrainian Government.

The EU is in on the secret, and the President who replaced Yanukovych is, too.

But what about the 98% of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 100% of the U.S. Senate, who have now voted for the U.S. to donate lethal weapons to this Ukrainian Government. Do they know? Who paid ‘our’ Congress-people for this vote? Was it Lockheed Martin? Was it Boeing? Was it Raytheon? Was it all of them and others, all of whose stocks have been soaring since Obama’s overthrow of Yanukovych?

The U.S. public were asked in a 4 April 2014 Pew poll, whether they backed “sending arms/military supplies, to Ukraine govt.” 30% said yes. 62% said no. 8% were undecided. The ratio of those who had an opinion, 62%/92%, was 67% against, 33% for.

Written by: ERIC ZUESSE – continue at INFOWARS

House of Representatives Passes Resolution Against Russia

December 1, 2014

Christian Patriots:

RT:

Members of the US House of Representatives at the US Capitol in Washington, DC (AFP Photo)

Members of the US House of Representatives at the US Capitol in Washington, DC (AFP Photo)

The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a document which strongly condemns Moscow’s actions against its neighbors, calling them a policy of aggression.

Passed with 411-10 votes, the resolution slams Russia’s “continuing political, economic, and military aggression” against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the “continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

The US, Europe and our allies must aggressively keep the pressure on Mr. Putin to encourage him to change his behavior,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the resolution’s sponsor, said.

The resolution calls for Russia to stop supporting local militias in eastern Ukraine and for the cancellation of Crimea’s decision to join Russia. In addition, it calls on Moscow to withdraw its troops which the US claims are in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

The House calls on President Barack Obama to provide Ukraine with defense equipment and training.

Ukraine is clearly in need of urgent military assistance,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said as quoted by The Hill.

The resolution also urges NATO members and US allies to suspend military cooperation with Russia. Addressing Obama, the House urged him to review the readiness of US and NATO armed forces under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE).

The lawmakers agreed that the president and State Department should also find a way to “distribute news and information” in Russian to countries with Russian-speaking populations.

The lawmakers specified that the resolution was targeting Putin and his policy, but not all Russian people.

The resolution follows Putin’s speech to Federal Assembly made on Thursday, where he criticized the “deterrence policy” conducted against Russia by other states.

The deterrence policy was not invented yesterday, it has been always conducted towards our country, for decades, if not centuries,” Putin noted. “Every time somebody considers Russia is becoming too powerful and independent, such instruments are turned on immediately.

He mentioned that the US has been manipulating foreign relations of Russia’s neighbors, adding that “sometimes you don’t even know to whom it is better to talk to: the governments of certain countries or directly with their American patrons.

The relations between the two states have got colder in the past decade and will deteriorate even more following the adoption of the H. Res. 758, warns former Republican Dennis Kucinich.

NATO encirclement, the US-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a US nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy,” he explained.

Ukraine’s President, to the People He’s Bombing: Go to Hell!

Poroshenko is bombing people to get rid of them

screen capture

Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko, in an Odessa TV address to the nation, on November 13th, said:

“We will have our jobs. They will not. We will have our pensions. They will not. We will have care for children, for people, and retirees. They will not. Our children will go to schools and kindergartens. Theirs will hole up in basements [from our bombs]. Because they are not able to do anything. This is exactly how we will win this war! [I.e., we will starve and terrorize them into submission.]“

Written by: ERIC ZUESSE
Read more at INFOWARS

NEW IMAGE CLAIMS TO SHOW UKRAINIAN FIGHTER JET SHOOTING DOWN MH17


November 15, 2014

ChristianPatriots.org:

A television news channel in Russia has released an image of what it claims shows a Ukrainian fighter jet shooting a missile towards ,.

The satellite image, which is also being circulated by the Russian Union of Engineers, emerged just hours before world leaders are set to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin on the fate of MH17 at the G20 summit in Brisbane.

The image was reportedly obtained from a US or British satellite, the TV station claimed.

However, skeptics soon took to Twitter to claim that the image showed a geographical area 50km away from where MH17 was shot down.

The blame game over who was responsible for the downing of the airliner has raged for almost four months, with Kiev and its western allies claiming Russian-backed rebels were responsible for the incident, while Moscow has repeatedly pointed to evidence of Ukrainian fighter jets having been in the vicinity to claim that Kiev shot down the plane.

The Ukrainian government previously presented what it claimed was proof that Russian-backed rebels used a ground-based missile system to down the airliner, but the image later turned out to have been hastily cropped from a popular video game.

Watch the video above to see the satellite image.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Obama: Vision of peaceful Europe threatened by “Russia’s aggression”

imageedit_2_3572322949

 

 

Washington (CNN) — As Air Force One landed in Estonia’s capital Wednesday, President Barack Obama’s message to Vladimir Putin — only 500 miles away in Moscow — was clear: Stay put.

Obama’s trip to the former Soviet state, ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Wales, is meant to reassure nervous Eastern Europe that Putin’s support for separatists in Ukraine doesn’t mean he has a free pass for territorial gains elsewhere.

In a speech in Tallinn, Obama said the vision of a Europe dedicated to peace and freedom is “threatened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine,” but said NATO will not allow that aggression to go unchecked.

“We will defend our NATO allies, and that means every ally,” he said. “We will be here for Estonia. … You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again.”

Added to the schedule only last month, the stop in Estonia supplements the message coming from NATO leaders gathering in Cardiff, Wales, who are set to announce the positioning of troops and equipment closer to Russia in Eastern Europe.

“In order for us to accomplish that, the first phase has been to make sure we’ve got an Iraqi government that’s in place, and that we are blunting the momentum that ISIL was carrying out.

“And the airstrikes have done that. But now, what we need to do is make sure that we’ve got the regional strategy in place that can support an ongoing effort, not just in the air, but on the ground, to move that forward.”

Analyst: NATO must adapt

The original reason for the summit was to determine how NATO’s mission will proceed in Afghanistan when combat troops depart at the end of the year.

But the global unrest, while causing political strife for Obama in the United States, could provide a new purpose for the 65-year-old NATO alliance, which is suffering an “identity crisis,” according to one analyst.

Russian official: Russia is emotionally in Ukraine, its troops are not.

Putin’s actions in Russia have “required NATO to really adapt and change fairly dramatically,” said Heather Conley, who directs the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“In some ways, NATO should thank Vladimir Putin, because it was really searching for its purpose,” Conley said.

Warning Putin

NATO members that border Russia, watching the once unthinkable breach of Ukraine’s borders, are looking to the military alliance to affirm its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5, which provides for collective defense of states under attack.

Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, though leaders did invite the country’s new President, Petro Poroshenko, to Wales this week. Other former Soviet states, like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, joined NATO in the past decade, hoping to bolster ties to the West while increasing their own security frameworks.

As reassurance to those countries, NATO leaders plan to approve the creation of a “high-readiness” force that places new equipment and thousands of troops in Eastern Europe.

Ukraine warns of return to ‘full-scale war.’

White House officials say the move is meant to be defensive rather than a provocation for Russia, though initial reaction from the Kremlin — which called the move an “external threat” — foreshadowed a potential escalation of the crisis.

NATO and Russia have agreed since 1997 that no permanent NATO troops will be positioned in Eastern Europe, meaning member states will rotate forces through bases closest to Russia.

Charles Kupchan, Obama’s top adviser for European affairs, said leaders will describe the new effort as a “persistent” force in the easternmost countries, rather than “permanent.”

“We will see persistent rotation, persistent exercises to ensure that Estonia and that other countries in Central and Eastern Europe are provided the reassurance from NATO and the presence of NATO needed to meet their security needs,” he said.

Opinion: What’s Russia doing in Ukraine, and what can the West do?

Battling ISIS

Not on the official agenda in Wales, the ongoing spread of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria will nonetheless play a major role in Obama’s discussions in Wales.

The meeting comes after a video posted Tuesday that shows the beheading of a second American, Steven Sotloff.

The killing of Sotloff follows a threat made by ISIS last month during the videotaped beheading of American journalist James Foley. The latest video threatens the life of another man, a British citizen.

Obama has said he wants to form a coalition of governments willing to take on the group, which has taken over huge swaths of territory and terrorized ethnic minorities. Officials say that could include a role for NATO, though in what capacity is so far unclear — after all, Obama himself hasn’t yet decided whether to undertake airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

Western European leaders must also confront the growing threat of “homegrown terrorism” — citizens leaving to fight with militant groups in Syria and Iraq, and potentially returning to stage a terror attack at home.

The host of the NATO summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron, already announced new measures to combat that threat after a London-accented militant was filmed beheading journalist James Foley.

ISIS video shows beheading of second journalist.

“There will have to be an acknowledgment that individual European countries, and certainly the United States, are taking action, actively working militarily on issues relating to Iraq and then potentially Syria,” said Kathleen Hicks, the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Afghanistan‘s future

Just as the United States is anxiously watching the final outcome of Afghanistan’s recent election, NATO member states are wondering what their role will be there after this year ends.

Both candidates in the contested vote have said they’ll sign an agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain there past 2014. But without a winner, the Bilateral Security Agreement remains unsigned.

Hanging over the decision is the security situation in Iraq, which completely unraveled after U.S. troops’ withdrawal. Neither Obama nor his NATO counterparts want the same thing to happen in Afghanistan.

“We’re moving into a world in which NATO will be less salient in Afghanistan, but in which we want to capitalize on the lessons that we’ve learned, the partnerships that we’ve built,” Kupchan said.

No expansion

NATO last admitted new members in 2009, but leaders are quick to note this year’s summit isn’t about expansion.

The appetite for letting countries like Bosnia and Macedonia — labeled “aspirant countries” — into the club has waned. It’s hard enough to get the 28 current members to agree on things, officials say.

Case in point: NATO is having a tough time convincing its members to spend more on their militaries, a requirement for membership. The United States spends about 4.4% of its gross domestic product on defense, according to NATO figures; the European average is 1.6%.

NATO’s guidelines encourage countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

“Part of the reason I think this NATO meeting is going to be so important is to refocus attention on the critical function that NATO plays to make sure that every country is contributing in order to deliver on the promise of our Article 5 assurances,” Obama said at a news conference last week.

But analysts say that as long as economic conditions in Europe remain bleak, countries will remain hesitant to ramp up their military spending, even as external threats grow.

“The Ukraine crisis has been a wake-up call,” said Conley, the Europe program director at CSIS. “Now, whether the Europeans will hit the snooze button or not, again, I don’t know, but it has certainly shaken them that they have allowed their military defense spending to atrophy to a point where they are now vulnerable.”

Written by Kevin Liptak

 

 

By Lorra B. Chief Writer for Silent Soldier

http://SilentSoldier.us

 

Blaming Russia as ‘Flat Fact’

imageedit_2_9169817041This, July 16, 2014, file photo shows Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as he arrives for an official group photo during the BRICS summit at the Itamaraty palace, in Brasilia, Brazil. (Photo: Felipe Dana/AP/File )

As nuclear-armed America hurtles into a completely avoidable crash with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine, you can now see the dangers of “information warfare” when facts give way to propaganda and the press fails to act as an impartial arbiter.

In this sorry affair, one of the worst offenders of journalistic principles has been the New York Times, generally regarded as America’s premier newspaper. During the Ukraine crisis, the Times has been little more than a propaganda conveyor belt delivering what the U.S. government wants out via shoddy and biased reporting from the likes of Michael R. Gordon and David Herszenhorn.

The Times reached what was arguably a new low on Sunday when it accepted as flat fact the still unproven point of how Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down. The Times dropped all attribution despite what appear to be growing – rather than diminishing – doubts about Official Washington’s narrative that Ukrainian rebels shot down the plane by using a powerful Russian-supplied Buk missile battery.

U.S. and Ukrainian government officials began pushing this narrative immediately after the plane went down on July 17 killing 298 people onboard. But the only evidence has been citations of “social media” and the snippet of an intercepted phone call containing possibly confused comments by Ukrainian rebels after the crash, suggesting that some rebels initially believed they had shot the plane down but later reversed that judgment.

A major problem with this evidence is that it assumes the rebels – or for that matter the Ukrainian armed forces – operate with precise command and control when the reality is that the soldiers on both sides are not very professional and function in even a deeper fog of war than might exist in other circumstances.

Missing Images

But an even bigger core problem for the U.S. narrative is that it is virtually inconceivable that American intelligence did not have satellite and other surveillance on eastern Ukraine at the time of the shoot-down. Yet the U.S. government has been unable (or unwilling) to supply a single piece of imagery showing the Russians supplying a Buk anti-aircraft missile battery to the rebels; the rebels transporting the missiles around eastern Ukraine; the rebels firing the fateful missile that allegedly brought down the Malaysian airliner; or the rebels then returning the missiles to Russia.

To accept Official Washington’s certainty about what it “knows” happened, you would have to believe that American spy satellites – considered the best in the world – could not detect 16-feet-tall missiles during their odyssey around Russia and eastern Ukraine. If that is indeed the case, the U.S. taxpayers should demand their billions upon billions of dollars back.

However, the failure of U.S. intelligence to release its satellite images of Buk missile batteries in eastern Ukraine is the “dog-not-barking” evidence that this crucial evidence to support the U.S. government’s allegations doesn’t exist. Can anyone believe that if U.S. satellite images showed the missiles crossing the border, being deployed by the rebels and then returning to Russia, that those images would not have been immediately declassified and shown to the world? In this case, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence – absence of U.S. evidence.

The U.S. government’s case also must overcome public remarks by senior U.S. military personnel at variance with the Obama administration’s claims of certainty. For instance, the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock reported last Saturday that Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, U.S. commander of NATO forces in Europe, said last month that “We have not seen any of the [Russian] air-defense vehicles across the border yet.”

Whitlock also reported that “Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said defense officials could not point to specific evidence that an SA-11 [Buk] surface-to-air missile system had been transported from Russia into eastern Ukraine.”

There’s also the possibility that a Ukrainian government missile – either from its own Buk missile batteries fired from the ground or from a warplane in the sky – brought down the Malaysian plane. I was told by one source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that some satellite images suggest that the missile battery was under the control of Ukrainian government troops but that the conclusion was not definitive.

Plus, there were reports from eyewitnesses in the area of the crash that at least one Ukrainian jet fighter closed on the civilian plane shortly before it went down. The Russian government also has cited radar data supposedly showing Ukrainian fighters in the vicinity.

Need for a Real Inquiry

What all this means is that a serious and impartial investigation is needed to determine who was at fault and to apportion accountability. But that inquiry is still underway with no formal conclusions.

So, in terms of journalistic professionalism, a news organization should treat the mystery of who shot down Flight 17 with doubt. Surely, no serious journalist would jump to the conclusion based on the dubious claims made by one side in a dispute while the other side is adamant in its denials, especially with the stakes so high in a tense confrontation between two nuclear powers.

But that is exactly what the Times did in describing new U.S. plans to escalate the confrontation by possibly supplying tactical intelligence to the Ukrainian army so it can more effectively wage war against eastern Ukrainian rebels.

On Sunday, the Times wrote: “At the core of the debate, said several [U.S.] officials — who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy deliberations are still in progress — is whether the American goal should be simply to shore up a Ukrainian government reeling from the separatist attacks, or to send a stern message to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by aggressively helping Ukraine target the missiles Russia has provided. Those missiles have taken down at least five aircraft in the past 10 days, including Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.” [Emphasis added.]

The link provided by the Times’ online version of the story connects to an earlier Times’ story that attributed the accusations blaming Russia to U.S. “officials.” But this new story drops that attribution and simply accepts the claims as flat fact.

The danger of American “information warfare” that treats every development in the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to blame Putin and ratchet up tensions with Russia has been apparent since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis – as has been the clear anti-Russian bias of the Times and virtually every other outlet of the mainstream U.S. news media. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Will Ukraine Be NYT’s Waterloo?”]

Since the start of the crisis last year, U.S. officials and American-funded non-governmental organizations have not only pushed a one-sided story but have been pushing a dangerous agenda, seeking to create a collision between the United States and Russia and, more personally, between President Barack Obama and President Putin.

The vehicle for this head-on collision between Russia and the United States was the internal political disagreement in Ukraine over whether elected President Viktor Yanukovych should have accepted harsh International Monetary Fund austerity demands as the price for associating with the European Union or agree to a more generous offer from Russia.

Angered last September when Putin helped Obama avert a planned U.S. bombing campaign against Syria, American neocons were at the forefront of this strategy. Their principal need was to destroy the Putin-Obama collaboration, which also was instrumental in achieving a breakthrough on the Iran nuclear dispute (while the neocons were hoping that the U.S. military might bomb Iran, too).

So, on Sept. 26, 2013, Carl Gershman, a leading neocon and longtime president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to urge the U.S. government to push European “free trade” agreements on Ukraine and other former Soviet states and thus counter Moscow’s efforts to maintain close relations with those countries.

The ultimate goal, according to Gershman, was isolating and possibly toppling Putin in Russia with Ukraine the key piece on this global chessboard. “Ukraine is the biggest prize,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

To give the United States more leverage inside Ukraine, Gershman’s NED paid for scores of projects, including training “activists” and supporting “journalists.” Rather than let the Ukrainian political process sort out this disagreement, U.S. officials, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and neocon Sen. John McCain, also intervened to encourage increasingly disruptive demonstrations seeking to overthrow Yanukovych when he opted for the Russian deal over the EU-IMF offer.

Though much of the ensuing violence was instigated by neo-Nazi militias that had moved to the front of the anti-Yanukovych protests, the U.S. government and its complicit news media blamed every act of violence on Yanukovych and the police, including a still mysterious sniper attack that left both protesters and police dead.

On Feb. 21, Yanukovych denied ordering any shootings and tried to stem the violence by signing an agreement brokered by three European nations to reduce his powers and hold early elections so he could be voted out of office. He also complied with a demand from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back Ukrainian police. Then, the trap sprang shut.

Neo-Nazi militias overran government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives. The State Department quickly endorsed the coup regime – hastily formed by the remnants of the parliament – as “legitimate.” Besides passing bills offensive to ethnic Russians in the east, one of the parliament’s top priorities was to enact the IMF austerity plan.

White Hats/Black Hats

Though the major U.S. news media was aware of these facts – and indeed you could sometimes detect the reality by reading between the lines of dispatches from the field – the overriding U.S. narrative was that the coup-makers were the “white hats” and Yanukovych along with Putin were the “black hats.” Across the U.S. media, Putin was mocked for riding on a horse shirtless and other indiscretions. For the U.S. media, it was all lots of fun, as was the idea of reprising the Cold War with Moscow.

When the people of Crimea – many of whom were ethnic Russians – voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the U.S. media declared the move a Russian “invasion” although the Russian troops were already in Ukraine as part of an agreement with previous Ukrainian governments.

Every development that could be hyped was hyped. There was virtually no nuance in the news reporting, a lack of professionalism led by the New York Times. Yet, the solution to the crisis was always relatively obvious: a federalized system that would allow the ethnic Russians in the east a measure of self-governance and permit Ukraine to have cordial economic relations with both the EU and Russia.

But replacement President Petro Poroshenko – elected when a secession fight was already underway in the east – refused to negotiate with the ethnic Russian rebels who had rejected the ouster of Yanukovych. Sensing enough political support inside the U.S. government, Poroshenko opted for a military solution.

It was in that context of a massive Ukrainian government assault on the east that Russia stepped up its military assistance to the beleaguered rebels, including the apparent provision of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to fend off Kiev’s air superiority. The rebels did succeed in shooting down some Ukrainian warplanes flying at altitudes far below the 33,000 feet of the Malaysia Airlines plane.

For a plane at that height to be shot down required a more powerful system, like the Buk anti-aircraft batteries or an air-to-air missile fired by a fighter jet. Which brings us to the mystery of what happened on the afternoon of July 17 and why it is so important to let a serious investigation evaluate all the available evidence and not to have a rush to judgment.

But the idea of doing an investigation first and drawing conclusions second is a concept that, apparently, neither the U.S. government nor the New York Times accepts. They would prefer to start with the conclusion and then make a serious investigation irrelevant, one more casualty of information warfare.

Reported by Consortium News, by Robert Perry

 

By Lorra B. Chief Writer for Silent Soldier

http://SilentSoldier.us

Is the Obama Administration Posturing to Start Another War?

 

imageedit_2_8484186291“Recently I was asked why I am writing so much about “politics.” Well, I have not written too much about U.S. politics because the two party system is hopelessly broken where a vote either way is either thrown away counted incorrectly and really doesn’t matter because your choices are two sides of the same coin. Writing about U.S. internal politics is pointless. I have written quite a bit recently about international or “geo” politics and even make comments on religion. There is a valid reason for this, because when all is said and done it all boils down to the dollar which is becoming like a political ping pong ball.

“If you ignore geopolitics or religion (in the Middle East) today then you might as well spin your self around 3 times with a blindfold on and then try to walk a straight line. Without understanding global politics, you will have zero percent chance of ever understanding where “this” is headed. I believe that there is now a raging fire behind the financial scenes. The tried and true way to divert attention from anything “internally bad” has always been to either start a war overseas or create some other scandal or false flag event.

“The above said, we (the U.S,) are pushing and shoving in two areas, the Ukraine and Iraq situations. Let me take these one by one so that I can add them up for you. First, let’s look at Ukraine. There exists anecdotal evidence that we in fact stirred up this pot to get it boiling in the first place, but let’s assume that the unrest would have started and did start as we are “told.” So far we have sanctioned Russia twice which are like pokes in the eye. They have remained relatively restrained to their point. Today, Russia has somewhat turned the tables on the U.S. and rather than go tit for tat, they announced an “anti dollar” policy. Putin’s aide proposes anti-dollar alliance to force U.S. to end Ukraine’s civil war.

“Please understand what is happening here, or I should say “already” happened. For Russia to announce an “Anti Dollar” policy is the equivalent of a declaration of war. Were this to have been done by anyone, anywhere on the planet even 10 years ago would have resulted in immediate military action by the U.S,. Maybe this is Russia’s way of getting Washington to throw the first punch but I don’t think so. Rather, I believe that Russia has already held talks with many other foreign nations to get their anticipated response were Russia to announce this anti dollar policy. We know that the Chinese are on board, we know that 9 our of 10 Gazprom customer are OK with non dollar settlement and who knows how far and wide Russia may have had high level discussions on this topic. My point is this, Russia would NEVER, EVER make a leap (and do it publicly) as big as announcing an anti dollar policy if they had not already lined up 99% of their ducks. Do you see what I am saying here? The deal, in my opinion, to dump the dollar had already been planned and is being hatched right here and now by the Russians! I will get back to this momentarily but we have another hot spot in Iraq that I believe is connected and needs to be explained.

“ISIS” has run wild in northern Iraq taking 5 city/towns and leaving a trail of murdered and beheaded Iraqis in their wake. Again, there is evidence that ISIS in Syria has received U.S. funding but let’s assume they did not so as not to muddy the waters further. ISIS is now about 30 miles outside of Baghdad and the U.S. has received requests from Iraq for help. Iraq is run currently by Shia’s, ISIS are Sunni so there is your religious divide. Now, Saudi Arabia is Sunni while Iraq is primarily Shia, another divide but one that is very important. Saudi Arabia has now warned Iran to stay out of the fray in Iraq and it turns out that we (the U.S.) have had talks with Iran about helping their Shia brethren in Iraq. Do you see the problems here? Oh, and to illustrate the problems, Saudi Arabia has now warned Iran to stay out of the fray as the U.S. negotiate their help. This is the current picture; our Middle East policy looks like it is being formulated and implemented by a bunch of moronic clowns trying to play one side against the other but ends up in a dead end of logic.

“OK, so let me add this 1+1 together for you. We have pushed Russia far enough for them to publicly announce an unprecedented “anti-dollar policy.” As I said above, they would never have done this on their own as it would mean their financial destruction. Russia has also shut off the gas supply to Ukraine…knowing full well that Ukraine would then shut Russia’s supply of gas through their pipelines to Europe into the mix. Will this bring Europe closer to the U.S.? Or, will it prod Europe to tell the U.S. to ease up on sanctions as their economy starts to shut down and the weather begins to get cold? This is “1” which is the ridiculous policy we are following in the Middle East. Iran is and has already been shut off of the dollar, what will happen if (I believe “when” is a foregone conclusion) Saudi Arabia announces that they will no longer accept only dollars for oil? Actually, what if they were to announce that they will no longer accept dollars at all? And that if you want their oil you must pay in something OTHER THAN dollars? How would this work out?

“To do the “addition” for you, this works out to the death of the dollar. It would not, in my opinion, be a long and convoluted process. Jim Sinclair believes that the dollar will trade down to the 70-72 level from here which would be a 10-12% drop…on its way down to 56. I don’t usually disagree with Jim on many topics but I do on this one because if Russia were to attract Saudi Arabia to their anti dollar policy, country after country would then follow (or are already lined up to). It would be like flipping a light switch and the dollar’s light would just go out. Maybe we move to the 56 level but I cannot see it holding for long without a reset or going to an internal/external dollar which is another subject altogether.

“Before finishing, I’d like to mention one other aspect that you should expect. When this happens, “dollars” which are now largely held overseas will come back home to…buy “stuff” (dumped) in a frenzied and panicked manner. This will be incredibly inflationary. Some of these dollars will be pointed at “our” gold. You can expect a massive amount of contracts for silver and gold standing for delivery that will not be willing to accept “dollar bribes” to accept a premium and “go away” quietly in the night; I believe that a force majeure will be the result. If I am correct about my 1+1 premise, it would be foolish for “the world” not to finish off the COMEX and LBMA.

“So, why so much politics? Because foreign politics seems to be aimed directly at the dollar at the same time our own foreign policies (and internal) seem to simultaneously be aimed at our own currency’s Achilles heel. What is happening right now is all about the dollar and its planned demise. Let me remind you that gold IS the “anti dollar.” I believe that right now you are witnessing the reason for these many years I have screamed “gold” from the rooftops for anyone willing to listen. I believe the plan is to destroy thoroughly the dollar. Externally for sure and possibly even from within if you view our official financial and economic policies, no one could be this ignorant. Could they? If this is the case and I 100% believe it is, you would then want to own as much “anit-dollar” as possible.”

Regards, Bill Holter

 

By, Lorra B. Chief Writer for Silent Soldier

http://SilentSoldier.us