Tuesday 9th of August 2022

USA on stupidity steroid again...


One of the overhyped events of recent times has been the 3+ hours of telephone conversation between the presidents of China and the United States of America Xi Jinping and Joe Biden respectively. There are two major reasons to doubt the sincerity of the Americans over their accounts of the meeting.

The first is that the United States has a long and disgraceful history of professing one set of ideas or values and on the other hand by their actions giving a complete lie to their words. There is no reason to believe that Biden’s words carry any more truth than the multiple previous comments Americans have made about the Chinese.

Taiwan is a classic current example. On the one hand Biden professes the view that official United States policy remains that there is only one China, and that the island of Taiwan is part of that China. On the other hand, the United States has continued its aggressive sailing of warships in the South China Sea. The presence of these warships is clearly intended to send a signal to Beijing that any attempt to re-integrate Taiwan into the mainland will be forcibly resisted.

The fact of eventual reunification is a Chinese red line.  Unless there is an unlikely change of heart by the Taiwanese authorities, the island will eventually be reinstated to the embrace of the mainland.  The United States, not only by its shipping actions in the South China Sea, but also by its recent suggestion that Taiwan should join the United Nations is clearly determined to prevent the reunification of the two China’s.

Biden would do well to look at several recent evaluations by both the Department of Defence and by independent agencies which unanimously conclude that in any confrontation between China and the United States in the South China Sea the Americans invariably lose. This sobering evaluation is not sufficient, it seems, to encourage a rethink of the China policy by America’s political leaders.

The second clue to the real United States intensions about China is the tariffs that have been applied to Chinese exports to the UnitedStates. The tariffs appear to have had little effect on the volume of Chinese goods sold to America. They have however, significantly increased the price of those goods. One result has been the recent upsurge in United States inflation, now running at more than 7% per annum.

The tariffs have had no effect on United States investment in China. The hollowing out of the United States industrial base continues with an ever-smaller share of goods sold in the United States carrying a “Made in the USA label.” It is difficult to see any policy changes that are going to influence this trend.

The net result of these changes is reflected in the relative size of the Chinese and United States economies. Measured in terms of parity purchasing power, the Chinese economy is already larger than that of the United States, and that difference will continue to grow in China’s favour.

The reality of these figures is another reason for United States hostility towards China. For the last 70 years since the end of World War II the United States was undoubtedly the world’ largest economy. This dominance heavily influenced its political aims, not hesitating to use its dominance of the world’s major trading organisations as a vehicle to try and arrange the affairs of potential competitors to ensure that it maintained number one spot.

That pre-eminence is now a thing of the past. Although the United States continues its strong-arm tactics through such organisations such as the World Bank, the Chinese economy, through its huge multi trillion-dollar reserves, now poses a substantial challenge to that previous US dominance.  The Belt and Road Initiative, which now has more than 140 members, is the clearest example of the fundamental shift in the structure of the world economy and a significant measure of the amount of the relative importance of the two economies.

A similar two-faced attitude can be seen in the United States attitude towards Russia.  Here again, the position of Joe Biden is exposed for all its hypocrisy. Prior to his Geneva meeting with Vladimir Putin, Biden had labelled Putin a “killer”. This is on a par with his similar description of Xi as a “thug”. In both cases, Biden’s meeting with the two men expressed Bon Ami and goodwill.

As always, it is important to look at not what the United States says, but what it actually does. In Russia’s case the West used its mouthpiece, the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg to sound multiple alarms about alleged Russian misbehaviour vis-à-vis its European neighbours.

According to Stoltenberg, the Russians are amassing its troops on Ukrainian border as a prelude to an imminent invasion. That there is no actual evidence to support this allegation seems not to trouble Stoltenberg. The situation in Ukraine remains tense, althoughStoltenberg will never acknowledge that not the least of the reasons for this is the utter refusal of the Ukrainian government to adhere to the terms of the Minsk agreement that it agreed to in 2015.

The United States also makes encouraging noises toward Ukraine leading the latter to believe that it cannot only continue to ignore its obligations under the Minsk agreement, but that it will be rewarded with membership of NATO. In encouraging this belief, it not only encourages the wilful ignoring of its earlier agreement under the Minsk accords, it actually encourages the continued unlawful attacks upon the civilian population of the Donbass.

The United States and the British also encourage the Ukrainians to believe that they can recover Crimea. This is manifestly absurd. It completely ignores the actual history of Crimea which was only a part of Ukraine for a relatively brief period in the Communist era, but also ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the Crimean people who overwhelmingly voted in 2015 to re-join Russia. The two operative words here are “voted” and “re-join” which reflects both the democratic choice of the Crimean people, and the actual history of the region. The British and their allies overlook for example that feature of history known as the Crimean war when in the 1850s they and their allies fought Russia in that territory.

Putin has made it clear that Ukraine joining NATO is absolutely out of the question, a statement that both the Ukrainian and the United States government seem intent on ignoring. I suspect that Ukraine and Taiwan will be the two great flashpoints of the current decade.

In both cases, China and Russia are determined to maintain their viewpoints. In both cases, the United States continues to undermine the position of both countries with its hypocritical support of Taiwan in one case, and equally giving critical support to Ukrainian ambitions on the other.

In the case of the Donbass, they are overwhelmingly a Russian speaking population and will not be abandoned by Putin. It seems equally likely that Ukrainian intransigence is also not negotiable. The scene is therefore set for some very troubled times.



James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



READ MORE: https://journal-neo.org/2021/11/22/china-and-russia-face-a-difficult-future-in-the-face-of-american-hypocrisy-and-intransigence/




US military biolab...

The Open Regulations website and the website of the Ministry of Industry and Infrastructural Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan recently published information on the Kazakh government’s intention to build a “BSL-4 laboratory and underground storage facility for a collection of dangerous and highly dangerous strains” in the south of the country in the Korday district of Zhambyl Region in the village of Gvardeisky. It is where the Research Institute for Biological Security Problems, now part of the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which now works mainly on Pentagon research programmes, has been located since Soviet times. The “Laboratory” is scheduled to start construction at the beginning of 2022 and be completed in the Q4 2025. Its code BSL-4 stands for Biosafety Level 4.

An explanatory note from Kazakh Minister Beibut Atamkulov states that Deputy Prime Minister Yeraly Tugzhanov gave the relevant instruction on October 25. Section 3 of the project document hints that no funds from the budget would be required to build such a hazardous facility, suggesting the involvement of the US Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which has already been allocated funds for this “project”.

Thus, this “laboratory” may become the seventh Pentagon facility in Kazakhstan to be involved in the DTRA network of military biolaboratories disguised as alleged local disease outbreaks, becoming an integral part of the US military biological infrastructure in Eurasia and the post-Soviet space. It could be an obvious complement to the existing Central Reference Laboratory (CRL) built in Almaty in 2016. However, the said “Laboratory” will have nothing to do with local disease outbreaks, as it is already known that it will hold various strains of Africa’s most dangerous diseases, such as the Ebola virus, as well as Marburg virus, smallpox and many others. And there are simply no real countermeasures against many of these pathogens. It turns out that DTRA will bring all these pathogens not only for storage, but also to study, upgrade and test on humans and local fauna.

In connection with the forthcoming construction of the “Laboratory”, the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan was forced to make the project public, in particular through the little-known website Open Regulations, where, until November 19, citizens of Kazakhstan were given the opportunity to submit their views on the issue. Of the thousands of citizen submissions already published on the Open Regulations website, not a single one supports the project, with people of all nationalities strongly opposing it.

In fact, the “Laboratory” in question, given its funding by and reporting to the Pentagon alone, must be regarded as a veritable US military base. There is no doubt that the push by the United States through the government of Kazakhstan to build this military facility is the Pentagon’s response to its refusal to allow troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan to the former Soviet Central Asian republics. Under these circumstances, Washington has thus found a way to maintain its military and political presence in Central Asia in the form of already new laboratories and a similar depot on the territory of Kazakhstan.

However, the disclosure by the Kazakh authorities of their intention to build the “Laboratory” in question with the participation of the US military department is at odds with the official assurances of the Kazakh authorities that no bacteriological weapons are being produced in the country and that there are no US military biologists. The US actually continues to heavily fund and oversee all existing US biolaboratories in Kazakhstan and intends to build new ones. Specialists from Russia and China have still not been allowed into these sites, despite repeated requests from the diplomatic departments of these states.

However, it should be recalled that today’s globalized world increasingly depends on the quality of implementation of international agreements governing relations between countries. This is particularly important in areas such as respect for human rights, environmental protection and the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. However, along the way, influential US politicians oppose the idea of an international system based on international treaties because, in their view, they could “jeopardize US sovereignty”. Such a US stance is very dangerous, as it could make a massive violation of international obligations a practice. This, in turn, could hit the US itself, since international cooperation on disarmament and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become crucial in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

With regard to the intentions of Kazakhstan and the US to build a new laboratory, it should also be taken into account that the US has been rather reluctant to participate in reaching agreement on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BTWC). This Convention was signed in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. It banned the development, production, storage and acquisition of biological agents that could be used as weapons and biological weapons themselves. The Convention included a specific protocol that banned the use of even small amounts of deadly microorganisms and poisons for research purposes. However, many senior officials opposed the protocol because they believed it could damage US microbiological research companies. In July 2001, the Bush Administration said it would not adhere to the requirements of the protocol “until it is amended”.

As a result, the US has since 2001 and to date continued to block attempts to reopen work on a legally binding protocol to the BTWC, which is to date the only comprehensive international law instrument designed to comprehensively address the risks of biological weapons.

In these circumstances, the public, not only in Kazakhstan, but in all other countries should prevent the construction of another US military biolaboratory before Washington signs the BTWC protocol and allows the international public to inspect existing US biolaboratories outside of their country.



Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more: https://journal-neo.org/2021/11/22/the-us-is-preparing-a-biological-time-bomb-in-kazakhstan/


See also: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/38483




blaming russia for nato's salami...

By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenn_diesen.


Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the West isn’t taking his country’s “red lines” seriously and the US and its allies could be about to sleepwalk into a dangerous conflict with the world’s largest nuclear power.

Red lines are about deterrence. The purpose of drawing them in the first place is to communicate crucial security interests and the severe consequences that would ensue if they were undermined. In essence, Moscow’s ultimatums are intended to stop the West from making a dangerous miscalculation.

Deterrence rests on the three Cs: capability, credibility, and communication. Russia has the military capability to act if its red lines are crossed, it’s demonstrated credibility in terms of its preparedness to act on threats, and it knows the specifics must be communicated clearly to avoid the West making any mis-steps that would necessitate a forceful response. However, the weakness in its red lines is the current lack of detail as to what would happen if another nation took a step too far.

Fighting NATO’s ‘salami tactics’

Red lines must be specific, as they are a countermove against the slow creep of Western foreign policy, which deploys ‘salami tactics.’ These, as the name suggests, entail conquest via the cutting off of thin slices. No one action is so outrageous it forms the pretext for war, but, one day, you turn around and realize how much ground you’ve lost.

Salami tactics are an appealing option for expansionist actors like NATO, which pursues limited and repetitive expansions to gradually create new realities on the ground. Such tactics avoid rapid escalation and mute opposition from adversaries and allies alike, as complaints can be ridiculed and the response from opponents denounced as disproportionate.

NATO is a master of salami tactics. Initially, the bloc promised it would not expand one inch to the east. Thereafter, its Partnership for Peace was established and sold to the Russians as an alternative to expansion, although it ultimately became a stepping stone to expansion by aligning the armed forces in Central and Eastern European states with NATO standards.

The bloc expanded in 1999 as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined, although it was suggested that this alone would not drastically change the balance of power. Furthermore, the West attempted to mitigate Russia’s apprehensions by establishing the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security, which guaranteed there would be no “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in the new member states. Fast-forward a few years and 11 more countries had joined the bloc, there were no pretenses about honoring the Founding Act because military bases and missiles were being developed in Poland and Romania, and NATO had its eyes set on Ukraine.

NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia also followed the usual salami tactics. After the invasion, it gained some legal cover and implicit Russian consent by obtaining a UN mandate in June 1999 for the occupation of Kosovo under the specific condition of upholding Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity. The occupation was instead used to change realities on the ground, and, in 2008, the majority of member states recognized the independence of Kosovo in violation of international law.

READ MORE: Ukraine tells EU leaders: Prepare for war with Russia

NATO’s missile defense system was, similarly, a prime example of salami tactics. In 2007, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked Russian concerns about the basing of 10 interceptive missiles in Eastern Europe as “purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it.” However, within a few years, the number of planned interceptive missiles had risen to several hundred. NATO proposals for cooperating with Russia to alleviate Moscow’s concerns were aimed at scaling back opposition while cutting another slice. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed in his memoirs that the US was “just kicking the can down the road on missile defense, playing for time. The Russians recognized that they were being presented with a fait accompli.”

Red lines counter salami tactics by clearly communicating that even a minor step past a point will trigger a major response. Yet red lines often struggle to garner credibility precisely because they appear disproportionate – for example, would either NATO or Russia really risk nuclear war over Eastern Ukraine? However, as Putin stated in his Crimean re-unification speech in March 2014: “Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.”


Read more:





old joe...


Russian President Vladimir Putin has lavished praise on his American counterpart Joe Biden’s decision to announce he has plans to run for another term in the White House in 2024, saying it will help stability in the US.

“As for Biden’s announcement about his possible re-election, I think he was absolutely correct to do so,” Putin said. “Because if election preparations were already beginning in America, the management of the country would suffer significantly,” he continued. “The president of the US doesn’t need my feedback, but I think he acted absolutely correctly.”







Read from top...


Methinks that YOUNG Vladimir has a wicked sense of deadpan humour. He is the Buster Keaton of world leadership... He would have to know that by 2024, OLD Joe would be a dithering idiot — and not much more by 2028, possibly falling asleep head first on the red nukular button... This announcement brought to you by Gus, an old dithering idiot...


Read from top and see also:

old america...






American hysteria over the “imminent” Russian invasion of Ukraine has exploded every geopolitical Stupid-o-Meter in sight – and that’s quite an accomplishment.

What a mess. Sections of the U.S. Deep State are in open revolt against the combo that remote controls Crash Test Dummy, who impersonates POTUS. The neocon-neoliberal axis is itching for a war – but has no idea how to sell it to an immensely fractured public opinion.

UKUS, which de facto controls the Five Eyes spy scam, excels only in propaganda. So in the end it’s up to the CIA/MI6 intel axis and their vast network of media chihuahuas to accelerate Fear and Loathing ad infinitum.

Russophobic U.S. Think Tankland would very much cherish a Russian “invasion”, out of the blue, and could not give a damn about the inevitable trouncing of Ukraine. The problem is the White House – and the Pentagon – must “intervene”, forcefully; otherwise that will represent a catastrophic loss of “credibility” for the Empire.

So what do these people want? They want to provoke Moscow by all means available to exercise “Russian aggression”, resulting in a lightning fast war that will be a highway to hell for Ukraine, but with zero casualties for NATO and the Pentagon.

Then the Empire of Chaos will blame Russia; unleash a tsunami of fresh sanctions, especially financial; and try to shut off all economic links between Russia and NATOstan.

Reality dictates that none of the above is going to happen.

All exponents of Russian leadership, starting with President Putin, have already made it clear, over and over again, what happens if the Ukro-dementials start a blitzkrieg over Donbass: Ukraine will be mercilessly smashed – and that applies not only to the ethno-fascist gang in Kiev. Ukraine will cease to exist as a state.

Defense Minister Shoigu, for his part, has staged all manner of not exactly soft persuasion, featuring Tu-22M3 bombers or Tu-160 White Swan bombers.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has conclusively explained, over and over again, that “NATO doesn’t have forces not only to ‘counter-act’ anything Russia does but even if it wanted to it still has no means to fight a war with Russia.”

Martyanov notes, “there is nothing in the U.S. arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach=9-10+, let alone M=20-27, targets. That’s the issue. Same analytical method applies to a situation in 404. The only thing U.S. (NATO) can hope for is to somehow provoke Russia into the invasion of this shithole of a country and then get all SIGINT it can once Russia’s C4ISR gets into full combat mode.”

Translation: anything the Empire of Chaos and its NATO subsidiary try in Donbass, directly or indirectly, the humiliation will make the Afghanistan “withdrawal” look like a House of Gucci dinner party.

No one should expect clueless NATO puppets – starting with secretary-general Stoltenberg – to understand the military stakes. After all, these are the same puppets who have been building up a situation which might ultimately leave Moscow with a single, stark choice: be ready to fight a full scale hot war in Europe – which could become nuclear in a flash. And ready they are.

It’s all about Minsk

In a parallel reality, “meddling in 404” – a delightful Martyanov reference to a hellhole that is little more than a computer error – is a totally different story. That perfectly fits American juvenilia ethos.

At least some of the adults in selected rooms are talking. The CIA’s Burns went to Moscow to try to extract some assurance that in the event NATO Special Forces were caught in the cauldrons – Debaltsevo 2015-style – that the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, with Russian help, will concoct, they would be allowed to escape.

His interlocutor, Patrushev, told Burns – diplomatically – to get lost.

Chief of the General Staff, Gen Valery Gerasimov, had a phone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Mark Milley, ostensibly to ensure, in Pentagonese, “risk-reduction and operational de-confliction”. No substantial details were leaked.

It remains to be seen how this “de-confliction” will happen in practice when Defense Minister Shoigu revealed U.S. nuclear-capable bombers have been practicing, in their sorties across Eastern Europe, “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia”. Shoigu discussed that in detail with Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe: after all the Americans will certainly pull the same stunt against China.

The root cause of all this drama is stark: Kiev simply refuses to respect the February 2015 Minsk Agreement.

In a nutshell, the deal stipulated that Kiev should grant autonomy to Donbass via a constitutional amendment, referred to as “special status”; issue a general amnesty; and start a dialogue with the people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

Over the years, Kiev fulfilled exactly zero commitments – while the proverbial NATOstan media machine incessantly pounded global opinion with fake news, spinning that Russia was violating Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in the agreement.

Moscow in fact always respected the Minsk Agreement – which translates as regarding Donbass as an integral, autonomous part of Ukraine. Moscow has zero interest in promoting regime change in Kiev.

This charade has come to a point that – diplomatically – is quite unprecedented: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lost his Taoist patience.

Lavrov was forced, under the circumstances, to publish 28 pages of correspondence between Moscow on one hand, and Berlin and Paris on the other, evolving around the preparation of a high-level meeting on Ukraine.

Moscow was in fact calling for one of the central points of the agreement to be implemented: a direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass. Berlin and Paris said this was unacceptable. So yes: both, for all practical purposes, destroyed the Minsk Agreement. Public opinion across NATOstan has no idea whatsoever this actually happened.


Lavrov did not mince his words: “I am sure that you understand the necessity of this unconventional step, because it is a matter of conveying to the world community the truth about who is fulfilling, and how, the obligations under international law that have been agreed at the highest level.”

So it’s no wonder that the leadership in Moscow concluded it’s an absolute waste of time to talk to Berlin and Paris about Ukraine: they lied, cheated – and then blamed Russia. This “decision” at the EU level faithfully mirrors NATO’s campaign of stoking the flames of imminent “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.

Armchair warriors, unite!

Across NATOstan, the trademark stupidity of U.S. Think Tankland rules unabated, congregating countless acolytes spewing out the talking points of choice: “relentless Russian subversion”, “thug” Putin “intimidation” of Ukraine, Russians as “predators”, and everything now coupled with “power-hungry China’s war on Western values.”

Some Brit hack, in a twisted way, actually managed to sum up the overall impotence – and insignificance – by painting Europe as a victim, “a beleaguered democratic island in an anarchic world, which a rising tide of authoritarianism, impunity and international rule-breaking threatens to inundate”.

The answer by NATOstan Defense Ministers is to come up with a Strategic Compass– essentially an anti-Russia-China scam – complete with “rapid deployment forces”. Led by who, General Macron?

As it stands, poor NATOstan is uncontrollably sobbing, accusing those Russian hooligans – scary monsters, to quote David Bowie – of staging an anti-satellite missile test and thus “scorning European safety concerns”.

Something must have got lost in translation. So here’s what happened: Russia conclusively demonstrated it’s capable of obliterating each and every one of NATO’s satellites and blind “all their missiles, planes and ships, not to mention ground forces” in case they decide to materialize their warmongering ideas.

Obviously those deaf, dumb and blind NATOstan armchair warrior clowns – fresh from their Afghan “performance” – won’t get the message. But NATOstan anyway was never accused of being partial to reality.


Read more:



Read from top and see also:

old america...



arrogant prick biden...

Joe Biden has warned that he will not accept "red lines" set by Moscow as fears mount that Russia is planning an imminent invasion of Ukraine. 

The US president said he will make it "very, very difficult" for Russia to invade its neighbour. 

Meanwhile, US media has reported that intelligence officials fear an invasion could begin in early 2022.

It comes as Ukraine says Russia has boosted its military at the border and amassed some 94,000 troops there.

A video call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mr Biden to ease tensions is expected this week. The US President told reporters he is expecting to have a long discussion with the Russian leader, and warned that he will not "accept anybody's red lines". 

"What I am doing is putting together what I believe to be the most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives to make it very, very difficult for Mr Putin to go ahead and do what people are worried he's going to do," Mr Biden said as he left for the presidential retreat at Camp David.


While Mr Biden did not set out what precise actions the US plans to take, American and Ukrainian officials warned again this week that severe economic sanctions are on the table against Russia. 

On Thursday Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the US had threatened fresh sanctions after his meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.


Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59528864


Read from top and see also:

old america...





Gus: I'm going to let you onto a little secret: Ukraine entry into NATO is fraught with "danger" for NATO and the members know it. Not so much because blah blah blah, but imagine for a second that Moscow and Kiev government have made a secret pact... (this is not out of the scope of old and new diplomacy).  All of NATO's "secrets" (i.e. troop movements, strengths, armament, positions) get "leaked to Moscow in real time"... According to the 101 rule book of warfare this would be GOLD knowledge.


This is why some countries would be hesitant to let Ukraine into NATO. Poor old Joe is dithering and foaming at the mouth, like an old mule about to be taken to the knackery... Blinken is an idiot...

like a puffer fish...


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



How surprising. NATO squaring up to Russia again with its chest puffed out, its eyes glaring and looking at Russia through the sights of a gun. NATO, the military organization which has lost its way, lost its cause and now can only perpetuate its existence through prod-provoke-poke tactics.

Prod-provoke-poke tactics

NATO has been provoking Russia since the early 90s after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (1991), a defensive military organization which created a buffer between the USSR and NATO and which guaranteed the collective security of the countries following the social economic system (free housing, free public utilities, guaranteed job, guaranteed and free accommodation  free healthcare, free education, social mobility, the chance to work abroad, free food, free leisure time activities, safety on the street, security of the state, zero homelessness, zero unemployment). 

NATO promised not to encroach eastwards if the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. It lied. Through its teeth. Look at the map today. Estonia: NATO. Latvia: NATO; Lithuania: NATO; Poland: NATO; Hungary: NATO; Slovakia: NATO; Romania: NATO; Bulgaria: NATO; Norway: NATO; Turkey: NATO. There is a fist of steel trying to clench around Russia’s neck while all the time NATO, on Russia’s very borders, conducts provocative military actions, prodding and provoking and poking, ducking and diving, dancing like the Devil. Thirty against one.


And what has Russia done, apart from harbouring massive mineral resources, which the lobbies that NATO works for have their greedy eyes on? To be more specific, the BARFFED (Banking, Arms, Resources, Finance, Food, Energy, Drugs lobbies) and remember the collective military spending of NATO member states is one point two trillion (that is Thousand billion) USD per year, each and every year.

Russian troops on Russian soil, not Iraq

Did Russia invade Iraq and contribute to the deaths of a million people? Did Russia strafe Iraq’s fields of cereals with military aircraft to starve civilians? Did Russia leave swathes of Serbia radio-active with Depleted Uranium weaponry, against the Geneva Conventions? Did Russia invade Libya and breach UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011)? Did Russia side with terrorists in Libya on NATO member states’ own lists of proscribed groups? Did Russia bomb Libya’s water supply and electricity grid? Did Russia side with terrorists in Syria, terrorists who raped nuns and raped little girls before and after they were forced to watch their parents being tortured to death and before their heads were used as soccer balls by howling demons screaming in delight, drugged to their eyeballs? Did Russia round up the entire population of the Chagos Islands, and deport them after gassing their pets? I repeat, after gassing their pets?

Did Russia stage an act of provocation in Georgia, a country which has refused to follow its obligations on nationality issues under the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution upon the voluntary dissolution of the Union (catered for in this constitution), in which Georgian forces murdered Russian peace-keepers? Did Russia plan an invasion of Abkhazia? Did Russia stage a fascist coup in Ukraine, in which shots were fired on the crowd in Maidan Square from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraina, to fire up a revolt, in which thugs shouting “Death to Russians and Jews” took to the streets, and in which fascist gangs slaughtered and massacred Russian-speaking Ukrainians in countless acts of butchery?

The answer, of course, to all these questions is NO and the answer to what happened, in that case? is read the four-letter word, NATO in some way, shape or form.

In December 2021 Russian troops are on Russian soil, where they have every right to be. They are not in Iraq. They are not in Libya, the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa which NATO sent back to the stone age, crawling with terrorists and now slave markets. And the Russian troops (some of them) are in western Russia simply to send a clear message to NATO which continues its acts of provocation from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The message is loud and clear.

You treat Russia as a friend, and you will have a friend. You will even have access to her enormous markets. You treat Russia as an enemy and...go ask Napoleon. Or Hitler. Nobody in Russia cares to see the major cities in all NATO countries reduced to rubble within seconds, as NATO bridgeheads are liquidated and as NATO military equipment is jammed, rendering it useless. And NATO? Did anyone ask the citizens in NATO member states why NATO is controlling their foreign policy? And after all NATO has done, does anyone believe NATO really cares about anything except its self-perpetuation through invented scenarios and shitfaced lies? One point two trillion, each and every year, speaks for itself, does it not?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey can be reached at 

[email protected]

Читайте больше на https://english.pravda.ru/opinion/149849-nato_provocation/



Read from top.



FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NATO to invade ukraine...


Russian and US officials spoke for nearly eight hours in Geneva on Monday to discuss a pair of Russian security proposals Moscow says would considerably ease tensions between Russia and the Western alliance. Among the proposals' points was a firm demand by Russia that NATO halt its decades-long eastward expansion.


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will not drop its 'open door' policy on membership, Julianne Smith, US ambassador to NATO, has said.


"At this point, let me be very, very clear - no one is suggesting that we alter NATO policy on enlargement," Smith told CNN Tuesday. "The doors remain open. No one has the right to kick the door shut. And any decision about enlargement will continue to rest between the NATO alliance and the country in question," the diplomat stressed, calling the Russian proposal a "non-starter."


"Frankly, I don't see a lot of compromise," Smith noted, referring to the enlargement issue.


The ambassador, who is expected to take part in talks in Brussels through the Russia-NATO Council on Wednesday, repeated the months-old claims about Russia's suspected preparations to "invade Ukraine."


"All of the allies are committed to engaging in a dialogue with Russia tomorrow. But simultneously, the allies are all united in messaging to the Russians that should they decide to further invade Ukraine, they would face massive consequences from NATO and also from the EU as well," Smith said.


"Russia is still maintaining about 100,000 forces right on the border with Ukraine. We believe they have plans to bring more forces forward," she noted. "They claim they're exercising. That seems like an awful lot of forces to have on the border for an exercise and there was no notification of any sort of exercise either. So we're not exactly clear why they're amassing forces on the border," Smith added.



Read more:




Read from top.