Monday, 29 September 2014

The Reasons Why Russia Will Not Invade Ukraine

Eurosatory â€" The Largest International Land and Air Land Defence and Security Exhibition

Eurosatory - the largest international land and air land defence and security exhibition was very interesting and informative.

Bilderberger Henry Kissinger Wants World Army to Fight Terrorists

Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg kingpin and architect of overthrowing democratically elected governments, is keen to establish a global mercenary army to fight terrorists, according to Fox News big mouth Bill O’Reilly, who has heartily endorsed such a notion on recent programming.…

NEO â€" EU Declares War on Russia and Europe

- Is the EU going to force Putin to launch the counter-sanctions on all EU car, truck and bus imports by launching its latest sanctions against Russia?

NEO â€" Gunnar

- Ulson Gunnar - Warplanes, helicopter gunships, heavy armor and troops poured into eastern Ukraine in a blitzkrieg offensive after the show elections.

Alleged Oklahoma City Beheader Alton Nolan Linked To Pentagon Diner Al

Alton Nolan, the man accused of beheading a coworker in Oklahoma City, attended a mosque run by an iman tied to Anwar al-, the al-Qaeda operative who dined at the Pentagon a few months after the 9/11 attacks. Suhaib Webb…

Obama’s Ukraine Policy. Crimes against Humanity in Donbass

U.S. President Barack Obama replaced the Ukrainian Government in late February 2014, and he has achieved a lot there, most especially by means of the civil war that resulted when he tried to exterminate the people who had voted for…

NEO â€" Planet Earth “done in” by False Flags

- Seth Ferris is doing a wonderful job at showing us how some of the nasty things our government does, that they know we would never approve of.

September 21 Ukraine and Russia mini

Demonstrations in Russia:According to RT, 5'000 to 26'000 people have marched in the streets of Moscow demanding peace in the Ukraine.  According to Vzgliad,20 people demonstrated in Petrozavodsk and Saratov, 50 in Perm, up to 100 in Ekaterinburg, 10 in Novosibirsk, 15 in Syktyvkar and a few people in Barnaul.  What are important here are not the actual figures, but the order of magnitude.  What we clearly see is that these demonstrations were tiny, at least by Russian standards and when RT's  Anissa Naouai reports that there was a "very high turnout" she is plain wrong.  Also, and this is no less important, let us be very careful about what these demonstrations were all about: for peace in the Ukraine and against war.  With such a vague and yet doubleplusgoodmeaning slogan, even refugees from bombed out Donetsk could agree (maybe even especially them).What we have here is a typical propaganda ploy: get people in the streets in support of peace, love and happiness all over the world, and then present that as an "opposition" protest against the government policies.  But, come on, seriously, who wants war in the Ukraine?  The Kremlin?  The other important point is this: even if, for argument's sake, we agree that 100% of the demonstators were fierce opponents of Putin or Russian policies in the Ukraine, that is less than nothing compared to Putin 80%+ approval rate.So what did not happen?What did not happen is the "Russian Maidan" predicted by Evgenii Fedorov and his supporters.  This is what he predicted would happen on September 14th:They chose Saint Petersburg as the first site. The process has begun. The process is being helped: the whole story with an early election in Saint Petersburg is not accidental! (...)  They will send to Petersburg the same trained young people and fighters as those who were prepared in Ukraine. If necessary, they will be issued with Russian passports. The total number of fighters in Russia, prepared by the Americans, ranges from 50'000 to 100'000. On the basis of Ukraine. Of course, you won’t be able to pick them out: they are Russian people, in pure form. These people will come to Petersburg and rent apartments in great numbers. Their task will be to carry out provocations, if necessary, military provocations.  What does it all mean? It means terrorist activities! The Right Sector as you know does not have any problems with terrorist activities.How much of that did actually happen? None at all.Where is the Nationalist Maidan?  Nowhere.How is the regime in power?  As stable as ever.Fedorov did not stop here. In the same article (please do read it all), he even wrote this:First, there is a new Ukrainian factor: a 100 thousand brainwashed people. The propaganda is at work turning people into animals there. Their position has strengthened in case you haven’t paid attention. You know, people are watching and many of them are rejoicing at the victories in Ukraine. There are no victories! There are some tactical gains, but no wins. Just six months ago we had a neutral neighbouring country. Now we have a country that has more than 40 million people and is absolutely militarily hostile to Russia. What kind of victory is that? Moreover, they have a Russian population. This is a country which can serve as a good base for the invasion of Russia by orange invaders of the modern type. It wasn’t like this just six months ago. It means that the balance of power around Russia has fundamentally changed. We suffered a huge defeat in the geopolitical sense. We didn’t have an enemy yesterday, and today our enemies look like us. In fact, it is a clear victory by the 5th column. It has won politically, militarily, and from there to a military invasion of Russia.A military invasion of Russia, no less!Evgenii Fedorov is a very nice person and he has many good ideas.  I honestly like him.  But as an analyst he is firmly set into the "doom, gloom and total panic" camp and, frankly, he has zero credibility with me.  I have tried to warn about this, but mostly I was ignored or attacked.  I hope that with the total "flop" on this "Russian Maidan" everybody now see that Fedorov should be listen to with a couple of pounds of salt.Russian strategy in the UkraineSeveral of you have pointed out the apparent contradiction in my assertion that Russia's real goal in the Ukraine is regime change while, at the same time, staying out of the Ukraine and placing the burden of liberation and de-Nazificaton on the Ukrainian people.  The contradiction is, I submit, only apparent.  Here is what Russia can, and should, do:1) Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.2) Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition3) Continue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)4) Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)5) Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine6) Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness" 7) Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financiallyIn other words - give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.The key here is to create the conditions which would make it possible for the Ukrainian people to overthrow the Nazis currently in power, boot out the CIA proconsul in Kiev and begin de-Nazifying the country. Yes, this is a long-term and difficult task, but Russia has no other viable options.  There will never be stability of safety for Russia as long as the Nazis are in power in Kiev.  Sure, a temporary cease-fire or truce or even treaty can be signed with the Nazis, but it will never be viable and at most it will provide a short term respite.  I will repeat it again, regime change and de-nazification in the Ukraine are a vital national strategic objective for Russia.  Nothing short of that will do.In conclusion, a couple of short items:Business Insider says that "Ukraine Is On The Brink Of Total Economic Collapse".The Kiev basketball team played in Lithuania against Russia wearing 'cammo sport's gear':They lost 77 to 102 :-)And now, last but not least, the really good news!!According to Yahoo, the notorious Jewish oligarch, Mafia Don, mega-oligarch and iconic "Putin foe" Mikhail Khodorkovksy wants to lead the anti-Putin opposition and he is even contemplating a presidential position for himself.  This is absolutely wonderful news as, now that Berezovsky is dead, Khodorkovsky can legitimately claim the title of most hated oligarch in Russia.  To have him now declare that he wants to "lead" (read: finance) the Russia non-systemic (which did not even make it into the Duma) opposition is a dream come true for Putin's PR team.  They will now have a wonderful time discrediting all the pro-US opposition has "Khodorkovsk's agents".Great news indeed!Kind regards,The Saker

Transcarpathia and Transnistria SitRep 14 Sep

by "Y" Transcarpathia ATO More than one hundred Zakarpattya Border Guards were sent to front in the east. Groups photographs taken at the leaving parade show the extremes the Ukrainians have resorted to. The members are not of prime military age, are generally older adults. Their physique is very variable, including a significant proportion of extremes. The recruits are reported to have been given 2 weeks training. Four prisoners of war were returned to Transcarpathia as a result of the cease fire. These were members of the 51st Mechanized Brigade and were in good physical shape. They were captured near Ilovaisk on 24 August. A further two are due to be repatriated in the near future. Volunteer collections for materials and supplies to be sent to the front in support of the Transcarpathian troops still are held. Some supplies are handed over to the Transcarpathian Border Guard members before they leave for the front. Others are been delivered by a local coordinator. The supplies are taken by private van for distribution at Pisk near Donetsk. To date, four such deliveries have been made. Bishop Milan Shashik confirmed that parishioners of the Greek-Catholic church in Mukachevo donated funds sufficient for an ambulance to be bought and sent to the front. Others have constructed and donated lightweight stretchers. Further voluntary support on behalf of Transcarpathian members of 51st Mechanised Brigade raised about 40,000 UAH for food and clothing and 15,000 UAH for computers and printers. Canada provided kevlar helmets and flak jackets for those departing for the front. It is not clear whether this donation derives from the Canadian government or from Ukrainians residing in Canada. The electoral candidate Viktor Baloha claims to have donated an armoured van. Finally, this week a further 19 refugees have arrived from the east and Crimea, bringing the total to 1503 (1485) from Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and 228 (227) from Crimea. The figures in brackets represent the totals residing within Transcarpathia at the end of August. This weekly total is much less than the average of about 240 refugees for the first two weeks of September. Whilst this may indicate that people are still leaving despite the cease fire, there is no indication of how long it took them (and hence the departure date) to travel to Transcarpathia. The Ukrainian government is reported to have provided 257 million UAH for the families of 423 fallen soldiers. It remains to be seen whether the government can continue this level of financial support once the true figure of losses become visible. Economy Local reports illustrate the dire straits of the economy. Laws relating to recording currency conversion transactions at banks are being changed. These changes will require some transactions to be reported daily to central authorities rather than monthly. This reflects concerns about capital flight. The government is promoting 'War Bonds' which offer a 7% return over two years in an attempt to raise money quickly. The so-called 'war tax' has been extended until 2016, which says something about the government's expectation for peace. Further price increases have been announced, including 3% increase on fuel tax and locally increased charges for waste disposal starting in 20015. Proposals for integrating local rail networks into the systems of adjacent EU countries have focussed on 750 mm gauge and 1520 mm gauge lines in Transcarpathia. Reinstatement costs have forced the committee to focus on just the 750 mm tourist lines. Energy The local government has given details of the implications of a decree limiting the amount of gas available over the coming winter. It is responsible for ensuring compliance and aims to promote energy conservation and use of renewable energy. Gazprom has reduced the energy flow through Uzhgorod corridor to the minimum contract values in response to a proposal for reverse flow from Slovakia to Ukraine. Mobilisation Opposition to the mobilisation process continues. Representatives of the Slovak population protest against Slovakian men being sent to ATO. Ivan Latko, president of the Slovak Association of Uzhgorod stated "Our youth does not want to fight and die in eastern Ukraine. We believe that the Ukrainian government does not make substantive action in order to stop the war". Local media reports the intent to create a battalion of female volunteers. So far, 20 women have volunteered. The have received a one week training course, focussing on stripping and reassembling a rifle, elementary tactics and practice in a local wooded area. The training is provided by Pravi Sektor members. It is not clear that these tutors have actual military experience at the front. Politics The lustration process initiated by the Poroshenko regime is under way. This process excludes individuals with a questionable political past from further political activity. The intent is probably to remove anyone who would oppose integration within the EU, the austerity measure required by the IMF and anyone on a Pravi Sektor blacklist. Locally, Valeriy Lenchenko, Chairman of the Transcarpathian regional state administration has been dismissed. Others affected appear to include Viktor Lukach, Deputy head of infrastructure, utilities, construction, Roman Shnitser, head of the Department of Health and Marianna Gag Director of the Department of Education. Viktor Baloha, a candidate in the pending election is showing his colours. He stated that "First Putin threatened to take Kiev within two weeks. Europe remained silent and made us sign the 'Minsk Covenant'. Now Putin promises to restore the 'Iron Curtain' within two days. If Europe is silent this time, the next threat from Putin will be to take Berlin and Madrid, and from there to Washington DC, not far away." He refers to Russians as "Asian savages". This obvious blatant fear-mongering bears no relation to reality. It will be very interesting to see how effective it is. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban made a visit to the region. The only public information refers to a meeting at the Transcarpathian Hungarian Institute to commemorate the opening of a refurbished building. Propaganda Members of the Carpathian Sich, a founder group of Pravi Sektor, forming part of the 5th Battalion Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, along with 93th Mechanized Brigade and the "Dnepr-1" battalion have been fighting near Pisky immediately west of Donetsk airport. One member of the Carpathian Sich has produced an address to the Transcarpathians, stating "To win the war, you must first win the internal war - in the minds and hearts of people. Only then will we be able to overcome external Kremlin enemy. The first front - ideological - frankly we have lost, but the fight is not all war, and we are firmly focused on revenge. For friends, for family. For hunger, oppression, destruction, shootings. Everything will come in its own retribution. The Russian Federation is a parasite that is constantly trying to expand its territory at the expense of other peoples and other States at any cost. She is war, destruction, death" ... "its control lies in hypocrisy, meanness, it is being professionally trained to zombify". This is a classic example of projection. He (presumably) notes in tones of resentment that the group has to rely on the regular military for weapons. Promoters of the Transcarpathian child battalion 'Falcon' have released a video showing a group of children, aged 2-10 years singing "Glory to Ukraine. Glory to its heroes. Death to moskals! Ukraine is above everything. The East and the West are together". Seven Transcarpathian soldiers, mostly officers, have been posthumously awarded title 'Honorary citizen of Uzhgorod' for their personal courage and heroism in defending sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Separatism The discontent felt by the Hungarian speaking citizens in Transcarpathia is still present, expressed at a low level. Vasily Brenzovich, who is seeking parliamentary mandate, noted that there is now no representation for Transcarpathian Hungarians in the Ukrainian Parliament. The only way this can be gained is through a party list, the block of Petro Poroshenko. He does not accept this and propose continuation of action for representation of minority rights in the European Court of Human Rights. In contrast, Laszlo Brenzovics, president of the Hungarian Ethnic Alliance (KMKSZ) said that it was a difficult decision to KMKSZ to adopt the Poroshenko's party bid. Given the current very serious and crucial situation in Ukraine, it is important that the Hungarians in Transcarpathia have control over their own development of the situation. The internal debate is due to be resolved in a closed meeting of the KMKSZ. Transnistria ATO Whilst the Ukrainian regime has placed more troops at Bolgrad, close to the Moldova/Transistria/Ukraine border supposedly because of risks raised by Transnistria, the Ukraine ambassador to Moldova says Ukraine will never attack Transnistria. He states that Transnistrian comments about an economic blockade are propaganda. The modern day Stranglelove, General Breedlove, is stirring things. He claims that NATO needs a regulatory framework to protect non-member countries given that Russia may conduct military operations in Moldova and Transnistria. He also claims that "In the last 12 years we have been trying to become partners with Russia". Maybe placing a missile defence system in Poland, allegedly to protect the west from Iranian missiles, was seen by Russia for what it is - protection for a pre-emptive US nuclear first strike, thereby destroying nuclear deterrence. Economy Following an outbreak of cutaneous anthrax in Cahul, south-west Moldova, Transnistria has introduced extra check on cattle imported from Moldova. Inflation is reducing slightly, with some evidence for reducing food prices dropping. The annual inflation figure is expected to be about 4%. A Russian trade delegation has visited Transnistria to discuss mechanisms to promote the sale of Transnistrian goods in Russia. The delegation subsequently visited Gagauzia. The Transnistrian government has reacted to negative economic trends. It aims to generate a stable transparent tax system for small and medium businesses allowing them to plan for the short-term. The proposed introduction of VAT proved controversial. A proposal to introduce a tax of about 1.5% for the renovation and upgrade of the gas infrastructure was also rejected. Energy Gazprom has reduced the energy flow through Transnistrian corridor resulting in a 5% drop in supplies to Romania. This is in response to a proposal for reverse flow from Romania to Moldova. Politics Andre Sfonov, a former Minister of Education and now political analyst, opposes the current policies of Yevgeny Shevchuk, leader of Transistira. Safonov states that it is not appropriate to concentrate power in times of difficulty. He regards the government as incompetent and proposes that they should resign immediately. Shevchuk has initiated legislation to amend constitution, obliging deputies to work on a permanent basis, introduced changes which complicate the procedure for impeachment of President, whilst simplifying dissolution of armed forces. The EU Delegation to Moldova has stated that minorities (e.g. those in the pro-Russian autonomous region of Gagauzia) should not be worried about Moldova's association with EU. The Council of Europe representative met with the Transnistria Minister of Foreign Affairs, Igor Shornikov. They discussed partnership projects such as the development of media, civil sector, higher education, protection of cultural heritage and human rights. Gagauzia and Transnist5ria have separately signed agreements of cooperation with Russian oblasts. Gagauzia signed a document with Nizhn Novgorod, covering trade, technological and humanitarian issues. Transnistria signed Memorandum of Cooperation with Archangelsk covering agriculture, light industry and tourism. A ministerial delegation from Northern Ireland made a second visit to Transnistria in order to get first hand information about the status talks. The Transnistrian Foreign Minister noted some slight progress had been made - resumption of trade traffic through Transnistria, removal by Russian specialists of a dangerous disused cable car linking both sides of the Dniester river and resolution of some movement problems for people crossing into Moldova. Complications include Moldovan attempts to raise criminal charges against Transnistrian officials, and economic pressure from Moldova. There has been no progress on the Joint Control Commission to resolve the status of Transnistria. Both sides have agreed to the inclusion of 25 issues on the draft agenda. However, the next meeting of the JCC has been cancelled, with both sides blaming each other, unwilling to compromise over differences. Propaganda The 400 strong contingent of Russian troops present as part of the long-established Moldovan/transnistrian/Russian peace-keeping force, took part in an annual training exercise. Tasks included the assembly of pontoon bridges across a river. It remains to be seen to what extent this is projected as i) an invasion of new troops and ii) preparation for war. The Guardian, a UK 'newspaper', has released an article about Transnistria - "One secret policeman each: life in Fortress Transnistria". It includes a trailer of the video with an opening caption 'Pridnestrovie is a small part of Moldova with population 500,000'. The Guardian writes "What is it like to live in a state that hardly anyone recognises? Secret police, central planning and the ever-present face of Russian-backed strongman Igor Smirnov". These comments set the tone. Secret police - check. Central planning - check. Russian-backed - check. Strongman - check. Interestingly, they use the Russian name Pridnestrovie rather than the Romanian/Moldovan name. Resources A BBC video takes a similar line to the Fortress piece promoted by the Guardian. It raises one parallel with Ukraine; most of the industry originally in Moldova was located in the east of the country and now lies in Transnistria. A third video 'The Renegade province fuelling tensions between Russia and Moldova' also focusses on the porous border with Ukraine, and alleged weapons trading, including so-called weapons of mass destruction. This latter story appears to have originated with mysterious documents that just happened to come into the hands of Oazu Nantoi, a former Moldovan government official and head of a Moldovan NGO. These documents allegedly describe 38 Alazan weather-control rockets modified to carry radioactive material intended to track clouds. The original source for the above report appears to be Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (i.e. US sponsored BS) These alleged rockets conveniently become known as 'dirty bomb-type missiles'. A later report links these same (non existent?) rockets to Zaqarwi and al Qaeda. An alternative outlook, that gets away from the blatant propaganda of the Guardian and BBC pieces, is provided by Lada Ray. Her website is rather quirky, but she offers several videos related to this part of the work. One in particular relates to Transnistria, in which she presents a first hand, personal, often humorous and human view of the region. She reports on how dependent Moldova is on money sent to it by legal and illegal Moldovan migrant workers in Russia and the EU (~30% of GDP is quoted). Her predictions on the other hand ... Jeroen Akkermans, the RTL News photographer who made the invaluable photographic records of the debris of the MH17 incident, has an album of photographs of Transnistria taken in 2010.

NEO â€" Russian

- You won't read anything like this in Western media as it conflicts with their fairy tale of spreading peace and democracy when proxy terrorism is the new game of choice.

The Russian response to a double declaration of war

The context: a double declaration of war Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia.  Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate.  Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia's policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine.  What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world's policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia.  Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world.  This is not so.  Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world's biggest economies (US+EU).  I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.Sniping at Putin and missing the pointNow, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia.  If that is really the case,  this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening?  Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does.  Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.  And what was Putin supposed to do?!   Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border?   What about Assad?  Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb "them" not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it?  Most obviously the latter.In fact, Putin and Assad have exactly the same position: protest the unilateral nature of the strikes, demand a UN Resolution while quietly watching how Uncle Sam turned on his own progeny and now tries to destroy them.I would add that Lavrov quite logically stated that there are no "good terrorists".  He knows that ISIL is nothing but a continuation of the US-created Syrian insurgency, itself a continuation of the US-created al-Qaeda.  From a Russian point of view, the choice is simple: what is better, for the US to use its forces and men to kill crazed Wahabis or have Assad do it?  And if ISIL is successful in Iraq, how long before they come back to Chechnia?  Or Crimea?  Or Tatarstan?  Why should any Russian or Syria soldier risk death when the USAF is willing to do that for them?While there is a sweet irony in the fact that the US now has to bomb it's own creation, let them do that.  Even Assad was clearly forewarned and he obviously is quite happy about that.Finally, UN or no UN, the US had already taken the decision to bomb ISIL.  So what is the point of blocking a perfectly good UN Resolution?  That would be self-defeating.  In fact, this Resolution can even be used by Russia to prevent the US and UK from serving as a rear base for Wahabi extremists (this resolution bans that, and we are talking about a mandatory, Chapter VII, UNSC Resolution).And yet, some still say that Putin threw Assad under the bus.  How crazy and stupid can one get to have that kind of notion about warfare or politics?  And if Putin wanted to toss Assad under the bus, why did he not do that last year?Sincere frustration or intellectual dishonesty?But that kind of nonsense about the Syria is absolutely dwarfed by the kind of truly crazy stuff some people post about Novorussia.  Here are my favorite ones.  The author begins by quoting me:"This war has never been about Novorussia or about the Ukraine." and then continues: That statement is too vacuous and convenient as a copout. Do you really mean to say that the thousands of people murdered by shelling, the thousands of young Ukrainian conscripts put through the meat grinder, the thousands of homes destroyed, the more than 1 million people who have turned into refugees... NONE of that has anything to do with Novorussia and Ukraine? That this is only about Russia?  Really, one would wish you'd refrain from making silly statements like that.The only problem being, of course, that I never made it in the first place :-)Of course, it is rather obvious that  I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia.  All Russia did was to recognize this reality.  Again, the words "do you really mean to say that" clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course.  But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all.  But I don't want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals.   There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity.  Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing.In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US.  In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed. In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policyIn my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War.  In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian.  Thus, for the Empire, "success" can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine.  For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change.  Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.The original plan was simplistic in a typically US Neocon way: overthrow Yanukovich, get the Ukraine into the EU and NATO, politically move NATO to the Russian border and militarily move it into Crimea.  That plan failed.  Russia accepted Crimea and the Ukraine collapsed into a vicious civil war combined with a terminal economic crisis.  Then the US Neocons fell-back to plan B.Plan B was also simple: get Russia to intervene militarily in the Donbass and use that as a pretext for a full-scale Cold War v2 which would create 1950's style tensions between East and West, justify fear-induced policies in the West, and completely sever the growing economic ties between Russia and the EU.  Except that plan also failed - Russia did not take the bait and instead of intervening directly in the Donbass, she began a massive covert operation to support the anti-Nazi forces in Novorussia.  The Russian plan worked, and the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) were soundly defeated by the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) even though the latter was suffering a huge deficit in firepower, armor, specialists and men (gradually, Russian covert aid turned all these around).At this point in time the AngloZionist plutocracy truly freaked out under the combined realization that their plan was falling apart and that there was nothing they could really do to rescue it (a military option was totally impossible as I explained it in the past).  They did try economic sanctions, but that only helped Putin to engage in long overdue reforms.  But the worst part of it all was that each time the West expected Putin to do something, he did the exact opposite:Nobody expected that Putin would use military force in Crimea in a lightening-fast take-over operation which will go down in history as at least as amazing as Storm-333.  Everybody (including myself) expected Putin to send forces into Novorussia.  He did not.Nobody expected Russian counter-sanctions to hit the EU agricultural sector.Everybody expected that Putin would retaliate after the latest round of sanctions.  He did not.There is a pattern here and it is one basic to all martial arts: first, never signal your intentions, second use feints and third, hit when and where your opponent doesn't expect it.Conversely, there are two things which are deeply ingrained in the western political mindset which Putin never does: he never threatens and he never postures.  For example, while the US is basically at war with Russia, Russia will gladly support a US resolution on ISIL if it is to Russia's advantage.  And Russian diplomats will speak of "our American partners" or "our American friends" while, at the same time, doing more than the rest of the planet combined to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.A quick look at Putin's record As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow.  But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in Russia.achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).literally resurrected the Russian economy.rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model" and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowdencreated and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining the "clash of civilization" paradigm.booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO and currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.organized the "Voentorg" which armed the NAF.gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the "southern cauldron" for example).last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to "sovereignize" herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.and that list goes on and on.  All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them.  So unless we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense.  His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to explain now.If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that Putin is both principled and logical.  What could he be doing in the Ukraine?  Can we make sense of what we observe?Imperatives Russia cannot ignoreFirst, I consider the following sequence indisputable:First,  Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her.  What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia.  What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev.  The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of - hypothetical - nuclear weapons against Russia).  Therefore,Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives.Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here.  It's not even the future of the Ukraine.  What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which I fully agree with).  The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order.  Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine.  As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively.  In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine.  Here is why:For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost.  Forever. Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that.  In fact, the Ukies know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population.  If fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random" or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind).  Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that.  If not de jure, then de facto, Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble - along with the Dollar and Euro - will be used on a daily basis).  The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible).  This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine.  For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals.  But what about Russia?What if you were in Putin's place?Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not?  I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or barrier on some geographical removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure, nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power.  In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the UkraineDisrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness" Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financiallyIn other words - give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.What is the alternative anyway? I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia.   To this I will simply reply the following:Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev?  If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of mid or long term vision.   Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks.  They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong". The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time.  Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful "victory".  Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force.  Could Russia do that?  Again, the answer is that yes - but at what cost?I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called "Kaskad" (which later was renamed "Vympel").  One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years!  It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents.  Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war - how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov?  Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully - but the rest of the Ukraine?  If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces.  Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia.  A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist - Maksim Shevchenko - had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet.  Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel.  Surprise, surprise.  Or, maybe, no surprise at all?For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense.  Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power.  I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other.  Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin.  What the pretext for the anger is does not matter - for Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin it's "back-stabbed Novorussia".  And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just "useful idiots" - God be their judge - but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes.  There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia (Yuri Baranchik) and abroad (M. K. Bhadrakumar).But what about the oligarchs?I already addressed this issue in a recent post, but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life.  This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account.  The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin.  The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen.  So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only "country" is wherever their assets happen to be.  As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them.  Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money.  From Putin's point of view, Rinat Akhmetov, for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money.  Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies.  With a friendly smile.  This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding.  For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's advantage.  What I am trying to explain here is the following:There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials.  Some say that Khodakovski is involved.  Others mention Surkov.  There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place.  In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved.  Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski.  In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more.  That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say "Putin is boss".  Maybe.  Maybe not yet, but soon.  Maybe never.  All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.But is there a 5th column in Russia?Yes, absolutely.  First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration.  Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money.  And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists") they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge.  The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th column now is in the open, but it if far from over.  And we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc.  They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns.  For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA's bidding, there is no proof of it.  As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove.  But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.The real danger for RussiaSo now we have the full picture.  Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media's demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their "clear, simple, and wrong" "solutions".3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de facto and de jure) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia.  I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official (declaratory) police and Russia's real actions.  The covert help to Novorussia - the Voentorg - is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite.  It is in Russia's strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program.  What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories.  After all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc.  I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL.  Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition.  For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: "we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends".  The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it.  Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed.  If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them.  It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical.  After all, how much sophistication is needed to say "comply or else".  Any petty street thug know how to do that.  Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused.  But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was).  Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire.  Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it.  In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev.  To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force.  In other words:art: Josetxo EzcurraRussia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis Empire.  Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev. Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia. Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved.  A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals.  In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene.  Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another "false flag", possibly a nuclear one.  I think that the Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society were most "thoughts" are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media.  I feel that 60'000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia's apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.Kind regards to all,The Saker

Speech delivered by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 23rd, 2014

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be upon the Seal of Prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad, on his chaste and pure Household, on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings. Frankly tonight I have more than one point to tackle: the situation in Lebanon, the situation in the region in general, and the events which are moving faster. However, I will commit myself to the available time limit. So I might not be able to cover all of these topics. Consequently, if I did not tackle some points, that does not mean that they are not important. There are several important points; however, the available time may not be enough to cover them. Well, we will see within the available time what points I will be able to tackle. First: The issue of the military men who are kidnapped by the armed groups in the barren mountains of Irsal, the repercussions of the cause, the stance from it, and the track it has taken. Usually in similar causes â€" we will tackle a cause which was similar to it; I mean the cause of Aazaz kidnapped men â€" we avoid taking overt stances or discussing such issues publicly. That's because after all the other side which is kidnapping and detaining these dear men has its mentality and calculations. We usually are alert and a bit precautious. As far as Aazaz cause was concerned, you would have noticed that we did not talk openly. We used to offer whatever possible assistance. Hizbullah played important roles which remained unannounced. That's because what was important to us was to set these hostages and detainees free. The media is not important. What is important is what we say and what we offer. Today the same applies. This cause is of much importance, and it is very critical too. Still and though the event had taken place some two month ago by now, we have always preferred to tackle the issue in the cabinet with the concerned officials away from the media. However, today I find myself obliged to talk. As I said, the cause is very critical and important whether as far as the kidnapped and detained military men are concerned, or as far as their families are concerned, or as far as the military institution and the official security institutions are concerned. The families of the detainees are being subject to massive psychological, emotional, moral, and political pressure. After all, they are military men and soldiers in these institutions, and consequently, the dignity, future, and integrity of these institutions are at stake as well. The rest of the military men are looking at this sample which they are facing now from this perspective and unfortunately, from the campaign of political and media distortion and falsification which is being waged daily on this cause. First, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the families of the oppressed military martyrs, who were slaughtered by the terrorist kidnappers: martyr Ali Ahmad Sayyed, martyr Abbass Ali Midlij, and martyr Mohammad Maarouf Hamieh. We highly evaluate the stances of the fathers and families of these martyrs. In fact, theirs were national, moral, and humanitarian stances, and we hope that several political sides and personalities would rise to the level of the fathers and families of the martyrs. We also offer our condolences to the families of all the National Lebanese Army martyrs in the recent events in Irsal the last of whom were martyr Ali Ahmad Hamade and martyr Mohammad Assem Daher as well as the martyr who was oppressively killed today in Tripoli - martyr soldier Mohammad Khaled Hussein. We also stand sincerely by the families of the kidnapped military men who are still living in the sphere of threat. We understand and share with them these feelings. In fact, we understand best the feelings and emotions of the families of the detainees, the missed, and the martyrs because of our long experience in the resistance. To understand this, we do not need time. We have been part of this sufferance for decades. We salute the sacrifices of the Lebanese Army and the security forces especially the army for its leadership, officers, and soldiers' steadfastness and bravery. After this salutation, allow me to usher into the issue. All the Lebanese know that for almost two months by now the terrorist armed groups inside Irsal and in the barren mountains of Irsal staged an aggression against the Lebanese Army check points and offices in Irsal and its neighborhood as well as against the offices of the Internal Security Forces and the security apparatuses under the pretext of the army detaining so called Imad Jomaa. This led to the broad aggression which was not coincident at all. Everyone who is acquainted with military action knows that following an accidental incident such as arresting this man, it is impossible that such a broad and wide attack take place against all check points and offices in such a broad area leading to the martyrdom of several officers and soldiers, the injury of others, the detention of tens besides the destruction of vehicles and offices. The army strongly confronted the armed forces and restored its check points and offices. As a result of this confrontation â€" this is the point we want to reach â€" a number of military men â€" members in the army, the security forces, and the security institutions â€" were taken hostages by these groups. Why? How? This is another point of discussion. After all, all the Lebanese and all of Lebanon came to be before such a cause called the cause of the military men kidnapped by terrorist armed groups in the barren mountains of Irsal. In itself, this is a humanitarian, national, and moral cause that does not concern a definite region, side, party, sect, or faction. It is rather a cause that concerns all of the Lebanese. It concerns Lebanon as a state, people, army, and institutions. It concerns all the Lebanese. It does not only concern their families or the military or security institutions. From the very beginning, all the political forces, the people, the media, the elites, and especially the political forces whether in the government or outside the government must have dealt with this cause according to its national, moral, and humanitarian level. It was and is still supposed that the aim of everyone be to restore the kidnapped military men and return them to their families as soon as possible. From the very first moment, this must have been the goal and this must still be the aim, and it will remain the aim until it is achieved. From the very first moment, all those who must have and are still supposed to join efforts must have exploited whatever means and offered every possible help to achieve this goal and put an end to this cause. Unfortunately, some have turned this national cause to a subject for argument, false accusations, settling political calculations, causing factional feuds, igniting daily sectarian incitements, and even distorting facts, falsifying, and lying. Even more, some went even further. They raised the ceiling of the demands even more than the demands of the terrorist kidnappers themselves. Some people in Lebanon did not only adopt the demands of the terrorists. They even raised the ceiling of the demands higher than what the armed groups aspired to. So instead of condemning those who staged an aggression against the army and the security forces and killed, wounded, ruined, kidnapped, slaughtered, and stole, they accused and condemned other sides in the Lebanese internal. Some even justified what the terrorists did and even defended them. Anyway, today, I will try to put things in their place especially as far as we are concerned and I will not open the files of the others' performance and conduct because the situation in the country does not bear that. There is much to say, and we are able to say much, and we need to say much; however, I do not like to do what I criticize others for doing. I want to say that this cause must be not a matter for argument and away from the subjects of mutual accusations, struggle, and settlements. I do not like to tackle that. It is note-worthy that what have been taking place in the past few weeks - since the beginning of cause until now - is very painful and sorrowful, and it indicates the level of dealing with this cause that concerns all the Lebanese. Perhaps the cause of Aazaz did not concern all of the Lebanese, according to some. However, it is supposed that this cause mean all of the Lebanese. Still, I will not tackle this point because I do not want to cause an argument. Should I open all the files from the very beginning until now, that will not serve the cause of the kidnapped military men. First: From the very beginning, we dealt, and are still dealing â€" as it is correct to deal â€" with this cause as primarily being the responsibility of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese authority in the first place, and everyone must support, cooperate, and back the Lebanese government in addressing this cause. The second point has to do with the principle of negotiations. It is normal that in the cases of hostages, captives, and kidnapped detainees, that the concerned sides carry negotiations. This is very normal around the world. This takes place. We do that, and we did that. We carried indirect negotiations at several occasions to restore captives and the bodies of martyrs. We have done this, and we do this every day. We did it in Syria, and we do that every day. Now we have missed fighters and martyrs since a period of time â€" several months. What is said in the media is true. We seize any chance to carry negotiations. This is the right track. This is normal. This is logical. Thus we never rejected the principle of negotiations. Here, I would like the families of the kidnapped military men to be listening to me: If any one of the deputies or the politicians or article writers would tell you that Hizbullah â€" as we are placed in the front and messages are being sent to us â€" refuses the principle of negotiations, he would be lying on you for political goals and not because he cares for your children to be restored. We never refused the principle of negotiations. The political authority has the right to negotiate too. The officers have contacted us, and we made discussions with them. This is normal. The normal choice is that the political authority negotiate with terrorists, terrorist groups, and Takfiri movements. There is no difference. As far as the issue of captives is concerned, when it came to "Israel", indirect negotiations used to take place. As it is a humanitarian issue, no such political remarks are taken into consideration. After all, the authority in Lebanon is the side which is to decide whether to negotiate directly or indirectly. It specifies the mediator; but there was never any debate on the principle of negotiations. Third: From the very first day, we have said that negotiations should be conducted from a position of strength. Aren't you saying that Lebanon must negotiate like other states which have captives and hostages and negotiate to restore them? Well, no one in the world begs or deals with the kidnappers from a helpless position. There is nothing of this sort as some are trying to impose on the Lebanese government and Lebanon. Whoever wants to negotiate must search for all cards of strength and put them on the table and take a previous decision that he might resort to them and let the kidnappers understand that he might resort to them. Afterwards, he would head to negotiations. This is what we are calling for. The cards of strength exist. PM Salam had talked about them, and the government knows the cards of strength it owns. It is not right to talk about this in the media. It is not right that the media tackles this. The mediator as well as the kidnapper must be informed of the cards of strength so that they would be beneficial for the negotiations and so that other gates which I will tackle later on would be opened. Well, is there anything wrong in that? I am asking the families of the captives and the Lebanese people. Is there anything wrong if a political side calls on the government to negotiate from the position of strength and not to beg? Do not present the Lebanese Army, the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese people as weak and frail before small armed groups all what it is able to do is to put the sword on the neck of the soldiers and consequently, threaten Lebanon, the Lebanese Army, the Lebanese people, and the families of the military men in such a brutal way. If we want to restore them alive, we negotiate strongly as a state. This is what we call for. Is there anything wrong in that? Here I am telling you that negotiating from a weak position would lead to a catastrophe on the military men. If there is hope â€" and God willing there is a big hope â€" that these military men return to their families and institutions, that is only possible through a strong, dignified, noble, and responsible stance. Fourth: I am talking as Hizbullah as we have a long experience in this field. None of the two negotiating sides must announce something and commit itself to it openly. There is nothing of this sort in the world. Well, yes openly, one might raise the ceiling while the other might start from zero. Later on, they would reach a common place. All negotiations over swap operations in the world take place as such except this cause. Why? It's because it has become part of political bargains, and every political side or personality or whatever would say "we accept" and 'we don't accept". Well brother! Tell your government, the authority, or the side entitled to carry negotiations and is responsible of addressing this cause whether you accept or not. However, when such a cause becomes a subject for argument in the media one side would raise the ceiling while the other would lower the ceiling. As such the government would be lost as well as the families of the captives, while the kidnappers would feel as if they are manipulating the country. They are playing with the country. Let's be frank. Lebanon is living true humiliation since weeks because of this political performance by several political forces. Let no one say in the media whether he rejects or does not reject. The concerned side, the government, and the entitled side is the side which must raise or lower the ceilings, act, and convey messages. As such if an announcement is made it would be in the framework of a negotiating plan and not in the framework of the plot of bargains that is present in the country. If such bargains are to carry on as such, I do not believe that any side would be able to negotiate seriously and reach a result as far as this cause is concerned. As for us, all what was said by politicians is incorrect. It is mere lying. We did not say that the gate of negotiations is locked or that the gate of discussing demands is shut. We talked with the officials in the cabinet, the PM, and the concerned sides and told them that as a side which has ministers in the government our stance is the following. Here I find myself obliged to announce our stance as a result of what is taking place. Our stance is as follows: The negotiating side â€" whether negotiations are taking place directly or through mediators â€" must examine the demands of the kidnappers. No one may say I do not want to examine, listen and discuss. If we say negotiations, you have to listen, discuss and examine. Among these demands which are presented via channels, arguments, and discussions, some points might be acceptable and possible while others are unacceptable and impossible. After all, all of these things are discussed, and there are methodologies to take a decision. However, no one is allowed to say we do not want to negotiate or to listen or to discuss. This is our stance from the very first point and whoever says otherwise would be a deceiver, a liar, and a hypocrite. Allow me to say so because there is political brutality as far as this issue is concerned. Anyway, indeed as a result of killing, the government announced that negotiations are stopped not because it wants to stop negotiations altogether but because it wants to guarantee halting the act of killing. In fact, the Lebanese government and the Lebanese PM have the right to say that they won't negotiate under the pressure of killing and slaughter. Nobody negotiates as such. Anyway, if such a thing is guaranteed, and the government returned to negotiations, it is logical that negotiations would take place again. It is normal that friends and even foes may be sought. There is no problem in that. There is no problem in listening to demands and discussing them in negotiations. However, succumbing or being threatened by saying "you have 24 hours or the outcome would be slaughter" as they are doing is unacceptable. I do not believe that there is a state or a government or a people or an army or an institution in any place in the world which accepts things to carry on as such. This is for the safety of the military men and not at their expense. Yes, it is for their safety. Yet, they are threatening by slaughtering to make the other side kneel and beg, or else in 24 hours they would slaughter, and this scenario is repeated again and again. Do we want to reach here? Is it the wish of the families to reach here for example? The last point in the track of addressing this cause is that all around the world â€" as long as you are saying that we want to deal with this cause as other states and governments â€" no one deals with a cause of this kind in one track or with one option. He would put forward several options on the table. He sets several scenarios. In case this scenario does not work, he would go for the other. As such he sets several scenarios which he is not concerned in discussing in the media. So he does not resort to one scenario and say that we are not able to do anything. There is nothing of this sort around the world. He must continuously be working and searching. Does Lebanon have other choices? Is it possible to find other scenarios? Well, simply and clearly yes. However, this is not also to be discussed in the media. But because of the bargains in Lebanon, we must go and tell the terrorist kidnappers what we want to do and what we must do. This is not correct in any administration in the world. This is incorrect. I will go back later to the means of addressing the reactions in a couple of words. However, before this title, I call today to do what we must have done weeks ago. For the sake of the dear kidnapped military men, for the sake of the emotions and dignity of their families, for the sake of the army and the security institutions, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of this people, we must put this cause outside the sphere of bargains, settlements, and point scoring on each other. What was the reason? Who was wrong? Let's put this aside. If we are to open such files, let's talk about the barren mountains of Irsal. Since when are these mountains occupied by them? That took place even before we went to Qusair, to Qalamoun, and Syria. What is the position of this geographical area? What is the role it plays? Who stands behind it? Who is with it? That is a long research. Let's keep this aside. Let's put all bargains aside. Let's say: These men are our brothers, children, fathers, and dear ones. No matter to which family they belong, from which region they are, or to what side they belong, they are the children of the national institution and the state. Let's â€" all of us as Lebanese â€" come together and cooperate and take it for granted that there is a definite side with which we may discuss any point we have. Let's not overbid each other and cause sectarian and factional instigations. No one would win anything as such. Let no one believe that through what he is doing he is achieving political and media goals. I am saying so from our concern to the families and the military men. If anyone believes that through distortion, falsification, misleading, and deception they have been practicing in the past few weeks against Hizbullah, they have achieved any political and media achievements, they are mistaken. They have not made any achievements in fact. I wanted to say so not to defend Hizbullah. In fact, I talked as such to say: Let's stop this to work in a proper way to serve this goal and this cause. Let's stand together and support the government in its negotiations, in discussing the demands, in seeing what gates may be opened, and also in putting ready scenarios to confront any unexpected events or developments. Well, there is something which has to do with wrapping this issue. It has to do with the reactions. Indeed, we have tackled these issues previously. I am not talking about anything new, and I am not making a new call. Following the bombing that took place in Rweiss which led to the martyrdom and injury of scores or people â€" and not killing one or two soldiers â€" we tackled this issue. The issue is not that of a number. All of them are our people, our men, our women, and our children. Following that bombing we addressed all of the Lebanese and advised that no one harm any Syrian immigrant as no one is to be punished for the sin of another. No one must be held responsible for the crimes of the terrorists and the Takfiri groups. Following the second, third, and fourth bombing and following the bombing in Hermel we said so too. So this is not something new. Today, I want to assert this point: No innocent person or Syrian immigrant must be harmed. It is not allowed to hold anyone responsible for the crimes of these criminals. This does not need any assertion. This is not allowed by all norms whether humanitarian, moral, religious, legitimate, legal… I hope that everyone takes what I am saying into consideration. That's because from among the goals of slaughtering and killing the soldiers is that such popular reactions take place against the Syrian immigrant to exploit that politically in sectarian and factional instigation. This must not be allowed to take place. Between parentheses, I would like to say that Hizbullah and Amal Movement - with the cooperation of the apparatuses, the scholars, and tribal and social dignitaries â€" have exerted industrious efforts to protect the immigrants and pull danger away from them. Still those whom I was talking about a while ago held Hizbullah responsible at a time Hizbullah was protecting and defending the immigrants as well as appeasing the people. Still there comes he who overbids and accuses you as far as this issue is concerned. The other point I want to tackle as far as reactions are concerned is that in case there is any security suspicion against anyone â€" this is not limited to the Syrian refugees or immigrants â€" provide such information thankfully to the security apparatuses which would burst into any suspicious place. Here the security institutions hold fully their responsibilities. The other point concerning the reaction is counter-kidnapping. Indeed some kidnapping operations take place at times without having anything to do with the kidnapped military men or anything with the reactions on the kidnapping of the military men as what took place some time ago. Such operations have to do with ransoms, stealing, and robbery. These are criminals. These are highwaymen and corruptors. Frankly speaking, it is they who are carrying such operations. Well, there is another kind of impermissible kidnapping operations. Anyway, there is not permissible and impermissible kidnapping; however, that might at times take place as a reaction as some families do. Besides saying that such kidnapping is impermissible religiously and legally, I want to tell our people that it is fruitless too. With whom are you dealing? At times there are sides which might be pressured in case you detained or kidnapped. At other times the side might not be concerned with the people, the people of Irsal, the family of so and so, Sunnites, Shiites, Muslims, Christians or the Druze. They do not care for anyone. They kill even each other and slaughter each other, rob each other, and take each other's womenfolk as detainees. So they do not care for what you do? Thus it is fruitless to kidnap so and so to practice pressure on these armed groups. As far as this issue is concerned we have a long experience in Syria and in the cause of Aazaz detainees. I do not want to go far into details. This issue must remain covert. Thus counter-kidnapping is impermissible religiously and legally besides being fruitless. That does not lead anywhere. This is true concerning harming the Syria immigrants as well as concerning counter-kidnapping. Where to do such acts lead? They achieve the goals of the armed forces. The speech of these armed groups is sectarian, factional, instigating, and Takfiri. They seek a sectarian strife in Lebanon; they want a factional ordeal in Lebanon; they want people to fight each other in Lebanon; and they want to bring the battle into Lebanon. It is they and not we. Between parentheses some are saying that Hizbullah is pushing the army into the battle in Irsal. Never! It is they who aggressed against the army soldiers who were in their barracks, cross points, and offices. I also want to tell you that the roads are open, the barren mountains are open, food supplies are reaching there, medicine is reaching there, and the wounded of the armed fighters are submitted to the hospitals in Irsal and thereof they are conveyed to hospitals inside Lebanon. Funds are available; arms are being conveyed to Irsal; facilitations are available; no one is holding anyone responsible or trying anyone. Do you want us to remind you of all of these issues? These want to transfer the battle to Lebanon. Here I want to reiterate and to assert to the families of the military men and to all of the Lebanese: What we say in the cabinet we say in the media, and what we say to all officials we say in the media. We do not have double languages, double speeches, double faces, and double tongues. When I say I am with that means that I am with. When I say that I am against, that means that I am against. Since the very first day when we went to Quseir, I made an announcement of that. Some presidents and officials blamed me saying that if you want to go to Quseir go without making an announcement. But no we want to announce. Why shouldn't we announce? At that day, I said whoever wants to fight let him go to Syria where there is a battlefield. Let's fight there. Let's keep Lebanon aside. However, some argued this logic. Well no! This is a well-calculated and well-considered logic because we do not want a problem in Lebanon and we do not want fighting in Lebanon. We do not want the war to be transferred to Lebanon. It's the armed forces which want to transfer the war to Lebanon and are seeking day and night to transfer the war to Lebanon. It is not we at all who are doing so. That's why we never opened the file of Irsal. We never tackled the issue of the armed forces, the facilitations offered to the armed men, or the position of Irsal regarding what is taking place in the region. Well yes, when the booby-trapped cars started coming from Irsal, we called on the army and the security forces to take the necessary procedures: Just prevent the booby-trapped cars from coming from there. We never ignited any instigation. We do not want such a battle. We hope that no battle would ever take place inside the Lebanese territories. We can tolerate much to observe this commitment. Thus when any counter-kidnapping or any aggression takes place against the immigrants or any such problems take place that would be achieving the goals of the terrorists and the killers. That's because they are seeking sedition and moving the battle to Lebanon. It is not to the interest of the Lebanese that the fighting be moved to Lebanon. In general, what is required is controlling emotions, feelings, and reactions, avoiding harming the innocent, and guarding the social and national composition. Thereof, everyone is responsible and a partner in sharing the responsibility. As for the military men and what they are being subject to, there are concerned sides, a state, officials, and the court. These sides are concerned about trying and punishing, and we are concerned in being behind the state and supporting it on this perspective. This is the first point which I wanted to tackle. Briefly to benefit from the available time, I want to wrap this point saying really Lebanon is before a true challenge. Well, let's see how this state, this government, and these political forces would act. This is what we call for today. Later on and when this cause would come to an end and the military men return safe and sound other things may be said. Whether we would talk or not has to do with the atmosphere and the developments. That's because being responsible we do not act in reaction. We are not talking in reaction of what is taking place. We talk to rectify things because it is wrong and dangerous to move along as such as far as this humanitarian, national, and moral issue is concerned. The second topic has to do with the developments in the region and the stance from the international coalition â€" the so called international coalition to fight the "ISIL". Indeed we are concerned in specifying our stance from it - our stance as a resistance and as a side â€" via our ministers in the Lebanese government. We also have to specify our stance to wipe away the distortion and falsification that have come upon this stance. In case some people were not able to understand and to comprehend, this would be their own problem and not ours. Still, we will clarify and explain our stance because this too is a historical and critical moment. First: Everyone knows that Hizbullah is against the "ISIL". Some two months ago I have talked extensively on this. We are against those Takfiri movements, and we are fighting them too. We are offering sacrifices in fighting them. So first we must put aside what some are saying to the effect of our stance from the international coalition as being to defend or to protect "ISIL". This is simplification and misleading of the facts. So it is either simplification because of ignorance or intended misleading of facts. No, that is not the case. I have tackled the issue of "ISIL" extensively at several occasions in the past. As for us, "ISIL" are groups that kill and slaughter merely because of intellectual and political or organizational disparity. They pose a threat to all the peoples, governments, and sects. So they do not pose a threat to the minorities only but rather to all the peoples of the region. Thus our stance from these Takfiri terrorist groups is clear, firm, and final. It is obligatory to fight them, confront them, and push their danger away from the peoples of the region and the region too. However, the issue of the US military intervention or the formation of an international coalition led by the USA is another issue. This issue must be tackled from several perspectives. First, we have a primary stance whether America came to attack "ISIL" or to attack Taliban or to attack the former Iraqi regime or to attack any other place. In principle, we are not like the others who say they are with the US intervention and call for the US intervention to topple the so and so regime for example. However, if the US intervention was solely to attack "ISIL" or to attack their groups, they are against it. No, we are against the US military intervention and against the international coalition in Syria, whether the target is the regime â€" as was the case a year and a half again - or the "ISIL" or other groups. Primary, there is a principle called the US intervention whether under the cover of an international coalition or the cover of the NATO or the cover of multi-national troops. We have a primary stance based on rules and pillars, and it does not change from one arena and another. As a result of our commitment to this primary stance, we were harmed by some in previous incidents and cases. Thus first because of our primary commitment we do not agree on this coalition. We have said so in the cabinet via our ministers and other friends. So when we are to vote in the cabinet, as Hizbullah, we will say that we do not accept that Lebanon be part of this coalition. However, if Lebanon partakes in conferences and meetings, that would be something else. That would be the concern of the government, the President of the Republic, the Premier, and the foreign minister. However, the commitments are discussed in the cabinet. We say that we have a primary principle. Why do we have this primary principle? Let's take the developments into consideration: First: America is the mother of terrorism. Whoever wants to argue, we are ready for argument. America is the source of terrorism in the world. If there is terrorism in this world, search for the US administration behind it. Indeed, we are not talking about the US people. Second: America is the ultimate supporter of terrorist Zionist entity. The source of terrorism in our region is the existence of (the State of "Israel") which attains absolute US support whether militarily, security, political, economic, financial, or legal. In the Security Council, even condemning or the right of veto is not allowed when it comes to "Israel". Third: The US fabricated or played a role in fabricating these terrorist Takfiri movements. Fourth: America is not in the moral position that entitles it to lead a war against terrorism. In fact, it never once had a moral position. The side that struck Japan with nuclear bombs, committed atrocities in the Vietnam War, has all of this dark history, stood next to Netanyahu in the 50-day-war against Gaza and the people of Gaza, demolishes, kills thousands, wounds thousands, and displaces tens of thousands from their houses is not morally eligible to present itself as a fighter of terrorism or as a leader of an international coalition to target terrorism. The issue has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Fifth: Based on all of Obama's statements, this coalition aims at defending the US interests. What have we to do with defending the US interests especially that most of these interests â€" if not all of the US interests come at the expense of the interests of the region and the peoples of the region and the governments of the region. Are we, Lebanon, or other states to be a part of a coalition led by the USA in a war to defend the US interests in the region? This is what Obama says. I am not fabricating lies against him. He did not say we came here to defend the minorities or the Muslims or the Christians. Never! This never took place before the eyes of the entire world. For years by now â€" and not only in the past few months â€" he did not take any action. Well yes, when the situation became dangerous enough to the extent of harming the US interests, the US administration came to create a cover and an international coalition. We are not concerned in fighting in an international coalition of this kind or to support an international coalition of this kind that serves the US interests apart from the interests of the peoples. Sixth: The Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, as well as all the peoples of the region have the right to question the US intentions through this awareness and this awakening. He wants to gather the world and form an international coalition. In fact, he had formed an international coalition and wants to lead the war, and today he started this war. Is it true that now the Americans woke up and their humanitarian emotions got moved thus they were shocked by the slaughtering, the massacres, the displacement of people from their homes, the demolishing of churches, mosques, and shrines, and the crucifixion of people? Did they wake up now? Did their humanitarian emotions lead them to this coalition or this is a pretext or an excuse for America to occupy the region again or to form military bases the Iraqis had refused previously and now it is its chance to restore to Iraq again or to the region in some states again or to impose such choices? I only want to remind the Lebanese that this issue was evoked previously. On the first days of July 2006 War, when we used to receive messages and there were mediators to stop the war, we were made this offer: Hand all of the arms of the resistance, hand the two "Israeli" captives unconditionally, and thirdly â€" which is most important - accept the existence of multinational forces â€" not the UNIFIL or the UN - in the south, along the Lebanese-Palestinian borders, along the Lebanese-Syrian borders, in the airport, at the ports, and on the Lebanese territories. We rejected this in July War and toppled this scheme with blood, martyrs, patience, tears, wounds, sorrows, and solidarity. Who says they do not want to impose this again when we become part of the international coalition? As soon as you become part of this international coalition, your airport, ports, skies, waters, and territories would be open for them to make military bases for NATO and the USA? What would become of Lebanon then? Don't the Lebanese have the right to be suspicious as the Iraqis are very much suspicious that the goal from this awareness and from this concern expressed by the Americans is the return to impose military bases â€" what the Iraqis refused previously? The Americans want to return and form military barracks, bases, and airports. They want to impose their conditions and achieve immunities to their soldiers and officers as what they did in South Korea and other places. For all of these reasons and others too we say that we do not support and we also refuse that Lebanon be part of the international coalition led by the USA. Lebanon does not need to be part of this coalition. First that is not to the interest of Lebanon. Lebanon would be subject to dangers in case it became part of this international coalition. I am not talking pursuant to the principle of staying away so that they won't say that this is inappropriate. No! This is a totally different idea. The disintegration among them is clear. There are dangers in case Lebanon becomes part of this coalition. Second, Lebanon does not need this coalition. It does not need to be part of this coalition. It has no interest in that. It might be said that we are facing this danger now in Lebanon. The Lebanese are able to face this danger. As Lebanese we are able to confront the terrorists and terrorism. Despite the political division, the political overbids, instigations and all of what I talked about in the future, Lebanon is still able to confront this danger. With the least degree of harmony and with the least degree of cooperation within the Lebanese government â€" this current government â€" Lebanon is able to confront this danger through its army, military apparatuses, people, steadfastness, and patience. In the future too, we as Lebanese are able to confront this danger. What are we in need of? If anyone is to call on the international community or the USA or the members of the new coalition, we would call for the following: First, I call on everyone and not only on them to stop financing and arming the terrorist groups which are targeting Lebanon and the Lebanese interior. I do not want to talk about Syria and Iraq. I am talking about Lebanon. I am talking on the Lebanese national level. Stop arming, funding, training, and dispatching fighters who are targeting Lebanon. This is still taking place to our day and from among states in this coalition. Let this stop if you want to serve Lebanon. Do you want to serve Lebanon? Is your heart aching for the Lebanese and the Lebanese people? Do you want to defend Lebanon against terrorism? First do this. Second: Speed up in supporting the Lebanese Army and the security forces because we bargain on them. This is the responsibility of the state in the first place. Third: Help Lebanon in resolving the crisis of the refugees. When the crisis of the refugees is addressed, the danger of the terrorists and terrorism would be kept off to a great extent. It would also spare Lebanon many ordeals and crises. If anyone wants to help Lebanon, let him help Lebanon in the framework of these three topics. First: Stop funding and arming the terrorists. Second: Speed up in supporting and arming the Lebanese Army and the security forces. Third: Address the crisis of the refugees. As for the Lebanese, they are able to confront any danger which may target them. In the near past, they gathered the military hostages in one place and a person stood among them and bragged saying: "If we want, we can be in Beirut within days." No! You can't be in Beirut or in any other place. I do not want to name villages and regions. Through the state, army, solidarity, national emotions, and national responsibility, the Lebanese can protect all the Lebanese regions. All the Lebanese areas will be protected against any terrorism danger, and I mean what I say. Any Lebanese region does not concern a definite sect, faction, or side. This is a Lebanese territory; this is Lebanese people; these are Lebanese people. All the Lebanese must be one hand to prevent the expansion of terrorism to any of the Lebanese regions. I reiterate saying that in the first place the government, the state, the army, and all of us must be one hand against the state, the government, and the army. It is not allowed to act according to the principle that "we are not concerned" in case the terrorism military expanded towards any region under the pretext that this is not our sect, this is not our region, and this is not our political side. This is a mistake. It is a fatal mistake in fact. The Lebanese must come together, unite, and be one hand. In fact, they can push the threat of the terrorists and the Takfiri groups away from their country. The Lebanese are strong. We are not weak. No one can threat us by invading, controlling, or reaching Beirut or any other region. We are still alive, and no one can intimidate the Lebanese in such a way. We will assume our responsibilities as I used to tell you in the past. In the remaining few moments, I will briefly tackle definite topics though these topics deserve some elaboration. No doubt the region is moving towards important developments in the coming few weeks. What is taking place in Iraq? What is taking place in Syria? The new military operation was launched. We in Lebanon and in the region are concerned in following all of this precisely and cautiously and consequently assume our responsibilities. Praise be to Allah! Summer is over. No one is to say he wants to take a vacation to spend the summer somewhere. Everyone must be alert, aware, and follow the developments because it is not known where these developments would lead to. We have our analysis and views on these events, but we do not have enough time to explain that. I will only call for being aware, cautious, alert, follow the events, and assume responsibilities. Second: As it is the first time I talk since a period of time, I offer my felicitations to the heroic resistance in Gaza, the Palestinian people, the people of Gaza as well as its martyrs, injured, and brave fighters, and the prisons of the Palestinian people on this great victory which was achieved. No doubt, it is an absolute strong, great, important military victory. It is also a great political victory because it crippled all the covert and overt targets of the "Israeli" aggression against Gaza. We felicitate them on this victory which we view as a victory for the entire nation, for all the Palestinian people, for all the peoples of the region, and for all the resistance movements in the region. Third: Before these recent developments which took place in Yemen, we also must felicitate the dear Yemeni people for this reconciliation. The National Peace and Partnership Agreement â€" as I believe they called it - is an exceptional opportunity before the Yemeni people. It is a historic opportunity to pull Yemen out of its complicated problems as it eliminates those who were behind the domestic war and aggressions. The regional states have also welcomed this agreement. We are glad when any people reach an agreement, a national reconciliation, and a political resolution. We listen to this marvelous, great national address made by responsible Yemeni leaderships. Praise be to Allah! That really is promising. We hope Inshallah that no one seeks to cripple this agreement, and that all the Yemenis and all those who care for Yemen would seek to help the Yemeni people to implement and enforce this agreement. Fourth: We hail the Bahraini people's continuing peaceful movement and their tolerance of all the repercussions and sacrifices. We hope that this people will achieve their goals and that the regional and international developments which may advance in some places would help this people in achieving their aspirations and targets. As a part of the peoples of the region, as part of this nation, as part of this body that aches when any other part aches, that feels happy when the others are happy and suffers when the others suffer, we as a political side has an aspiration. We hope that the Lebanese people, the Syrian people, the Iraqi people, the Bahraini people, the Yemeni people, and all the peoples of the region - I will not name all the peoples of the region. Though I try not to approach some places in my political speech or discussion because of the existing sensitivities, however at least I specify those with whom we share geographical proximity â€" would be able to transcend their catastrophes and sufferings. We hope that through their leaderships, historic awareness, assumption of responsibilities, sacrifices, perseverance, and steadfastness, these peoples would be able to turn these threats into opportunities. Today, the region is before a great threat. This threat may be turned to a great opportunity. However, that is dependent on the determination, awareness, and assumption of responsibility. Allah has men who when they wish He wishes. Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.

Food Security and the GMO Labeling Conundrum. Big Agriculture Attempts to Mislead Consumers

It would seem that large agricultural corporations touting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they claim possess enhanced benefits for farmers and consumers would be proud to differentiate their products on the shelves from organic and traditionally produced food. However that is…

Is the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa a Biological Proxy War?

Russia announced that they have a vaccine effective against Ebola. From another report in Moscow Times it seems more like they have an effective drug to treat Ebola and not a really a vaccine. The investigative reporter Jon Rappoport (, who have disclosed the fraud behind the HIV-virus and other frauds committed by the BIG PHARMA […]

US Strike on Syria is Desperation Incarnate

The West was racing against the clock â€" attempting to justify war with Syria by allegedly “fighting” the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in Syrian before the world fully realized the West and its allies had in fact created ISIS in…

Cameron Leads Britain Into War Again

The UK parliament has voted in favour of British involvement in air strikes on Syria and Iraq. On Saturday 27 September, RAF Tornado jets returned from the first bombing raids on ISIL. Last week, British PM David Cameron told the…

Creating a State of Perpetual War: ‘US Funded and Trained Jihadists in Syria â€" and Now it Wants to Fight Them’

Militant Islamist fighters take part in a military parade along the streets of Syria’s northern Raqqa province June 30, 2014. (Reuters/Stringer) The US is creating in Syria a perpetual state of war, funding jihadists on one side and then attacking…

“Data Anomalies” in The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Did Connecticut Ever Send the Homicide Data to the FBI?

This contribution extends the findings of this author’s recent “The Sandy Hook School Massacre and FBI Data Anomalies” article. The primary conclusion of that article is that the Connecticut State Police had no legitimate reason for requesting that the FBI…

God's Finger and open thread

Today I am taking care of personal and administrative matters.  God willing, I should be back tomorrow.  I leave you with the latest artwork by Josetxo Ezcurra and an open thread.Cheers,The Saker

Is the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa a Biological Proxy War?

Russia announced that they have a vaccine effective against Ebola. From another report in Moscow Times it seems more like they have an effective drug to treat Ebola and not a really a vaccine. The investigative reporter Jon Rappoport (, who have disclosed the fraud behind the HIV-virus and other frauds committed by the BIG PHARMA […]

Russia beats Uruguay 22

KRASNOYARSK, Russia (AP) â€" Russia barely held off Uruguay 22-21 in the fight for the last 2015 Rugby World Cup berth, with the winner unhappy and the loser satisfied on Saturday.

Why Ukraine Will Never Retake Crimea

Written especially for Russia InsiderThe Ukrainian Defense Minister Valerii Geletei is hardly a credible figure. Not only did he recently declare that Russia had threatened the Ukraine with nuclear strikes, he even told a Ukrainian journalist that Russia had already executed two tactical nuclear strikes on the city of Lugansk (apparently to explain why the Ukrainian forces had to retreat from there). The Junta later denied the story and blamed it on the journalist who first published it. Despite these antics, Geletei nonetheless caught the world's attention when he promised the Ukrainian Rada that the Ukraine would retake Crimea and organize a victory parade in Sevastopol. The Rada (Ukraine's parliament) greeted that promise with a standing ovation. The truth is that this will never happen. Here is why: By 2020 Russia will have completed the following defense plan: 86.7 billion rubles will be spend to modernize the Black Sea Fleet. Modernization plans include the deployment of ultra-modern Project 11356 frigates and top of the line Project 636.3 diesel-electric attack submarines.A separate army group, similar to the one in Kaliningrad, will be formed and a bomber base will be created. The ground forces component will include one Air-Assault brigade, one Spetsnaz brigade, one Naval Infantry brigade and one Motor-Rifle brigade. Earlier, other sources spoke of one or two Airborne brigades, two or three Motor-Rifle brigades and one Tank brigades.The Russian Air Force plans to deploy Tupolev Tu-22M3 “Backfire” bombers in Crimea which will be able to not only defend Crimea from any threat from the sea, but also destroy key components of the the US/NATO anti-ballistic missile system now deployed in southern Europe.Finally, Crimea will be defended by coastal defense missiles, air defense systems and anti-ship cruise missiles.In other words, Crimea will become a formidable defensive node, an unsinkable aircraft carrier if you want, and an ideal location for the power-projection of Russian military forces in southern Europe, the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the Middle-East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. No wonder the US/NATO wanted it so badly.Speaking of the US and NATO â€" much is made of the presence of USN ships in the Black Sea. In reality, the USN poses no threat to Russia at all, at least not from the Black Sea. The Black Sea is an enclose and small sea, at least by USN standards, where any USN ship, underwater or on the surface, would be a sitting duck for Russian forces, especially missile attacks. The USN knows that and what these USN vessels do in the Black Sea is called “showing the flag”. This has nothing to do with threatening Russia or Crimea. If the US really wanted to threaten Russia, the very last thing the USN would do is enter the Black Sea. The USN is a deep sea, “blue water” navy, which fights long-distance and not a littoral, “green water” or, even less so, a coastal “brown water” water navy.Finally, history has shown that Crimea is ideal to defend and very hard to take. By land, Crimea is only accessible by a few open and undefended roads from the north. Centuries of warfare have turned it into a Swiss-cheese like structure filled with tunnels, underground bunkers and fortifications. Last but not least, Crimea has now already been fully integrated into the Russian military's Southern Military District (based in Rostov-on-the-Don) and, as such, it would have the full support of the rest of the Russian Armed Forces.The Saker

15 Global Companies Hit by Russia’s Law Limiting Foreign Ownership of Media

More corpses found in mass graves in once Kiev controlled territory

CapMan Russia II fund closed at EUR 99.1 million

CapMan Press Release - 29 September 2014 at 9.00 a.m. EEST The size of the CapMan Russia II fund has reached EUR 99.1 million at its final closing. The ...

Russia warns Ukraine, EU over free

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia issued a new warning on Monday that it would retaliate if the European Union or Ukraine push ahead with moves to implement a free-trade agreement. Kiev and Brussels agreed this month to delay implementation of the agreement until Dec. 31, 2015 after Russia threatened to impose import tariffs on Ukrainian goods if it went ahead. Russia says its economy would be hurt by ...

Sanctions Backfire! Exxon May Miss Out on Huge Arctic Oil Find

322 at

The Curious Case of Ebola Patents

by Latha Jishnu As the deadly Ebola virus spreads in West Africa taking a lethal toll with its hemorrhagic fever, curious reports are emerging of the patents the US holds on a certain strain of the virus and the interest…

Special Gaza War Poll

Gaza War ends with a victory for Hamas leading to a great increase in its popularity and the popularity of its approach of armed resistance: for the first time since 2006, Hamas wins parliamentary and presidential elections if they were…

Washington’s Secret Agendas

One might think that by now even Americans would have caught on to the constant stream of false alarms that Washington sounds in order to deceive the people into supporting its hidden agendas. The public fell for the lie that…

Is NATO Marching on Moscow?

 Do we see a small crack in the facade of the western mainstream media regarding the crisis in Ukraine? The article below, by Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan, was published, not only on FPIF but also on Huffington Post. Even if neither of those media outlets is deeply under the control of the […]

Is peace in the Ukraine possible?

by M.Khazintranslation by "G' of Ðœ.Хазин, "Может ли быть мир на Украине?" The devaluation of the Ruble and the Yevtushenkov affair have so saturated our mass media that it would seem desirable to stand aside and address a more substantial theme. Namely; under what conditions can the Ukraine know peace? Not just any ‘peace’ but a peace without wholesale disintegration of the country into petty fiefdoms, without a bloodstained dictatorship, without ethnic cleansing and without genocide. In order to answer this question, it is necessary, above all, to look at Kiev and Donetsk. They should be part of one state. However the 10s of thousands killed and the open exhortations to genocide which have been issued by the dominant political forces in Kiev (for example: the phrase ‘Russians, clear off back to Moscovy’, which is directed at people who are not only currently inhabiting Lugansk and Donetsk but who have lived there for centuries, could be considered, formally from the point of view of international legal norms to fit the definition of genocide and, without doubt, that of ethnic cleansing) render such ‘cohabitation’ within the framework of a usual state simply impossible. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk (we include the Odessa massacre, even though it differs, in part from the others ) will never relinquish their right to justice against those who are guilty of the massacre of civilians and, similarly, the Kievan nationalists are unlikely to stop uttering phrases of the sort: ‘ We’ve barbecued that [Colorado Beetle] bitch.’ or other such endearments. In theory the only way that Kiev can go back to normal would be in the context of sustained economic growth. In that case it might be possible to brush the nationalist slogans back under the carpet and for everyone to benefit from the resultant financial in-flows, but here Kiev has fallen into a trap of its own making. It is a simple fact that economic growth is only possible in collaboration with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. There is simply no other option. There is not even any real perspective for the development of agriculture; one would just need look at the example of Bulgaria, where the climate is noticeably more clement than that in Ukraine. Ukraine finds it impossible to compete with Turkey. Once the European Union association agreement comes into force there will be no means of regulating the influx of Turkish agri-business and the only profitable way to engage in agriculture will be in a vegetable garden. It is sufficient to look at the example set in that neighbouring former Soviet state, Moldova. Insofar as Kiev has adopted a radically anti-Russian model, the chances of growth in that country are precisely zero. The European Union has no money and judging by the way that the crisis is developing the prognosis is not positive, and even if we were to look, more optimistically, into the medium term at the global economic situation, the European Union is most likely to help out the Eastern European Countries and the Baltic States before it bails out Ukraine. Nothing personal, just business. And this means that Kievan Nationalism is going nowhere. It has no choice as it will be impossible for it to maintain its grip on power otherwise. Moreover it has achieved some success insofar as the United States has enacted sanctions against Russia and coerced its allies in Europe and the wider world to do likewise. There is only one problem: For how long will they be willing to prosecute these sanctions for the sake of Ukraine? Kiev’s issues will continue to mount, insofar as the only way that it can deal with the growth of democratic sentiment in the South East (it is clear that the struggle is for freedom and democracy, regardless of how discordant that sounds from the point of view of the contemporary Western mass media) is by the use of military force. It is far from certain that this particular problem can be resolved by military force. In summary we can say that, judging by the development of negative economic trends, the intensity of internal confrontation in Kiev will constantly grow. In turn those wishing to live under their guardianship will become fewer and fewer. The cohesion of the Ukrainian state will melt like snow in the heat of the summer sun. As that happens the state will become more and more aggressive So we expect to see a contradiction in answer to the question that we posed. Is it possible to establish peace in the Ukraine? I intentionally have not referred in general to Ukrainian nationalists, rather specifically to Kievan Nationalists. The fact is that Galician Nationalists and Kievan Nationalists are not the same. The latter always had significant sources of income (be it the budget of the USSR, Ukraine etc.), however the former have been forced to be much more pragmatic. Furthermore they have been unable to understand that they cannot hold Kiev. This is because any government in Kiev, in correspondence to their stability, will in the first instance, fall not upon the Russians in the Donbass, but rather upon the genuine committed nationalists. Today this is what Poroshenko is doing. This was clear earlier and I wrote about this earlier in the year. Rather than being an idea (which moreover is distinctly un-appealing to the EU), Nationalism for Kiev is an instrument. There is no requirement for committed nationalists. The requirement is for cynics, who are happy to articulate nationalists’ slogans in order to gain control over the budgetary and gas revenue flows. Thus, regarding the situation in recent months, committed nationalists(which for our purposes we shall name ‘Right Sector’) have come to look more and more seriously at breaking away from Kiev. Moreover, Kiev earlier distributed budgetary money to them (received from Donbass and other regions) and now there is no more budgetary money to distribute. However Galicia by itself cannot breakaway from Kiev. Kiev, for whom the slogan (‘for the unity of the Ukraine’) has become totemic, will never agree to it. This means that, as well as the rebels in the Donbass, there is also appearing a new force, which is also interested in the collapse of the country. In this way, from the above, we can formulate the picture below of the future Ukraine. Should the Rebels from the South-East reach an agreement with the Galician nationalists, then they will take power in Kiev. In that case, the insurgents, proponents of the former Soviet Union and the slogan ‘friendship of the Peoples’ will, through the creation of a multi-ethnic ethnic state, put an end to nationalism and re-establish peace in the Ukraine. Galicia, as it were, in gratitude for its assistance, would receive either independence, probably as part of a confederation or quite possibly full independence as a separate state. It is clearly difficult to imagine a state where in some schools they teach that Bandera is a fascist criminal and in others â€" that he is a hero. But that remaining part of the Ukraine will be a peaceful, unified state, entering, one would imagine the European Economic Area. Should agreement not be reached and the insurgents not achieve victory (either by circumstance or by result of foreign intervention), then the intensifying confrontation in Kiev will inescapably lead to the break-up of the country into petty fiefdoms with a correspondingly low quality of life and norms of governance. At present we enumerate 5 of these; Novorossiya, Hetmanshina (Cossak, with Kiev as its capital), New Khazaria (under the control of the oligarch Kolomoiski) and Galicia. We also consider one more statelet, Transcarpathia which is likely to be dissected and integrated into neighbouring countries. But nobody has said that the process of disintegration will stop there. Anyone who doubts it should read Bulgakov. The mentality of the people in the Ukraine has not significantly changed since then. It is difficult to even conceive how a normal man can live in these conditions. If we believe that the best outcome is a united (that is relatively united, without either the Crimea or Galicia) Ukraine, a Ukraine which is peaceful and prosperous, it is essential that the insurgents take control of Kiev. Until this happens, the war will continue. Unfortunately, there is simply no way of stopping the war and preserving Ukraine until Kiev falls to the insurgents.

Xenophobia AND cowardice in Swedish Television’s support of fascist junta in Ukraine continues unabated. The Carl Bilt’s heritage.

How The Russian Liberals Became “The Fifth Column”

The liberals in Russia are deserved casualties of the crisis in Ukraine. Their numbers are dwindling and only the most “hard-core” remains loyal to their orientation to the West. They have also got a new stamp as “the Fifth Column”. I have noticed the liberal exodus among many of my friends and it is confirmed in […]

NEO â€" Does the CIA plan a Syrian style terror war in Ukraine?

- Someone decided to pull the plug on the four-way Ukraine talks on planned for this week. Kiev decided to invade its own country.

Russia: This bank delivers CATS to your doorstep


at U.N. accuses U.S., allies of bossing world around By Louis Charbonneau UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – used its annual appearance at the U.N. General Assembly on Saturday to accuse the United States and its Western allies of bossing the world around, complaining they were attempting to dictate to everyone "what is good and...

A couple of blog housekeeping news

Dear friends,I wanted to share with you .First, the "kinda-but-I-am-not-so-sure-bad" news: after both of the people whom I had asked to help me as pre-moderators bailed out on me (the first one due to disagreements in the format of the blog, the second due to personal issues) I have decided that when the new blog goes live I will do all the moderation myself.Which is both bad and good, really.  Bad: it will take more of my time I could have spend doing other things.  Good: at least I would bail out on myself.  Also, I have to tell you that with time I have lost my inhibition about tossing out "bad" comments and now I do this as soon as I see anything discourteous, the use of CAPS, or any other comment I think deserves to be trashed.  And this helped a great deal.  This morning when I woke up there were 66 comments awaiting in the moderation queue and all them them perfectly good.  Apparently the trolls are gradually giving up (except this one crazy guy who hates both the English and the Indians who regularly tries to post a comment advocating the genocide of both; for weeks I have been tossing his crap into /dev/null, but he keeps trying).  So since I will do the moderation myself, I will never bad a person, but I will shoot "bad" comments on sight with no remorse.I have had another friend agreeing to pre-moderate for me, and I could ask another two, but why go down that road?  There are advantages to doing that myself and, even more importantly, there are much better ways to save time.And this is the good news.This morning I received an email from a reader who very kindly sent me a version of my latest SITREP corrected from all the numerous typos it had.You can down load this corrected version by clicking hereThis is when an idea hit me.  But first, let me explain my past dilemma.God knows I am a terrible writer.  Not only is English not my first, second or even third language, but I always write under huge time pressure and, to make things worse, I never see my own typos.  Lastly, I simply never have the time to re-read myself and try to clean-up my writings.  In the past I have had readers posting comments with corrections, sending me emails with lists of mistakes to correct and even sending me completely proof-read texts.   The problem is that correcting is also time consuming.  As for simply replacing my text with another one is very tricky if not outright dangerous.  First, there is the possibility of a well-intentioned corrector incorrectly understanding my (poorly-written) text inadvertently making a mistake.  Second, there is the non-trivial risk of a not well-intentioned corrector deliberately mis-correcting what I wrote and then, once it is posted, crucifying me for saying something I never did.  With the recent smear-campaign against me where I was accused of saying things I never said I became very paranoid on that account.  As for re-reading the proofread text sent to me before posting it, that again takes too much time.But then, this morning, "H" sent me my corrected SITREP as an attached document in ODT format.  All I had to do was to save it to Google Drive, and post the link (which I did above).  That solves ALL my problems because I can post a proofread text in just a few clicks and I don't have to re-read anything since the original document, with typos and all, is still posted.  Thus, it is absolutely clear that the corrected document has been edited by a friend but not by me and if a malevolent "corrector" twists something that I wrote and I get challenged on that, I can easily point to the original text as the only "original" one.  Finally, to for those of you who want to re-posts my stuff elsewhere, do have access to a well-formatted clean ODT text is also much better than to have to cut-n-paste my original text, no?So here is my idea if you guys agree.If somebody does the same thing "H" did today and sends me a corrected text as an attached ODT file I will immediately update the original post with a note at the bottom pointing to a clean, proofread, text.  Does that sound useful to you?  Please let me know.  I like the idea a lot, but I want to make sure that I did not miss something and that most of you like it too.As for me, the next time I write something under huge time pressure (like yesterday's SITREP), I will add a note at the bottom saying "text needs proofreading" and, hopefully, somebody will pick that up, send me a corrected text to which I will then post a link.Watcha think?Please let me know.Kind regards,The Saker

Obama places Russia between the Ebola virus and international terrorism

Full speech here.Video of speech here.This is the except in which Russia and the Ukraine are mentioned:(...)  Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into Eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border. This is a vision of the world in which might makes right â€" a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed. America stands for something different. We believe that right makes might â€" that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones; that people should be able to choose their own future. These are simple truths, but they must be defended. America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. We will reinforce our NATO allies, and uphold our commitment to collective defense. We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and counter falsehoods with the truth. We call upon others to join us on the right side of history â€" for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions. Moreover, a different path is available â€" the path of diplomacy and peace and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold. The recent cease-fire agreement in Ukraine offers an opening to achieve that objective. If Russia takes that path â€" a path that for stretches of the post-Cold War period resulted in prosperity for the Russian people â€" then we will lift our sanctions and welcome Russia’s role in addressing common challenges. That’s what the United States and Russia have been able to do in past years â€" from reducing our nuclear stockpiles to meet our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to cooperating to remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons. And that’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue againâ€"if Russia changes course. (...)Basically, this is the same line as Poroshenko (which is really unsurprising since they used pretty much the same speechwriters).  The message to Russia is simple:"surrender or we will mobilize the entire planet against you".Foreign Minister Lavrov commented: “As for the U.S. President’s speech, we earned the second place among the threats to international peace and stability: number one is the Ebola virus, number two is the so-called Russian aggression in Europe and ISIL and other terrorists who are now taking hold of the Middle East and primarily of the countries, which have evidenced U.S. interventions, are ranked as number three.”Feel the love :-)The Saker

Russia at U.N. accuses U.S., allies of bossing world around

By Louis Charbonneau UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia used its annual appearance at the U.N. General Assembly on Saturday to accuse the United States and its Western allies of bossing the world around, complaining they were attempting to dictate to everyone "what is good and evil." The speech by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the 193-nation assembly was the latest example of the ...

A Very Complete Analysis by the Saker of the Crisis in Ukraine

This is the most complete and, in my opinion, also a very correct analysis of the crisis in Ukraine initiated by the Neocons in the US. I don’t know who this “Saker” really is. But I do know that he knows a lot about Russia, USA and the New World Order. Having followed the Saker’s […]

Ukraine SITREP September 20, 23:34 UTC/Zulu: War or Peace?

[Quick note: I want to begin this SITREP with a correction to something which I mentioned in the last SITREP abouy General Bezler: even though his signature did appear to figure on the infamous statement of the four commanders declaring their loyalty to "General" Korsun, the information that he had been arrested is, according so sources qualified as "solid" by Colonel Cassad, not true.  Since I have no reason to doubt Cassad's sources, I assume that this is true.  I have no idea why/how Bezler's signature was found on this document, maybe it was a fake?   Either way, Bezler even made a short video today making fun of Ukie not-so-special forces.  In contrast, Korsun's arrest is apparently confirmed.  Now let's turn to the SITREP proper - The Saker]War?The big event of the week was, I think, Poroshenko's speech to what I call the Imperial Senate (aka Joint Session of Congress).  I have made the full transcript available here and here.  I don't think that it is worth carefully parsing this text, so I will just mention the few elements which are absolutely obvious to me:1) This text was written by a US Neocon.  It even included such typical US-propaganda gimmicks as the "personal story" to give a human touch and moment carefully crafted to generate applause.  So no only what the author of this rant American, but he/she was for sure a diehard Neocon.2) This text was a lame attempt at copying Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech, except that Poroshenko is no Churchill, Putin no Stalin and Novorussia no Soviet Union.  Nonetheless, the message was clear: Russia represents a planetary threat to freedom, democracy, liberty, human right, free speech, etc.  In fact, according to Poroshenko the choice is not between two civilizations but between civilization and barbaric darkness.3) The US deep state is by now clearly aware of the immense challenge presented to it by Putin's "Eurasian Sovereignist" Russia and the movement it leads (BRICS+SCO+etc.).  The fact that it has to use such absolutely over the top rhetoric is a clear sign of fear and the Neocons are now freaking out.  The danger for them is becoming very real (more about that below).4) More than anything else, this speech proved to me that the only viable goal for Russia is regime change in Kiev.  This is a message I will hammer in over and over again - regime change in Kiev is a vital, arguable existential, priority for Russia.5) Far from being any kind of patriots or nationalists, the Ukie "nationalists" are subservient puppets of the West, willing to service AngloZionist interests with less shame then a old prostitute services her clients.  For all the "Glory to the Ukraine, to the Heroes Glory!" slogans, the Ukies are the cheapest prostitutes on the planet with no self-respect whatsoever. The entire speech had a Disney-like feel to it: on one side, the forces of Light, lead by the USA in white shining armor and on the other, the forces of Darkness, lead by Russia crawling out of the Asian steppes like Lovecraft's Chtuhlu.  Infantile to the extreme, the purpose of the speech was to induce a planetary war against Russia and her allies or, at the very least, to contain that 21st century Mordor.  Poroshenko went as far as referring to now completely disproved lies (such as Russia invading Georgia in 2008) and hinting that Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria. could/would be next.  Clearly the main can lie with an ease which any used car salesman would envy.Then there is the issue of the standing ovations.  Less than Obama and less than Netanyahu, but still a lot (12 I think).  The Imperial Senators appeared to stand longer and clap harder each time Poroshenko drifted off into some kind of crazy nonsense.  A scary sight, really.Now we all know who runs the US Congress (AIPAC) so what this is, really, is a declaration of war by AIPAC and the Zionist faction of the AngloZionist Empire.  The Anglos are far less enthusiastic as shown by Obama's refusal to send weapons to the Ukies.  Just like in 2008 and that other lunatic - Saakashvili - I get the feeling that there might be a lot of behind the scenes Neocon "parallel diplomacy" going on.  If not, why would Obama's bosses tell Poroshenko to ask for weapons they don't want to give him in the first place?  My guess is that there is a lot of reluctance in the Pentagon and possibly in the intelligence community to get the USA fully committed behind a regime which might not be around in a few months.Whatever may be the case, Poroshenko's speech felt like an infantile but nasty declaration of war.  Clearly, there are those who are very concerned that peace might break outPeace?Version 1:On the "peace front" a number of interesting things happened.  First, on September 14th sixteen business representatives from the USA, Russia, Germany and the Ukraine met for a private meeting with the Chairmen of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab.  In attendance were some very big player including the hyper-notorious Anatolii Chubais (for a complete list or participants, see here).  They adopted the following document:(You can also download the document from here.)  The publication of this document resulted in something as predictable as it was amazing.  The "Putin is selling out Novorussia" choir immediately denounced this document as a total betrayal of Novorussia and a victory for the oligarchs.  I said that this was a predictable reaction because by now it is pretty clear that these folks will denounce any and all negotiated documents (Agreement, Memoranda, Treaty or any other type) as a "sellout of Novorussia", "victory for the oligarchs" and "capitulation by Putin".  Still, what was absolutely amazing to me that apparently they seem to notice #6:Guarantee the security and sovereignty of Ukraine by the international community. Recognize the supremacy of international law above national interests. Recognize the right of self-determination but encourage to consider a policy of military non-alignment for Ukraine, comparable to the status of other European countries (i.e. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland).  Amazingly, but the nay-sayers managed to completely miss the fact that 1) Ukie laws which contravene the EU Convention on Human Rights (including Protocol 12 on minority rights) and the UN Charter (whose Article 1 and others specifically uphold the right of self-determination) could be overruled 2) that the Ukies were told to recognize the right of self-determination (not just federation, but open-ended self determination) and 3) that the Ukies were told that they will have to remain neutral and non-aligned.And that, coming form Chubais & Co!Now, I understand that the Ukies broke every single document they signed so far, and this one will be no exception.  But what is crucial here is that the message from "top finance" is not Poroshenko's hysterical call to arms before the Imperial Senate, but "no crazy laws, self-determination, no NATO".  This is a HUGE victory for Russia who sees a Ukrainian membership in NATO as a major threat.  Conversely, this WEF Initiative is a nightmare come true for the Neocons as it finalizes, if it is applied of course, the non-NATO status for the Ukraine.True, this document speaks of a unitary Ukrainian state (apparently unless and until the right of self-determination trumps that) and it is full with well-meaning generalities.  But point #6 is absolutely amazing coming, as it does, from the trans-national plutocrats which signed it.  And yes, will Chubais' friend recommend an non-block status for the Ukraine, the Ukie Rada is abrogating its nonaligned while Timoshenko demands and entry into NATO.Finally, keep in mind that this is an "initiative" which does not commit the Ukraine or Russia to anything.  At most, this is a declaration of desirable principles, a basis for negotiation if you want.Version 2:The other big event of the week is signing of the Minsk Memorandum.  Here is the full text:Unlike the vague and, frankly, un-implementable Minsk cease-fire agreement, this Memorandum provides some perfect reasonable standards by which to measure compliance by both parties.  Some points are politically correct nonsense (#9) but most of this text can be summarized as following: a "freezing" of the conflict along the line of contact.  Is that good or bad?Depends whom you ask.Strelkov immediately denounced that Memorandum in the strongest possible terms.  According to Strelkov, this is a victory for the "betrayal" camp lead by Surkov who has deceived Putin and is now pushing him into a Milosevic-type of scenario.  In contrast, Zakharchenko, obviously, full backs the plan. So let's look a bit closer to this Memorandum.For one thing, and that is important, it contains exactly zero political provisions.  None.  So the first rather obvious point that I would like to make is that this plan is very limited in scope: all it does is provide the basis for a mechanism to achieve a more or less verifiable ceasefire.  Period.  So if the Minks Ceasefire Agreement was list of vague and unenforceable (I would even argue undefined) general political statements, this document is the extreme opposite: a purely technical tool which really codifies the current situation on the ground.So what is the political context in which this ceasefire will have to be observed?  What is the point of the ceasefire?Well, again, that depends whom you ask.According to Poroshenko and other Ukrainian officials it is to give time to the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) to regroup, reorganize and prepare for a counter-attack.  Strelkov would agree.  Zakharchenko and Lavrov disagree.  While they observe and denounce the Ukie preparations for a possible (likely? inevitable?) counter-attack, their official position is that the Agreement and the Memorandum are now binding documents useful in preparation for a final status negotiations.  At this point Zakharchanko speaks of a completely independent Ukraine and Lavrov of a neutral Ukraine respectful of all its citizens.I suggest we take it step by step.First, long before we got to this point, we used to have heated debates on this blog about whether time was on the Russia, Novorussian or Ukie side.  At the time, most commentators, including myself, were of the opinion that time was most definitely on Russia's side, but the question was if Novorussia could survive long enough.  Basically, we wondered if Novorussia could stay alive long enough for Banderastan to collapse, or whether the only way to save Novorussia from a Nazi takeover was an overt Russian military intervention in the Donbass.  Some of us even spoke of weeks.Now, several months later, we see that not only did Novorussia not collapse under a Nazi takeover, but that the Novorussian Armed Forces gave a magnificent thrashing to the JRF and instead of getting encircled in Donetsk and Lugkans, the NAF pushed the JRF all the way out to Mariupol.  At the very least, this proves that1) Those who said that a Russian military intervention was the only way to save Novorussia were wrong: Novorussia survived.2) Those who said that there was no Russian covert aid or that this aid was insufficient were wrong again: Voentorg is thriving (named after a military store, "voentorg", which literally means "military trade", here refers to the Russian covert aid to Novorussia)Furthermore, at the time everybody agreed that things could only get worse for Banderastan, especially when the Fall and Winter would begin.  As far as I know, there is still nobody predicting a miraculous turn-around in the Ukie economy so we can assume that all that Banderastan did was get so much closer to the inevitable economic and social cliff.  And, indeed, the cracks are visible all over, AngloZionist aid or not.I think that basic logic tells us that time is still on Russia's side and that the Ceasefire Agreement, this time supported by a Memorandum, solves the time problem for Novorussia: with aid from Russia freely flowing in (both over humanitarian aid and covert, "voentorg", aid) Novorussia can now sit tight and wait.  The cold season will not only exacerbate the economic-social tensions in Banderastan, it will also make offensive operations much harder.What about the opportunity costs?In economics there the notion of "opportunity costs".  These are the costs you do not incur directly (you don't have to pay anything), but these are the "costs" resulting from missed opportunities.  Income you could have made, but did not.Is Novorussia incurring such opportunity costs as the result of this peace?That depends on your hypothesis.There are those who believe that the NAF could if  not make it to Kiev, then at least liberate Mariupol, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and other cities.  I agree that Mariupol was about to fall, but only at great risk of envelopment from the north.  As for other cities, I personally don't believe that is true.  Even Slaviansk is quite out of reach, at least for the time being.  Some say that a collapse of the JRF would have left the road open to Kiev.  While true in one sense (some units might have used to panic to make it that far), this is a typically civilian idea of warfare.  "Getting there" can be easy, of course, but it's *staying* there typically turns into a nightmare.  I do not believe that by early September the NAF had the capabilities to breakout much beyond their current areas of deployment and to successfully liberate much more territory.Furthermore, I do not believe that a purely military solution is achievable, especially not one which has Novorussians "liberating" central or, even less so, western Ukraine.  I know that my hatemail will go through the roof, but I will say that I think that freezing the frontline on September 19th is a pretty good deal, especially since that removes the single biggest "distraction" in internal Ukie politics: the so-called "Russian invasion".There are also those who say that the Russian military could liberate most, or even, all of the Ukraine.  I agree. Militarily, this is a no-brainer.  But by doing so Russia would provide the Neocons with their ultimate dream: a Cold War v2 for many decades to come.  Pragmatically, this would be a disastrous decision.  But the moral aspect is even more important here.  As far as I am concerned, and setting aside all my sympathy for the people of Novorussia who have fought for their freedom and, I am now convinced of it, will get it, Russia owes the Ukraine absolutely nothing.  Not gas, not loans and most definitely not the lives of Russian soldiers. There is no reason I can think of why a young man from Moscow, Tobolsk or Makhachkala has to sacrifice is life liberating Banderastan from the local Nazis.  No, sorry, the Ukrainians have to free themselves.  It is the hight of hypocrisy to spend decades whining about the Moskals and then expect them to come a liberate you from your own Nazi freaks. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk have shown that they, like the folks of Crimea or South Ossetia, are truly deserving of Russian help, even if that means that Russian young men should die, as happened in South Ossetia.  And I would note here that South Ossetian man are now fighting as volunteers for Novorussia, so the Ossetians have proven beyond any doubt that they were fighting for.But the folks in the rest of (historical) Novorussia?Did you hear about the uprising in Mariupol?  Right.  Neither did I.  What about the partisans around Zaporozhie or Chernigov?  Same thing.  Well, in reality, this is not quite true and not really fair.  First, the Nazis are using terror to subdue the locals in these cities and, second, there have been a few actions here and there.  But if Strelkov was speaking the truth when he said that most young men in Donetsk and Luganks were quite happy to sip beer and watch the events on their idiot-boxes, this is even much more true of the rest of the Ukraine.  Even senior NAF commander admitted that their strength was in the fact that the NAF were liberators, but that the further they would go west, the more they would be seen not as liberators but as occupiers (and, believe me, the propaganda on Ukie TV is nothing short of unimaginable: according the Ukie officials who speak on Ukie TV on a daily basis, Russia is already occupying the Ukraine with, last time I heard, 19 battalion tactical groups!)Every one is free to have his/her opinion and I cannot prove that I am right simply because hypotheticals are, by definition, unprovable.  But my personal belief is that freezing the line of contact on the 19th is reasonable and that the ceasefire benefits everybody more than the regime in Kiev (which is why I expect it to be broken even more than it already is).  Furthermore, I submit that these are the fundamental objectives of the key parties to this civil war:1) Russia: regime change in Kiev (long term goal: years)2) Novorussia: de-facto full independence from Kiev (short term goal: months)3) rest of the Ukraine: liberation and full de-Nazificaton (long term goal: years)The current situation is favorable for #1 and #2.What about the warning from Strelkov: that this ceasefire agreement is like the one reached in Croatia which gave the Croats time to prepare a counter-attack with their NATO masters and (illegally) occupy the Serbian Krajinas?For all my sympathy and admiration for Strelkov, I think that he is plain wrong.For one thing, the Serbs in the Krajinas had their heavy weapons under UN guard and when the Croats and their NATO masters attacked, UNPROFOR was ordered by the US to get the hell out of the way and UPROFOR meekly complied (trust me, I followed that situation minute-by-minute, literally).  Furthermore, Milosevic also betrayed the Croatian Serbs and he did not provide support from Bosnia were the Federal Army had several brigades (who later also dumped the Bosnian Serbs).  Crimea is protected by the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet and by the most powerful single landforce in Eurasia.  Unlike the Serbian Krajinas, Crimea is ideal to defend (as history shows).  The notion of the Ukies coming from the land, sea or air to occupy Crimea is ludicrous to the extreme.  A JRF which got comprehensively defeated by the NAF cannot take on the Russian military.  As for the USN, it can show the flag all over the Black Sea, but every USN officer knows that the Black Sea is one big trap from which you don't want to fight Russia.What about Novorussia then?  Could the JRF in theory rearm and successfully attack Donetsk and Lugansk?  In theory yes, but in practice as long as Putin is in the Kremlin, Russia will never allow the Ukie to take over these two republics.  If they tried, the "voentorg" (which, by the way, has not been stopped by the Agreement or Memorandum) will go through the roof and "volunteers" from Russia would come streaming in. And yes, if left no other choice, and facing a "do it or lose it" situation, the Kremlin will order the Russian military to initiate what will, no doubt, be presented as a "temporary and limited peace-enforcement operation to restore the mutually agree upon line of demarcation of September 19th, 2014" or some equally inane formula which, in practical terms, will simply mean "you got 48 hours to smash the Ukie forces".  It will probably take less than 24.  Then the Russians will go right back across the border and ask that the OSCE attest to that withdrawal.  The West will choke with rage, but it shall be too late.  Just like Russia basically disarmed Saakashvili in 3 days of combat, Russia can, and will, disarm Poroshenko, Iarosh, Timoshenko or any other Ukie freak who will try to capture Donetsk or Lugansk.So is there a conspiracy?  A behind-the-scenes secret deal?Probably not.  But I bet you that there is a mutual understanding.  The US tells Russia "don't you dare take Kiev" and Russia replies "don't you dare take the Donetsk and Luganks Republics".  Neither side commits to anything, but it "just so happens" that neither dare is called.  Having said that, both sides also see that short of these red lines the rest is fair game.  Hence, the US props up Kiev and Russia props up Novorussia.  Sure, the Neocons in the USA are absolutely incensed, and the "hurray-patriots" (there is such a Russian term) in Russia are also furious.  The armchair generals on both sides (Liashko, Dugin) offer many "simple" plans on how they would win it all if they were in the White House or the Kremlin.  In the meantime, the military commanders in the Pentagon and in the Russian General Staff quietly try to make sure that this war stays local and does not force the "Big Guys" into a real world war.The main risk is that there is a faction inside the US deep state which correctly identifies the political threat posed by Russia's overt and unapologetic defiance of US policies as an existential threat for the AngloZionist Empire. These guys, Neocons or old Anglo Imperialists, want to play a game of chicken with Russia and they are convincing themselves that Russia must, and will, blink at the last second and back down.  The Russian response is very complex one: to give the appearance of backing down without really giving up anything.  Like when the Russians had to "cave in" to US threats and disarm Syria form its chemical arsenals.  At the time, the Putin is selling out Syria" choir immediately denounced this document as a a betrayal and as a proof that Putin and Obama are, in reality, working hand in hand.  Some even continue to clamor today that "if Assad had chemical weapons" the US would never dare to attack him (forgetting that Saddam also had chemical weapons and that this did not help him at all).  Now, in hindsight, we know that these nay-sayers (I am being nice and polite here) were wrong, 100% wrong, but at the time their laments and outraged denunciations sounded credible.To be truly honest, I can understand their feelings.  I even wrote on this blog that my biggest fear is that Putin would turn out to be yet another Milosevic.  In fact, I had predicted that the Russians would intervene and I was quite surprised and, frankly, appalled when they did not.  That was when Donetsk and Lugansk were almost surrounded and their fall looked likely.  My brain told met that this would not happen, but I had a knot in my stomach and I could barely think of anything at all besides the tragic events in Novorussia. Yet, this time again, just as with Syria, Putin did "deliver": Russia's covert aid turned the tide and what looked like an imminent collapse of all of Novorussia (especially after the retreat of Strelkov from Slaviansk!) turned into a unbelievable defeat for the Ukie forces.  Again, those who seriously believe that this amazing turn of events happened by itself rather then as the direct result of a strategic decision taken in Moscow just don't understand warfare, sorry.  Russia's covert aid (weapons, men, intelligence, advisors) made this NAF counter-offensive possible and if Putin wanted to "sell out" Novorussia all he had to do is nothing at all.  That would have done the trick just fine.  Instead Russia embarked on a remarkable and highly effective to achieve two apparently mutually exclusive results: to deny the AngloZionists the war they so badly wanted and to deny the Ukies the victory they so badly wanted.No wonder they so passionately hate Putin and Russia :-)So where do we go from here?As usual, I will simply admit that I don't know (which is not bad, considering that many folks seem not to even know where we currently are).  There are too many variables.  Those who tried the MH17 false flag might come up with something just as disgusting and as crazy.  So far, on the US side, it look like the Pentagon is successful in preventing the Neocons from seriously committing the US behind Poroshenko.  Speaking of Poroshenko, he is much safer in the US than at home.  For him, things are about to get much tougher and much uglier.  Right now, literally anything can happen in Banderastan, I cannot call that one at all.Assuming the Ukies don't launch a Fall or Winter offensive (how crazy would that be?! but then they are pretty crazy...), Novorussia will be fine, courtesy of a strong NAF and plenty of Russian aid.  Hopefully, the crazy infighting amongst the Novorussian elites will eventually stop.  In Russia proper, Strelkov can be the perfect spokesman to 1) hold Putin's feet to the fire and 2) help Putin further gradually suppress the Atlantic Integrationists.  Crimea's future looks as bright as can be.Which leaves Russia under sanctions. Short term - the sanctions are definitely going to hurt Russia.  Mid-term, Russia will do just fine as long as these sanctions are used as an opportunity to finally embark on some much needed reforms.  There is no risk of a "nationalist Maidan against Putin" (there never was), but the fight against the oligarchs will continue (not only were there rumors, later denied, that Evtushekov had been free, but so far the investigation of the corruption scandal under Serdiukov and his mistress Evgenia Vassilievna has gone nowhere).  There are still plenty of pro-Western Atlantic Sovereignists in Moscow and even inside the Kremlin and it will take a lot of time and effort to suppress their constantly subversive and, frankly, sabotaging efforts.That's it for today folks, I hope that this was useful.  Sorry for the long post.  All I can say in my defense is that I barely scratched the surface of it all (I good, solid Ukrainian SITREP could easily be 30-50 pages long, though in real life politicians want their reduced to 3-4 paragraphs on one sheet of paper; no wonder they then take stupid decisions!).Kind regards to all and have a wonderful week-end!The SakerPS: a friend just emailed me to let me know that Russia, China plan sign new 30 year gas deal via 2nd route!  So much for the "isolation" of Russia :-)

Malaysian Flight MH17 crash analysis, by The Russian Union of Engineers

The original version of this post was published on the Oceania Saker Blog who spearheaded the effort to translate this most important document proving, if needed, that one can be down under and yet at the very top at the same time!The Saker------- This is an excellent detailed analysis of the MH17 tragedy by the Russian Union of Engineers which quite frankly illustrates how heavily censored the Dutch “report” is. We will let you digest this report and come to your own conclusion, which in all likelihood will explain the infamous high velocity projectiles whitewash pumped out by the western “press”. This review was undertaken by experts who not only know the subject matter but have objectively presented evidence that must be considered with the legitimacy that is inherent to it. Here is the overall description of the “Analytical Group” from the report: A group of experts from the Russian Union of engineers was convened to analyze the situation, including reserve officers with experience in the use of anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as pilots having experience with aircraft weapons.This problem was also discussed at a meeting of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, where many variants were tested and discussed again. In the course of their analysis the experts used materials derived from public sources, found in the media. The situation was also analyzed using a computer simulation of the Su-25. You can download the English version of the report here. The original Russian version of the report is here. [note: the links above point to documents in the proprietary M$ DOCX format.  For those who, like myself might prefer the free ODT or PDF format, I have made them available here. The Saker]Official statement by the Russian Union of Engineers:(please press on the 'cc' button to see the English subtitles)[youtube] Special mention, thanks and much gratitude goes to Alice, Gideon & Katya for their wonderful effort at such short notice. Disclaimer:We have translated the text to the best of our abilities and where unsure have included the original Russian. Additionally, the original Russian report is available for download for your reference. Please distribute freely with acknowledgement.AE

Georgians as Expendable as White Rats

- There are now scattered reports of biological weapons being tested on citizens of various countries, including Georgia and some Middle Eastern countries.

Kiev supply soliders with radioactive armored vehicles stored at Chernobyl since 1986

Worldwide Poverty and “The Global Development Crisis”

As we near 2015, the United Nations (UN) will probably set new objectives on behalf of the global community to supersede the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are held largely by the UN, the World Bank and many anti-poverty…

US Military, Obama Administration Plan Massive Military Escalation in Syria and Iraq

The comments this weekend by spokesmen for the White House, the Pentagon and US Congress are part of an orchestrated campaign to stampede the American people into an all-out war in Iraq and Syria that could spread quickly throughout the…

Death of the Bees: Canadian Beekeepers’ Lawsuit Against Bayer, Syngenta Over Bee

Canadian beekeepers have filed a class-action lawsuit against two pesticide manufacturers, seeking $400 million in damages for the devastating effects of the neonicotinoid pesticides that have been linked to the destruction of honeybee colonies. “The goal is to stop the…

Russia slams Kiev over Odessa deaths

- Russia has censured pro-Western authorities in Kiev as ‘criminally irresponsible’ following a deadly fire in the trade union building in Ukraine’s Odessa.

US Bombs Syrian Oil Refineries To Prevent Assad From Retaking Them

In what is more proof that the NATO operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is merely Libya 2.0, the Obama administration is now stating that it is open to the possibility of establishing a “no-fly zone” over Syria. The statements,…

Soccer: Doing the Impossible, Holding FIFA Accountable

There is a sense of frustration in bringing that unruly and labyrinthine football entity known as FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) into the world of squeaky clean finance.  It resists two terms with an almost tribal enthusiasm: accountability and…

President Putin’s Address to Russian Diplomats (in English)

President Putin is a man of his words. He writes his own speeches and their content tells you what he thinks about Russia and its relationship to other nations. That's why it is well worth to pay attention to his words in this speech ... Download (PDF, 197KB)

Democracy triumphs in Scotland

Israel willing to see US, Russia at war

Putin Speaks

On April 17, Putin held his annual televised Q & A session. He did it with ordinary Russians nationwide. He did it for the 12th time. Doing so connects with them.

Poland is Blowing in the Wrong Direction

Poland’s Foreign Minister compares his country’s relationship with USA to a “blowjob without getting paid”. In a taped “over a dinner conversation” with Jacek Rostowski, a former Polish Minister of Finance, Poland’s FM Radoslaw Sikorski allegedly expressed his frustration as … “We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think […]

NEO â€" Putin…Face of the Global Resistance Movement

- 'One of our first hurdles is to get people to understand that most of us live in "occupied countries", but not the traditional sense.'

The Model for America: Ruling Elites Dispense with Democracy in Detroit

As bankruptcy proceedings enter their final stages in Detroit, Michigan, the historic center of American auto manufacturing, the political establishment is moving to put in place mechanisms to ensure the permanent dictatorship of the banks over the city’s working class.…

How The Russian Liberals Became “The Fifth Column”

The liberals in Russia are deserved casualties of the crisis in Ukraine. Their numbers are dwindling and only the most “hard-core” remains loyal to their orientation to the West. They have also got a new stamp as “the Fifth Column”. I have noticed the liberal exodus among many of my friends and it is confirmed in […]

Poroshenko's speech in front of the Imperial Senate (MUST WATCH!)

I know, it is nauseating, but still, please do watch it.  What Poroshenko is saying is that which the US deep state is thinking and, as such, it deserves our utmost attention (even if that means grabbing a psychological barf bag).And for those of you who might get seriously distressed by this sickening and hate-filled ceremony, I have included a short video showing that this nothing new: senates have always been brothels for oligarchs and spineless hypocrites.And remember - the fact that they say so does not make it so :-)Kind regards,The Saker-------[youtube] [youtube]

Russia calls for 'reset 2.0' with Washington

Russia's foreign minister says it's time to repeat the "reset," Washington's name for an attempt to improve ties.

What Putin Wrought Has World Asking What Russia Might Have Been

When U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first leader of a major economy to meet Russia's new president in March 2000, Vladimir Putin couldn't have been more gracious. Accompanied by their wives, Putin showed Blair around the Hermitage museum in his hometown of St. Petersburg. At the Mariinsky Theater, they watched an operatic version of "War and Peace." Blair praised Putin for seeking to ...

NEO â€" Putin puts Ukraine gas payments on Europe’s back

- The Geo-political war going on over Ukraine has been short on bullets and bombs, and long with lies and disinformation.

NEO â€" Japanese Sanctions against the Russian Federation

- The real threat is who is really running the show in the US and Europe. Is it the elected leaders, or those who are really behind who gets elected?

NEO â€" Paradoxes of Georgian â€" Abkhazian Relations

- Seth Ferris..."Crimea is the flavor of the month in Western discourse as it has become a part of the Russian Federation following its recent referendum."

Quick note to my readers + Open Thread

Dear friends,Sorry for the long silence.  I am fine, just had some personal issues in meatspace to take care of, now I am back to normal and, God willing, I should have a Ukraine SITREP ready for you by the end of the afternoon.  Topic will include the Poroshenko speech, the latest "sellout" of Novorussia, the Minsk Memorandum, and the World Economic Forum's so-called "Ukraine Initiative".Stay tuned and give me a few hours.  If you want, use this post as an Open Thread.Thanks,The SakerPS: A reader just sent me this funny demotivator entitled "pure mathematics".  Enjoy!

‘I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy’: Village left in ruins after Kiev’s shelling

EU Postpones Free Trade Zone With Ukraine Until January 2016: Press Release

The Threat of War and the Russian Response

by Sergey Glazyev for Russia in Global AffairsHow to Lead a Coalition and Avoid a Global Conflict  Sergei Glaziev is an Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Summary: The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability â€" a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty. U.S. actions in Ukraine should be classified not only as hostile with regard to Russia, but also as targeting global destabilization. The U.S. is essentially provoking an international conflict to salvage its geopolitical, financial, and economic authority. The response must be systemic and comprehensive, aimed at exposing and ending U.S. political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining U.S. military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency. The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability â€"in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty. CURBING THE ARBITRARINESS OF RESERVE CURRENCY ISSUERS This coalition could be comprised of large independent states (BRICS); the developing world (most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America), which has been discriminated against in the current global financial and economic system; CIS countries interested in balanced development without conflicts; and those European nations not prepared to obey the disparaging U.S. diktat. The coalition should take measures to eliminate the fundamental causes of the global crisis, including: the uncontrolled issuance of global reserve currencies, which allows issuers to abuse their dominant position, thus increasing disproportions and destructive tendencies in the global financial and economic system;the inability of existing mechanisms regulating banking and financial institutions to ward off excessive risks and financial bubbles;an exhausted potential for growth within the prevailing technology-based economic system and lack of conditions for creating a new one, including insufficient investment for the broad use of basic technological solutions. Conditions must be created to allow the national fiscal authorities to lend money for building an economy based on new technologies and carrying out economic modernization, and to encourage innovation and business activities in areas of potential growth. The issuers of reserve currencies must guarantee their stability by capping the national debt and payment and trade balance deficits. Also, they will have to use transparent mechanisms for issuing currencies and ensure free exchange for all assets trading in their countries. Another important requirement issuers of global reserve currencies should meet is compliance with fair rules of competition and non-discriminatory access to financial markets. Other countries observing similar restrictions should be able to use their national currencies as an instrument of foreign trade and currency and financial exchanges, and allow their use as reserve currencies by partner countries. It would be advisable to group national currencies seeking the status of global or regional reserves into several categories depending on the issuers’ compliance with certain standards. In addition to introducing rules for issuers of global reserve currencies, measures should be taken to strengthen control over capital flows to prevent speculative attacks that destabilize international and national currency and financial systems. Members of the coalition will need to forbid transactions with offshore jurisdictions and make refinancing inaccessible to banks and corporations created with offshore residents. The currencies of countries that fail to follow these rules should not be used in international settlements. A major overhaul of international financial institutions is necessary to ensure control over the issuers of global reserve currencies. Participating countries must be represented fairly, on objective criteria, such as their share in global production, trade, and finances; their natural resources; and population. The same criteria should be applied to an emerging basket of currencies for new SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) that can be used as a yardstick for determining the value of national currencies, including reserve currencies. Initially, the basket could contain the currencies of those coalition members that agree to observe these rules. Such ambitious reforms will require proper legal and institutional support. To this end, the coalition’s decisions should be given the status of international commitments; and UN institutions, relevant international organizations, and all countries interested in reforms should be broadly involved. In order to encourage application of socially important achievements of a new technological mode globally, countries will have to devise an international strategic planning system of socio-economic development. It should provide long-term forecasts for scientific and technological development; define prospects for the global economy, regional associations and leading countries; look for ways to overcome disproportions, including development gaps between industrialized and emerging economies; and set development priorities and indicative targets for international organizations. The U.S. and other G7 countries will most likely reject the above proposals for reforming the international currency and financial system without discussion out of fear that they could undermine their monopoly, which allows them to issue world currencies uncontrollably. While reaping enormous benefits from this system, leading Western countries limit access to their own assets, technologies, and labor by imposing more and more restrictions. If the G7 refuses to “make room” in the governing agencies of international financial organizations for the anti-war coalition, the latter should master enough synergy to create alternative global regulators. The BRICS could serve as a prototype and take the following measures to maintain economic security:create a universal payment system for BRICS countries and issue a common payment card that would incorporate China’s UnionPay, Brazil’s ELO, India’s RuPay, and Russian payment systems;build an interbank information exchange system similar to SWIFT and which is independent from the United States and the European Union;establish its own rating agencies. RUSSIA AS UNWILLING LEADER Russia will have a leading role in building a coalition against the U.S. since it is most vulnerable and will not succeed in the ongoing confrontation without such an alliance. If Russia fails to show initiative, the anti-Russian bloc currently being created by the U.S. will absorb or neutralize Russia’s potential allies. The war against Russia the U.S. is inciting in Europe may benefit China, because the weakening of the U.S., the European Union, and Russia will make it easier for Beijing to achieve global leadership. Also, Brazil could give in to U.S. pressure and India may focus on solving its own domestic problems. Russia has as much experience of leadership in world politics as the U.S. It has the necessary moral and cultural authority and sufficient military-technical capabilities. But Russian public opinion needs to overcome its inferiority complex, regain a sense of historical pride for the centuries of efforts to create a civilization that brought together numerous nations and cultures and which many times saved Europe and humanity from self-extermination. It needs to bring back an understanding of the historical role the Russian world played in creating a universal culture from Kievan Rus’, the spiritual heir to the Byzantine Empire, to the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. Eurasian integration processes should be presented as a global project to restore and develop the common space of nations from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and from St. Petersburg to Colombo, which for centuries lived and worked together. A SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVE SYNTHESIS A new world order could be based on a concept of social-conservative synthesis as an ideology that combines the values of world religions with the achievements of the welfare state and the scientific paradigm of sustainable development. This concept should be used as a positive program for building an anti-war coalition and establishing universally understandable principles for streamlining and harmonizing social, cultural, and economic relations worldwide. International relations can be harmonized only on the basis of fundamental values shared by all major cultures and civilizations. These values include non-discrimination (equality) and mutual acceptance, a concept declared by all confessions without dividing people into “us” and “them.” These values can be expressed in notions of justice and responsibility, and in the legal forms of human rights and freedoms. The fundamental value of an individual and equality of all people irrespective of their religious, ethnic, class, or other background must be recognized by all confessions. This stems, at least in monotheistic religions, from the perception of the unity of God and the fact that every faith offers its own path to salvation. This outlook can eliminate violent religious and ethnic conflicts and permit every individual to make a free choice. But there must be legal mechanisms in place to enable confessions to participate in public life and resolve social conflicts. This approach will help neutralize one of the most destructive means of chaotic global warfare employed by the U.S.â€"the use of religious strife to incite religious and ethnic conflicts that develop into civil and regional wars. The role of religion in molding international politics will provide the moral and ideological basis for preventing ethnic conflicts and resolving ethnic contradictions using national social policy instruments. Various religions can also be engaged in charting social policy, thus providing a moral framework for government decisions, restraining the attitude of permissiveness and laxity that dominates the minds of the ruling elites in developed countries, and bringing back an understanding of the authorities’ social responsibility to society. As the shaken values of the welfare state gain strong ideological support, political parties will have to acknowledge the importance of moral restrictions that protect the basic principles of human life. The concept of social-conservative synthesis will lay the ideological groundwork for reforming international currency, financial, and economic relations on the principles of fairness, mutual respect for national sovereignty, and mutually advantageous exchanges. This will require certain restrictions on the freedom of market forces that constantly discriminate against most people and countries by limiting their access to wealth. Liberal globalization has undermined the ability of countries to influence the distribution of national income and wealth. Transnational corporations uncontrollably move resources that were previously controlled by national governments. The latter have to trim back social security in order to keep their economies attractive to investors. State social investments, the recipients of which no longer have a national identity, have lost their potency. As the U.S.-centered oligarchy gets hold of an increasingly greater part of income generated by the global economy, the quality of life is dwindling in open economies and the gap in access to public wealth is widening. In order to overcome these destructive tendencies, it will be necessary to change the entire architecture of financial and economic relations and restrict the free movement of capital. This should be done in order to prevent transnationals from evading social responsibility, on the one hand, and to even out social policy costs shared by national states, on the other. The former means eliminating offshore jurisdictions, which help evade tax obligations, and recognizing the nation states’ right to regulate transborder movement of capital. The latter would mean establishing minimal social criteria to ensure accelerated improvement of social security in relatively poor countries. This can be done by creating international mechanisms for balancing out living standards, which, in turn, will require proper funding. Acting along the concept of a social-conservative synthesis, the anti-war coalition could move to reform the global social security system. A fee of 0.01 percent of currency exchange operations could provide funding for international mechanisms designed to even out living standards. This fee (of up to $15 trillion a year) could be charged under an international agreement and national tax legislation, and transferred to the authorized international organizations which include the Red Cross (prevention of and response to humanitarian catastrophes caused by natural disasters, wars, epidemics, etc.); the World Health Organization (prevention of epidemics, reduction of infantile mortality, vaccination, etc.); ILO (global monitoring of compliance with safety regulations and labor legislation, including wages not less than the subsistence level and a ban on the use of child and compulsory labor; labor migration); the World Bank (construction of social infrastructure facilities â€" water supply networks, roads, waste water disposal systems, etc.); UNIDO (transfer of technologies to developing countries); and UNESCO (support of international cooperation in science, education and culture, cultural heritage protection). Spending should be made according to the budgets approved by the UN General Assembly. Another task to tackle is the creation of a global environmental protection system financed by polluters. This can be done by signing an international agreement establishing across-the-board fines for pollution and earmark them for environmental protection under national legislation and under the supervision of an authorized international organization. Part of this money should be committed to global environmental activities and monitoring. An alternative mechanism can be based on trade in pollution quotas under the Kyoto Protocol. An important aspect is the creation of a global system for eliminating illiteracy and ensuring public access to information and modern education throughout the world. This will require standardizing minimum requirements for comprehensive primary and secondary education and subsidizing underdeveloped countries with revenue generated by the tax mentioned above. There must be a universally accessible system of higher education services provided by leading universities in major industrialized countries. The latter could assign admission quotas for foreign students selected through international contests and paid for from the same source. Simultaneously, the participating universities could set up a global system of free distance learning for all individuals with secondary education. UNESCO and the World Bank could commit themselves to creating and supporting the necessary information infrastructure, while drawing funds from the same source. ANTI-CRISIS HARMONIZATION OF THE WORLD ORDER The growing gap between rich and poor countries is threatening the development and the very existence of humanity. The gap is created and sustained by national institutions in the U.S. and allied countries that arrogate certain international economic exchange functions proceeding from their own interests. They have monopolized the right to issue the world’s currency and use the revenue for their own benefit, giving their banks and corporations unlimited access to loans. They have monopolized the right to establish technical standards, thus maintaining technological supremacy of their industry. They have imposed upon the world their own international trade rules that require all other countries to open up their markets and limit substantially their own ability to influence the competitiveness of their national economies. Finally, they have forced the majority of countries to open up their capital markets, thus ensuring the domination of their own financial tycoons, who keep multiplying their wealth by exercising a currency monopoly. It is impossible to ensure a sustainable and successful socio-economic development without eliminating the monopoly on international economic exchange used for private or national interests. Global and national restrictions can be imposed to support sustainable development, harmonizing global public affairs, and eliminating discrimination in international economic relations. In order to ward off a global financial catastrophe, urgent measures need to be taken to create both a new, safe, and efficient currency and a financial system based on the mutually advantageous exchange of national currencies. This new system would exclude the appropriation of global seniority in private or national interests. To level out socio-economic development opportunities, emerging economies need free access to new technologies, conditioned on their promise not to use them for military purposes. Countries that agree to such restrictions and open up information about their defense budgets will be exempted from international export control constraints and receive assistance in acquiring new developmental technologies. An international mechanism to prevent multinational companies from abusing their monopoly power on the market could ensure fair competition. The WTO could exercise anti-trust control under a special agreement binding for all member states. This would allow economic entities to demand elimination of monopoly power abuses by transnational corporations and seek compensation for losses from such abuses by imposing sanctions against the entities at fault. Apart from overstated or understated prices, quality falsifications, and other typical examples of unfair competition, the payment of wages below the ILO-defined minimum regional subsistence level should also be regarded as an abuse. In addition, there should be reasonable price regulation for the products and services of global and regional natural monopolies. Because of unequal economic exchanges, countries should be allowed to retain the right to regulate their national economies in order to equalize socio-economic development levels. In addition to WTO mechanisms protecting domestic markets from unfair foreign competition, such equalizing measures could also be achieved by encouraging scientific and technological progress and providing state support to innovation and investment activities; establishing a state monopoly on the use of natural resources; introducing currency controls to limit capital flight and prevent speculative attacks on national currencies; retaining government control over strategic industries; and using other mechanisms to boost competitiveness. Fair competition in the IT sector is essential. Access to the global information networks must be guaranteed to all people throughout the world as both information consumers and suppliers. This market can be kept open by using stringent antitrust restrictions that will not allow any one country or group of countries to become dominant. To ensure that all parties to the global economic exchange observe international and national rules, there must be penalties for violators under an international agreement that would enforce court rulings regardless of their national jurisdiction. However, one should be able to appeal a ruling in an international court whose judgment will be binding on all states. Binding rules and penalties for non-compliance (alongside penalties for breaking national laws) would give international agreements priority over national legislation. Countries that break this principle should be restricted from participating in international economic activities by excluding their national currencies from international settlements, imposing economic sanctions against residents, and limiting those operations on international markets. In order to enforce all of these fundamental changes in international relations, a strong coalition will have to be created, capable of overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and G7 countries, which reap enormous benefits from their dominance on global markets and in international organizations. This coalition should be ready to use sanctions against the U.S. and other countries that refuse to recognize the priority of international obligations over national regulations. Rejecting the U.S. dollar in international settlements would be the most effective way to coerce the U.S. into being cooperative. The anti-war coalition should offer a peaceful alternative to the arms race as a means of encouraging a new round of technological development. This alternative would lie in broad international cooperation geared towards solving global problems that require concentration of resources for creating cutting-edge technologies. For example, there is no ready-made solution to protect the planet from threats stemming from deep space. Developing such solutions will require technological breakthroughs that can be achieved by combining the efforts of leading countries and by sharing costs. The paradigm of sustainable development rejects war as such. Instead of confrontation and rivalry, it is based on cooperation and collaboration as a means of concentrating resources in promising areas of scientific and technological research. Unlike the arms race provoked by geopolitics, it can provide a better scientific and organizational basis for managing a new technological mode. The latter will drive the development of healthcare, education, and culture, which can hardly be spurred by defense expenditures. These non-productive sectors and science will account for as much as a half of GDP in major industrialized countries in upcoming years. Therefore, a forward-looking solution would include shifting the focus of government attention from defense spending to humanitarian programs, primarily in medicine and bioscience. Since the state pays more than half of health, education, and science expenditures, such a shift would facilitate systematic management of socio-economic development and curb destructive trends. * * * A new election cycle will begin in the U.S. in 2017 that is likely to be underscored by anti-Russian rhetoric as the ideological basis for the world war Washington is trying to unleash in a bid to retain its power. By that time, the crisis in the American financial system may have resulted in budget spending cuts, devaluation of the dollar, and declining living standards. Domestic problems and foreign policy crises will cause the U.S. government to ramp up its aggressive tactics, while at the same time weakening its positions. If Russia mobilizes its intellectual, economic, and military potential, it will have a chance to get through conflicts in 2015-2018 in view of the fact that the U.S. and its allies will still not be prepared for direct aggression. Russia will face the most dangerous period in the early 2020s when industrialized countries and China are expected to begin their technological modernization and the U.S. and other Western countries will emerge from financial depression and make a technological leap forward. But Russia may dramatically fall behind technologically and economically in 2021-2025, which will impair its defense capabilities and spur internal social and ethnic conflicts in much the same way as what happened in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. These conflicts will be fomented both from outside and inside, using social inequality, development gaps between regions, and economic problems. In order to avoid the worst possible scenario leading to the disintegration of the country, Russia will need to adopt a systemic domestic and foreign policy for strengthening national security, ensuring economic independence, improving international competitiveness, boosting economic development, mobilizing society, and upgrading the defense industry. By 2017, when the U.S. starts threatening Russia openly and on all fronts, the Russian army should have modern and effective weapons, Russian society should be consolidated and confident of its strength, intellectuals should be in control of the new technological mode, the economy should be growing, and Russian diplomacy should succeed in building a broad-based anti-war coalition capable of pooling efforts in order to stop American aggression.

Dmitri Rogozin interviewed by Vladimir Soloviev

Dear friends,Today, thanks to the fantastic work of the Saker Community [English Transcription & Translation: Marina (Russian Saker), Katya (Oceania Saker) & CG (Russian Saker) Editing & Production: Augmented Ether (Oceania Saker)] I can share with you a most interesting interview of Dmitri Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Head of the Military-Industrial Commission, Special Envoy of the President and one of the most interesting and influential representatives of the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and the man who, one day, could succeed Vladimir Putin.  Rogozin is absolutely hated by the Atlantic Sovereignists and by the AngloZionist Empire.  This interview is important because it shows what Russia is really doing while keeping up the pretense of "partnership" with the AngloZionist Empire: preparing for war while hoping that it can be avoided.  In this interview, Rogozin speaks to a domestic audience in one of the most popular shows on Russian TV.  Thanks to the Saker Community you will now see the Russia which the MSM never shows you and the one which frightens the Empire so much.Enjoy!!The Saker[youtube]

Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret Armies

In 1990, alarming evidence of NATO-sponsored terrorist attacks came to light. This is the secret story of Operation Gladio; a tale of espionage, conspiracy and political violence [47mins] Funded by the US,  trained by Britain and left behind in post…

Israel’s Crimes against The Children of Palestine: “I’m Just a Kid”, Tariq Kdeir’s Ordeal

Last summer, Tariq Khdeir, a 15-year-old American citizen from Baltimore, accompanied his parents to the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat for a six-week visit with relatives. The first friend Tariq made when he arrived was his cousin, Muhammad Abu Khdeir,…

President Putin’s Address to Russian Diplomats (in English)

President Putin is a man of his words. He writes his own speeches and their content tells you what he thinks about Russia and its relationship to other nations. That's why it is well worth to pay attention to his words in this speech ... Download (PDF, 197KB)

Speech by Putin to Russian Lawmakers about Crimean Referendum

Historical speech by President Putin to Russian lawmakers March 18 2014 about the referendum in Crimea and the acceptance of Crimea into the Russian Federation. I remember being in Moscow listening to the direct transmission of this historical speech by president Putin. Even if I am not Russian, I couldn’t help to feel how this […]

NEO â€" Ukrainian Elections: EU Membership May be a Mirage

- The Ukraine coup continues to be a zoo, and continued failure will be nothing new. Its Western backers will continue their takeover of another struggling country

The Misunderstood Global Financial Crisis. “It’s the Energy Stupid”

On behalf of Matterhorn Asset Management, financial journalist Lars Schall talked with the Dutch economist / oil analyst Maarten van Mourik about the book “The Misunderstood Crisis: It’s the energy stupid!” Lars Schall: Maarten, you have co-written a book recently…

NEO â€" True Heroes Behind the Kiev Ceasefire

- Jim W. Dean..."We need to make America's state sponsored terrorism a fall campaign issue on the Dems and Repubs doing the AIPAC Zombie walk on Ukraine."

"The information war for Ukraine"

(press on the 'cc' button on the lower right to see the subtitles)[youtube]

America's Plan B, and the Houthi fly in the ointment

by Mindfriedo   From the start of the conflict in Syria, one thing has been conspicuously absent: Balance, tit for tat, and eye for an eye. Hafiz Al Assad understood these concepts well. He kept his friends close and his enemies closer. The Israelis and the great powers understand balance, at least when dealing with equals. Bashar was overtly loyal to Iran and the resistance, he should have seen things coming. His father would have. The Saudi's failed bid to woo Syria was the harbinger to Syria's ills.    Bashar also did the one thing his father never did. He opened his doors to Turkey. Two states that have always harmed Syria, and every Syrian will tell you this, are Egypt and Turkey. With friends like these who needs Israel.    The resistance has been fighting defensive. Slowly and self assuredly the empire, and it's  bully in the region, Israel, along with the other big crime families: Saudi, Qatar and Kuwait have been escalating the conflict against the resistance with impunity. The current advance of the Shia Houthis in Yemen, is a late yet visible response to the Empire's Daash (ISIS) project in Syria and Iraq. It has now forced the Saudis to talk to the "snake" Iran. Saudi Arabia may soon need its "moderate" 5000 strong Sunni army in the east rather than in far away Syria.   The steadfastness that the "spear tip" of Iran (Hezbollah) has shown has frustrated Israel at every turn. Israel has vented its frustration by hitting Gaza hard and by proving to the world that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me." It has also baited Hezbollah by pressing hard on Gaza. But has realised that the next war it fights will involve an invasion of Israel.    But the Shia resistance, aided by Sunni fighters of Assad, and backed by Russia, has frustrated the Americans even more. One thing that now seems very clear is that what the US wanted, more than anything, was boots on the ground in Iraq. The  Shia political leadership in Iraq could be bought---as was the military leadership on the eve of Iraq's collapse---but not the older, deeper, and wise Hauza. Sistani's insistent opposition to any extension of US occupation, Sadr and Iran aiming for the same, made sure that the US could not stay. Maliki became immaterial to the US after that.    Another approach was needed, and in came Daash. Like a disease incubated, the leadership of Daash coalesced while under US "detention." The United States provided humane living quarters for psychopaths and degenerates that should otherwise have been killed. Sistani's call to arms prevented Baghdad from falling, an eventuality that would have had Obama come to the rescue.    Turkey is brazenly and self assuredly playing with fire. The Kurds in Syria are now fleeing to Turkey. Turkey that is inhuman enough to at first close its borders. Turkey that is making money off blood oil. Turkey that has had its hostages released. Turkey that wants a greater role and is unwilling to fight Daash. Turkey that is the strategic depth of Daash to the north. Turkey that is headed for disaster. For there is bound to be some move like the Houthi one against Saudi. Without balance the picture skews to one side. And that is naturally unacceptable. There is enough of an Allawi population in Turkey to start something as is the huge Kurdish refugee population. When and how the resistance pulls this off is going to be very interesting and heart warming. Like Ariel Sharon, Erdogan, a winner so far, is going to be loathed once he starts to loose (he is already loathed by half of Turkey's population).   In Iraq, everything is now pretence but transparent. The mask has now come off. The United States did not gets its reward(oil) for bringing "democracy" to Iraq. The oil is flowing in the wrong direction, and no body is paying the bill. So Iraq has to pay in lives. At a recent Sadr rally in the south of Baghdad, ( Shias and Sunnis said the same thing: Daash is CIA. The air strikes are placebos. The Great Satan is up to no good.    The game, Empire against the Resistance, is on.    PS: SITREPs will begin tomorrow, but will be twice a week Excellent further   Two interesting stories from Syria's Ba'athist past: Ali Duba was Hafez Al Assad's head of intelligence. So renowned/feared was he that when the uprising/project against Bashar started, Bashar is rumoured to have said to his people to get in line or he would bring back Ali Duba. The first story is when Duba's son was kidnapped. The intelligence apparatus of the Syrian state was fast enough to locate the kidnappers in a village on the Syrian Lebanese border before the boy could be carried over. Duba surrounded the village with tanks and made the villagers an offer they could not refuse. He said either my son walks out, or nobody does. His son walked out.   The second was when Hafiz was visiting his home town. A neighbour of his, an old Allawite lady approached him and said that her conscripted son was posted far away from home. And that he as President could perhaps do something and bring him closer to home. When Hafiz remonstrated that his own sons were serving far away, she asked him not to worry, it was ok, she would ask Ali Duba.   In tomorrow's SITREP: the downfall of Ali Duba To know very little about the man:

How Codex Alimentarius Promotes Dangerous GMOs

NEO â€" Are the Ukraine talks a NATO ploy?

- "Censored from Western media is the fact that the 'special status' for the New Republics recently passed by Kiev has a six month expiration date "

Russia Says Arctic Well Drilled With Exxon Strikes Oil

Russia, viewed by the Obama administration as hostile to U.S. Russia's state-run OAO Rosneft said a well drilled in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean with Exxon Mobil Corp. struck oil, showing the region has the potential to become one of the world's most important crude-producing areas. The announcement was made by Igor Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive officer, who spent two days sailing ...

Putin’s Choices in Ukraine

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. That is the situation for Putin with regards to the crisis in Ukraine right now. As before, the blogger called “the Saker” describes Russia’s choices in an excellent way. What is going on is unbelievable. It is incomprehensible that the individual countries in Europe can support the […]

Putin’s Choices in Ukraine

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. That is the situation for Putin with regards to the crisis in Ukraine right now. As before, the blogger called “the Saker” describes Russia’s choices in an excellent way. What is going on is unbelievable. It is incomprehensible that the individual countries in Europe can support the […]

Russia backs social drama Leviathan for Oscar after Cannes win

Russia on Sunday put forward "Leviathan", a contemporary dark movie by director Andrei Zvyagintsev, as its nomination for the best foreign language film at the Oscars after it won a top prize at Cannes.

Кто продает бизнес Порошенко?

Russia says US

Russia Oil Chief Says Sanctions No Bar to Arctic Drilling

The most powerful man in Russia's oil industry says U.S. Igor Sechin, chief executive officer of state oil producer OAO Rosneft (ROSN) and a long-time ally of President Vladimir Putin, spent two days traveling by plane, ship and helicopter last week to announce a billion-barrel crude strike in the iceberg-prone Kara Sea region of Russia's Arctic Ocean. The first well, the costliest yet drilled ...

Nazarbayev: Kazakhstan Suggests Creating Free Trade Zone Between Caspian Sea States

September 26th Press Conference of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN in NY

Speech by Putin to Russian Lawmakers about Crimean Referendum

Historical speech by President Putin to Russian lawmakers March 18 2014 about the referendum in Crimea and the acceptance of Crimea into the Russian Federation. I remember being in Moscow listening to the direct transmission of this historical speech by president Putin. Even if I am not Russian, I couldn’t help to feel how this […]

Speech of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at the UNGA on September 27th


Uniat priests calls for depriving Orthodox from basic civil rights

I just saw this one on YouTube and it is very good.  Here what it says about this video in the "About" section of the YouTube page: (with original spelling)."UA priest calls to deprive parishioners of Moscow Patriarchate churhces of rights to be elected and work in official organizations.  A bit ironic, as in fact he talks not about churches in Russia, but canonical local Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church which formally subordinates to Moscow Patriarchate and is opposed by not-recognized "Church of Kyiv Patriarchate" which splitted from Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church after Philaret (patriarch of Kyiv Patriarchate) failed to be elected as new Patriarch in the beginning of 90's".Now, longtime readers already know that I do not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate part of the Russian Orthodox Church (for details, read this: where I explain this little known but crucial issue) and I also oppose the use of the term "canonical" in the sense of "recognized by the powers that be" which is, apparently, how the author (and most modernist and ecumenist Orthodox people understand it to be).  In the Ukraine one side recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Kiev happens to recognize it as such (for purely political reasons) and calls the other "schismatic" while the other side also recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Moscow happens to recognize it it as such (also for purely political reasons) as calls the other "schismatic.  In the authentic Christian tradition "canonical" does not mean "recognized by the secular regime" but rather "in accordance with Church canons".  That is a topic where neither the Ukie Church nor the Moscow Patriarchate wants to go, or even mention [those interested in the topic, please see the note at the bottom of this page].  With all these caveats in mind, I have to say the following:What this Uniat priest proposes is quite amazing.  Not only do they want to seize the church buildings which belong to the "autonomous" Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch to which the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy (for purely political reasons, what else?) but he wants to deprive of political rights (hold an official position) those Ukrainians who attend these "autonomous" UOC parishes.  The Ukies call that "lustration".  See for yourself:[youtube] I have been getting a lot of flak from offended Latin Christians about my posts in which I claim that the Vatican is the "creator" of the Ukraine and that it still plays a central role in feeding the anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox hatred in the Ukraine.  I already posted one such example recently, and today I am posting this second one.  Not because I want to bash Latin Christians, but because  I believe, strongly, that the truth about the Ukraine cannot be understood unless the behind-the-scenes "feeder mechanisms" are brought to light.  And since my blog has never been a popularity contest, I fully plan to continue "covering" this topic (-: it will never get me as much flak as my unrepentant use of the "AngloZionist" anyway :-)To me, this is quite simple, really: intellectually honest Latin Christians will be distressed by this, but they will not bother denying it or "explaining it away", and they will do whatever they can in their personal lives to oppose and denounce this.  Those less encumbered by honesty will try hard to deny it, blame "a few bad apples", try to find "Orthodox equivalents" in the past or say they personally never saw any manifestation of anti-Orthodox hatred (those interested in the techniques used by these Latins can see here and here).  Still, I hope that most readers will find this topic relevant, important and not discussed elsewhere (which is one of the key goals of this blog).Some of you might point out that the Moscow Patriarchate has a long record of using state power to persecute non-MP Orthodox Christians.  This is quite true, even today.  But I would point out a crucial difference: in the past, such actions were the result of the policies of the top MP clergy - bishops, not priests - and in more recent times, I would even argue that only a small minority of MP bishops.  This is a small consolation of those on the receiving end of such actions (they typically get their parishes taken away by OMON forces), but I think that it is important to be honest here and say that nowadays the vast majority of MP laity and a strong majority of MP clergy does not support that kind of thuggery.  That does not make the MP more legitimate in a (correctly used) canonical sense, but it most definitely makes it much more "Christian" in an ethical sense, certainly more than it was even 15-20 years ago.  Uniat hatred for Orthodoxy is a normal and widespread phenomenon, it is a core feature of the Uniat identity and it has no equivalent inside the Moscow Patriarchate.Finally, just to preempt another attempts at equating the unequatable, you may notice that this Uniat is disguising himself - with cross and all - as an Orthodox priest.  You will never see an Orthodox priest disguising himself as a Latin.  This is a purely Latin thing to do to con the ignorant.  Likewise, the Units are obliged to accept the Frankish version of the Symbol of Faith (aka "Creed") in which the words "and the Son" (or filioque) are added to the original text, but they are not obliged to say that when they recite the Symbol.  This "believing one thing, but not saying so" is also a unique Latin feature which serves the same purpose at the disguise: to con the ignorant and erase visible differences (not matter how crucial - there is no higher dogma in Christianity then the Symbol).  This is also why the Latins always speak of geography (eastern Churches) or appearances (eastern Rite) but almost never about fundamental dogmatic disagreements (of which there are plenty!) or about the undeniable fact that the West has been Orthodox for the first 1000 years of its history.Cheers,The SakerNote for those interested in the topic:In the true Christian tradition a Church *never* derives its authenticity (or, to misuse the modern term again, its "canonicity") from the secular state nor from the number of churches (in the sense of church, parish, *buildings*) you have acquired courtesy of state patronage.   As I have mentioned it here in the past, the "criterion  of truth" or the "authentic Christian character" from a Church is derived according to the following ancient principles:The full unadulterated preservation faith "which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian" (St. Athanasius) andThe full unadulterated preservation of that "which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" (Saint Vicent of Lerins).  So no innovations, especially no dogmatic ones.The short-term combining the two above is often referred to as "consensus of the Fathers" (consensus patrum): that upon which the saints and councils of the early Church agreed upon. One could say that the innovating "got-their-canonicity-from-the-secular-state" Churches are all in communion with each other, but not in communion with the original, early Church.

The "Russia Insider" project is officially launched today!

I am delighted to announce that I have been contacted by the editors of the new website Russia Insider and that I have accepted their offer to collaborate with them.  I did agree to this not only because I knew several of the excellent contributors to this project, but also because I truly believe that it is a much needed, timely and very important project (please see Russia Insider's "About" page for more details and background)Check out today's CrossTalk where the Editor in Chief of Russia Insider,  Charles Bausman, is one of the guests:[youtube]A very good project, with very good people doing something very important - how could I refuse?!  I gratefully accepted.I strongly believe that bringing the true story about modern Russia is crucial, especially for the English speaking world.  At a time when everything Russian is demonized and some crazy, but powerful, maniacs are dreaming about yet another war (Cold or Hot) against Russia, it is absolutely crucial to deconstruct the warmongering anti-Russian propaganda and to replace it with a much more complex and nuanced understanding of the true Russia, not the fictional Land of Mordor the Neocons are trying to portray.There have been many conflicts between the West and Russia in the past, but for the first time, in the age of the Internet, we - in the West and in Russia - have the means to stop the current one and to prevent it from turning into yet another a full-scale continental war.  We need to fight that "information war" and we need to win it.Please help us fight this war and contribute in any way you can: first and foremost, spread the word about Russia Insider on the social media, post links to the Russia Insider homepage on your blogs and websites, subscribe to the Russia Insider YouTube channel, subscribe to the newsletter (on the homepage), help us organize a crowdfunding for the site or join our community of contributors.  Last, but not least, sign up for the RSS feed and make sure to check the Russia Insider website at least once a day.I am absolutely delighted and honored to be associated with this project which I believe will become a key player on the international scene.Kind regards,The Saker

Britain’s Parliament Votes for War in Iraq, and also Syria

Britain’s parliament has voted by a massive majority to support British air strikes in Iraq against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS). MPs were recalled from a recess to hold a token debate, as the leadership of…

Poland is Blowing in the Wrong Direction

Poland’s Foreign Minister compares his country’s relationship with USA to a “blowjob without getting paid”. In a taped “over a dinner conversation” with Jacek Rostowski, a former Polish Minister of Finance, Poland’s FM Radoslaw Sikorski allegedly expressed his frustration as … “We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think […]


- "Mr. Stachnio has a great review of the 650 Western color revolution NGOs operating in Russia that are funded with deficit spending US taxpayer dollars."

“Taped Hands, Gunshot Wounds”: RT Witnesses Exhumation of Mass Graves of Junta Death Squad Victims in Novorossiya

WWI â€" Is it still going on, with almost the same players?

- What we have is literally a war going on against people by not only their respective governments, but a whole host of private and foreign actors

Ukraine SITREP September 18, 17:30 UTC/Zulu: infighting everywhere

The situation in the Ukraine today is one of chaotic infighting in Novorussia and Banderastan.Novorussia:Aleksandr ZakharchenkoThe first sign of trouble became visible with Strelkov had to urgently come back to Donetsk to prevent the behind-the-scenes negotiations apparently taking place between some officials of the DNR and Ukie oligarchs including Akhmetov.  Then came the news of the sudden removal of Strelkov followed by an almost simultaneous removal of most of the Novorussian leadership.  In spite of that, the Novorussian leadership (Zakharchenko & Co.) appeared to be more than worthy successors to Strelkov and they did a stellar job implementing the counter-offensive plans apparently developed by Strelkov.  Then came the Minsk negotiations with little-covered reports of an attempted coup by Vladimir Antiufeev who, before that, had been in charge of state security under Strelkov.  Apparently, this coup was directed at Zakharchenko and it failed.  What then happened to Antiufeev is still unclear, at least to me.  Last I read he was being interrogated.Aleksandr KhodakovskiiThen, this week, something really bizarre happened: first, a very controversial figure - Bezler - was appointed by somebody (it is still unclear by whom exactly) as the Head of the Intelligence Service of Novorussia.  Soon after, it was also announced that four top military commanders - Bezler, Khodakovskii and two *unknown figures* (?) - had agreed that all the Novorussian Armed Forces would be placed under the command of General Korsun.  Problem: nobody had ever heard of any "General Korsun" and even the Speaker of the Novorussian Parliament, Oleg Tsarev, declared that the political leadership of Novorussia had not been consulted about these plans.  As for Strelkov, he expressed his total lack of info about Korsun.  Weird, to say the least.  And most definitely not good.It appears that a number of distinct but linked processes are simultaneously taking place:1) a militia force composed of volunteers is being transformed into a regular army under a single military command subordinated to political authorities.  At least, that is the theory, but so far this has not been achieved.2) various military Novorussian commanders have different views on key issues (such as the Minsk Agreement) and personal ambitions (Khodakovski?).3) Moscow is exerting pressure on the Novorussian leaders to get them to comply with the Kremlin's policies.4) Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs are also exerting their own influence to get an outcome favorable to their financial interests.These are four distinct processes and not one single factor and those who present a simplistic "single explanation" model are simply missing the complexity of the situation.  That does not, however, make the situation any better.Vladimir AntiufeevThe direct consequence of that is that Novorussia still does not have a single and uncontested leader.  My personal feeling is that there is a Strelkov-Zakharchenko alliance which is both the most legitimate and the most capable, but other big actors (Bezler, Khodakovski) are still trying hard to promote their own agenda.  Rumor now has it that Antiufeev and Bezler are under arrest.  Whatever may be the case, the political infighting and chaos in Novorussia are a most serious problem which somebody (Strelkov?  Putin?) will have to urgently fix.Russia:Vladislav SurkovI have seen a lot of speculations that the "éminence grise" behind a lot of that malfeasance is Vladislav Surkov, a weasely character of the entourage of Putin but whose views seem to often run directly in opposition to Putin's.  I have seen no direct proof of that, but I have no reason to doubt much better informed individuals (including Strelkov).  Surkov or no Surkov, there is definitely an interest group out there referred to as "5th column", the "party of peace", the "party of betrayal" or, my own favorite, the Atlantic Integrationists whose agenda is simple: stop the war in the Ukraine and restore the putatively "good" relationship between Russia and the West.  Their motives are a mix of ideology (pro-western russophobia, capitalist liberalism) financial (they stand to lose most from not only the western sanctions, but from a deterioration of relationship between Russia and the West) and personal (struggle for power to re-take the Kremlin from the Eurasian Sovereignists).Vladimir EvtushenkovIn this context I have seen a lot of speculation that the recent move against multi-billionaire Vladimir Evtushenkov (often described as the new Khodorkovski) is Putin's counter-attack to smack down the oligarchs.  Could be, and Peskov's denial of anything political behind his arrest are as predictable as they are not credible.  It would be worth seeing if there is a Evtushenkov-Surkov connection, but I don't have the means to do that myself.  Still, judging by the reaction of the head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), Alexander Shokhin, it is clear that the Russian oligarchy is upset and even frightened by this arrest.So much for the stupid theory that Putin represents the interests of the Russian oligarchy or, even better, is the "puppet" of these oligarchs.Banderastan:The junta controlled part of the Ukraine (I call Banderastan) is in full turmoil.  The Minsk Agreement as absolutely infuriated most of the Ukie political leaders.  Predictably, Iarosh and Tiagnibok are up in arms, the former even threatening to overthrow Poroshenko.  Worse, Timoshenko has made something of a comeback denouncing the Agreement as a vile surrender to the Moskals and a sellout of Ukie national interests.Rada Deputy tossed in trashbinRight Sector activists have attempted to storm the Parliament and the Presidency, they have literally tossed deputies into trashbins which is both funny and amply deserved, but does not change the scary fact that Poroshenko is not the worst of what Banderastan can produce.  Poroshenko is evil, of course, but at least he is not a lunatic like Timoshenko or Liashko.There is now a very real risk that the Right Sector could literally overthrow the Poroshenko regime (Libya anybody?).  And even if the Right Sector does no such thing, of fails doing it, the upcoming elections are nothing short of really scary.  With the massive brainwashing going on throughout the Ukie media there is a real risk of a wall-to-wall "loony" Rada with Liashko in charge of the biggest party and assorted neo-Nazis filling the rest of the seats.Nazis vs oligarchsThere is a clash taking place between oligarch and sincere/zombified Nazis on one hand, and even between oligarchs (Poroshenko vs Kolomoiski vs Akmetov) on the other.  Thus, in a paradoxical way, both Novorussia and Banderastan don't currently have a real, functioning, central power and neither side can "deliver" anything.And if that does not scare you enough, keep in mind that the Ukie economy, propped up by the AngloZionists, has not truly collapsed yet.  But it will.  Soon.  Then things will get really, really ugly.  The examples of Iraq and Libya immediately come to mind.  In fact, Putin recently declared the following at the Seliger 2014 annual youth forum:Do you remember the joke: "Whatever Russians make, they always end up with a Kalashnikov?" I get an impression that whatever Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq. Apparently, he is absolutely right and Banderastan is now headed down the exact same road.  Truth be told, there is only that long that the AngloZionists can keep Poroshenko in power and the remnants of economy of Banderastan afloat.  Sooner or later - probably sooner - both will come tumbling down and then all hell will truly break lose In the meantime, "Iats" has announced the "lustration" (purge) of the estimated 1'000'000 civil servants connected with the previous regime.  Apparently, this does not including Poroshenko, Timoshenko, Turchinov or "Iats" himself (all of whom have served under previous Presidents in one capacity or another).Crazy, crazy shit...Military situation:Military situation September 15-17To my great surprise, a Ukie counter-offensive did not materialize or, if it did, it was so lame that it was hard to notice.  The Ukies did concentrate very large forces in several locations, and the JRF did execute attacks in several locations, but they were lame and rather rapidly repelled.  As for those few locations which were taken under the control of the JRF, they were mostly locations which the NAF had abandoned.  My source for this analysis is "Basketok" (whose excellent and detailed daily reports Russian speakers can get here and here). Amazingly, the NAF have still not taken full control of the Donetsk Airport.  They have surrounded it and they control most, but not all of it.  As for the Ukies there, they are categorically refusing to surrender and they are still shelling Donetsk on a daily basis.  I can only explain this aberration as a consequence of the political infighting taking place in the Novorussian leadership.One of the most likely explanation of the current is one given by the (excellent) Colonel Cassad:With respect to concentration, the main forces of the junta are already deployed into Donbass. The junta cannot grow the group substantially yet. Taking the planned rotation of the detachments and the combat capable units that were pulled into the front into account, the junta can reinforce its group only by throwing restored battalion-tactical groups of previously routed detachments into action. However, their combat qualities appear quite dubious due to large losses in personnel and materiel. In essence, absent the 4-th wave of mobilization, the junta cannot substantially increase the headcount of its group, which remains approximately on the level of early July of 2014. Considering the failure of the previous 3 waves of mobilization, the possible results of the 4-th also trigger certain skepticism. The junta, of course, isn't close to the limiting values of its mobilization potential, but it is already experiencing serious difficulties. All of this is aggravated by materiel issues: by various estimates, the junta lost about 60-70% of materiel present in Donbass (and the worst thing for the junta is that more than 220 armored vehicles of varying degree of combat readiness ended up being captured by the NAF, which already put between a quarter and a third of captured trophies into action).  Of course, there are still many tanks, IFVs, SPH, and MLRS in warehouses and repair facilities, but reinforcements in August and September couldn't compensate for huge losses. The attempts of getting materiel from NATO countries and the attempts to buy back the vehicles that were shipped on international defense contracts are supposed to close the gap in materiel that was formed. Ukraine continues to reap the fruits of its horrible looting of Soviet military legacy.This makes sense.  The JRF did through its best men and equipment in its attempt to crush Novorussia in just a "few weeks" and it lost them.  There are still numerically significant resources available to them, as shown by the large concentrations of forces they have massed but failed to effectively use so far.As for the NAF, they have made some small progress in various locations, and they have made small retreats from others, but nothing crucial has taken place on their side either.  Does that mean that the NAF and JRF have fought each other to a standstill?  Maybe, I don't know and have no way to check.  Still, my first explanation for this apparent stagnation on the military front is that both sides are too deeply involved in the the political infighting and the chaos resulting from it.Those whom I jokingly refer to "prophets and mind readers" will probably make confident predictions based, as always, on simplistic models, but I won't.   I know what Putin wants and Russia needs: regime change in Kiev.  I also know what Putin does not want or Russia cannot afford: a Novorussian collapse.  The two, of course, are linked.  But how the situation will evolve now is too early to call.I often think that the (liberal, Masonic, pro-western, democratic and oligarchic) Kerensky regime came to power in February.  Just like the Ukie Junta.  Kerensky was overthrown in October of the same year.  Just saying...Kind regards,The Saker

Britain’s Secret State: Members of Armed Forces Prohibited from Talking to Journalists

New official guidelines impose strict controls on anyone from the armed forces making contact with journalists, even in a social setting. The rules state that when a member of the armed forces has any contact with a journalist they must…

Russia's Lavrov says ties with Washington need 'reset 2.0'

By Gabriela Baczynska MOSCOW (Reuters) - Moscow called on Sunday for a new "reset 2.0" in relations with Washington, saying the situation in Ukraine that had led to Western sanctions against Russia was improving thanks to Kremlin peace initiatives. Washington and Brussels accuse Moscow of supporting a pro-Russian rebellion in east Ukraine and have imposed sanctions, which they have repeatedly ...

US Global Power in the 21st Century: Military or Economic Imperialism?

Despite vast amounts of imperial data to the contrary, the great majority of writers on imperialism continue to describe and analyze US imperialism strictly in economic terms, as an expansion of “capital accumulation”, “accumulation on a world scale”. In fact…

NEO â€" What America is really threatening in Ukraine

- "Henry Kamens gives us one hell of an overview of the present Ukraine mess, which I have compared to the Tar Baby in the briar patch from Uncle Remus."

“What the US did to Cambodia was an Epic Crime”. Kissinger’s Carpet Bombing of Cambodia

by Daniel Pye Since his early days as a correspondent covering the wars in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, documentary filmmaker and journalist John Pilger has been an ardent critic of Western foreign policy. Following in the footsteps…

War Propaganda and Women’s Rights: The Arab Emirates (UAE) Exploit First Woman Pilot to Lead the Bombing Campaign Against ISIS

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) had recently announced that a female fighter pilot led the United Arab Emirates Air Force (UAEAF) bombardment of ISIS on Syrian territory.  According to the UAE’s online news source ‘The National’ based in Abu Dhabi…


Iraq SITREP Update 26th September: Enemy of my enemy

NB: These SITREPs that Saker allows to be posted here will now be twice a week. Significant news events will be posted, recurring ones like the repeated failed attempts to take back a city, like Tikrit by the Iraqi military, will be avoided; unless there are other repercussions to that event. Also body counts are too depressing to keep reporting and there are other sources that list the everyday dead of Iraq. The Saker has been very kind to allow these SITREPs from the start. I am grateful for his efforts and his commitment. As always these are compilations of news stories from the MSM and non MSM sources. If I express an opinion commentators are welcome to question them, and in some extreme 'Takfiri' cases, my faith as well. -------30th Aug: The Iranians claim progress is being made on developing an indigenous alternative to the S300: The Israelis finger Belarus: 17th Sep: The Islamic practices of Daash: Four minor Yazidi girls are transferred to Mosul Hospital after sever Uterine Bleeding. The girls were reported to have been subjected to repeated sexual assault by "brave" Daash terrorists. 18th Sep: There will be blood: Daash vehicles roam the streets of Mosul calling for blood donations as Daash casualties mount. 20th Sep: Daash releases 49 Turkish hostages including the counsel general of Turkey in Iraq. However, Turkey refuses to participate in coalition airstrikes on Daash. 21st Sep: More than a 100000 Kurds are reported to be fleeing a Daash onslaught in north east Syria with the Kurdish city of Kobani coming under attack. The refugees head north towards Turkey. 22nd Sep: The US and its alliance of the willing (GCC excluding Kuwait and Oman, and non GCC member Jordan, a total of 30 countries) start to bomb Daash targets in Syria. Prior warning is given to the Government of Bashar Al Assad and an Iranian lawmaker states that Iran was also informed about the air assaults on Daash. US airplanes also target Al Nusra Front positions and also those of the "Khorrasan" terrorist group. The US authorities state that a female pilot from the UAE also participated in the airstrikes on Daash. Belgium and The Netherlands send their F16 fighters and Belgium asks its military personnel not to wear their uniforms when not on duty out of fears of retaliatory attacks. 22nd Sep: Daash tries and executes Samira Salih al-Nuaimi, a lawyer and rights activists, on charges of Apostasy for having criticised the DI of Daash's destruction of shrines and mosques in Mosul. Torture marks are clearly visible on her corpse. 23rd Sep: Brigadier General, Ahmad Reza Bordstan, of the Iranian Ground Forces clarifies that Iran will launch a much more penetrating assault on Daash positions in response to any attack on Iran's border with Iraq. 24th Sep: Daash carries out a heavy assault on Baiji refinery. It involves three car bombings and blow up tankers using a suicide bomber. The military personnel protecting the refinery are backed by the Iraqi Airforce but suffer heavy casualties. Senior military commanders warn of a repeat of Spykar if the government does not degrade Daash's capability to assault the refinery. 24th Sep: The US led coalition starts to bomb Daash positions on the outskirts of Kobani in Northern Syria. 24th Sep: Kurdish forces warn of the fleeing of Daash fighters from Syria to Iraq and ask the US led coalition to bomb Daash convoys entering Iraq. 24th Sep: Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmergas work in coordination in Qara Tapa, north east of Baqouba, Diyala to clear villages of Daash presence 24th Sep: Hassan Nasrallah states that he is opposed to the US led coalition that is bombing Daash. He stated that the Hezbollah fought the "infidel" Daash and will continues to do so, but referred to the US as the "mother of terrorism" 24th Sep: German ammunition, anti tank weapons and assault rifles arrive in Iraqi Kurdistan 24th Sep: An Algerian terrorist group with links to Daash beheads French hiker Herve Gourdel after the Afrench Government refuses to stop its participation in the coalition of the willing. 25th Sep: Rouhani blames the West and it's allies (certain intelligence agencies: CIA) of creating Daash, refers to it as a global threat and asks the west to stop supporting dictators. 25th Sep: Two bombings in Baghdad leave 6 dead and 18 wounded 25th Sep: France confirms that it has carried out its first airstrikes on Daash positions in Iraq. The UK is expected to join the coalition of the willing soon. 25th Sep: The UAE claims that its woman pilot, Mariam Al -Mansouri, took part in its raid on Daash positions. Daash vows revenge. 25th Sep: Kurdish forces in Syria repel an assault on Kobani. 25th Sep: Jassim Mohammed Hassan al-Attiyah of the Salah al Din provincial council states that over 13000 US troops are expected at the Speicher Military Base. This is contrary to what Obama has stated, what Prime Minister Abadi has asked for, and what Sadr and Sistani have clearly opposed. 25th Sep: Daash blows up the historic Al Arbain mosque in Tikrit. 26th Sep: Bombing of Daash positions to the North and to the West of Mosul: Sinjar and Zammar has continued for three days ands ongoing. The "coalition of the willing" is bombing the monster it helped create. 26th Sep: Iranian expert refers to US assault on Daash as America's plan B: Arabian Nights, night 2: the downfall of Ali Duba: Reports suggest that Ali Duba was sidelined to make way for Bashar to take over power in Syria. However, a Syrian tale goes like this: Hafiz Al Assad was having trouble with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and asked his intelligence chief to get rid of the man. Ali Duba however, was made an offer of a large sum of money to let the man slip into exile. Duba took the money and the brotherhood man fled to Germany. Hafiz was assured that the man was with his maker. Years later, the same man was terminally ill and dying. Away from home, he longed to return. His people approached Ali Duba and offered an even larger pot of gold to the let the man die in Syria. For this, Ali Duba had to approach Hafiz and it is then that Hafiz learnt of his instructions not being carried out. Ali Duba was no longer a trusted man. Short Analysis: Are the Houthis linked to Iran? Some commentators suggested that Iran is in no way involved in the Houthi uprising in Yemen, or in Bahrain. Although claims and allegations that Iran is backing rebels in Yemen and Bahrain play into the hands of the Empire, there is a grain of truth to them. Iran has come under attack, with its embassy staff being kidnapped and shot in Yemen. The now deposed President had also accused Iran of meddling, which Iran denied. Saudi Arabia has also at one point in history been allied to the Zaidis in Yemen against the communist South. Saudi Arabia has more recently been paranoid and accused Iran of backing the Houthis. So why say Iran is siding with them now? 1) A religious argument Islam in General, and the Shia faith in particular underwent a transformation with the events of Karbala. The Sacrifice of the Grandson of the Prophet reminds the Shia to oppose oppression, and to refrain from it too. While the Sunnis have generally been more pro establishment throughout history, it is the Shia that have resisted over time and over geographic distances. A reading of Shia history after the events of Karbala will show that in every few decades a Shia uprising has taken place against oppressive government. Iran, perceiving itself to be the centre of the Shia faith, backs its co-religionists in, to name a few places, Kashmir, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria. It even backs opposition to oppression against Muslims in General (Sunnis) in other places: Sudan, Bosnia, Kurds in Iraq, and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It sees this as a religious purpose. Although, the Iranian revolutionary "Islamic" state was more aggressive in the past it has become much more pragmatic, but also a lot more tenacious and politically astute. So why would Iran not back the Houthis and Bahraini Shias, in the latter case morally if not with material aid (physical, geographic restrictions, the invasion of the island by Saudi troops, and the US Naval base prevent Iran from giving more direct support; However, if Bahrain shared a land border with Iran, weapons would be smuggled across). Not supporting them on Iran's part would be contrary to common sense. 2) A practical understanding No guerrilla movement survives for long against a government backed by foreign powers for long without external support. A case in point is the Hezbollah. Even though it is a very powerful, if not the most powerful, resistance militia, it cannot survive or wield as much power as it does without Iranian/Syrian support. Similar examples are the Taliban, which no one can defeat as long as the Pakistani state continues to back it. Although the Houthis may be a majority in the north, how long can they sustain a conflict without material help? Yes everybody in Yemen is armed, but where do you replenish stocks from and sustain an offensive? Why would Saudi Arabia allow the deposed President to negotiate a deal if did not feel threatened? Now consider the Tibetan resistance against China that withered away after all India did was provide vocal support. The North Vietnamese had Chinese and Soviet support, the rebels in Syria have petrodollars backing them, the MEK had US/Israeli support after Saddam was overthrown. In fact it's hard to point out to any opposition group that can last without external backing. 3) Coincidence: there are none The first coincidence is the timing of the Houthi takeover. It conveniently occurred after Daash has taken over most of Sunni Iraq. The second coincidence is form. In this 2010 article by Bhadrakumar: He mentions that the Houthi armed groups are being modelled on the Lebanese Hezbollah. Finally, to cut things short, I will agree that there is a remote possibility, a completely illogical one, that Iran is not involved in some way with the Houthis. But it is possible. Further Reading: US intelligence flying blind when it comes to the Hezballah

28 September 2014. Fuck Academe, the Media, and Government Experts… Here are Some REAL Keys to Figuring Out Russia

Pegasus Targets Freeh â€" On Orders From The President

  I have received a number of requests to verify the article below.As a former member of Pegasus, I do have contact with at least 3 active members. I also am well aware of Mr. Freeh and his previous activities in the DOJ. I have placed my remarks at the bottom of the article.  A […]

A couple of short items about Russia Insider and book for donations

Dear friends,First, I want to thank you all for your support and kind words about the Russia Insider project.  I am also truly delighted to be associated with this endeavor.Second, I wanted to clarify a few things about Russia Insider and my role in it.  Russia Insider is not a blog or a collective of blogs.  The format used by RI is deliberately kept to short(er) posts, not long analytical essays.  The idea is to offer a go-to place to get a quick reaction to current events, along with a short commentary and enough links and sources for any reader to follow up should he/she decide to do so.  In my case, this is not unlike what I sometimes do with my mini-SITREPs.  I see that as very nicely complementing the much longer analyses I do here on this blog.Also, no worries, most of my time will still be dedicated to this blog.As for my contributions to Russia Insider, I have not been told to change my views, not say this or that or not to use this or that term.  Just like with any such project, if the editor in chief does not like something he can refuse to publish it, which is fine by me as long as I get to post whatever I want here, on my blog.  Please do not worry, my freedom is truly sacred to me and I would never associate myself to any project which would limit it.  The beauty in Russia Insider is that they fully share that philosophy.  Besides, I dare say that I am in pretty darn good company there, so I have no worries on that account at all.Finally, please notice the new window on the left hand column which announces that author Yuri Dia Konov, whose book Russia's Diamond Ruble I recently reviewed on this blog, has offered to send any of his books (in English or Russian!) for free to anybody sending a donation to the Saker Blog.  So please do press that "donation" button and then email Yuri and tell him which book you want, and he will email you the PDF right back!Kind regards and many thanks,The Saker

Is NATO Marching on Moscow?

 Do we see a small crack in the facade of the western mainstream media regarding the crisis in Ukraine? The article below, by Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan, was published, not only on FPIF but also on Huffington Post. Even if neither of those media outlets is deeply under the control of the […]

Russia’s MiG to hold talks with Egypt in October on MiG

The Reasons Why Russia Will Not Invade Ukraine

Russia will not invade Ukraine and here are the reasons. A lot of energy is right now spend on trying to get Russia more involved with the civil war in Ukraine. The New World Order cabal wants it because they want NATO to get a reason to come to the defense of the new government they […]


Putin to Hold Bilateral Meetings With Presidents of Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan

‘The Terrorists R Us.’ The Islamic State ‘Big Lie’

A Very Complete Analysis by the Saker of the Crisis in Ukraine

This is the most complete and, in my opinion, also a very correct analysis of the crisis in Ukraine initiated by the Neocons in the US. I don’t know who this “Saker” really is. But I do know that he knows a lot about Russia, USA and the New World Order. Having followed the Saker’s […]

The Reasons Why Russia Will Not Invade Ukraine

Russia will not invade Ukraine and here are the reasons. A lot of energy is right now spend on trying to get Russia more involved with the civil war in Ukraine. The New World Order cabal wants it because they want NATO to get a reason to come to the defense of the new government they […]