Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:34 pm

Ukraine and the 'Little Cold War'
Geopolitical Weekly MARCH 4, 2014 | 09:09 GMT

(Stratfor)
Editor's Note: In place of George Friedman's regular Geopolitical Weekly, this column is derived from two chapters of Friedman's 2009 book, The Next 100 Years. We are running this abstract of the chapters that focused on Eastern Europe and Russia because the forecast — written in 2008 — is prescient in its anticipation of events unfolding today in Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

By George Friedman

We must consider the future of Eurasia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since 1991, the region has fragmented and decayed. The successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia, is emerging from this period with renewed self-confidence. Yet Russia is also in an untenable geopolitical position. Unless Russia exerts itself to create a sphere of influence, the Russian Federation could itself fragment.

For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union controlled Eurasia — from central Germany to the Pacific, as far south as the Caucasus and the Hindu Kush. When the Soviet Union collapsed, its western frontier moved east nearly 1,000 miles, from the West German border to the Russian border with Belarus. Russian power has now retreated farther east than it has been in centuries. During the Cold War it had moved farther west than ever before. In the coming decades, Russian power will settle somewhere between those two lines.

After the Soviet Union dissolved at the end of the 20th century, foreign powers moved in to take advantage of Russia's economy, creating an era of chaos and poverty. Most significantly, Ukraine moved into an alignment with the United States and away from Russia — this was a breaking point in Russian history.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, from December 2004 to January 2005, was the moment when the post-Cold War world genuinely ended for Russia. The Russians saw the events in Ukraine as an attempt by the United States to draw Ukraine into NATO and thereby set the stage for Russian disintegration. Quite frankly, there was some truth to the Russian perception.

If the West had succeeded in dominating Ukraine, Russia would have become indefensible. The southern border with Belarus, as well as the southwestern frontier of Russia, would have been wide open.

Russia's Resurgence
After what Russia regarded as an American attempt to further damage it, Moscow reverted to a strategy of reasserting its sphere of influence in the areas of the former Soviet Union. The great retreat of Russian power ended in Ukraine. For the next generation, until roughly 2020, Russia's primary concern will be reconstructing the Russian state and reasserting Russian power in the region.

Interestingly, the geopolitical shift is aligning with an economic shift. Vladimir Putin sees Russia less as an industrial power than as an exporter of raw materials, the most important of which is energy (particularly natural gas). He is transforming Russia from an impoverished disaster into a poor but more productive country. Putin also is giving Russia the tool with which to intimidate Europe: the valve on a natural gas pipeline.

But the real flash point, in all likelihood, will be on Russia's western frontier. Belarus will align itself with Russia. Of all the countries in the former Soviet Union, Belarus has had the fewest economic and political reforms and has been the most interested in recreating some successor to the Soviet Union. Linked in some way to Russia, Belarus will bring Russian power back to the borders of the former Soviet Union.

From the Baltics south to the Romanian border there is a region where borders have historically been uncertain and conflict frequent. In the north, there is a long, narrow plain, stretching from the Pyrenees to St. Petersburg. This is where Europe's greatest wars were fought. This is the path that Napoleon and Hitler took to invade Russia. There are few natural barriers. Therefore, the Russians must push their border west as far as possible to create a buffer. After World War II, they drove into the center of Germany on this plain. Today, they have retreated to the east. They have to return, and move as far west as possible. That means the Baltic states and Poland are, as before, problems Russia has to solve.

Defining the limits of Russian influence will be controversial. The United States — and the countries within the old Soviet sphere — will not want Russia to go too far.

Russia will not become a global power in the next decade, but it has no choice but to become a major regional power. And that means it will clash with Europe. The Russian-European frontier remains a fault line.

It is unreasonable to talk of Europe as if it were one entity. It is not, in spite of the existence of the European Union. Europe consists of a series of sovereign and contentious nation-states.

In short, post-Cold War Europe is in benign chaos. Russia is the immediate strategic threat to Europe. Russia is interested not in conquering Europe, but in reasserting its control over the former Soviet Union. From the Russian point of view, this is both a reasonable attempt to establish some minimal sphere of influence and essentially a defensive measure.

Obviously the Eastern Europeans want to prevent a Russian resurgence. The real question is what the rest of Europe might do — and especially, what Germany might do. The Germans are now in a comfortable position with a buffer between them and the Russians, free to focus on their internal economic and social problems. In addition, the heritage of World War II weighs heavily on the Germans. They will not want to act alone, but as part of a unified Europe.

Russia is the eastern portion of Europe and has clashed with the rest of Europe on multiple occasions. Historically, though, Europeans who have invaded Russia have come to a disastrous end. If they are not beaten by the Russians, they are so exhausted from fighting them that someone else defeats them. Russia occasionally pushes its power westward, threatening Europe with the Russian masses. At other times passive and ignored, Russia is often taken advantage of. But, in due course, others pay for underestimating it.

Geographic Handicaps, Energy Assets
If we are going to understand Russia's behavior and intentions, we have to begin with Russia's fundamental weakness — its borders, particularly in the northwest. On the North European Plain, no matter where Russia's borders are drawn, it is open to attack. There are few significant natural barriers anywhere on this plain. Pushing its western border all the way into Germany, as it did in 1945, still leaves Russia's frontiers without a physical anchor. The only physical advantage Russia can have is depth. The farther west into Europe its borders extend, the farther conquerors have to travel to reach Moscow. Therefore, Russia is always pressing westward on the North European Plain and Europe is always pressing eastward.

Europe is hungry for energy. Russia, constructing pipelines to feed natural gas to Europe, takes care of Europe's energy needs and its own economic problems, and puts Europe in a position of dependency on Russia. In an energy-hungry world, Russia's energy exports are like heroin. It addicts countries once they start using it. Russia has already used its natural gas resources to force neighboring countries to bend to its will. That power reaches into the heart of Europe, where the Germans and the former Soviet satellites of Eastern Europe all depend on Russian natural gas. Add to this its other resources, and Russia can apply significant pressure on Europe.

Dependency can be a double-edged sword. A militarily weak Russia cannot pressure its neighbors, because its neighbors might decide to make a grab for its wealth. So Russia must recover its military strength. Rich and weak is a bad position for nations to be in. If Russia is to be rich in natural resources and export them to Europe, it must be in a position to protect what it has and to shape the international environment in which it lives.

In the next decade, Russia will become increasingly wealthy (relative to its past, at least) but geographically insecure. It will therefore use some of its wealth to create a military force appropriate to protect its interests, buffer zones to protect it from the rest of the world — and then buffer zones for the buffer zones. Russia's grand strategy involves the creation of deep buffers along the North European Plain, while it divides and manipulates its neighbors, creating a new regional balance of power in Europe. What Russia cannot tolerate are tight borders without buffer zones, and its neighbors united against it. This is why Russia's future actions will appear to be aggressive but will actually be defensive.

Russia's actions will unfold in three phases. In the first phase, Russia will be concerned with recovering influence and effective control in the former Soviet Union, re-creating the system of buffers that the Soviet Union provided it. In the second phase, Russia will seek to create a second tier of buffers beyond the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. It will try to do this without creating a solid wall of opposition, of the kind that choked it during the Cold War. In the third phase — really something that will have been going on from the beginning — Russia will try to prevent anti-Russian coalitions from forming.

If we think of the Soviet Union as a natural grouping of geographically isolated and economically handicapped countries, we can see what held it together. The countries that made up the Soviet Union were bound together of necessity. The former Soviet Union consisted of members who really had nowhere else to go. These old economic ties still dominate the region, except that Russia's new model, exporting energy, has made these countries even more dependent than they were previously. Attracted as Ukraine was to the rest of Europe, it could not compete or participate with Europe. Its natural economic relationship is with Russia; it relies on Russia for energy, and ultimately it tends to be militarily dominated by Russia as well.

These are the dynamics that Russia will take advantage of in order to reassert its sphere of influence. It will not necessarily recreate a formal political structure run from Moscow — although that is not inconceivable. Far more important will be Russian influence in the region over the next five to 10 years.

The Russians will pull the Ukrainians into their alliance with Belarus and will have Russian forces all along the Polish border, and as far south as the Black Sea. This, I believe, will all take place by the mid-2010s.

There has been a great deal of talk in recent years about the weakness of the Russian army, talk that in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union was accurate. But here is the new reality — that weakness started to reverse itself in 2000, and by 2015 it will be a thing of the past. The coming confrontation in northeastern Europe will not take place suddenly, but will be an extended confrontation. Russian military strength will have time to develop. The one area in which Russia continued research and development in the 1990s was in advanced military technologies. By 2010, it will certainly have the most effective army in the region. By 2015-2020, it will have a military that will pose a challenge to any power trying to project force into the region, even the United States.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukraine- ... e-cold-war



Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexander Dugin (via wikipedia

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensatation.[1]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby PufPuf93 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:12 pm

Dulgin's Foundations of Geopolitics pretty much mirrors and responses to the tension points generated by the western neoconservative military and neoliberal economic projects that came to be after the fall of the Soviet Union.

One can understand a Russian response and establishment of borders especially considering Russian history.

It is truly a shame that our (USA and Russia) leaders have not been able to generate a period of peace and alliance.

I do not expect Trump to improve the status quo nor do I support USA led western military aggression into the former Soviet Union.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:27 pm

anyone want to comment on what is happening in Ukraine?

I'd link to something but I am in no mood

well I post this but nothing else..I'll leave it to the experts here


Ukrainian officials take seriously the possibility of a full-scale Russian invasion.
http://www.newsweek.com/while-trump-fid ... ine-550603
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:41 pm

once again someone please update this thread with reliable sources


Trump Administration Issues Perplexing Statement on Whereabouts of Ukraine Conflict
U.S. statement says aim is to restore peace along border, even though fighting is taking place inside Ukraine

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-admi ... 1486313171
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby Rory » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:13 pm

https://shadowproof.com/2017/02/06/kiev ... e-ukraine/

Ukraine is once again a war zone. Russian-backed separatists and NATO-backed Ukraine government and militia forces fight it out in the eastern Ukraine town of Avdiivka in the Donetsk region. The fighting reportedly tapered-off somewhat since last week, when shelling cut off power and water supplies to tens of thousands of civilians in the surrounding areas.

Unlike previous battles between government and rebel forces in Donetsk, the instigator is beyond dispute. United States state media confirmed it was Kiev violating the Minsk agreement, with Radio Free Europe reporting on a “creeping offensive” by government forces that kicked off the renewed fighting.

The government forces, according to Radio Free Europe, became frustrated by the success of the Minsk agreement and subsequently began the offensive:

[S]ince mid-December Ukraine’s armed forces have edged farther into parts of the gray zone in or near the war-worn cities of Avdiivka, Debaltseve, Dokuchaievsk, Horlivka, and Mariupol, shrinking the space between them and the separatist fighters.

In doing so, the pro-Kyiv troops have sparked bloody clashes with their enemy, which has reportedly made advances of its own — or tried to — in recent weeks.

Last Wednesday, Ukraine Defense Minister Igor Pavlovsky reportedly told Ukraine media, “As of today, despite everything, meter by meter, step by step, whenever possible our boys have been advancing.”

The Minsk agreement, technically known as Minsk II as an earlier agreement signed in Minsk failed to work, was signed in February of 2015. It led to a ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides to create a security zone.

Up until Kiev’s new offensive, Minsk II mostly held—though the agreement also included provisions designed to lead to a political settlement between Kiev and the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. No settlement was ever reached nor is likely to be reached anytime soon.

Regardless of how well the offensive works out, Kiev has good reason to worry about the future. The election of Donald Trump in the United States and the internal fracturing of the European Union does not bode well for the success of a Western-aligned Ukraine.

Ukraine has completely failed to tackle corruption, which has led to numerous resignations of officials from President Petro Poroshenko’s government. Even Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president most committed to countering Russian influence, resigned from a government position last November citing intractable corruption.

Corruption is only half the problem. The other half is a virulent neo-Nazi movement within Ukraine that has both infiltrated the armed forces (with U.S. assistance) and positioned key members in the highest offices of government.

Add to this some very sloppy intrigue in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Ukrainian officials conspired with a Ukrainian-American activist and Democratic National Committee consultant named Alexandra Chalupa to undermine now-President Trump’s election chances by tying Trump and Paul Manafort to corruption in Ukraine.

After Trump’s victory, Kiev began furiously backpedaling and, according to Politico, has hired a GOP-linked lobbying firm on a $50,000 a month contact in hopes of improving relations with the Trump Administration.

Without U.S. and E.U. support, Kiev is going to have a difficult time maintaining an offensive, even a creepy one.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby Rory » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:26 pm

http://thesaker.is/high-risk-of-imminen ... e-donbass/

... I assess that there is a strong probability that full-scale combat operation between the Ukronazis and the Novorussian will resume in the next couple of days. At this point in time, I see only one thing which could stop this: a strong and determined order from President Trump telling the Ukrainians to stop, withdraw and come back to the negotiating table. Alas, I see such an action by President Trump as highly unlikely.

Spring has always been the best time for offensive combat operations in the Ukraine. The roads are getting better, foliage is returning to the trees and bushes and the temperatures are very slowly beginning to climb back up. I suspect that the junta would have preferred to attack later, in April-May, but the election of Donald Trump has clearly created a panic in Kiev and since the Ukronazis have no chance of winning (their sole objective is to force a Russian intervention), a February attack might be an acceptable option for them.

The Saker
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:29 pm

I think Gen. YellowKекс is working on this one

Trump’s Amateurish White House Thinks Poland Invaded Belarus

There is a very real threat here. Keep in mind that Hitler used a staged Polish incursion into Germany – the infamous Gleiwitz incident – as his casus belli in invading Poland in 1939. If Putin is looking for an excuse to invade Belarus as well as Ukraine, Trump, whether intentionally or in his role as a useful idiot, seems eager to lend a hand.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/04/ ... larus.html


Deeply Disturbing

ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedFEBRUARY 4, 2017, 5:27 PM EDT

Buried down in the AP story is the rather startling news that National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and his aides have been asking the national security agencies for ideas for how to improve relations with Russia and for evidence of "Polish incursions in Belarus."

Senior officials have been soliciting guidance from national security agencies on how to improve relations with Russia, asking what Washington could offer Moscow and what Trump should seek from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tillerson requested a briefing on moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, one of Trump's campaign promises.
According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist. Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump's friendlier tone on Russia.

I don't patrol the Poland/Belarus border myself. But I have not heard and I don't think anyone has heard that such is happening. It is however the kind of thing you would expect to hear from Russian propaganda sources, a hostile Poland menacing its neighbors to the east.

Late Update: As you can see, the text of the AP article doesn't explicitly point to Flynn. But this tweet from the reporter Julie Pace, the author of the article, suggests that that's who we're talking about - Flynn, or those asking questions on his behalf.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dee ... turbing--2
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:17 pm

White House: Trump Expects Russia to Give Crimea to Ukraine
Also Expects to Get Along With Russia
by Jason Ditz, February 14, 2017

According to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump “expects” Russia to both make the level of violence in Eastern Ukraine go down, and to unconditionally “return” the Crimean Peninsula to the Ukrainian government, adding that he “also expects to get along with Russia.”

After protests in Kiev ousted the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea held a referendum on secession from the Ukraine in March 2014. A region dominated by ethnic Russians and host to a major Russian military base, that referendum easily passed, and Crimea sought and received accession into the Russian Federation days later.

The post-revolution Ukraine government was pro-West, and naturally Western nations rejected the Crimean secession as unlawful, accusing Russia of “annexing Crimea” militarily. Despite this claim, no real military action ever took place, and the only movement of forces came after the referendum, when Ukraine managed to borrow enough gasoline and car batteries to get their military vehicles off the peninsula.

The US has vowed never to accept Crimea as part of Russia, however, and has repeatedly demanded Russia unconditionally “return” Crimea. Clearly Russia has no intention of doing so, and threats aside Ukraine has no practical way to expel Russia from the peninsula
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/02/14/whit ... o-ukraine/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby Nordic » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:11 pm

A great assessment of the self-serving role NATO plays in the demonization of Russia and the lies about Ukraine.

https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2016/07/13/ ... old-stand/

NATO, Back in Business at the Old Stand

ON JULY 13, 2016 BY PATRICK ARMSTRONG
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semp ... stand.html


Spare a thought for the travails of NATO drones over the past couple of decades. About 25 years ago I was in competition for a job on the International Staff at NATO. I’ve forgotten most of the details but it would have paid about US$100,000. Tax free. Plus benefits. What would have been the equivalent salary, in the real world, to that, do you suppose? In return, NATO started work sometime Monday afternoon and knocked off early on Friday and essentially took meetings the rest of the time. And Brussels is a convenient base for travelling around Europe. But I didn’t get the job.

The Warsaw Pact imploded, followed by the USSR and NATO’s raison d’être disappeared. A colleague who finally got a position on the Canadian delegation (no big IS salaries for them!) seriously wondered whether NATO would last through his time there.

Well, it did. Expansion (soon officially changed to the more anodyne “enlargement”) gave employment. NATO, it piously said, cannot stop people from freely applying to join, can it? Of course, given that most of these countries wanted to be neutral originally – the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine in 1990 has these words: “The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” – it took time and money to persuade people to “freely” apply. In the case of Ukraine two decades, two colour revolutions and five billion USD and 500 thousand Euros. We see similar efforts today with the campaigns in Sweden and Finland. Nothing spontaneous at all, actually.

Kosovo was a problem for the NATO drones. Not in the initial execution that is; that narrative was smoothly crafted – walking blood banks, rape camps, genocide, the monster Milosevic – the MSM obediently fell into line. No, the problem was the terrifying realisation that it wasn’t working and that a land invasion might have to be fumbled together. But Chernomyrdin persuaded Milosevic to give up, the worst did not come to pass and everybody could congratulate themselves on writing a new page of military history: “virtual war“, air power alone can win wars and similar certainties that are not so certain today.

Then came 911 and NATO was required in Afghanistan. Expansion and Kosovo had been fun for NATO drones: visiting European centres as honoured guests treated to the best of everything, making speeches about stability and the necessity to make a stand against evil but not much in the way of hard or unpleasant work. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a nasty dangerous place where the locals all hated you but concealed their hatred until you stopped paying them. Like most of the regime-change wars with which we have grown so familiar, Afghanistan started with a bang and the Taliban government was overthrown in weeks. But the war goes on and on. Obama will leave 8400 US troops there for his successor; he had promised to end it in 2014. John McCain thinks the US needs a “permanent presence” there. Complete, of course, with NATO allies.

In short, NATO membership is not attractive if all it involves is interminable rotations through Afghanistan. A dreary prospect indeed.

Besides the multitude of unpleasant locations with few hotels and bars, another problem with the “War on Terror” is that the enemy is small and feeble – IEDs, suicide vests, small arms. Small money weapons that don’t require big money weapons systems to counter.

A third problem, of course, is that NATO & Co is not exactly winning these wars. So either it must stop talking about them (the word “Afghanistan” appears only 8 times in the Warsaw Summit communiqué) or start uttering complete nonsense as in “These efforts mark an important step to strengthen Libya’s democratic transition” (§30).

NATO must remain and expand – it’s a necessary control mechanism for Washington (and so is the EU, as we have just learned with the EU-NATO amalgamation). Let a former American official explain Why NATO is vital for American interests: “Vladimir Putin’s aggression”, “weakening and potentially fractured European Union” and “tsunami of violence spreading from the Levant and North Africa into Europe itself”. In short: Russia’s resistance to NATO expansion; the EU’s failure; instability resulting from NATO attacks in the Middle East. Compelling reasons indeed. To paraphrase that great American Statesman, Homer Simpson, NATO is the solution to the problems it creates. But it badly needs a new raison d’être in order to keep the members in, attract new ones and to allow bigger profits. Jihadists in Afghanistan don’t serve the purpose any more.

So, our drones need something more attractive to retain their enthusiasm, pay and perqs. The communiqué from the Warsaw NATO summit is their answer. This 16,489 word panegyric to itself modestly states that NATO is “an unparalleled community of freedom, peace, security, and shared values, including individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law” (§2). The Warsaw Summit brings us back to the tried and true – Russia. The communiqué uses the word “Russia” 57 times and “Ukraine” 32 times for a total of 89. By contrast, “terrorism” and “ISIL” only 27 times, “jihad”, “Islam” and “Ebola” not at all. It’s clear where the emphasis now is.

Section 10 will serve as a summary of it all:

Russia’s destabilising actions and policies include: the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine; large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture; and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace. In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.
Nevertheless, NATO, ever patient and ever virtuous, says “We remain open to a periodic, focused and meaningful dialogue” (§2) with Russia.

NATO’s relentless expansion, its untrustworthiness (see Libya), military exercises in and around Russia, overthrow of governments in Ukraine and other neighbours, fall in this screed somewhere between unremarkable and non-existent: Russia is to blame for everything. The “serious deterioration of the human rights situation on the Crimean peninsula” is its fault (§7), the non-fulfilment of the Minsk Agreement is its fault (§9), Russia’s reaction to BMD is “unacceptable and counterproductive” (§59), as are its provocations “in the periphery of NATO territory” (§5).

NATO-Land is like Laputa – it floats in some imaginary place where Crimea is a hellish nightmare for the inhabitants, Libya ever “transitions” towards democracy and scholars, looking for sunbeams in cucumbers, find Russians hiding under the cucumber beds. What “deterioration of human rights” in Crimea? The Minsk Agreement requires nothing from Russia: the word “Russia”does not appear in it; has any of these people read it? Is it Russia’s fault that this clause still awaits fulfilment “On the first day after the pullout a dialogue is to start on modalities of conducting local elections“? Is it really so outrageous that the Russians don’t believe that NATO has “no intention to redesign this [BMD] system”? (§59) There was “no intention” to expand NATO or to blow up Libya either; no wonder Moscow won’t trust NATO’s word. (Oh, and it would be wrong to suggest that NATO promised not to permanently station troops in its new territories – that promise only held until enough accusations could be manufactured. In any case, these new troops NATO promises (§40) won’t be permanent; they’ll just be permanently rotating.) Yes, Russia does have military exercises on the edge of NATO now that NATO has expanded to the edge of Russia; is it supposed to only have exercises in central Siberia now, or would they be provocatively close to American troops in Japan, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria?

Always difficult out of this catalogue of nonsense to pick a favourite but I think this one is the standout: “[Russia’s] long-standing non-implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty” (§69) Russia actually ratified the amended treaty: no one in NATO did!

And, lest we forget weapons sales: “We welcome Allied efforts to address, as appropriate, existing dependencies on Russian-sourced legacy military equipment.” (§78)

So, after dreary years of trudging through the inhospitable mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of Iraq, years of defeat, years of trivial profits, NATO drones have entered the sunny uplands. Russia is again the enemy, NATO has a big enemy that needs big money projects like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship, trillion dollar nuclear weapons programs, Crusader SPGs and decades-long deployments in places with good restaurants where the people don’t hate you.

Europe will again be united against the Russian Threat© under Washington’s leadership even more tightly now that the EU and NATO are openly under the same management. Promotions and prosperity all round!

All is well.

Apart for the niggling facts that NATO & Co are still losing their wars, haven’t got the money they used to have, are actually under attack from different enemies, have populations that are growing restive, are in a demographic decline, have militaries that are rusting out and fading away, have stagnant economies and populations that don’t actually want to go to war for Estonia. Oh, and European banks need a bailout. And NATO’s pressure brings Russia and China (0 mentions) ever closer. Repeating lies, nonsense and fantasies at twice the volume is not actually a sign of strength.

So, it’s not really a bright new future, it’s just Miss Havisham reliving the happiness of her engagement day.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby Sounder » Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:19 am

All is well.

Apart for the niggling facts that NATO & Co are still losing their wars, haven’t got the money they used to have, are actually under attack from different enemies, have populations that are growing restive, are in a demographic decline, have militaries that are rusting out and fading away, have stagnant economies and populations that don’t actually want to go to war for Estonia. Oh, and European banks need a bailout. And NATO’s pressure brings Russia and China (0 mentions) ever closer. Repeating lies, nonsense and fantasies at twice the volume is not actually a sign of strength.



Thanks Nordic for this breath of fresh air. Hopefully the contrast between reality and hysterical repetition of demonizing rhetoric will become apparent to more and more people.

Reality is saying to the western exceptionalists to back off, learn a little humility and stop thinking that reality can be molded into some techno transnational corporatist heaven.

We must learn that, -or we die.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby conniption » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:45 pm

Image
clarity of signal


Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17


On the three year commemoration of the tragic shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17, Brisbane, Australia based Watchdog Media has released the most thorough and accurate chronological portrayal of events occurring between the start of Ukraine’s Euromaidan in November 2013 and the tragic destruction of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 on July 17, 2014.

Between 2013 and 2017, the Watch Dog Media Institute compiled and archived the largest known video volumes of first-person video related to the Ukraine war, as well as the largest and most substantial amount of all mainstream media footage related to such.

These volumes have been aptly and poetically titled “Roses Have Thorns”, and are accessible at the Watchdog Media You Tube page linked below. These chronological video volumes include 17 videos totaling over 32 hours of first-person and MSM video clips related to the war. This downloaded and archived footage has been thoroughly sorted over the past two years and placed into a 5 hour video timeline that reveals the true and terrible nature of the Ukraine war and its horrific effects on the civilian population. This is the most revealing video in existence highlighting what actually took place in Ukraine.

8 Months in Ukraine (Euromaidan - MH17)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSx8HJfBl7U

Posted on July 19, 2017 False Flaggin, Global Elitist Thieves, Media Madness, MH-17 and Beyond, New World Disorder, The Deep State, The Grand Chessboard, Ukrainian Nazis, War on Russia

This video thoroughly reveals that the western mainstream media’s narrative related to events in Ukraine was not accurate in relation to what the first-person captured videos show. It also clearly shows that there was a substantial amount of video footage placed online that revealed that fascist battalions from Kiev attacked innocent ethnic Russian Ukrainian civilians in a number of locations and repressed dissent in horrific and murderous ways……on camera. A number of those on-camera murders are included within the video footage. Within the videos, there is also a large amount of location verifiable footage (largely unseen in western countries) of Ukraine’s BUK missile launchers active and on-the-move in the Ukrainian war zones prior to, and during the time of, the shootdown of MH-17. This is highly important due to the fact that the rebels, (labeled as terrorists by Kiev) in the eastern breakaway regions, had no air force for the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers to be used against. Thus, it begs the questions “what were the Kiev troops using these BUK missile launchers for?” And “why did US senator John McCain state on CNN that the new post coup Kiev government had no BUK’s in their possession?

(McCain video proving his statement linked below).

The uniqueness of this particular Watchdog Media video is that, not only does it include fascinating relatively unseen video footage and unknown information along with professional translation and subtitles, but it also utilizes map zooming techniques that allow the viewer to fully comprehend the ongoing nature of the war related events, by zooming them into map locations and videos filmed at those particular precise locations by citizens under duress and directly involved in war related events, thus allowing for a broader view of what actually took place in relation to what the western mainstream media was reporting at that specific time. This is all carried along via well-placed video timeline insertions and accompanied by a soundtrack and easy to comprehend translation which gives the viewer the feel of watching a major war movie in the cinema. At times one feels almost as if they can’t wait to see how it all turns out, although by now most well-informed people are quite aware that the war was sold on an assortment of lies told by western mainstream media, in the same manner as the Iraq, Libya and Syria wars.

From a personal perspective, as someone who watched the Ukraine war online from the very beginning and also compiled a massive amount of videos and information myself that has now seen over 5 million views (primarily on Live Leak), I can honestly vouch for this newest Roses Have Thorns piece to be the best work I have ever seen on the subject of the Ukraine war. It is truly astounding and a great service to humanity. I recommend that people share this video (and this important post) widely so that it stands as a record to what really occurred in Ukraine, so that future generations can learn the truth and help prevent such horrific events from ever happening again.

Official site –

Roses Have Thorns – Watch Dog Media Institute

continues...

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/ ... -to-mh-17/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby conniption » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:58 am

conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby chump » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:14 am


https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... n-in-2014/

An Italian documentary reveals three Georgians who say they were the snipers on Kiev’s Maidan in 2014
Posted on November 24, 2017 by willyloman

(Let me see… mercenary snipers brought in from outside the country to post up in hotels and open fire on a large crowd of people down below. Hmmm. What does that remind me of? Christopher Boyenger, the American they claimed was in charge of the operation, is now fighting in Donbass on behalf of the Nazi regime in Kiev. He’s hooked up with the Georgians. Sometime after hostilities broke out in April of 2014, Boyenger OFFICIALLY started working with the new Nazi government in Kiev to attack the Ukrainian people in Donbass. Boyenger claims Kiev is an “important ally” of ours now that they staged a bloody color revolution and got them to stick with the EU. Makes you kinda wonder where he was on Oct. 1st huh?)

from RussiaFeed

The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“.

The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transfered to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square.
The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze.

The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.”

“I listened to the screams,” recalls Revazishvili. “There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart.”

Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who “used and abandoned” them.

The full documentary with English subtitles is available below (in two parts):




http://russiafeed.com/revealed-price-uk ... nity-5000/

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby Elvis » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Thanks for that, Chump. It's a critical part of the Ukraine story. Surely the NYTimes has covered it?


chump wrote:An Italian documentary reveals three Georgians who say they were the snipers on Kiev’s Maidan in 2014
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7432
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine - Color Revolution By Force

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:17 pm

Will Trump manage to stab both Syrian Kurds and Turkey in the Back at same time?
By Juan Cole | Nov. 26, 2017 |

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
Trump is alleged to have promised Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan that he will cease arming the YPG Kurds in Syria.
This news comes just around the time there is a flurry of articles about how the Trump administration wants to stay long term in eastern Syria, where 2,000 US special forces personnel are embedded with the left-anarchist Kurds.
So if the US wants to stay embedded with the Kurds, why is it stabbing them in the back to please Erdogan?
They say in the army that everyone wants to do strategy but the real experts do logistics. Logistics is the science of moving troops, supplies and weapons around.
The fact is that the US special ops forces in eastern Syria have logistics difficulties. The al-Assad regime does not want them there now that Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) has been largely defeated. Iran and Hizbullah and the Iraqi Shiite militias do not want them there. They can be blockaded.
Plus you would never want special ops guys in the field in a treacherous place like Raqqa (in the sense that the Arab population opposes their presence) without the ability to extract them if something goes wrong. From where will the helicopters take off?
Turkey?
Turkey. The logistical support for the 2000 Americans fighting in eastern Syria comes from Incirlik Air Force base in Turkey, which is leased to the US military.
Theoretically, you could base the helicopters in Mosul and fly over from there, but I am not aware that the US has planes parked at any military base near Mosul. The thousands of US personnel at the Iraq command are in Baghdad, with some special operations personnel out near Iraqi mopping up operations against Daesh, giving strategic advice. Or at least that is what they had been doing. ISIL is still behind ongoing insurgencies in some Sunni Arab cities like Samarra.
But given how perilous the situation in northern Iraq still is, you’d be raising the question of who would rescue the rescuer if you tried to put support forces there to help with Syria. Plus the Iraqi government is now tight with Damascus and might not allow cross border activities if the al-Assad regime complained to Baghdad about them.
So the support is in Incirlik. And Turkey is happy enough to have 2000 US troops in Syria. Turkey lost the Syrian war and is unhappy about Russian and Iranian dominance of Syria, which the Sunni Arab Muslim activists supported by Turkey see as foreign occupation.
So for Turkey to offset Russian and Iranian power in Syria by backing a long-term US spec ops presence makes political sense.
Except for one thing.
Turkey is terrified of the Kurds?
Turkey is terrified of the Kurds.
The YPG is an independent militia, but has had ties of ideology to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers Party), which both the US and Turkey designate as a terrorist organization. The PKK wants at least semi-autonomy for the Kurdish regions of eastern Anatolia. Turkey sees that demand as a dire threat that could end up partitioning the country.
Turkey and the US differ about the Syrian Kurdish YPG. Turkey sees it as just a PKK knock off, while the US declines to list it as a terrorist organization.
So if Erdogan is apoplectic about the US arming the YPG Kurds because he thinks the medium weaponry the US supplies will end up in PKK hands, why would he continue to allow the 2000 US special ops troops to receive support from Incirlik Base?
He wouldn’t.
Hence, he pressed Trump to say that the US won’t supply weapons to the YPG. I presume that what that means is that it won’t supply them with medium to heavy weapons. No big artillery pieces or helicopter gunships. Everybody has kalashnikov machine guns, that isn’t the issue.
Plus if the US troops remain embedded with the Kurds, that is a brake on any hooking up with PKK for mischief on the Turkish side of the border (though the YPG hasn’t demonstrated those tendencies in my view, anyway).
So the compromise is that the Kurds get only light weaponry, now that Daesh/ ISIL is defeated. And the US troops remain, thus forestalling (from Ankara’s point of view) a complete Russo-Iranian takeover of the country.
One wrinkle is that Trump is not very powerful with the Pentagon, and it isn’t clear that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis will fulfill Trump’s pledge to Ankara. Hence the Turkish government is demanding guarantees.
And, what happens if the Syrian Arab Army, which does not recognize Kurdish semi-autonomy, makes a move on say Hasaka and the Kurds aren’t well armed enough to fend them off?
The Russians are saying that the US presence on Syrian soil, opposed by Damascus, is a form of aggressive occupation. The question is, how safe are these embedded troops, with ISIL, Shiite militias and Syrian secret police all over that area?
https://www.juancole.com/2017/11/manage ... urkey.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests