Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thehindu.com/books/
The Hindu
August 26, 2014
An ode to NATO’s mission in Libya
Hari Narayan
On October 20, 2011, a low-resolution video shot in Sirte, Libya went viral. It showed a motley mob of about 20 mutineers shouting what sounded like insults at a 69-year-old Bedouin — their prized ‘catch’. The old man’s face was bloodied; he looked dumbfounded and was perhaps making an attempt to beg for mercy. Moments later, the aged captive was dead, his body used as a trophy.
The old, khaki-clad Bedouin was Muammar al-Qaddafi. Though both his life and his 42-year rule in Libya were marked by eccentricity, his death could not but evoke empathy. NATO’s mission creep — a spin-off from the powers granted to it by U.N. resolution 1973 — was complete.
Toppling Qaddafi by Christopher S. Chivvis — who was with Pentagon at that time and currently works for the U.S.-government-funded think tank RAND Corporation — is an ode to the intervention. Though it does express scepticism in a few chapters, its overall tone is one of approval and, at places, celebration. Long on technical details and short on depth, it reads more like a military template for future interventions than a genuine soul-searching effort.
Chivvis puts on the back-burner an honest attempt at understanding the uprising while expecting the reader to genuflect to the restraint practised by the U.S. as it decided to step back and allow France and Britain to dominate the mission. This, even as it supplied the bulk of the arms.
Some questions the book could have addressed include: Why did the rebels decide to script such a grisly death for Qaddafi — a patriarch clearly in his autumn? Was his overthrow the result of foreign conspiracy, considering that he had antagonised quite a lot of regimes due to his fiercely independent foreign policy? Was Libya really on the verge of genocide when the West decided to intervene?
A report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), Making sense of Libya (released on 6th June 2011, much after the intervention began), provides some answers. It revealed that the revolt’s original authors were not native Libyans in Benghazi but those from the Libyan diaspora, vocal opponents of Qaddafi’s style of functioning who had been responsible for his vilification in the western media.
Hugh Roberts, ICG’s North Africa Project Director during the uprising, gave a comprehensive analysis in his article, Who said Gaddafi had to go? (London Review of Books, November 17, 2011). The essay proves a sober counter to Chivvis’s celebratory monograph.
Roberts’s essay answers most of the questions Chivvis’s book doesn’t. In the Cold War years, Libya had been of strategic interest to the U.S. primarily because of its location along the coast of Mediterranean, providing it a vital link between Europe and North Africa and North Africa and West Asia. Up to the discovery of oil in 1960, the primary source of revenue for Libya was from the Wheelus Air Base, which was once called by a U.S. Ambassador as “a little America … on the sparkling shores of the Mediterranean.” Having once had about 4,600 Americans, it was rendered defunct once oil was discovered and a Qaddafi-led coup happened in 1969.
Roberts also deals with the minutiae when he points out that the conflict was more internecine than international — it was between the Arab villages and Berber hamlets; between militias from the mountains and those from the coast; and between the light-skinned Libyans and their black neighbours.
So, was Libya another Afghanistan where tribal identities triumphed over national ones? Or was it converted into an anarchy along Afghan lines post-intervention?
Dirk Vandewalle, in his book A history of modern Libya, expounds that just like many other countries in Africa, Libya was a creation of convenience for colonial powers. The United Kingdom of Libya was created in 1951 by integrating three distinct regions – Cyrenaica (east), Fezzan (southwest), and Tripolitania (west) — without a binding force.
Libyans had suffered vicious suppression at the hands of their Italian colonisers, who tried to create an extension of metropolitan Italy in Tripolitania, settling Italians while massacring natives. This only fostered tribal loyalties and created distrust toward political institutions.
Though Qaddafi’s interests lay in keeping Libya politically inactive, his government’s generous redistribution of oil revenues did create an effective welfare state. As per a UNICEF (2009) report, Libya had a literacy rate of 95 per cent for males and 78 per cent for females and a life expectancy of 74. It had a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 55, out of 182 countries considered, ahead of most sub-Saharan and many Asian countries.
It would be more persuasive to say that the Libyan civil war was a conflict created by history — between the culturally and economically disparate western and the eastern regions — best resolved politically by Libyans themselves, with diplomatic support from outside, which the ICG offered. However, NATO was more intent on scripting a change its way.
Chivvis is so absorbed in the details of NATO’s military manoeuvres that, even with the benefit of hindsight, he gets his facts entirely wrong. This becomes particularly bewildering in the final chapter, written when the negative repercussions of the intervention were being felt.
For instance, Chivvis still maintains that Qaddafi government killed “several hundred civilians” prior to the intervention. Hugh Roberts had invalidated this as early as 2011 by citing Human Rights Watch, which said that as late as on February 21, when the genocide bogey had reached its peak, the total death toll was 233. Compared to this, the total death toll in Tunisia was 300 and that in Egypt was 846.
Chivvis claims that the intervention offered hopes for protesters in the other conservative regimes in the region against brutal crackdown. This after the West chose to overlook protests in Bahrain — where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed — when the Sunni-minority monarchy crushed the non-violent Shia demonstrators.
Chivvis also makes the ludicrous claim that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would have suppressed his population earlier and more violently had NATO not intervened. He completely ignores the fact that it was NATO’s misadventure in Libya that strengthened al-Qaeda-linked elements in Syria. This in turn led to the birth of Islamic State (IS), an ultra-jihadist group that the U.S. is currently fighting in Iraq.
Chivvis occasionally engages in plainspeak. Like when he emphasises the positive fall-out of the intervention on the U.S. arms industry. Citing an unclassified document, he says that the U.S. went on to sell $261 million worth of ammunition and spare parts to its allies. This while ‘leading from behind!’
And, finally, he admits, in passing, the ambivalence the rebels gradually started to feel toward NATO’s intentions, when the latter started dictating the course of action. One of them even went on to question if NATO’s aims were ‘different’ to their own.
The ICG document proved to be prescient in its outlook when it said that with an escalation of hostilities, the outcome “... may be not a transition to democracy but rather a potentially prolonged vacuum … that could aggravate an already serious humanitarian crisis.”
About a year after Qaddafi’s death, another video, graphic in its details, emerged. It pertained to the death of Christopher Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, killed when its consulate in Benghazi, the birthplace of Libya’s uprising, was attacked. A fringe terrorist organisation strengthened by the intervention, ansar al-Sharia was blamed. From one grisly murder to another, Libya’s faux-revolution had come a full circle.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
The Hindu
August 26, 2014
An ode to NATO’s mission in Libya
Hari Narayan
On October 20, 2011, a low-resolution video shot in Sirte, Libya went viral. It showed a motley mob of about 20 mutineers shouting what sounded like insults at a 69-year-old Bedouin — their prized ‘catch’. The old man’s face was bloodied; he looked dumbfounded and was perhaps making an attempt to beg for mercy. Moments later, the aged captive was dead, his body used as a trophy.
The old, khaki-clad Bedouin was Muammar al-Qaddafi. Though both his life and his 42-year rule in Libya were marked by eccentricity, his death could not but evoke empathy. NATO’s mission creep — a spin-off from the powers granted to it by U.N. resolution 1973 — was complete.
Toppling Qaddafi by Christopher S. Chivvis — who was with Pentagon at that time and currently works for the U.S.-government-funded think tank RAND Corporation — is an ode to the intervention. Though it does express scepticism in a few chapters, its overall tone is one of approval and, at places, celebration. Long on technical details and short on depth, it reads more like a military template for future interventions than a genuine soul-searching effort.
Chivvis puts on the back-burner an honest attempt at understanding the uprising while expecting the reader to genuflect to the restraint practised by the U.S. as it decided to step back and allow France and Britain to dominate the mission. This, even as it supplied the bulk of the arms.
Some questions the book could have addressed include: Why did the rebels decide to script such a grisly death for Qaddafi — a patriarch clearly in his autumn? Was his overthrow the result of foreign conspiracy, considering that he had antagonised quite a lot of regimes due to his fiercely independent foreign policy? Was Libya really on the verge of genocide when the West decided to intervene?
A report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), Making sense of Libya (released on 6th June 2011, much after the intervention began), provides some answers. It revealed that the revolt’s original authors were not native Libyans in Benghazi but those from the Libyan diaspora, vocal opponents of Qaddafi’s style of functioning who had been responsible for his vilification in the western media.
Hugh Roberts, ICG’s North Africa Project Director during the uprising, gave a comprehensive analysis in his article, Who said Gaddafi had to go? (London Review of Books, November 17, 2011). The essay proves a sober counter to Chivvis’s celebratory monograph.
Roberts’s essay answers most of the questions Chivvis’s book doesn’t. In the Cold War years, Libya had been of strategic interest to the U.S. primarily because of its location along the coast of Mediterranean, providing it a vital link between Europe and North Africa and North Africa and West Asia. Up to the discovery of oil in 1960, the primary source of revenue for Libya was from the Wheelus Air Base, which was once called by a U.S. Ambassador as “a little America … on the sparkling shores of the Mediterranean.” Having once had about 4,600 Americans, it was rendered defunct once oil was discovered and a Qaddafi-led coup happened in 1969.
Roberts also deals with the minutiae when he points out that the conflict was more internecine than international — it was between the Arab villages and Berber hamlets; between militias from the mountains and those from the coast; and between the light-skinned Libyans and their black neighbours.
So, was Libya another Afghanistan where tribal identities triumphed over national ones? Or was it converted into an anarchy along Afghan lines post-intervention?
Dirk Vandewalle, in his book A history of modern Libya, expounds that just like many other countries in Africa, Libya was a creation of convenience for colonial powers. The United Kingdom of Libya was created in 1951 by integrating three distinct regions – Cyrenaica (east), Fezzan (southwest), and Tripolitania (west) — without a binding force.
Libyans had suffered vicious suppression at the hands of their Italian colonisers, who tried to create an extension of metropolitan Italy in Tripolitania, settling Italians while massacring natives. This only fostered tribal loyalties and created distrust toward political institutions.
Though Qaddafi’s interests lay in keeping Libya politically inactive, his government’s generous redistribution of oil revenues did create an effective welfare state. As per a UNICEF (2009) report, Libya had a literacy rate of 95 per cent for males and 78 per cent for females and a life expectancy of 74. It had a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 55, out of 182 countries considered, ahead of most sub-Saharan and many Asian countries.
It would be more persuasive to say that the Libyan civil war was a conflict created by history — between the culturally and economically disparate western and the eastern regions — best resolved politically by Libyans themselves, with diplomatic support from outside, which the ICG offered. However, NATO was more intent on scripting a change its way.
Chivvis is so absorbed in the details of NATO’s military manoeuvres that, even with the benefit of hindsight, he gets his facts entirely wrong. This becomes particularly bewildering in the final chapter, written when the negative repercussions of the intervention were being felt.
For instance, Chivvis still maintains that Qaddafi government killed “several hundred civilians” prior to the intervention. Hugh Roberts had invalidated this as early as 2011 by citing Human Rights Watch, which said that as late as on February 21, when the genocide bogey had reached its peak, the total death toll was 233. Compared to this, the total death toll in Tunisia was 300 and that in Egypt was 846.
Chivvis claims that the intervention offered hopes for protesters in the other conservative regimes in the region against brutal crackdown. This after the West chose to overlook protests in Bahrain — where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed — when the Sunni-minority monarchy crushed the non-violent Shia demonstrators.
Chivvis also makes the ludicrous claim that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would have suppressed his population earlier and more violently had NATO not intervened. He completely ignores the fact that it was NATO’s misadventure in Libya that strengthened al-Qaeda-linked elements in Syria. This in turn led to the birth of Islamic State (IS), an ultra-jihadist group that the U.S. is currently fighting in Iraq.
Chivvis occasionally engages in plainspeak. Like when he emphasises the positive fall-out of the intervention on the U.S. arms industry. Citing an unclassified document, he says that the U.S. went on to sell $261 million worth of ammunition and spare parts to its allies. This while ‘leading from behind!’
And, finally, he admits, in passing, the ambivalence the rebels gradually started to feel toward NATO’s intentions, when the latter started dictating the course of action. One of them even went on to question if NATO’s aims were ‘different’ to their own.
The ICG document proved to be prescient in its outlook when it said that with an escalation of hostilities, the outcome “... may be not a transition to democracy but rather a potentially prolonged vacuum … that could aggravate an already serious humanitarian crisis.”
About a year after Qaddafi’s death, another video, graphic in its details, emerged. It pertained to the death of Christopher Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, killed when its consulate in Benghazi, the birthplace of Libya’s uprising, was attacked. A fringe terrorist organisation strengthened by the intervention, ansar al-Sharia was blamed. From one grisly murder to another, Libya’s faux-revolution had come a full circle.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.act.nato.int/sact-
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Transformation
August 16, 2014
SACT Addresses Industry Leaders at "Going Global Defense Initiative" Event
NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), French Air Force General Jean-Paul Paloméros addressed industry and business representatives as keynote speaker at the Kick-off Workshop for Virginia's Going Global Defense Initiative held in Norfolk, Virginia, August 14.
The Going Global Defense Initiative, launched by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), is an effort to mitigate the impact that defence spending cuts have on Virginia's economy. The VEDP focuses on assisting Virginia businesses in capturing export opportunities overseas.
Norfolk is home to Allied Command Transformation (ACT), the only permanent NATO headquarters located outside of Europe. The command oversees NATO's military transformation ensuring the organisation is capable of effectively taking on future security challenges.
General Paloméros talked to the business leaders about cooperative effort of NATO and industry, and how their support for the Alliance was vital to ACT's success, saying "the Allies recognise that in our current strategic context, we are facing new needs in terms of knowledge, no longer developed within the Defence realm. Today, Academia and Industry are leading in these areas of interests."
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Transformation
August 16, 2014
SACT Addresses Industry Leaders at "Going Global Defense Initiative" Event
NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), French Air Force General Jean-Paul Paloméros addressed industry and business representatives as keynote speaker at the Kick-off Workshop for Virginia's Going Global Defense Initiative held in Norfolk, Virginia, August 14.
The Going Global Defense Initiative, launched by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), is an effort to mitigate the impact that defence spending cuts have on Virginia's economy. The VEDP focuses on assisting Virginia businesses in capturing export opportunities overseas.
Norfolk is home to Allied Command Transformation (ACT), the only permanent NATO headquarters located outside of Europe. The command oversees NATO's military transformation ensuring the organisation is capable of effectively taking on future security challenges.
General Paloméros talked to the business leaders about cooperative effort of NATO and industry, and how their support for the Alliance was vital to ACT's success, saying "the Allies recognise that in our current strategic context, we are facing new needs in terms of knowledge, no longer developed within the Defence realm. Today, Academia and Industry are leading in these areas of interests."
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:00 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"linguisticresearch"
body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } body p {
margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; }
http://www.strategic-culture.
oads-us-nato-deploy-ground-
ises-against-unnamed-enemy.
<http://www.strategic-culture.
roads-us-nato-deploy-ground-
cises-against-unnamed-enemy.
Dangerous Crossroads: US-NATO To Deploy Ground Troops,
Conduct Large Scale Naval Exercises against “Unnamed
Enemy” EDITOR'S CHOICE
<http://www.strategic-culture.
| 25.08.2014 | 18:44
The World is at a dangerous Crossroads.
The Western military alliance is in an advanced
state of readiness. And so is Russia.
Russia is heralded as the
“Aggressor”. US-NATO military confrontation with
Russia is contemplated.
Enabling legislation in the US Senate under
“The Russian Aggression Prevention
Act” (RAPA) has “set the US on a path towards
direct military conflict with Russia in
Ukraine.”
Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly
escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the
US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat,
both have many thousands of nuclear
weapons ready for instant use
<http://fas.org/issues/
s/> , and both rely upon Counterforce
<http://fas.org/pub-reports/
uclear-policy-path-toward-
military doctrine that tasks their
military, in the event of war, to preemptively
destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy. (See
Steven Starr, Global Research
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
ct-rapa-a-direct-path-to-
August 22, 2014)
The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is
the culmination of more than twenty years of
US-NATO war preparations, which consist in the
military encirclement of both Russia and China:
From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, the United States has relentlessly
pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just
as it has with other perceived enemies like
China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in
central Europe, all of them formerly allied with
Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is
now directly on Russia’s borders. (Steven
Kinzer, Boston Globe,
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/
ver-russia-isn-zero-sum/
3, 2014, emphasis added)
NATO’s top commander in Europe General
Philip Breedlove (right) (AFP Photo / John
Thys)
On July 24, in consultation with the Pentagon,
NATO’s Europe commander General Philip
Breedlove called for “stockpiling a
base in Poland with enough weapons, ammunition
and other supplies to support a rapid
deployment of thousands of troops against Russia”.(RT,
July 24, 2014). According to General Breedlove, NATO
needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned
capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept
follow-on forces”:
“He plans to recommend placing supplies
— weapons, ammunition and ration packs
— at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx
of thousands of Nato troops” (Times, August 22, 2014,
emphasis added)
Breedlove’s “Blitzkrieg
scenario” is to be presented at NATO’s summit in
Wales in early September, according to The
London Times. It is part and parcel of
the Russian Aggression Prevention Act
(RAPA
<https://beta.congress.gov/
) which directs President Obama to:
“(1) implement a plan for increasing
U.S. and NATO support for the armed forces of
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and
other NATO member-states; and
(2) direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to
NATO to seek consideration for permanently
basing NATO forces in such countries.”
(S.2277 — 113th Congress (2013-2014))
More generally, a scenario of military
escalation prevails with both sides involved in
extensive war games.
In turn, the structure of US sponsored military
alliances plays a crucial role in war planning.
We are dealing with a formidable military force
involving a global alliance of 28 NATO member
states. In turn, the US as well as NATO have
established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network
of bilateral military alliances with
“partner” countries directed
against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
[File:Map of
NATO countries.png]
Major US-NATO Naval Exercises
War preparations are invariably accompanied and
preceded by major military exercises.
US-NATO multi-warfare naval exercises are to be
conducted off the Florida coastline under
operation FLEETEX, with the participation of
the US, Canada, Germany and Turkey.
The underlying premise of these war games is
“global warfare”. All four NATO
member states are adjacent to strategic sea corridors,
which are contiguous to Russian maritime areas,
respectively the Bering Sea and straits (US), the
Arctic Ocean (Canada), the North Sea (Germany) and the
Black Sea (Turkey).
The Florida war games are predicated on
multi-country integration and coordination of
naval operations directed against an unnamed
enemy:
FLEETEX are multi-warfare naval exercises
designed to promote force integration and test
multiple war fighting skill sets. Ships
from the U.S., Canadian, German and Turkish
navies will participate in the exercises. This
port visit and FLEETEX are part of a series of
training exercises in which SNMG2 will participate
during its deployment to the Western Atlantic. This is
the first time in several years that a NATO task force
has conducted transatlantic operations in North
America. These events offer multiple opportunities for
training at the highest levels of maritime operations.
FLEETEX will feature anti-air, anti-submarine,
live fire and ship handling scenarios designed
to provide high-end warfare training and
valuable experience through integrated task
group training. SNMG2, CSG8 and Canadian forces
will train together as a force to learn how to work as
a cohesive unit in response to a variety of threat
scenarios.
SNMG2 ships currently deployed to North America
include the U.S. flagship, USS LEYTE GULF (CG
55), the German ship FGS NIEDERSACHSEN (F 208),
and the Turkish ship TCG KEMALREIS (F 247).
….
During the port visit, SNMG2 will coordinate
with representatives from the Canadian navy and
Carrier Strike Group 8 (CSG8) to prepare for
the exercises…
“Any opportunity we have to train with
multiple NATO navies simultaneously is
extremely valuable,” said Rear Adm. Brad Williamson,
Commander SNMG2. “This period will allow us to build
integration and teamwork, and I’m excited to train
with and share experiences between Allied shipmates.”
SNMG2 is permanently available to NATO to
perform a wide range of tasks, from real world
operations to exercise participation.
Composition of the force varies as allied nations
contribute assets on a rotational basis. SNMG2 will be
led by a U.S. Navy admiral and flagship until June
2015. (For further details see North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Allied Maritime Command HQ MARCOM Public
Affairs Office, aco.nato.int
<http://www.aco.nato.int/
ex.aspx> , August 18, 2014, emphasis
added)
Black Sea War Games
It is worth noting that FLEETEX is one among
several US-NATO naval war games directed
against an unnamed enemy. In July, NATO
conducted naval exercises in the Black sea, in an area
contiguous to Russia’s maritime borders.
NATO’s “Breeze” formally
hosted by Bulgaria took place from July 4 to July 13,
with the participation of naval vessels from Greece,
Italy, Romania, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S.
The underlying scenario was the
“”destruction of enemy ships in the sea and
organization of air defense of naval groups and
coastal infrastructure.”
The exercises were “aimed
at improving the tactical compatibility and
collaboration among naval forces of the alliance’s
member states…” (See Atlantic
Council
<http://www.atlanticcouncil.
to-russia-naval-exercises-on-
U.S. ships sail in competing Black Sea exercises
<http://www.navytimes.com/
U-S-ships-sail-competing-
July 7, Navy Times 2014)
Ironically, NATO’s July Black Sea games
started on exactly the same day as those of the
“unnamed enemy”[Russia], involving its
Crimea Black sea fleet of some 20 war ships and
aircraft:
Russia has made it clear they don’t
welcome NATO’s presence in the Black Sea.
Russia’s navy let it be known that it is following the
exercises with reconnaissance aircraft and
surveillance ships.
“The aviation of the Black Sea Fleet
is paying special attention to the
missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf which, though not
formally the flagship of the ‘Breeze’ exercises,
effectively is leading them,” a Russian naval source
told NTV. (Ibid)
Deployment of Ground Forces in Eastern Europe
Since 2006, the US has been building up its
weapons arsenal in Poland on Russia’s
Western border (Kalingrad). The deployment of
US forces in Poland was initiated in July 2010
(within 40 miles from the border), with a view to
training Polish forces in the use of US made Patriot
missiles. (Stars and Stripes, 23 July 2010).
In recent developments, the Pentagon announced
in early August the deployment of US troops and
National Guard forces to Ukraine as part of a
military training operation. US-NATO is also
planning further deployments of ground forces (as
described by NATO General Breedlove) in Poland,
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as well as in Georgia
and Azerbaijan on Russia’s southern border.
These deployments which are envisaged in the
draft text of the “Russian Aggression
Prevention Act” (RAPA) (S.2277 — 113th
Congress (2013-2014)) are envisaged as part of a
“defensive” strategy in the case of a
“Russian invasion”:
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the
conflict in eastern Ukraine have alarmed
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – like Ukraine,
former Soviet republics with Russian-speaking
minorities.
NATO’s 28 leaders are expected to
discuss plans to reassure Poland and the
Balticsat a summit in Wales on Sept. 4-5.
Germany’s Angela Merkel, during a short
visit to Latvia on Monday, pledged NATO would
defend the Baltic states, although it would not
send permanent combat troops.
“Any country, including the Baltic
states, also Poland, have to strengthen their
infrastructure … so they can host additional
troops for training and crisis situations,”
Latvia’s Defense Minister Raimonds
Vejonis told Reuters.
In Latvia’s case that would mean
investments in Adazi base for ground troops,
Lielvarde air base and Liepaja naval base, he
said, adding he hoped NATO would contribute to the
spending.
Latvia and Lithuania spend respectively just
0.9 and 0.8 percent of GDP on defense but have
pledged to meet the alliance’s target of
2.0 percent by 2020.
“There is no direct military threat at
the moment, but we have to develop our armed
forces, we have to create infrastructure, we
have to be ready to host representatives of NATO
countries if there suddenly is a military
aggression,”the minister said. Baltics and Poland need
more military infrastructure. (Reuters, August 22,
2014)
Deployments on Russia’s South Border
with Azerbaijan and Georgia
Deployment on Russia’s Southern border
is to be coordinated under a three country
agreement signed on August 22, 2014 by Turkey,
Georgia and Azerbaijan:
Following the trilateral meeting of
Azerbaijani, Turkish and Georgian defense
ministers, Tbilisi announced that the three countries
are interested in working out a plan to strengthen the
defense capability.
“The representatives of the governments
of these three countries start to think about
working out a plan to strengthen the defense
capability,” Alasania said, adding that this
is in the interests of Europe and NATO.“Because, this
transit route [Baku-Tbilisi-Kars] is used to transport
the alliance’s cargo to Afghanistan,” he said.
Alasania also noted that these actions are
not directed against anyone. (See Azeri
News <http://www.azernews.az/
2014, emphasis added)
Russia and Obama’s “Pivot to
Asia”
In the Far-east, Russia’s borders are
also threatened by Obama’s “Pivot
to Asia”.
The “Pivot to Asia” from a
military standpoint consists in extending US
military deployments in the Asia-Pacific as well as
harnessing the participation of Washington’s allies in
the region, including Japan, South Korea and
Australia. These countries have signed bilateral
military cooperation agreements with Washington. As US
allies, they are slated to be involved in Pentagon war
plans directed against Russia, China and North Korea:
Japan and South Korea are also both part of a
grand U.S. military project involving the
global stationing of missile systems and
rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan
Administration. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global
Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China,
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
-russia-and-china/5605> Global Research,
October 5, 2007)
This Pentagon strategy of military encirclement
requires both centralized military decision
making(Pentagon, USSTRATCOM) as
well coordination with NATO and the various US
regional commands.
While Russia is formally within the
jurisdiction of US European Command (USEUCOM),
US war plans pertaining to Russia are
coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters
(USSTRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska, which in turn is in
liaison not only with US European Command (USEUCOM)
but also with USPACOM and USNORTHCOM, both of which
would play a key strategic role in the case of war
with Russia.
Source: historyfuturenow.com
<http://www.historyfuturenow.
rade-and-security/>
US-Australia Military Agreement
On August 12, the US and Australia signed a
military agreement allowing for the deployment
of US troops in Australia. This agreement is
part of Obama’s Pivot to Asia:
The U.S. and Australia signed an agreement
Tuesday [August 12] that will allow thetwo
countries’ militaries to train and work
better together as U.S. Marines and airmen deploy in
and out of the country.
“This long-term agreement will broaden
and deepen our alliance’s contributions
to regional security,” U.S. Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday. He described the
U.S.-Australia alliance as the “bedrock” for
stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
…
Since 2011, the number of Marines there has
grown from about 250 to more than 1,100 now.
Australian Defense Minister David Johnston said
the northern territory looks forward to the
Marine presence growing to the 2,500 limit.
Ironically, coinciding with the announcement of
the US-Australia agreement (August 12), Moscow
announced that it would be conducting naval
exercises in the Kuril Islands of the Pacific
Ocean (which are claimed by Japan):
“Exercises began involving military
units in the region, which have been deployed
to the Kuril Islands,” Colonel Alexander
Gordeyev, a spokesman for Russia’s Eastern Military
District, told news agency Interfax. (Moscow Times,
August 12, 2014)
The Dangers of a Third World War
While this renewed East-West confrontation has
mistakenly been labelled a “New Cold
War”, none of the safeguards of The Cold War
era prevail. International diplomacy has collapsed.
Russia has been excluded from the Group of Eight
(G-8), which has reverted to the G-7 (Group of Seven
Nations). There is no “Cold War East-West dialogue”
between competing superpowers geared towards avoiding
military confrontation. In turn, the United Nations
Security Council has become a de facto mouthpiece of
the U.S. State Department.
The timeline towards war with Russiahas been
set. The Wales NATO venue on September 4-5,
2014 is of crucial importance.
US-NATO will not, however, be able to win a
conventional war against Russia, with the
danger that military confrontation will lead to
a nuclear war.
In the post-Cold war era, however, nuclear
weapons are no longer considered as a
“weapon of last resort” under the Cold War
doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction”
(MAD). Quite the opposite. nuclear weapons
are heralded by the Pentagon as
“harmless to the surrounding civilian
population because the explosion is underground”. In
2002, the U.S. Senate gave the green light for the use
of nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Nukes are part of the “military toolbox” to be used
alongside conventional weapons.
When war becomes peace, the world is turned
upside down. In a bitter irony, nukes are
now upheld by Washington as “instruments of
peace”.
In addition to nuclear weapons, the use of
chemical weapons is also envisaged.
Methods of non-conventional warfare are also
contemplated by US-NATO including financial
warfare, trade sanctions, covert ops,
cyberwarfare, geoengineering and environmental
modification technologies (ENMOD). But Russia
also has extensive capabilities in these
areas.
Western leaders in High office are Involved in
a Criminal Undertaking which Threatens the
Future of Humanity
What we are dealing with is a World War III
Scenario, which is the object of the Wales
NATO Summit on September 4-5, 2014, hosted by
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. The agenda
of this meeting has already been set by Washington,
NATO and the British government. It requires,
according to PM David Cameron in a letter addressed to
heads of State and heads of government of NATO member
states ahead of the Summit that:
“Leaders [of NATO countries] must
review NATO’s long term
relationship with Russia at the summit in response to
Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. And the PM wants
to use the summit to agree how NATO will
sustain a robust presence in Eastern Europe in the
coming months to provide reassurance to allies there,
building on work already underway in NATO.”
(See PM writes to NATO leaders ahead of
NATO Summit Wales 2014
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
loy-ground-troops-conduct-
amed-enemy/PM%20writes%20to%
20Summit%20Wales%202014> )
It is essential to undermine the
“military timeline”, namely to:
1) block the holding of the upcoming NATO
Summit meeting at the Celtic Manor Resort,
Newport, Wales (image right) on September 4-5,
through political pressure and mass
protest.The objective of this NATO venue, is to “build
a political consensus” for a war directed against the
Russian Federation, which could potentially lead the
World into a Third World War. It is therefore
essential to break this “political consensus”.
2) In addition to the 28 NATO member states,
represented by their respective heads of State
and heads of government, NATO “partner”
countries will also be represented. In all, the
governments of 60 countries will be in attendance. It
is therefore crucial to initiate a vast Worldwide
antiwar campaign in all 60 countries to stall the NATO
Summit meeting in Wales.*
3) block the adoption of the “The
Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) in
the US Congress, through pressure on senators and
members of Congress, it should be understood that the
text of the NATO Summit communique (which already
exists in draft form) is broadly similar to that
of “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA).
4) initiate a broad anti-war debate and protest
movement throughout the US and NATO member
states.
5) undermine the legitimacy of the
US-NATO-Israel military agenda through
counter-propaganda directed against mainstream
media coverage;
World public opinion must be made aware
of these impending war plans.
Spread the word far and wide.
Note
*Further details: Summit Meeting of NATO
Heads of State and Government, Newport,
Wales, United Kingdom – 4-5 September 2014
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/
lease>
By Prof Michel
Chossudovsky, globalresearch.
Tags: NATO
<http://www.strategic-culture.
Europe
<http://www.strategic-culture.
Russia <http://www.strategic-culture.
US <http://www.strategic-culture.
margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; }
http://www.strategic-culture.
oads-us-nato-deploy-ground-
ises-against-unnamed-enemy.
<http://www.strategic-culture.
roads-us-nato-deploy-ground-
cises-against-unnamed-enemy.
Dangerous Crossroads: US-NATO To Deploy Ground Troops,
Conduct Large Scale Naval Exercises against “Unnamed
Enemy” EDITOR'S CHOICE
<http://www.strategic-culture.
| 25.08.2014 | 18:44
The World is at a dangerous Crossroads.
The Western military alliance is in an advanced
state of readiness. And so is Russia.
Russia is heralded as the
“Aggressor”. US-NATO military confrontation with
Russia is contemplated.
Enabling legislation in the US Senate under
“The Russian Aggression Prevention
Act” (RAPA) has “set the US on a path towards
direct military conflict with Russia in
Ukraine.”
Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly
escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the
US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat,
both have many thousands of nuclear
weapons ready for instant use
<http://fas.org/issues/
s/> , and both rely upon Counterforce
<http://fas.org/pub-reports/
uclear-policy-path-toward-
military doctrine that tasks their
military, in the event of war, to preemptively
destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy. (See
Steven Starr, Global Research
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
ct-rapa-a-direct-path-to-
August 22, 2014)
The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is
the culmination of more than twenty years of
US-NATO war preparations, which consist in the
military encirclement of both Russia and China:
From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, the United States has relentlessly
pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just
as it has with other perceived enemies like
China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in
central Europe, all of them formerly allied with
Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is
now directly on Russia’s borders. (Steven
Kinzer, Boston Globe,
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/
ver-russia-isn-zero-sum/
3, 2014, emphasis added)
NATO’s top commander in Europe General
Philip Breedlove (right) (AFP Photo / John
Thys)
On July 24, in consultation with the Pentagon,
NATO’s Europe commander General Philip
Breedlove called for “stockpiling a
base in Poland with enough weapons, ammunition
and other supplies to support a rapid
deployment of thousands of troops against Russia”.(RT,
July 24, 2014). According to General Breedlove, NATO
needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned
capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept
follow-on forces”:
“He plans to recommend placing supplies
— weapons, ammunition and ration packs
— at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx
of thousands of Nato troops” (Times, August 22, 2014,
emphasis added)
Breedlove’s “Blitzkrieg
scenario” is to be presented at NATO’s summit in
Wales in early September, according to The
London Times. It is part and parcel of
the Russian Aggression Prevention Act
(RAPA
<https://beta.congress.gov/
) which directs President Obama to:
“(1) implement a plan for increasing
U.S. and NATO support for the armed forces of
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and
other NATO member-states; and
(2) direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to
NATO to seek consideration for permanently
basing NATO forces in such countries.”
(S.2277 — 113th Congress (2013-2014))
More generally, a scenario of military
escalation prevails with both sides involved in
extensive war games.
In turn, the structure of US sponsored military
alliances plays a crucial role in war planning.
We are dealing with a formidable military force
involving a global alliance of 28 NATO member
states. In turn, the US as well as NATO have
established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network
of bilateral military alliances with
“partner” countries directed
against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
[File:Map of
NATO countries.png]
Major US-NATO Naval Exercises
War preparations are invariably accompanied and
preceded by major military exercises.
US-NATO multi-warfare naval exercises are to be
conducted off the Florida coastline under
operation FLEETEX, with the participation of
the US, Canada, Germany and Turkey.
The underlying premise of these war games is
“global warfare”. All four NATO
member states are adjacent to strategic sea corridors,
which are contiguous to Russian maritime areas,
respectively the Bering Sea and straits (US), the
Arctic Ocean (Canada), the North Sea (Germany) and the
Black Sea (Turkey).
The Florida war games are predicated on
multi-country integration and coordination of
naval operations directed against an unnamed
enemy:
FLEETEX are multi-warfare naval exercises
designed to promote force integration and test
multiple war fighting skill sets. Ships
from the U.S., Canadian, German and Turkish
navies will participate in the exercises. This
port visit and FLEETEX are part of a series of
training exercises in which SNMG2 will participate
during its deployment to the Western Atlantic. This is
the first time in several years that a NATO task force
has conducted transatlantic operations in North
America. These events offer multiple opportunities for
training at the highest levels of maritime operations.
FLEETEX will feature anti-air, anti-submarine,
live fire and ship handling scenarios designed
to provide high-end warfare training and
valuable experience through integrated task
group training. SNMG2, CSG8 and Canadian forces
will train together as a force to learn how to work as
a cohesive unit in response to a variety of threat
scenarios.
SNMG2 ships currently deployed to North America
include the U.S. flagship, USS LEYTE GULF (CG
55), the German ship FGS NIEDERSACHSEN (F 208),
and the Turkish ship TCG KEMALREIS (F 247).
….
During the port visit, SNMG2 will coordinate
with representatives from the Canadian navy and
Carrier Strike Group 8 (CSG8) to prepare for
the exercises…
“Any opportunity we have to train with
multiple NATO navies simultaneously is
extremely valuable,” said Rear Adm. Brad Williamson,
Commander SNMG2. “This period will allow us to build
integration and teamwork, and I’m excited to train
with and share experiences between Allied shipmates.”
SNMG2 is permanently available to NATO to
perform a wide range of tasks, from real world
operations to exercise participation.
Composition of the force varies as allied nations
contribute assets on a rotational basis. SNMG2 will be
led by a U.S. Navy admiral and flagship until June
2015. (For further details see North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Allied Maritime Command HQ MARCOM Public
Affairs Office, aco.nato.int
<http://www.aco.nato.int/
ex.aspx> , August 18, 2014, emphasis
added)
Black Sea War Games
It is worth noting that FLEETEX is one among
several US-NATO naval war games directed
against an unnamed enemy. In July, NATO
conducted naval exercises in the Black sea, in an area
contiguous to Russia’s maritime borders.
NATO’s “Breeze” formally
hosted by Bulgaria took place from July 4 to July 13,
with the participation of naval vessels from Greece,
Italy, Romania, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S.
The underlying scenario was the
“”destruction of enemy ships in the sea and
organization of air defense of naval groups and
coastal infrastructure.”
The exercises were “aimed
at improving the tactical compatibility and
collaboration among naval forces of the alliance’s
member states…” (See Atlantic
Council
<http://www.atlanticcouncil.
to-russia-naval-exercises-on-
U.S. ships sail in competing Black Sea exercises
<http://www.navytimes.com/
U-S-ships-sail-competing-
July 7, Navy Times 2014)
Ironically, NATO’s July Black Sea games
started on exactly the same day as those of the
“unnamed enemy”[Russia], involving its
Crimea Black sea fleet of some 20 war ships and
aircraft:
Russia has made it clear they don’t
welcome NATO’s presence in the Black Sea.
Russia’s navy let it be known that it is following the
exercises with reconnaissance aircraft and
surveillance ships.
“The aviation of the Black Sea Fleet
is paying special attention to the
missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf which, though not
formally the flagship of the ‘Breeze’ exercises,
effectively is leading them,” a Russian naval source
told NTV. (Ibid)
Deployment of Ground Forces in Eastern Europe
Since 2006, the US has been building up its
weapons arsenal in Poland on Russia’s
Western border (Kalingrad). The deployment of
US forces in Poland was initiated in July 2010
(within 40 miles from the border), with a view to
training Polish forces in the use of US made Patriot
missiles. (Stars and Stripes, 23 July 2010).
In recent developments, the Pentagon announced
in early August the deployment of US troops and
National Guard forces to Ukraine as part of a
military training operation. US-NATO is also
planning further deployments of ground forces (as
described by NATO General Breedlove) in Poland,
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as well as in Georgia
and Azerbaijan on Russia’s southern border.
These deployments which are envisaged in the
draft text of the “Russian Aggression
Prevention Act” (RAPA) (S.2277 — 113th
Congress (2013-2014)) are envisaged as part of a
“defensive” strategy in the case of a
“Russian invasion”:
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the
conflict in eastern Ukraine have alarmed
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – like Ukraine,
former Soviet republics with Russian-speaking
minorities.
NATO’s 28 leaders are expected to
discuss plans to reassure Poland and the
Balticsat a summit in Wales on Sept. 4-5.
Germany’s Angela Merkel, during a short
visit to Latvia on Monday, pledged NATO would
defend the Baltic states, although it would not
send permanent combat troops.
“Any country, including the Baltic
states, also Poland, have to strengthen their
infrastructure … so they can host additional
troops for training and crisis situations,”
Latvia’s Defense Minister Raimonds
Vejonis told Reuters.
In Latvia’s case that would mean
investments in Adazi base for ground troops,
Lielvarde air base and Liepaja naval base, he
said, adding he hoped NATO would contribute to the
spending.
Latvia and Lithuania spend respectively just
0.9 and 0.8 percent of GDP on defense but have
pledged to meet the alliance’s target of
2.0 percent by 2020.
“There is no direct military threat at
the moment, but we have to develop our armed
forces, we have to create infrastructure, we
have to be ready to host representatives of NATO
countries if there suddenly is a military
aggression,”the minister said. Baltics and Poland need
more military infrastructure. (Reuters, August 22,
2014)
Deployments on Russia’s South Border
with Azerbaijan and Georgia
Deployment on Russia’s Southern border
is to be coordinated under a three country
agreement signed on August 22, 2014 by Turkey,
Georgia and Azerbaijan:
Following the trilateral meeting of
Azerbaijani, Turkish and Georgian defense
ministers, Tbilisi announced that the three countries
are interested in working out a plan to strengthen the
defense capability.
“The representatives of the governments
of these three countries start to think about
working out a plan to strengthen the defense
capability,” Alasania said, adding that this
is in the interests of Europe and NATO.“Because, this
transit route [Baku-Tbilisi-Kars] is used to transport
the alliance’s cargo to Afghanistan,” he said.
Alasania also noted that these actions are
not directed against anyone. (See Azeri
News <http://www.azernews.az/
2014, emphasis added)
Russia and Obama’s “Pivot to
Asia”
In the Far-east, Russia’s borders are
also threatened by Obama’s “Pivot
to Asia”.
The “Pivot to Asia” from a
military standpoint consists in extending US
military deployments in the Asia-Pacific as well as
harnessing the participation of Washington’s allies in
the region, including Japan, South Korea and
Australia. These countries have signed bilateral
military cooperation agreements with Washington. As US
allies, they are slated to be involved in Pentagon war
plans directed against Russia, China and North Korea:
Japan and South Korea are also both part of a
grand U.S. military project involving the
global stationing of missile systems and
rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan
Administration. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global
Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China,
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
-russia-and-china/5605> Global Research,
October 5, 2007)
This Pentagon strategy of military encirclement
requires both centralized military decision
making(Pentagon, USSTRATCOM) as
well coordination with NATO and the various US
regional commands.
While Russia is formally within the
jurisdiction of US European Command (USEUCOM),
US war plans pertaining to Russia are
coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters
(USSTRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska, which in turn is in
liaison not only with US European Command (USEUCOM)
but also with USPACOM and USNORTHCOM, both of which
would play a key strategic role in the case of war
with Russia.
Source: historyfuturenow.com
<http://www.historyfuturenow.
rade-and-security/>
US-Australia Military Agreement
On August 12, the US and Australia signed a
military agreement allowing for the deployment
of US troops in Australia. This agreement is
part of Obama’s Pivot to Asia:
The U.S. and Australia signed an agreement
Tuesday [August 12] that will allow thetwo
countries’ militaries to train and work
better together as U.S. Marines and airmen deploy in
and out of the country.
“This long-term agreement will broaden
and deepen our alliance’s contributions
to regional security,” U.S. Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday. He described the
U.S.-Australia alliance as the “bedrock” for
stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
…
Since 2011, the number of Marines there has
grown from about 250 to more than 1,100 now.
Australian Defense Minister David Johnston said
the northern territory looks forward to the
Marine presence growing to the 2,500 limit.
Ironically, coinciding with the announcement of
the US-Australia agreement (August 12), Moscow
announced that it would be conducting naval
exercises in the Kuril Islands of the Pacific
Ocean (which are claimed by Japan):
“Exercises began involving military
units in the region, which have been deployed
to the Kuril Islands,” Colonel Alexander
Gordeyev, a spokesman for Russia’s Eastern Military
District, told news agency Interfax. (Moscow Times,
August 12, 2014)
The Dangers of a Third World War
While this renewed East-West confrontation has
mistakenly been labelled a “New Cold
War”, none of the safeguards of The Cold War
era prevail. International diplomacy has collapsed.
Russia has been excluded from the Group of Eight
(G-8), which has reverted to the G-7 (Group of Seven
Nations). There is no “Cold War East-West dialogue”
between competing superpowers geared towards avoiding
military confrontation. In turn, the United Nations
Security Council has become a de facto mouthpiece of
the U.S. State Department.
The timeline towards war with Russiahas been
set. The Wales NATO venue on September 4-5,
2014 is of crucial importance.
US-NATO will not, however, be able to win a
conventional war against Russia, with the
danger that military confrontation will lead to
a nuclear war.
In the post-Cold war era, however, nuclear
weapons are no longer considered as a
“weapon of last resort” under the Cold War
doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction”
(MAD). Quite the opposite. nuclear weapons
are heralded by the Pentagon as
“harmless to the surrounding civilian
population because the explosion is underground”. In
2002, the U.S. Senate gave the green light for the use
of nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Nukes are part of the “military toolbox” to be used
alongside conventional weapons.
When war becomes peace, the world is turned
upside down. In a bitter irony, nukes are
now upheld by Washington as “instruments of
peace”.
In addition to nuclear weapons, the use of
chemical weapons is also envisaged.
Methods of non-conventional warfare are also
contemplated by US-NATO including financial
warfare, trade sanctions, covert ops,
cyberwarfare, geoengineering and environmental
modification technologies (ENMOD). But Russia
also has extensive capabilities in these
areas.
Western leaders in High office are Involved in
a Criminal Undertaking which Threatens the
Future of Humanity
What we are dealing with is a World War III
Scenario, which is the object of the Wales
NATO Summit on September 4-5, 2014, hosted by
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. The agenda
of this meeting has already been set by Washington,
NATO and the British government. It requires,
according to PM David Cameron in a letter addressed to
heads of State and heads of government of NATO member
states ahead of the Summit that:
“Leaders [of NATO countries] must
review NATO’s long term
relationship with Russia at the summit in response to
Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. And the PM wants
to use the summit to agree how NATO will
sustain a robust presence in Eastern Europe in the
coming months to provide reassurance to allies there,
building on work already underway in NATO.”
(See PM writes to NATO leaders ahead of
NATO Summit Wales 2014
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/
loy-ground-troops-conduct-
amed-enemy/PM%20writes%20to%
20Summit%20Wales%202014> )
It is essential to undermine the
“military timeline”, namely to:
1) block the holding of the upcoming NATO
Summit meeting at the Celtic Manor Resort,
Newport, Wales (image right) on September 4-5,
through political pressure and mass
protest.The objective of this NATO venue, is to “build
a political consensus” for a war directed against the
Russian Federation, which could potentially lead the
World into a Third World War. It is therefore
essential to break this “political consensus”.
2) In addition to the 28 NATO member states,
represented by their respective heads of State
and heads of government, NATO “partner”
countries will also be represented. In all, the
governments of 60 countries will be in attendance. It
is therefore crucial to initiate a vast Worldwide
antiwar campaign in all 60 countries to stall the NATO
Summit meeting in Wales.*
3) block the adoption of the “The
Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) in
the US Congress, through pressure on senators and
members of Congress, it should be understood that the
text of the NATO Summit communique (which already
exists in draft form) is broadly similar to that
of “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA).
4) initiate a broad anti-war debate and protest
movement throughout the US and NATO member
states.
5) undermine the legitimacy of the
US-NATO-Israel military agenda through
counter-propaganda directed against mainstream
media coverage;
World public opinion must be made aware
of these impending war plans.
Spread the word far and wide.
Note
*Further details: Summit Meeting of NATO
Heads of State and Government, Newport,
Wales, United Kingdom – 4-5 September 2014
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/
lease>
By Prof Michel
Chossudovsky, globalresearch.
Tags: NATO
<http://www.strategic-culture.
Europe
<http://www.strategic-culture.
Russia <http://www.strategic-culture.
US <http://www.strategic-culture.
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rustavi2.com/news/news_
Rustavi 2
August 25, 2014
Working meeting with the President
The President of Georgia today held a preparatory meeting for the NATO Summit in Wales - the meeting was attended by Defence Minister Irakli Alasania, National security Secretary Irine Imerlishvili, Deputy Foreign Minister Davit Zalkaliani and State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration Davit Dondua.
The President listened to the report by the senior officials regarding the preparatory activities.
The NATO Summit will be held in Wales on 4-5 September. The delegation of Georgia will be led by President Giorgi Margvelashvili.
==============================
http://rustavi2.com/news/news_
Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014
NATO does not recognize Abkhazia `elections`
The NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made a special statement regarding the so-called presidential elections held in Georgia`s breakaway Abkhazia last Sunday.
`NATO does not recognise the election held on 24 August in the Georgian region of Abkhazia. This election does not contribute to a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. NATO Allies do not recognise the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia as independent states.
The Alliance reiterates its full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders`, the statement says.
==============================
http://rustavi2.com/news/news_
Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014
PM assigns Cabinet to assist Ukrainian colleagues
The Prime Minister of Georgia has assigned the Cabinet to provide maximum support to their colleagues in Ukraine. Irakli Gharibashvili addressed the ministers at the meeting of the government this morning.
`It will be reasonable if we provide humanitarian assistance to our Ukrainian friends,` Irakli Gharibashvili announced.
He also questioned Health Minister Sergeenko about the details of his decisions to take Georgian doctors to Ukraine. The delegation is due to leave for Kiev tomorrow and assist their colleagues in treating the people injured in the battles against the separatists.
Minister Sergeenko will be accompanied by the Chief of the Emergencies Department, Zurab Utiashvili.
Concurrently, several senior authorities, including the representatives of the Ministry of Finance are expected to arrive in Tbilisi. Georgian colleagues will share their experience of overcoming crisis in specific sectors.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
Rustavi 2
August 25, 2014
Working meeting with the President
The President of Georgia today held a preparatory meeting for the NATO Summit in Wales - the meeting was attended by Defence Minister Irakli Alasania, National security Secretary Irine Imerlishvili, Deputy Foreign Minister Davit Zalkaliani and State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration Davit Dondua.
The President listened to the report by the senior officials regarding the preparatory activities.
The NATO Summit will be held in Wales on 4-5 September. The delegation of Georgia will be led by President Giorgi Margvelashvili.
==============================
http://rustavi2.com/news/news_
Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014
NATO does not recognize Abkhazia `elections`
The NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made a special statement regarding the so-called presidential elections held in Georgia`s breakaway Abkhazia last Sunday.
`NATO does not recognise the election held on 24 August in the Georgian region of Abkhazia. This election does not contribute to a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. NATO Allies do not recognise the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia as independent states.
The Alliance reiterates its full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders`, the statement says.
==============================
http://rustavi2.com/news/news_
Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014
PM assigns Cabinet to assist Ukrainian colleagues
The Prime Minister of Georgia has assigned the Cabinet to provide maximum support to their colleagues in Ukraine. Irakli Gharibashvili addressed the ministers at the meeting of the government this morning.
`It will be reasonable if we provide humanitarian assistance to our Ukrainian friends,` Irakli Gharibashvili announced.
He also questioned Health Minister Sergeenko about the details of his decisions to take Georgian doctors to Ukraine. The delegation is due to leave for Kiev tomorrow and assist their colleagues in treating the people injured in the battles against the separatists.
Minister Sergeenko will be accompanied by the Chief of the Emergencies Department, Zurab Utiashvili.
Concurrently, several senior authorities, including the representatives of the Ministry of Finance are expected to arrive in Tbilisi. Georgian colleagues will share their experience of overcoming crisis in specific sectors.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.aco.nato.int/
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Air Command
August 26, 2014
ALLIANCE SOLIDARITY IN THE BALTIC REGION CONTINUES
Ramstein, GERMANY: As NATO’s current Baltic Air Policing (BAP) rotation draws to a close at the end of August, outgoing fighter detachments are working hard to prepare hand over responsibilities and tasks.
The 36th rotation of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing will commence in September with six Portuguese F-16 fighter aircraft deploying to Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania to execute the mission as the lead nation. Canada, Germany and The Netherlands will be augmenting the mission.
The official BAP handover/takeover ceremony will take place at Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania, on 1 September 2014. The outgoing nations; Poland, United Kingdom, Denmark and France will pass responsibility for the Baltic airspace to the four incoming nations.
Four Canadian CF-18s will operate from Siauliai Air Base alongside Portugal. Germany will deploy four Eurofighters to Ämari Air Base, Estonia, and the Netherlands will have four of its F-16s at Malbork Air Base, Poland. All assets will be used to ensure 24/7 availability of Quick Reaction Alert (Intercept) forces to secure the airspace over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
NATO’s BAP is a standing peacetime mission and has been conducted since April 2004. As the Baltic States do not have their own means to provide air policing of their territory, they have been assisted by other NATO members to preserve the integrity of their sovereign airspace in peacetime, and to ensure their collective security. So far, 14 NATO nations have supported this mission.
In line with NATO’s extensive assurance measures, Allies have offered additional assets under the NATO Air Policing framework since April 2014.
Story by HQ AIRCOM Public Affairs Office
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Air Command
August 26, 2014
ALLIANCE SOLIDARITY IN THE BALTIC REGION CONTINUES
Ramstein, GERMANY: As NATO’s current Baltic Air Policing (BAP) rotation draws to a close at the end of August, outgoing fighter detachments are working hard to prepare hand over responsibilities and tasks.
The 36th rotation of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing will commence in September with six Portuguese F-16 fighter aircraft deploying to Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania to execute the mission as the lead nation. Canada, Germany and The Netherlands will be augmenting the mission.
The official BAP handover/takeover ceremony will take place at Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania, on 1 September 2014. The outgoing nations; Poland, United Kingdom, Denmark and France will pass responsibility for the Baltic airspace to the four incoming nations.
Four Canadian CF-18s will operate from Siauliai Air Base alongside Portugal. Germany will deploy four Eurofighters to Ämari Air Base, Estonia, and the Netherlands will have four of its F-16s at Malbork Air Base, Poland. All assets will be used to ensure 24/7 availability of Quick Reaction Alert (Intercept) forces to secure the airspace over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
NATO’s BAP is a standing peacetime mission and has been conducted since April 2004. As the Baltic States do not have their own means to provide air policing of their territory, they have been assisted by other NATO members to preserve the integrity of their sovereign airspace in peacetime, and to ensure their collective security. So far, 14 NATO nations have supported this mission.
In line with NATO’s extensive assurance measures, Allies have offered additional assets under the NATO Air Policing framework since April 2014.
Story by HQ AIRCOM Public Affairs Office
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
==============================
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Boyle, Francis A" facboyle
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)
Feed: Dissident Voice
Posted on: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:01 AM
Author: Ludwig Watzal
Subject: Imposing Order through Violence
In Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution<http://www.powells.
Since the early 1980s, Boyle visited Libya numerous times and advised the government on international legal cases. He convinced Gaddafi to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the Lockerbie bombing allegations. Before this lawsuit was filed, U.S. President Bush Sr. ordered the Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya to carry out hostile maneuvers in preparation for another illegal attack as was done by his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. After Boyle filed these two lawsuits at the ICJ, Bush ordered U.S. warships to stand down. Boyle also tried to support Gaddafi during the U.S./NATO war of 2011 but to no avail. Gaddafi fought and died for Libya, defending his country against the West like his hero Omar Mukthar had done against the Italian colonizers.
Francis A. Boyle is a leading American expert in international law which he teaches at the University of Illinois, Campaign. He is also the author of numerous books on American foreign policy, international law and the foundations of the world order. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International and as an adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. This delegation was headed by the highly respected Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi. Boyle was not responsible, however, for Yasser Arafat’s decision to secretly negotiate with Israel in Oslo behind the back of the Palestinian delegation. He bears thus no responsibility for the resulting “Declaration of Principles”, for which the Palestinian people have been paying since then a terrible price.
[9780985335373]<http://
According to Boyle, Hobbesian power politics contradicts several of the most fundamental principles upon which the United States is apparently founded: the inalienable rights of the individual, peoples’ self-determination, the sovereign equality and independence of states, non-interventionism, respect of international law and organizations, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Although various U.S. administrations “tried to live up to these principles” the net result has been a “counterproductive creation of a series of unmitigated disasters” (p. 30) for the U.S. One of the greatest mistakes has been the subversion of the entire post-World War II international and legal order that the United States helped to construct in 1945. I think that the Bush warriors and the U.S. power elite do not believe that their policy was a disaster.
The author accuses in particular the Reagan and the Bush junior administrations’ policy of double standards. They often “resort to legalistic subterfuges by pleading principles of international law in order to disguise their realpolitik foreign policy decisions”. (p. 31) Although the rules of international law are not a blueprint for reaching all policy objectives, they can still serve as a guideline for decision-makers as to what they should do to avoid running into troubles, writes Boyle.
Boyle’s criticism of the American foreign policy towards Libya is based on his functionalist, Fullerian, and an anti-Hobbesian framework of analysis for international law and organizations. In two chapters, the author describes the series of conflicts between the U.S. and the Libyan leader over the Gulf of Sidra and the allegations of international terrorism made by the U.S. against Libya during the Reagan presidency. Chapter four contains a description of the Lockerbie bombing allegations and the legal dispute by the U.S. and the United Kingdom against Libya as a result. The policies of the subsequent U.S. administrations, beginning with Bush senior, Clinton to Bush junior, which aimed at the control of the Libyan oil fields, writes Boyle.
In 2011, according to Boyle, the neoliberal Obama administration took over Libya’s oil fields under the pretext of the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, illustrating its fraudulent manipulation of international humanitarian law. He debunks not only R2P but also its predecessor “humanitarian intervention” (Serbia) with the standard criteria of international law as an excuse to overthrow unpopular governments in order to replace them with imported U.S. puppets like in Afghanistan or in Kosovo. He argues that all the wars started under a humanitarian pretext resulted in humanitarian catastrophes.
The author doubts whether the U.S. and NATO will be able to establish a puppet regime in Libya because of “significant residual support for Gaddafi and his Green Revolution” and of the highly volatile political and military situation throughout the country as the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi has shown. “All the U.S./NATO really care about in Libya is its continued free flow of oil from Eastern Libya organized around Benghazi.” (p.155) The rest of the country can disintegrate into the Sahara as far as the U.S./NATO is concerned. According to Boyle, Obama uses the R2P doctrine in order to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad Family regime.
Boyle even goes so far as claiming that R2P has been used by powerful Western countries to justify wanton military aggression and military occupation of weak countries in the South. This schema is based on racism because the aggression was carried out by “white” people from the North against “colored” people from the South. History teaches us indeed that great powers do not use military force for humanitarian reasons. The U.S. and its major allies have been behind most of the humanitarian atrocities in the modern world. (p. 156) Humanitarian interventionism is only used in a mere “propagandistic sense”. (p. 159)
The World Court has already rejected R2P/Humanitarian Intervention twice and so did the UN General assembly. Western powers claimed “that there existed supposed principles of customary international law that permitted them to engage in the unilateral threat and use of military force against other states, peoples, and regions of the world. In particular, these alleged ‘principles’ included the so-called doctrines of intervention, protection, and self-help.” (p. 161) These supposed doctrines (R2P/Humanitarian Intervention) were unanimously rejected by the International Court of Justice. The author counters R2P with the rule of law. This doctrine is for him nothing more than “imperialist propaganda for wars of aggression in the name of human rights”. (p. 166) For Boyle, the U.S. and NATO form “the Axis of Genocide”. In this chapter, Boyle gave a damning indictment of the R2P doctrine. Some human rights organizations around the world should rethink their policy of being cheerleaders of a doctrine that serves not the people but only Western neo-imperialism.
A detailed analysis on the 2011 U.S./NATO war on Libya is given in chapter six. Since 9/11 the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East have engaged in “unlimited imperialism” and a “global warfare” against Arab, Muslim and African states in order to steal their hydrocarbon resources. (p. 176) “Libya 2011 was a Nuremberg crime against peace perpetrated by the United States, France and Britain that was aided and abetted and facilitated by the NATO Alliance and its other member states.” (p. 185) Accomplice in this international crime was the Arab League.
The book is a scathing critic of modern Western imperialist policy, especially in its Islamophobic and racist version against the Muslim world that might constitute the only force that has the potential to defeat Western unlimited imperialism.
View article...<http://
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:11 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Kim Scipes" kscipes
Folks—
This is a 30 minute talk, given recently in North Carolina. It is powerful—and thought provoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
I urge you to listen
In international solidarity—
Kim Scipes
This is a 30 minute talk, given recently in North Carolina. It is powerful—and thought provoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
I urge you to listen
In international solidarity—
Kim Scipes
