11 New Messages
Digest #4605
Messages
Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:01 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 15, 2013
“Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia” – American expert
Yulia Zamanskaya
====
Discussing the missile defence system's geographic parameters, Mr Kinsley argues that “Moscow might not even need to wait for an upgrade for its nuclear deterrent to be undermined”. The expert explains that the current BMD radars and interceptor sites are not in optimal geographic locations for effective defence of Europe against any Middle Eastern threat, and “Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia”.
NATO’s BMD not only undermines Moscow’s nuclear deterrent but also reduces its retaliatory capabilities. In this context, it is hard to see how Russian officials would not find NATO’s BMD advancement alarming.
====
Despite NATO assurances that Moscow is not the target of its large-scale Ballistic Missile Defence program (BMD), the Russian government has repeatedly expressed deep concerns that the alliance’s build-up of defensive capabilities will have a negative impact on Russia’s own strategic interests. Frederic Kinsley, a researcher from the Center for Political Studies, Michigan, argues that Russia’s concerns are not ungrounded: given the excessive technological and military prowess of NATO’s BMD, its geographical positioning and the absence of any binding legal agreements, Russia can never be sure that its deterrent is not or will not be undermined.
Just over two years ago, during the November 2010 Lisbon Summit, the 28 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agreed to develop a missile defence capability which would protect “its populations, territories, and forces against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack”. To this end, leaders of the alliance decided to expand the existing Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system by integrating it with the American European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). As time passed, it became clear that the initiative, which was intended to become one of the most valuable contributions to NATO security, had instead ripened into the subject of what now seems a never-ending political conflict between NATO and Russia.
According to Mr Kinsley, this conflict was rather inevitable since “it is hard to imagine how Moscow could have remained unalarmed by the advancements of NATO's BMD, given the technological characteristics and geographical positioning of the system".
Developing this line of thought further, Mr Kinsley suggests that, technologically, “NATO’s new defence system is highly adaptive and flexible. In essence, this means that while BMD is currently programmed to counterbalance Middle Eastern threats to NATO such as Iran, it could in future be upgraded to intercept any missile attack from the Eurasian region”. In other words, ‘beefed up’ by additional radar and satellites, BMD has the potential capacity to track and block missiles that originate not only in the Middle East but also in Russia, ultimately negating Moscow’s own strategic deterrent. It is not therefore the system’s initial technical capabilities that most concern Russia, but its potential to be ‘upgraded’.
Discussing the missile defence system's geographic parameters, Mr Kinsley argues that “Moscow might not even need to wait for an upgrade for its nuclear deterrent to be undermined”. The expert explains that the current BMD radars and interceptor sites are not in optimal geographic locations for effective defence of Europe against any Middle Eastern threat, and “Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia”.
According to the researcher, adequate missile defence against Muslim states would necessitate positioning BMD support systems in Romania, Bulgaria or Albania, but BMD radars and interceptors have been placed in the Czech Republic, Poland, and just off the Baltic coast. In Mr Kinsley’s opinion, such choices of location for BMD support systems are quite symbolic of the real intent behind NATO’s strategic defence program. The expert contends that “the only obvious strategic reason for choosing Poland for interceptors and the Czech Republic for radar installations is to provide another layer of protection against Russia's European-based ICBMs. Positioned as close to the Russian border as possible, the BMD shield could potentially engage all ICBMs launched against NATO countries from any Russian site west of the Urals”. In this respect, NATO’s BMD not only undermines Moscow’s nuclear deterrent but also reduces its retaliatory capabilities. In this
context, it is hard to see how Russian officials would not find NATO’s BMD advancement alarming.
Mr Kinsley believes that the only way to alleviate tension between the two sides is to come up with a legally binding agreement, essentially a formal treaty.
The first step toward creating such a pact would be to implement confidence-building measures to promote greater transparency regarding BMD capabilities. Once a minimal level of trust is established, the sides should develop a list of specific military-technical criteria, such as interceptor numbers, velocity, range, location, and performance, which would allow for a joint understanding of NATO’s deployment plans and capabilities and their impact on strategic nuclear balance. In essence, the resulting legal agreement should enable Russia to control the degree to which NATO’s actions in the realm of missile defence correspond with its declared intentions and do not impinge upon Moscow’s strategic interests. Only when such formal agreement is reached can Russia be minimally assured that NATO’s BMD is not targeted against it.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
January 15, 2013
“Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia” – American expert
Yulia Zamanskaya
====
Discussing the missile defence system's geographic parameters, Mr Kinsley argues that “Moscow might not even need to wait for an upgrade for its nuclear deterrent to be undermined”. The expert explains that the current BMD radars and interceptor sites are not in optimal geographic locations for effective defence of Europe against any Middle Eastern threat, and “Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia”.
NATO’s BMD not only undermines Moscow’s nuclear deterrent but also reduces its retaliatory capabilities. In this context, it is hard to see how Russian officials would not find NATO’s BMD advancement alarming.
====
Despite NATO assurances that Moscow is not the target of its large-scale Ballistic Missile Defence program (BMD), the Russian government has repeatedly expressed deep concerns that the alliance’s build-up of defensive capabilities will have a negative impact on Russia’s own strategic interests. Frederic Kinsley, a researcher from the Center for Political Studies, Michigan, argues that Russia’s concerns are not ungrounded: given the excessive technological and military prowess of NATO’s BMD, its geographical positioning and the absence of any binding legal agreements, Russia can never be sure that its deterrent is not or will not be undermined.
Just over two years ago, during the November 2010 Lisbon Summit, the 28 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agreed to develop a missile defence capability which would protect “its populations, territories, and forces against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack”. To this end, leaders of the alliance decided to expand the existing Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system by integrating it with the American European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). As time passed, it became clear that the initiative, which was intended to become one of the most valuable contributions to NATO security, had instead ripened into the subject of what now seems a never-ending political conflict between NATO and Russia.
According to Mr Kinsley, this conflict was rather inevitable since “it is hard to imagine how Moscow could have remained unalarmed by the advancements of NATO's BMD, given the technological characteristics and geographical positioning of the system".
Developing this line of thought further, Mr Kinsley suggests that, technologically, “NATO’s new defence system is highly adaptive and flexible. In essence, this means that while BMD is currently programmed to counterbalance Middle Eastern threats to NATO such as Iran, it could in future be upgraded to intercept any missile attack from the Eurasian region”. In other words, ‘beefed up’ by additional radar and satellites, BMD has the potential capacity to track and block missiles that originate not only in the Middle East but also in Russia, ultimately negating Moscow’s own strategic deterrent. It is not therefore the system’s initial technical capabilities that most concern Russia, but its potential to be ‘upgraded’.
Discussing the missile defence system's geographic parameters, Mr Kinsley argues that “Moscow might not even need to wait for an upgrade for its nuclear deterrent to be undermined”. The expert explains that the current BMD radars and interceptor sites are not in optimal geographic locations for effective defence of Europe against any Middle Eastern threat, and “Moscow has every reason to believe that NATO’s BMD is targeted against Russia”.
According to the researcher, adequate missile defence against Muslim states would necessitate positioning BMD support systems in Romania, Bulgaria or Albania, but BMD radars and interceptors have been placed in the Czech Republic, Poland, and just off the Baltic coast. In Mr Kinsley’s opinion, such choices of location for BMD support systems are quite symbolic of the real intent behind NATO’s strategic defence program. The expert contends that “the only obvious strategic reason for choosing Poland for interceptors and the Czech Republic for radar installations is to provide another layer of protection against Russia's European-based ICBMs. Positioned as close to the Russian border as possible, the BMD shield could potentially engage all ICBMs launched against NATO countries from any Russian site west of the Urals”. In this respect, NATO’s BMD not only undermines Moscow’s nuclear deterrent but also reduces its retaliatory capabilities. In this
context, it is hard to see how Russian officials would not find NATO’s BMD advancement alarming.
Mr Kinsley believes that the only way to alleviate tension between the two sides is to come up with a legally binding agreement, essentially a formal treaty.
The first step toward creating such a pact would be to implement confidence-building measures to promote greater transparency regarding BMD capabilities. Once a minimal level of trust is established, the sides should develop a list of specific military-technical criteria, such as interceptor numbers, velocity, range, location, and performance, which would allow for a joint understanding of NATO’s deployment plans and capabilities and their impact on strategic nuclear balance. In essence, the resulting legal agreement should enable Russia to control the degree to which NATO’s actions in the realm of missile defence correspond with its declared intentions and do not impinge upon Moscow’s strategic interests. Only when such formal agreement is reached can Russia be minimally assured that NATO’s BMD is not targeted against it.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:01 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.peopledaily.com
People's Daily
January 15, 2013
Is US planning a new Cold War?
By Ren Weidong
====
As the Asia-Pacific situation gradually unfolds, the world's geopolitical center of gravity will shift from Europe and North America to this region at a faster pace.
The United States considers the Asia-Pacific region as its main geopolitical battlefield to contain China. It is sparing no effort to create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region.
====
The world's attention has long been focused on the Asia-Pacific situation. The increasingly sensitive and complex bilateral and multilateral relations in the region, including China-Japan, China-U.S., Japan-U.S., China-Japan-U.S., and North Korea–South Korea relations, have made the Asia-Pacific situation subtler. How should we view the current Asia-Pacific situation?
World's geopolitical center of gravity shifting to Asia-Pacific region.
The world's geopolitical center of gravity had long been in Europe and North America in the modern era. The United States has shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region since the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century. It has taken China as a major rival for global hegemony because China is the only country that can compete against it in all fields after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Gains and losses in the Asia-Pacific region are important for the development prospects and international status of China, the United States, and many other countries. As the Asia-Pacific situation gradually unfolds, the world's geopolitical center of gravity will shift from Europe and North America to this region at a faster pace.
The United States considers the Asia-Pacific region as its main geopolitical battlefield to contain China. It is sparing no effort to create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region. In addition to further enhancing military ties with traditional allies, its efforts have also shown some new characteristics. The first characteristic is forming the largest possible alliance against China.
The second characteristic is creating a U.S.-centered cobweb-like strategic structure.
The third characteristic is strengthening forward deployment and expanding strategic depth. For example, the United States has promoted Japan’s military buildup, deployed littoral combat ships in Singapore, used Subic Bay in the Philippines as its naval base again, and strengthened forward deployment in East Asia.
The fourth characteristic is economic divide and rule. The United States has actively promoted the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), and excluded China from it.
Japan is most active in helping the United States create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region. It has willingly served as a foot soldier and strategic frontier for the United States, and frequently interfered in various affairs to expand its strategic network. It is obvious that the two countries have reached a strong consensus on containing China, but at the expense of the fruits of the victory of the world's anti-fascist war, the post-WWII Asia-Pacific order, and the political foundation for regional peace. This is bound to destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.
In fact, most Asia-Pacific countries are opposed to another Cold War, and do not want to choose sides. They have adopted a balance-of-power policy, and are trying to create a strategic balance among major powers in the region in order to enhance their security and gain more benefits.
The Asia-Pacific region is not always the top priority of the United States. At present, it has to focus on all three priorities of Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region.
The world's geopolitical center of gravity is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, which is the main direction for China to forge ahead and also the main source of external threats. The regional geopolitical landscape is undergoing the most profound and complex changes since the Second World War, and China should undoubtedly adopt an Asia-Pacific-oriented global geopolitical strategy.
A new Asia-Pacific geopolitical landscape will be formed only after a relatively long period of fierce struggle and turmoil. China should and is well able to play a positive role in pushing the formation of the new geopolitical landscape in the right direction.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
People's Daily
January 15, 2013
Is US planning a new Cold War?
By Ren Weidong
====
As the Asia-Pacific situation gradually unfolds, the world's geopolitical center of gravity will shift from Europe and North America to this region at a faster pace.
The United States considers the Asia-Pacific region as its main geopolitical battlefield to contain China. It is sparing no effort to create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region.
====
The world's attention has long been focused on the Asia-Pacific situation. The increasingly sensitive and complex bilateral and multilateral relations in the region, including China-Japan, China-U.S., Japan-U.S., China-Japan-U.S., and North Korea–South Korea relations, have made the Asia-Pacific situation subtler. How should we view the current Asia-Pacific situation?
World's geopolitical center of gravity shifting to Asia-Pacific region.
The world's geopolitical center of gravity had long been in Europe and North America in the modern era. The United States has shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region since the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century. It has taken China as a major rival for global hegemony because China is the only country that can compete against it in all fields after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Gains and losses in the Asia-Pacific region are important for the development prospects and international status of China, the United States, and many other countries. As the Asia-Pacific situation gradually unfolds, the world's geopolitical center of gravity will shift from Europe and North America to this region at a faster pace.
The United States considers the Asia-Pacific region as its main geopolitical battlefield to contain China. It is sparing no effort to create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region. In addition to further enhancing military ties with traditional allies, its efforts have also shown some new characteristics. The first characteristic is forming the largest possible alliance against China.
The second characteristic is creating a U.S.-centered cobweb-like strategic structure.
The third characteristic is strengthening forward deployment and expanding strategic depth. For example, the United States has promoted Japan’s military buildup, deployed littoral combat ships in Singapore, used Subic Bay in the Philippines as its naval base again, and strengthened forward deployment in East Asia.
The fourth characteristic is economic divide and rule. The United States has actively promoted the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), and excluded China from it.
Japan is most active in helping the United States create a new Cold War geopolitical landscape in the region. It has willingly served as a foot soldier and strategic frontier for the United States, and frequently interfered in various affairs to expand its strategic network. It is obvious that the two countries have reached a strong consensus on containing China, but at the expense of the fruits of the victory of the world's anti-fascist war, the post-WWII Asia-Pacific order, and the political foundation for regional peace. This is bound to destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.
In fact, most Asia-Pacific countries are opposed to another Cold War, and do not want to choose sides. They have adopted a balance-of-power policy, and are trying to create a strategic balance among major powers in the region in order to enhance their security and gain more benefits.
The Asia-Pacific region is not always the top priority of the United States. At present, it has to focus on all three priorities of Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region.
The world's geopolitical center of gravity is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, which is the main direction for China to forge ahead and also the main source of external threats. The regional geopolitical landscape is undergoing the most profound and complex changes since the Second World War, and China should undoubtedly adopt an Asia-Pacific-oriented global geopolitical strategy.
A new Asia-Pacific geopolitical landscape will be formed only after a relatively long period of fierce struggle and turmoil. China should and is well able to play a positive role in pushing the formation of the new geopolitical landscape in the right direction.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:02 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 15, 2013
US, China compete for the role of “king of sea”
Konstantin Garibov
====
“I don’t think that China’s leaders today want to make compromises with the US. It is unlikely that China will agree to create a program of developing its navy that would satisfy the US. In its turn, the US also doesn’t want to be ousted by China from its positions in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides its military presence there, the US also wants to maintain control over all the transport routes in this region, and China is now becoming a serious rival for the US from this point of view as well.”
====
In 2012, the US announced that it is starting “to return to Asia” – that is, to broaden its military presence in the south of the Asia-Pacific region.
This is the US’s response to China’s increasing military activity in disputed waters in the East China and the South China Seas.
The US is going to move up to 60% of its navy to the Asia-Pacific region. That would increase the US’s military presence there 3 times in comparison with the current situation.
At present, about 60 to 70 US military ships and from 200 to 300 planes are constantly present at US naval bases in Japan and South Korea. Besides, at least 2 US aircraft carriers are constantly keeping watch in the region.
Now, according to President Obama’s order, US naval forces are to increase in Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.
In Australia, the number of US marines will be increased 10 times and will reach 2,500 people. Besides, the US will have broader access to the Australian naval base on the coast of the Indian Ocean, to the south of the city of Perth.
Up to 4 US navy ships will be deployed near Singapore’s coast.
The US is also planning to deploy up to 500 servicemen and reconnaissance aircraft in the Philippines and to create a center for repairing US navy ships there. Moreover, the US does not rule out that in some time from now, the Philippines may become the center of commanding US forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
“In such conditions, the Chinese are starting to feel surrounded by US forces from all sides,” Russian expert in Eastern affairs Yuri Tavrovsky said in an interview with the Voice of Russia. “After all, the US does not hide the fact that the reason it is strenthening its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region is the growing influence of China there.”
“In its turn, China is actively developing its navy,” Mr. Tavrovsky continues. “It is hard to deny that within the last few years, China’s economy has been rapidly developing, which has allowed China to considerably increase its military might. It would probably be an exaggeration to say that China is becoming aggressive, but it is obviously starting to realize that it is getting strong enough to afford dictating its will to other countries.”
Another Russian expert, Evgeny Kanaev, is predicting that US-Chinese relations will most probably aggravate even further:
“I don’t think that China’s leaders today want to make compromises with the US. It is unlikely that China will agree to create a program of developing its navy that would satisfy the US. In its turn, the US also doesn’t want to be ousted by China from its positions in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides its military presence there, the US also wants to maintain control over all the transport routes in this region, and China is now becoming a serious rival for the US from this point of view as well.”
Experts are concerned that the US’s policy of regaining military control over the Asia-Pacific region and its competition for this role with China may aggravate the situation in this region to a very dangerous point.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
January 15, 2013
US, China compete for the role of “king of sea”
Konstantin Garibov
====
“I don’t think that China’s leaders today want to make compromises with the US. It is unlikely that China will agree to create a program of developing its navy that would satisfy the US. In its turn, the US also doesn’t want to be ousted by China from its positions in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides its military presence there, the US also wants to maintain control over all the transport routes in this region, and China is now becoming a serious rival for the US from this point of view as well.”
====
In 2012, the US announced that it is starting “to return to Asia” – that is, to broaden its military presence in the south of the Asia-Pacific region.
This is the US’s response to China’s increasing military activity in disputed waters in the East China and the South China Seas.
The US is going to move up to 60% of its navy to the Asia-Pacific region. That would increase the US’s military presence there 3 times in comparison with the current situation.
At present, about 60 to 70 US military ships and from 200 to 300 planes are constantly present at US naval bases in Japan and South Korea. Besides, at least 2 US aircraft carriers are constantly keeping watch in the region.
Now, according to President Obama’s order, US naval forces are to increase in Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.
In Australia, the number of US marines will be increased 10 times and will reach 2,500 people. Besides, the US will have broader access to the Australian naval base on the coast of the Indian Ocean, to the south of the city of Perth.
Up to 4 US navy ships will be deployed near Singapore’s coast.
The US is also planning to deploy up to 500 servicemen and reconnaissance aircraft in the Philippines and to create a center for repairing US navy ships there. Moreover, the US does not rule out that in some time from now, the Philippines may become the center of commanding US forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
“In such conditions, the Chinese are starting to feel surrounded by US forces from all sides,” Russian expert in Eastern affairs Yuri Tavrovsky said in an interview with the Voice of Russia. “After all, the US does not hide the fact that the reason it is strenthening its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region is the growing influence of China there.”
“In its turn, China is actively developing its navy,” Mr. Tavrovsky continues. “It is hard to deny that within the last few years, China’s economy has been rapidly developing, which has allowed China to considerably increase its military might. It would probably be an exaggeration to say that China is becoming aggressive, but it is obviously starting to realize that it is getting strong enough to afford dictating its will to other countries.”
Another Russian expert, Evgeny Kanaev, is predicting that US-Chinese relations will most probably aggravate even further:
“I don’t think that China’s leaders today want to make compromises with the US. It is unlikely that China will agree to create a program of developing its navy that would satisfy the US. In its turn, the US also doesn’t want to be ousted by China from its positions in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides its military presence there, the US also wants to maintain control over all the transport routes in this region, and China is now becoming a serious rival for the US from this point of view as well.”
Experts are concerned that the US’s policy of regaining military control over the Asia-Pacific region and its competition for this role with China may aggravate the situation in this region to a very dangerous point.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:53 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.taylor-report.com/a
The Taylor Report
January 11, 2013
That Missile is no Patriot
According to the news NATO has directed German and Dutch troops to place an American "Patriot" missile system in Turkey hard by the Syrian border. Across that border the CIA and Arab oil-sheiks have been running madness-for-hire mercenaries, disguised with Islamic verbiage. The stated American/NATO goal is regime change in Damascus. In other words an illegal and violent intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign state. At this stage the power-drunk have stopped caring about laws and treaties, they are the indispensable empire without borders. It is something they drone on about.
So perhaps it is fortunate that the Washington crew for naming things chose Patriot for one of their big bang weapons. The name invites reflection. Patriot?
A patriot is someone who loves their own country, which is natural enough. And a patriot of course does not lust after someone else’s country. That would be irrational. A patriot understands that other peoples in other climes share the same affection for their own country. It is not a competition, there is no Number One. No sane patriot wants to dominate the patriotism of others and create demeaning dependencies, that is the negation of patriotism. The itch for conquest leads to "entangling alliances" and notions of super-people, drained of humanity.
Mark Twain, William James, Ambrose Bierce, among others, made this argument long-ago to discourage the folly of empire. If they were to see the American missile being set up in Turkey by German soldiers and aimed at Syrians surely they would ask "Why do they call that bloody instrument a Patriot"?
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
The Taylor Report
January 11, 2013
That Missile is no Patriot
According to the news NATO has directed German and Dutch troops to place an American "Patriot" missile system in Turkey hard by the Syrian border. Across that border the CIA and Arab oil-sheiks have been running madness-for-hire mercenaries, disguised with Islamic verbiage. The stated American/NATO goal is regime change in Damascus. In other words an illegal and violent intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign state. At this stage the power-drunk have stopped caring about laws and treaties, they are the indispensable empire without borders. It is something they drone on about.
So perhaps it is fortunate that the Washington crew for naming things chose Patriot for one of their big bang weapons. The name invites reflection. Patriot?
A patriot is someone who loves their own country, which is natural enough. And a patriot of course does not lust after someone else’s country. That would be irrational. A patriot understands that other peoples in other climes share the same affection for their own country. It is not a competition, there is no Number One. No sane patriot wants to dominate the patriotism of others and create demeaning dependencies, that is the negation of patriotism. The itch for conquest leads to "entangling alliances" and notions of super-people, drained of humanity.
Mark Twain, William James, Ambrose Bierce, among others, made this argument long-ago to discourage the folly of empire. If they were to see the American missile being set up in Turkey by German soldiers and aimed at Syrians surely they would ask "Why do they call that bloody instrument a Patriot"?
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:43 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.presstv.com/detail/
Press TV
January 15, 2013
France sends troops to Mali town, gets more backing from NATO allies
NATO allies are preparing for extensive intervention in Mali as France dispatches its ground troops to a town controlled by militants in the African country.
Foreign ministers of the European Union will attend an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss the deployment of a training mission for the African country’s army, GlobalPost reported on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Malian and French forces were reportedly driving toward the town of Diabaly in the central part of the African country.
Rebels managed to take control of the town on Monday, when a NATO spokesman stated that the alliance would support France’s operations in Mali.
...
The United States, Canada, Britain, Belgium, Germany and Denmark have already said they would support the French offensive against the African country.
Malian officials say many African countries have sent ground forces to support the government forces in the conflict.
Chaos broke out in the West African country after Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure was toppled in a military coup on March 22, 2012. The coup leaders said they mounted the coup in response to the government's inability to contain the Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country, which had been going on for two months.
However, in the wake of the coup d’état, the Tuareg rebels took control of the entire northern desert region, but the Ansar Dine extremists then pushed them aside and took control of the region, which is larger than France or Texas.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Press TV
January 15, 2013
France sends troops to Mali town, gets more backing from NATO allies
NATO allies are preparing for extensive intervention in Mali as France dispatches its ground troops to a town controlled by militants in the African country.
Foreign ministers of the European Union will attend an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss the deployment of a training mission for the African country’s army, GlobalPost reported on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Malian and French forces were reportedly driving toward the town of Diabaly in the central part of the African country.
Rebels managed to take control of the town on Monday, when a NATO spokesman stated that the alliance would support France’s operations in Mali.
...
The United States, Canada, Britain, Belgium, Germany and Denmark have already said they would support the French offensive against the African country.
Malian officials say many African countries have sent ground forces to support the government forces in the conflict.
Chaos broke out in the West African country after Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure was toppled in a military coup on March 22, 2012. The coup leaders said they mounted the coup in response to the government's inability to contain the Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country, which had been going on for two months.
However, in the wake of the coup d’état, the Tuareg rebels took control of the entire northern desert region, but the Ansar Dine extremists then pushed them aside and took control of the region, which is larger than France or Texas.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
Xinhua News Agency
January 16, 2013
China alert to Japanese Diaoyu Islands escalation
BEIJING: A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday that China is on high alert for Japan escalating tensions over the Diaoyu Islands.
Spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks in response to media reports saying Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera on Tuesday expressed a stance of handling Chinese jets entering airspace over the Diaoyu Islands with international standards.
"China has taken note of relevant reports. The patrol conducted by China's public service ships and planes in waters and airspace of the islands is a normal performance of duty to exercise jurisdiction," Hong said.
He also reiterated China's opposition to Japanese planes and vessels entering the waters and airspace of the Diaoyu Islands.
Relations between Japan and China have soured since the Japanese government said it would "purchase" part of the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea in 2012. China insists that the islands are part of its inherent territory.
Related:
Commentary: Rational policy needed from Abe government on China-Japan ties
BEIJING, Jan. 16: Days before Prime Minister Shinzo Abe starts his first overseas tour on Wednesday, the newly elected Japanese leader ratcheted up rhetoric toward China that badly damaged the mutual trust between the two neighbors.
Abe said before his inauguration that Japan sees China as one of its most important diplomatic relationships and promised to pull their soured bilateral relations back on track.
China to survey Diaoyu Islands: FM spokesman
BEIJING, Jan. 15: Chinese authorities will survey the Diaoyu Islands in an aim to "safeguard China's marine rights," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman told a routine press conference on Tuesday.
Spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks in response to questions concerning the announcement made earlier on Tuesday that China plans to survey the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea as part of a program to map its territorial islands and reefs. Full story
China plans Diaoyu Islands mapping
BEIJING, Jan. 15: China is to survey the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea as part of a program of mapping its territorial islands and reefs, it was revealed on Tuesday.
The first stage of the island surveying and mapping was launched in 2009 and has finished the monitoring of islands located within 100 km of the coastline, according to a document issued at a press conference held by the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation. Full story
China to continue to patrol in Diaoyu Islands
BEIJING, Jan. 10: China will continue to carry out regular patrols over its territorial waters off China's Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea, the State Oceanic Administration said on Thursday.
China will continue to oppose any infringement on the country's sovereignty over territorial waters by Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, said Liu Caigui, director with the administration at a national conference on maritime work.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Xinhua News Agency
January 16, 2013
China alert to Japanese Diaoyu Islands escalation
BEIJING: A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday that China is on high alert for Japan escalating tensions over the Diaoyu Islands.
Spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks in response to media reports saying Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera on Tuesday expressed a stance of handling Chinese jets entering airspace over the Diaoyu Islands with international standards.
"China has taken note of relevant reports. The patrol conducted by China's public service ships and planes in waters and airspace of the islands is a normal performance of duty to exercise jurisdiction," Hong said.
He also reiterated China's opposition to Japanese planes and vessels entering the waters and airspace of the Diaoyu Islands.
Relations between Japan and China have soured since the Japanese government said it would "purchase" part of the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea in 2012. China insists that the islands are part of its inherent territory.
Related:
Commentary: Rational policy needed from Abe government on China-Japan ties
BEIJING, Jan. 16: Days before Prime Minister Shinzo Abe starts his first overseas tour on Wednesday, the newly elected Japanese leader ratcheted up rhetoric toward China that badly damaged the mutual trust between the two neighbors.
Abe said before his inauguration that Japan sees China as one of its most important diplomatic relationships and promised to pull their soured bilateral relations back on track.
China to survey Diaoyu Islands: FM spokesman
BEIJING, Jan. 15: Chinese authorities will survey the Diaoyu Islands in an aim to "safeguard China's marine rights," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman told a routine press conference on Tuesday.
Spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks in response to questions concerning the announcement made earlier on Tuesday that China plans to survey the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea as part of a program to map its territorial islands and reefs. Full story
China plans Diaoyu Islands mapping
BEIJING, Jan. 15: China is to survey the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea as part of a program of mapping its territorial islands and reefs, it was revealed on Tuesday.
The first stage of the island surveying and mapping was launched in 2009 and has finished the monitoring of islands located within 100 km of the coastline, according to a document issued at a press conference held by the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation. Full story
China to continue to patrol in Diaoyu Islands
BEIJING, Jan. 10: China will continue to carry out regular patrols over its territorial waters off China's Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea, the State Oceanic Administration said on Thursday.
China will continue to oppose any infringement on the country's sovereignty over territorial waters by Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, said Liu Caigui, director with the administration at a national conference on maritime work.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/
Itar-Tass
January 16, 2013
RF General Staff keeps eye on Patriot missiles supply to Turkey
BRUSSELS: The Russian General Staff follows the situation with the supply of Patriot missile air-defense complexes to Turkey, Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, told reporters after the meeting of the Russia-NATO Council at the level of Chiefs of General Staff on Wednesday.
“Any accumulation of armaments, particularly in crisis areas, creates added risks,” he said. “There is also the danger of provocations regarding these armaments and servicemen deploying them,” he said. The General Staff “closely follows this situation,” the Russian military commander stressed.
“Partners tell us that these air-defense weapons will not be used to create any no-flight zones over Syria,” Gerasimov went on.
Meanwhile, “there is concern that certain forces show increasingly an inclination to settle the conflict in a military way.”
“Our view is that it is for the Syrians to solve their own problems. Outside interference will have catastrophic consequences for the region,” Gerasimov said.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Itar-Tass
January 16, 2013
RF General Staff keeps eye on Patriot missiles supply to Turkey
BRUSSELS: The Russian General Staff follows the situation with the supply of Patriot missile air-defense complexes to Turkey, Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, told reporters after the meeting of the Russia-NATO Council at the level of Chiefs of General Staff on Wednesday.
“Any accumulation of armaments, particularly in crisis areas, creates added risks,” he said. “There is also the danger of provocations regarding these armaments and servicemen deploying them,” he said. The General Staff “closely follows this situation,” the Russian military commander stressed.
“Partners tell us that these air-defense weapons will not be used to create any no-flight zones over Syria,” Gerasimov went on.
Meanwhile, “there is concern that certain forces show increasingly an inclination to settle the conflict in a military way.”
“Our view is that it is for the Syrians to solve their own problems. Outside interference will have catastrophic consequences for the region,” Gerasimov said.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 16, 2013
US beefs up E Mediterranean missile defences
The American destroyer USS Mahan with interceptor missiles on board has arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The development coincides with the deployment of Patriot batteries near Turkey’s border with Syria. Two have already arrived from the United States.
By next Tuesday, another two are expected to arrive from the Netherlands, and two from Germany.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
------------------------------
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/
WAVY
December 28, 2013
USS Mahan embarks on deployment
NORFOLK, Va. - USS Mahan left Naval Station Norfolk Friday morning for a deployment, set to return next summer.
According to the Navy, USS Mahan will deploy to the U.S. 6th Fleet Area of Responsibility to participate in Ballistic Missile Defense operations.
"This allows us to go offshore, in international waters and provide defensive capability against a ballistic missile threat. It's a very important mission for both our nation and our allies over in the Mediterranean," CDR Adam Aycock said.
Emotions ran high at the deployment.
...
"It's always hard to send someone overseas, especially when you know there may be some kind of conflict and things going on...," Michelle Hewitt, a sailor's sister, said.
Mahan is the fourth ship named after Alfred Thayer Mahan, considered to be the father of all modern navies.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
January 16, 2013
US beefs up E Mediterranean missile defences
The American destroyer USS Mahan with interceptor missiles on board has arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The development coincides with the deployment of Patriot batteries near Turkey’s border with Syria. Two have already arrived from the United States.
By next Tuesday, another two are expected to arrive from the Netherlands, and two from Germany.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
------------------------------
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/
WAVY
December 28, 2013
USS Mahan embarks on deployment
NORFOLK, Va. - USS Mahan left Naval Station Norfolk Friday morning for a deployment, set to return next summer.
According to the Navy, USS Mahan will deploy to the U.S. 6th Fleet Area of Responsibility to participate in Ballistic Missile Defense operations.
"This allows us to go offshore, in international waters and provide defensive capability against a ballistic missile threat. It's a very important mission for both our nation and our allies over in the Mediterranean," CDR Adam Aycock said.
Emotions ran high at the deployment.
...
"It's always hard to send someone overseas, especially when you know there may be some kind of conflict and things going on...," Michelle Hewitt, a sailor's sister, said.
Mahan is the fourth ship named after Alfred Thayer Mahan, considered to be the father of all modern navies.
==============================
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.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 16, 2013
Recorded in late December
Clinton's language has no place in international diplomacy - interview
John Robles
Audio at URL above
The owner of Stop NATO, Rick Rozoff, recently spoke to the Voice of Russia about NATO's global plans and Russian-US relations. In part 2 of our interview Rozoff states that the US has been intentionally baiting and insulting Russia as it encroaches on Russian geopolitical space. He says that it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian government that has prevented the situation from becoming a far worse crisis.
Part 1 of a 2012 NATO review
You took part in a debate. Can you remind our listeners about that?
Yes. The NATO planning committee in Chicago, under pressure from the ad hoc coalition that was protesting the NATO summit and other forces, agreed to have a televised debate between two NATO spokespeople and two people taking the opposite position, that is, people in opposition to the world’s first global military bloc. And initially this was to have included two fairly high-ranking NATO officials who were subsequently pulled, that is cancelled. Subsequent to that the plan was to bring on, on the NATO side, two former US ambassadors to NATO and that plan was scrapped.
So, eventually two university professors in Chicago with some military background were brought on to defend the NATO position and two of us – a woman who had been a US Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war and myself - put forward the anti-NATO position. But because of the resources available to the people who sponsored it, a think tank in Chicago, it was not only televised globally on YouTube but lengthy excerpts of it appeared on Chicago television. So, for the first time ever I suppose, at least here in the US, the anti-NATO forces were given an opportunity to air their grievances against the bloc.
Has there been any blowback?
Yes, in fact even at the time an aura of intimidation and fear-mongering was intentionally pushed by the city administration, and I’m sure the White House behind it. The very day of the demonstration, for example, the two daily newspapers had banner headlines announcing a "terrorist plot" in Chicago. That is, that five people had been arrested ostensibly for planning pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails or something of the sort. The case has really gone no place, but it was enough to intimidate people.
I personally spoke to people at the demonstration and to people I work with who, in both cases, stated that friends or relatives of theirs had intended to come to the demonstration but were scared off by this tactic. There was an effort made to intimidate people and to keep them away from anti-NATO activities. Nevertheless, there was a respectable showing in the march. It included people like the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was at the front of the march, but it also included several dozen young US former service members who had fought in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
The Russian-US working group, the NATO group recently met. Where did you see Russian-NATO-US relations going? Was it worse than you thought or better?
Let’s say no better, no worse, but surely no progress. We know for example there is now a new Russian representative in the NATO-Russia Council who has replaced his predecessor. That format is still active. It had not been, of course, for a long period of time after Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia in August of 2008 and the fact that the US and NATO both immediately afterwards set up special cooperation formats with Georgia to all but award it for its aggression and to pledge continued support to the Saakashvili regime in Tbilisi, as well to modernize its so-called defenses, which is in many cases offensive military capabilities.
What we have seen is that the US and NATO still resolutely refuse Russian offers to provide legal guarantees for the interceptor missile system in Eastern Europe. They have sabotaged and effectively destroyed the Russian offer to set up sectoral defense where Russia would have interceptor missiles covering a certain swath of land and then it would be picked up by NATO and the US. So, at every turn the United States and NATO are spurning Russian offers to cooperate on a genuine defense system and forging ahead with the unilateral system that, in its initial deployments, will be in countries either bordering Russia or comparatively close to it. You know, Poland and Romania in the first place. But we do have to recollect that the very same Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles that are heading to Turkey were deployed to eastern Poland in May of 2010; a battery was stationed there which remains there, which is only an estimated 40 miles from Russian
territory, from the Kaliningrad district. So, I think it is irreputable, what’s happening is that the US and NATO are encroaching upon Russian geopolitical space and essentially taunting Russia. And every effort made by Russia to extend offers of cooperation and so forth are essentially being refused.
What’s your opinion on where Russia-US relations are going?
In many ways the US attitude towards the Russian Federation is even more abrasive and dismissive than the US attitude and behaviors towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War and I think that’s an incontestable fact. With the recent passage of the so-called Magnitsky Bill in the US, what we’re seeing is almost gratuitous efforts to belittle or demean or insult Russia and whenever Russia attempts to take any countermeasures they are accused of - this is slightly off the point, but I mean it gives you an indication of where the things are going - when Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus tried to set up a customs union, we had the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warning about the "resovietization" of former Soviet space. That’s a brash and almost lunatic claim, but this is what passes muster in today’s world. And the US feels that at will they can make accusations like that, so contemptuous are they of Russia, and I would add of the rest of the world
for that matter, but we are talking about Russia.
And this follows on the heels of, now I guess the former, US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton herself over the past years using words like “despicable” and so forth in relation to Russian actions, particularly in the United Nations. I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, and I frankly do not remember leading US diplomats using that kind of language in relation to the Soviet Union, the sort of language we are now hearing.
I don’t remember anything like that myself.
But this is a sort of imperial hubris that accompanies some nation that’s reached the same sort of delusions of grandeur that an individual afflicted with bipolar disorder might. Being "the world’s military superpower”, and that quote is from President Barack Obama, they are allowed to engage in any kind of swagger they choose to and that they can insult one of the major nations in the world – Russia - and one moreover whose military capacities are the only ones that seriously rival the United States'. So, to insult and provoke Russia the way it is doing – it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian government that’s prevented this from flaring up and becoming a far worse crisis.
But one wonders when the next provocation is going to occur. The next time Russia is going to be accused of "resovietizing" the former Soviet space, the next time they are going to be called “despicable” or “shameful”? Such language has no role whatsoever in international diplomacy and really casts a very dark mark on the ruling elite in the US.
Voice of Russia
January 16, 2013
Recorded in late December
Clinton's language has no place in international diplomacy - interview
John Robles
Audio at URL above
The owner of Stop NATO, Rick Rozoff, recently spoke to the Voice of Russia about NATO's global plans and Russian-US relations. In part 2 of our interview Rozoff states that the US has been intentionally baiting and insulting Russia as it encroaches on Russian geopolitical space. He says that it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian government that has prevented the situation from becoming a far worse crisis.
Part 1 of a 2012 NATO review
You took part in a debate. Can you remind our listeners about that?
Yes. The NATO planning committee in Chicago, under pressure from the ad hoc coalition that was protesting the NATO summit and other forces, agreed to have a televised debate between two NATO spokespeople and two people taking the opposite position, that is, people in opposition to the world’s first global military bloc. And initially this was to have included two fairly high-ranking NATO officials who were subsequently pulled, that is cancelled. Subsequent to that the plan was to bring on, on the NATO side, two former US ambassadors to NATO and that plan was scrapped.
So, eventually two university professors in Chicago with some military background were brought on to defend the NATO position and two of us – a woman who had been a US Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war and myself - put forward the anti-NATO position. But because of the resources available to the people who sponsored it, a think tank in Chicago, it was not only televised globally on YouTube but lengthy excerpts of it appeared on Chicago television. So, for the first time ever I suppose, at least here in the US, the anti-NATO forces were given an opportunity to air their grievances against the bloc.
Has there been any blowback?
Yes, in fact even at the time an aura of intimidation and fear-mongering was intentionally pushed by the city administration, and I’m sure the White House behind it. The very day of the demonstration, for example, the two daily newspapers had banner headlines announcing a "terrorist plot" in Chicago. That is, that five people had been arrested ostensibly for planning pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails or something of the sort. The case has really gone no place, but it was enough to intimidate people.
I personally spoke to people at the demonstration and to people I work with who, in both cases, stated that friends or relatives of theirs had intended to come to the demonstration but were scared off by this tactic. There was an effort made to intimidate people and to keep them away from anti-NATO activities. Nevertheless, there was a respectable showing in the march. It included people like the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was at the front of the march, but it also included several dozen young US former service members who had fought in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
The Russian-US working group, the NATO group recently met. Where did you see Russian-NATO-US relations going? Was it worse than you thought or better?
Let’s say no better, no worse, but surely no progress. We know for example there is now a new Russian representative in the NATO-Russia Council who has replaced his predecessor. That format is still active. It had not been, of course, for a long period of time after Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia in August of 2008 and the fact that the US and NATO both immediately afterwards set up special cooperation formats with Georgia to all but award it for its aggression and to pledge continued support to the Saakashvili regime in Tbilisi, as well to modernize its so-called defenses, which is in many cases offensive military capabilities.
What we have seen is that the US and NATO still resolutely refuse Russian offers to provide legal guarantees for the interceptor missile system in Eastern Europe. They have sabotaged and effectively destroyed the Russian offer to set up sectoral defense where Russia would have interceptor missiles covering a certain swath of land and then it would be picked up by NATO and the US. So, at every turn the United States and NATO are spurning Russian offers to cooperate on a genuine defense system and forging ahead with the unilateral system that, in its initial deployments, will be in countries either bordering Russia or comparatively close to it. You know, Poland and Romania in the first place. But we do have to recollect that the very same Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles that are heading to Turkey were deployed to eastern Poland in May of 2010; a battery was stationed there which remains there, which is only an estimated 40 miles from Russian
territory, from the Kaliningrad district. So, I think it is irreputable, what’s happening is that the US and NATO are encroaching upon Russian geopolitical space and essentially taunting Russia. And every effort made by Russia to extend offers of cooperation and so forth are essentially being refused.
What’s your opinion on where Russia-US relations are going?
In many ways the US attitude towards the Russian Federation is even more abrasive and dismissive than the US attitude and behaviors towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War and I think that’s an incontestable fact. With the recent passage of the so-called Magnitsky Bill in the US, what we’re seeing is almost gratuitous efforts to belittle or demean or insult Russia and whenever Russia attempts to take any countermeasures they are accused of - this is slightly off the point, but I mean it gives you an indication of where the things are going - when Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus tried to set up a customs union, we had the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warning about the "resovietization" of former Soviet space. That’s a brash and almost lunatic claim, but this is what passes muster in today’s world. And the US feels that at will they can make accusations like that, so contemptuous are they of Russia, and I would add of the rest of the world
for that matter, but we are talking about Russia.
And this follows on the heels of, now I guess the former, US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton herself over the past years using words like “despicable” and so forth in relation to Russian actions, particularly in the United Nations. I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, and I frankly do not remember leading US diplomats using that kind of language in relation to the Soviet Union, the sort of language we are now hearing.
I don’t remember anything like that myself.
But this is a sort of imperial hubris that accompanies some nation that’s reached the same sort of delusions of grandeur that an individual afflicted with bipolar disorder might. Being "the world’s military superpower”, and that quote is from President Barack Obama, they are allowed to engage in any kind of swagger they choose to and that they can insult one of the major nations in the world – Russia - and one moreover whose military capacities are the only ones that seriously rival the United States'. So, to insult and provoke Russia the way it is doing – it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian government that’s prevented this from flaring up and becoming a far worse crisis.
But one wonders when the next provocation is going to occur. The next time Russia is going to be accused of "resovietizing" the former Soviet space, the next time they are going to be called “despicable” or “shameful”? Such language has no role whatsoever in international diplomacy and really casts a very dark mark on the ruling elite in the US.
