Indict Hillary Clinton

By Wouldlike Change
Global Research, June 01, 2016
Change.org
Region: USA
Theme: Law and Justice
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

Hillary-RamboHillary Clinton should be immediately indicted for:

1. Obstruction of justice. If any average citizen lied to investigative officials, failed to turn over evidence, provided only selective evidence, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If any average military personnel with even the lightest of Security Clearance was in breach as Clinton clearly was, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

2. Spoliation of evidence. If any average citizen wiped the hard drive after requests from authorities to turn it over, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

3. Violaton of Federal Records Act (perhaps willful). Our officials agree to be accountable when they hold office. They also agree to comply with the Federal Records Act. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

4. Violation of Espionage Act (perhaps willful). Our officials with Security Clearances agree to hold sensitive information vital to our country’s security with strict restrictions. Ignoring these restrictions should be prosecuted in full, and not doing so is treason against every American. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

The Clinton Foundation ties to weapons deals should also be thoroughly investigated.

To sign petition click https://www.change.org/p/doj-indict-hillary-clinton

Breaking news: Lost emails from Clinton server discovered

 

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi

Hillary Clinton in hot waters….

Conservative legal watchdogs have discovered new emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server dating back to the first days of her tenure as secretary of State.

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for recordkeeping and may have been lost entirely.

 

Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal “clintonemail.com” account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

But on Thursday, the watchdog group Judicial Watch released one message from Feb. 13, 2009, in which Mills communicated with Clinton on the account to discuss the National Security Agency’s (NSA) efforts to produce a secure BlackBerry device for her to use as secretary of State.  

The discovery is likely to renew questions about Clinton’s narrative about her use of the private email server, which has come under scrutiny.

Last year, news organizations reported that Obama administration officials had discovered an email chain between Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus that began before Clinton entered office and continued through to Feb. 1. The chain of emails began on an earlier email system that Clinton used while serving in the Senate, but was reportedly transferred on to the clintonemail.com server. 

In 2014, Clinton gave the State Department roughly 30,000 emails from her time in office that she said related to her work as the nation’s top diplomat. Another roughly 30,000 emails, which Clinton said contained personal information such as her daughter’s wedding plans and yoga routines, were deleted.

However, critics have questioned her decision to unilaterally delete the allegedly private emails without getting official input to determine which messages were personal and which were work-related.

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, has said that he expects all of the emails to eventually come to light.

The State Department’s publicly released stash of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009. The new emails discovered by Judicial Watch are not contained in the State Department’s files.

A State Department official said on Thursday that Clinton “has previously acknowledged that she emailed with department officials before March 18, 2009, the date of the first email in the collection that former Secretary Clinton provided to the Department in December 2014.”

“Former Secretary Clinton has also indicated that she does not have access to work-related emails beyond those she turned over to the Department,” the official added, while noting that Clinton has confirmed in court proceedings that she gave over all the work-related messages she had.

“In September 2015, we also asked the FBI to inform us should it recover any records from Secretary Clinton’s server that we don’t already have,” the official added.

In the email released on Thursday, Mills told Clinton that an NSA official “indicated they could address our BB [BlackBerry] so that BB could work in” secure spaces, “based upon some modifications that could be done.”

“That’s good news,” Clinton responded.

Previous emails released as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit have shown that the NSA dismissed initial attempts by Clinton’s team to secure her BlackBerry.

Fitton, the Judicial Watch head, described Thursday’s email as a repudiation of Clinton’s timeline.

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” he said in a statement. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 — because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”

“Terrorist International” Takes Shape … Against Russia

Theme: US NATO War Agenda

russian-air-force-400x266On October 1, Turkey and six other countries of the US-led coalition published a joint declaration expressing concern over Russia Air Force strikes against the militants in Syria. The signatories include the United States of America (as expected), the monarchies of Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Qatar that were also expected to join), as well as Great Britain, Germany and France.

The statement actually does not say anything extraordinary. Russia stole the initiative from the West. Instead of following the example of «anti-terrorist coalition» and delivering strikes against Syria’s government forces (which together with Kurds conduct combat actions against the militants of so-called Islamic State), Russia bombed the positions of the terrorists. It allowed the legitimate Syrian government to regroup forces, get a break and finally launch a ground offensive to clear the territory from the terrorist plague.

The expression of concern by the United States is logical and natural: Washington has spent great effort to train the «moderate» Syrian opposition (which mysteriously has turned into a source of weapons and manpower for «immoderate» groups). The start of the Russian operation may incur direct financial losses, let alone damage the image of the US.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the monarchies of Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were eager to sign the statement. One may forget what country Osama bin Laden and the majority of terrorists, who seized the aircraft on September 11, 2001, came from. But it’s impossible to reject the fact that the Gulf monarchies (no matter all the real or imaginary contradictions and disagreements dividing them) are the main sponsors of major terrorist groups operating in the Greater Middle East – from Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and, especially, in Pakistan. In case of Saudi Arabia the overthrow of Bashar Assad is just the first step on the way to do away with Iran, its main opponent in the region.

It’s easy to explain why the declaration was initiated by Turkey. Ankara views the Islamic State as the only force able to nip in the bud the aspiration of Kurds, the divided people, for statehood. It makes pale such things of ‘little importance’ like cheap oil exported by militants from Iraq and Syria with Turkey being the main customer.

It’s worth to mention the position of Europe. The fact that London signed the declaration can be explained by the inability of the 51st US state to stop playing the role of American poodle on a leash. It obediently dances to the US tune. The participation of France and Germany seems to be a bit irrational.

So many things have happened in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Berlin and Paris could have realized that the events seemingly not interconnected meet the logic of US strategy aimed at creating an axis of instability. Its only goal is to preserve the unipolar world where West Europe plays the role of a passive satellite, not an independent actor.

The events in Ukraine occurred exactly when a Europe-Russia energy alliance started to loom and the US-led talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership got stalled. Just a coincidence, of course.

All these events let the United States to partially achieve the main goal – it has succeeded in driving a wedge between Europe and Russia, but the talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership did not make much progress. The United States had another ace up its sleeve. The civil war in Syria gave rise to the massive migrant flows threatening the very foundation of the European civilization and making European allies meekly ask the big brother overseas for help.

Russia’s resolute actions in Syria leave no chance for these plans. Supposedly, Europeans should breathe a sigh of relief. But it has not happened as yet.

What is the reason? Has the habit to snap to attention become so deeply enrooted? Have the Europeans left any thoughts about having a choice? Some analysts believe that the US National Security Agency has acquired serious compromising material to blackmail European leaders into agreement with Washington.

The hope is still looming that after some time Europe will realize where its real interests lie. The abovementioned declaration of the seven looks more like a creation of a new instrument of Washington. This time it has the form of an international alliance to support terrorists of the so-called Islamic State.

Madame Merkel – Between Munich, Moscow, Washington and Minsk — Jet-setting for Peace or Propaganda?

Region:
In-depth Report:

 

Angela-MerkelMadame Merkel attended on 6 February the 6-7 February NATO security Conference in Munich. Then, not listening to what Mr. Lavrov had to say to the conference on 7 February, she jetted with ‘General’ (as in Napoleon) Hollande of France to Moscow to meet ‘urgently’ with Mr. Putin on 7 February to initiate new peace / truce talks on Ukraine. Keeping the results largely under wraps, not to divulge to her own people or the rest of Europe, she stopped briefly over in Germany where she finally talked to Sergei Lavrov, before jetting on to emperor Obama for reporting and consulting.

What does the master say? We don’t know yet – eagerly awaiting the mainstream media spin. It should be hitting us shortly. – Next stop Minsk. Merkel with Holland in tow, for talks with Putin and Poroshenko. What else is new? Poroshenko can’t budge without a nod from Washington – which he will not get, of course. Peace is not part of Obama’s and his henchmen’s game plan. He needs war, and he wants Ukraine.

Does this look like a serious attempt by Europe to reach peace in Ukraine or sheer propaganda? – Taking hapless Hollande along to Moscow and Minsk, makes it look graver, more serious, but is likely just another propaganda stunt, replaying the odd, old German- French tandem; of course, as a new lie campaign, eventually serving to vilify Vladimir Putin. If it all fails. And fail it will, since Washington has no intention to reach an agreement.

The Kremlin will not give in handing over Ukraine on a silver platter to the emperor and his European vassals, nor on any platter for that matter. And rightly so. Everybody knows that, except for the msm-enslaved populace; a vast majority. Unfortunately.

Almost certainly, Mr. Putin stressed again, what he said since the beginning of the conflict, that there are no Russian troops fighting in Ukraine, humanitarian aid is all that Russia delivers to the cruelly bombed and massacred people of Neorussia, the Donbass area. This was recently confirmed by Chief of Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenkohttp://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-fighting-against-us-sanctions-against-russia-based-on-falshoods/5428523.

Of course, no msm has picked up this little detail. How could they? It would throw out all justification for western sanctions – and it would lay bare the western, Washington-driven lies about Russian military intervention in Ukraine. People may start wondering, who if not Russia, is responsible for the bloody civil war in Ukraine, that has already left more than 5,400 people dead, hundreds of thousands without shelter and heating in the midst of winter – and millions of refugees? – And for downing the Malaysian airliner MH17? – Could we have been hoodwinked by the Empire of Chaos and its European vassals?

Mr. Putin may also have laid out to the odd couple, Merkel-Hollande, what he did since the beginning of the conflict as a condition of peace, or at least a truce – a relative large autonomy for eastern Ukraine, with Russian as an official language – and NO NATO base in Ukraine.

That sounds very reasonable, given the fact that the war was entirely instigated and the Nazi putsch government (sic) put in place by Washington. Madame Nuland, Kerry’s sidekick, testified to this in a telephone conversation on January 28, 2014, about three weeks before the coup, with US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. The conversation was published on YouTube. She knew whom she wanted to replace the democratically elected Victor Yanukovitsch with, namely with “Yats”, as she calls him endearingly, the ultra-right wing, fascist Arseniy Yatsenuik, today’s PM of the Kiev junta of thugs and murderers. She later bragged about it at the Washington Press Club.

Again, the msm-lie and deceit machine is as of this day silent about it, lest Mr. Putin could no longer be demonized and his country ‘sanctioned’ – sanctions, which badly backfire especially on Europe – who has built up close and friendly business and trade relationships with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was a logical step, not only from a geographic point of view; but also seen from an economic development ‘growth’ perspective.

Now – is Ms. Merkel seriously brokering for peace, because the German economy and the Euro may be at stake if Germany is shut out of Russia and the rest of the Eastern markets – all of Central Asia and China?

Keep in mind, there is already the Eurasian Customs Union, to become the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) as of 2015, with the member states including Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. In addition, there is the overlapping Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, with potentially new members of Afghanistan, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan.

Turkey and India are also SCO contenders, but with India betraying the BRICS and seemingly rapidly defecting into the lush neoliberal Obama camp, and Turkey being torn apart, on the one hand as Europe’s key NATO base, and on the other, disgusted by Europe and increasingly leaning towards Russia and China – their SCO membership remains in suspense for now.

The SCO, created in 2001, is a politico-economic and military association. Together the EEC and the SCO account for about 25% of the world population and close to 30% of the world’s economic output. The eastern alliance under Russian-Chinese leadership is well on course of establishing its own monetary system, detached from the fraudulent dollar scheme.

Then there are the remaining BRICS, plus Argentina, Venezuela and possibly others that would gladly be migrating out of Washington’s oppressive fangs into a friendly economic environment, where national sovereignty still counts and is respected.

Given all these facts, is it too farfetched to assume that Madame Merkel may have seen the light after all, racing to Obama, telling him the obvious? That without a change of Washington’s policy towards Russia not only the European economy may collapse, but that the US economy may not survive either? – That with WWIII or even a new Cold War over Ukraine, the world as we know it may eclipse? – That he, Mr. Obama, the emperor of the exceptional nation, should put his bets on other horses than conflict and eternal war, and instead start thinking of peace and cooperation?

It would be fair to assume that Washington knows all that. There has been a pattern for the last 35 years, the hegemonic implementation of a neoliberal dogma; controlling energy, food, money and people under a one world order, be it as it may, through financial and economic subjugation as with Greece and other southern European states, or with endless outright military aggression directly or by proxy (as in bought (mis)leaders and mercenaries), à la Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Thailand, Yemen, and-so-on – and Ukraine. They, the master and his cronies, will not let go, no matter what concessions Putin would be willing to make. Pursuit of the PNAC’s (Plan for a New American Century) objective, Full Spectrum Dominance, knows no mercy. Obama himself is a mere marionette of corporate empire, led by the military industrial complex and the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon banking system.

Madame Merkel, regardless of the tenor and contents of your discussion in Washington, it is up to you, whether you want to lead Europe out of her conundrum – of her wavering between prosperity and submission – between war and peace.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, the Voice of Russia / Ria Novosti, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

Has former Ukraine President Yanukovych received a Chrit$mas gift from the West or trying to join Poroshenko’s psychopathic government?

Former Ukraine President Yanukovych Proposes Solution to Ukraine’s Civil War; It Fits Obama’s Plan

yanukovychThe Ukrainian President whom U.S. President Obama overthrew in a violent coup this past February is now proposing that “people will be able to negotiate and Ukraine will once again be united.”

The former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, in a lengthy interview published on Christmas Eve day in Russia’s weekly newspaper, “Arguments and Facts,” says this after having asserted in the very same statement, “Ordinary Ukrainians from the west and east have nothing to share.”

So: he’s advising that the people in Donbass in Ukraine’s southeast, who, since soon after his overthrow, are being bombed and gunned down by Ukraine’s military from Ukraine’s northwest, should nonetheless negotiate with and come to agreement with them — a government they played no part in electing and that has been trying to kill them. He says they should be ruled by a Government that’s largely elected by people in Ukraine’s northwest, with whom they “have nothing to share” (such as this Gallup poll confirmed to be the actual case: the gulf between Ukraine’s east and west is, indeed, enormous).

In other words, Yanukovych wants Donbass to be ruled by the Obama-installed gang that are trying to exterminate the residents in Donbass and to control the land in Donbass but with the residents gone from it.

This is like proposing that Germany’s Jews should have accepted Hitler’s ruling over them, or that Israel’s Palestinians should accept zionists ruling over them.  Yanukovych’s statement is equally insensitive, equally stupid, equally anti-democratic, and equally repugnant, as that.

He modifies this by saying that it should happen only “as soon as the current policies are gone,” but he doesn’t say how this miracle can even possibly happen. He vaguely asserts that it can occur via “negotiations.” The exterminees are supposed to “negotiate” with their exterminators until “the current policies are gone.” This idea is morbidly fit for “Saturday Night Live” — to be laughed at — but certainly not for any real political leader. In fact, it’s an insult to the people who voted 90% for him, that’s to say, to the people who live in Donbass (it’s shown there as the purple area on the far-eastern side of that map). He’s metaphorically spitting on the graves of his former voters.

This is yet another in a long line of indications that the rulers in Ukraine, at least since the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union, are so profoundly corrupt that they don’t even think seriously at all about the welfare of the people they rule over (not even of their former supporters). They just live in their secure and corruptly gained wealth, with no concern for the people over whom they rule or have ruled.

The Government of Ukraine might be as psychopathic as America’s Government is — maybe even more so, if that’s possible. The major difference between the two Governments is that America’s wasn’t always this way; Ukraine’s unfortunately has been.

Today’s American Government is now so psychopathic as to be seeking to surround Russia with NATO missiles, even for them to be in Ukraine (with a Ukrainian Government that’s elected by the people in the Russia-hating northwestern portion of that country), despite the fact that when the Soviet Union in 1962 tried to install nuclear missiles into Cuba off our own shores, our President at that time, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, made clear that if they did it, we would launch a nuclear war against the Soviet Union.

Why isn’t Russia’s President Vladimir Putin publicly telling Obama and Obama’s NATO exactly what JFK publicly told Nikita Khrushchev: Don’t do that, or else our nukes will fly against you, because doing that will be a mortal threat against all Russians. You must leave your military away from our borders, just like we left our military away from Cuba. (Of course, he should first privately tell Obama this; then, if Obama refuses to back off, Putin should publicly warn it; but Obama hasn’t backed off, and we don’t know whether he’s yet been privately warned.)

Yanukovych is proposing a final solution in Ukraine that’s just as psychopathic as is Obama’s final solution to the whole world, which is: either you accept U.S. rule (or “hegemony”) over this entire planet, or else we shall crush you.

President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, propagandized for (i.e., rationalized) this conquer-Russia viewpoint, on the part of America’s aristocracy, who want to control the aristocracy in every other nationincluding in Russia, and he lied there about such things as “Russia’s aggression” (when the world’s huge problem is actually America’s aggression, against Russia, and against many other countries; not Russia’s ‘aggression’ against Ukraine) while he asserted: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” He was telling West Pointers that the emerging newly important national economies are “competing” with us, and that this is the U.S. military’s business, to deal with by weapons and by force, not really by economic competition at all (which isn’t supposed to be the military’s business). Obama was also making clear to the graduating West Point cadets that the “BRIC” countries are America’s enemy (that Russia, and its leading supporters of international independence, are the enemies against a mono-polar or “hegemonic” world, American Empire), from the standpoint of America’s aristocracy, whom the U.S. military now even so blatantly serves to the exclusion of any authentically public-interest at all. Ours want to crush the aristocrats in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The newly graduating professional U.S. killers at West Point are being given their marching-orders from our ‘democratically’ elected President, their Commander-in-Chief. He said there:

“So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed [properly spelled ‘past,’ but this is his text] and it will be true for the century to come.”

He might as well have been Hitler there, or Stalin, or Attila the Hun, all of whom could have said the same thing to their troops. It makes sense, then, that in the 2013 WIN/Gallup international poll, the nation that’s considered the biggest threat to world peace is the United States — not, as Obama said: “Russia’s aggression.” In fact, this poll found: “Rather surprisingly, in Ukraine, which is often described as being deeply divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western camps, the U.S. did not fare well — 33 percent of respondents choose the U.S. as [presenting] the greatest danger, compared to just five percent who picked Russia.” Moreover: “Germans were more ambivalent, with the U.S. selected as the greatest threat (17 percent), just ahead of Iran (16 percent); as were British respondents, who put the U.S. and Iran in joint first place among threats to peace (15 percent each). … In Spain — while not in the same league as Greece — respondents also had a dim view of the U.S., with 25 percent picking it as the greatest danger, compared to just 11 percent for North Korea and 10 percent for Iran.”

So: Obama is scaring-up America’s future warriors against Russia, by lying to them about “Russia’s aggression,” and telling them that “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe,” and by nottelling them that those “capitals” are controlled by America’s aristocracy, and that Russia’s is not. He is indoctrinating them with lies, not educating them with truths.

Democracy has been stolen from the American people and is now being controlled by the American aristocracy;they’re the people who are the greatest threat to world peace — and the world knows it, though the U.S. aristocracy and its agents keep Americans ignorant of it.

In fact, whereas 98% of the U.S. House, and 100% of the U.S. Senate, want a war against Russia, more than two-thirds of the American public still do not. This is supposed to be a ‘democracy’? WW III won’t be a result of democracy, but of the lack of it.

The problem is aristocracy: the aristocracy itself, and our Government of the people, for the aristocracy, by the aristocracy’s representatives, via pervasive corruption of the political process in America.

Just as Ukraine is controlled by its “oligarchs” or billionaires, so too is the U.S. controlled by our billionaires. And, it’s now endangering the entire world.

As a propagandist on a Ukrainian TV station that’s financed by the U.S. and Netherlands Governments and by George Soros’s International Renaissance Fund said to Ukrainians: “Donbass is overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. … At least 1.5 million of them are superfluous. … Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. … No matter how cruel it may sound, there is a certain category of people who must be exterminated.”

The U.S. President, 98% of the House, and 100% of the Senate, are using Americans’ tax dollars to fund that extermination. But the American people don’t even know about it. And no one in the American Government is condemning that propagandist’s statement, nor its being carried out by the Ukrainian Government that they’re forcing us taxpayers to finance.

Ukraine Used Cluster Bombs, Evidence Indicates – The Times

A casing carrying cluster munitions that landed in a shed. Press officers for the Ukrainian military denied that their troops had used cluster weapons in the conflict.Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

A casing carrying cluster munitions that landed in a shed. Press officers for the Ukrainian military denied that their troops had used cluster weapons in the conflict.Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

The Times finally admits that “The [Ukrainian] army’s use of cluster munitions, which shower small bomblets around a large area, could also add credibility to Moscow’s version of the conflict, which is that the Ukrainian national government is engaged in a punitive war against its own citizens.”

DONETSK, Ukraine — The Ukrainian Army appears to have fired cluster munitions on several occasions into the heart of Donetsk, unleashing a weapon banned in much of the world into a rebel-held city with a peacetime population of more than one million, according to physical evidence and interviews with witnesses and victims.

Sites where rockets fell in the city on Oct. 2 and Oct. 5 showed clear signs that cluster munitions had been fired from the direction of army-held territory, where misfired artillery rockets still containing cluster bomblets were found by villagers in farm fields.

The two attacks wounded at least six people and killed a Swiss employee of the International Red Cross based in Donetsk.

If confirmed, the use of cluster bombs by the pro-Western government could complicate efforts to reunite the country, as residents of the east have grown increasingly bitter over the Ukrainian Army’s tactics to oust pro-Russian rebels.

Further, in a report released late Monday, Human Rights Watch says the rebels have most likely used cluster weapons in the conflict as well, a detail that The New York Times could not independently verify.

 Rebels extracting a casing that was carrying cluster munitions in Ilovaysk, Ukraine, on Monday. Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

Rebels extracting a casing that was carrying cluster munitions in Ilovaysk, Ukraine, on Monday. Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

The army’s use of cluster munitions, which shower small bomblets around a large area, could also add credibility to Moscow’s version of the conflict, which is that the Ukrainian national government is engaged in a punitive war against its own citizens. The two October strikes occurred nearly a month after President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine signed a cease-fire agreement with rebel representatives.

“It’s pretty clear that cluster munitions are being used indiscriminately in populated areas, particularly in attacks in early October in Donetsk city,” said Mark Hiznay, senior arms researcher at Human Rights Watch, in emailed comments after the report was completed. “The military logic behind these attacks is not apparent, and these attacks should stop, because they put too many civilians at risk.”

Press officers for the Ukrainian military denied that their troops had used cluster weapons during the conflict and said that the rocket strikes against Donetsk in early October should be investigated once it was safe to do so. They also said that rebels in the area had access to powerful rocket systems from Russia that could fire cluster munitions.

However, munition fragments found in and around Donetsk and interviews with witnesses indicate that the cluster munitions that struck Oct. 2 and Oct. 5 were most likely fired by Ukrainian troops stationed southwest of the city, according to Human Rights Watch and a review by The Times. Witnesses there reported seeing rocket launches from those troops’ positions toward the city at times that coincide with the strikes.

Human Rights Watch says in its report that cluster weapons have been used against population centers in eastern Ukraine at least 12 times, including the strikes on Donetsk, during the conflict, and possibly many more. The report said that both sides were probably culpable, in attacks that “may amount to war crimes” in a grinding conflict that has claimed at least 3,700 lives, including those of many civilians.

The report, which included incidents uncovered by The Times, says there is “particularly strong evidence” that Ukrainian government troops carried out the two October attacks against Donetsk.

An August cluster-munitions attack on the village of Starobesheve, which was in Ukrainian Army hands, was probably carried out either by pro-Russian rebels or by Russian troops, the report says.

Beginning in October, a series of strikes against Donetsk using certain cluster weapons fired from Uragan rockets came from the southwest of the city. The timing of at least two rocket launches from the same location corresponded to cluster munition strikes that hit Donetsk from a southwesterly trajectory, according to Human Rights Watch and The Times.

Shelling of cities has been common in the conflict, and the cease-fire agreement has not ended the violence. A chemical plant on the outskirts of Donetsk was struck Monday, and the resulting shock wave shattered windows for miles around.

A rocket with an intact payload of cluster munitions lies in a field in Novomikhailova, Ukraine.Credit Andrew Roth/The New York Times

A rocket with an intact payload of cluster munitions lies in a field in Novomikhailova, Ukraine.Credit Andrew Roth/The New York Times

On the morning of Oct. 5, Boris V. Melikhov, 37, was chopping wood outside his house in the Gladkovka neighborhood of Donetsk when he heard the loud clap of an explosion from the street.

His first sensation was “a strong push in the back,” and he sprawled onto the grass. More explosions followed, showering Mr. Melikhov with dust and dirt. Unable to stand, he crawled toward a spigot in the garden, bleeding profusely and desperate for water.

“I felt the blood running down my back, down my leg,” he recalled in an interview last week from his bed in a hospital, where his uncle took him after the attack. Doctors there found several identical metal fragments in his leg, chest, shoulder and hand.

Hundreds of such fragments, each about the size of a thumbtack, were sprayed out by at least 11 cluster bomblets that exploded on Mr. Melikhov’s street that morning. The 9N210 bomblets are carried in surface-to-surface Uragan (Hurricane) rockets that are fired from the backs of trucks and have a range of roughly 22 miles.

Part of one of the rockets smashed into a street a few blocks away, and the impact crater indicated it had come from the southwest.

The same morning, sunflower farmers near Novomikhailovka, a small village about 20 miles southwest of Mr. Melikhov’s house, saw rockets sailing almost directly overhead toward Donetsk. Local people said in interviews that the army had been launching Uragan rockets from there for more than a week.

“Trust me, when it is day after day after day, you get to know your Grad launches from your Uragan launches,” said one farmer, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution for discussing Ukrainian military positions. Grads are another kind of rocket used by both sides.

Villagers said they had also seen rockets with cluster bomblets up close. They said several of the rockets misfired on Oct. 3 and landed in the sunflower fields south of the village with their payloads intact.

A reporter photographed three malfunctioned rockets there, and two of them contained submunitions like those that injured Mr. Melikhov. The same type of weapon struck the Donetsk headquarters of the Red Cross on Oct. 2 in an attack that killed an administrator, Laurent DuPasquier, 38.

 

Breaking News: Kiev used ballistic missiles in E Ukraine NATO confirms to DW

In the past two days Kiev’s forces have launched several short-range ballistic missiles into areas in east Ukraine controlled by self-defense forces, CNN reports, citing US government sources.

The move “marks a major escalation” in the Ukrainian crisis, CNN said.

“Three US officials confirmed to me a short time ago that US intelligence over the last 48 hours has monitored the firing of several short-range ballistic missiles from territory controlled by Ukraine government forces into areas controlled by the pro-Russian separatists,” Barbara Starr, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent, said in a live report.

Short-range ballistic missiles can carry warheads of up to 1,000 pounds (450 kg) and are capable of killing dozens of people at a time, Starr said.

A Moscow correspondent for another American television network, ABC, tweeted Tuesday that the Kiev forces fired three ballistic missiles at self-defense forces near the town of Snezhnoe (Snizhne in Ukrainian) in the Donetsk Region. According to Kirit Radia, this is what a US official told ABC’s Pentagon digital journalist Luis Martinez.

Kirit Radia ✔ @KiritRadia
Follow

In last 48 hours Ukraine’s military fired 3 SS21 short range ballistic missiles at separatists near Snizhne, US official tells @LMartinezABC
1:53 PM – 29 Jul 2014

Radia added that according to the official, it is likely that Ukrainian forces use such missiles since they do not want to risk their planes being shot down by sending them to the area.

More: US official says Ukrainian mil likely using those weapons bc they dont want to risk sending planes to be shot down, per @LMartinezABC