“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.

Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy

 

Eric Zuesse

On May 21st, I headlined “Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine,” and quoted John Kerry’s May 12th warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown. They didn’t like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.) Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko, “we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.” Also quoted there was Kerry’s subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we “reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” I noted, then that, “The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama.” However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5th, “Poroshenko: Ukraine Will ‘Do Everything’ To Retake Crimea’,” and reported that, “President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea’s return to Ukrainian rule. … Speaking at a news conference on June 5, … Poroshenko said that ‘every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.’” Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, “It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world’s pro-Ukrainian coalition,” which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko’s warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.

Right now, the Minsk II ceasefire has broken down and there are accusations on both sides that the other is to blame. What cannot be denied is that at least three times, on April 30th, then on May 11th, and then on June 5th, Poroshenko has repeatedly promised to invade Crimea, which wasn’t even mentioned in the Minsk II agreement; and that he was also promising to re-invade Donbass, something that is explicitly prohibited in this agreement. Furthermore, America’s President, Barack Obama, did not fire Kerry’s subordinate, Nuland, for her contradicting her boss on this important matter.

How will that be taken in European capitals? Kerry was reaffirming the position of Merkel and Hollande, the key shapers of the Minsk II agreement; and Nuland was nullifying them. Obama now has sided with Nuland on this; it’s a slap in the face to the EU: Poroshenko can continue ignoring Kerry and can blatantly ignore the Minsk II agreement; and Obama tacitly sides with Poroshenko and Nuland, against Kerry. 

The personalities here are important: On 4 February 2014, in the very same phone-conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, America’s Ambassador in Ukraine, in which Nuland had instructed Pyatt to get “Yats” Yatsenyuk appointed to lead Ukraine after the coup (which then occured 18 days later), she also famously said “F—k  the EU!” Obama is now seconding that statement of hers.

In effect, Obama is telling the EU that they can get anything they want signed, but that he would still move forward with his own policy, regardless of whether or not they like it.

Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit — which would force the EU’s hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there — or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy. If he stays on while Nuland also does, then, in effect, Kerry is being cut out of policymaking on Europe and Asia (Nuland’s territory), altogether, and the EU needs to communicate directly with Obama on everything, or else to communicate with Nuland as if she and not Kerry were the actual U.S. Secretary of State. But if Kerry instead quits, then the pressure would be placed on EU officials: whether to continue with the U.S., or to reject U.S. anti-Russia policy, and to move forward by leaving NATO, and all that that entails?

If they then decide to stay with the U.S., after that “F—k the EU!” and then this; then, the European countries are clearly just U.S. colonies. This would be far more embarrassing to those leaders than John Kerry would be embarrassed by his simply resigning from the U.S. State Department. It might even turn the tide and force the Ukrainian Government to follow through with all of its commitments under the Minsk II accords.

It would be the most effective thing for Kerry to do at this stage. But, it would lose him his position as a (now merely nominal) member of Obama’s Cabinet.

The way this turns out will show a lot, about John Kerry. The nations of Europe already know everything they need to know about Barack Obama. If Kerry quits, he’ll have respect around the world. If he stays, he’ll be just another Colin Powell.

The ball is in Kerry’s court, and everyone will see how he plays it — and what type of man he is (and isn’t).

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

The Assassination of Donbass Commander Alexey Mozgovoy. “His Legacy Will Unify Novorossiya”

 

“The greatest victory will be if we create a government that thinks of the people; not victory in the war, but victory over ourselves, over our own minds.” Alexey Mozgovoy

In-depth Report:

Aleksey_Mozgovoy_discusses_military_matters_Aug_7_2014The importance of Alexey Mozgovoy on the world stage today can’t be measured through his tactical genius and success against Kiev. It’s not what his political views were or that he was the “hometown hero” in Donbass.

What made Mozgovoy extraordinary is that he didn’t care what your politics are. He wasn’t a nationalist or a socialist like his critics try to paint him. If you loved people he could work with you. He was a normal guy that woke up in extraordinary circumstances and rose to the occasion. If Maidan hadn’t happened the world wouldn’t know him and obscurity wouldn’t have diminished him in the slightest. We may know about people we consider great because of events but those qualities were there to begin with.

The reason LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic) and Prezrak (Ghost Battalion) love this leader was his humanity. It’s also why he is respected in Kiev by regular army leaders. It is a very odd quality for a wartime military leader to be known for.

He engaged and spoke with counterparts from across the front line in the Ukrainian military leadership regularly to find a way to stop the war he often described as “brother against brother.”

This is in spite of the fact that Mozgovoy’s Prizrak battalions have been one of the most potent forces on the battlefield in Donbass. According to Mozgovoy the true enemy of the people in both Donbass and Kiev are the Oligarchs that own the government, the resources, and businesses in Ukraine.

“… Another issue is that we defend the interests of the people, not the government. Because governments change, but the people – never. With those who honestly perform their duties to the people, we always find a common language.” From an interview with Alexey Mozgovoy

Under him, Prezrak battalion set up a humanitarian aid battalion that is getting international attention today as a model of how a military can deliver aid and help the civil population survive under the harsh conditions driven by Kiev’s war. Recently this was enhanced with the addition of humanitarian battalion “Angel” which joined Prezrak this spring.

Contrast this with Amnesty International’s report blasting Kiev for torture, Ukraine’s repeal of any human rights in Donbass, and the ongoing humanitarian blockade keeping food and medicine out of the region, its easy to see why both he and Prezrak battalion are so respected.

“Senior Advisor to the international human rights organization Amnesty International Joanne Mariner said that the report on the use of torture against prisoners in Ukraine will shock Europe. Kiev has to immediately bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes and if this does not happen, the EU should put economic pressure on the Ukrainian authorities.”

When I heard about his murder I looked across the spectrum of Ukrainian social media and the reaction was mixed. Some and the emphasis is some, Ukrainian nationalists saw his assassination as a mistake. His was among the clearest voices constantly suing for peace in Donbas, and trying to save the lives of soldiers on both sides.

Why Alexey Mozgovoy was Assassinated

A reporter for the Komsomolskaya Pravda, Alexey Kots concluded that the Prezrak commander was murdered to sow discord between the battalions and government in LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic). By killing one of the few people that acted like a natural bridge between all parties in the conflict, a civil war could be started in LPR between the different military units. The hope of peace and unifying Dontesk People’s Republic (DPR) and LPR destroyed.

Kots adds credibly that it is quite possibly a Ukrainian Special Services operation and ultimately the goal is to stop the building of the country to be known as Novorossia. Mosgovoy was seen as a primary figure in this project.

What the Murderer’s Don’t Understand

On that note I received a communication that paints the assassination of Mozgovoy squarely into Alexey Kots’ conclusion, and gloating Novorossia would never happen now. This came from the person organizing Ukraine’s Information War. What the murderers and planners didn’t comprehend is that Prezrak was run by an intellectual that loved humanity, not an ego bent on gaining power. Mozgovoy’s commanders care about the people as much as he did and the work will continue.

The only way Kiev’s terrorists could win is if all the work and organization of the battalion were centered on promoting a single strongman leader. Prezrak’s leadership is as far from a cult of personality situation as it gets.

Why They Failed

The battalion is centered on humanitarian responsibilities that define Prezrak in LPR. Every officer is a capable leader and although he’ll be missed Alexey Borisavich Mozgovoy left Prezrak Mechanized Battalions in capable hands. The dream of Novorossia that started last year will go to completion.

Looking back to the beginning of the war the commander’s own words describing how Prezrak “Ghost” battalion was birthed:

 Thanks to the idiocy of Avakov we gained our name. Through the incompetence of Poroshenko we gained our weapons. Keep up the good work, and soon, we will have a free country  which will be a free, social civil society! – Alexey Borisavich

I only met commander Mozgovoy once when we spent some time together doing an interview. I got to know him very well through his men throughout the course of a year. I spent time embedded with them and interacted with them in a variety of situations.

May he rest in peace.

“The greatest victory will be if we create a government that thinks of the people; not victory in the war, but victory over ourselves, over our own minds.” Alexey Mozgovoy