T-Room

The Best in Alt News

  • Home
  • News Archive
  • Visit the New Website

July 29, 2014

Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers: Obama Should Release Ukraine Evidence

Preface:  With the July 17 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine turning a local civil war into a U.S. confrontation with Russia, former U.S. intelligence veterans urge President Obama to release what evidence he has about the tragedy and silence the hyperbole.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane

Executive Summary

U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence:

We, the undersigned former intelligence officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.

As veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment, we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid, far more convincing evidence. And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some it via “social media.”

As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to “poison the jury pool.”

Painting Russia Black

We see an eerie resemblance to an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will be obvious to you.

An advantage of our long tenure as intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many of those around you today were still younger.

Thus, it seems possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete disrepair. In our view, the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.

Hours after the tragic shoot-down on Aug. 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all 269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.

The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).

To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration suppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed; Time’s cover this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,” would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “Yellow Journalism 101.”)

When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of Disinformation.”

He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.”

“Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy

“The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on September 6, 1983.

Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

The intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.”

The tortured attempts by your administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that is, that an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.

Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth

We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17. Our entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians – almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing our earlier predispositions.

It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked – like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly slipped into Ukraine – the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with bigger whoppers like the claim Kerry made on Aug. 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.

On September 3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.”

Equally serious, during the first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.

At a formal press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.

Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17, we believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished statesman or woman.

A Choice Between Two

If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released, we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider approving it for release, even if there may be some risk of damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this case, it belongs.

There have been critical junctures in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S. attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S. servicemen.

Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.”

Ten days after the bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.

Three decades ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without leaving a trace behind.”

The Reagan administration made the decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.

If You’ve Got the Goods…

If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public – even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we suggest you instruct your subordinates not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social media like Twitter and Facebook.

The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly, with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should disqualify him. Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.

What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence. Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and, instead, held their noses.

We believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be persuaded to take steps to curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation. In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.

In our most recent (May 4) memorandum to you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 17, you joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for a ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements appear hypocritical.

We reiterate our recommendations of May 4, that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back from you.

The courtesy of a reply is requested.

Prepared by VIPS Steering Group

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

h/t Washingtonsblog.com

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Bill Binney, Blaming Russia, Colleen Rowley, Larry Johnson, Malaysia MH17, MH017, MH17, NATO, Obama administration, Peter van Buren, putin, Ray McGovern, Russia, Senior US Intelligence Officers, Ukraine, US, US War Against Russian, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS

May 12, 2014

State Dept. cable highlighted Ukrainian civil war threat in 2008

May 10, 2014

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report

One of the classified State Department cables released by WikiLeaks confirms that the U.S. State Department knew of the fascist threat to Ukraine as early as 2008. The cable, sent from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, also expressed the legitimate concerns of the Russian government, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, over plans to extent NATO membership to Ukraine. The cable also states that NATO membership for Ukraine could lead to “violence or even, some claim, civil war.” Lavrov also told the United States of attempts of some new [NATO] member countries to “rewrite history and glorify fascists.”

The cable, sent from U.S. ambassador William Burns, is evidence that the George W. Bush administration was more acutely aware of the sensitivity of Ukrainian membership in NATO than the Obama administration has been. This difference has led some to believe that the Obama administration has, because of incompetence and failure to curb the influence of several noted Zionist neo-conservatives, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, brought on the crisis with Russia over Ukraine for other purposes, including forcing sanctions against Russia.

Neo-con financial backers, including George Soros, would like nothing more than to get their hands on Russia’s natural resources, including gold and palladium. Russia possesses over 40 percent of the world’s palladium resources. Palladium is a key component in solar batteries.

The cable also states that Russia did not want to face the possibility of intervening in a Ukrainian civil war brought about by a split in the country over a Ukrainian decision to join NATO.

The cable, just as with National Security Agency surveillance, is yet another example of Obama being worse than Bush in a major policy area.

VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHMO #0265/01 0321425
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011425Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6368
INFO RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000265
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2018
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations], NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], UP [Ukraine], RS [Russia; Wrangel Islands]
SUBJECT: NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT
REDLINES
REF: A. MOSCOW 147 B. MOSCOW 182
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine’s intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia’s defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and “provocative acts” in the separatist regions. End summary.

MFA: NATO Enlargement “Potential Military Threat to Russia”

2. (U) During his annual review of Russia’s foreign policy January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia’s “sphere of influence” in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had “legitimate interests” in the region. But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own decisions about their security and which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on their neighbors.

3. (U) Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War. He disputed arguments that NATO was an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic governments. He said that Russia understood that NATO was in search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because they were under the NATO umbrella (e.g. attempts of some new member countries to “rewrite history and glorify fascists”).

4. (U) During a press briefing January 22 in response to a question about Ukraine’s request for a MAP, the MFA said “a radical new expansion of NATO may bring about a serious political-military shift that will inevitably affect the security interests of Russia.” The spokesman went on to stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to “refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side.” The spokesman noted that Ukraine’s “likely integration into NATO would seriously complicate the many-sided Russian-Ukrainian relations,” and that Russia would “have to take appropriate measures.” The spokesman added that “one has the impression that the present Ukrainian leadership regards rapprochement with NATO largely as an alternative to good-neighborly ties with the Russian Federation.”

Russian Opposition Neuralgic and Concrete

5. (C) Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

6. (C) Dmitriy Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. The letter requesting MAP consideration had come as a “bad surprise” to Russian officials, who calculated that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were safely on the backburner. With its public letter, the issue had been “sharpened.” Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture. The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine’s membership would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite opinion was ready for that argument. Ukraine’s gradual shift towards the West was one thing, its preemptive status as a de jure U.S. military ally another. Trenin cautioned strongly against letting an internal Ukrainian fight for power, where MAP was merely a lever in domestic politics, further complicate U.S.-Russian relations now.

7. (C) Another issue driving Russian opposition to Ukrainian membership is the significant defense industry cooperation the two countries share, including a number of plants where Russian weapons are made. While efforts are underway to shut down or move most of these plants to Russia, and to move the Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk earlier than the 2017 deadline, the GOR has made clear that Ukraine’s joining NATO would require Russia to make major (costly) changes to its defense industrial cooperation.

8. (C) Similarly, the GOR and experts note that there would also be a significant impact on Russian-Ukrainian economic and labor relations, including the effect on thousands of Ukrainians living and working in Russia and vice versa, due to the necessity of imposing a new visa regime. This, Aleksandr Konovalov, Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessment, argued, would become a boiling cauldron of anger and resentment among the local population.

9. (C) With respect to Georgia, most experts said that while not as neuralgic to Russia as Ukraine, the GOR viewed the situation there as too unstable to withstand the divisiveness NATO membership could cause. Aleksey Arbatov, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued that Georgia’s NATO aspirations were simply a way to solve its problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and warned that Russia would be put in a difficult situation were that to ensue.

Russia’s Response

10. (C) The GOR has made it clear that it would have to “seriously review” its entire relationship with Ukraine and Georgia in the event of NATO inviting them to join. This could include major impacts on energy, economic, and political-military engagement, with possible repercussions throughout the region and into Central and Western Europe. Russia would also likely revisit its own relationship with the Alliance and activities in the NATO-Russia Council, and consider further actions in the arms control arena, including the possibility of complete withdrawal from the CFE and INF Treaties, and more direct threats against U.S. missile defense plans.

11. (C) Isabelle Francois, Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow (protect), said she believed that Russia had accepted that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO and was engaged in long-term planning to reconfigure its relations with both countries, and with the Alliance. However, Russia was not yet ready to deal with the consequences of further NATO enlargement to its south. She added that while Russia liked the cooperation with NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, Russia would feel it necessary to insist on recasting the NATO-Russia relationship, if not withdraw completely from the NRC, in the event of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. C

Comment

12. (C) Russia’s opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia’s interests in the region. It is also politically popular to paint the U.S. and NATO as Russia’s adversaries and to use NATO’s outreach to Ukraine and Georgia as a means of generating support from Russian nationalists. While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990’s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests. BURNS

# # #

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Civil War, fascism, Kiev, Lavrov, NATO, Russia, State Department, Ukraine, Wikileaks Cable

May 2, 2014

Obama's sanctions on Russia triggering global recession

April 30, 2014

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report

The White House media spinmeisters and the talking heads of Bloomberg News and CNBC dare not say it but the sanctions on Russia being crafted by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew’s team at the Department of Treasury are beginning to take their toll: on the economies of the United States and western Europe.

Once, we were told that Russia, as a member of the G8 and World Trade Organization, was a sign of the financial interdependency of the world. Now, we are told by the very same people who came up with all the “free trade” and “new world order” contrivances that imposing economic sanctions on energy-exporting Russia will have no effect on the global economy.

The report card on the adoption by the Obama administration of neoconservative-developed sanctions on Russia is now in. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since the Obama administration first began drawing up contingency sanctions on Russia as U.S.-financed rioters first began assembling on Kiev’s Maidan Square in January with the intent of violently ousting the pro-Russian government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Nothing that occurs within the Obama administration, even that which is done in secret, escapes the notice of international hedge fund mogul George Soros, without whose support Obama would have never become president, let alone a U.S. senator from Illinois.

With the inside knowledge of contingency sanctions against Russia being formulated in January, Soros began doing what Soros does best: betting for or against certain currencies and bonds based on his inside knowledge of White House plans.

During January, February, and March, the U.S. economy dramatically decelerated. The energy crisis in Europe brought about by U.S. destabilization of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia resulted in sudden increases in the price of gasoline in the United States as anyone owning an automobile witnessed at the pump.

Many key indicators on the strength of the U.S. economy have plunged as a result of what are not merely sanctions against Russia but a neocon-instituted trade war against one of the world’s largest economies. Not only have inventories fallen in America but so too have exports.

And why would U.S. exports suffer? Because U.S. sanctions are affecting the ability of U.S. firms to operate in Russia. McDonald’s imports over half of its products sold in over 400 restaurants in Russia. Much of those products come from the United States. The weaker ruble resulting from targeted U.S. sanctions has had an adverse effect on McDonald’s sales in Russia and, thus, its supply purchases from the United States. McDonald’s is not the only U.S. restaurant chain operating in Russia that is facing falling profits and a cut-back in exports from the United States.

Pepsico sells a number of food and soft drink products in Russia. Growing anti-American consumer backlash in Russia, coupled with a falling ruble, has placed in jeopardy the company’s profits in the Russian market.

Ford Motors is also being affected by the sanctions with the scaling back of its joint venture with Russian car manufacturer Sollers. With Ford Sollers operations being halted in Russia, there is no demand for car parts imported from Ford and third party manufacturers in the United States. Hence, we have the problem with weak inventories and lower exports now being reported in the United States.

Another key U.S. company operating in Russia is Caterpillar, a firm with a 100-year legacy in Russia and the Soviet Union. It’s CEO, Doug Oberhelman, is quoted by Reuters as issuing a dire warning for U.S. sanctions against Russia. Oberhelman said, “We are hoping for a peaceful resolution, but business confidence around the world could dampen, and trade and world GDP could slow should the situation deteriorate.”

So far, the Obama administration has shown every indication that it is prepared to go the distance in levying sanctions on Russia. There are already plans to increase sanctions to the level of those imposed on Iran. If that occurs, not only will the U.S. target every financial transaction involving Russian banks or corporations but also countries, such as the BRICS allies of Russia — Brazil, India, China, and South Africa — that refuse to abide by sanctions imposed by the U.S., Canada, European Union, Australia, and Japan. Sanctions and a trade war between the West and BRICS would be all that is needed to not only bring about a worldwide recession but a depression and history has shown us how countries facing such a calamity crawl out of their dilemmas. War — global war.

dr-evil-soros-ecomomy-soros-dollar-evil-new-world-order-one-political-poster-1289584678
As usual, the same villain is behind the sanctions on Russia.

Not only are the BRICS potentially facing the curled wringing hands of the Treasury Department’s sanction planners but countries almost totally dependent on trade via Russia are feeling the economic doldrums. These include Russia’s two Eurasian Economic Union partners, Belarus and Kazakhstan.  The BRICS countries are now shedding their dependency on the U.S. dollar as a trading and reserve currency, thus making the U.S. fiat currency backed by the manipulative practices of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, even more worthless than it already is. Russia and China are already trading in the ruble and the yuan and there are plans for the Eurasian Economic Union to adopt a dollar- and euro-free monetary unit called the“altyn” by 2025.

A number of U.S. energy companies are active in Kazakhstan and all face problems with Obama’s sanctions on Russia. Russia is a gateway country for foreign oil and natural gas operations in Kazakhstan. U.S. sanctions on Rossiya Bank and the Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft, both of which are active in Kazakhstan, are merely intended to help exiled Russian Jewish tax scofflaw Mikhail Khodorkovsky attempt to get back some of his nationalized Yukos and other assets from Russian state-owned firms like Rosneft and banks like Rossiya Bank. After being freed from prison in an amnesty authorized by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Khodorkovsky immediately reneged on his promise to avoid politics, showing up in Kiev to support the usurper coup government that took power with the help of some of Khodorkovsky’s fellow travelers, individuals like State Department envoy chief diplomat for Europe Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

Russia’s cutback on the natural gas supply to Ukraine has affected Russia’s supply of gas to fragile economies in southern Europe, especially Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia. These nations, already squeezed economically by the austerity vultures of the EU and International Monetary Fund, are seeing their teetering economies further hurt by the sanctioneers of Washington, London, and Frankfurt. The rise of nationalist parties opposed to the EU and sanctions on Russia is a direct result of the globalists putting the economies of Italy, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, and Bulgaria on the chopping block for the sole interests of a group of coup leaders in Kiev. The election for the EU Parliament on May 22 will have some nasty surprises in store for the globalists, bankers, and neocons like Nuland, Pyatt, and their friends in Kiev.

Further sanctions on Russia stand to harm farmers already beset by EU austerity policies. Farmers in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, and Bulgaria who export fruit to Russia, which is 80 percent dependent on foreign imports of fruit and berries, stand to lose their livelihoods from further EU sanctions on Russia.

If U.S. imposes sanctions on the Russian energy giant Gazprom, nationals of third countries, like former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the chairman of Gazprom’s Nord Stream pipeline operation and friend of Putin, would likely see their foreign accounts frozen and a travel ban imposed by the United States. It is unlikely that real Germans, not the half-Polish hausfrau from the former East Germany who is the current chancellor, would object to a former chancellor being treated like a common criminal, especially after revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency has conducted wide scale surveillance of Germans’ communications.

Israel will have nothing to do with supporting the U.S. on sanctions on Russia because its floating natural gas platform, Tamar, has a deal with Gazprom to export liquefied natural gas.

Regardless of whether sanctions are increased on Russia or not, Soros has already made his killing by his speculative billion-fold “pump and dump” investing and short selling of currencies. His unique insight into what occurs inside the Obama White House, something that would not be possible without the connivance of Obama, himself, and his closest aides like Valerie Jarrett and Jacob Lew, have already made Soros an even wealthier man.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: George Soros, Obama, Obama sanctions on Russia, Odessa, putin, Russia, Sanctions, Slavyansk, Ukraine, US Companies Hit by Sanctions

May 1, 2014

Seven Decades of Nazi Collaboration: America's Dirty Little Secret

Published March 28, 2014

by Paul H. Rosenberg and Foreign Policy in Focus
The Nation

An interview with Russ Bellant, author of “Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party.”

The Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda holds a rally in Kiev, January 1, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

The Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda holds a rally in Kiev, January 1, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus.

As the Ukrainian crisis has unfolded over the past few weeks, it’s hard for Americans not to see Vladimir Putin as the big villain. But the history of the region is a history of competing villains vying against one another; and one school of villains—the Nazis—have a long history of engagement with the US, mostly below the radar, but occasionally exposed, as they were by Russ Bellant in his book Old Nazis, The New Right And The Republican Party (South End Press, 1991). Bellant’s exposure of Nazi leaders from German allies in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign was the driving force in the announced resignation of nine individuals, two of them from the Ukraine, which is why he was the logical choice to turn to illuminate the scattered mentions of Nazi and fascist elements amongst the Ukrainian nationalists, which somehow never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. Of course most Ukranians aren’t Nazis or fascists—all the more reason to illuminate those who would hide their true natures in the shadows…or even behind the momentary glare of the spotlight.

Your book, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party exposed the deep involvement in the Republican Party of Nazi elements from Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukrainian, dating back to World War II and even before. As the Ukrainian crisis unfolded in the last few weeks there have been scattered mentions of a fascist or neo-fascist element, but somehow that never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. I can’t think of anyone better to shed light on what’s not being said about that element. The danger of Russian belligerence is increasingly obvious, but this unexamined fascist element poses dangers of its own. What can you tell us about this element and those dangers?

The element has a long history, of a long record that speaks for itself, when that record is actually known and elaborated on. The key organization in the coup that took place here recently was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists [OUN], or a specific branch of it known as the Banderas [OUN-B]. They’re the group behind the Svoboda party, which got a number of key positions in the new interim regime. The OUN goes back to the 1920s, when they split off from other groups, and, especially in the 1930s began a campaign of assassinating and otherwise terrorizing people who didn’t agree with them.

As World War II approached, they made an alliance with the Nazi powers, they formed several military formations, so that when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, they had several battalions that went into the main city at the time, where their base was, Lvov, or Lwow, it has a variety of spellings [also ‘Lviv’]. They went in, and there’s a documented history of them participating in the identification and rounding up Jews in that city, and assisting in executing several thousand citizens almost immediately. There were also involved in liquidating Polish group populations in other parts of Ukraine during the war.

Without getting deeply involved in that whole history, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to this day defend their wartime role, they were backers of forming the 14th Waffen SS Division, which was the all-Ukrainian division that became an armed element on behalf of the Germans, and under overall German control. They helped encourage its formation, and after the war, right at the end of the war, it was called the First Ukrainian division and they still glorify that history of that SS division, and they have a veterans organization, that obviously doesn’t have too many of members left but they formed a veterans division of that.

If you look insignia being worn in Kiev in the street demonstrations and marches to the SS division insignia still being worn. In fact I was looking at photographs last night of it and there was a whole formation marching, not with 14th Division, but with the Second Division, it was a large division that did major battle around the Ukraine, and these marchers were wearing the insignia on the armbands of the Second Division.

So this is a very clear record, and the OUN, even in its postwar publications has called for ethno-genetically pure Ukrainian territory, which of course is simply calling for purging Jews, and Poles, and Russians from what they consider Ukrainian territory. Also, current leaders of Svoboda have made blatantly anti-Semitic remarks that call for getting rid of Muscovite Jews and so forth. They use this very coarse threatening language that anybody knowing the history of World War II would tremble at. If they were living here, it would seem like they would start worrying about it.

Obviously these people don’t hold monopoly power in Ukraine, but they stepped up and the United States has been behind the Svoboda party and these Ukrainian nationalists. In fact the US connections to them go back to World War II and the United States has had a long-standing tie to the OUN, through the intelligence agencies, initially military intelligence, and later the CIA.

Your book discusses a central figure in the OUN, Yaroslav Stetsko, who was politically active for decades here in America. What can you tell us about his history?

Yaroslav Stetsko was the number two leader of the OUN during World War II and thereafter. In 1959, Stefan Bandera, who was head of the OUN, was killed and that’s when Stetsko assumed the leadership. Stetsko in 1941 was the guy who actually marched into Lvov with the German army June 30, 1941 and the OUN issued a proclamation at that time under his name praising and calling for glory to the German leader Adolf Hitler and how they’re going to march arm in arm for the Ukraine and so forth. After the war, he was part of the key leadership that got picked up by the Americans.

There’s a number of accounts I’ve seen, at least three credible up reports, on how they were in the displaced person camp, the Allied forces set up displaced persons camp and picked up tens of thousands of these former allies of Hitler from countries all over the East, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania – there weren’t Polish collaborators I think most people know the Germans heavily persecuted and murdered millions of Polish residents – but Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and so forth, Belorussia. They had them in these camps they built and organized them, where the Ukrainians were assassinating their Ukrainian nationalist rival so that they would be the undisputed leaders of Ukrainian nationalist movement, so they would get the sponsorship of the United States to continue their political operation, and they were successful in that regard. So when Bandera was out of the picture, Stetsko became the undisputed leader of Ukrainian nationalists.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 under German sponsorship organized a multinational force to fight on behalf of the retreating German army. After the battle of Stalingrad in ’43 the Germans felt a heightened need to get more allies, and so the Romanian Iron Guard, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and others with military formations in place to assist came together and formed the united front called the Committee of Subjugated Nations and again worked on behalf of of the German military. In 1946, they renamed it the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, ABN. Stetsko was the leader of that until he died in 1986.

I mention this in part because the OUN tries to say well during the war we fought the Germans and the communists. The fact of the matter is that they were the leadership of this whole multinational alliance on behalf of the German the last two years of the war and in the war thereafter. All the postwar leaders of the unrepentant Nazi allies were all under the leadership of Yaroslav Stetsko.

What happened when Stetsko, and others like him from other German allied forces came to the United States?

In the United States, when they came, his groups organized ‘captive nations’ committees, they became, supposedly, the representatives of people who are being oppressed in Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, by the Soviet. But they were, in fact, being given an uncritical blank check to represent the voices of all these nations that were part of the Warsaw Pact when in fact they represented the most extreme elements of each of the national communities.

The Captive Nations Committee in Washington DC for instance was run by the person who headed the Ukrainian organization of nationalists, that was true in a number of places. In my hometown area near Detroit as well, they played a major role. In the early 50s, when they were resettled in the United States, there was at least 10,000 of them that were resettled, when you look at all the nationalities. They became politically active through the Republican national committee, because it was really the Eisenhower administration that made the policy decision in the early 1950s, and brought them in. They set up these campaign organizations, every four years they would mobilize for the Republican candidate, whoever it would be, and some of them like Richard Nixon, in 1960, actually had close direct ties to some of the leaders like the Romanian Iron Guard, and some of these other groups.

When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he made a promise to these leaders that they would if he won the presidency he would make them the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican National Committee on a permanent basis, so they wouldn’t be a quadrennial presence, but a continuing presence in the Republican Party. And he made that promise through a guy named Laszlo Pasztor, who served five years in prison after World War II for crimes against humanity. He was prosecuted in 1946 by non-Communist government that actually had control of Hungary at the time. There was a period from ’45 to ’48 when the Hungarian Communist Party didn’t run Hungary. They were the ones who prosecuted him. He had served as a liaison between the Hungarian Nazi party and Berlin; he served in the Berlin embassy of the Hungarian Arrow Cross movement. This is the guy that got picked to organize all the ethnic groups, and the only people that got brought in were the Nazi collaborators.

They didn’t have a Russian affiliate because they hated all Russians of all political stripes. There were no African Americans or Jewish affiliates either. It was just composed of these elements, and for a while they had a German affiliate but some exposure of the Nazi character of the German affiliate caused it to be quietly removed, but other [Nazi] elements were retained.

Your book was researched and published in the 1980s. What was happening by that point in time, after these groups had been established for more than a decade?

I went to their meetings in the 1980s, and they put out material that really make clear who they were there 1984, one of their 1984 booklets praised the pro-Nazi Ustashi regime in Croatia, and these Ustashi killed an estimated 750,000 people and burned them alive in their own camp in Croatia. And here they are praising the founding of this regime, and acknowledging that it was associated with the Nazis, and it was signed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee. You couldn’t make this stuff up. It was just crazy.

I interviewed the Kossack guy, he showed me his pension from service in the SS in World War II, and how he was affiliated with free Nazi groups in the United States, and he was just very unrepentant. These are the umbrellas that were called ‘Captive Nations Committees’ by these people that Stetsko was over, and was part of, too. The Reagan White House brought him in, and promoted him as a major leader and did a big dinner—[UN Ambassador] Jeane Kirkpatrick was part of it, George Bush as Vice President, of course Reagan—and Stetsko was held up as a great leader., And proclamations were issued on his behalf.

When Bush was running for president in 1988, Bush Senior, he came to these basically one of the leading locations of the Ukrainian nationalists in North America, which is in just outside of Detroit, a suburb of Detroit to their cultural center, and one of their foremost leaders in the world is headquartered out of their, at the time, he got Bush to come there and they denounced the OSI and Bush just shook his head, he wouldn’t say anything about it.

The OSI was the Offices of Special Investigations, it was investigating the presence of Nazi war criminals in the United States, and deporting those that were found to have lied on their history when they applied to come into the United States after the war. They had deported a number of people from all over the United States. They had a lot of open investigations, and all these émigré Nazis were trying to bring all the political pressure they could to stop these investigations, including the Ukrainian nationalists ones.

So they denounced them, the OSI investigations, in front of Bush, Bush nodded his head, but he wouldn’t say anything because he didn’t want to sound like he was sympathetic to the Nazi war criminals, but at the same time he didn’t want to offend his hosts by disputing the issue with them. So, the issue of World War II was still being played out over four decades later, in the politics of the presidency, and unfortunately Bush and Reagan continued to be on the side that we tried to defeat in World War II.

What was the response when your book came out, with all this information? How was the information received, and what was the political reaction?

Prior to the book’s publication, Washington Jewish Week had done a story about some of the ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign and their history, like denying the Holocaust, or being involved with these émigré Nazi groups. They named a couple of them that weren’t part of the Heritage Groups Council, but they were part of the Bush campaign.

Then when I published the book, it brought out a lot more names, and the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Boston Globe did stories on them. It got to the point where when reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer would call them about one of their ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign the standard response was he’s no longer part of the campaign, and they’d say that almost as soon as the name would get mentioned. So that they would call that person, and I’ll give the example of Florian Galdau, he was, he ran the Rumanian Iron Guard in New York City. He had wartime record. [Romanian Archbishop Valerian] Trifa himself was implicated in the mass killing of Jews in Bucharest in 1941, I believe. Galdau’s record is clear, because when Trifa was prosecuted he was one of the people targeted by the Office of Special Investigations, and he was forced into deportation in the 1980s, but in those records, they identify Florian Galdau is one of his operatives, so his history is known, except apparently to the Bush campaign.

So when he was identified by the Philadelphia Inquirer, they immediately said he wasn’t part of it, so the Philadelphia Inquirer called Florian Galdau, and he said, “No, I’m part of it. They never said anything to me. As far as I know I’m still part of the campaign.” And that was the pattern.

The Republican National Committee said after the election that they were going to put a blue ribbon committee together and do an investigation of the charges in my book. I was never contacted, nobody affiliated with the book project, the publisher wasn’t contacted none, none of the sources I worked with was contacted. And after about a year, with nobody raising any issues or questions about it they just folded it up and they said well we have not had the resources to investigate this matter.

I did publish an op-ed in the New York Times about two weeks after the election was over, and I think that was the last time anybody said anything publicly about it that got any kind of forum. I think they were allowed to just die and wither away, that is those leaders. The Republican idea was probably to bring in another generation of people who were born in the United States as these émigré’s died off, but they never did anything about this history that Richard Nixon had bequeathed them with. The Reagan White House had really made deep political commitments and alliances with them, they didn’t want to look like they turned their back on them; and Bush wanted them for his reelection campaign, so he wasn’t going to turn his back on them either.

If you want an anecdote, I know that 60 Minutes was working on a piece that Bradley’s team was working on, and Nancy Reagan herself called the executive producer and said that we would really like it if you would wouldn’t do this story, and they killed it. Because, basically, it’s not just about Nazis and the Republican national committee were Nazis in the White House, it inevitably raises the question of who are they how did they get here, who sponsored them and it goes back to the intelligence agencies at that point. And some people don’t like treading there, if it’s tied to an intelligence agency, they prefer to just stay away from the subject. So, some people at 60 Minutes were frustrated by it, but that’s what happened. I think that they were able to effectively kill the story when people tried to cover it. They were able to persuade news managers to not delve into it too much.

What’s happened since you wrote your book, and most of the World War II generation died off? What have the OUN and its allies been up to since then that we should be aware of?

Once the OUN got sponsored by the American security establishment intelligence agencies, they were embedded in a variety of ways in Europe as well, like Radio Free Europe which is headquartered in Munich. A lot of these groups, in the ABN were headquartered in Munich under the sponsorship of Radio Free Europe. From there they ran various kinds of operations where they were trying to do work inside the Warsaw Pact countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a number of them moved back into the Ukraine as well as the other respective countries, and began setting up operations there, and organizing political parties. They reconstituted the veterans group of the Waffen SS, they held marches in the 1990s in the Ukraine, and organized political parties, in alliance with the United States, and became part of what was called the Orange Revolution in 2004, when they won the election there.

The prime minister was closely allied with them. They worked with the new government to get veterans benefits for the Ukrainian SS division veterans, and they started establishing the statues and memorials and museums for Stepan Bandera, who was the leader of the OUN, and who I should say was despised by other Ukrainian nationalists because of their methods, because they were extreme and violent toward other rival Ukrainian nationalist groups as well. So Bandera wasn’t a universal hero, but this group was so influential, in part because of its US connections, that if you go online and you Google ‘Lviv’ and the word ‘Bandera’ you’ll see monuments and statues and large posters and banners of Bandera’s likeness and large monuments permanent erected monuments on behalf of Bandera so they made this guy like he’s the George Washington of the Ukraine.

That government was in power until 2010, when there was another election, and a new regime was elected with a lot of support from the East. Ukrainian nationalist groupings around the Orange Revolution were sharply divided against each other, and there was rampant corruption, and people voted them out. The United States was very aggressive in trying to keep the nationalists in power, but they lost the election. The United States was spending money through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was pumping money into various Ukrainian organizations, and they were doing the same thing in Russia and many other countries around the world as well. We’re talking about many millions of dollars a year to affect the politics of these countries.

When the occupations came in Independence Square in Kiev late last year, you can see Svoboda’s supporters and you can hear their leaders in the parliament making blatant anti-semitic remarks. The leader of the Svoboda party went to Germany to protest the prosecution of John Demjanjuk, who was the Ukrainian who was settled in the United States, who was implicated as a concentration camp guard in the killing of innocent people. The German courts found him guilty and Svoboda leadership went to Germany to complain about convicting this guy. The reason they said they didn’t want any Ukrainian tainted with it because they live a lie that no Ukrainian had anything to do with the German Nazi regime, when history betrays them, and their own affiliations betray them. But they don’t like that being out there publicly, so they always protest their innocence of any Ukrainian being charged with anything, regardless of what the evidence is.

Your book was an important revelation but was not alone. Your book notes that Jack Anderson reported on the pro-Nazi backgrounds of some of the ethnic advisors as far back as 1971, yet when your report came out almost two decades later, everyone responded with shock, surprise, and even denial. What lessons should we draw from this history of buried history? And how should it influence our thinking about the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine?

I don’t believe it’s ever too late to become familiarized and educated about the history of this phenomenon both the wartime history and our postwar collaboration with these folks. There were a number of exposés written about the émigré Nazis. There was a 1979 book called Wanted and it did a number of case stories of these people being brought in to the United States, including the Trifa story. Christopher Simpson did a book called Blowback that discussed the policy decisions, it’s an incredible book. He’s a professor at American University and he did years of research through the Freedom of Information Act and archives, and got the policy documents under which the decisions were made to bring these folks together, and not just into the United States but to deploy them around the world.

Like my book, it didn’t get the attention it deserved. The New York Times book reviewer was negative toward the book. There are people that really don’t want to touch this stuff. There’s a lot of people who don’t want it touched. I think it’s really important for people who believe in openness and transparency and democratic values, who don’t want to see hate groups come back to power in other parts of the world to know what happened.

There’s not very many Americans that really even know that the Waffen SS was a multinational force. That’s been kind of kept out of the received history. Otherwise people would know that there were Ukrainian Nazis, Hungarian Nazis, Latvian Nazis, and they were all involved in the mass murder of their fellow citizens, if they were Jewish, or even if they were co-nationalists that were on the other side of the issue of the war. They were just mass murderers, across Eastern Europe. And that history, those facts aren’t even well-known. A lot of people didn’t even know this phenomenon even existed.

I think all Americans have a responsibility to know what their government is doing in the foreign policy in Europe as well as elsewhere around the world, as well as Latin America as well as Africa. Since our policy was to uphold apartheid in South Africa why weren’t Americans challenging that more? They began challenging that in the 80s, but the apartheid regime was run by the Nazi party. They were allied with Germany in World War II, they were the Nationalist party and they took power in 1948 and the United States backed that for decades. We backed the death squads in Latin America, even though they massacred tens of thousands of people – 30,000 people in Chile alone. Americans aren’t being attentive to what their government is doing abroad, even though it’s been doing done with their tax dollars and in their name, and I think we just have a general responsibility.

I went to these meetings, I went to these conferences, I went over a period of years. I met with them directly, most of the people I wrote about, I met with them personally or in group meetings. People can’t afford to do that on their own, timewise, but there’s enough literature out there they can read and pursue it, they will get enough enough of a handle to get what the real picture is, to demand change. I’m not totally partisan in this, but I think the Republican Party was extreme on this, but the Democrats folded and didn’t challenge this when they knew it was going on.

There is an old Roman poet that once said truth does not say one thing and wisdom another. I’m a believer in that. Tell the truth and wisdom will follow.

Paul H. Rosenberg is a columnist for Al Jazeera English and Senior Editor for Random Lengths News. 

# # #

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: George Bush, Nazis, Neocons, New World Order, OUN, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Russia, Ukraine, Ukrainian Nationalists, World War II

March 26, 2014

Crisis in Ukraine : Kiev's government risks a civil war

Below is a translation from an article over at der Spiegel discussing the current make up of the Ukrainian ‘provisional’ governing body and suggestive signs of pending civil war — The T-Room.

Ukraines Ministerpräsident Jazenjuk: "Meine Frau spricht meist Russisch"

By Uwe Klußmann

Right-wing extremists in the coalition , protests in the East : The Provisional Government has the situation in Ukraine is not under control. The experts confirm the input from the federal government. But Premier Yatsenyuk refuses to draw conclusions from his failed policies .

The gesture of the incumbent Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk should act conciliatory . In Russian , the prime minister turned in the past week on television to the residents of the Russian-speaking regions in the south and east.

” My wife speaks mostly Russian ,” said Yatsenyuk and promised the preservation of the annulled by Parliament Language Act , which regulates the use of Russian . The Prime Minister offered a vague ” decentralization of power ” with elections of mayors and city councils ” in the coming year .”

However, the appeal faded effect. On the weekend demonstrated in eastern and southern Ukraine again thousands against the Kiev government and for referenda on the status of their regions. Most people in the Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine simply do not believe the promises of the government.

Here, the Cabinet in Kiev has just been appointed a deputy Jazenjuks for those responsible for the ” protection of national minorities.” The flaw: Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Sytsch belongs to Swoboda . At the same extreme right party so their Member of Parliament Igor Miroshnichenko the chief of state television in the past week forced with blows to resign.

With such personnel , the reconciliation of the National Ukrainian West and Russia-friendly East can not succeed. However, does the Prime Minister not one – he holds fast to the coalition with the nationalists. Yatsenyuk assesses the situation also unrealistic : He speaks in the message to the East Ukrainians thereof, in them there is only “artificial conflicts ” that would fomented by ” external forces ” – is meant Russia.

Government against federalism

In fact – the leadership in Moscow encourages doubt about the state television , the Russian forces. But there are Ukrainians who go to tens of thousands against the government on the road.

To the east, ever louder call for a new federal system of the country is from the perspective Jazenjuks only a move Moscow : “More federalism is the first step to destroy the Ukrainian sovereignty ,” he told the ” Süddeutsche Zeitung”.

The problem is the premier but : federalist system on the German model he could even if he wanted to , not enforce his right-wing coalition partners Swoboda . The new “National Guard ” to the Yatsenyuk calls the young Ukrainians , divided the nation . Because the Guard is a rallying from nationalists , especially from the west of the country . In Odessa Russian-speaking young protesters greeted the troops with the cry of ” Traitor ! ”

So drives the leadership in Kiev , the country on the path to civil war . In the Federal Chancellery and the Foreign Office , we now know what risks does the policy of the Ukrainian transitional government in itself. There is circulating an eight-page dossier from the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP ), entitled “Ukraine in the midst of crisis.” The analysis determines the total loss of confidence in the leadership in Kiev in the east of the country and warns that “there is hardly representative of the government, with which the majority of the population can identify the eastern and southern regions”.

Presidential elections questionable

The government , according to the dossier had ” devastating message to the residents of eastern regions ” sent and as a consequence in these parts ” little influence ” . The appointment of oligarchs to governors in the east , the analysis , the government undermines their credibility and ability .

The study’s authors doubt whether the 25 for the Can take place in May announced presidential elections. They consider it questionable whether it would succeed in the government “to ensure a level of stability that is sufficient to be able to properly run the election .”

The dossier of the co-financed by the Federal Chancellery foundation is formulated diplomatically. But it concludes a fiasco . The authors analyze aptly that Russian President Vladimir Putin “at any price a consolidation of a Ukrainian government seeks to prevent .”

Only the authors spare their readers the logical conclusion : That the government in Kiev, a conglomerate of pragmatic amateurs , dubious oligarchs and unbridled ultra-nationalists , Ukraine can not stabilize . And that it is so inevitably doomed to failure.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-kiews-regierung-ist-zum-scheitern-verurteilt-a-960461.html

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Civil War in Ukraine, Crimea succession, Kiev's government risks a civil war, Pending Civil War in Ukraine, Russia, Russian oligarchs

March 24, 2014

The Military Industrial Complex Needs a War

America’s corporate media is at it again…stoking fear among the populous. These talking heads live in such a bubble at this point that they don’t get the fact few bother to watch let alone read their propaganda anymore.

You see, they know incessant fearmongering leads to incessant warmongering which then feeds the greedy beast known as the American military industrial (AMI) complex. The AMI complex needs war to justify the trillions spent on staff, weaponry, contractors, research and more. Without war, the trillion dollar machine would shrivel up and all those retired military officers and congress critters would lose their ‘private’ taxpayer funded million dollar jobs.

Of course, losing yours and my hard earned money would be catastrophic for these pariahs so they are more than willing to sacrifice American treasure to satisfy their insatiable greed.

Trust the AMI complex will do whatever it takes to get your attention including staging some sort of horrendous attack on American assets. When this happens, as it most assuredly will, corporate media will go into overdrive and ‘sell, sell, sell war’ but maybe, just maybe, this time they will over play their hands and the American people won’t buy what they are selling. Maybe.

The enemy is shaping up to be Russia with the ground plan currently being laid by NATO to start WWIII. Pay close attention to what is happening in this region including Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. This is where it all starts –

StormCloudsGathering YT link

Filed Under: Opinion, Public, Top Stories Tagged With: American Military Industrial Complex, AMI complex, China, NATO, Obama, putin, Russia, Ukraine, war, WWIII

October 10, 2013

Edward Snowden Receives the Sam Adam's Award ~ "Corner-Brightener Candlestick"

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - OCTOBER 09: Edward Snowden (3rd R) receives the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award (SAAII) alongside UK WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison (2nd R) who took Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow and obtained his asylum and the United States government whistleblowers who presented the award (L-R) Coleen Rowley (FBI), Thomas Drake (NSA), Jesselyn Raddack (DoJ) and Ray McGovern (CIA) on October 9, 2013 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Sunshinepress/Getty Images)

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – OCTOBER 09: Edward Snowden (3rd R) receives the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award (SAAII) alongside UK WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison (2nd R) who took Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow and obtained his asylum and the United States government whistleblowers who presented the award (L-R) Coleen Rowley (FBI), Thomas Drake (NSA), Jesselyn Raddack (DoJ) and Ray McGovern (CIA) on October 9, 2013 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Sunshinepress/Getty Images)

 

Russia’s RIA Novosti news service reported – [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Coleen Rowley, Ed Snowden, Jesselyn Raddack, NSA, NSA snooping on Americans, Ray McGovern, Russia, SAAII, Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award, Snowden receives American visitors, surveillance, Thomas Drake, wikileaks

July 12, 2013

Snowden in his own words …

Edward Snowden along with Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks (left) at a meeting with human rights campaigners in Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow today. Photograph: Tanya Lokshina/Human Rights Watch

by Helen Tansey
July 12, 2013
The T-Room

Snowden held a rather public meeting today with international human interest groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to ask for their organizations protection. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Asylum, Edward Snowden, NSA, NSA Whistleblower, Russia, Snowden asylum, Snowden seeks asylum in Russia, the t room, Whistleblower

May 28, 2013

Author: Soviet agents subverted US in 1930s

The following interview with syndicated columnist and author Diana West conducted by The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas discusses her new book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: America Betrayed, American history, Communism, FDR, fellow traveller, McCarthyism, New World Order, Obama is a communist, Pre WWII American history, Russia, Socialism, Socialized medicine, Soviet agents subvert US, Stalin, United Socialists States of America, US Government, USSA, Zionism

April 25, 2013

Boston Bombing: The US roots of "Chechen" terrorism

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus, American Enterprise Institute, Boston Marathon Bombing, Caucasus, Chechnya, CIA, Dhzokhar Tsarnaev, Jamestown Foundation, NED, putin, Russia, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Tsarnaevs, Turkey, USAID

FBI intercepted terror financing of Chechen guerrillas through Saudis

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report
April 24, 2013

Although the FBI ignored multiple warnings from Russian law enforcement that one of the two accused Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, may have posed a terror threat to the United States, the FBI had intercepted a major Islamist financial support operation run through an Islamic charity linked to Saudi Arabia. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Boston bombers, Boston marathon, Boston Marathon Bombing, Boston Police Department, Chechen militants, Crime, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, false flag, FBI, Photos, putin, Russia, Saudi's, Tamerlin Tsarnaev, Terror Watch List, Terrorism, terrorist attack, the t room, Tsarnaev, wayne madsen

July 17, 2012

The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?

The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look … [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Assad, China, Hired terrorists fighting in Syria, NATO, putin, Russia, Syria, Syria war, Syrian National Council, US military expansion

June 29, 2012

Can The World Survive Washington’s Hubris?

“The psychopaths, sociopaths, and morons who prevail in Washington are leading the world to destruction.”

by Paul Craig Roberts

When President Reagan nominated me as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, he told me that we had to restore the US economy, to rescue it from stagflation, in order to bring the full weight of a powerful economy to bear on the Soviet leadership, in order to convince them to negotiate the end of the cold war. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Assad, China, NATO, putin, Russia, Syria, Syria war, US military expansion

November 24, 2011

Stage set for further US/NATO military intervention around the world by Wayne Madsen

The Obama administration, in yet another display of the use of Orwellian language, has embarked on a military doctrine called “Mass Atrocity Prevention” (MAP), the Pentagon operational plan to implement the White House’s “R2P” or “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Essentially, the Pentagon will militarily support the intervention of international forces operating under the umbrella of NATO, UN, the African Union, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League, and others to prevent a “massacre” by a dictatorial government perceived to pose a threat to its domestic opposition. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: China, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, George Washington Blog, IAEA, Iran, Israel, Mass Atrocity Prevention aka MAP, Military Intervention, NATO, New World Order, Nuclear War, Obama, Pentagon, Responsibility to Protect aka R2P, Russia, Syria, US heading for war, wayne madsen, Zero Hedge, Zionism

November 14, 2011

Arab League Suspends Syria: What's Next?

Why is the Arab League suspending Syria? Russia’s foreign minister suggests Western countries aka the United States are trying to stir up opposition in Syria so as to topple President Bashar al-Assad. This strategy appears to be Clinton’s State Departments modus operandi, that is using Soros funded infiltrators to stir up opposition that leads to the overthrow of those who apparently are not kowtowing to the Council on Foreign Relations and Tri-Lateral Commissions “New World Order” goal. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Arab League, Arab revolution, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Israel, James Corbett, Netanyahu, Nuttyahoo, Obama, RT, Russia, Russia Today, Syria, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, World War 3, World War III, WWIII

October 14, 2011

Will US Stay in Iraq To Protect Oil Interest? Why Not, Afterall It's the Reason We Invaded in the First Place!

Antonia Juhasz, author of “The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do to Stop It” provides an update to how Iraq’s oilfields, prior to the Iraq invasion, were once nationalized are now being divvied up to international oil conglomerates…the same ones who seem to be benefiting mightily from the recent NATO lead invasion in Libya.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: America, asia, Australia, Brazil, British Monarchy, Bush, Canada, China, coorporations, England, europe, George, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Laden, Nations, oil, oil corporations, profit, Queen Elizabeth, Russia, Saddam Hussein, seven sister, soros, Spain, Stay Together You, United Kingdom, United States, war, War for Oil, World

May 28, 2010

Interpol receives Email from The T-Room on possible lead of Counterfeit Treasury Plates aka 'Supernotes'

Update 1x – A Harry Dexter White was cited in the Jordan Diary. Just Me did some research and discovered a write up on this Mr. White at Conservapedia. Here is the opening paragraph on Mr. White “Harry Dexter White (October 9, 1892 – August 16, 1948) was an American economist and senior U.S. Department of Treasury official. He was the first head of the International Monetary Fund, played an important role in formation of the World Bank. He was also a Soviet secret agent—”the most highly-placed asset the Soviets possessed in the American government.”[1] White succeeded in subverting American policy to favor Soviet interests over U.S. interests. Unlike other Comintern operatives such as Alger Hiss or Julius Rosenberg, White died before he could be brought to trial. Consequently, Harry Dexter White’s case has not been publicly scrutinized as closely as the Hiss and Rosenberg cases, yet in some respects, White’s subversion of US foreign policy may have been even more damaging.” To read more go to Conservapedia linked above.

Today, 28 May 2010, I, Helen C. Tansey, President, Tansey & Associates, www.t-room.us submitted the following information to Interpol. Why? As I explain below, when doing research on the birth of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution AND how the Original 13th Amendment to the US Constitution was intentionally and deliberately erased from our history, I came upon a little known book titled, Mr. Jordan’s Diary. This little book recounts the very real experience of Major Jordan who was assigned by the military to Newark, NJ, civilian airport. He witnessed US Federal Reserve machinery, paper and plates being loaded onto a Russian plane in route to Moscow, and so much more. Read the account for yourself.

Major Jordan had no reason to lie, fabricate or make up such a tale. None. No pay off. Nada.

Educate yourself and read the Diary, which is linked at Sweetliberty below. Bother yourself and for once, don’t make an excuse. Learn your history. Learn your government. Learn your military. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: 16th Amendment, Counterfeit, Federal Reserve, Interpol, Moscow, Russia, Supernotes, The Original Thirteenth Amendment, US Federal Reserve

April 14, 2010

Tarpley on the Men Behind President Barack H. Obama

Those men would be Rockefeller, Soros, Rothschild, Brzezinski to name a few. Webster Tarpley discusses Obama’s role to start WWIII so his puppet masters can depopulate and make a lot of money. Watch the short youtube. It’s worth your time. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Brzezinski, China, Iran, Poland, Rockefeller, Russia, Tarpley, the men behind Obama, WWIII

April 5, 2010

RT News: Webster Tarpley – China Confronts the US over Iran Sanctions

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXotMefAbgM&feature=player_embedded

The T-Room will be keeping an eye on this situation and will provide updates as we learn them. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Britian, China, Iran, Nuclear development, Russia, Sanctions on Iran, Webster Tarpley

Tags

9/11 Alex Jones Article II Banksters Barack Obama bernanke China CIA Corbett Report Edward Snowden fascism Federal Reserve fukushima GMO Gold Gold currency Goldman Sachs IMF Iran Israel JP Morgan Keiser Report Max Keiser NATO Netanyahu New World Order NSA Obama Palestine Police state politics President Obama radiation RT Russia Silver Silver currency Syria T-Room the t room US Constitution USD Wall Street wayne madsen Zionism

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

© 2013 Tansey & Associates, LLC | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Designed by Owen Design Company