Friday 29th of March 2024

the joke seems to always work...

a hand squeeze...

You know the joke: your point the finger at someone's shirt and you say "Oh" as if there was something your interlocutor had to look down at and then you raise your finger and hit his/her nose? Got ya...

Meanwhile Moscow has to deal with US aggression and ingratitude... 

 

It is also, at times like these, we need a critical and impartial media to focus on what is happening in the World. To question what our so called leaders are really up to. Whatever it is they are imbibing at the Pentagon their Commander in Chief is plugged into the same happy hooker pipe. Enough to say it seems to have passed the bleary eye hacks at the Guardian by, having sold their once proud moral compass to the black suited ones. With the smashing of their hard drives, they have now totally thrown up their hands in despair and capitulated to the dark side. So much so that even Freudian Slips are creeping in when there is little possibility of double speak, when the facts outweigh the potential for spin doctoring. As the clip below illustrates from an article by their Diplomatic Editor Patrick Wintour:

wintourquote

Militant engineers, sniffer dogs and “demining robots…”

Clearly Patrick, the subs or both are so inculcated with anti Russian memes that they can’t spot such mistakes, or maybe they inadvertently corrected military to militant without thinking. Hell it is a report about Russia for god’s sake. Let’s face it, Russia and the US planning military coordination against Isis in Syria, it doesn’t fit the narrative – what the f**k’s going on!

Well so there you have it folks, Dr Jekyll is Mr Hyde and he is shaping our media and our world into a place where only exceptional people can live. Where up is down, right is left and Barak Obama has a peace prize. To support this objective of peace the Pentagon will restore Obama’s troop cuts in Europe to address Russian aggression. A Russia that we have the word of Gen Strangelove, no Strangehate, er… Strangebreed, erm… what’s his name now… Strangebrew? The pentagon shaped NATO commander who believes Russia is evil. He knows this because the voices in his head said so…or someone did.

Ah I almost forgot, thanks to Russia for helping defeat IS in Syria. I thought I’d better say it as the Peace Laureate forgot. Or maybe he wasn’t quite himself that day…

 

http://off-guardian.org/2016/04/02/the-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde/

 

Nothing new here. The USA wants to control the world and the Ruskies want to carry on selling gas to Europe, which the USA wants to stop to let their "friends", the Saudis take over the delivery... So we have to demean the Russians as being the bad guys on this planet while in our little Western world, massive genteel corruption greases the wheel of fortunes...

hitting their banks...

The Islamic State is facing an unprecedented cash crunch in its home territory, U.S. counterterrorism officials say, as months of strikes on oil facilities and financial institutions take a deepening toll on the group’s ability to pay its fighters or carry out operations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-led-strikes-putting-a-financial-squeeze-on-the-islamic-state/2016/04/02/e739a7be-f848-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_isis-450pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

no congrats to come from washington and london...

The spokesman for the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front in northern Syria is among 20 or so jihadists killed in air strikes, activists report.

Abu Firas al-Suri died, along with his son, in the raids in Idlib province on Sunday, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says.

The dead militants were also said to include foreign fighters.

The reports said it was not clear whether the air strikes were carried out by Syrian or Russian forces.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights chief Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP news agency that Abu Firas was meeting other leading jihadists in the village of Kafar Jales at the time. Another Nusra Front target and one from allied Islamist group Jund al-Aqsa had also been also attacked.

A temporary ceasefire between government forces and rebels has largely held for more than a month but it does not cover the Nusra Front or so-called Islamic State.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35956498

pushing russia's buttons...

 

In fact Russia is expecting relations between it and the West to deteriorate even further. The Kremlin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, has warned Russians to expect an avalanche of negative press about President Vladimir Putin as the West continues its bid to "destabilize" the country, and the deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, has criticized US presidential candidates for "blackening" Russia's name to boost their ratings without considering the effect on bilateral relations.

"Many US presidential candidates … behave like Cold War troopers when they 'ride' the anti-Russian rhetoric. This is regrettable and it does not promise any changes for the better in our relations with the United States after the elections there," Ryabkov told the newspaper Izvestia.

Lavrov hopes that Germany, France, Italy and Spain understand that it's impossible to solve the security issues affecting Europe, the Middle East and Asia without Russia's help and will push for closer cooperation. The UK, however, may not join that bandwagon - not yet anyway.

Foreign secretary Philip Hammond recently told Reuters he wasn't convinced Russia was a reliable partner and if Reuters is right in its report that claims Russia is shipping more military hardware to Syria than its pulling out, Hammond may well be right in thinking that the conciliatory rhetoric is little more than hollow platitudes.

read more: http://www.dw.com/en/nasty-nato-and-resentful-russia/a-19158430

-----------------

Hammond is totally out of his tree. Russia is fighting the war against ISIS. It can't do this with sticks. Russia is pulling out more weaponry and personnel that it is shipping in new one in. The silence over Palmyra and al-Qaryatain victories are telling... The US wants the Saudi gas and oil to flow through Syria. The UK and most European countries will do what the US says. Russia is protecting its gas supply to Europe. The Saudis are discreetly supporting ISIS so they can gain Syria for the Wahhabi Sunnis, they run their pipeline. Meanwhile having demonised ISIS, the west has to go the full hog and destroy it. Russia seems to be the only effective force to do it in Syria.

Negative press about Putin? Yes, today the Guardian is plastering Putin as if he was the only crook on this planet. Meanwhile as Obama wants to reduce nukes in the world, he is increasing and modernising the USA's stockpile...

 

russia is surrounding the USA...

 

Unlimited Propagandistic Lying from CNN
Posted on April 3, 2016
 by Eric Zuesse.

Eric Zuesse

On Saturday April 2nd, CNN headlined, “U.S. F-15s Deployed to Iceland,” and Zachary Cohen opened: 

Demonstrating its commitment to a ‘free’ and ‘secure’ Europe, the United States deployed 12 F-15C Eagles and approximately 350 airmen to Iceland and the Netherlands on Friday, the Air Force announced.

U.S. aircraft units from the 131st Fighter Squadron at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts and the 194th Fighter Squadron at Fresno Air National Guard Base in California will support NATO air surveillance missions in Iceland and conduct flying training in the Netherlands.

The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region.

Next to that text appears a video from Christiane Amanpour, “Amanpour in Focus,” which opens with her saying:

Of all the crises plaguing Europe right now — Grexit, Brexit, the migrant crisis, the economy even still — the worst, by far, is the Ukraine-Russia crisis, which still has the potential to flare into open warfare beyond the borders of Ukraine; and who would have thought that in two thousand [inaudible]teen, we would still hear President Vladimir Putin sometimes raise the nuclear option. This extraordinary state of affairs has come from Ukrainians protesting for their independence — they saw off one President, and they elected another one, Petro Poroshenko.


Here’s the actual history behind all of that:

Back in February 2014, Obama overthrew (please click on the link if you have any doubt about anything that’s being said here) the democratically elected President of Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, in an extremely bloody coup, which was at least a year in being set-up, and the rationale for this ‘democratic uprising’ was that that actually democratically elected President was corrupt — but no one mentioned that all of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been  corrupt. Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to take over control of Ukraine as soon as the coup would be completed, and that person did become appointed — and top officials of the EU were shocked to find out that it had been a coup. The “armed militias in ski masks” that Obama referred to in the coup (and in the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ afterward), were actually his, not Viktor Yanukovych’s (the President whom Obama overthrew); they were America’s mercenaries, not either Yanukovych’s or Russia’s operatives as he pretends they were. And, now, after the extremely bloody civil war that resulted in Ukraine when the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the President whom Obama overthrew rejected  Obama’s coup-regime and refused to be ruled by it, Ukraine is even more corrupt than it ever was, but, for some mysterious reason, the United States isn’t overthrowing the post-coup government. Obama had gotten what he basically wanted out of his coup: Russia’s ability to pipeline its gas into the EU is now severely hampered by the necessity to establish alternate pipeline-routes. Ukraine is crucial to strangulating Russia, because most of Russia’s gas-pipelines into Europe run through its formerly friendly neighbor, Ukraine, which now is rabidly anti-Russian. So: the coup and ethnic-cleansing and all the rest have been just a part of America’s effort to strangulate Russia; and all of the maimed and dead people are merely collateral damage — no concern of Obama.

Obama lies about Russia and Ukraine and Crimea; and, the same aristocracy that control the U.S. government, control also the U.S. ‘news’ media, such as CNN; so, this is America’s ‘free press’, in America’s ‘democracy’: nonstop lies and propaganda, to fool the suckers to elect their candidates.

Consequently: when this CNN ‘news’ story said, “The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region,” what was the source of the term, “aggression,” that was being used against Russia, there? It was, now, under Obama, the official U.S. government term to refer to Russia: for example, in Obama’s National Security Strategy 2015, he had used that term on 17 of the 18 times, when ‘aggression’ was being charged, in that document, against a foreign nation.

However, it’s not Russia that surrounds America with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; it is the United States that surrounds Russia with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; and which, on top of this, has the nerve to accuse Russia as being the ‘aggressor,’ when Russia is merely defending Crimeans (and Russia’s own naval base) from America’s takeover of Ukraine — and allows Crimeans to plebiscite on rejoining Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine. (Even Western-sponsored polls in Crimea showed overwhelming support among them for rejoining Russia.) To add insult to injury, America then organizes global economic sanctions against Russia, for, essentially, defending Crimeans, and for defending itself, against American aggression.

And, then, the American President has the arrogant audacity to proclaim that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” meaning that not only Russia, but every  other country, is ‘dispensable.’

It’s the official line. And America’s ‘news’ media promote it, unquestioningly (as if it’s not outrageous).

And, if you ever wondered why people like this get promoted at major ‘news’ media, while people like this get the boot and are blackballed by them, you now know.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/unlimited-propagandistic-lying-cnn.html

 

actually, the USA don't mind the russians in syria...

One should be circumspect. The USA don't mind the Ruskies doing the "liberation" of Syria from ISIS... A) it saves them having to do it — with all the collateral damage it would entail... and B) the Russian victory kudos would soon die anyway with more aggression in the western media about Putin being corrupt, about Ukraine and about MH17. We have not seen the end of it.

It's a win-win situation for the US, as the Russian "victories" do not change the US end game, the removal of Assad so their mates the Saudis can push a pipeline through Syria. Meanwhile the Russians are trying to make a deal with Greece, in order to bypass Ukraine, for a gas pipeline to Europe.

Meanwhile Greece is being shafted by the EU and the IMF (under supervision from the USA, which of course set up the "Greek problem" through their banks in the first place, with "easy cash")...

verbotten by the USA: europe link with russia...

 

Russia's military pullout out of Syria came as a surprise to most Western nations. That, and a successful though fragile ceasefire inside Syria between Assad and the rebels, have shifted the balance on the global chessboard. Europe is struggling with the refugee flow, desperate enough to negotiate a blackmail-style deal with Turkey. As people are growing tired of the unpopular measures taken by Brussels, the upcoming elections in France, the EU's major player, may change the stakes in diplomacy as well. In this rapidly changing situation will the attitude towards Russia change? Does the West even need to carry out such a policy? And what role is NATO playing in the rift between Russia and the nations of Europe? We ask a prominent French politician, close friend of ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy. Yvan Blot is on Sophie&Co today.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevarnadze:  Yvan Blot, French scholar and politician, close to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, author of “Putin’s Russia”, welcome to the show, it’s great to have you with us, sir.

Yvan Blot: Thank you for inviting me.

SS: So, from the latest, Russian troops are being pulled out of Syria, so we have the peace talks that are somewhat in progress right now. Truce is setting on the battlefield - do you think that Russian withdrawal, this move to pull out troops, will actually help the peace process, help de-escalate the situation, or will those who don’t want to find a compromise be emboldened by this move?

YB: It was a surprize in France to hear that Russian troops are leaving Syria, but I think it’s a good thing for the peace process, naturally.

SS: Why?

YB: It shows clearly that big powers want to seize the war and because Russia attacked the Islamist movement in Syria, some people would think that Russia wants to be in the East, and would invade, like America invaded Iraq.

SS: Make it it’s sphere of influence, basically.

YB: So we have a proof it’s not the case.

SS: How do you think the West will react to Russia’s move? Will West’s attitude towards Russia change after the withdrawal of the troops.

YB: I think, probably, Mr. Obama was informed about this decision, President Putin’s decision, so I think, normally, the West would have a good reaction, because if Washington agrees, the rest of the Western countries will agree, because America is the leader of the Western coalition in Syria.

SS: French economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, proclaimed that France is actually supporting the end of anti-Russian sanctions, but all of the EU members have to be OK with that. Except France we have Hungary, we have Greece, we have Italy who do not want to extend, to renew the sanctions. What do you think will happen? Will their voices be heard? Is it possible to actually go against the EU will and not renew the sanctions individually?

YB: It’s difficult to say. I know that business circles in France are against the sanctions, they want to get rid of the sanctions, and there’s a big discussion, private discussion, between the government and the business circles. I think, Mr. Hollande is not really in favor of sanctions, but he has to take into account the American position, naturally, and for that reason, it’s difficult to say what he will do, because if for him the American pressure is too strong, he will say: “We continue the sanctions”.

SS: So it’s really more the American pressure than the fact that all EU members have to be OK with not renewing the sanctions?

YB: It’s another reason, I would say. Nothing forbids France to get rid of the sanctions if France wanted to. I think, with somebody with character, as was General De Gaulle, we would stop the sanctions, whatever the consequences. Our President is an intelligent man, but I’m not sure he wants to have these difficult relations with Washington, so I’m not sure France will be very independent in that…

SS: You often talk about America’s influence over Europe, and you have mentioned that these are American sanctions more than European sanctions… I mean, you really believe that America’s influence over Europe is so big that it can actually pressure Europe into imposing sanctions on Russia?

YB: Yes, I have examples. For instance, we have a big bank, BNP Paribas,  who had to pay enormous sums to the American Treasury because they made business with Iran, for instance. I know it was the same for Mistral, for instance. The American government told the French government, in private, naturally, that if we give Mistrals, these warships, to Russia, the sum that bank,  BNP Paribas, must pay will be much higher and, at the same time, they say that American judges are completely independent. I don’t think this is the case. There are contacts between the judges and the American government. I have some experience with this. Western countries always say that their judges are completely independent, but it’s not the case if it is a question which touches national interests. For little private conflicts the judges are independent, but it’s linked with politics, the government says “I hope you will give good sanctions against this bank”, for instance.

SS: So you think if Europe, on a larger scale, was to reset relations with Russia, then America will actually torpedo it or sabotage it?

YB: The strategy of America was clearly explained in the book by Mr.Brzezinski, “The Big Chessboard”. In this book, Mr.Brzezinski says: “The problem of America is the competition with Eurasia.” Eurasia - that is to say Europe, Russia and China and India, perhaps - and he says: “If all these countries are against us, it’s going to be terrible for us, we are not the first power in the world, so we have to divide Eurasia, to colonize Western Europe, to survey China and Russia. For us it makes really a problem, and the best thing would be to have weaker Russia and to organize conflict with Ukraine”. It was written 10 years ago, and now you see the implementation of this strategy. I think it is an American strategy.

SS: But I want to talk about Europe’s position - why do you think it’s stuck in this choice between partnership with Russia and partnership with NATO. It seems like it’s one or the other - why? Why is it stuck in this position?

YB: First, NATO has no reason to survive, because NATO was created, in the beginning, to fight against communism and against Soviet Union. There’s no longer a Soviet Union. It would have been logical to destroy NATO and to create a new order for defence and security issues, new organisation, probably, and probably without the U.S.. It was not the case, naturally, and major part of our political leaders have strong personal links with American government, it’s a fact.

SS: You think there’s no reason for NATO to survive, you’ve also said that America’s influence on Europe is in large done through NATO - now, former French PM Dominique de Villepin.

has proposed, once again, pulling France out of the NATO military command structure. Do you think it’s a good idea, do you think France should pull out? Is it even possible?

YB: I think he’s right. I know him very personally, I think he’s right. It is technically completely possible, because we have a  big industry of armaments, we have nuclear forces, so France can be independent.

SS: So why are you with NATO then? Is it just, like, symbolic, is it a question of French pride and prestige?

YB: It was a discussion between me and President Sarkozy about this, because I didn’t agree with him. It was Sarkozy who…

SS: Returned France to NATO.

YB: And he said: “We are in the same family”, his argument was “the same family, we have the same values”. Perhaps we have the same values, but since, perhaps, 10 years, all French presidents ask Americans to have one commander-in-chief of NATO. There are three staffs in NATO: for North of Europe, for Center of Europe and for South. France wanted to have the general-in-chief of the South, and the American said “No, no, no”. They said “No” to Mitterrand, they said “No” to Chirac, and they said “No” to Sarkozy. But, in spite of this Sarkozy said that it doesn’t matter, “we will integrate into it”, but I’m not sure it was a good idea.

SS: So, if France is part of the same family, as the NATO members, then why did the president Francois Hollande, after the horrible terrorist attacks, actually called on its fellow EU allies to help fight terrorism, help France, and not the NATO members?

YB: Politically, the EU is more important in France than the NATO. We don’t speak very much about NATO. But EU, yes, because it’s the same currency, it’s same economic policy, and so on. For that reason Mr. Hollande wants always to have good relations with the members of the EU, but in the future, I don’t know what we will have because it’s possible - it’s not sure, but it’s possible - that the UK leaves the EU.

SS:  So, you have studied Russian for many years, you’ve wrote a book that’s called “Putin’s Russia”. It decries a lot of myths about Putin, it also argues against looking at Russia as if it was still a Soviet Union. Are there are lot of people in the French establishment who share your view on Russia?

YB: There are part of the establishment.

SS: What’s the ratio?

YB: Partly, it’s a question of generation. Older people in France very often think that Russia is always a Soviet Union, older people. But with younger people, it’s not the case at all. So, younger people in general are much more in favor of cooperation with Russia, even within the government, or within the Parliament, and this situation, I think, it’s improving for the future cooperation between France and Russia.

SS: But, French government mostly consists of young people, so you would think that they don’t really remember the Soviet Union, yet they are for the sanctions and they still decry Putin as a dictator…

YB: Yes, the French government is socialist, you know. It is a socialist tradition in France to have bad relations with Russia, I must say, because after the WWII, the Americans gave a lot of money to socialist party to fight against the Communist Party in France. For that reason, Socialist party had always very good links with America. Especially now, they have very good links with ms. Clinton, for instance. Ms. Clinton said once, I think she didn’t want to say this, but she said it to Juppe, “Mr. President Juppe” - but a journalist told her: “But he’s not President!” - he was PM, but he wasn’t a President - “Oh yes, I am sorry, I made a mistake” - but in fact, she would like to have Mr. Juppe as partner for future.

SS: We’ll talk about the Presidential elections that are coming up. So you have part of French establishment that is very anti-Russian, and you have part of it that’s very pro-Russian.

YB: Especially, business circles.

SS: So which side will prevail?

YB: In the short run, it’s, perhaps, the anti-Russians who are rather mainstream, especially in the media, but I think in the longer run, it would be completely different. You have only to look at the geography - it’s very difficult for Western Europe not to have a special links with Russia, because it’s the same continent, in fact. So, I think it’s artificial - this fight against Russia. In fact, the majority of people who come from France to Russia can see it’s not a dictatorship. I was, in the past, in the Soviet Union, and in my hotel, I could read some Russian papers in English - there was no criticism against Mr. Brezhnev, for instance, or of the Soviet government. But now you can read articles against Mr. Putin - so it’s very clear, there’s more freedom than before.

SS: So you have Presidential election coming up, right around the corner. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Russia, you’re close to him, I believe you’re his friend. If his party wins the vote, do you think there will be a rapprochement between Russia and France?

YB: I’m sure.

SS: Really?

YB: Sarkozy always told me he wanted to have good relations with Mr. Putin. He has, I think personal good relations, and he thinks it’s very necessary, because Sarkozy is linked with business circles very much, much more than the socialists, and he wants to have better relations with Russia because they want to expand trade with Russia in every sectors of the economy. I think with Sarkozy the relations would be better, I’m sure, and even if we would have some tensions with the U.S.. We had tensions already in the past, with Sarkozy, when he went to mingle with Georgian war, for instance, Washington was not very happy about this. But he did it.

SS: Do you think he will run for Presidency again? What do you think? In your personal opinion?

YB: I think so, except, if he has such bad polls, he could perhaps say: “It’s over, it’s not possible”, but except in that extreme situation - we cannot know exactly the future so much early - I think he will be a candidate. He wants to be a candidate.

SS: But do you think the French are ready to choose again between Hollande and Sarkozy?

YB: Frankly, I’m not sure, because part of the French people would prefer to have new personalities, probably.

SS: It’s been 2 years since the Crimean referendum, pro-Russian referendum, and you have said that it’s impossible to reverse the Crimean situation. The EU however, is saying that the control over the peninsula needs to be given back to Ukraine. President Poroshenko is ordering Ukraine’s military to focus on Crimea, you have Kiev that is getting military aid from the U.S. - I mean, it does seem like the West cannot come to terms with that. Do you think that'll ever happen? When?

YB: I think Crimea will be Russian in the future. It’s not possible to change that. In France, we are not in a good place to think against it, because we made exactly the same with Mayotte in Africa, you know it’s some islands which form a Comorrean state and when they got their independence, one island said “We want to be French”, and this island is French. For that reason, France was condemned by the UNGA, we were condemned by the African Assembly of Nations, and it doesn’t change anything. We had no sanctions, because we are friends with the U.S.

SS: But we have sanctions, so if the Crimean situation is irreversible, and the sanctions are linked to the Crimean situation, does that mean that the sanctions against Russia are here to stay forever?

YB: It is a U.S. position now, with President Obama, but you cannot see future. I’m not sure, for instance, Mr. Trump, I think, perhaps, he would lift the sanctions, I’m not sure that he’s in favor of the sanctions. He’s like everybody, in general, in business circles - they don’t like sanctions. They think politicians mingling with economics is not a good thing, it’s better to be separated. With ms. Clinton, perhaps, we would have the same sanctions. So we have to wait for the American elections.

SS: Maybe, even harsher sanctions with ms. Clinton. So, let’s talk about the EU situation. The EU isn’t aligned in its relations with Russia, it has the migrant crisis, there’s the financial problem in the Eurozone, there’s  terrorism problem - a serious problem. So, if countries weren’t obliged to follow one common EU policy, do you think they would be able to deal with these issues better, individually?

YB: I’m not sure. For instance a lot of people say because we are in the EU we could have more opportunity for economic growth, but it’s not in fact the case. Switzerland or Norway are not in the EU, and their economy is much better. I’m not sure the Euro, for instance, is a good thing for French economy. Probably, it’s a good thing for German economy, but we have not the same competitiveness to have the same money - I’m not sure it’s a good idea. A lot of economists, professors of economics - I am the professor of economics -  we think the Euro is not a good idea, probably, a symbolic or a political idea, but from an economic point of view, it’s probably a mistake.

SS: So Britain is planning to have a referendum this summer on the EU exit, and according to the survey that’s been conducted by the university of Edinburgh, majority of France wants to have the same referendum. What do you think? Could the British experience set an example to follow for other members?

YB: Probably. It’s a reason for why a Commission in Brussels is a bit frightened of this situation, because if the UK leaves European Union, other countries could do the same and could be encouraged to make the same move. Perhaps, the Scandinavian countries who are very linked with the UK, perhaps, Czech Republic…

SS: Well, you have France, you have Sweden, Spain, Germany - they all want EU membership referendum. I’m not saying that they want to leave the EU, but they want to have the right to vote for it. Do you think they should be able?

YB: The people want to be consulted on this sort of issue, and one of the big problems with the EU is that it is not democratic at all. It was built not to be democratic. The power in Brussels is not in the hands of the Council of ministers and is not in the Parliament. I was for 10 years in the EU Parliament, I can tell you  that all the power, in fact, is in the Commission. It’s a government of civil servants, who have no responsibility towards different countries, and they do what they want, and for that reason, more and more people are against this sort of technician government, which is not a democratic government. I think it was a mistake at the beginning of the European Union, to create this super-Comission above all. So, it doesn’t mean we have to get rid completely with the EU, but perhaps it is necessary to re-write the treaty to suppress this Commission in Brussels, it was a bad idea. It would be Europe, naturally, if we did that. Why not?

SS: So, you have said that you are worried about the massive flow of refugees into Europe, but do you feel like, maybe, Europe has a moral obligation or responsibility to accommodate these refugees from the Middle East. I mean, are European policies partly to blame for wars that are causing this mass exodus? I mean, intervention in Libya produced a failed state right on border of Europe, you know.

YB:  You are right. I think there are some governments that have a responsibility because of the disorder they created in the MidEast, and it was one of the causes of the movement of refugees towards Europe. But the public opinion is really against it, and so, if you are in democracy, you have to take into account the opinion of the people. I think it’s necessary to have more peace, naturally, in the Middle East - that’s one of the questions, but otherwise, it’s necessary, really, to control our borders which is not the case, because we have created this Schengen area, and the Schengen area is not very well protected against illegal immigrants, and that’s really a problem. You must add to this problem the fact that among the refugees, it’s possible that you have some terrorists. Our Secret Service is persuaded it is the case, I must say.

SS: Yvan Blot, thank you very much for this interesting interview. We were talking to Yvan Blot, French politician, who used to sit in the French and the European Parliament's, past terrorism advisor to the French government, author of “Putin’s Russia”, talking about seemingly dead end of West’s relations with Russia and the future of Europe. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

 

What Gus has always talked about since year dot after WWII:

The strategy of America was clearly explained in the book by Mr.Brzezinski, “The Big Chessboard”. In this book, Mr.Brzezinski says: “The problem of America is the competition with Eurasia.” Eurasia - that is to say Europe, Russia and China and India, perhaps - and he says: “If all these countries are against us, it’s going to be terrible for us, we are not the first power in the world, so we have to divide Eurasia, to colonize Western Europe, to survey China and Russia. For us it makes really a problem, and the best thing would be to have weaker Russia and to organize conflict with Ukraine”. It was written 10 years ago, and now you see the implementation of this strategy. I think it is an American strategy.

 

Meanwhile:

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on Sunday announced his resignation, calling for the formation of a new government as Kiev endures itsworst political crisis since the Euromaidan revolution of 2014.

The public’s patience has grown thin with Yatsenyuk, as well as with President Petro Poroshenko, because of a struggling economy, stalled reforms and entrenched corruption. The ruling coalition has fractured as public support hits new lows.

As Western leaders have openly signaled their exasperation with the political logjam in Kiev, the choice of Yatsenyuk’s replacement is seen as a bellwether for the fate of Ukraine’s stalled reform program. Candidates for his successor include Vladimir Groysman, the parliamentary speaker and a close political ally of Poroshenko, and Natalie Jaresko, the technocrat finance minister born to Ukrainian immigrants in Chicago and favored by foreign investors.

Yatsenyuk, who narrowly survived a no-confidence vote in February, said in a weekly televised address that he would tender his resignation on Tuesday to end an “artificially created” political crisis in Kiev. He said that a new government must be selected immediately to avoid the “destabilization of the executive branch during a war,” a reference to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

“The desire to change one person blinded politicians and paralyzed their political will for real change,” Yatsenyuk said. “The process of changing the government turned into a mindless running-in-place.”

read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-embattled-prime-minister-resigns-as-patience-wears-out/2016/04/10/d859bcc2-ff2b-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ukraine-310pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

------------------

Meanwhile we know that the US was doing some "black ops" back in 2014 to destabilise the legitimately elected government. 

 

 

"Russian air wafare games disrupted by US Navy"...

 

A Russian jet came within 30ft of a US destroyer conducting exercises in the Baltic Sea in what the US navy described as a “simulated attack” – one of the closest and riskiest encounters between the two countries’ armed forces in recent years.

The US navy released photos and videos showing Russian SU-24 fighter jets flying low over the sea and the “buzzing” the USS Donald Cook – a destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class – which carries guided missiles and which had just made a call at the Polish port of Gdynia.

According to the US European Command (Eucom) in Stuttgart, there were a number of such close encounters on Monday and Tuesday, involving both Russian fighter jets and helicopters, while the Donald Cook was in international waters in the Baltic Sea, off the Polish coast of Poland. Those waters are also close to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/russian-attack-planes-buzz-uss-donald-cook-baltic-sea

 

What are the Yanks thinking? Would they be happy for the Russians to do war games in "international waters off Cuba"? or in the Gulf of Mexico (1.6 million square kms) which is nearly FOUR TIMES bigger than the Baltic Sea (415, 266 square kms)?

And the space where the Russian planes were flying is as much"international"  air space  as it is "international" waters.  The Yanks are miffed because the Russian planes disrupted their "war games" very near a Russian port. If we want to talk about provocation, the Yanks are yanking like loopy pimply teenagers... They have the diplomacy skills of idiots equipped with big nasty toys.

 

At least the Russian pilots were very skilled to fly close enough to make the Yanks yanking. See image at top... The headline should have been: "Russian air wafare games disrupted by US Navy"

 

reverso...

 

GUSNEWS — GULF OF MEXICO:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned his country would have been within its rights to shoot down US warplanes during what it described as a simulated attack on a Russian destroyer in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We condemn this kind of behaviour. It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous," Mr Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with CNN Espanol and the Miami Herald.

"And under the rules of engagement that could have been a shoot-down.

"People need to understand that this is serious business and Russia is not going to be intimidated on the high seas.

"We are communicating to the Americans how dangerous this is and our hope is that this will never be repeated."

The repeated flights by the F-16 bombers near the Papabearsky were so close they created wake in the water, a Russian official said on Wednesday.

It was one of the most aggressive interactions between the two former Cold War foes in recent memory, the official said, although the planes carried no visible weaponry.

A Sikorsky S-92 helicopter also made passes around the vessel, taking pictures.

The nearest US territory was about 270 nautical miles away in its enclave of New Orleans, which sits between Mexico and Florida.

US defends actions of fighter jets.

In Washington, the New York Post news agency quoted Defense Secretary Ash Carter as saying the crews of the US bombers that flew near the Russian destroyer respected no safety rules as required.

US State Department spokesman John Kirby said Mr Kerry would raise the incident with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

 

imagine...

All we have to do to highlight the enormous hypocrisy and double standards which are the hallmark of domestic and international politics is to switch the names around.

Actions taken by Western establishment approved countries and actors which are deemed to be totally uncontroversial-would be deemed to be ‘absolutely outrageous’ if done to them.

Here’s a few examples:

Just imagine… if a close Russian ally, whose forces were trained by Russia, was bombing the poorest country in the Middle East, with cluster bombs supplied by Moscow. Furthermore, in the country that was being attacked, a famine threatened the lives millions of people.

Well, the poorest country in the Middle East is Yemen, and it’s being bombed to smithereens by the one of the richest, Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Britain, using UK-made cluster bombs. And guess what, the West’s ‘something must be done brigade,' who expressed so much ’humanitarian’ concern over the fighting to regain Aleppo from Al-Qaeda/Al Nusra terrorists, are silent. How strange.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375011-just-imagine-russian-troops-america/?u...

 

read from top.

meanwhile, with the US pissing on 1936...

In keeping with the 1936 Montreux Convention, US naval ships cannot stay in the Black Sea more than 21 days, but it looks like the Pentagon could disregard these limitations.

 

NATO, meanwhile, is equally ready to contribute to this dangerous escalation. During their October 26-27 meeting in Brussels, the defense ministers of the 28 member —states disused measures to boost the alliance’s presence in the Black Sea region.

US Sixth Fleet 

The US Sixth Fleet, headquartered in Naples is operationally organized into six task groups consisting of carrier ships, amphibious forces, landing forces, logistics forces and special operations units that are present in the Mediterranean for a period of 6 to 8 months.

The Sixth Fleet has at its heart a task force of one or two aircraft carriers, two missile cruisers, sixteen frigates and destroyers in addition to submarines, landing ships, Marine units and bases in Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Turkey and other European countries.

The Fleet’s area of responsibility includes the Mediterranean and Black Seas, part of the Atlantic Ocean and the coast of Africa (Gulf of Guinea).

The Sixth Fleet’s command and control ship, the USS Mount Whitney, bristles with the most sophisticated communications and surveillance equipment ensuring effective command of the Fleet’s Air Force and Marine units.

US naval ships with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system  on board are part of the US missile defense system and can weaken the impact of Russia’s retaliatory missile strike.

In addition, there is a number of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles regularly patrolling waters off Russia’s Crimean peninsula.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201612091048356927-us-fleet-convention/

 

The Montreux Agreement is still in force in 2017.

Development of the Convention since 1936

 

The Convention remains in force today, with amendments, though not without dispute. It was repeatedly challenged by the Soviet Union during World War II and the Cold War. As early as 1939, Joseph Stalin sought to reopen the Straits Question and proposed joint Turkish and Soviet control of the Straits, complaining that "a small state [i.e. Turkey] supported by Great Britain held a great state by the throat and gave it no outlet."[22] After the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov informed his German counterparts that the USSR wished to take military control of the Straits and establish its own military base there.[23] The Soviets returned to the issue in 1945 and 1946, demanding a revision of the Montreux Convention at a conference excluding most of the Montreux signatories, a permanent Soviet military presence and joint control of the Straits. This was firmly rejected by Turkey, despite an ongoing Soviet "strategy of tension". For several years after World War II, the Soviets exploited the restriction on the number of foreign warships by ensuring that one of theirs was always in the Straits, thus effectively blocking any nation other than Turkey from sending warships through the Straits.[24] Soviet pressure expanded into full on demands to revise the Montreux Convention, which led to the Turkish Straits crisis of 1946, which led to Turkey abandoning its policy of neutrality. In 1947 it became the recipient of US military and economic assistance under the Truman Doctrine of "containment" and joined NATO, along with Greece, in 1952.[25]

The passage of US warships through the Straits also raised controversy, as the convention forbids the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships with guns of a calibrelarger than eight inches (203 mm). In the 1960s, the US sent warships carrying 420 mm calibre ASROC missiles through the Straits, prompting Soviet protests. The Turkish government rejected the Soviet complaints, pointing out that guided missiles were not guns and that such weapons had not even existed at the time of the Convention's agreement so were not restricted.[26]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force in November 1994, has prompted calls for the Montreux Convention to be revised and adapted to make it compatible with UNCLOS's regime governing straits used for international navigation. However, Turkey's long-standing refusal to sign UNCLOS has meant that Montreux remains in force without further amendments.[27]

The safety of vessels passing through the Bosporus has become a major concern in recent years as the volume of traffic has increased greatly since the Convention was signed – from 4,500 in 1934 to 49,304 by 1998. As well as obvious environmental concerns, the Straits bisect the city of Istanbul with over 14 million people living on its shores; maritime incidents in the Straits therefore pose a considerable risk to public safety. The Convention does not, however, make any provision for the regulation of shipping for the purposes of safety and environmental protection. In January 1994 the Turkish government adopted new "Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and the Marmara Region". This introduced a new regulatory regime "in order to ensure the safety of navigation, life and property and to protect the environment in the region" but without violating the Montreux principle of free passage. The new regulations provoked some controversy when Russia, Greece, CyprusRomaniaUkraine and Bulgaria raised objections. However, they were approved by the International Maritime Organisation on the grounds that they were not intended to prejudice "the rights of any ship using the Straits under international law". The regulations were revised in November 1998 to address Russian concerns.[28]

read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_o...

 

The Montreux Agreement also limits the size of the guns on ships... but these days, missiles — which are not part of the agreement since they did not exist in 1936, such as Tomahawk Missiles — have far longer range than guns. The presence of the US ships in the Black is designed to piss off the Russians some more.

 

See also: poking the bear...