The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties",

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

SIGNED:

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Eric Zuesse

The U.S. Government has developed plans to invade China and Russia, and to do it on the basis of lies.

In both cases, the war would start as a conventional-weapon conflict, and when-and-if America is losing that war, then a blitz nuclear strike against the enemy’s command center (capital) would decapitate the enemy’s forces too fast for it to be able to launch its retaliatory nuclear weapons.

China makes clear that it will not yield up any of its territory in order to please the United States. As a consequence of that, the United States has detailed war-plans to invade China.

Russia makes clear that it will not allow the United States to place its nuclear missiles only 317 miles (five minutes) away from The Kremlin. As a consequence of that, both the United States and its NATO allies have detailed war-plans to invade Russia.

U.S. aggression is behind both of these two invasion-plans, which constitute the two major threats of starting a nuclear war that would destroy the entire planet — not MERELY to destroy an entire country, such as the United States and its allies did in 1992 when the U.S. (CIA) precipitated the Yugoslav war and then invaded and destroyed Yugoslavia on the basis only of lies, and in 2001 when they invaded and destroyed Afghanistan on the basis only of lies, and in 2003 when they invaded and destroyed Iraq on the basis only of lies, and in 2011 when they invaded and destroyed Libya on the basis only of lies, and in 2012 when they invaded and destroyed Syria on the basis only of lies, and in many other instances, when the U.S. and its allies invaded other countries, also only on the basis of lies.

Of course, U.S.-and-allied propaganda denies all of this, and fools their own publics to believe otherwise, but all of this is history, all of which will be linked-to in the online version of this article, in order to document this with the undeniable evidence. So: the links in this article will document the case here, the case against the most hypocritical nations in the entire world’s history: the U.S. and its allies. For the people who have been fooled, this will be a mind-bend, away from lies, finally to reach truth.

U.S. military plans to invade China are, of course, Top Secret, but the U.S. military and its hired think tanks have war-gamed scenarios for these two invasions, and sympathetic journalists have been provided with selected details of what the results have been. For example: on 8 August 2022, Bloomberg News headlined “What-If DC War Game Maps Huge Toll of a Future US-China War Over Taiwan: A think-tank exercise with former Pentagon officials foresees grim results.” The Taipei Times bannered on 27 April 2023, “War games to tackle the latest PLA threats”. Those are two recent examples. All of these games ignore the fact that on 27 February 1972 the U.S. Government promised the Chinese Government that, “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.” But, instead: all of these war-games and all of the U.S. threats to China increase U.S. forces and military installations in Taiwan and encourage the U.S. stooge leaders in Taiwan to build up — with U.S. assistance — a sufficient military so that with U.S. protection they can claim NOT to be “a part of China” (and, then, when China responds militarily, to launch nuclear invasion against China).

The U.S. Government had started, by no later than June 2011, to plan, and then, by 1 March 2013, was starting to execute; and, during 20-27 February 2014, carried out, its coup to replace the democratically elected and neutralist President of Ukraine by a rabidly Russia-hating U.S.-installed regime that immediately started killing protesters in the regions that had voted over 75% for that overthrown democratically elected President, and so started on 20 February 2014 the war in Ukraine in order to become ultimately enabled (after getting Ukraine into NATO) to place its nuclear missiles only 317 miles away from The Kremlin on the Ukrainian border.

If the U.S. can grab Taiwan, then America’s missiles to knock out China’s central command in Beijing could be positioned in Taipei only 1,069 miles away from Beijing.

During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the crucial number was the air distance separating America’s central command in DC from Havana only 1,131 miles away.

The aim of the game is always to decapitate the central command of ‘the enemy’ so fast it won’t have time enough to recognize that the missile is on its way and then for ‘the enemy’ to press its button to launch all of its own nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Of course, winning without having to go through nuclear war is preferred, even by the aggressor. In this regard, a commentator said on May 12th: “Having decoupled energy-rich Russia from Europe, the US intends to decouple China’s efficient manufacturing from Europe too, This way, the US weakens all 3 competitors (Europe, Russia and China) so it can maintain its global hegemony and live off the world, as a parasite. The unholy alliance of Europe and US will be challenged by the BRICS+ and dedollarization.” That commentator predicted: “In the end, the Western world order will collapse.”

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

READ MORE:

https://theduran.com/how-evil-the-u-s-government-actually-is/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

After criticism of the crown: Australia's best-known Indigenous journalist resigns

After criticism of British monarchy: Australian TV journalist resigns Australian journalist Stan Grant. Stan Grant had provided one of the most intense moments in the history of Australian television at the very moment when he said goodbye to the medium for the time being. With a piece of paper in his hands crossed in his lap, which he did not even look at in the entire speech, the presenter of the political program Q+A ("Question and Answer") on the ABC channel looked directly into the camera. His body did not move, but seemed to tremble inwardly at the intensity of the moment. "Sometimes we just have to take some time off," Grant said at the end of Monday's final edition of the show, which he hosted. "Sometimes our souls hurt. That's how it is for me," said the Australian.

The farewell of the 59-year-old TV presenter still dominated the reporting of the Australian media the day after. Many journalists expressed their solidarity with what is probably the most prominent journalist of indigenous origin in his home country. One reason for this is the racist and hateful comments that had been hurled at him since he had criticized the legacy of the British monarchy in his homeland in a television round with which the channel had accompanied the coronation act for King Charles III a good two weeks ago. "For years, I have been a media target for racism and have paid a hefty price. For the time being, I don't want to have anything to do with it anymore – I'm stepping down," Grant wrote in his last column for the public broadcaster for the time being.

It's actually an old discussion The journalist, who had reported from abroad for CNN and had also made a name for himself as an author of non-fiction books, had only represented well-known points of view. "I pointed out that the crown represents the invasion and theft of our country," Grant wrote in the column. In the name of the Crown, the indigenous people were pushed into reservations and their children were taken from their families. "Under the crown, our people were massacred," Grant wrote. But the criticism, which was not unusual, had led to particularly ugly insults and threats. The British monarch is also the head of state of Australia. In the context of the coronation, the discussion had flared up again as to whether a republican Australia would not be more contemporary. According to Grant, the fact that the attacks were so vehemently directed against him is not due to his criticism of the monarchy legacy in Australia, but to his dark skin color.

Media as part of the problem

Even more sharply than the racist attacks on his person, however, the journalist criticized the role of the media. "All too often, we are the poison in the bloodstream of our society," Grant said, clearly including himself in this criticism. Racism and hatred are not the reason why he is leaving the station: "I need a break from the media. I feel like I'm part of the problem myself." Thus, after the coronation, the broadcasters and newspapers of Rupert Murdoch's media monopoly had also worked on him. In his column, Grant had also accused those responsible for his house station ABC of not having publicly supported him in any way.

More on the subject He will now take time to think about what he and the media could do better, Grant said in his farewell words. He also turned to the other Aborigines, whom he wanted to help gain more visibility. He will not do this for a while. However, Grant had reserved his last words for his family, to whom he addressed the language of the Wiradjuri tribe, to which he himself belongs. Only at that moment did he seem close to tears.

(FROM A GERMAN NEWS OUTLET)

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..............

READ FROM TOP.