Eric Zuesse

[TGP screengrab]

Nick Parker, of Jeff Bezos's Washington Post, and Jerome Starkey, of Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, headlining, in Mr. Murdoch’s Australian News.Com website, “Russia to attack Ukraine at any moment” and announcing that “Vladimir Putin is likely to strike without warning — possibly tomorrow, The US Sun reports.”

The first sign of it actually happening today is that (also on February 15th) Russia’s RT News bannered “‘West has been destroyed without a shot fired' – Russia: The Russian Foreign Ministry has announced February 15 as ‘the day Western propaganda failed’”, and opened:

With Russia announcing that its troops are pulling back following the completion of exercises near the border with Ukraine, Moscow has insisted that predictions it could be just moments away from ordering a full-blown invasion have been proven false.
In a fiery statement on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova poured scorn on weeks of reports and claims from US and European officials that Moscow’s armed forces could be just hours away from launching a strike against its neighbor.
“15 February 2022 will go down in history as the day Western war propaganda failed,” she wrote. According to her, the West has been “shamed and destroyed without firing a single shot.”
At the same time, Moscow’s Ministry of Defense announced that a number of Russian troops had finished their training exercises in Belarus, close to the Ukrainian border, and will begin the process of withdrawing. ...

The  second sign of it happening today is more complicated to explain, and has to do with the geopolitical fact that Turkey is, in any case, a crucial world-power, because of the unchangeable geostrategic fact that Turkey controls all ships’ access into and out of the Black Sea into and out from the Mediterranean, and thus into and out from the Atlantic Ocean, because Turkey includes both of the two narrow channels known as the Turkish Straits (the Bosporus and the Dardanelles) that are between Russia’s deepest port, which is on Crimea, on the one hand, and the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, on the other. (Obama’s intention to turn that deepwater port into a new U.S. naval base was one of his main motivations for his 2014 coup to grab Ukraine, of which Crimea had been a part, during 1954-2014, after its having been a part of Russia ever since 1783.)

Furthermore of importance here is that Turkey is and has been since 1952 a member-nation of America’s NATO military alliance against Russia. That has given Turkey crucial power against Russia, because it enables Turkey to allow NATO ships into the Black Sea, and to block Russian ships from leaving the Black Sea where Russia’s Sevastopol naval port on Crimea, which is the only year-round ice-free and deep water port the Russians own in the region that is able to moor large warships. In other words: ONLY with Turkey’s help can Russia’s naval power in the Atlantic region not be significantly impeded.

In addition, on February 15th, Ibrahim Karagül, of Turkey’s Yeni Safak newspaper, who is the clearest and most reliable spokesperson for the actual viewpoints of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, bannered “The crisis in Ukraine will only be exacerbated. The West will settle into the Black Sea. Breaking out a Turkey-Russia war is the West’s primary goal. Erdoğan and Putin must put a stop to this!” and said:

For exactly three decades now, war has been raging on in Turkey’s south. Invasions, civil wars, and ethnic and sectarian conflicts are rife from the Red Sea to Afghanistan. Millions perished, as cities turned into ruins and countries collapsed.
All of these wars were broken out by the U.S. and Europe. All of these massacres were committed to further U.S. and European interests. Countries collapsed because of American and European greed.

The biggest price we paid in the 21st century
Nobody should even deign to suggest that these countries had problems of their own to deal with. This was the biggest lie they fooled us with. These were never the reasons behind the wars in question. But we believed in the majority of the excuses they concocted.

We submitted mentally to the U.S. and Europe’s dirty plans, bloody attacks, and enormities. We convinced ourselves with their justifications.

This was the heaviest price we paid in the 21st century. These wars, invasions, internal conflicts, and terrorist organizations were launched for the U.S. and the West’s plans. …

They committed genocides, destroyed nations, sacrificed countries for the welfare of New York and Paris, for London’s comfort. They fought Islam, against millions of Muslims. The West is continuing to wage wars across the world for its own interests and security.

They are now plotting a new war in our north, in the Black Sea. This time the victim is Ukraine. They are promoting Russian expansionism. They are promoting European security. A massive front is being built from the north to the south, from Poland to Ukraine, from Romania to Bulgaria and Greece.

Provoking Russia
The West, the driving force behind all this, never stands against Russia directly. It is instead trying to provoke Russia to attack these countries. Its plan is to occupy Russia with endless wars and collapse it at the cost of the destruction of the countries on its borders. This is a game, and every one of these countries is a victim sacrificed for the West. …
This is the West’s unwavering tactic. They attempted this in every country. They have been doing the same against Turkey for the last half-century. This is a complete scam.

There can not be a war on the Black Sea!

 A Black Sea war specific to Ukraine is unacceptable from Turkey’s perspective. We cannot agree to this, whether it be for the U.S. and Europe, or Russia. This will destabilize Turkey’s north for decades, and turn it into pandemonium.
Yes, Turkey is a NATO country. Yes, Turkey is a U.S. and European ally. Yes, it is a very important state for the Atlantic alliance.

But do not forget that those very same allies are the source of the terror threat in northern Iraq, northern Syria, the East Mediterranean, the Aegean, and the internal attacks such as the 2016 coup [referring to this].
The source of all threats presently identified by Turkey is the U.S. and Europe. Every event should be specifically identified. The U.S. and Europe are behind them all. But must we play the fool as Turkey?

 The Western plan to settle in the Black Sea
The Russia-Ukraine crisis must be prevented. Both Russia and Ukraine need to remain tranquil. They should not fall for the West’s “Grand Game.” All they want to do is provoke Russia, encourage Ukraine, and settle in the Black Sea.

This is the final plan. The U.S. and Europe’s Ukraine plan is to settle in the Black Sea!

Turkey is a close ally and friend of Kyiv. The two have extraordinary partnerships in military technology, as well as numerous other fields. Crimea is a national issue for Turkey, and is a sensitive matter. Our partnership with Ukraine must be preserved and strengthened.

They’re setting a game for war between Turkey, Russia
Turkey and Russia are allies. This alliance is in the interest of both Turkey and Russia. Both countries need this. This friendship thrived despite all of the West’s provocations aimed at breaking out war between the two countries. …
Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey must stand adamantly against the U.S. and Europe’s takeover of the Black Sea, and block all paths that lead to this end.

If we fail to do this, the second leg of the crisis will be to pit Turkey and Russia against each other. This is the West’s end-goal. After Ukraine, they will strive to drive Turkey against Russia.

Turkey is aware of the threat. President Erdoğan is striving to prevent this.

If the U.S. and Europe settle in the Black Sea, a war between Turkey and Russia will be inevitable. If this transpires, both Russia and Turkey will be unable to prevent conflict.

The West now identifies Turkey as a threat like it does Russia. They are planning to exhaust the two countries with a single plot, using one against the other, to eliminate both.

Turkey is aware of this. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Kyiv signified great support for Ukraine. He may have also warned Ukraine regarding certain matters.

His statement upon returning from this visit, “Unfortunately the West had no contribution to solve this issue. They are virtually creating obstacles,” reveals the naked truth. …

This is the world’s only chance. We have to save the Black Sea. We have to prevent a U.S. and European takeover. If this initiative provides even the slightest success, Turkey will become a diplomatic giant.

States putting their trust in the West are doomed to lose
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China, the support he received, Moscow and Beijing presenting a joint front against the West, are all indicators that the global scale of the crisis transcends Ukraine.

This is a war between the East and the West, and it should not be taken lightly.

After U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after people crashed to the ground from aircraft wings, this reality is now global:
No country or nation can remain standing by putting its faith in the U.S. and Europe. The more countries move away from the U.S., the stronger they become.

 The West is not the world’s center
A new future is being built outside the U.S. and the West. The West is no longer the world’s center, and it will never be again. The West is simply a bloc among other blocs on the new global power map. The regression period is about to begin as the stagnation period comes to a close.

All nations need to make their plans accordingly.

That is clearly a semi-official Turkish announcement that Turkey is now allied with “the East” against “the West.” America’s NATO military alliance against Russia is clearly now in severe jeopardy, on the very precipice of collapsing — the end of that (by now) 70-year Turkish membership in NATO is already in the cards. And the centrality of Turkey to the present conflict between U.S. and Russia over Ukraine is undeniable.

With those facts being established as the foundation, it’s difficult if not impossible to see NATO — the biggest sales/marketing organization for U.S. weapons-makers who have become the chief engine of the U.S. Government’s control over the world — not breaking up. It’s only a matter of time now: “when,” no longer “if,” that will happen.

Investigative historian They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 

MIKE WHITNEY
Counterpunch

First published on Aug 22, 2014
[premium_newsticker id="155282"]

Avidly read by the affluent Western upper middle class, The Economist is a snobbish "Atlanticist" publication specialising in the truculent demonisation of anyone opposing the Anglo-American empire. Pure filth in the guise of authoritatve news.

---

[I]f you want to understand what is going on in Ukraine, then you need to watch this 15 minute video with Putin advisor and friend, Sergei Glaziev (see below).  Glaziev explains how structural changes in the global economy and a shift to Asia have precipitated a desperate attempt by US policymakers to maintain their grip on power by instigating a war in Europe. Whether readers agree with this analysis or not, they will find Glaziev is brilliant, erudite and passionate in his beliefs. For that alone, the video is well worth the time.'

I transcribed the video myself, and apologize for any unintentional mistakes in the text. Also, the “bold headings” are mine. 

1.  Structural Changes in the Global Economy are often preceded by Great Crises and War

The world today is going through an overlap of a whole series of cyclical crises. The most serious of them is a technological crisis which is associated with changes in the wavelengths of economic development. We’re living in a period when the economy is changing its structure. The economic structure that has been driving economic growth for the last 30 years has exhausted itself. We need to make a transition to a new system of technologies. This kind of transition, unfortunately, has always come about through war. That’s how it was in the ’30s when the Great Depression gave way to an arms race and then the Second War World War. That’s how it was during the Cold War when an arms race in space gave rise to complex information and communication technologies which became the basis of a technological structure that has been driving the world’s economy for the last 30 years. Today we are faced with a similar crisis. The world is shifting to a new technological system.

2.  Putin pushes Free Trade Zone to ease transition to New Global Economy

The new system is humanitarian  in nature and thus could avoid a war because the main carriers of growth on this wavelength are humanitarian technologies. These include health care and pharmaceutical industries which are based in biotechnology. They also include communication technologies based on nanotechnology which is making a breakthrough today. And they involve cognitive technologies that define a new sum of human knowledge. If, as President Putin has been consistently putting forward, we were able to agree to a mutual program for development, a general development zone with a preferential trade regime from Lisbon to Vladivostok, if we were to agree with Brussels to create a common economic space, a common area of development, we could find a sufficient number of breakthrough projects, from health to repelling space threats, to fulfill our scientific and technical potential and creating a steady demand from the state. which would give a boost to the new technological system.

3. Washington sees War in Europe as best way to Preserve its Hegemony

However, America has taken its usual path.  To maintain their world dominance they are provoking another war in Europe. A war is always good for America. They even call the Second World War which killed 50 million people in Europe and Russia, a good war. It was good for America because the US emerged from this war as the world’s leading power. The Cold War which ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union was also good for them. Now the US again wants to maintain its leadership at the expense of Europe. US leadership is being threatened by a rapidly rising China. The world today is shifting to yet another cycle, this time political. This cycle lasts centuries and is associated with the global institutions of regulatory economics.

 Other examples of The Economist's "elegant" propaganda touch.

Literal demonisation. No subtleties need apply in the fight against Enemy No. 1.

We are now moving from the American cycle of capital accumulation to an Asian cycle. This is another crisis that is challenging US hegemony. To maintain their leading position in the face of competition with a rising China and other Asian countries Americans are starting  a war in Europe. They want to weaken Europe, break up Russia, and subjugate the entire Eurasian  continent. That is, instead of a development zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which is proposed by President Putin, the US wants to start a chaotic war on this territory, embroil all Europe in a war, devalue to European capital, write off its public debt, under the  burden of which the US is already falling apart, write off what they owe to Europe and Russia, subjugate our economic space and establish control over resources of the giant Eurasian continent. They believe that this is the only way they can maintain their hegemony and beat China.

Unfortunately the American geopolitics that we see playing out is exactly like the 19th century. They think in terms of the geopolitical struggles of the British Empire: divide and conquer. Pit nations against others, embroil them in conflict, and start a world war.  Americans, unfortunately, continue this old British policy to solve their problems. Russia has been chosen as a victim of this policy while the Ukrainian people are the weapon of choice, and cannon fodder in a new world war.

Sergei Glaziev, advisor to Vladimir Putin.

First the Americans decided to target Ukraine to separate it from Russia. This tactic came from Bismarck. This anti-Russian tradition aimed to embroil Russia in conflict in order to take over the whole Eurasian space. The strategy was first put forth by Bismark, then picked up by the British,, and then finally by the leading American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said on many occasions that Russia cannot be a superpower without Ukraine and that embroiling Russia with Ukraine will benefit America and the West.

For the past 20 years Americans have been grooming Ukraine Nazism aimed at Russia. As you know they gave asylum to remnants of Bandera supporters  in the Second World War. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian Nazis were brought to America and have been carefully cultivated and nurtured during the whole post war period. This wave of immigrants descended on Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea of an eastern partnership was used as bait. It was first expressed by the Poles, and then picked up by the Americans. The essence of the eastern partnership, of which Georgia became the first victim. Now Ukraine has become one and soon Moldova will be one, to sever ties with Russia. As you know we are building the Customs Union, and a common economic space with Belarus and Kazakhstan which will soon be joined by Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Ukraine has been our long term partner. Ukraine is still in the ratification stage of the agreement with Russia which no one in Ukraine has cancelled yet. Ukraine is important to us as part of our economic space and for our centuries-long ties and cooperation. Our scientific and industrial complex was created as a whole, therefore, Ukraine’s participation in European integration is quite natural and vital. The eastern partnership was created to prevent Ukraine’s participation in the Eurasian integration project. The meaning of the eastern partnership is to create an association with the European union. What is the association that was signed by Poroshenko with the European leaders? It is the transformation of Ukraine into a colony. By signing the agreement with the association, Ukraine loses its sovereignty. It transfers control of its trade, customs, technical and financial regulation, and public procurement to Brussels.

4. The Ukrainian Nazi junta is an instrument of U.S. policy

Ukraine ceases to be a sovereign state in its economy and politics. It is clearly stated in the agreement that Ukraine is a junior partner in the European union. Ukraine must follow a common defense and foreign policy of the EU. Ukraine is obliged to participate in the resolution of regional conflicts under the leadership of the EU. Thus Poroshenko is making Ukraine a colony of the EU and pulling Ukraine into war with Russia as canon fodder with the intention of igniting a war in Europe. The purpose of the association agreement is to allow the European countries to govern Ukraine in the settlement of regional conflicts.  What is happening in Donbass is a regional armed conflict. The goal of American politics is to create as many victims as possible. The Ukrainian Nazi junta is an instrument of this policy. They are carrying out mindless atrocities and crimes bombing cities, killing civilians,  women and children, and forcing them to leave their homes, only to provoke Russia and then draw the whole of Europe into a war.  This is Poroshenko’s mission. This is why Poroshenko is rejecting any peace negotiations and blocking all peace treaties. He interprets any statement by Washington about de-escalation of the conflict as an order to escalate it. All peace talks which have taken place on the international level have brought a new round of violence.

We must understand that we are dealing with a Nazi state which is dead set on a war with Russia and has declared general conscription. The entire male population between 18 and 55 has been put under arms. Those who refuse will get 15 years in jail. This Nazi criminal power makes criminals of the entire Ukrainian population.

5.  Washington is plunging Europe into War for its own Interests

We have calculated that the European economy will lose about 1 trillion euros for sanctions imposed on them by the Americans.  This is a huge sum. The Europeans are already bearing the losses. There’s already a drop in sales to Russia. Germany is losing about 200 billion euros. Our most rabid friends from the Baltic states will suffer the worst losses. The loss to Estonia will be more than its GDP. The loss to Latvia will be about half its GDP. But that isn’t stopping them. European politicians are going along with the Americans without questioning what they are doing. They are harming themselves by provoking Nazism and war. I have already said that Russia and Ukraine are the victims of this war which is being fomented by the Americans. But Europe is also a victim because the war aims to target European welfare and to destabilize Europe. Americans expect the European capital and brain drain to America will continue. That’s why they are setting all of Europe on fire. It’s very strange that European leaders are going along with them.

6. Germany is still Occupied Territory

We should not just hope that European leaders (will develop an independent policy) we must work with European leaders from a new generation who are free from the American diktat. The fact that an anti Soviet political elite had been formed during the post Cold War years in Europe. Then they very quickly became anti Russian. Despite the dramatically expanded economic ties and huge mutual economic interests between Europe and Russia, the Russophobia is based on anti Sovietism and still remains in the minds of many European politicians. It will take a new generation of pragmatic European politicians to understand their own national interests. What we see today is politicians who are acting against their national interests. This is largely due to the fact that Germany, which is the engine of European growth, is still an occupied country. American troops are still in Germany, and every German chancellor still gives an oath of allegiance to the Americans to follow in the footsteps of their policy. This generation of European politicians has failed to throw off  the yoke of American occupation.

7.  Nazism is on the Rise

Although the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, they maniacally continue to follow Washington, in NATO expansion and to capture new territories. Despite the fact that they are already “allergic” to the new eastern European members of the EU. The European Union is already bursting at the seams, but this does not stop them from continuing their aggressive expansion into post Soviet territory.  The new generation, I hope, will be more pragmatic. The last elections in the European parliament show that not everyone is fooled by this pro American anti Russia propaganda and by the constant stream of lies coming down on the European people. Traditional European parties lost in recent elections in the euro parliament. The more we speak the truth, the greater the reaction will be, because what’s happening in Ukraine is the revival of Nazism. Europe remembers the signs of the revival of fascism from the lessons of the Second World War. We need to awaken this historical memory so that they see in the Ukrainian Nazis, who are now in power in Kiev, the followers of Bandera, Shukhevych, and other Nazi collaborators. The ideology of the current Ukrainian authorities has its roots in the ideology of Hitler's accomplices who shot Jews at Babi Yar, burned Ukrainians and Belarusians, and annihilated everyone without ethnic distinction. This Nazism is rising today. Europeans must recognize their own death in this terrible confrontation.

I hope if we continue to spread the truth, we will be able to save Europe from the threat of war.

Note: Special thanks to Vineyard of the Saker for posting this incredible interview. 

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. An independent author and photographer, he is widely published in alternative sites, including The Greanville Post, Counterpunch, and The Unz Review. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

---

APPENDIX
"Interview with Sergei Glaziev

Introduction to this interview by The Saker
****

Thanks to the superb work of the Russian Team, it is my huge pleasure to present you with one of the most interesting interviews about the war in the Ukraine and the global struggle for the future of the planet and the views of one of the best informed men in Russia: Sergei Glaziev. Glaziev is an advisor to President Putin and a close friend. I personally believe that the western media is either wrong or deliberately lying when they say that Dugin is Putin's ideological mentor. I am not sure that Putin has - or needs - any kind of mentor, but over the years I have found that Glaziev seems to say out loud what Putin does not, but seems to be acting on. Glaziev, who was born in the Ukraine and who is an economist himself, has a superb understanding of the behind-the-scenes power plays in the Ukraine and in Russia. This man really *knows* what is going on. Furthermore, he is one of the leading "Eurasian Sovereignists" and he is therefore absolutely hated by the pro-US circles in Russia. He is equally hated in the USA who put him on their recent sanctions list for no other reason than the fact that they don't like what he has to say. I urge everybody to listen to this 15min interview which is one of the most interesting ones I have ever had the pleasure to post here. Enjoy! —The Saker.

Appendix 2
Debunking one of many efforts to demonise Putin: the Nemtsov murder
A FALSE FLAG

Feb 28, 2015

Note: the Russian word "provocatsiia" is often translated as "provocation" which is not incorrect as long as you are aware that in Russian "provocation" can mean "false flag", as it does in this context.  Putin is clearly warning about a false flag "sacrifice".  This video was emergency-translated by one of our "brother in arms", Tatzhit, to whom I am most grateful for this ultra-rapid translation. As for the "liberal" or "democratic" "non-system" opposition it has already announced that it will convert the planned protest into a memorial rally.

Tatzhit Mihailovich

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 

Yuri Selivanov

Finnish and Swedish authorities have sharply increased their pro-NATO rhetoric under the plausible but completely false pretext of the so-called "Russian ultimatum on spheres of influence.

Because of recent statements of Finnish President Sauli Niinisto, who reacted extremely negatively to Moscow's demands about security guarantees for Russian Federation, some local "analysts" are in the mood to declare these Russian proposals as the very reason of the current tension between the West and the East. You see, no sooner Russia presented its demands, than Finland immediately asked to join NATO. Here before you quite typical fragment of such reasoning:

"Let us underline once again: it follows from the statements of Sauli Niineste that Finland categorically refuses to allow the possibility of a legal ban on its membership in NATO. And its membership in the alliance is even a more powerful blow to Russia's security than admitting Ukraine to its ranks.

Finland's stance on the security guarantees Russia has demanded from NATO is an alarming signal. President Sauli Niineste, in his New Year's Eve address to citizens, stated that Moscow's policy is contrary to the established principles of European security.

In short, one thing is clear. The Russian proposals for security guarantees made last December sparked a response from the U.S. and NATO, both in terms of their willingness to begin talks with Moscow and their increased diplomatic activity to persuade non-alliance countries to oppose Russia's policies and to keep their options for future membership in the North Atlantic Alliance."

In short: "All is lost! We ourselves are to blame for pushing some neutral Europeans to the gates of NATO with our hasty 'ultimatum'!"

Since this point of view does not correspond to reality at all, I consider it my duty to put the accents in the way they deserve.

And first of all, to point out that Russia's current security proposals have nothing to do with Finland's current pro-NATO stance, even in purely chronological terms.

Simply because the country has been coordinating its foreign policy with Washington and Brussels for quite some time now. And more importantly, it has been actively developing its relations with the United States and NATO in the military-strategic sphere.

The most vivid confirmation of that is the deal for the delivery of 64 F-35A fighter-bombers, which have the status of potential thermonuclear weapon carriers, to Finland, concluded long before the current Russian initiatives. It should be emphasized that this deal is not just an ordinary contract to modernize the country's aircraft fleet, but represents a direct and deep integration of Finland into the military structures of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The fact is that the F-35A is not a simple aircraft, but the so-called "network-centric" one, capable of interacting in electronic format with similar vehicles in service with NATO countries. And to provide the NATO staffs with the latest intelligence about the potential enemy from their operational area. In particular, American political-military publications directly write about it:

"For example, if the Finnish F-35 uses its long-range sensors to detect a group of approaching enemy fighters, drones, bombers or even groups of advancing ground troops approaching to attack, F-35s from other member countries will be notified and can support any operations.

The ability to instantly exchange time-dependent data between disparate formations can provide a significant combat advantage in the war zone. There are also firepower dynamics, as F-35s can operate in close proximity to target areas without having to refuel or carry additional ammunition. For example, if the Finnish F-35s operating in close proximity to Russian threats were to collect navigational, target and mission-specific data, this data could be acquired by F-35s in member countries such as Poland or Norway."

Thus, it is quite obvious that the Finnish authorities are simply using the recent Russian proposals on mutual security between Russia and NATO in the interests of their long-planned and already actively promoted policy of Finland's integration into the Western military bloc.

Why Finland itself needs this is both a complex and a simple question. It is difficult because the Finnish authorities will never say so themselves. For it is obviously not in their interests to tell the absolute truth on such a delicate subject. Because it probably does not characterize Finland itself particularly well. And it is simple for Russia and our people because we have not yet forgotten on whose side Finland acted during the Second World War and what aggressive aims it pursued on the territory of the Soviet Union. And to those who prefer to forget about it, we remind the truth of history with an extremely eloquent photograph.

It cannot be completely ruled out that the fundamental reason for Finland's current rapprochement with NATO is the growth of revanchist sentiments in this country, whose current leadership, it seems, is no longer confused by the deplorable results of participation in Hitler's previous "Drang nach Osten".

Moreover, "convincing conversations" have been held lately with Finns, for sure, in order to explain them that further delays of Helsinki with joining the common anti-Russian front, being formed in the West, could negatively influence satisfaction of Finnish territorial ambitions in inevitable, as western "nostradamuses" foretell, division of Russian territories.

So our Finns, who traditionally have a rough spot for the vast Russian expanses, without the current political collisions, may have enough temptation to drift further in the direction of NATO.

Exactly the same applies to neighboring, supposedly "neutral" Sweden. Sweden is so "neutral" that it is almost the leader among all Western countries, including NATO members, in the most densely Russophobic way. It often comes to quite anecdotal cases, such as the whole Swedish fleet catching a Russian submarine, which turned out to be an ordinary sonar buoy, which also belongs to Sweden itself. Or the announcement of general alarm with the redeployment of military equipment to the island of Gotland, which the Russian marines are supposedly about to seize.

Not to mention the fact that the local Swedish commander-in-chief only talks about how those treacherous Russians are preparing to occupy poor, peace-loving Sweden:

"The common answer would be 'regional security,' and that has a lot to do with Russia and what it has done recently: Georgia in 2008, and the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the unleashing of war in southeastern Ukraine. It's a mixture of World War I and more modern warfare with high-tech capabilities. On the political level, I have a mandate and a budget. The political administration has done its part. Now it's up to me, and I welcome it.

After years of decline, we are now in action.
Five new army regiments, one air flotilla. We formed three regiments in the fall.

What we call a "wartime organization" will be about 55,000 men. By 2025 we will reach 80,000, and more or less 100,000 by 2030.
I've been in the trenches, (apparently in the Donbass - ed.) to look at the "bad guys" from there.

They are experts in what they call "nonlinear warfare," which others would call "hybrid warfare. It could be military, diplomatic or economic. They know exactly how far they can go before they cross the threshold that would lead to traditional conflict. It can also be information operations, influence operations, cyber attacks that happen all the time; the problem here is attribution. They are willing to use their military means, and they take that opportunity as long as it is available. As long as it's in their interest to become a major power again, to defend their territory, they're able, able to do it and willing to act."

As you can see also in this Swedish case there is not the slightest reason to consider this militaristic activity as Sweden's reaction to the current so-called "Russian ultimatum". As in case of Finland, we are facing the same systematic and long-standing anti-Russian military activity, based on the same overt Russophobia and latent revanchist ambitions against Russia, probably since the time of the Poltava beating of Charles the Twelfth.

It remains only to recall what the face of "neutral" Sweden looked like during World War II, when it was de facto one of the most important rear bases of the Nazi Reich:

"...It was Swedish iron ore that was Hitler's best raw material. After all, this ore contained 60 percent pure iron, while the ore obtained by the German war machine from other places contained only 30 percent iron. It is clear that the production of military equipment from metal melted from Swedish ore cost the Third Reich's treasury much less.

In 1939, the year Hitler's Germany launched World War II, it was supplied with 10.6 million tons of Swedish ore. After April 9, that is, when Germany had already conquered Denmark and Norway, the supply of ore increased significantly. In 1941 45 thousand tons of Swedish ore were shipped daily for the needs of the German war industry. Little by little, Sweden's trade with Nazi Germany increased and eventually accounted for 90 percent of all Swedish foreign trade. From 1940 to 1944, the Swedes sold more than 45 million tons of iron ore to the Nazis.

The Swedish port of Luleå was specially converted to supply iron ore to Germany through the waters of the Baltic. (And only Soviet submarines after June 22, 1941 at times caused the Swedes great inconvenience by torpedoing the Swedish transports in the holds of which this ore was transported).

Until August 1944, Sweden received Nazi gold through the banks of neutral Switzerland. The world-famous SKF Group, a manufacturer of ball bearings, was supplying Germany with these, at first glance not so sophisticated, technical mechanisms. Ten percent of the ball bearings that Germany received came from Sweden. Note that Sweden produced bearings of "special quality and technical characteristics" that Germany could get from nowhere else.

Sweden's "neutrality" was transformed into the creation of so-called volunteer battalions in the country, which sided with the Nazis. The Swedish armed formation Svenska frivilligbataljonen began to form into a real force, acting as part of the Hitler coalition troops immediately after the German attack on the Soviet Union. The Swedish "volunteers" completed their training in Turku, Finland. In early October 1941, a Swedish Nazi battalion was visited by Gustav V and Gustav Adolf (Duke of Vesterbotten), who praised its "neutral" actions on the side of Hitler's allies in the Hanko area... And about a month later the Swedish monarch sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations in which he expressed admiration for the actions of the German army to "defeat Bolshevism.

Given these eloquent historical facts, the so-called "neutrality" of today's Finland and Sweden has always been nothing more than a convenient mask under which the rulers of these countries concealed the most hardened aggressive Russophobia.

And therefore the question of whether these two countries are members of NATO de jure or only de facto looks completely irrelevant from a practical point of view. For it is quite clear that under favorable circumstances for them, both in Helsinki and in Stockholm would certainly remember about their "special interests" in Russia.

So the current deeply peaceful and equitable proposals of the Russian Federation on measures to strengthen mutual security in Europe in the slightest degree cannot be regarded as a real reason for increased NATO enthusiasm of these countries, which have much more substantial and long-standing reasons for this.

—Yuri Selivanov
https://news-front.info

 

 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 

By Layla Guest
RT.COM

22 Nov, 2021 / Updated 8 hours ago

Get short URL

A fragment of the wheelhouse of the Kursk nuclear submarine at the memorial to 'Submariners who died in peacetime' in Murmansk. © Sputnik / Pavel Lviv

---

Follow RT on

The catastrophic sinking of the Russian nuclear-powered Kursk submarine more than two decades ago was the result of a collision with a stricken NATO vessel in the Barents Sea, a former high-ranking navy chief has insisted.

The ‘Kursk’ sank on August 12, 2000 at a depth of 108 meters, claiming the lives of all 118 crew members and sparking the first major international crisis of Vladimir Putin’s presidency. An official investigation commissioned by the Russian government ruled two years later that the incident was the result of a torpedo explosion, which then triggered the detonation of ammunition on board.

However, in an interview with RIA Novosti, aired on Monday, former Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov offered a theory on how the incident might have happened. According to him, a vessel operated by a NATO power got too close to Moscow’s vessel, colliding with its bow and damaging the torpedo tube, which was followed by an explosion. The compartment then flooded, sending the sub to the depths of the sea.

 

The day the Kursk sank: 15 yrs on, Russia remembers one of worst-ever submarine tragedies http://t.co/yLxyJVZTtQ pic.twitter.com/2H7lLtV8Xo

— RT (@RT_com) August 12, 2015

“The submarine that collided with ‘Kursk’ was following it, apparently, but failed to ensure safety in the sea’s environment and all other conditions, approached too close, or a Kursk maneuver led to a loss of contact,” he said.

Popov claimed he knew the name of the sub belonging to the US-military led bloc “with a 90% probability.” However, he admitted he did not have sufficient available evidence to make the case publicly at present.

According to the former naval chief, who served until 2001, the vessel was in the region where it collided with ‘Kursk’. He also noted that SOS signals were sent from special equipment that Russian boats were not equipped with, implying another submarine must have been present.

Viktor Kravchenko, a former chief of staff of the Russian Navy, later agreed with Popov’s theory, remarking he was “also inclined to believe this version” of the demise of the Kursk, based on circumstantial evidence.

Three NATO vessels, the British ‘Splendid’ and American subs ‘Toledo’ and ‘Memphis’, were reportedly in the vicinity of Russian military exercises in the Barents Sea at the time. Neither Washington nor London provided documents on the condition of their vessels after Moscow requested the information.

However, the Russian government maintains that the official investigation’s conclusion is the most likely, with many analysts pointing out the period was a challenging time for the Russian military. A combination of underfunding, aging Soviet hardware, and low morale could all have contributed to the incident.

Putin, then only months into his first term as president, took the brunt of much of the criticism for the Kursk tragedy, with the large-scale loss of young Russian sailors sparking sorrow and outrage. Failed rescue efforts caused anger and frustration both domestically and worldwide.

Popov’s claims come amid heightened concerns over NATO’s activity around Russia’s borders. On Friday, the bloc’s top official, Jens Stoltenberg, proposed deploying American nuclear warheads around Eastern Europe to counter a supposed threat posed by Moscow.

In response, the Kremlin said such a statement would mean that the Founding Act of Russia-NATO relations “no longer exists.” Under this document, inked in 1997, the two parties do not consider each other rivals. It guarantees no nuclear weapons will be deployed to new NATO members after this date.

---

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 

Andrei Martyanov
UNZ REVIEW

ANDREI MARTYANOV • SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 

EDITOR'S NOTE

In this post, originally run on Sept. 4, 2018, A. Martyanov, a renowned Russian military/strategic analyst, replies to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts' frequent articles questioning Moscow's apparent passivity in the face of clear (and increasing) US/UK provocations and many other acts of malign nature, i.e., mass Russian diplomats expulsion by Washington, London, etc. under false pretenses; psyops to isolate Russia in the world community (Skripals, MH17, etc.); NATO border military maneuvers and trespasses, and even outright coups to install Western puppet regimes on Russia's doorstep (Ukraine, Belarus, etc.).  Obviously, these are not slight offences, and some could even argue they constitute serious casus bellis. It should be noted that Dr Roberts' impatience, which he beefs up with the argument that bullies need to be stopped or else they will only get bolder and more dangerous, is widely shared (including by this writer, albeit not 100%, and precisely for the reasons calmly outlined by Martyanov) even in Russia, where Putin has a growing number of critics downright unhappy with what they see as Moscow's flaccid reactions to Western adventurism. Fact is, under 'normal" circumstances, that is, in a world without nuclear weapons, the logic of swift and harsh retaliation for the enumerated affronts, makes perfect sense. But, that's the problem: we do not inhabit a non-nuclear world, but one brimming with ever more powerful nuclear weapons, whose use, in the case of superpowers such as America and Russia, would simply spell the end of the world, as we know it. In short, the conflict between the stubborn and at times ostensibly insane hegemon and the emergent multilateralist powers can't be resolved by direct war, as that would imply general suicide. Russia knows this, China knows this, but the question when it comes to America is whether the displayed madness is real or a mere tactical gambit. Responsible leaders do not take chances with the life of the planet. Putin's and Xi's advisors are quite aware that a desperate ruling class populated by delusional and arrogant idiots is an extremely dangerous creature, especially in a nation where massive ignorance, the myth of exceptionalism, and rabid media jingoism go hand in hand. After all, in modern history it is only the US hegemon that has used and threatened to use nuclear weapons on another nation. And it is the American hegemon, too, that has constantly worked to attain first-strike nuclear capability, in itself an unthinkable war crime, with the clear object of decapitating its rivals, even at the cost of hundreds of millions of casualties—just in the first phase of such nuclear exchange. All of this is a matter of record, an ugly and disgusting record for sure, no matter how hard Washington's army of apologists try to disguise it.  So here's Andrei Martyanov's considered reasons for the Russian posture so far. As he describes it, it would seem not only a much safer course for humanity, but also, despite the sheer unpleasantness of this phase, a winning strategy.—PG

THIS IS A REPOST DUE TO TOPICAL IMPORTANCE

Before I proceed to address some issues that Paul Craig Roberts raised in his article, partially addressed to me and Andrei Raevsky (aka Saker), I want to express my profound admiration for Dr. Roberts and his courageous civic position and his real, not for show, American patriotism. It is an honor and a privilege to be engaged in conversation with such an esteemed person, even when I disagree with him in some aspects of geopolitical reality when related to, the now official, Cold War 2.0 between the United States and Russia, and Russia’s posture in this conflict. Dr Roberts writes:

As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker. Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender or war. So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?

Here is where I and Paul Craig Roberts differ dramatically on the issue of Russia’s strategy. Yes, I agree with Dr. Roberts that, quoting William Fulbright, “words are deeds and style is substance insofar as they influence men’s mind and behavior”. But while insults and provocations are unpleasant and in some cases do influence mind and behavior of some, with modern day Russia it is different. I already laid out some basics of Russia’s strategy here at Unz Review, I will expand a bit more in answering Dr. Roberts’ undeniably valid question.

The 19th Century classic Russian fable writer Ivan Andreevich Krylov, among many outstanding fables, which Russian children are subjected to in their Russian Literature course and carry them into their adulthood since the early 20th century, has one which describes current geopolitical reality perfectly. The fable is The Cat and The Cook in which the Cook, after having had it with his day and escaping to the tavern, leaves his cat to guard the food (chicken) against mice. As the fable goes, upon his return from tavern he sees all the results of the cat “guarding” his chicken–the cat finishing eating it. The cook breaks into shaming the cat–most of the fable is the cook’s monologue about the cat (Vas’ka) being bad, arrogant, irresponsible and evil. The closing lines of the fable sum the situation succinctly:

But, while he kept talking,

The cat ate up the whole chicken.

А я бы повару иному

Велел на стенке зарубить:

Now, I would tell this kind of cook,

And would ask him to write this on the wall…

Чтоб там речей не тратить по-пустому,

Где нужно власть употребить.

To make your speech less a waste,

You’ve got to use your power.

And here is the point–the United States cannot use its power against Russia without being annihilated itself, while Russia, as this proverbial cat Vas’ka continues to eat, against the background of loud talk and nothing more. This reality, in a very both desperate and powerless manner, finally dawned on many in Washington. As Graham Alison notes:

However demonic, however destructive, however devious, however deserving of being strangled Russia is, the brute fact is that we cannot kill this bastard without committing suicide.

This is some progress in 2017, finally, when “esteemed” members of American geopolitical “academia” begin to grasp at least some limitations of their, grossly inflated to start with, power. This IS progress, once we recall where the world was even in 2013. Despite wiping the floor with the globalists’ stooges from Georgia in 2008, Russia still wasn’t taken too seriously by the globalist cabal in Washington. As late as 2014 all kinds of US military “experts” described a bulk of scenarios in which victorious US and NATO Armed Forces smash conventionally the Russian Army in Ukraine. It was self-medicating against the background of Russia’s lightning speed operation in Crimea which forestalled US actions in turning Crimea into a NATO base. The Russian counter-stroke caught everyone off-guard. How fast many forget today what was accomplished then–this can hardly be described as turning the other cheek. If nothing else it was a massive blow to an existing world order when Russia threw down the gauntlet. That is how honor is defended–by actions, not petty name-calling. Massive defeats of US “trained” Ukrainian Armed Forces followed in Donbass.

I wrote in January 2015:

But it is already clear that by failing to achieve any sensible political objectives in Ukraine and in Russia, and, by this, starting a massive global re-alignment, the United States sustained a defeat. What will be the consequences of this defeat? I hate to speculate, I just know that they are already big and that the moment of facing the reality is coming.

Today, almost four years later, we live in an unrecognizable world and no-one in the US, unless they write for tabloids and don’t care about reputation, describes scenarios with a Russian defeat. It is a world in transition to not just genuine multipolarity (we are already living in multi-polar reality, but to a world where the United States is effectively checked in its attempts to project power into Eurasia. A world where it is reduced to merely calling names, hurling insults, and doing provocations–because it cannot do anything else. Somehow people ignore this fact of a dramatic, incredibly fast in historic terms, decline of American power. American post-WW II prosperity and influence, rested primarily on the myth and bluff of American military power, which was supposed to make everyone toe the party line and tremble in horror in the face of a “punishment” for digressions. Russia called this bluff.

Today, America’s actions represent increasingly pronounced symptoms of a declining power, one which cannot face reality without going mad. And she is going mad, domestically, as well as internationally, and the only force which is capable of keeping this increasingly irrational and dangerous power from committing suicide while taking everyone else with her is the threat of a massive military defeat. Russia has this force to do so, and so far it works. But I do have my own question: do orderlies in the asylum get offended when overpowering the violent patient and restraining it to the bed, by the patient’s insults and resistance? I don’t think so–one does not get offended by a violent mental patient. Nor, do orderlies defend their honor while restraining a patient. There could be no interactions involving honor between an orderly and a violent mental patient. America is not a treaty-worthy party; it hasn’t been since the early 1990s, thus there are no interactions involving honor in Russian-American relations on the American side.

So, I ask then, is it legitimate to assess the situation by comparing two states of the world in 2014 and 2018? The answer is not only that it is legitimate but that it is the only way to do so. Clausewitz’ dictum still stands today: “It is legitimate to judge an event by its outcome, for it is the soundest criterion”. With all American provocations, insults and Russia’s alleged turning the other cheek, one MUST ask the question–is Russia winning? Once one looks at the larger picture–the answer is an unequivocal yes. It manifests itself in many things, from the economy, to military to geopolitics. So:

The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.

Neither Napoleon, nor Hitler dealt with the issues of nuclear deterrents, nor did they live in the world of an instant propagation of information. Judging by the hysterical reaction of these very same neocons and their military “experts”, be it in 2015 to the events in Syria, or Putin’s March 1, 2018 speech to Federal Assembly–the message was heard. Hysteria is a first sign of weakness. Those neocons might be irrational, at least some of them, but even those understand that there is a price to be paid and there are reasons, to be discussed separately, to believe that there is an understanding of the severe limitations of America’s power. After all, Napoleon and Hitler marched into Russia after putting Europe to its knees. Both the Grande Armee and the Wehrmacht had highly deserved reputations [as effective military machines].  [But] the United States has not been able to win a single war against [even] a subpar opponent since 1950, once one discounts the turkey shoot against Saddam’s grossly inferior army.

Per Semyon Bagdasarov. He is a good man and a Russian patriot, he is a former political officer, but I don’t take his suggestion “to sink” a US Aircraft Carrier seriously. Patriotism is not an excuse for irrationality–the loss of a single carrier in case of a limited TLAM strike* on some targets in Syria will create in the US a political crisis of such proportions that the world will stand on the very brink of nuclear war. The US was and is inherently biased towards a nuclear response, with some short break in 1990s, when it saw itself as the self-proclaimed greatest military in the world in the wake of the Soviet collapse. Not doing stupid things but the ones which are necessary is what defined Russia’s responses in the last several years. This is the only correct strategy.

And here is my conclusion: being a former military I give full recognition to the fact that I am merely a writer who, as well as Bagdasarov, or any other “analyst” have no access to daily top secret briefings by the Chief of General Staff and Russia’s intelligence to Vladimir Putin. Patriotism or, even, some residual professionalism is not a substitute to having a full situational awareness provided to the Supreme Commander by thousands upon thousands of people who even risk their lives to provide key information for making the one and only right decision to prevent the world from annihilation. Russia knows where the Unites States is today and, when looking back at the last 5 years in world’s history, I see Russia as that proverbial cat finishing off the chicken, while those who are supposed to use force cannot do so and speak loud and carry no stick. This chicken is Pax Americana. Russia will continue to do what she does, because it works, and because she knows how to fight wars, she knows how to defend herself and because we all live in a different world today, the way Russia, not the US, sees it. In this case, hurling insults and even launching another useless volley of TLAMs in Syria, or “training” its Ukrainian stooges for military provocations is the limit for the United States and there is nothing honorable in that.

ANDREI MARTYANOV is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. He took part in the events in the Caucasus which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he currently works as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He is a frequent blogger on the US Naval Institute Blog. He is author of Losing Military Supremacy, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs, and Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse. Andrei maintains a vital blog on international affairs here.

* TLAMS are Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days.