Tag Archives: nato

NATO To Deploy More Troops Near Russia’s Borders


America dominates NATO, calling the shots, pressuring or bullying other members to go along. They serve US interests, an agenda threatening world peace.

Meeting in Brussels on October 8, NATO defense ministers announced “further steps to enhance collective” security at a time no threats exists – except invented ones used as pretexts to increase military spending and wage aggressive wars.

The Atlantic Alliance is a US-dominated instrument for endless conflicts, a tool for mass slaughter and destruction, a threat to humanity’s survival. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced plans to boost NATO’s rapid reaction force strength, more troops to be deployed near Russia’s borders.

Two more regional headquarters will be opened in Hungary and Slovakia, operating along with six others in Eastern Europe (in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania), Stoltenberg saying:

“NATO will defend you. NATO is on the ground. NATO is ready” – against what, he didn’t say, adding: “We now have everything in place to make the Response Force stronger, faster and more capable.”

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded, saying “(a)n invented excuse about the suggested threat coming from Russia is possibly just camouflage used to disguise the plans to further expand NATO toward our borders.”

“We are talking about a buildup. There have been statements about a larger contingent. We are talking about an increase of military presence. And it is military presence practically near the Russian borders.”

“Of course, any plans to bring NATO’s military infrastructure closer to the Russian Federation will lead to reciprocal steps needed to restore the necessary parity.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said “(f)irst of all, we need to hear and understand the position of those who take such actions.”

“They need to tell us about their goals and objectives so that we could comment on them. So far, none of the latest events added stability to the European continent. On the contrary, this stability is being put in jeopardy.”

Provocative military exercises like Trident Juncture, ongoing from September 28 to November 6, involving 36,000 troops from 30 countries in multiple European locations, the Mediterranean Sea and Canada force Russia to react defensively.

Putin explained earlier, saying “(i)f someone threatens our territories, it means that we will have to aim our armed forces accordingly at the territories from where the threat is coming. How else could it be? It is NATO that approaches our borders. It’s not like we are moving anywhere.”

Washington is acting more aggressively than any time since the end of the Cold War – in the Asia-Pacific as well as Europe.

On October 8, the Navy Times said the Pentagon intends deploying US ships to Chinese waters – “inside the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims for its man-made island chain.”

“(A)pproval of the mission is imminent,” – directly challenging China provocatively. On September 1, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the “United States will fly, sail and operate wherever” it pleases anywhere in the world.

Beijing expressed “serious concern” about earlier US plans to send warships and aircraft into South China Sea waters. At the time, it said “freedom of navigation does not give one country’s military aircraft and ships free access to another country’s territorial waters and airspace.”

Expect a similar response this time. Challenging Russia and China provocatively shows the recklessness of US policy, run by neocon lunatics threatening world peace, risking another global war, this one if launched able to end life on earth.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. Visit his blog site at

Are Russians Sending Military Support To Syria? Potential For Conflict With NATO?

By: Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post |

If reports coming from YNet News are accurate, the Syrian crisis just became more complex and more dangerous. The report would be great news for the Assad government, however, as it suggests that, in addition to providing Syria with six new MIG 31 jets and providing satellite images with the SAA, the Russians will also be delivering an expeditionary force of Russian soldiers.

YNet claims that the Russian force will be made up of fighter pilots, attack helicopter pilots, advisors, technicians, logistics personnel, instructors, and members of the aerial protection division. The forces are to be stationed at a permanent base in Syria. Although the Russians already maintain the Port of Tartus, YNet suggests that the new base of operations will be an “Assad-controlled” location in an area surrounding Damascus.

YNet refers to the alleged Russian base as “Forward-Operating Base” and has estimated the number of Russian personnel scheduled to enter Syria as being in the “thousands.”

What A Russian Force Would Mean For Assad

If we are able to work on the assumption that the YNet report is accurate, a Russian “expeditionary force” would be a major shot in the arm for the Assad government, even if this force is only operating on the periphery of the conflict. The provision of the MIG-31 jet aircraft was extremely important in terms of technical capabilities for the Syrian government’s necessity to bomb ISIS-held territory while avoiding relatively sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons provided to the terrorists by the West. It was also because of what it meant in terms of international relations and the stance of the Russian government in the context of the Syrian crisis. Essentially, it was a clear statement that “Russia stands with Syria.”

Even more important was the agreement to share satellite imagery taken from Russian satellites with the Syrian government so that terrorist movements could be seen with pinpoint accuracy.

Still, an actual Russian force – complete with equipment and personnel – would be a major development in the fight against ISIS. The technical knowledge, the military capability, and the political support would provide Assad with an invaluable resource in locating and eliminating the terrorists.

In addition, the presence of Russian military personnel on the ground in Syria and Russian aircraft in Syria’s skies might also serve to provide both a warning and a reason to exercise more caution on the part of the NATO “coalition” and the United States that are currently bombing Syria.

YNet reports that the Obama administration is fully aware of the Russian plans but that it has yet to announce its reaction to those plans.

What A Russian Force Might Mean For The World

While a Russian military presence in the Syrian capital will undoubtedly provide an important boost to the Syrian military’s battle against ISIS and other Western-backed terrorists, it will also provide the world with the potential for direct military confrontation between the two major world powers, both of them armed with nuclear weapons.

If YNet is correct in its report and Russian pilots will be flying Russian planes in combat missions against ISIS in Syria, there is the very real potential that rogue nations like the United States and its “coalition” aircraft may find themselves in direct confrontation with Russian air forces.

Considering the aggressive manner in which NATO powers have engaged in military provocations in places like Ukraine, an “accidental” brush with Russian fighter jets could not be ruled out in Syria, as dangerous and potentially destructive as such an act might be.

With the United States engaging in airstrikes all across Syria, there exists the real possibility that lines of communications may become crossed – intentionally or unintentionally – between the United States and Russian forces, resulting in the downing of one or the other’s jets. If that happens, the level of tensions between the two powers will be increased to unprecedented levels, leaving open the question of whether or not the “victim” of the incident will opt to show restraint or engage in retaliatory measures.

Likewise with the Israeli forces that continually launch bombing missions in Syria, and act as air cover for death squad fighters operating on the ground. The Israelis are notoriously provocative in their military adventures, encouraged by the fact that they have the United States military to back them up whenever they find themselves in trouble. Both destabilizing and unpredictable, the Israelis always stand as a potential trigger for dragging the United States into a war. While the Russians are fully supportive of an Israeli (Zionist) settler state, by supporting the Syrians against the Israeli-supported terrorists on the ground, the Russians run the risk of an “accidental” (or otherwise) confrontation with Israeli aircraft.

The Turks too have proven themselves erratic and irrational in regards to their bombing campaigns. It could not be ruled out that the Turks might be able to be convinced to take the lead in provoking the Russians who, if they respond, would be launching an attack on NATO forces. After all, the Turks have already begun creating a “Muslim Brigade” in Ukraine using ISIS terrorists to fight against Russia in a number of locations.

All of these situations could potentially lead to a catastrophic war.


At this point, there has been no confirmation of the report coming from YNet News and the Israeli news agency is the only outlet reporting the story. If the report is accurate, it represents a dramatic new step by Russia in support of the Assad government and a major step forward for human rights in Syria. However, it is also a move that could potentially result in the direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.

If such a confrontation does result, it is important to remember that it is not the Syrian government nor is it the Russia government who is ultimately responsible. The United States, Israel, Turkey, and NATO have all trained, directed, armed, and supported ISIS/”rebels” since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis and, because of this, it is they who bear the responsibility for the fallout from the terrorist actions and the attempt to support them through military force.

Image Credit

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

New ‘Safety Zone’ Will Be A Launchpad For Terrorism In Syria

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose regime has been aiding ISIS forces in their attempt to destroy Syria.

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose regime has been aiding ISIS forces in their attempt to destroy Syria.

NATO wants to place war refugees in a so-called safety zone from which anti-government forces, armed and funded by Turkey, NATO and the US, will attack civilians in Syria. Should Assad respond to those attacks launched from the safety zone, he will be accused of bombing the refugees, which will in turn build support for an open military intervention in the country.

The Syrian National Coalition, the main opposition to the Syrian political alliance, urged NATO to impose a “security zone” in northern Syria, as proposed by Turkey.

That area would be “an important first step to ensure the protection of civilians throughout the country,” said the president of the coalition, Khalid Joya..

In his view, the security zone would contribute to “protect civilians from terror of the Islamic State and the indiscriminate bombing by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the greatest murderer of Syrian civilians”.

He also suggested that NATO consider a new mechanism for a comprehensive approach that addresses both ISIS and the regime in Damascus.

The Syrian opposition leader, whose organization is based in Istanbul, also praised “the initiative from Turkey to address directly the danger presented by ISIS and the root of extremism.”

The North Atlantic Council, the main organ of decision of NATO, held a special meeting in Brussels at the request of Turkey. The meeting concluded that the alliance is indivisible and showed its ‘solidarity’ with Ankara after the recent terrorist attacks.

The Council also stressed that terrorism is “a direct threat to the security of NATO countries and that it threatens international stability and prosperity.”

At dawn on Friday, Turkey began an air offensive against alleged ISIS positions in northern Syria, which extended to the next day expanded to bomb positions of the Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) in northern Iraq.

However, activists and kurdo-Syrian sources reported yesterday that Turkish artillery had targeted objectives of the People’s Protection Units, kurdo-Syrian militias in the province of Aleppo.

The US newspaper The Washington Post reported yesterday that Washington and Ankara had agreed on the details for creating a “safety zone” that would be free from ISIS fighters on the border between Turkey and Syria’s northwest.

In theory, the intention of both states is to build an area of ​​more than 100 kilometers along the border and 65 kilometers into Syria, whose control would be given to opposing Assad regime military forces.

Reality is stranger than fiction

The case of ISIS in Northern Africa and the Middle East is part of the Problem, Reaction, Solution strategy, whereby western powers create a threat, observe the reaction of those affected by it and then offer a ‘solution’ to that threat.

Despite all claims about Assad and all the colorful descriptions made about ISIS, we now know that it has been the United States and Turkey the ones responsible for training and supplying ISIS fighters with weapons. In fact, a report by Business Insider tells how Turkey is undoubtedly linked to ISIS, which confirms earlier reports about how the Erdogan regime transported weapons and ISIS fighters into Syria to help destabilize the country.

It is not a surprise that the request made by Turkey and the Syrian Coalition has been immediately supported by NATO, mainly the United States and Turkey who have already announced the creation of a “safety zone” in northern Syria under the excuse that it is intended to keep war refugees safe, when in reality the plan is to give ISIS fighters a launching pad to continue attacking Syria.

United Nations issues warning on “safety zone”

The UN official for humanitarian affairs, Stephen O’Brien, has urged caution when talking about the creation of a “safety zone” in Syria and stressed that it should be done only when the safety of civilians who arrive there can be guaranteed .

“What we do not want is to call something a safety zone, to have people flee there, but then find out it does not have enough protection,” O’Brien said.

Mr. O’Brien is way to naive to understand the western-backed strategy. What the western imperialists supported by NATO want to do, is to place war refugees in a so-called safety zone from which anti-government forces armed and funded by Turkey, NATO and the US will attack civilians in Syria. Should Assad respond to those attacks launched from the so-called safety zone, he will be accused of bombing the refugees, which will in turn build support for an open military intervention in the country.

The Turkish government has announced it intends to establish, in cooperation with the United States, a “safety zone” in northwest Syria, which Erdogan says will help moderate opposition to the regime of Bashar al-Assad and to expel the jihadists of the Islamic State.

O’Brien, speaking to reporters, said his office is in permanent contact with all parties on these new proposals.

“Since our main objective is the protection of civilians, we need to be sure that there will be protection,” he said. O’Brien appeared before the Security Council of the UN, where he said the violence in Syria has continued to increase in recent weeks, with “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by all parties.”

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

NATO’s Exercise Trident Juncture 15: Preparing For More War?

NATO's Exercise Trident Juncture 15

Provocative US-led NATO exercises risk direct confrontation with Russia and other independent countries Washington targets for regime change.

TRJE15 intends “showcas(ing)” US-dominated Alliance capability “on the world stage,” an official statement says.

It’s scheduled from September 28 to November 6 in Italy, Spain and Portugal, other Alliance nations, and the Mediterranean Sea involving around 36,000 personnel from 30 NATO member and partner countries (including Ukraine) in what’s called the “biggest…operation since the end of the Cold War.”

It targets Washington’s main enemies – Russia, China and Iran on the pretext of fighting Islamic State terrorists. Moscow criticizes NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe “under the false pretext of alleged ‘aggressive behavior’ by our country” – accompanied by “unfriendly and malicious” rhetoric.

In June, Putin forthrightly said “(w)e are not threatening anyone, and we seek to resolve all conflict situations through political means  (according to) international law and other nations’ interests.” His comments fall on deaf ears in the West, mainly America.

IS and other Takfiri terrorists are US allies in Syria, Iraq, to some degree in Southeastern Ukraine and Gaza, and wherever else deployed as proxy foot soldiers.

TRJE15 is the largest of numerous other provocative exercises (conducted earlier or planned) preparing for “emerging crises” – code language for provocative saber rattling under the cloak of “counterinsurgency” operations.

NATO calls what’s involved one of its “highest planning priorities – (its) current scope and scale” exceeding initial plans “by some margin,” maybe further before beginning in September.

It reflects US-dominated Alliance activities “using new and evolving concepts, advanced technology, cutting-edge military capabilities and the world’s most modern land, sea and air forces in the most complex and realistic scenarios.”

It involves a fictitious region called SOROTON. A crisis erupts outside NATO’s territory in a fictional country affected by “internal tensions, natural hazards, and a neighbor’s aggression.”

Exercises will involve confronting “subversion and terrorism to grand military maneuver(s) on a grand scale from the conditions of chemical warfare to the battlegrounds of cyber and information, from the intricacies of tribal rivalries to the challenges of unpredictable and autocratic political leaders.”

NATO won’t explain why numerous large-scale military exercises are held at a time its only enemies are ones it invents, including provocatively near Russia’s borders. Planning involves preparing for major war. Obvious targets are Washington’s main adversaries.

They deplore war. They want peace and stability. Washington’s agenda is polar opposite – endless wars against independent nations threatening no one, serving monied interests on the pretext of democracy building, humanitarian intervention and fighting terrorism. Global wars start this way.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. Visit his blog site at

Hague Court Rejects Genocide Accusations In Balkans War



The Court fails to point out, despite abundant proof, that genocide was committed by American-led NATO forces.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected the accusations of genocide by Croatia and Serbia but stressed their responsibility in the deaths of civilians during the war in the Balkans. The president of the high court of the UN, Peter Tomka, read the judgment in both cases.

First, he noted that “Serbia did not commit genocide in Croatia during the warin the Balkans. He repeated the same with respect to Croats and their Operation Storm, which was deployed by Zagreb in the summer of 1995, and in which the victims were Serbs and Croatian Serbs.

The ICJ emphasized the “responsibility” of Belgrade and Zagreb, respectively, “for failing to prevent genocide“.

Tomka said that in order to formalize an indictment for genocide it is necessary to find enough proof that “it was specifically intended to kill members of a group, either physically or psychologically” adding that “the court does not recognize enough evidence to show this.”

The Court finds conditions of genocide in some but not in all cases analyzed and presented in the case that pits Croatia and Serbia” in relation to the events that occurred between 1991 and 1995, during the war that broke the former Yugoslavia apart.”

During sentencing, Tomka added that Serbia can not be accused of genocide in the city of Vukovar since there was no such a State during that period.”

The President of the ICJ referred “to the large number of killings committedduring that conflict, but said it could not provide an exact total, and urged collaboration between both parties for the identification and people who are still missing.

The former Yugoslavia was a socialist state established before the conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Tomka said, adding that the incident does not constitute a violation of the convention because it did not exist as a state before”.

Croatia took its case to the ICJ in July 2, 1999, accusing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of having violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in their territory from 1991 and 1995.

As a basis to justify the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Croatia invoked Article IX of the Convention of 1948, which, it claimed, Serbia was also a part of.

In 2002, Serbia filed preliminary objections on jurisdiction and admissibility of the case, but in 2008 the Court had jurisdiction to pursue the complaint of Croatia against Serbia for genocide.

Belgrade also accused Zagreb of violating the convention of 1948 during the execution of “Operation Storm” in 1995 during which it “murdered national and ethnic Serbs in Croatia,  especially in Krajina”.

Croatia stated in its 1999 complaint that the army of Yugoslavia, headed by Serbs and Belgrade orders, committed genocide in their attacks on Vokovar and Skabrnja in 1991. Serbia presented his case in 2010, claiming that Croatian forces committed genocide during the exodus of 200,000 Serbs fleeing the Croatian advance.

It is believed that some 21,000 people were killed in Croatia during the four years of war in the former Yugoslavia.  Some 13,000 of this total were Croats, according to historian Ivo Goldstein. Serbia and Croatia have normalized their relations since the end of the war in 1995.

So if neither of the two parts committed genocide, who did it?

It was NATO’s claims of genocide by Serbs which fueled the accusations by Croats, and those claims have been deemed false. NATO’s hugely successful anti-Serb propaganda In the 1990s helped create the myth that the Serbs were solely responsible for the killing of tens of thousands.

“I think what NATO did by bombing Serbia actually precipitated the exodus of the Kosovo Albanians into Macedonia and Montenegro. I think the bombing did cause the ethnic cleansing. I’m not sticking up for the Serbs because I think they behaved badly and extremely stupidly by removing the autonomy of Kosovo, given them by Tito, in the first place. I think what we did made things very much worse and what we are now faced with is a sort of ethnic cleansing in reverse,” said Lord Peter Carrington, a former British Defence Secretary.

“I think it’s a great mistake to intervene in a civil war. I don’t think Milosevic is any more a war criminal than President Tudjman of Croatia who ethnically cleansed 200,000 Serbs out of Kyrenia with the secret help of the CIA. Nobody kicked up a fuss about that. I think we are a little bit selective about our condemnation of ethnic cleansing, in Africa as well as in Europe,” added Carrington.

“The goal in Kosovo was to limit Serbia’s geographic influence and to ignite a chain of events that would lead to Milosevic’s ouster. Those goals were achieved: Milosevic was forced from power in the fall of 2000, largely because of a chain of events stemming from that war,” explained Robert D. Kaplan.

“General Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander and presidential hopeful, will testify next month at the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic under conditions of strict censorship and confidentiality imposed by the United States. Washington is believed to be fearful of potentially damaging revelations about its Balkan realpolitik during the 1990s and in the Bosnian War,” explained the London Times in 2003.

“NATO’s obsession with its strategy of hope was tried once before in 1999, with the bombing of Serbia and the breakaway province of Kosovo. A myth that the 78-day bombing campaign persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo continues to grow despite overwhelming facts to the contrary. Before that war – and contributing to its start – the international community gathered in Rambouillet, France, and, on March 18, 1999, produced an accord that spelled out a peace plan to deal with the armed insurrection by the Kosovo Liberation Army (designated at the time by the CIA as a terrorist organization). Unfortunately – but intentionally – the accord contained two poison pills that Mr. Milosevic could never accept, making war or at least the allied bombing of a sovereign state inevitable. The first pill demanded that NATO have freedom of movement throughout the entire land, sea and airspace of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO would have the right to park its tanks around Mr. Milosevic’s downtown office in Belgrade. The other pill required that a referendum be held within three years to determine the will of those citizens living in Kosovo regarding independence. The fact that Kosovo’s population was overwhelmingly Albanian Muslim guaranteed that the outcome of any such referendum would be a vote for independence and the loss of the Serbian nation’s historic heart,” reported the Globe and Mail in June, 2011.

The Hague Court is indeed right in saying that neither the Serbs nor the Croats committed genocide in the former Yugoslavia. However, despite abundant proof, the court fails to point out who the real criminals were. It was not Milosevic and it was not the Serbs or the Croats. It was the United States government and the global police force we know as NATO. As for the question of WHY, there are several answers. War is profitable, for instance. But perhaps the most important reason is that Yugoslavia was the only example in the history of the world where socialism actually worked and for western powers recognizing such a thing would have meant a paradigm too difficult to contradict.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.


ISIS Conveniently Develops Air Force As NATO Seeks “No-Fly Zone” Over Syria


By: Brandon Turbeville | Activist Post

Abdurrahman and his SOHR organization, it should be noted, have long supported the death squads fighting against the Syrian government; and the SOHR has repeatedly acted as a propaganda outfit for NATO in its attempt to frame Assad for war crimes or paint the death squads as freedom fighters whose victory is inevitable.

FOX goes on to report that “ISIS is known to have seized fighter jets from at least one air base it captured from the Syrian army in the eastern Raqqa province earlier this year. Militant websites had posted pictures of fighters with the aircraft, but it was unclear if they were operational.”

As of right now, the U.S. military’s official word on the reports is “no comment.” General Lloyd Austin, head of the U.S. Military Central Command stated “We don’t have any operational reporting of (ISIS) flying jets in support of ISIS activity on the ground and so I cannot confirm that. And to the degree that pilots may have defected and joined the ranks of ISIS, I don’t have any information on that either.”

The video, obtained by CNN, a thoroughly discredited “news” organization, particularly on the area of Syria, purports to show clear evidence that ISIS fighters do indeed have control and possession of Syrian fighter jets. That video, however, does not show those jets in the air, only a number of fighters with black al-Qaeda flags standing near them.

Still, the SOHR and its associates in the mainstream press are attempting to promote the idea that ISIS not only has possession of the planes, but that they have managed to fly them.

Abdurrahman stated that “They went up many times from the airport and they are flying in the skies outside the airport and coming back.” In addition, an entirely unconvincing video was presented as video footage of ISIS piloted airplanes landing and taking off in Syria.

Conveniently, the overdramatized reports of ISIS air force capabilities come as the United States, Turkey, and the rest of NATO consider the possibility of implementing a No-Fly Zone over Syria.

Interestingly enough, one of the main criticisms surrounding such a move by NATO (at least those circulating in the general discourse of the debate) was that a No-Fly Zone would be entirely ineffectual against ISIS because it would necessarily be focused on the Assad regime since ISIS does not have an air force to ground. In other words, a No-Fly Zone only harms Assad and the Syrian government.

Yet, while some members of Congress and political commentators tepidly put forth the idea that ISIS has no air force and thus the implementation of a No-Fly Zone against Assad only hinders the fight against the terrorist organization, ISIS conveniently develops an air force.

Such timing is scarcely coincidence.

Remember, when the United States was “debating” the idea of becoming more directly involved in Syria and Iraq, particularly in the form of bombing civilian and government infrastructure and openly funding the death squads they claim to be fighting, a video allegedly showing the beheading of James Foley was released resulting in widespread anger and indignation amongst a general public who were temporarily yanked away from reality TV long enough to view it.

Likewise, when the British seemed hesitant to directly join the imperialist bombing coalition, a video was released allegedly showing the beheading of a British citizen, Alan Henning, also causing widespread indignation amongst the public and shoring up support for British military involvement in Iraq and Syria.

When the French seemed hesitant to join the bombing, ISIS releases a third video of an alleged beheading of a Frenchman, which provided justification for French involvement.

Such convenient timing was also present when NATO was considering “targeted airstrikes” in Syria but were concerned about Assad’s sophisticated air defense systems. Shortly thereafter, ISIS manages to capture Taqba air base in Raqqa, Syria, eliminating the air defense systems in the entirety of the eastern part of the country.

Either ISIS has the absolute dumbest public relations personnel in world history, or the actions of ISIS are directly controlled by NATO for propaganda, geopolitical, and military purposes. The timing of ISIS’ actions – always in line with the goals of the NATO faction of the world oligarchy – is clearly the result of the latter.

With this in mind, one should take any reports claiming to show that ISIS is flying fighter jets over Syria with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism, if not outright disdain. When the U.S., NATO, and the GCC are ready to stop ISIS, they will stop funding and directing them.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

Turkey Rejects NATO Call To Bomb ISIS

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, met with Turkey's Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu in Ankara, Turkey.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, met with Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu in Ankara, Turkey.

Delegates from NATO and the United States came to Ankara last Thursday to redouble pressure on the Turkish government and accept military involvement in the offensive against the jihadists of the Islamic State. Meanwhile, ISIS fundamentalist militants maintained the siege of the Kurdish city of Kobane, located on Syrian territory but right on the border with Turkey.

“The Islamic State is a serious threat to the Iraqi people, for the people of Syria, for the region and for the members of NATO,” said the secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, during his appearance Thursday with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu.

“It is important that the international community remains united in this long-term effort,” said Stoltenberg in Ankara.

Meanwhile, American retired Gen. John Allen, who coordinates the operations of the international coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also traveled to the Turkish capital in order to meet with different members of the Turkish government on Thursday and Friday.

In recent days, the United States has shown increased frustration due to Turkey’s refusal to intervene against the jihadists in Kobane.

The head of Turkish diplomacy publicly reiterated his reticence. “It is unrealistic to expect that Turkey will direct a field operation,” said Cavusoglu.

“While Assad remains in power, the bloodshed and the killing will continue. The Assad regime is the cause of instability and therefore political change is necessary,” Cavusoglu said in the press conference with Stoltenberg.

Even if the city of Kobane falls to ISIS extremists the Turkish government, which has the second largest army in NATO, has insisted that it would only intervene if several conditions are met. Among them, the establishment of a buffer zone, which concentrates the refugees fleeing the fighting, a no-fly zone on the Syrian side of the border, and a trained coalition of moderate Syrian rebels who would help pursue regime change in Syria.

“Turkey has a credibility problem because for a long time it has said that it could not do anything because ISIS had Turkish hostages, but since they were released, the government now says they cannot do anything because it is necessary to remove Assad: what all  this appears is that they are making excuses,” says Gareth Jenkins, a Turkish analyst at the Institute for Central Asia and the Caucasus.

“These conditions are not realistic and the Turkish Foreign Ministry should know they are not realistic,” he added. Turkey called for a no-fly zone to be established almost from the beginning of the war in Syria, in the summer of 2011. Today, that area would also serve to relocate some of the 1.5 million Syrians refugees who Turkey has taken in the last three years.

Creating a no-fly zone “has not yet been on the table in any discussion led by NATO,” said on this subject the new secretary general of the Alliance. Representatives of the USA and the UK have expressed that the creation of this area could be studied, while French President François Hollande has said he would support it himself.

NATO claims that coalition airstrikes have prevented the jihadist takeover of Kobane and that the bombings have helped the People Protection Units, a Kurdish militia defending the city. This militia has now asked Turkey to allow passage of Kurdish fighters, ammunition and weaponry to Kobane.

The Turkish Government opposes armed groups at it perceives the YPG as the Syrian branch of the Workers Party of Kurdistan, whose militia took up arms against Turkey in 1984 and is considered a terrorist organization by Ankara, the EU and the United States.

Kurds comprise about 20% of the population in Turkey, approximately 75 million people. Therefore, the passivity of the Turkish government towards Kobane pro-Kurds has sparked violent protests in which at least 26 people have been killed.

The authorities lifted the curfew imposed in several provinces to avoid protests on Thursday.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

New NATO Secretary General Wants “Constructive Relationship” With Russia

Incoming NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addresses a first media conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014. Photo credit:

Incoming NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addresses a first media conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014. Photo credit:

The new Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, says he will seek “a constructive relationship with Russia” in order to overcome the current stage of confrontation.

The former Norwegian Prime Minister, who took possession Wednesday in front of the Atlantic Alliance, seeks to balance a difficult situation to reconcile two positions: the realization that Russia has violated international law with the annexation of the Crimea and the search for a new dialogue with the Kremlin.

“Russia has violated international law. We need to see a change in their behavior. But even then we must aspire to a constructive relationship with Russia. I see no contradiction between these two elements,” he said in his first appearance before the press.

With these words, Stoltenberg wants to make people believe he has a more moderate position than his predecessor, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, referring to the role of Moscow in the conflict in Ukraine.

Amid a truce that he considers “a chance” Stoltenberg says such situation isfragile,” as he says he will try to reduce the confrontation with the Kremlin, even while recalling that Moscow maintains its ability to destabilize Ukraine.”

Sources of the organization have ensured that the Russian military presence inside the neighboring country, reported this summer by NATO, has fallen to waste figures. Neither NATO nor the United States have provided concrete proof that the government of Russia sent active duty soldiers to Ukraine. The Kremlin did accept that off-duty soldiers did cross into Ukraine to help in the fight against  Kiev’s aggression.

Just some special forces remain, NATO says, but now there are only insignificant numbers compared to the more than 1,000 Russian soldiers that were positioned inside Ukraine. NATO says that Russia has about 20,000 troops at the border, but on Russian side.

In this context, NATO maintains plans to strengthen its presence in Eastern Europe, where it has no permanent bases in countries that border with Russia, although it does have unofficial agreements with countries and supports aerial patrols over the Baltic countries.

In addition, NATO maintains a naval deployment in the Black Sea, which directly violates its promise not to expand in the region and to respect the 1997 agreement that the North Atlantic Organization signed with Russia. 

Stoltenberg, who served as Labor prime minister between 2005 and 2013, warned that NATO will also continue with its the rotation of forces in Eastern Europe.

The force for immediate action is a result of NATO’s effort to attempt to isolate Russia, as it guarantees the ability to deploy troops anywhere in a matter of days. These new force will be ready in February, according to Stoltenberg, who on Wednesday chaired his first Atlantic Council, the highest decision making body of the NATO alliance.

Regarding the crisis in Iraq and Syria, Stoltenberg has been limited to welcome the actions of the United States against the Islamic State“. He, however, did not speak anything about compromising the alliance of states as a participant in the bombing of the region. 

Still, he said, NATO remains committed to collective defense, enshrined in Article five of its statutes, “and that also applies to Turkey,” said Stoltenberg, so that if the country was attacked directly, the Alliance would defend it.

The Allies did have the intention of helping Iraq with training missions and improving military capabilities if requested. So far it has not happened, says Stoltenberg.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

NATO Airstrikes Target Grain Silos In Syria – Defeating ISIS By Starving Syrians?

Humanitarian Aid - Anthony Freda Art

Humanitarian Aid – Anthony Freda Art

By: Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post –
As the United States continues its shrouded assault on the Syrian government, new targets for the U.S. airstrikes have emerged. This time, it is not oil refineries, but grain silos.

In an airstrike campaign that took place last Sunday night, “coalition” aircraft struck “mills and grain storage facilities in Manbij,” a town in Northern Syria which was controlled by Western-backed death squads.

Manbij is located slightly northeast of Aleppo, the largest city in Syria which is itself the scene of fierce fighting between the NATO-directed ISIS forces and the Syrian government. The SAA began focusing on Aleppo intently in the last few months.

The attack on grain facilities by NATO/GCC forces is yet one more example of how the bombing of Syria is not aimed at destroying the West’s ISIS proxy army but at crippling and destroying the Assad government.

Just like the bombing of Syrian oil refineries, the effect of bombing Syrian grain silos is to prevent the Assad regime from retaking much needed resources to provide for its citizens or its military after long fought battles with ISIS.

The elimination of the grain silos would, of course, do nothing to stop ISIS but it will go quite some distance in adding to the burdens of an already oppressed and hungry people barely surviving under the rule of the so-called “moderate rebels” also known as ISIS.

Interestingly enough, when Bashar al-Assad’s forces have blockaded ISIS controlled areas in the past, no matter how lenient the blockade may have been in terms of food shipments, the West has responded with claims that he was “starving his own people.” Yet, when death squads banned food and baby products from being shipped in to areas that they themselves controlled, the West ignored and silenced the reports. When the West directly bombs food storage, it is presented as bombing for democracy and freeing the people from ISIS.

Unsurprisingly, no death squad fighters were killed in the attack on the Manbij grain stores, only civilians. Even death squad supporter Rami Abdulrahman, the director of the propaganda outfit called Syrian Observatory For Human Rights, was forced to admit the results of the U.S. bombing only produced civilian casualties.

‘These were the workers at the silos. They provide food for the people.’ The airstrikes ‘destroyed the food that was stored there,’ said Abdulrahman.

The United States military, typically, refused to acknowledge the fact that any civilians were killed.

While any unintentional killing of Syrian civilians by the Assad government was presented to American audiences as premeditated slaughter against innocent people, American airstrikes continue to be presented as manna from heaven, designed to rid the world of Islamic terror and brutal dictators at the same time.

Of course, in the twilight zone of American media, the truth is that the United States has created, funded, armed, and directed the Islamic terror for decades and that the “brutal dictator” is actually fighting for the survival of Syria. Little details like facts and reality, however, have never gotten in the way of Western media outlets.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) 

Russia And NATO On A Collision Course To World War III


While Anders Fogh Rasmussen speeds up the creation of a rapid action force against Russia, Vladimir Putin will alter Russia’s military doctrine to repeal new threats coming from within NATO.

MOSCOW – NATO is prepared for any contingency that threatens its Member States. In line with the increasing Russian involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, NATO has accelerated its plans to create a rapid reaction force composed of several thousand” soldiers, who in the words of Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, would be able to respond to any threat within hours.

Some sources say such force would have at least 4000 troops, but NATO insists that the amount will have to be approved previous to any deployment is issued.

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin commented that if he had wanted to take over Ukraine he could have done it in just two weeks time, a statement which seems to have been responded to by NATO’s intention to have a small army to intervene on any conflict where it deems its Member States are threatened.

The justification Rasmussen offers to create this force and increase the Allied presence in Eastern Europe is the alarm produced by Russian movements. “We do not do this because we want to attack anyone, but the dangers and threats are more visible” he said without mentioning Russia by name.And we will do whatever it takes to defend our allies,” he said Monday at a news conference.

The rapid response military force is what NATO called a spearhead force for immediate action aimed at “any potential aggressor so that it knows that we are prepared. It is meant to have a deterrent effect,” said the head of NATO, although so far Moscow has not reacted to threats launched from the West.

The unit shall include land, naval, air force and special forces who will be headquartered in one of the 28 allies nations to act if necessary, explain sources of the organization, which announced that his new NATO guerrilla will be ready later this year. Its room for maneuver may be delayed depending on whether a country requires parliamentary authorization to approve a mission, but such a delay should not exceed one week.

The details on the creation and activities of this new force will be finalized on Friday. The organization expects that all states join this commitment, although it remains to be seen to what degree.

The other step forward which will attempt to show NATO’s claws to Russia will be the increase in its presence in the east. To have that quick action plan, NATO needs to expand its troop presence in Eastern Europe, a region where Moscow pledged to not have permanent bases and now feels especially threatened.

“It’s about having real presence on the ground. The security situation is very volatile and we have to adjust to this changing scenario,” Rasmussen explained. Leaving aside strategic and geopolitical matters, Russia and any other non-aligned nation do have causes for concern.

Despite having agreed to be limited in its expansion, NATO has practically surrounded Russia with military bases all over its borders, which logically explains Russia’s sudden change in posture.

On paper, the Allies did not alter the special relationship with Russia since 1997, but in practice, Russia no longer sees NATO as a partner but as an adversary,” said Rasmussen. He, however, did not explain why is it that Russia has changed the way it sees NATO.

This militarized global police force has violated every single agreement signed with Russia and other non-aligned countries to respect their sovereignty and to limit its military presence.

Russia finally changes its tone

Giving NATO’s growing military build-up, Russia has changed its attitude from a passive, patient one to a position of alert.

The country’s military doctrine is set to change before the end of the year due to the emergence of new military threats” to the country, manifested, for example, in the Ukrainian crisis, announced Russia’s Undersecretary of the Security Council, Mikhail Popov.

This is due, first, to the emergence of new threats and military actions against the Russian Federation,” he said. Popov also spoke about the events of the Arab Spring, the armed conflict in Syria, as well as the situation in Ukraine.

Furthermore, according to the high office, it is “increasingly apparent the eagerness of the United States and NATO members to increase their strategic offensive potential through the development of a global missile defense system (…) and new means to carry out armed operations including the use of hypersonic weapons.”

Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, rejected on Tuesday the initiative to request Kiev that Ukraine becomes part of NATO and warned that such steps “are clearly detrimental” in the resolution of the current civil and armed conflict.

Popov said that the new Russian military doctrine will include the need to dispense imports for the national defense industry. “Experience shows that reliability of some of our Western partners is a temporary phenomenon and, unfortunately, is linked to the political situation,” he said.

Also today, the Italian Foreign Minister, Federica Mogherini elected in Brussels as the new High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, has reported that tomorrow the EU will have ready a new package of sanctions against Moscow for its military intervention in Ukraine. The new package is expected to be approved by Friday.

On the battlefield fighting continues in the east of Ukraine. According to official Ukrainian accounts Kiev’s troops have killed 50 militants and destroyed a Grad missile launcher and two military vehicles. “Ukrainian sources say there is intense activity near the towns of Komsomolskoye, Razdélnoye and Valislevka where members of the militia are joined by Russian troops,” the statement said.

According to the version of the eastern militia, the fighting has claimed the lives of 15 other soldiers in the last 24 hours. Some 2,600 people have died since the beginning of the conflict. About 800 of them were members of the Ukrainian forces.

The UN agency for refugees (UNHCR) has estimated that the Ukrainian conflict has left more than a million refugees. A total of 814,000 would be on Russian soil, according to UNHCR, and 260,000 are displaced on Ukrainian territory. The number of displaced, according to UN monitoring has doubled in the last three weeks.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.



Selling NATO’s Killing Machine


On August 17, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post featured op-eds selling NATO at a time when its existence more than ever threatens humanity’s survival. More on them below.

Claiming NATO is a “political and military alliance for peace and security” is farcical on its face. Its mission is polar opposite.

US-led NATO is an imperial tool. It’s a global killing machine. It prioritizes war. It deplores peace. Humanity’s survival hangs in the balance.

NATO includes 28 member nations, 22 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) ones, seven Mediterranean Dialogue countries, and four Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) states.

They comprise nearly one-third of world nations. NATO plans exponential expansion. It wants new members and partners.

It wants them on all continents. It wants them virtually everywhere. It wants a global military established.

It wants unchallenged control. It wants all outliers eliminated. It wants pro-Western vassal states replacing them.

Its strategy prioritizes war on humanity. It’s ravaging and destroying one country after another.

Its 1999 78-day rape of Yugoslavia was one of history’s great crimes. So is its involvement in Washington’s post-9/11 wars.

Naked aggression against countries posing no threat to America, other Western nations and its neighbors defines them.

Millions were ruthlessly slaughtered to advance Washington’s imperium. NATO’s confrontation with Russia alone risks global conflict.

Humanity’s survival depends on stopping this monster before it’s too late. Belligerence and destabilizing events in Eurasia perhaps leaves precious little time left to do it.

US-led NATO bears full responsibility for today’s dangerous world. Not according to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and its supreme allied commander, General Philip Breedlove.

Their Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined “A NATO for a Dangerous World.” They ludicrously claimed NATO “kept the Cold War from getting hot,” and made “an unprecedented period of peace” following WW II possible.

False! War with Nazi Germany devastated Soviet Russia. It needed years to rebuild its shattered country. It wanted peace, not more war.

Claiming a post-WW II period of peace runs counter to actual events. The Vietnam War began.

Wars raged in Indochina, Greece, Paraguay, between India and Pakistan, Palestine, the Korean peninsula, and elsewhere.

What Americans call the Korean War began in 1950. Various others raged at the same time.

Peace was elusive then. Today it looks almost entirely out of reach. Washington bears full responsibility for many of the world’s hot spots.

Claiming peace is “challenged by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine” turns truth on its head.

Rasmussen and Breedlove lied saying “(f)or the first time since the end of World War II, a European country has grabbed part of another’s land by force.”

Claiming Russia invaded Ukraine is polar opposite truth. Suggesting it took Crimea by force ignores near popular unanimity to rejoin Russia.

Saying Russian humanitarian aid is cynical leaves unexplained why America and other Western countries haven’t provided their own.

Suggesting Russian involvement in downing MH17 ignores clear evidence of Kiev’s responsibility.

Rasmussen and Breedlove falsely accuse Russia of “resorting to a hybrid war, with snap exercises, secret commandos and smuggled missiles.”

They do so despite no evidence whatever supporting them.

At the same time, they claim NATO’s mission is to “defend the territory, populations and shared values of all its members (against) any threat.”

The only ones they face are invented as pretexts for America’s rage to ravage one country after another.

To deploy NATO forces close to Russian and Chinese borders. To surround them. To target their heartlands with nuclear-armed missiles.

To make the world safe for war profiteers, corporate America and its Western counterparts.

To replace independent governments with pro-Western stooge ones. To achieve unchallenged control worldwide. To risk global conflict to achieve it.

At the same time, America bears full responsibility for threatening humanity’s survival. Rogue NATO states and Israel share it.

Rasmussen and Breedlove say they “continue to urge Russia to make the responsible choice: to pull back its troops, stop using hybrid-warfare tactics, and engage with the international community and the Ukrainian government to find a political solution to the crisis.”

Fact: Washington bears full responsibility for generating it. Rogue NATO members share it.

Fact: It bears repeating. US-led NATO is a global killing machine.

Fact: It’s for offense, not defense.

Fact: World peace depends on putting this monster of  business.

Fact: Failure to do so risks the worst of all possible outcomes.

On August 17, former US officials Brent Scowcroft, Stephen Hadley and Franklin Miller headlined their Washington Post op-ed “NATO-based nuclear weapons are an advantage in a dangerous world.”

They irresponsibly accused Russia of “adventurism in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.”

They want destabilizing US nuclear weapons maintained in Europe because of “calls for the United States to unilaterally withdraw” its arsenal.

They call arguments to do so “shopworn, familiar – and wrong.”

Fact: Nuclear weapons in the hands of imperial America, its rogue NATO allies and Israel are the greatest threat to humanity’s survival.

Fact: Peace, stability and security depends on eliminating nuclear weapons altogether.

Fact: Failure to do so is madness.

Scowcroft, Hadley and Miller call these weapons “a visible symbol to friend and potential foe of the US commitment to defend NATO with all of the military power it possesses.”

NATO’s only enemies are ones it invents. It does so to replace sovereign independent governments with pro-Western subservient ones.

It wages premeditated wars of aggression to do so. Don’t expect Scowcroft, Hadley and Miller to explain.

Instead they claim “newer members joined NATO in large part to get under this nuclear umbrella, and they have been vocal in expressing their concern that withdrawing the weapons would symbolize a diminution in the US commitment to defend them?”

US-led NATO wages one war of aggression after another. It does so to resolve crises it creates.

Scowcroft, Hadley and Miller turn truth on its head claiming “NATO’s principal role is deterring aggression rather than having to defeat it.”

It bears repeating. NATO is a global killing machine. It’s for offense, not defense.

Its threatens humanity’s survival. World peace and stability depend on dismantling this monster once and for all. Nothing less is acceptable.

NATO members saying “(n)uclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defense alongside conventional and missile defense” runs counter to the clear and present danger these WMDs pose.

Claiming “this is no time to destabilize the NATO alliance and traumatize our NATO allies by withdrawing our nuclear weapons from Europe” is ludicrous on its face.

It bears repeating. Nuclear weapons in the hands of imperial America, its rogue NATO allies and Israel are humanity’s greatest threat.

World peace, stability and survival depends on eliminating them altogether.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. Visit his blog site at

NWO Enforcer: NATO Threatens WW III


“I think that NATO is itself a war criminal” – Harold Pinter

The New World Order has been in place for centuries. Is it not time to start calling the NWO by another name? A descriptive term that encapsulates the essence of the beast would be a Nefarious Warrior Organism. Such a phrase strips away the ridiculous notion that there is any order in the malevolent organization of the parasitic global structure, based upon perpetual and permanent warfare. This depiction more closely resembles reality, even if the master mass media refuses to acknowledge How the World Really Works. Discard any condemnation that criticism of the established order rests upon conspiratorial fantasy or pre-medieval prejudices. Explaining away or ignoring basic human nature in a “PC” culture ultimately requires the adoption of a depraved Totalitarian Collectivism system.

Students of world affairs are not strangers to the practice of lies and deception. One of the grand daddies of the Nefarious Warrior Organism, and infamous war criminal, Henry Kissinger has a new book, World Order. An excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order, spews the same poppycock that underpins the destructive policies and practices that has the world ripe for an apocalyptic conflict, needed to rescue the banksters of international finance from their derivative Ponzi scheme.

“Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.”

How convenient to disregard the fact that incessant conflicts are direct results of policy maker schemes in Washington, London, Israel and the global sanctuaries and redoubts where the Mattoids reside. Policy objectives, invariably implemented with force, coercion and military carnage is the real reason why the NATO enforcement machine was not disbanded with the ending of the Cold War.

Over a decade ago the essay, NATO a Dinosaur Overdue for Extinction stated that national sovereignty of individual states was never an objective after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Quite to the contrary, NATO’s expansion to accept the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (2004), and Albania and Croatia (2009) as members illustrates that the purpose of NATO clearly has a focus on becoming the global police force for the NWO.

“If the breakdown in NATO is destined to avail an opportunity to curtail the Yankee Hyperpower, the alternative need not be the formation of another suspect alliance. It is not unpatriotic to advocate the wisdom in an America First policy. NATO doesn’t secure or advance our country, but only provides the military command and enforcement that imposes the will of global masters. Resistance and opposition against an independent EU rapid defense force, comes not from the nations of Europe, but from the elites that control the mechanisms of global power. NATO is one of their tools. Alliances are one of their methods. And suppression of viable self determination is their cherished goal.”

Seasoned observers of the backstabbing game of international intrigue must love the way that The State Department’s New World Order Agenda rears its ugly head with NeoCons running U.S. foreign policy.

“That esteem champion of national sovereignty, Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, is hardly a protector of the duly elected Ukrainian government. Actively working to depose that regime for one acceptable to the EU/NATO system claims such actions as legal and sound policy, for the good of the Ukrainians. When Toby Gati, the former White House senior director for Russia, defended Nuland, the futility of a joint cooperative strategy exposes the reality of blowback to the EU.”

In order to understand the true nature of the psychopathic motives and vicious tactics that threaten a global conflagration, examine Victoria Nuland’s family ties: The Permanent Government in action. Kevin MacDonald dares reveals the family tree structure of the NeoCon clan of subversive fifth column infiltrators within our own government.

“Ethnic networking and ties cemented by marriage are on display in the flap over Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s phone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer puts it, Nuland is a member of a talented, energetic [Jewish] family that is part of the Permanent Government of the United States.”

The expected result of such treachery is that the IMF and EU Capture of Ukraine becomes the spark that ignites a fuse set to explode into an intended Ukrainian civil war.

“It should be obvious that the recent putsch and regime change in the Ukraine inspired and backed by the U.S. shadow government, benefits the international banksters. For the average EU resident, only further economic displacement and diminished prospects can be expected from any inclusion of Ukraine into the EU dictatorial structure.”

Of course, the actual target, slated for removal is Vladimir Putin Nemesis of the New World Order. Russian defiance of the Nefarious Warrior Organism cannot stand.

“The context for any serious discussion on foreign affairs must start with the admission that the New World Order is the dominant controller of political power, especially in western countries. The NeoCon/NeoLib cabal dictates worldwide compliance. Nations conform to the financial supremacy of banksters, administered by handpicked political stooges. Global governance is the end game destined for all states. Individual nations slated for extinction are doomed as long as the NWO advances their worldwide imperium.”

The terror of descending into an abyss that triggers a nuclear World War III is actually a ruse. Such a holocaust will not happen by chance. Only when the transcendent Satanist elites have all their prey in the sights of their directed fallout, will the button be pushed.

China is certainly part of the NWO gang of comrades. The prospect for their involvement seems more likely than Russian recklessness. Ready for World War III with China?, has that old black magic of Kissinger come alive with the designated strategy intended to defeat America.

“China does not want an apocalyptic war with the United States. They are content to wage economic and financial warfare. Notwithstanding the trade dependency that the globalist cabal originated by the Nixon-Kissinger tools with the Red Communists, the authoritarian People’s Republic of China, are winning the financial battle.”

NATO’s belligerent and bellicose deployments around Russia are part of a plan to isolate, marginalize and shatter the economy and influence of Putin in the region. Neutering the Russian Bear facilitates the spread of central banking direction over the natural resources and across the time zones of this dissident former commie.

Since all obedient Marxists sing the song of the Internationale as they report to the gnomes of the Bank of International Settlement, do not be duped into thinking that NATO is a force for stability and legitimate defense. Involvements from Afghanistan to Kosovo or Iraq to Libya, demonstrates there are no short list deployments. The tentacles of drone assaults have nonconforming regimes posed for eventual collateral damage.

As the Nefarious Warrior Organism metastasizes, the cancer becomes terminal. Actually blowing up the planet risks the destruction of property. Just the risk of universal annihilation serves the extortionist better, by maintaining a campaign of everlasting fear. NATO becomes the strong-arm enforcer, wheeling brass knuckle punches, when tribute payments become late.

Killing hundreds of millions if not billions is far more efficient using germ warfare in a mutation of a designer pandemic. NATO’s intimidation best functions as a warning of potential incursion than an actual skirmish on a battlefield. The next arms race is to advance electronic countermeasures to protect the flow of debt collection. The NWO can encircle the few remaining enclaves of freedom, but rebel states confined to benign reservations, cannot expect much better.

Dread that World War III is on the horizon is most useful to the elites that play the puppeteer game of diversion and slide of hand. As independent countries fall into the cauldron of globalism stew, the only morsel that remains of the sweet taste of liberty resides in the memory recesses of the past.

The masters of global chaos, served well with the life work of Henry Kissinger and Zibigneiw Brzezinski, prosper on the suffering of the rest of humanity. Such megalomaniacs see the military-industrial-security complex as a continuum of a scorched earth campaign of Attila the Hun. Destruction and carnage reign, since the only empire that exists is the one that keeps the NWO elites in control.

America is long dead and the echoes of the past only serve as remembrance of the purported rendering of the NATO’s motto – ANIMUS IN CONSULENDO LIBER. Somehow, the translation, “Man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel”, seems only to apply inside the dementia of the Nefarious Warrior Organism.

“Following the end of the Cold War, there was much discussion concerning the point of NATO. In the event, it was reinvented as a means of reducing Russia’s reach on its western frontiers and seeking to isolate it. Its former East European client states were admitted to NATO, as were the Baltic states”. – Martin Jacques

SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at

NATO Using Foley and ISIS As A Pretext For Bombing Syria – Ultimate Target Is Russia


By: Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post

The Islamic State and the war in Syria is back on the front pages of the news once again on the heels of the alleged killing of James Mark Foley, an American journalist working in Syria. The outrage surrounding the alleged beheading of Foley, while justifiable if it is real, is already being used for propaganda purposes, namely in order to build up American support for an aerial bombing campaign against the Syrian government.

With this in mind, it is important to examine the facts surrounding the alleged execution of James Foley and the ways in which this incident is being used to justify more American military intervention in the Middle East and Syria specifically.

Questions Surrounding The Authenticity of the Video

While beheadings are by no means unbelievable or foreign to the Syrian destabilization crisis, the alleged beheading of journalist James Foley is one that should be viewed with some amount of healthy skepticism. Indeed, there are a number of anomalies associated this particular video that set it apart from the scores of other beheading videos produced by the Western-backed death squads attempting to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and establish an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East.

A number of commentators have pointed out that James Foley seems remarkably calm and collected in the video, particularly given the fact that he knows that he is not very much longer for this world. Some may argue that Foley is calm due to fact that he knows he is going to die and has made peace with this fact, a condition that overtakes many when death is imminent. Others, however, may point to this as evidence to the contrary, i.e. that Foley knows he is not going to die and thus suggests that he is, in fact, acting in a cleverly devised propaganda video.

Second, there is the fact of a distinct lack of blood in an execution that involves the slicing of a human throat. As Syrian Free Press reports, when one slows down the video, it is evident that the knife held by the death squad fighter cuts back and forth 7-10 times. Yet there is not one drop of blood to be seen. This is highly unusual to say the least.

Third, and perhaps most damning, is the fact that the process of the actual beheading is censored. In all the videotaped beheadings that have taken place in the Syrian war since 2011, there have been none (at least as far as this writer knows) that have been censored by ISIS or any other death squad organization. Indeed, if the entire purpose of the beheading video is to create fear and outrage, then censoring the actual beheading is counterproductive.

US Controls ISIS

Lastly, it is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,”

Beginning in 2011 – and actually even as early as 2007 – the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.

mapImage: ISIS corridors begin in Turkey and end in Baghdad. [image credit: Land Destroyer]

Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey’s borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward – this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.

ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The “non-lethal aid” the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.

They didn’t “take” this gear from “moderates.” There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon – current and former officials – interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh’s 9-page 2007 report, “The Redirection” states explicitly:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” – is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh’s report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region’s Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.

While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”

Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders.

Propaganda Used Early On To Blame Assad

It is also important to keep in mind that, when Foley was originally abducted, it was widely publicized that his captors were the Syrian government itself. This, of course, was a ridiculous assertion and was recognized as such by all legitimate researchers familiar with the Syrian crisis. The American people, however, bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Now that a video has been released of Foley being beheaded by ISIS, the American people have shown that they do not have an attention span that reaches back to when Foley was used as propaganda in Syria the first time around.

For those that do have a lingering memory, propaganda pieces have been produced such as that of Michael B. Kelley of Business Insider who laughably claims that Assad may have handed Foley over to ISIS, a group that Assad has been actively fighting since the start of the destabilization campaign in 2011. Kelley’s absurd suggestion reaches the point of absolute insanity when he even goes so far as to suggest that Assad created ISIS.

Propaganda Purposes in August, 2014 – American Bombing Of Syria

Regardless of whether or not the beheading video is real, the fact is that it is being used as a shameless piece of propaganda. The NATO powers are certainly not letting a good crisis go to waste.

As I have written on a number of occasions in the past, the goal is to drum up support from the American people for a bombing campaign or “limited strikes” inside Syria for the purpose of creating a buffer zone, a desire of NATO since the destabilization campaign began.

The reason that ISIS was allowed to seize such large swaths of territory across Iraq was an attempt to create a justification for the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”

Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.

This pretext has already been publicly discussed in mainstream media outlets across the world. Take, for instance, the article by Patrick Cockburn published in The Independent on June 19, 2014 entitled “Iraq Crisis Exclusive: US Rules Out Military Action Until Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Stands Down,” where Cockburn argues the necessity of a series of airstrikes to be launched against both Iraq and Syria.

Cockburn writes,

The general support for the Sunni revolt in northern and western Iraq will make it very difficult for any counter-offensive, which would be facing far more opponents than Isis originally fielded. Isis now controls almost all the Euphrates valley from Fallujah west of Baghdad through western Iraq and eastern Syria as far as the Turkish border. Any long-term campaign against Isis by the Iraqi government backed by US air power would require air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq. The two countries have effectively become a single battlefield.

Consider also, the writings of former State Department Director of Policy Planning under the Obama administration, Anne Marie Slaughter, who has been foaming at the mouth every bit as much as John McCain when it comes to the prospect of intervening militarily in Syria. In her most recent op-ed in the New York Times, “Don’t Fight In Iraq And Ignore Syria,” the appropriately-named Slaughter writes,

Deciding that the Syrian government, as bad as it is, was still better than the alternative of ISIS profoundly missed the point. As long as we allow the Syrian government to continue perpetrating the worst campaign of crimes against humanity since Rwanda, support for ISIS will continue. As long as we choose Prime Minister Maliki over the interests of his citizens, all his citizens, his government can never be safe.

President Obama should be asking the same question in Iraq and Syria. What course of action will be best, in the short and the long term, for the Iraqi and Syrian people? What course of action will be most likely to stop the violence and misery they experience on a daily basis? What course of action will give them the best chance of peace, prosperity and a decent government?

The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power.

Bombing Syria – A Strike At Russia

Slaughter’s previous op-eds, of course, betray an underlying reason for her obsessive warmongering against Syria – the strategic desire to weaken Russia. In this, Slaughter reveals herself as an adherent to the Brzezinski doctrine as it is espoused in The Grand Chessboard.[1] Even if Slaughter does not openly state her affinity for such a destructive and provocative foreign policy by name, her ideology is revealed by both her actions and her work. It is important to point out that Slaughter’s position should not be construed as merely her own, but as a representation of the desires of the NATO powers that employ her.

Indeed, in her April, 2014 op-ed for Project Syndicate, entitled “Stopping Russia Starts In Syria,” Slaughter is nothing if not obvious about her offensive geopolitical targeting of the Russian Federation as well as that of China and Japan. She writes that,

The solution to the crisis in Ukraine lies in part in Syria. It is time for US President Barack Obama to demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations. The result will change the strategic calculus not only in Damascus, but also in Moscow, not to mention Beijing and Tokyo.

Slaughter essentially argues that Putin is much too strong to inflict damaging geopolitical costs in Ukraine. She suggests that Putin is much weaker in Syria, however, and, therefore, it is Syria where the United States must strike. Slaughter states,

Regardless of Putin’s initial motivations, he is now operating in an environment in which he is quite certain of the parameters of play. He is weighing the value of further dismemberment of Ukraine, with some pieces either joining Russia or becoming Russian vassal states, against the pain of much stronger and more comprehensive economic sanctions. Western use of force, other than to send arms to a fairly hapless Ukrainian army, is not part of the equation.

That is a problem. In the case of Syria, the US, the world’s largest and most flexible military power, has chosen to negotiate with its hands tied behind its back for more than three years. This is no less of a mistake in the case of Russia, with a leader like Putin who measures himself and his fellow leaders in terms of crude machismo.

It is time to change Putin’s calculations, and Syria is the place to do it.

After repeating the tired, disproven, and borderline idiotic propaganda of Assad’s alleged “chemical weapons attacks,” “killing his own people,” and “barrel bombs,” Slaughter attempts to cover up what is nothing more than a geopolitical strategy as a humanitarian issue.

Slaughter laments the fact that “It is impossible to strike Syria legally so long as Russia sits on the United Nations Security Council, given its ability to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force.” However, she continues her article by stating that the United States should act anyway, unilaterally or multilaterally, by striking Syria and, at the very least, destroying its “fixed wing aircraft.”

The US, together with as many countries as will cooperate, could use force to eliminate Syria’s fixed-wing aircraft as a first step toward enforcing Resolution 2139. “Aerial bombardment” would still likely continue via helicopter, but such a strike would announce immediately that the game has changed. After the strike, the US, France, and Britain should ask for the Security Council’s approval of the action taken, as they did after NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999,” she states.

Slaughter continues by writing,

Equally important, shots fired by the US in Syria will echo loudly in Russia. The great irony is that Putin is now seeking to do in Ukraine exactly what Assad has done so successfully: portray a legitimate political opposition as a gang of thugs and terrorists, while relying on provocations and lies to turn non-violent protest into violent attacks that then justify an armed response.

Slaughter, of course, is angry that the incessant and nonsensical propaganda of her former office, the US State Department, and other Western governments across the world have largely failed to manufacture a string of lies that would serve to effectively motivate Americans to gear up for war yet again.

So far, on this particular issue, American apathy largely contributed to preventing a war.

Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that apathy will easily be converted over to the benefit of the world oligarchy. Indeed, with the broadcast of the killing of an American citizen in such a grotesque fashion, that apathy can quickly be converted to rage and nationalistic fervor. Such techniques of propaganda are well understood by elites the world over.

As Hermann Goring stated years ago,

Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

The American people have tragically proven this statement true time and time again.


[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 40-41

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

Libya’s Destruction A Warning To Egypt, Syria, And Ukraine

By: Tony Cartalucci –

RT’s article, “90% of aircraft destroyed at Tripoli airport, Libya may seek international assistance,” reported that:

Libya is considering a deployment of international force to re-establish security amid a flare-up of violence in Tripoli which saw dozens of rockets destroy most of the civilian aircraft fleet at its international airport.

“The government is looking into the possibility of making an appeal for international forces on the ground to re-establish security and help the government impose its authority,” a government spokesman, Ahmed Lamine said in a statement.

The “democratic tomorrow” promised by NATO in 2011 has been realized – that is – in the form of predictably fraudulent elections accepted by no one, leaving a power vacuum apparently to be settled through increasingly violent armed conflict. Perhaps most ironic of all is that these conflicts are being waged between NATO’s various armed proxies it used to carry out the ground war while it bombarded Libya from the air over the majority of 2011.

NATO’s Proxies Cannibalize Each Other

In May 2014, fighting in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has left scores dead, many more injured, and residents fleeing for their lives as what the Western media called a “renegade general,” waged war on “Islamist militants” within the city. Reuters in its article, “Families evacuate Benghazi as renegade general vows more attacks,” claimed:

The self-declared Libyan National Army led by a renegade general told civilians on Saturday to leave parts of Benghazi before it launched a fresh attack on Islamist militants, a day after dozens were killed in the worst clashes in the city for months.

The renegade general is Khalifa Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter), who lived in the United States – outside of Langley, Virginia – for years allegedly being groomed by the CIA until his eventual return to Libya in 2011 to lead ground forces in NATO’s proxy invasion. The Business Insider would report in its 2011 article, “Is General Khalifa Hifter The CIA’s Man In Libya?,” that:

Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, D.C. Badr said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.

So a former Qaddafi general who switches sides is admitted to the United States, puts down roots in Virginia outside Washington, D.C. and then somehow supports his family in a manner that mystifies a fellow who has known Hifter his whole life. Hmm.

The likelihood that Hifter was brought in to be some kind of asset is pretty high. Just as figures like Ahmed Chalabi were cultivated for a post-Saddam Iraq, Hifter may have played a similar role as American intelligence prepared for a chance in Libya.

The irony is that many of the sectarian militants Hafter was fighting in Benghazi were the same militants Muammar Qaddafi was fighting for decades as leader of Libya, and the same militants that NATO armed and abetted alongside Hafter in the overthrow of Qaddafi in 2011.

Regarding his campaign in Benghazi, Hafter claimed that it would continue until “Benghazi is purged of terrorists,” and that, “we’ve started this battle and will continue it until we have reached our goals. The street and the Libyan people are with us.” Hafter’s sentiments echo those of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, only then, the Western media denied the existence of terrorists that had been based in Benghazi for decades and portrayed Tripoli’s operations there as a “massacre” of “peaceful pro-democracy protesters.”

NATO Destroyed Libya

The very atrocities cited by NATO to begin their “humanitarian intervention” in Libya in the first place, immediately began unfolding in reality at the hands of NATO and its proxy forces themselves. Entire cities were encircled, starved out, and bombarded by air until they capitulated. In other towns, entire populations were either exterminated, evicted and eventually driven beyond Libya’s borders. The city of Tawarga, home to some 10,000 Libyans, was so utterly uprooted, it was referred to by the London Telegraph as a “ghost town.”

Since the fall of Tripoli, Sirte, and other Libyan cities that resisted NATO’s proxy invasion, little in the way of basic stability, let alone the “democratic revolution” promised by NATO and its collaborators, has returned to Libya. The government in Tripoli remains in chaos, its security forces divided amongst themselves, and now a “rogue” CIA asset is conducting a full-scale military operation against Benghazi, including the use military aircraft, apparently without Tripoli’s approval.

Years after the “revolution’s” conclusion, Libya remains a hobbled nation sliding backwards. The many achievements of Muammar Qaddafi’s government have long since been undone, and it is unlikely they will be restored let alone surpassed in the foreseeable future. NATO has effectively upturned and destroyed an entire nation, leaving it to not only burn while Western corporations pillage its resources, but to use as a template for future extraterritorial adventures in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, and now Iraq.

The Libyan Model: Egypt, Syria, Ukraine Beware

Just as in Libya, “revolutions” have tried to take root in Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine. The same narratives, verbatim, crafted by Western policy think tanks and media spin doctors for Libya are now being reused in Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine. The very same non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are being used to fund, equip, and otherwise support opposition groups in each respective country. Terms such as “democracy,” “progress,” “freedom,” and fighting against “dictatorship” are familiar themes. The protests were and are each accompanied by heavily armed militants also fully backed by the West.

In Syria, the pretense of protests has been dropped as has the notion of “freedom fighters.” The Western media now spends much of its time spinning and justifying why NATO and its regional partners are funding and arming sectarian militants, including Al Qaeda, in the overthrow of the Syrian government.

In Egypt, there is still some ambiguity, as there was in 2011 regarding Syria, as to who the protesters really are, what they really want, and on which side of the increasingly violent conflict playing out there the West falls. Careful analysis reveals that just as the Muslim Brotherhood was used in Syria to set the stage for the now devastating war raging there, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is doing likewise against Cairo.

Finally, in Ukraine, the “pro-democracy” “pro-European Union” “Euromaidan” protesters have been revealed as Neo-Nazis, ultra-right, and nationalists who regularly resort to violence and political intimidation. Just as in Syria in 2011, and in Egypt now, low intensity armed clashes are increasing in frequency and intensity toward what may end up as a proxy war between NATO and Russia in Eastern Europe.

But for these three nations, and the participants on all sides, Libya’s current state must be examined. These “revolutions” have but one logical and predictable conclusion – the plundering, division, and destruction of each respective nation, before it is folded into Wall Street and London’s growing supranational order to be exploited indefinitely as much of the US, UK, and EU already are today.

For those wondering what will become of Egypt, Syria, or Ukraine, should NATO succeed, one needs only to look at Libya. And for those that supported the “revolution” in Libya, they must ask themselves if they are they satisfied with its final outcome. Do they wish this outcome upon Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine as well? Do they imagine that NATO’s plans for each of these countries will end any differently? Why?

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”, where this first appeared.

United States Crafting Legislation To Incite World War III

Bob Corker, R-Tenn., right, accompanied by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Photo credit: AP

Bob Corker, R-Tenn., right, accompanied by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Photo credit: AP

Republican Senator and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, is the most recent inciter of global war, as he is the main sponsor of the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014.

The piece of legislation, which has already been seen in congressional committee, intends to effectively declare war on Russia by imposing even more draconian sanctions on Russian businesses, and individuals, maintaining American troops in European countries, increasing the presence of American troops and military equipment in countries that support NATO’s actions against Russia, including former Soviet republics, forcing Ukraine to become a member of NATO so the United States can station troops and armament on the Russian-Ukrainian border and cancel any nuclear disarmament treaties signed between the United States and Russia, among other things.

Senator Corker’s proposed legislation has the support of traditional neoconservative members of Congress, such as Arizonan Republican, John McCain and Senator Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American Republican who is actively campaigning to become a Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 election.

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 “Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to submit to Congress a strategic framework for U.S. security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia,” begins the text. According to Wayne Madsen, from the Strategic Culture Foundation, the legislation also intends to punish former US allies in Europe who are now in business with Russian companies. Among them, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, who would be subject to a travel ban and asset freeze by the United States.

The act would authorize President Obama to provide $100,000,000 in military equipment, including lethal equipment, to Ukraine, including anti-tank weapons and ammunition; anti-aircraft weapons and ammunition; small arms and ammunition, including pistols; submachine guns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine guns, and sniper rifles; mine resistant ambush protected vehicles; High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (Humvees); inflatable boats; body armor; fire control, range finder, optical and guidance and control equipment; and other equipment deemed appropriate.

In other words, the United States wants to, once and for all, surround Russia along with its NATO partners in Europe, a dream that has been lingering in American politics for decades since the end of the Cold War.

But the piece of legislation is not limited to bringing about World War III with Russia, as it provides for the effective theft of natural resources by opening the doors of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia to American multinationals. Under the rules included in the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014, energy companies would be free to drain those countries from their natural gas reserves.

The complete text of S.2277, the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014, can be read below:

Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 – Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to submit to Congress a strategic framework for U.S. security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia.

Directs the President to: (1) halt for 180-days all current and planned redeployments of combat forces from Europe other than certain redeployments, and (2) develop a plan to correct any deficiencies in the Armed Forces’ ability to respond to contingencies in Europe and Eurasia.

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) represents the most successful collective security agreement of the modern era, and (2) a strong NATO is critical to maintaining peace in Europe and Eurasia and ensuring that the Russian Federation plays an appropriate role in the region.

Directs the President to: (1) implement a plan for increasing U.S. and NATO support for the armed forces of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and other NATO member-states; and (2) direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO to seek consideration for permanently basing NATO forces in such countries.

Directs the President to submit a plan to Congress for accelerating NATO and European missile defense efforts.

Directs the President to establish a United States-German Global and European Security Working Group to focus on areas of mutual concern, including the situation in Ukraine, and increasing political, economic, and military cooperation between the two states.

Directs the President to impose asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions, if Russian armed forces have not withdrawn from Crimea within seven days after enactment of this Act, against: (1) any government official, and any close associate or family member of that official, who is responsible for or otherwise directing violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, or who is responsible for acts of significant corruption in the Russian Federation; (2) any individual who sponsored or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of such acts; (3) any individual or entity with respect to which sanctions were previously imposed relating to violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; (4) any entity owned or controlled by a sanctioned entity that is owned or controlled by a citizen of the Russian Federation; and (5) any senior executive of a sanctioned entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.

Directs the President to impose asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions, if Russian armed forces have not withdrawn from the eastern border of Ukraine within seven days after enactment of this Act, or if agents of the Russian Federation do not cease actions to destabilize the control of the government of Ukraine over eastern Ukraine, against: (1) Sberbank, (2) VTB Bank, (3) Vnesheconombank, (4) Gazprombank, (5) Gazprom, (6) Novatek, (7) Rosneft, (8) Rosoboronexport, (9) any entity owned or controlled by such an entity that is owned or controlled by a citizen of the Russian Federation; and (10) any senior executive of such an entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.

Imposes asset blocking, U.S. exclusion, and foreign financial entity sanctions, if Russian armed forces expand further into, or the government of the Russian Federation annexes, sovereign territory of Ukraine or any other country in Europe or Eurasia, against: (1) any senior Russian official, (2) any entity owned or controlled by a senior Russian official, and (3) any close associate of a senior Russian official who provides significant support or resources to such senior Russian official.

Imposes asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions also, in such circumstances, against: (1) any entity organized under the laws of the Russian Federation that is owned or controlled by the government of the Russian Federation, or owned or controlled by a person sanctioned for violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; (2) any entity that operates in the arms, defense, energy, financial services, metals, or mining sectors of the Russian Federation; and (3) any senior executive of such an entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.

Sets forth related penalty requirements.

States that U.S. exclusion sanctions shall not apply if necessary to permit the United States to comply with the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations or other applicable international obligations.

Authorizes the President to waive sanctions if in the U.S. national security interests, and with prior congressional notification.

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to limit the transfer or export by any U.S. person of oil and gas advanced technology to any person in, or any citizen of, the Russian Federation if: (1) the Russian Federation has not substantially withdrawn its armed forces from the eastern border of Ukraine within 30 days, or (2) agents of the Russian Federation do not end destabilizing measures in eastern Ukraine.

Directs the Secretary of State to work with U.S. allies to limit: (1) sales of defense articles and services to the government of the Russian Federation, and (2) cooperation with the government of the Russian Federation on matters related to the production of defense articles and services by Russian entities.

Prohibits the President from: (1) entering into any agreement with the government of the Russian Federation regarding the reduction of nuclear forces except with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) reducing the number of deployed or non-deployed launchers under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms while Russian armed forces are threatening the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Ukraine or another European or Eurasian state; (3) sharing sensitive U.S. missile defense information with the government of the Russian Federation; and (4) authorizing any Open Skies Treaty overflights of U.S. territory or government facilities by Russian airplanes that employ any surveillance devices beyond those employed before January 1, 2014.

Prohibits amounts from being obligated or expended to integrate into any U.S. or NATO common-funded missile defense system any stand-alone radar or missile defense system manufactured, sold, or exported by: (1) a Russian entity, or (2) any person or entity currently sanctioned or designated under U.S. law for missile technology proliferation.

Directs the Secretary of State to provide access to appropriate consular resources, including prioritized access for refugee and other immigration or travel status to the United States, for journalists, political and civil society activists, and dissidents in the Russian Federation.

Directs the Secretary of State to increase efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation.

Directs DOD to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces. Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.

Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) provide Ukraine with information about Russian military and intelligence capabilities on Ukraine’s eastern border and within Ukraine’s territorial borders, including Crimea; and (2) ensure that such intelligence information is protected from further disclosure.

Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova (during the period in which each of such countries meets specified criteria) for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.

Directs the President to increase: (1) U.S. Armed Forces interactions with the armed forces of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia; and (2) U.S and NATO security assistance to such states.

Amends the Natural Gas Act to apply the expedited application and approval process for natural gas exports to World Trade Organization members.

Urges the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Trade and Development Agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the World Bank Group, and the European Bank for Reconstruction to promote assistance to Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova in order to exploit natural gas and oil reserves and to develop alternative energy sources.

Prohibits any federal department or agency from taking any action that recognizes Russian Federation sovereignty over Crimea or otherwise endorses the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of Crimea.

Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) strengthen democratic institutions, the independent media, and political and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union; and (2) increase educational and cultural exchanges with countries of the former Soviet Union.

Directs the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Voice of America (VOA) to provide Congress with a plan for increasing and maintaining through FY2017 the quantity of U.S.-funded Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union, with priority for broadcasting into Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.

Russia Prepares for War

While the United States government is seeking to further encircle Russia to provoke World War III, Vladimir Putin is also preparing his country for military conflict. This week, Putin addressed the Russian Security Council and announced that further measures will be taken to reduce the dependence of the national economy from external negative factors, in a clear allusion to the international situation and sanctions that some countries are imposing on Moscow. At the same time, he said there is no military threat to the sovereignty of Russia, although he noted a strengthening of NATO near the country, to which he said, Russia would respond with increased defensive capacity.

Of course not, today there is no direct military threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia. Putin described the stage of strategic military balance in the world as one where “NATO demonstratively shows its power and growth in the territories of the East European countries, including in the waters of the Black and Baltic seas. “ Meawhile, Russia can “adequately answer to this by fulfilling planned measures to strengthen the defense capacity of the country, including Crimea and Sevastopolwhere Russia will build a new military infrastructure.

The Russian leader warned that “there are attempts to destabilize the socio-political situation in the country, to weaken Russia one way or another, hitting on weaknesses, problems and, of course, these attacks will always exist “. Putin said that the recipes used in weak countries are not applicable in Russia, and added that those measures are unacceptable and counterproductive” because “they destroy the contemporary world order.”

The Russian President lamented the “increasingly often heard language of ultimatums and sanctions and that the concept of state sovereignty is weakened; with inconvenient regimes and countries being destroyed by applying policies that are of the interests of others.” However, he said he hoped that the “legitimate national interestsof Russia will be taken into account and that the differences that always arise, will be resolved only through diplomatic negotiations.

European Hypocrisy

While in public the European Union speaks of more sanctions against Russia, in private and in practice, EU members refuse to follow their own rules. Although a  new round of sanctions intends to punish Russia by cutting down commercial activity valued at $1o billion a year, on the other hand, France and Great Britain refused to stop selling military equipment to Russia. The conflict between Britain, France and the rest of the EU shows how sharply divided its politicians are about how to address their relations with Russia.

The EU is attempting to prevent Russian public banks from accessing European capital and suspending the export and import of arms. However, this week British Prime Minister, David Cameron has been under fire for maintaining some 200 licenses that allow Britain to sell arms to Russia. 

The most damaging measure still to come is an economic one that would prevent financial institutions controlled by the Kremlin from being financed with European money. According to 2013 data provided by the European Commission, 47% of the bonds issued last year by those entities were bought by EU investors. The total value was equivalent to 7,500 billion euros.

What the EU executive proposes is to prohibit any person or community entity to invest in Russian financial instruments with a maturity exceeding 90 days. But EU analysts do not seem to agree with extending these restrictions to European investment in Russia’s public debt, and neither do they agree with limiting the access that private Russian companies have to European money. The  Commission clarifies that it is technically possible” to extend the range in other phases. In this first attempt, the Commission intends to apply the maximum damage to Russia while keeping financial and commercial costs to the continent to a minimum, which greatly limits the scope of the measures.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

US-Led NATO’s War On Humanity


US-led NATO threatens humanity. It’s an imperial tool. It’s a global killing machine.

It prioritizes war. It deplores peace. Humanity’s survival hangs in the balance.

It includes 28 member nations, 22 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) ones, seven Mediterranean Dialogue countries, and four Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) states.

They comprise nearly one-third of world nations. NATO plans exponential expansion. It wants new members and partners.

It wants them on all continents. It wants them virtually everywhere. It wants a global military established.

It wants unchallenged control. It wants all outliers eliminated. It wants pro-Western vassal states replacing them.

Its strategy prioritizes war on humanity. It’s ravaging and destroying one country after another.

Ukraine is in the eye of the storm. On Friday, Putin said it may join NATO. Washington may take full advantage.

It may deploy nuclear-armed missiles on Russia’s borders. It may target its heartland.

Ukraine’s coup occurred, said Putin. “(T)hey (won’t) talk to us.” They obey orders from Washington.

“The next step will be Ukraine’s membership in NATO. They never ask us about that…”

“(A)nd they do not engage in dialog with us…’No dialog,’ they say…”

“(I)t is none of your business, and it does not concern you.’ ”

“Ukraine may become a member of NATO tomorrow,” said Putin. Under US control.

Doing so threatens Russia. Cooperative relations with Moscow ended. Minimal contacts alone continue.

Putin said Western countries elevated Kiev putschists to power. They have no legitimacy whatever.

“There was a coup d’etat backed by American and European partners,” he explained. “Then there was chaos, and now we are witnessing a full-scale civil war.”

Washington imposed sanctions on Russia to gain economic advantage, Putin said. They’re counterproductive. They won’t work.

On the one hand, Chinese investors will replace EU companies if they’re squeezed out. So will other global businesses.

On the other, Russian economist/Putin advisor Andrey Belousov said Moscow prepared retaliatory measures in response.

At different levels, he explained. It depends on US policy going forward. Moscow will respond in kind.

In its own way. Its own timing. “(W)e know exactly how to react,” said Belousov.

On May 23, Reuters headlined “Exclusive: EU weighs Russia sanctions from caviar to oil and gas,” saying:

“EU leaders will hold their first detailed discussion next week of specific steps they can take against Russia if Ukraine’s elections are not free and fair, including restrictions ranging from luxury goods imports to an oil and gas ban.”

Reuters cited a two-page document. It explains three scenarios – low, medium and high-intensity sanctions.

Low ones target Russian diamonds, precious metals, furs, vodka, caviar, and other luxury goods.

Medium ones aim at fertilizers, chemicals, tires, vessels to Russia, as well as weapons imports and exports.

High-intensity ones target investments, capital markets, other financial operations, as well as importing oil and gas.

At the same time, said Reuters, “there is no (EU) unanimous backing for (this) move.” German and other European business interests strongly oppose it.

They want no restrictions imposed. They want nothing interfering with bottom line interests.

“Unless there is unanimous backing for stricter sanctions, the EU will not be able to move ahead – a hurdle that has been frustrating for the United States, which is keen for Europe to move further in imposing restrictions on Moscow,” said Reuters.

On May 24, Itar Tass headlined “Lugansk Republic head says provocations possible during Ukrainian presidential elections.”

A false flag attack may be planned. Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) Governor Valery Bolotov said:

“I recommend LPR nationals not go to the polling stations as we have information about provocations being prepared by the Ukrainian government and National Guard.”

“They will be conducted to later accuse the Army of the Southeast of disrupting the elections.”

May 25 voting began. It remains ongoing. Kiev’s sham electoral process won’t change things.

Putschist approved aspirants alone are competing. Billionaire bandit Petro Poroshenko looks sure to win.

A previous article explained. He made his money the old-fashioned way. He stole it.

He supported Maidan putschists. He ignored their violence. He helped bankroll them. He wants Ukraine plundered for profit.

He’s up to his old tricks again. He’s paying 1,000 hryvnyas per day (about $84) for anti-Eastern Ukrainian freedom fighter volunteers.

He admitted it publicly. Their “life and health will be insured for one million hryvnyas,” he said. Ukrainian forces receive 600 hryvnyas per month.

Results are predetermined for Poroshenko to win. Perhaps on two rounds. Ballot choices exclude democracy. Expect worse than ever policies to follow.

Fascist regimes operate this way. Ukraine is Europe’s worst. Putschists threaten regional security and stability.

Voice of Russia (VOR) interviewed Ukrainian Dennis Schedrivy. He participated in Maidan protests. He supported them. No longer.

Kiev-instigated violence continues, he said. He expects more ahead. He called coup-appointed Kiev officials “junta” governance.

“I don’t see (May 25) elections as anything,” he said. “The whole thing with Maidan revolution is not successful.”

“According to the law they have adopted, even if the small village (alone) votes…elections will be considered successful.”

“I am sure that at least part of the sane world will not accept these elections,” he added.

“(T)hey are bombing…civilians…(T)his is a farce. (T)hey will try to (legitimize) this whole circus…”

Growing thousands of Ukrainians express similar views. Nothing ahead looks encouraging.

War without mercy rages. Ukrainian forces target civilians. They’re killing them in cold blood.

Freedom is on the chopping block. Fascists want it entirely eliminated. They want unchallenged top-down hardline rule replacing it.

They want it enforced. They want junta power institutionalized. Gangsterism is planned. Democracy is prohibited.

They want what most Ukrainians oppose. It remains to be seen how they’ll react. Civil war rages. National rebellion may follow.

Nothing ahead looks promising. What kind of government usurps power? What kind establishes itself by force?

What kind rules extrajudicially? What kind by intimidation? What kind of legitimacy do ultranationalist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi, anti-Semites have?

What kind substitutes unrestrained coercion for rule of law principles? What kind prohibits opposing views?

What kind mandates its message alone getting out? The same kind substituting despotism for democracy!

The battle for Ukraine’s soul didn’t end with putschists usurping power. It just began. It continues.

Ukraine’s future is up for grabs. Ordinary people alone will determine it. They have every right to do so.

Hopefully they’ll take full advantage. They’ll have themselves to blame if not.

A Final Comment

On May 24, RT International headlined “Russian journalists being banned entry to Ukraine to cover presidential election.”

They’re accredited to do so. It doesn’t matter. They’re refused entry. RT’s press service said:

“Without explaining the reason for refusal, the members of (Ukraine’s) border service forced the RT crew to buy return tickets at their own expense.”

It’s not the first time. It won’t be the last. Fascist regimes operate this way.

Expect more of the same ahead. Expect police state ruthlessness enforced.

RT’s Anna Knishenko, Elderra Khaled ad Konstantin Bolshakov arrived at Kiev’s Borispol International Airport.

Knishenko explained what followed, saying:

“At the border control, they immediately took our passports. An hour later, we – one by one – were invited to a special room for an interview.”

They were denied entry. For falsified reasons. For not properly explaining why they came, they were told.

Echo of Moscow correspondent Ilya Azar was treated the same way. So were Russian TV channel reporters.

Everyone denied entry had press cards. Ukraine’s Central Electoral Committee accredited them to cover its election earlier.

It didn’t matter. Fabricated reasons denied them. Kiev wants its message alone reported. It wants truth suppressed.

“A whole range of Russian media outlets, including Channel One, NTV, TVC and Zvezda channels have been denied entry to Ukraine headed by the coup-appointed authorities,” said RT.

Kiev putschists wage war on media freedom. Russian journalists are targeted. So are others not putschist-approved.

On May 23, The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) headlined “Russian journalists barred from entering Ukraine,” saying:

CPJ “condemns the move…(It) call(ed) on Ukrainian authorities to allow all journalists to carry out their job without harassment.”

CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program researcher Muzaffar Suleymanov added:

“If Ukrainian authorities are looking to build a democratic state, they must stop barring the press from covering public events in the country, especially the presidential vote.”

“Openness and transparency are vital for democracy.”

“We urge Ukraine to grant entry to all journalists, no matter their nationality or affiliation, or their newsroom’s editorial line.”

It “equate(s)” legitimate conflict reporting “with terrorism,” he added. CPJ denounced what media scoundrels ignore.

They support Sunday’s sham process. They equate putschist rule with democracy.

They turn truth on its head claiming it. Don’t expect them to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. Visit his blog site at


The Gloves Are Off: NATO Declares Russia The Enemy

NATO's Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow. Photo: Reuters

NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow. Photo: Reuters

Update: Russia and China to announce joint Naval Drills. Russia has now said that Geneva Accord is off the table after Kiev launched another attack on eastern provinces.

Although a statement by its Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow, may seem as a PR stunt, the truth is that today more than ever NATO needs to justify its existence.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was born with the only purpose of “defending its member-states” has not only expanded operations beyond the original scope of its charter, but it has also actively sought invisible threats that guarantee its existence.

Denying that NATO is the military arm of the Western powers that lend their war machinery to carry out genocide wherever military oppression is needed to achieve their goals is denying the very existence of a globalist force that has used force each and every time a government did not align with them. Unfortunately for NATO and Western imperialism apologists, Yugoslavia is still fresh in the minds of many millions of people, especially in Europe.

As per Mr. Vershbow’s statement, it should not be taken lightly because NATO has already accused Russia of every single evil perpetrated in Ukraine since the crisis started in February. If just a few months ago NATO saw Russia as a military partner, now the Alliance sees the country as the enemy. As reported by AP yesterday, Mr. Vershbow has said that Russia will be treated “as more of an enemy than a partner.”

Vershbow, who was the American ambassador in Moscow, was reported as saying that NATO is considering new measures to counteract Russia’s future threats to Alliance partners. “We need to step up our support for defense reforms and military modernization of Russia’s neighbors, and not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan,” said the former diplomat.

The rhetoric sponsored by Vershbow echoes that of NATO’s current Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who in early April voiced threats towards Moscow for aiding the population of Crimea to carry out a referendum that ended up with the former Ukrainian province voting to become part of Russia.

Western imperialist nations such as the U.S., France, Italy, Spain and others see Russia’s resurgence on the world stage as a threat to their dominance, which is why NATO, with the help of the United States, began encircling it with military bases all around its borders. Now, even though Ukraine is not a NATO or EU member, both NATO and the EU have mounted an aggressive rhetorical campaign against Moscow.

Vershbow’s words were supported by the Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania, who said that “It is also important for the United States to show leadership… to make sure that next steps that NATO will make, for example at the summit in September, will be adequate response to what’s happening in Ukraine.” For NATO, the EU and the United States, it is wrong for people to seek self-determination when such move is carried out to escape from their control, but it is quite all right to support the terrorists who initially caused the civil war that is now taking over Ukraine.

NATO’s real intentions were clearly expressed by the Georgian Defense Minister when he said that “The West should now seize the opportunity and create the reality on the ground by accepting membership of aspirant countries, by putting purely defensive assets in aspirant countries and predominantly in Georgia.”  With his statement, Alasania admits that NATO’s only intention is to increase its presence around Russia to further isolate Moscow from the rest of the region.

Both Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin have changed their tone from being cautious about NATO’s intentions to issuing bolder statements in regards to what they see are the real objectives of the Alliance and its members. “I think what is happening now shows us who really was mastering the process from the beginning. But in the beginning, the United States preferred to remain in the shadow,” said Putin, who last week explicitly said that the United States has been running the show from the beginning.

Meanwhile, Lavrov said that the United States did not care about the outcome in Ukraine and that all the Americans wanted was to prove that they were still relevant. As it usually happens, Western propaganda has been strongly parroted by main stream media, which has come to portray Russia as the enemy while attempting to paint the current conflict between Russia and the West as the beginning of a new Cold War. “Unfortunately, the information machine of our Western colleagues is working at full capacity,” said Lavrov during a press conference.

“At this stage, we want to give our partners a chance to calm down,” said Lavrov, who had previously explained that the United States is trying to shape public opinion in a way that makes people look at Russia as the big bad enemy. “We’ll see what happens next. If absolutely baseless notations towards Russia will continue, if there are attempts to pressure us with economic leverage, then we may reevaluate the situation.”

Washington’s stance against self-determination

While condemning what it calls ‘terrorism’ and ‘fake’ popular uprisings in other regions of the world, in the case of Ukraine, the United States has not only sponsored but also encouraged the rise of extremist groups that the Washington regime is now arming so that they can aggressively oppress members of the pro-Russian movement in eastern provinces.

This week, the International Monetary Fund has launched an aid package to ‘rescue’ Ukraine from bankruptcy, an outcome that was sure to occur since all relations between Russia and Ukraine have been broken as a consequence of the Western-led coup. Ukraine is almost completely dependent on Russia for its survival, and it was that very fact what prompted Western powers to help terrorists carry out the ousting of President Yanukovych. Previous to the coup taking place, Russia and Ukraine had began negotiations that would have ended in lower gas prices for the former Soviet state.

Russia had also promised a $15 billion loan to Ukraine, which would have saved the country from going bankrupt. Right about the time when the negotiations between Putin and Yanukovych took place was that alleged pro-European groups in Ukraine began street protests. Those protests then developed into Ukraine’s current state of affairs. It was also in the midst of the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations that both opposition leaders in Kiev and the United States called the meeting between Putin and Yanukovych a fruitless move that “would not address the concerns of the tens of thousands of Ukrainians protesting Yanukovych’s decision to abandon an agreement with the EU.”

Before conflict broke out in Ukraine last February, not only was Ukraine not going to accept any Western intervention, but it had already agreed to receive Russian financial aid to improve economic conditions in the country. Under Yanukovych Ukraine had rejected an appeal made by the EU to become a commercial partner, an attitude that did not sit well with European bankers or American politicians. ‘Luckily’ for the West, the coup against Yanukovych took place immediately.

Both the United States and the EU have said that Russia is solely responsible for the Ukrainian crisis for annexing Crimea, even though it was the Crimean people who decided to become part of Russia. The U.S. also accuses Russia of allowing anti-Kiev protestors to take over local government offices in eastern provinces, although Russia has nothing to do with the uprisings. “…we cannot decide for the self-defense forces,” said Lavrov.

Anti-Kiev forces have increased their activity in the East, especially in Donetsk, Lugansk, and other regions.

As if NATO’s plans were not clear enough, this week, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has explained that the ultimate goal is to achieve total control of Europe and its closer neighbors, including former Soviet states, while pressing against Russia’s borders. Van Rompuy said that even if the public manifests its opposition to such political and military escalation against Russia, the globalist elite will simply “do it anyway”.

Should Western powers be this determined to attack Russia militarily, politically and economically, as they have been doing during the last few years, a confrontation is not a matter of if, but of when. The only obstacle separating the world from an open war between the West and Russia is Putin’s caution when dealing with American and European insane bureaucrats who think they can do whatever they want. There is also China, of course. Should the Asian giant decide to act more emphatically along with Russia against unsought Western aggression, perhaps Europe and the United States will delay their ‘open season’ on Russia.


Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.