UK Foreign Chief Attacks Russia Before Moscow Visit

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Boris Johnson arrives in Moscow today to hold talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov the next day – the first visit to Russia by a British foreign minister in five years. International security issues are to top the agenda, including North Korea, Iran and regional stability in the Middle East as well as security for the 2018 World Cup soccer tournament in Russia. This time the bilateral relationship is at the lowest ebb due to the differences over Ukraine, Syria, and the allegations of Moscow’s meddling in the politics of various European countries. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has dramatically escalated attacks on Russia recently, accusing it of malign influence and hostile intentions.

Mr. Johnson gave an interview to the Sunday Times as he prepares for the trip to Moscow, in which he said that “Russia has not been so hostile to the UK or to Western interests since the end of the Cold War.” According to him, “In the Crimea, capturing a part of sovereign, besides, European territory from someone else’s country and holding it for the first time since 1945.”

But the Crimean War, in which the UK and Russia fought each other, ended in 1856. Crimea was reunited with Russia in 2014. How does this reunification hurt British interests and where are the examples of hostility Mr. Johnson is talking about?

Besides, the minister is off base here. The first territory captured from someone else’s country was Kosovo forcibly taken away from Serbia by NATO in 1999 and declared “independent” in 2008.

He also mentions Montenegro. “We literally have Russian fingerprints on an assassination attempt in Montenegro,” the top British diplomat states. Mr. Johnson says “we” talking about an independent state, not a part of British Empire. And how does this example illustrate Russia’s hostility toward the UK?

Then finally Mr. Johnson addresses something Great Britain has an immediate relation to, saying “Look at what they’re doing with cyber- warfare, with attempted disruption of democratic processes in the UK.” The foreign secretary says he has “seen no evidence” that Russian meddling affected the outcome of the EU referendum but adds: “There’s some evidence that there has been Russian trolling on Facebook.” It begs the question how much did Russian Facebook activity target the Brexit vote? The Russia"s Internet Research Agency operatives placed three adverts on Facebook in the run-up to Britain’s 2016 referendum on EU membership, spending just 97 cents to allegedly raise the issue of immigration. “We have determined that these accounts associated with the IRA spent a small amount of money ($0.97) on advertisements that delivered to UK audiences during that time,” Facebook said. And there is nothing else to confirm the allegation that Russia was involved in any meddling.

So, that’s what all the talks about Russia’s hostility boils down to: Crimea, where not a single shot was fired, Montenegro, a murky story, which has no relation to the UK anyway, and the $0,97 cents allegedly spent to prompt Brexit.

“When I was a kid, Russia was a very scary proposition. The idea of friendship with Russia seemed to be absurd because Russia was threatening us with nuclear warheads,” Mr. Johnson continues.

 

But it was the US, not Russia, who used a nuclear weapon. And it was nobody else but British PM Winston Churchill who urged to “wipe out” Moscow – the city Mr. Johnson is going to visit - with an A-bomb.

The minister made a historical allusion: “I was reading Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian war. It was obvious to me that Athens and its democracy, its openness, its culture and civilisation was the analogue of the United States and the West. Russia for me was closed, nasty, militaristic and antidemocratic — like Sparta. There was an extraordinary moment of hope and change when the [Berlin] wall came down and suddenly everything felt very different. It now feels as if that was a total illusion.” The country he compares with Sparta is not the Russian Federation but the Soviet Union, which does not exist anymore. The territory and political system were different. The times have changed. It should be noted that the wars between Sparta and Athens weakened Classical Greece to make it vulnerable to the conquests of Persia and Macedonia.

Of course, Mr. Johnson could not leave Syria out. “We need to talk to Russia about how they see the endgame in Syria. They have managed to maintain their client Bashar al-Assad in power in Damascus but they have not produced a political solution for Syria,” he says. Is the power of jihadists – the same people who commit terrorist acts in Europe - better that the power of President Assad? No political solution? But the only initiative that has brought tangible results is the Astana peace process with Moscow playing the first fiddle. Are the de-escalation zones, where cease-fire is established, worse than the battlefields, where fierce fighting seemed to last forever? Was it not Russia who organized and is going to host the meeting of “Congress of Syrian National Dialogue” in Sochi? Has the UK ever launched any diplomatic initiative of its own to stop the bloodshed?

Actually, there is nothing new in the views presented by Mr. Johnson in the interview. It’s the same old song and dance - whatever it is, Russia is behind it.

True, the divisions over Ukraine, the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders and the differences over Syria have greatly deteriorated the relationship between the two countries.

Under the circumstances, it would be naïve to expect a diplomatic breakthrough at the upcoming meeting in Moscow. But as permanent members of the UN Security Council the UK and Russia have a special responsibility for global peace and security. Nothing prevents dialogue on specific issues where there is scope for at least partial alignment of the interests, such as Syria, Afghanistan, counter-terrorism, aviation security, the 2018 World Cup and business ties. As the Russian-British Business Forum 2017 held on 28−29 November 2017 showed, there are lucrative prospects for economic cooperation even despite the sanctions war. The two countries can fruitfully cooperate. Just a few days ago, Sir Alan Duncan, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, visited Moscow. The event showed that responsible dialogue is possible. According to him, it is “vital for the UK & Russia, as permanent members of UN Security Council, to engage. Especially where we disagree on international security issues.”

That’s the kind of approach that should prevail during Boris Johnson’s visit. It’s more beneficial to talk shop than exchange unfounded accusations emphasizing the divisions instead of concentrating on the areas where cooperation is vital for both nations.

The Root Of Current Tensions: "They Hold No Loyalty Except To Themselves And To Personal Gain"

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

One of the items that is regularly reported on, but quietly…not alarming anyone…is the situation developing in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. 

At the forefront is Ukraine, as the U.S.-orchestrated coup of 2014 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia created a line to develop into a Second Cold War.  This is the root of the current tensions where both Russia and the U.S. are continuously posturing against one another.

The root of the matter lies in the undue influence that was secured by Georgy Schwarz (also known as George Soros) with the purchase of John McCain.  An article just surfaced on September 13, 2017 entitled Power Games: What McCain, Soros, and the Clintons Have in Common, by Ekaterina Blinova of Sputnik News.  The article gives a brief history of “The McCain Institute for International Leadership,” a non-profit organization profiting on the campus of Arizona State University.  This non-profit organization has received “minor” donations, such as $1 million from the Saudi Arabian government in 2014.

Financial ties between McCain and Soros have been exposed in the past, and that the two have had a nebulous relationship since 2001.  Interestingly enough, it was McCain who was the leading proponent behind the regime change in Ukraine.  Assisted by Victoria Nuland with Obama and Hillary Clinton acting the part of “Zardoz” floating invisibly in the background, supplying the authority, and with Sen. Lindsey Graham as a lapdog-collaborator, it was McCain who orchestrated the coup above-board.

Beneath the boards was Soros.  The reason Soros funded Maidan (the right-wing ultra-nationalists of Ukraine) and approved of Arseniy Yatsenuk (a globalist scientologist who currently resides in California) was to grab Eastern Ukraine for himself.  Soros planned on dumping $50 million, backed by political control via McCain and the other Munsters, and financially by the IMF…all wrapped up in the NATO Hegemony….and buying himself one third of Ukraine…with all types of natural resources from coal to minerals…for 1/1000^th of its actual worth.

Soros’ plan fell apart, because he did not count on the Russians seizing Crimea to secure Sevastopol (their Black Sea Fleet HQ) and access to the Mediterranean.  He also did not count on Ukrainians of Russian national derivation revolting in Eastern Ukraine against the installed puppetry of Yatsenuk (Yoda) that eventually “morphed” into Petro “Willy Wonka” Poroshenko’s Kiev government.  Because of the insurrection in the east, the IMF would not bail Ukraine out of the $9 billion plus owed to Russia to pay Gazprom for natural gas consumption.

Notice the complexion of the game has changed.  Soros now is fostering ties with Russia, in the hopes that he can take those mineral and oil rights from the other direction and take himself off the hook with the Russian government. Par for the course in the manner of Rothschild, bankrolling both Napoleon and the British government and selling short on both sides to pocket from the overall misfortune of the situation.  A situation caused by Rothschild and instigated into a war that gave him profits.  Only the players are different in the comedy being played out today.

Jared Kushner has deep ties to Soros, as does Hillary Clinton.  As mentioned in other articles, read Shadow Party by Poe that outlines the key role Soros played in the rise to power of Hillary Clinton.  The President truly needs to clean Washington out, and remove these politicos that kowtow and bend to the whim of oligarchs.  Only then can foreign policy be set that is in the interests of the United States and not a pack of privateers, oligarchs, and politicians…such as a Pelosi who begins a career making $150 grand and ends up with a net worth of more than $40 million.

There is a part of it all that is even worse than the theft.  Because of these games and the corruption attached to them, these individuals depose governments and throw whole nations into civil war and anarchy for the promulgation of personal power and personal gain.  World wars begin on the whims of madmen and see fruition because those madmen are in positions of authority derived from the citizens, yet with no accountability to the citizens.  They hold no loyalty except to themselves and to personal gain.

The Current Big Lie Is...

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The Big Lie today is as enormous as, and potentially far more harmful than, any Big Lie throughout history has been; and, it will be exposed fully here, and will be documented even more fully, by means of the links that are provided in this summary of it. (This Big Lie is certainly important enough for that care, because if the lie is continued unexposed, that massive fraud will produce World War III, a world-destroying nuclear war, perhaps even soon.) So, this will be only a summary of it, but a completely documented summary — not a mere ‘exposé’ that’s expected to be believed because it is already generally suspected or thought to be the case, but, instead, something that"s presented in the expectation that the key facts of the case have, to the contrary, been so effectively hidden from the public, as to make necessary here the providing of full documentation of it, for anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this ongoing rape of history — the super-dangerous Big Lie that’s ongoing right now.

This Big Lie today, which is to be described here, is the lie, upon the basis of which the Cold War against the dictatorial communistic USS.R. — which Cold War had been such a boost to US weapons-makers such as Lockheed Martin while it lasted — actually became restored in 2014, and continues today, as, this time, not a ‘cold’ but a hot war, by the US and its allies, all united together (for the benefit of the owners of their international corporations, and especially of the big US arms-suppliers) against democratic post-communist Russia (which gets blamed for trying to defend itself, at every step of the way that it does so). This increasingly hot war started in early 2014 (after at least three years of advance-preparation of it by the US Administration of American President Barack Obama), in Ukraine (formerly a part of the USS.R.), when a CIA coup that was perpetrated under the cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, against the democratically elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych — when this CIA coup installed there, in Ukraine, a rabidly anti-Russian government, bordering Russia. That is certainly a provocation to war, just as would be the case if instead Russia had overthrown Mexico’s government and installed there a rabidly anti-US regime.

In this Big Lie, which reigns today and is almost universally believed in the US to be true, that bloody coup in Ukraine is simply ignored, and instead the focus is placed upon the peaceful and voluntary breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine, which breakaway actually resulted directly from that coup, which was the real precipitating-event for ’the new Cold War’ — the basis of the US-and-allied economic sanctions against Russia, and for the massing of NATO troops and weapons onto Russia’s borders, ready to invade Russia. (How would Americans feel if the Russian government did all of that, to us?)

The Big Lie today is this: that the reason for the economic sanctions against Russia, is that ‘Putin’ or Russia ‘stole’ or ‘conquered’ or ‘seized’ the Crimea region of Ukraine.

The Big Truth, about the matter, is that US President Obama conquered Ukraine itself (all of it), via a February 2014 CIA coup that he had secretly started planning by no later than 2011, which on 20 February 2014 culminated with the violent overthrow of the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, who had won 90% of the votes in the far-eastern Donbass area of Ukraine, and 75% of the votes in the far-southern Crimea area of Ukraine, both of which intensely pro-Yanukovych regions refused to be ruled by the Obama-appointed rulers — the hard-right, fascist and rabidly anti-Russian, team that the Obama regime imposed upon Ukraine, after Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland told Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine on 4 February 2014, that «Yats» (Arseniy Yatenyuk), a hard-right and even racist anti-Russian Ukrainian politician, was to become appointed to run the country as soon as the coup would be over, which happened 23 days later (and Yatsenyuk did then receive the appointment and establish very hard-right anti-Russian policies — including massacres of ethnic Russians in Ukraine).

The legalities of the situation are as heinous on America’s side as the moralities are; and, yet, America’s vassal-states, in the EU and elsewhere, slavishly honor Obama’s sanctions against the victim-nation here, Russia (even while acknowledging that the residents of Crimea are overwhelmingly supportive of having separated themselves from Ukraine and grateful to Russia for now protecting them against the rabidly anti-Crimean US-imposed rulers of Ukraine). Furthermore: by no later than 26 February 2014, the leaders of the EU knew that the ‘revolution on the Maidan’ had, in fact, been a brutal coup, nothing at all ‘democratic’ — but decided to ignore that fact. So, they too are culpable in this, though not nearly to the extent that Obama is.

On Friday 21 July 2017, the anti-Russian Reuters ‘news’ (propaganda) agency headlined «Crimean scandal prompts Siemens to retreat from Russian energy» and reported that, «Germany"s Siemens tried to distance itself from a Crimean sanctions scandal on Friday, halting deliveries of power equipment to Russian state-controlled customers and reviewing supply deals. The industrial group said it now had credible evidence that all four gas turbines it delivered a year ago for a project in southern Russia had been illegally moved to Crimea, confirming a series of Reuters reports». The false underlying assumption in this propaganda-article was that the «scandal» it refers to had been initiated and perpetrated by Russia, not by the United States government (which initiated the sanctions against Russia, which Siemens and Russia are now being punished for). The Wikipedia propaganda site says in its article «Russian financial crisis (2014–2017)» that «The financial crisis in Russia in 2014-2015 was the result of the collapse of the Russian ruble beginning in the second half of 2014» and barely even mentions the economic sanctions, other than to say, «The second [reason for it] is the result of international economic sanctions imposed on Russia following Russia"s annexation of Crimea and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine» — implying, but not stating, that Russia had started that war — which just happened to be on its doorstep, not on the doorstep of the US — as if Mexico had been taken over by an enemy nation and the people of America were being threatened, which is what this takeover by the US government was equivalent to for the Russian people: a very real and grave national-security threat to them.

The Reuters article simply ignored the fact that Ukraine had been seized by Obama, and it simply presumed that Crimea (and also Donbass) had been seized by Putin. (Furthermore, the appeal by Donbass to become a part of Russia, was declined by Putin on 17 September 2014. But, still, the lie is also being pumped by pro-US-regime ’news’media, that Russia is trying to steal Donbass from Ukraine’s government. The US team’s lying is beyond bizarre. Sometimes, by their using carefully veiled language to deceive without outright asserting their lies, they implicitly blame Russia regarding the impasse in Donbass, even three years after Putin said no to that appeal by the residents of Donbass. And, still: Russia, which had — despite the Obama regime’s refusal to participate — signed and even had helped set up the Minsk agreements to settle the war in Donbass, gets blamed in the US-allied press for what are actually Ukraine’s refusal to honor the commitments it had signed to there. As usual, the victims get blamed. And the Trump Administration says that «there should be no sanctions relief until Russia meets its obligations under the Minsk agreements». No good deed will go unpunished — ever.)

Nor has Reuters (nor the rest of the US regime’s press) reported that a power-struggle is now occurring in the post-coup Ukraine, between the overt nazis (or racist-fascists) there, and the post-coup (that’s the fascist but not outright nazi) elected government (in elections that excluded non-fascists). The fascists, whom the current US regime supports, are being attacked by the nazis. The nazis are being led by Dmitriy Yarosh, whose followers are unabashedly nazis and often even boldly flash German Nazi Party insignia. The US Obama regime was one of only three governments throughout the world that voted against a resolution that had been introduced in the United Nations condemning fascism, racism and denial of the Holocaust. The two other pro-Nazi nations were Ukraine, whose US-installed regime felt the resolution to be personally offensive even though it wasn’t specific to Ukraine and didn’t even mention Ukraine, and the other country was Canada, which is a US vassal-nation and also has a powerful community of Ukrainian Nazis who escaped Ukraine right after WW II ended in 1945. Canada’s current Foreign Minister, appointed by the Liberal Party’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is Chrystia Freeland, a racist-fascist who is proud of her Nazi grandparents and who championed in Canada the fascist takeover of Ukraine. 

When the International Criminal Court issued, on 14 November 2016, its annual «Report on Preliminary Examination Activities», it included, on pages 34-43, a section on «Ukraine,» but considered only accusations that the Obama-installed Ukrainian government had lodged against Russia, and none of the demonstrated crimes (which are amply documented in the links herein), including the illegal coup, that the Obama regime had, in fact, perpetrated against not only the people of Ukraine, but the people of Russia next door; and the discussion by the ICC did not (such as an influential but grossly false Forbes article six days later headlined and yet provided no documentation for, «International Criminal Court: Russia"s Invasion Of Ukraine Is A "Crime," Not A Civil War») even allege that any «crime» had been committed by any party; but, nonetheless, the Russian government (which had never ratified the treaty that established the Court) condemned the report as being «one-sided,» which was an understatement, because the report included many gross falsehoods, outright lies, such as (and I boldface the falsehood):

«At the time of the start of the events that are the subject of the Office’s preliminary examination, the democratically-elected Government of Ukraine was dominated by the Party of Regions, led by President at the time, Viktor Yanukovych. The Maidan protests were prompted by the decision of the Ukrainian Government on 21 November 2013 not to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union».

As I and others have documented, the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President started well before that time, and the coup even was already being organized inside the US Embassy there by no later than 1 March 2013; and the US State Department had begun its work to prepare it, no later than 2011 — it didn’t simply ‘happen’. And it certainly wasn’t ‘democratic’; it ended whatever democracy Ukraine had. Furthermore, Yanukovych’s turn-down of the EU’s offer was, itself, a part of the Obama regime’s plan: Yanukovych had turned it down because the Ukrainian Academy of Science’s analysis of the EU’s offer (which had been prepared in accord with the US government’s urgings) had concluded that to accept the deal would produce losses for Ukraine of $160 billion. 

This is the Big Lie straight out of hell, because, unless the United States acknowledges publicly that it has been lying, and that the anti-Russia sanctions that the US initiated, are based on that lie and should therefore never even have been imposed (and should not be honored anywhere), there will be war between Russia and the US. Either those sanctions will be entirely lifted, or else nuclear war will inevitably result, because Russia will not forever tolerate having its economy squeezed to death on the basis of a clear lie. But how can such sanctions be ended unless the perpetrator — here, clearly, the US — publicly acknowledges that former US President Barack Obama, and his Administration, lied through their teeth, in order to impose them, in the first place? The US government would need to renounce, to the entire world, that former US President. Or else, WW III would seem to be well-nigh inevitable. This is an extremely serious matter, which isn’t so much as even being discussed — much less, debated. WW III could result from it, but it is entirely ignored. The Big Lie just continues to be promoted, instead of exposed.

Back on 20 February 2015, I headlined «Crimea: Was It Seized by Russia, or Did Russia Block Its Seizure by the US?» and, in the years since, the documentation that it was Obama not Putin who initiated (perpetrated) the new ‘Cold War’, has only increased. But the ‘news’media hide this fact (just as they hid that article), because they exist in order to pump the Big Lie, not to puncture it. (And, of course, that also is why they won’t publish this, though it, too, is sent to all of them free-of-charge to publish.)

Donald Trump condemns many of his predecessor’s actions and decisions and statements; but, on this one, which is the most important of them all and is blatantly a fraud (the blame for the entire catastrophe in Ukraine), Trump remains alternately supportive, and noncommittal, regarding Obama’s most enormous Big Lie. Now, after half a year in office, does he even care — or does he instead simply lack the courage?

It is clear what a real leader would do — expose and renounce that biggest of all Big Lies. Only a coward would not.

NATO Vows Support For Ukraine Against Russia's "Aggressive Actions"

Just a few short days after President Trump"s "relative" rapprochement with Russian President Putin, his "allies" in NATO have stepped up the rhetoric in a very sensitive area for Putin, as NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg pledged support for Ukraine during a visit to Kiev on Monday.

As Military.com reports, Ukraine and the West accuse Moscow of smuggling weapons and troops across the porous border in support of the separatists, a charge has repeatedly denied.

"Russia has maintained its aggressive actions against Ukraine, but NATO and NATO allies stand by Ukraine and stand on your side," Stoltenberg said at the NATO-Ukraine Commission session in Kiev.

"Russia must withdraw its thousands of soldiers from Ukraine and stop supporting the militants," he added during a press conference with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The conflict in eastern Ukraine and Russia"s annexation of Crimea in 2014 have driven ties between Moscow and the West to their lowest point since the Cold War.

"We are also here to demonstrate NATO"s solidarity with Ukraine and our firm support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of your country," Stoltenberg said.

"NATO allies do not and will not recognize Russia"s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea."

The NATO chief"s trip came a day after US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made a maiden visit to Kiev and urged Moscow to take the "first step" to ease the conflict in Ukraine"s east.

Ukraine sees NATO accession as a way to bolster its defenses against former master Moscow. In June, Ukraine"s parliament voted to back attempts by the nation to seek membership of the 29-member bloc. It approved legal amendments enshrining membership in NATO as a foreign policy priority.

Poroshenko explained that embattled Ukraine was eager to join the bloc, but painful political and economic reforms need to be implemented before the country was ready to lay out its claims on membership.

"We are determined to reforms... to meet the membership criteria," Poroshenko told journalists.

"NATO will continue to support Ukraine on the path towards closer relationships with NATO," Stoltenberg added.

But the Kremlin has long been angered by NATO expansion into what Moscow views as its sphere of influence in the former Soviet region.

"It (Ukraine"s rapprochement with NATO) will not contribute to the strengthening of stability and security on the European continent," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

However, Kiev has yet to officially apply to start the lengthy and politically challenging process of joining the US-led alliance.

Russia Credit Risk Spikes To 3-Month Highs After US Expands Sanctions

The US added 38 people (two Russian officials and three dozen other individuals and companies) to a sanctions list prompted by Russia"s incursion in Ukraine, the US Treasury Department announced Tuesday, just before US President Trump was due to meet Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Sovereign bond yields and CDS have spiked following the news...

Russia credit risk spike to its highest since March following the news...

And bond prices are tumbling...

As DPA reports, the move targets Ukrainian separatists and their supporters in eastern Ukraine, as well as individuals and companies involved in Russia"s annexation of Crimea. It also taps several Russian officials and companies for evading existing sanctions.

The Treasury Department said it was designating the individuals and companies to prevent circumvention of sanctions and to keep US actions in line with other countries.

"These designations will maintain pressure on Russia to work toward a diplomatic solution," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

"This administration is committed to a diplomatic process that guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty, and there should be no sanctions relief until Russia meets its obligations under the Minsk agreements."

Designations of Ukrainian Separatists (E.O. 13660)

Today’s action targets 21 Ukrainian separatists, entities, and their supporters pursuant to E.O. 13660 for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; for acting for or on behalf of, being owned or controlled by, or providing material or other support to previously designated groups; or for asserting governmental authority over a part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine.  This action is part of an ongoing effort to hold those responsible for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity accountable for their actions.

 

Vadim Bulgakov is the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the so-called “Republic of Crimea” and Sevastopol.  Bulgakov is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine.

 

Igor Kornet is the “Minister of Internal Affairs” of the so-called “Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR).”  He previously announced that the Ministry of Interior of the LPR would launch a large-scale issuance of LPR passports to residents.  Kornet is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the LPR.

Leonid Pasechnik is the “Minister of State Security” of the so-called  “LPR.”  He has been involved in a number of corruption schemes related to the smuggling of contraband between the LPR and Russia, to include arms, coal, fuel, and other related material.  Pasechnik is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the LPR.

Natalya Khorsheva is “Acting Minister” of the “Council of Ministers” of the so-called “LPR.”  She previously announced that the LPR Council of Ministers adopted a resolution that would establish the Russian Ruble as the principal currency of the LPR.  Khorsheva is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the LPR.

Petr Jarosh is the head of the Russian Federal Migration Service in the so-called “Republic of Crimea” and was sanctioned by the EU for supporting actions and policies which undermine the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine.  Jarosh is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine.

Aleksey Kostrubitsky is the “Civil Defense and Emergency Situations Minister” of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).”  Kostrubitsky is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the DPR.

Aleksey Dikiy is the “Minister of Interior” of the so-called “DPR.”  Dikiy is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the DPR.

Irina Nikitina is “Chairwoman” of the “Central National Bank” of the so-called “DPR.”  She previously announced the test launch of a system designed to allow money transfers between individuals from the DPR and LPR.  Nikitina is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the DPR.

Andrei Melnikov is the “Minister of Economic Development” of the so-called “Republic of Crimea.”  Melnikov is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine.

Oleg Kamshilov is the “Prosecutor” of the so-called “Republic of Crimea.”  Kamshilov is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and asserting governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine.

 

Aleksey Muratov is an official representative of the so-called “DPR” in Russia.  He was involved in raising funds in Russia for relief aid for Donetsk and Luhansk, but it is alleged that only a small portion of the funds reached the intended recipients.  Muratov is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the DPR.

PMC Wagner is a private military company that has recruited and sent soldiers to fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine.  PMC Wagner is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.

 

Dmitriy Utkin is the founder and leader of PMC Wagner.  Utkin is being designated for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; and for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PMC Wagner.

 

Central Republic Bank is the central bank of the so-called “DPR” and is directed and coordinated by the Council of Ministers of the DPR.  The bank operates throughout the territory of the self-proclaimed DPR and conducts the regular payment of pensions and benefits to residents of the territory.  Central Republic Bank is being designated for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, or being owned or controlled by, the DPR.

State Bank Luhansk People’s Republic is the central bank of the so-called “LPR” and was established by the Council of Ministers of the LPR.  The bank operates more than 110 branches within the territory of the so-called LPR.  State Bank is being designated for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, or being owned or controlled by, the LPR.

 

TSMRBANK, OOO is a Russian bank that services clients in the so-called “DPR” and “LPR.”  The bank maintains close ties with the leadership of the DPR.  TSMRBANK, OOO is being designated for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the LPR and the DPR.

Sergey Nazarov is being designated for materially assisting, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services in support of, the DPR and LPR.  He is the chairman of the Interagency Commission for Humanitarian Assistance in the Donbass Republics (the “Interagency Commission”), which is nominally dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions but in actuality also oversees projects in the transportation, trade, energy, tax, and financial sectors.  The Russian government, through Nazarov and the Interagency Commission, has exercised economic control in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.  In addition to his activities in Donetsk and Luhansk, Nazarov has also worked to encourage international investment in Crimea.  Nazarov, the Deputy Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, is also being designated pursuant to E.O. 13661 as an official of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Wolf Holding of Security Structures is an organization owned by the previously-designated Night Wolves motorcycle club.  The company provides martial arts and tactical military courses to foreign military, law enforcement, and Russian-speaking compatriots from European and Asian States. Wolf Holding of Security Structures is being designated for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the Night Wolves.

Gennadii Anatolievich Nikulov is the President of Wolf Holding of Security Structures.  Gennadii Nikulov is being designated for acting for or on behalf of Wolf Holding of Security Structures. 

Denis Yuryevich Ryauzov is the Combat Trainer Leader for Wolf Holding of Security Structures.  Denis Ryauzov is being designated for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, and for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Wolf Holding of Security Structures. 

Bike Center, a business located in Moscow, is being designated for being owned or controlled by the previously-designated leader of the Night Wolves, Aleksandr Zaldostanov. 

Designations Related to Russia’s Purported Annexation of Crimea

OFAC also designated 11 individuals and entities pursuant to E.O. 13685.  E.O. 13685 authorizes sanctions on any person determined to be operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine, to be a leader of an entity operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have provided material support for, any person designated under this E.O.

IFD Kapital (IFDK) is a diversified holding company with investments in several sectors of the Russian economy, and owns a hotel complex in Crimea called the Riviera Sunrise Resort & Spa, which is also being designated today.  IFDK claimed control of the hotel complex after its previous managers halted operations in the Crimea region due to U.S. sanctions.  IFDK is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.

 

Riviera Sunrise Resort & Spa is a hotel complex operating in Alushta, Crimea.  Riviera Sunrise Resort & Spa is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine, and for being owned or controlled by IFDK.

 

Olga Plaksina is the Chairperson of IFDK and is responsible for certain aspects of Crimean development.  Plaksina is being designated for being the leader of and acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, IFDK.

 

KPSK, OOO is an insurance carrier located in Simferopol, Crimea.  The company, one of Russia’s top corporate property insurers, is the insurer of the bridge being constructed across the Kerch Strait connecting Crimea to Russia.  KPSK, OOO is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.

Oboronlogistika, OOO is the Russian Defense Ministry’s sole executor for the procurement of goods, works, and services for maritime transport of military troops and freight on the territory of the so-called Republic of Crimea.  Oboronlogistika, OOO owns maritime vessels operating in and around the Kerch ferry and the Baltic Sea.  Oboronlogistika, OOO is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.  

OFAC also designated the following six banks for operating in Crimea: Taatta, AO; Joint Stock Company Black Sea Bank of Development and Reconstruction; Joint Stock Commercial Bank Rublev; Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank North Credit; IS Bank, AO; and VVB, PAO.

Designations Related to Officials of the Russian Government and Sanctions Evasion

Today’s action also targets six individuals and entities pursuant to E.O. 13661, which authorizes sanctions on, among others, any individual or entity that is owned or controlled by, or that has provided material or other support to, persons operating in the arms or related materiel sector in the Russian Federation, and officials of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Molot-Oruzhie, OOO manufactures ordnance and accessories and is located in the Russian Federation.  In 2016, previously-designated Kalashnikov Concern advised a foreign company to use Molot-Oruzhie, OOO to falsify invoices in order to circumvent U.S. and EU sanctions.  Molot-Oruzhie is being designated for operating in the arms or related material sector of the Russian Federation and for acting or purporting to act for on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Kalashnikov Concern.

Limited Liability Company Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering are being designated for being owned or controlled by Yevgeniy Prigozhin, who OFAC designated in December 2016.

Alexander Babakov is the Russian Federation’s Special Presidential Representative for Cooperation with Organizations representing Russians Living Abroad.  Babakov was sanctioned in 2014 by the EU, which noted that he voted “yes” on a Russian bill for the annexation of Crimea. Alexander Babakov is being designated as an official of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Aleksandr Vorobev is Alexander Babakov’s Chief of Staff.  Aleksandr Vorobev is being designated for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Alexander Babakov.

Mikhail Plisyuk is a staffer to Alexander Babakov.  Mikhail Plisyuk is being designated for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Alexander Babakov.

* * *

Any assets they have in the U.S. are now blocked. Americans are prohibited from doing business with them.

Finally, Senator John McCain will be happy after complaining earlier that...

"We all know that the Russians tried to interfere in our elections. Here we are six months later and we"ve done nothing."

EU's Highest Court Upholds Sanctions Against Russia's Rosneft

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The European Court of Justice, Europe’s top court, on Tuesday ruled that sanctions imposed by the UK and the EU on Russia’s oil giant Rosneft are valid, in a ruling that also asserts the court’s jurisdiction over the common policy of the European Union (EU).

The EU imposed sanctions on Russia in 2014 over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, with economic sanctions slapped in July 2014 and reinforced in September 2014, including against certain Russian companies that include Rosneft.

Rosneft had challenged before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) the validity, in the light of EU law, of the restrictive measures imposed by the European Council on it and the implementing measures adopted by the United Kingdom that are based on the Council acts. The European Court of Justice was asked to rule, in essence, if the acts of the Council and the United Kingdom are valid.

In its ruling published today, the court said that “The restrictive measures adopted by the Council in response to the crisis in Ukraine against certain Russian undertakings, including Rosneft, are valid.”

“The Court holds that the importance of the objectives pursued by the contested acts is such as to justify certain operators being adversely affected. Having regard to the fact that the restrictive measures adopted by the Council in reaction to the crisis in Ukraine have become progressively more severe, interference with Rosneft’s freedom to conduct a business and its right to property cannot be considered to be disproportionate,” the court said.

Following the court ruling, Rosneft issued a statement in which it said it was disappointed by the ruling, and that it considers the court decision “illegal, groundless and politicized”.

The Court refused to admit that the EU sanctions were imposed, in particular, to achieve hidden purposes and are, in fact, an instrument of competitive struggle. Nevertheless, the Court could not explain why the limitations, applied under the pretext of Crimea"s accession to Russia, involve access of oil companies to international financial markets, oil production at the Arctic shelf, development of tight reserves, deep-water and shale fields. The Company considers that the sanctions imposed against it by the EU states are primarily aimed at increasing risks of busines operations, obstructing implementation of Rosneft"s important projects and thus creating preferences for other oil market players.

The Court ignored its own existing precedents when the decision on EU sanctions was revised by the same court due to lack of substantial evidence. For instance Iranian banks included in the EU sanctions list successfully appealed the EU regulation. The Court stated that they are not related to the nuclear program of the IRI that was the object of sanctions and the existence of the close ties to the government is not a satisfactory argument for including them in the list.

The Court refused to acknowledge that unilateral economic sanctions restrict trade by definition and contradict existing provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between Russia and the EU, signed in 1994. The EU’s decision to impose the sanctions is, in fact, a legitimated refusal to fulfill its obligations under international law.

“This decision proves that in Europe the rule of law is being substituted with the rule of politics,” said Rosneft, whose chief executive Igor Sechin is a close ally of Vladimir Putin.

America, Crimea, And The Dangers Of Hypocrisy

Via Ted Galen Carpenter of The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The Trump administration is continuing the policy of its predecessor regarding the Crimea issue. U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley is the latest official to confirm that point. In a speech on February 2, Haley emphasized that the United States intended to maintain economic sanctions against Russia until Moscow returned the peninsula to Ukraine. “Crimea is a part of Ukraine,” she stated bluntly. She reiterated Washington’s firm position in remarks to the UN Security Council on February 21.

That stance is nearly identical to the Obama administration’s policy. Former secretary of state John Kerry blasted Russia’s action from the outset. “You just don"t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” he fumed. “Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations.”

I’ve written elsewhere how the Trump administration’s stance on Crimea epitomizes the president’s rapid retreat from foreign-policy realism. But the Crimea case also illustrates a long-standing problem with U.S. foreign policy: a willingness to employ blatant double standards.

Numerous U.S. officials over the decades have insisted that territorial changes achieved through military force are illegitimate, and that Washington will not countenance such behavior. Crimea is merely the latest application of that policy. George H. W. Bush took an uncompromising stance regarding Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and unlike the Obama and Trump administrations, even waged a war to reverse the result. Addressing a joint session of Congress to justify America’s entry into the Persian Gulf War, he stated: “A puppet regime imposed from the outside is unacceptable. The acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable.”

However, Washington’s position concerning similar behavior by U.S. allies is markedly different. One might ask, for example, when the United States is going to demand that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria. Israel seized that area during the 1967 Six-Day War, a conflict that Israel initiated as a preemptive measure because Syria and Egypt seemed to be making preparations for an attack on the Jewish state. Tel Aviv has solid security reasons for wanting to retain the Golan Heights. Syrian artillery emplacements there repeatedly menaced Israeli communities in the valley below.

Nevertheless, it is an indisputable case of a territorial adjustment achieved via military force, and Tel Aviv’s later annexation of the territory confirms that it will never be returned to Syria. Yet in marked contrast to U.S. policy regarding Crimea, Washington never imposed sanctions on Israel. To the contrary, bilateral relations have become extremely close in the intervening years.

An equally flagrant U.S. double standard exists regarding Turkey’s invasion and seizure of northern Cyprus in 1974. In that episode, even a strong security justification was lacking. Ankara used isolated incidents of Greek Cypriot violence against Turkish Cypriots as a pretext to occupy some 37 percent of the country. Although Washington initially imposed mild sanctions on Turkey for its aggression, those measures were soon rescinded and forgotten. Turkey proceeded to establish the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. That entity’s lack of meaningful sovereignty was underscored when Ankara orchestrated the exodus of more than one hundred thousand settlers from the Turkish mainland to consolidate the occupation.

One might well ask why Russia’s actions in Crimea were so much worse than those earlier episodes that they warranted the imposition of harsh sanctions. Although Moscow’s security rationale for the annexation was not as strong as Israel’s situation regarding the Golan Heights, it was far from insignificant. With the emergence of a staunchly anti-Russian regime in Ukraine, the Kremlin had reason to fear for the future of its crucial naval base at Sevastopol. Moreover, Russian officials were smarting at the unsubtle U.S. and European support for the demonstrators in Kiev that had overthrown the democratically elected, pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych two years before the expiration of his term.

Moreover, Russians point out that Crimea was part of Russia from the 1780s until 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred control to Ukraine. Since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the Soviet Union, that decision didn’t matter much at the time, but with the USSR’s disintegration, having a vital military base in a foreign country became a concern to Russia. Today, Russians have reason to ask why U.S. political leaders and policymakers treat the arbitrary edict made by the communist dictator of a defunct country with such reverence.

Finally, the United States and its NATO allies engaged in a forceful territorial adjustment of their own. NATO waged a seventy-day air war against Serbia in 1999 to detach that country’s restless province of Kosovo from Belgrade’s jurisdiction. Subsequently, in 2008, Washington and its allies bypassed the UN Security Council (and a certain Russian veto) to midwife Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. That set a crucial precedent, which Moscow seized upon later that year in a war against the Republic of Georgia. That conflict assisted secessionists in two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to break free of Tbilisi’s control.

Given the multiple cases of a blatant double standard, the moral foundation of Washington’s policy regarding forcible territorial adjustments is exceedingly weak. And the current rigid stance regarding Crimea makes no sense from a practical standpoint either. U.S. leaders need to accept the reality that Russia will not relinquish Crimea. Nor will Serbia be able to reclaim Kosovo or Syria regain the Golan Heights from Israel. Despite the latest round in periodic negotiations over the decades, it is also unlikely that the Cypriot government will ever regain sovereignty over its northern territories.

It does not benefit America to persist in a stubborn, futile demand that Russia return Crimea to Ukraine. Washington’s hypocrisy on that issue in light of positions it has taken toward similar territorial seizures by Western powers (including the United States itself) makes that stance even more repellent.

President of Finland: Putin Not So Bad, NATO Lame, Greatest Threats To Europe Are Terrorism And Migration

The President of Finland, Sauli Niinistö made it clear to CNBC last week that while Russia"s actions involving Crimea must come to a peaceful resolution, the most important issues facing Europe right now are terrorism and migration. Despite Finland pledging $55 Million Euros to NATO, Niinistö also made it clear that European nations need to ultimately be responsible for their own security.

I think that Europeans start to understand that they have to take more responsibility of their own security, in spite of the fact that they are members of NATO.

We still have conscription... ...if we call our trained reserves, we have a bigger army than Germany, even though we are some 15 times smaller.

Is the greatest threat to Europe Vladimir Putin?

No, it"s a combination of terrorism and migration. And also, Russia  - what happened to Crimea in Ukraine. In the Western parts of the union, people are more shocked with terrorism and migration, and in the Eastern parts, it"s Russia.

Crimea is about the flow of energy into Europe, not some humanitarian crisis - though Putin might want to send some more love their way if he"s going to keep them.

  

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

Trump Expects Putin To "Return" Crimea To Ukraine

With every passing day, it appears that many of the anticipated foreign policy changes under the new administration may end up being nothing but smoke and mirrors. First, it was the middle east, where despite campaign promises of pulling back US troops, Trump is instead considering adding to US deployments to reinforce what he plans to be Syrian "safe zones."

Then, during today"s Sean Spicer press conference, the White House spokesman had that President Trump has been "tough" on Russia and expects Moscow to “return” the Crimea peninsula to Ukraine, the White House spokesman told reporters. Addressing the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – hounded by the media over his contacts with Russian diplomats prior to Trump’s inauguration – Spicer pointed out that Russia “seized” Crimea under the Obama administration and that the Trump-appointed ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has “strongly denounced the Russian occupation.”

"President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea," Spicer said at a daily news briefing. "At the same time, he fully expects to and wants to get along with Russia."

That may be problematic if indeed Trump plans to perpetuate the policies of his predecessor. On February, the Nikki Haley said at the UN Security Council that “Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine."

Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin responded by citing the US Constitution and pointing out that Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, after the US-backed coup in February 2014 overthrew the elected government in Kiev.

It is in the national and economic interest of the US to have a good relationship with Russia, Spicer explained, but said that Haley “speaks for the president” on the matter of Crimea.

Flynn’s resignation on Monday followed several weeks of media furor over his telephone conversation with the Russian ambassador to the US in December, after the outgoing Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two properties. Moscow chose not to respond in kind. “There is nothing that General Flynn did that was a violation of any sort,” Spicer said, explaining that the adviser was asked to resign because of Trump’s “eroding trust” after Flynn’s accounts of the conversation to administration officials did not square with what was leaked to the media.

However, with Democrats smelling blood in the water over the sensitive topic of the Trump administration"s alleged proximity to Russia, and even Republicans now calling for an exhaustive probe into Trump-Russia relations, recent events may have well set back any potential thaw in Russia-US relations indefinitely.

Things Will Get Worse Until US Stops Lying About Crimea

Submitted by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

SUMMARY

Unless the U.S. government’s lies about Crimea — the ‘Russia seized Crimea’ narratives — become acknowledged to be lies, war between the U.S. and Russia can only continue to become increasingly likely, because the world is sliding toward World War III based upon these lies, and will therefore inevitably continue that slide until these lies are publicly repudiated by the U.S. government, which is their sole source. The liar on this is clearly the U.S. and not Russia: the U.S. is the entire source for the alleged cause for war between the U.S. and Russia. 

The preparations for war between the U.S. and Russia continue naturally apace until the United States publicly acknowledges that Russia had not ‘seized’ Crimea — acknowledges that the cause for all of these war-preparations by the U.S. and its NATO and other allies against Russia is fake, a U.S. lie, and that Russia is purely America’s victim in this entire matter and acting in a 100% defensive way against America’s aggressions in this matter. 

Anyone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the U.S. is lying and that Russia is telling the truth about the relationship between the two countries, would therefore be simply wasting time to read here, because the solid documentation that will be provided here will prove that that’s not only a possibility; it is the fact, and those widespread false beliefs will, indeed, be disproven here. Proving that, is the purpose of this article. Therefore, a warning is needed beforehand, for any reader who is closed-minded about that possibility — any such person would be wasting time to read this article. Here it is:

(WARNING: The following article asserts many things that are propagandized almost universally in The West to be false, and in each such instance the documentation of the assertion’s being true is provided in a link, so that any reader who doesn’t already know its truth can easily come to know that he/she had previously been deceived about that particular matter — the reader can come to know this just by clicking onto the link. This article depends upon its links, which are rooted in the most-reliable evidence on the given topic — far more reliable than any of the ‘evidence’ that’s cited by defenders of The West’s position, lies on these matters. The links are provided so that a reader can easily connect to the actual evidence, and decide on one’s own, whom the liars are, and are not. It all depends upon the evidence. Any reader who doesn’t want to know the evidence, would be just wasting time to read here.)

PRESENTATION OF THE CASE

Obama-Trump economic sanctions against Russia are based upon the lies that are to be exposed as lies, in the links here. So too are the NATO movements of U.S. troops and missiles right up to Russia’s very borders — ready to invade Russia — based especially upon the lie of ‘Russian aggression in Crimea’. All of the thrust for WW III is based upon U.S. President Barack Obama’s vicious lie against Russia: his saying that the transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia was not (which it actually was) an example of the U.N.-and-U.S. universally recognized right of self-determination of peoples (such as the U.S. recognizes to apply both in Catalonia and in Scotland, but not in Crimea) but was instead an alleged ‘conquest’ of Crimea by Russia. (As that link there documents, Obama’s allegation that it was ‘Putin’s conquest’ of Crimea is false, and he knew it to be false; he was well informed that the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted their land to be restored to Russia, and to be protected by Russia, so as not to be invaded by the Ukrainian government’s troops and weapons, after a bloody U.S. coup by Obama had — less than a month earlier — overthrown the democratically elected President of Ukraine, for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted. Obama’s own agents were behind that coup; they were doing his bidding. The aggressor here is entirely the U.S., not Russia, despite Obama’s lies.)

All U.S.-government-sponsored and other Western polling of Crimeans, both prior to the 16 March 2014 plebiscite in Crimea, and after it, showed that far more Crimeans wanted Crimea to be again a part of Russia as it had been until the Soviet dictator in 1954 arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. U.S. President Barack Obama was actually insisting that Nikita Khrushchev’s diktat on this matter must stand permanently — that the people of Crimea should never be able to choose their own government, but must become ruled by Obama’s coup-installed regime in Ukraine, no matter about that new government’s intense hostility toward those people. And Obama instituted the economic sanctions against Russia on this basis — U.S. as the aggressor, calling Russia the ‘aggressor’, Obama’s lying basis for ‘the new Cold War’. It’s a serious lie — no mere ‘fib’.

In other words: the renewal of the Cold War (and an increasingly hot war by the U.S. against Russia’s ally Syria, and elsewhere) this time against Russia (no longer against the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, none of which even existed after 1991) is based upon Barack Obama’s refusal to allow democracy for the people of Crimea. The build-up toward WW III is that simple — a vicious U.S. lie, directed against Russia.

And that’s not the only instance where the U.S. government blocks democracy in order to conquer Russia by grabbing Russian-allied nations (first Ukraine, and then, increasingly, Syria). Twice in one day, U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon said that Obama’s demand that Syria’s current President, the Russia-friendly Bashar al-Assad, must be prevented from being even on the ballot in Syria’s next election for President, is unacceptable, and that (as Ban said) «The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people».

Why is the West allowed to dictate to Crimeans, and to Syrians, that they cannot choose their own government?

This is the new, anti-democratic, United States government. This is the reality.

Lawrence J. Korb, who was U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense during 1981-1985, quit the Cold War against Russia when the Soviet Union and its communism and Warsaw Pact all ended in 1991, and he wrote on 26 February 2016, headlining «Don’t Fall for Obama’s $3 Billion Arms Buildup at Russia’s Door». He was on the correct side about this, against the Obama-initiated thrust toward WW III, but he understated the evilness, by saying:

There is no Russian resurgence. Washington is playing on your Cold War fears to get you to pay for something the U.S. does not need and can’t afford. In one of the key justifications for the new $600 billion defense spending request, the Department of Defense has fallen back on a tried-and-true Cold War boogeyman: the threat of Russian aggression against allies in Europe. While there is no ignoring the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, to interpret these events as some kind of Russian ‘resurgence’ is to grossly inflate the danger Russia poses to NATO and the United States.

Neither in Ukraine nor in Georgia was the U.S. guiltless — to the exact contrary: the U.S. had sparked both of those conflicts on Russia’s borders. And Russia is not grabbing territory on America’s borders; the U.S. is grabbing territory on Russia’s. (Is Russia trying to overturn and replace U.S.-allied governments on America’s borders — Mexico and Canada? Of course not. But the U.S. tries to do it to Russia — and then blames Russia for what are actually appropriate responses to such U.S. aggressions.) Korb went on to say:

Though Crimea has been a historic lynchpin of Russian grand strategy for centuries, its open use of military force and political manipulation there in the midst of the Ukrainian Revolution drew an immediate response in the form of sanctions from the West. Russia is paying a massive economic and diplomatic cost for its aggression against Ukraine.

He ignored there that it was no ‘Revolution’; it was instead a U.S. coup in Ukraine, which overthrew the democratically elected government there and installed an illegal one, which was composed of fascists, who went on to do fascist things.

These euphemisms — the lies calling a coup a ‘Revolution’, and pretending that the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine wasn’t a direct consequence of that bloody and illegal U.S. coup on Russia’s border — are what the buildup toward WW III is built upon; and, so, it must end now, or else civilization will.

Furthermore, Korb’s implicit assumption there, that post-Soviet (post-Empire) Russia, is no different from the USSR, but all just the same «Russian grand strategy for centuries», is no conclusion that he supports with any evidence, but is instead his purely unsupported assumption, which would severely weaken his case if it were true. It happens to be a false assumption. A person doesn’t become influential in governing circles in The West without buying into certain historical and cultural falsehoods; and Korb would not be cited at all here if he had not been such an influential person.

Similarly, his reference there to Russia’s ‘aggression against Ukraine’ is also a falsehood, which fits into the narrative that ‘Russia seized Crimea’, but repeating such lies is the price of admission into, or retention in, such governing circles. Whether the inclusion of such falsehoods is consciously intended or not, it increases the chances that an article in The West will be published. It’s part of the cultural mythology (such as produces almost all wars).

And, similarly, the rest of America’s Establishment trumpet such dangerous lies to the world. That too must stop, but since the U.S. press are mere stenographers for the U.S. government, the only way that it will stop, is if the U.S. government’s lies stop first.

Donald Trump, now as America’s new President, continues Obama’s lies. He was different back on 1 August 2016 when Politico headlined «Trump: Taking back Crimea would trigger World War III», and they showed video of him campaigning in Columbus Ohio saying (at 57:50-59:00 in this video) that as President he would drop the Crimea matter, because «I mean, do you want to go back? Do you want to have World War Three to get it back?» So, he was elected on the basis of his conveying to voters that as President he would simply end Obama’s anti-Russia sanctions and NATO threats, not continue those punishments and invasion-dangers against Russians unless and until the Russian government forces Crimeans to become ruled again by Ukraine’s government (now even worse than before — Obama’s government). But once ensconced into office, Trump promptly changed his tune, in his actual follow-through, as the now-President: His agent at the U.N., America’s U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said at the U.N. on February 2^nd:

I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia… The United States stands with the people of Ukraine, who have suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military intervention. Until Russia and the separatists it supports respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will continue. … The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

In other words: Trump’s answer to «Do you want to have World War Three to get it back?» is: Yes. He actually does. (Unless he quickly renounces what she said.)

Trump’s commitment there to continue Obama’s vicious lies against Russia, instead of acknowledging that they were and are lies (which acknowledgment must be done if WW III is to be avoided), is extraordinarily dangerous. It is a commitment to WW III, because Russia is in the right here, and will never knuckle under to America’s attempts to coerce Russia to do something shameful, just because the U.S. government demands it.

A matter of fundamental principle is involved here, and the U.S. government is on the evil side of it —  even under the new President, who had promised otherwise. That’s a fact, just as much as such a statement as that «Genocide is evil» is a statement of fact, not merely an assertion of ‘opinion’. The U.S. government is on the evil side of the most important matter imaginable — potentially, WW III. (That’s what it will be unless Trump reverses himself yet again, this time with finality, by publicly acknowledging that Obama’s allegations that Russia stole Crimea were lies. That Obama’s whole basis for ‘the new Cold War’ was actually bogus. That the real aggressor in the entire matter was America.)

Anyone who seeks further background on the historical roots of this evil, is invited here to see the following three terrific documentaries that present the essential origins of it:

Those three documentaries provide the fundamental, the most crucial, history behind Obama’s escalation toward war against Russia. However, one of the essential elements of that historical background is absent from those documentaries, and it’s filled in by this article, which covers the post-1991 history — the portion of the operation that Obama was working so hard to culminate. (Another aspect that’s missing from the three documentaries is the connection to ‘terrorism’ or jihadism, and that’s covered in the links to this — and especially to this, which latter focuses on the royal Sauds’ funding of Al Qaeda.)

The basic excuse for this evil is — as the fake-compassionate (and fake-democratic, and fake anti-invasion) Obama phrased it — «There’s no formula in which this ends up being good for Russia. The annexation of Crimea is a cost, not a benefit, to Russia. The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is over». He had imposed these costs upon Russia, and then he possessed the nerve there to blame Russia for doing what it needed to do, and was ethically required to do, to respond to Obama’s aggression against Russia (by way of Obama’s prior seizure of Ukraine). 

If Donald Trump continues Obama’s course on this, instead of publicly acknowledges that it was founded upon the lies that Crimea’s becoming again a part of Russia constituted ‘conquest of land’, then we’re still heading toward World War III, and doing it on the basis of American lies.

The only way to put a stop to it — other than putting a stop to civilization if not to perhaps all animate life on Earth — is for the U.S. government to acknowledge Obama’s lies about Crimea and Russia, as having been Obama’s lies. It means separation from the prior Administration, on the most important issue of all; and this will require Trump to say publicly that Obama was lying about Ukraine and Crimea and Russia.

Trump thus faces a stark choice here. Either he will declare that Obama was lying about these matters, or else there will be war between the U.S. and Russia. It’s his choice.

He’s no longer just a lying and prevaricating candidate, like he was before. He is now the actual President. If he continues imposing the policy of his predecessor, it will be the end of us all. It’s his choice to make; none of his advisors can make it for him.