Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

[touchring]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

EJ

The defense of the US dollar is not a clean war.

This is a very silly move. The US economy is already recovering. No reason to throw in a spanner when there's an even more dangerous threat in the Middle East? A sabotage from within??

This will shift the balance of power too quickly to a China that is still in the midst of political reforms and not ready to assume that role.

[sutro]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

This is a very silly move. The US economy is already recovering. No reason to throw in a spanner when there's an even more dangerous threat in the Middle East? A sabotage from within??

This will shift the balance of power too quickly to a China that is still in the midst of political reforms and not ready to assume that role.

What would be the consequences of such a hasty shift to an unready China?

[touchring]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

What would be the consequences of such a hasty shift to an unready China?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territo...outh_China_Sea

[sutro]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

So if China was ready there would be no South China Sea dispute?

[photon555]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Perhaps asking a few questions could lead to setting limits on what the various factions in this conflict would settle for in any settlement. Also, approaching the knowledge of what the various factions most desire, and most fear, could provide some understanding of the probable reasons for past and current actions, and also what decisions might be made in the future depending upon current and future conditions.

1.) Would Russia give up control of Crimea?
2.) Would Russia require guaranteed land access to Crimea?
3.) Is Putin and/or Russia eager to invade Ukraine?
4.) Does any particular party gain from the current instability, and if so, who are they?
5.) Would any particular party gain from a cutoff of Russian energy to Europe, and if so, who are they?
6.) Would any particular party gain from the outbreak of conventional hostilities in Ukraine between NATO and Russia, and if so, who are they?
7.) Are there any trends currently in process that could change the answers to these questions? For example, what is the time frame for significant NatGas transport to be developed from other areas to Europe?

[icm63]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

.."hat decisions might be made in the future depending upon current and future conditions."...

Europe is Germany...

If Germany side with Russia and the BRICs,

This is the end of NATO

Commerce rules !!!

[touchring]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Perhaps asking a few questions could lead to setting limits on what the various factions in this conflict would settle for in any settlement. Also, approaching the knowledge of what the various factions most desire, and most fear, could provide some understanding of the probable reasons for past and current actions, and also what decisions might be made in the future depending upon current and future conditions.

+1 question.

8.) Does Kiev listen to Germany?

[don]

Tale a Letter to Merkel

MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO

We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.

You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian "invasion" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicions of charges made by the US State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

President Barack Obama tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as "a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift."

Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on "intelligence" that was dubious, at best.

Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.

Experience With Untruth

Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know."

Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.

That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were "increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence" and told him flatly, "Powell’s presentation does not come close" to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to "widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can "shock and awe." In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.

If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best available "proof" of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.

We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.

Lavrov warned pointedly of "fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." Burns gave his cable the unusual title, "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES," and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that "Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO."

Just yesterday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the February 22 coup d’etat in Kiev. "Yats is the guy," said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, "Fuck the EU."
Timing of the Russian "Invasion"

The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.

According to the "press service of the President of Ukraine" on August 18, Poroshenko called for a "regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives," said Poroshenko, adding, "we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances."

If the "new circumstances" meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to "regroup," to "rearrange" the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.

Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the "Russian invasion." That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that "the Russians are coming." (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)

No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support

The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.

This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

• William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
• David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
• Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
• Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
• Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
• Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
• Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

[don]

an historical aside . . .

About how America became involved in certain wars, many conspiracy theories have been advanced – and some have been proved correct.

When James K. Polk got his declaration of war as Mexico had “shed American blood upon the American soil,” Rep. Abraham Lincoln demanded to know the exact spot where it had happened.

And did the Spanish really blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, the casus belli for the Spanish-American War?

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, involving U.S. destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, remains in dispute. But charges that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on the high seas led to the 1964 resolution authorizing the war in Vietnam.

In 2003, Americans were stampeded into backing an invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein had allegedly been complicit in 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction and was able to douse our East Coast with anthrax.

“(He) lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it,” said Rep. Clare Luce of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, according to many historians, made efforts to provoke German subs into attacking U.S. warships and bring us into the European war through the “back door” of a war with Japan.

This week marks the 75th anniversary of World War II, as last month marked the 100th anniversary of World War I.

Thus, it is a good time for Eugene Windchy’s “Twelve American Wars: Nine of Them Avoidable.” A compelling chapter in this new book, by the author of “Tonkin Gulf,” deals with how Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, schemed to drag America into Britain’s war in 1915.

In 1907, Britain launched the Lusitania, “the greyhound of the sea,” the fastest passenger ship afloat. In 1913, Churchill called in the head of Cunard and said Lusitania would have to be refitted for a war he predicted would break out in September 1914.

The Lusitania, writes Windchy, was “refitted as a cargo ship with hidden compartments to hold shells and other munitions. By all accounts there were installed revolving gun mounts.”

On Aug. 4, 1914, after war was declared, Lusitania went back into dry dock. More space was provided for cargo, and the vessel was now carried on Cunard’s books as “an auxiliary cruiser.”

Churchill visited the ship in dry dock and referred to Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.”

When war began, German submarine captains, to save torpedoes, would surface and permit the crews of cargo ships to scramble into lifeboats, and then they would plant bombs or use gunfire to sink the vessels.

Churchill’s response was to outfit merchant ships with hidden guns, order them to ram submarines, and put out “Q-ships,” disguised as merchant ships, which would not expose their guns until submarines surfaced.

German naval commanders began to order submarines to sink merchant ships on sight. First Sea Lord Sir John (“Jackie”) Fisher said he would have done the same.

Churchill, seeing an opportunity to bring America into Britain’s war, wrote the Board of Trade: “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic – the more the better – and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wanted to warn Americans not to travel aboard British ships. But President Woodrow Wilson, writes Windchy, “said that American citizens had a right to travel on belligerent ships with impunity, even within a war zone,” a defiance of common sense and an absurd interpretation of international law.

On May 1, 1915, Lusitania set sail from New York. As Windchy writes, the ship “secretly carried munitions and Canadian troops in civilian clothes, which legally made it fair game for (German) U-boats.

“After the war, Churchill … admitted that the Lusitania carried a ‘small consignment of rifle ammunition and shrapnel shells weighing 173 tons.’ New York Customs Collector Dudley Malone told President Wilson that ‘practically all her cargo was contraband of various kinds.’”

Future Secretary of State Robert Lansing knew that British passenger ships carried war materiel. German diplomats in New York warned American passengers they were in danger on the Lusitania. And instead of sailing north of Ireland to Liverpool, the Lusitania sailed to the south, into waters known to be the hunting ground of German submarines.

Lusitania blew up and sank in 18 minutes. Munitions may have caused the secondary explosion when the torpedo hit. Some 1,200 people perished, including 128 Americans. America was on fire, ready for war when the next incidents occurred, as they would in 1917 with the sinking of U.S. merchant ships in similar waters.

Had Wilson publicly warned U.S. citizens not to sail on the ships of belligerent nations and forbidden U.S.-flagged merchant ships to carry contraband to nations at war, America might have stayed out of the war, which might have ended in a truce, not a German defeat.

There might have been no Adolf Hitler and no World War II.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-lusitania-was-45000-tons-of-live-bait-how-the-war-party-triggers-war-fever/

[gwynedd1]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

The lesson of WWII was this: Never permit a single man to gain unchecked national political and military power.

I am not entirely certain this is accurate. Putin has a lot of public support in Russia because Putin is more or less seen as defending Russians in other sovereign states, which despite the rhetoric in Washington was quite common. I'd see little difference in the US were it not for our two term tradition. Turkey for example made a few noises about the Tartars in Crimea, following the same tradition. On the other hand Boris Yeltsin prosecuted the war in Chechnya with no public support and acted as one man far more than Putin ever has. So acting with or without Western interests seems to be the case. So until Putin has little public support, deploys Russian forces in hostile areas and occupies them , I just can't make the comparison. I would also like to see a lot less Western Astroturf in these political protests, as if we would be happy to have China dump money on our politics. I would be shocked to see a majority of Russian support to go into Eastern Europe. Although now the West has done a fine job of terrifying them making them much more pliable though fear. Wonderful job...

Russia is a special case and Putin is teaching the lesson to the world all over again. Putin, after identifying a lack of will and leadership in the U.S. worked out a plan to externalize domestic political and economic failings by chipping away at NATO power and influence.

Its routine punishment for the abuse or mishandling of mono-polar power. We are so business friendly that big business can operate freely off shore such that things are done in our name by special interests. Our finance industry ruined our reputation soundly for anything but overt power and influence . The real tragic event is we how we eroded our moral authority and image of competence, and worst of all in the image of its citizens who think we make nothing but a mess, let alone what world opinion is. The US is another false promise in Asia of would be liberators. The US could have owned Russia were it not for the sloppy privatization plan that was good for nothing but appearances. What happed to Rome when it carpet bagged the the Goths?

In the end the US became a what it was unconsciously. It was born ignorant of how it was created, more so now than ever ; it ill advises as if it were a mother to itself.

[don]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Is an anonymous corporate face on a program that destroys sovereignty to facilitate the looting of a country's assets less despicable that a 'strongman' leader may be problematic. The former has had a multi-decade run, with ruin rampant. I assume Putin represents his own clique of powerful oligarchs, of which he personally appears to be a member, however junior. States will act in their own interests, with morality playing no or little part in their decision making.

[Woodsman]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Is an anonymous corporate face on a program that destroys sovereignty to facilitate the looting of a country's assets less despicable that a 'strongman' leader may be problematic. The former has had a multi-decade run, with ruin rampant...

Been reading Steve Kinzer's excellent book "All The Shah's Men" and he details the story of post-war Iran starting with it's struggle against the 51% Crown-owned Anglo Iranian Oil Company (know today as BP). The approach never changes.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Is an anonymous corporate face on a program that destroys sovereignty to facilitate the looting of a country's assets less despicable that a 'strongman' leader may be problematic. The former has had a multi-decade run, with ruin rampant. I assume Putin represents his own clique of powerful oligarchs, of which he personally appears to be a member, however junior. States will act in their own interests, with morality playing no or little part in their decision making.

Don,

I do find it to be an annoying comparison. A socialist country with a national industry is somehow more accountable than another country who has a man in a booth in charge of the sidewalks representing the state, but with a massive behemoth industry with a private army actively destabilizing another state.

[Polish_Silver]

Signing agreements with Russia?

Budapest Memorandum

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-invas...action-1672790

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapes...ity_Assurances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ns_and_Ukraine

In the macro/global sense, I expect US dithering on Ukraine to achieve 2 things:

1) Provides another example of how signing an agreement with the US can be worthless

2) Provides another example of how the acquisition of nuclear weapons can protect national sovereignty(or in this case the loss of nuclear weapons by Ukraine contributed to the attack on its sovereignty).

I'd say signing an agreement with Russia is worthless.
Did Ukraine think the US would help them fight off Russia? What part of the treaty says that?

But what exactly should the US/Nato be doing?
Supplying arms? Sending in Soldiers?

I don't exactly see how Ukraine is a threat to US security, and I don't think we should ask our soldiers to fight for anything else.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

The lesson of WWII was this: Never permit a single man to gain unchecked national political and military power.
. . .

The world for its part is repeating old mistakes by empowering Putin with sanctions that punish the Russian people economically en masse. They do not see economic hardship due to sanctions as caused by Putin -- an abstract idea -- but arising from the outside where the policies can be directly observed.

We shall see how far Europe's leadership is willing to go to thwart Putin in Ukraine once winter arrives and Putin turns the gas supply value that controls Germany's legislature. llk

I mostly agree with this, especially given Putin's control of TV and Radio---maybe the lesson is, do not let the government monopolize the media!

But would there be a way to punish the Oligarchs of RUssia?