WORLD BRACES FOR WAR: Canada send Jetfighters to Poland to Bolster NATO Forces

Anti-Sanctions? Putin Lifts "Limits" And China Agrees To Increase Investment In Russia

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/10/2014 15:28 -0400

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...09_rusia_0.png As Putin warned earlier in the week, they do not see the effectiveness of sanctions; but it seems he had something else in mind. By rolling back informal limits on Chinese investment, Putin has opened the door for significant capital inflows from his new best friend... and China has already agree to increase investment. While Putin is careful to note that the Chinese will not be allowed to invest in gold or diamond mining, or hi-tech projects, Russia hopes to lure cash from the world’s second-biggest economy into industries from housing and infrastructure construction to natural resources. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Shanghai May 20/21 and Chinese officials have already confirmed bilateral cooperation in the areas of investment and finance has made major progress as local currency settlement in two-way trade increases. Forget sanctions, just remove the US from the world trade equation...
As Bloomberg reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to open the door to Chinese money as U.S. and European sanctions over Ukraine threaten to tip the economy into recession, according to two senior government officials.

The move would roll back informal limits on Chinese investment as Russia seeks to stimulate growth, said the officials, who have direct knowledge of talks and asked not to be identified as the information isn’t public. The government wants to lure cash from the world’s second-biggest economy into industries from housing and infrastructure construction to natural resources, they said.

The Chinese won’t be welcome in all areas: Russia plans to set “red lines” around significant gold, platinum-group metals, diamond mining and high-technology projects, the officials said.

...

Putin’s decision, coming as competition from U.S. and European financing slows, may offer China a good opportunity to gain access to Russia’s economy. Existing resource projects will probably be more appealing than starting from scratch, Moscow-based George Buzhenitsa, Deutsche Bank AG analyst said by phone on May 7.

...

“Given that China has a shortage of raw materials from iron ore to coal to copper, it may be extremely interested in gaining access to such projects in Russia,” Buzhenitsa said.

And China seems more than willing to step up...

China is ready to join with Russia to increase two-way investment, Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli said here Thursday.

...

Their talks were focused on bilateral investment and practical cooperation in the financial area, in preparation for the forthcoming meeting between the two heads of state.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet when Putin attends the Fourth Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), on May 20 and 21 in Shanghai.

Zhang said bilateral cooperation in the areas of investment and finance has made major progress. China has increased investment in Russia and become the country's fourth largest source of foreign direct investment.

He said financial cooperation between China and Russia is growing as local currency settlement in two-way trade increases and consultations on a package of currency swaps are on-going.

Zhang expressed the hope that the two sides increase mutual investment via the China-Russia investment fund and carry out the first batch of investment projects as planned.

He said the two sides should increase investment in the forms of greenfield investment, equity investment, bond issuance and mergers and acquisitions.

Zhang asked the Russian side to help Chinese enterprises to invest in special economic zones in the Far East region of Russia.

Who needs sanctions when China is your friend? And it would seem no matter what card the US tries to play, Putin has a trump (for now).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...estment-russia

Donetsk Region May Shift To Rubles After 1.7 Million Vote In Referendum

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/10/2014 12:15 -0400

Despite denouncements from the West (how did that work out in Crimea?) and diplomatic calls for postponement from Putin, tomorrow appears to be setting up for the next crucial catalyst in the ever-escalating civil (and not so civil) war in Ukraine. As RIA reports, Referendum organizers printed about 1.7 million ballots and on the day of voting in the region there will be more than 1,600 polling stations. The referendum will ask voters to answer the simple question: "Do you support the act of state independence of the People's Republic of Luhansk." and will take place from 8am to 8pm local time. Organizers claim that "the willingness to vote is almost total," which makes the decision of the People's Mayor that "after the referendum... gradually, we will move to the Russian ruble," even more economically significant for the IMF-supported nation.

The referendum poll is happening:

Ballots in the referendum on the status of the Lugansk region delivered almost all polling stations in the region, told RIA Novosti spokesman Army southeast Vasily Nikitin.

In the Donetsk and Lugansk regions May 11 must pass a referendum on the status of the regions. In Lugansk region submitted to the vote the question "Do you support the act of state independence of the People's Republic of Luhansk." Voting will take place from 8.00 to 20.00 (9.00 - 21.00 MSK).

"Newsletters delivered to almost all areas, the willingness to vote almost wholly" - said Nikitin.

Referendum organizers printed about 1.7 million ballots. Nikitin said that on the day of voting in the region will work more than 1.6 thousand polling stations.

Which followed this...

In March in eastern Ukraine - Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk - started rallies federalization, dissatisfied with the actions of the Kiev authorities new. Later protests spread to a number of cities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. From mid-April in Kiev authorities carried out a special operation against the protesters with military support. In Moscow, Kiev decision to use army against the population identified extremely dangerous developments.

On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged supporters federalization postpone the referendum to create the conditions for dialogue to de-escalate the situation in the country. However, the militia decided to hold a referendum on May 11, as originally planned.

And, as seems likely, independence is voted for, separatist leaders are already making plans...

"People's Mayor" Vyacheslav Ponomarev Sloviansk not exclude that the Donetsk region eventually move to settlements in Russian rubles. Tomorrow, May 11, in the region must pass a referendum on self-determination.

"After the referendum will go until ukrainian hryvnia, but gradually, I think we will move to the Russian ruble," - the words Ponomareva RIA Novosti .

"People's Mayor" explained that closer economic integration with the Russian Federation. "Economically we strongly tied with Russia. Our industry is almost entirely focused on Russia ", - said Ponomarev.

Of course, the West are denouncing and proclaiming the referendum illegal...

• *MERKEL SAYS SEPARATIST REFERENDUMS IN UKRAINE ILLEGAL
• Ukraine govt, EU and U.S. officials say referendums are illegal

But just as in Crimea, things tend to be beyond the control of the West's ire for now...

• Donetsk Separatists Say Vote to Be Valid at Any Turnout: RIA

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ote-referendum

Why is the U.S. State Department Buying High Explosives?

13.May.2014 | http://d56amtpp2y9sx.cloudfront.net/.../picture-1.pngSCG

http://d56amtpp2y9sx.cloudfront.net/...land-Weird.jpg

Apparently the U.S. State Department needs blasting caps, detonating cords and a variety of high explosives. If you think that sounds weird, wait till you read the purchase order yourself.

The U.S. State Department's job is to implement the foreign policy of the United States and U.S. diplomacy efforts. It is essentially the equivalent of a foreign ministry in other countries. It's not a branch of the military, and it's not a demolition company, so why on earth did they put in an order for blasting caps, detonating cords, and a variety of high explosives on fbo.gov? I'm not making this up. Click here to go look at the page yourself. Just in case they take the page down I've uploaded a screenshot here.

Below is the list of items they are currently accepting bids for:
The Department of State requires the following items, Meet or Exceed, to the following:
LI 001: 1.1 Comp C-4 M112, 1.25 lb Block w/Taggant, 360, EA;
LI 002: Detonating Cord - 50 Grains / Foot, 18000, FT;
LI 003: Detonating Cord - 25 Grains / Foot, 45000, FT;
LI 004: Cast Booster - 230 gram - (1/2 pound), 18000, EA;
LI 005: Sheet Exp - PETN based - C2 Thickness, 180, LB;
LI 006: LINEAR Shaped Charge, Copper, RDX, 400 Gr/ft, 144, FT;
LI 007: LINEAR Shaped Charge, Copper, RDX, 600 Gr/ft, 144, FT;
LI 008: Blasting Cap - Fuse Type #8- High Strength, 1350, EA;
LI 009: Blasting Caps, Elec., 12 ft., 250 ms del., 1800, EA;
LI 010: Blasting Caps, Elec., 12 ft., 500 ms del., 1800, EA;
LI 011: Blasting Caps, Elec., 12 ft. 750 ms del., 1800, EA;
LI 012: Blasting Caps, Elec., 12 ft. 1000 ms del., 1800, EA;
LI 013: Blasting Caps, Elec., 12 ft. instant, 1800, EA;
LI 014: Safety Fuse, Green - Military M700 type, 18000, FT;
LI 015: Electric Igniter, 6 ft. MJG, 12600, EA;
LI 016: Fuse igniter, pull string type, 9000, EA;
LI 017: Conical Shaped Charge 11 gram RDX, 900, EA;
LI 018: HELIX, (Liq & Activator) 1-3/8" x 8" (ALUMINUM POWDER), 1296, EA;
LI 019: HELIX LIQUID (NITROMETHANE), 1296, EA;
LI 020: Fuse Lighter, M81, 4050, EA;
LI 021: Red Dot Smokeless Powder Double Base, 180, LB;

Aren't these of things supposed to get routed through the CIA? Aren't they the ones in charge of covert mayhem and mischief?
Perhaps Victoria Nuland and company have gone off the reservation.

http://scgnews.com/why-is-the-us-sta...igh-explosives

CIA, FBI and Now Academi Mercenaries on the Ground in Ukraine

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 12, 2014

The German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported on Sunday 400 U.S. mercenaries are working with the junta government in Ukraine to suppress opposition to the coup in the eastern part of the country. The newspaper said the for-profit mercenaries are actively participating in the effort to eliminate anti-coup activists in Slavyansk and possibly other areas in the Donetsk region.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=PKHFgYCbgvI

It is not known if Blackwater mercenaries were involved in gunning down voters in eastern Ukraine. On Thursday we covered a report stating the CIA and the FBI are involved in the effort to quell resistance to the junta. The CIA has been involved with nationalist and fascist Ukrainian groups since the late 1940s.
In March, we reported on the presence of Greystone mercenaries in Donetsk. The mercenaries were “soldiers of fortune proficient in combat operations,” a diplomatic source told Interfax, according to the Daily Mail. “Most of them had operated under private contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other states. Most of them come from the United States.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry said the mercenaries were contracted “to suppress civil protests and dissatisfaction.”
“Among the candidates for the role of gendarme is the Barbados-registered company Greystone Limited, which is integrated with the Academi corporation,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “It is an analogue, and, probably and affiliated body of the Blackwater private army, whose employees have repeatedly been accused of committing grievous and systematic human rights abuses in different troubled regions.”
Academi was known as Blackwater and then Xe following its involvement in the murder of 17 Iraqis in Nisour Square, Baghdad, in 2007. Academi’s board of directors includes former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Bobby Ray Inman, the former director of the NSA, and the company’s CEO is a retired Brigadier General, Craig Nixon.
This article was posted: Monday, May 12, 2014 at 6:04 am


Related Articles

• Former Blackwater Mercenaries Hired as Thought Police in Eastern Ukraine
• Russia Says U.S. Mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine
• Blackwater Mercenaries Reported in Donetsk, Ukraine
• The ‘Crackdown’ Begins: Ukraine Launches “Anti-Terrorist” Operations In Eastern Ukraine, Arrests 70
• 400 Blackwater Mercs Deployed In Ukraine Against Separatists, German Press Reports

http://www.infowars.com/cia-fbi-and-...nd-in-ukraine/

http://yarpp.org/pixels/c6bb0b5b7ce8...4ea949415b8bfd

Ukraine crisis: Donetsk region asks to join Russia

Request comes just two hours after referendum results show 90% voted for independence from Ukraine

Shaun Walker in Donetsk and Oksana Grytsenko in Luhansk

The Guardian, Monday 12 May 2014 13.05 EDT

Jump to comments (3457)


Link to video: Ukraine's Donetsk region declares independence The "People's Republic of Donetsk" declared itself an independent country on Monday and, within two hours of doing so, had asked to join Russia. The separatist leader Denis Pushilin told journalists that the self-proclaimed republic would ask Moscow to consider absorbing the region, which borders Russia.
But it remains extremely doubtful whether Moscow will carry out a Crimea-style annexation of the region, which held a controversial referendum on independence on Sunday, together with neighbouring Luhansk.
According to results announced by the de facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk – which also declared independence from Ukraine on Monday – about 90% on a turnout of 70% and 96% on a turnout of nearly 75% respectively voted for state sovereignty. The referendums – which Kiev has dismissed as illegitimate – were hastily organised and marked by numerous violations.
The results were roundly condemned in the west, but Russia said it respected the results. However, instead of previous statements saying it would protect people in the regions with troops if need be, the Kremlin called for dialogue between the government in Kiev and the south-east regions of the country.
"In Moscow, we respect the will of the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and are counting on practical implementation of the outcome of the referendum in a civilised manner, without any repeat of violence and through dialogue," the Kremlin said.
In a press conference in Moscow, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, read out the Kremlin statement and added that only Russian television channels were telling "the truth in real time" about the crisis, whereas western news outlets were hiding the real causes.
Lavrov made no mention of the controversy over the referendum, merely noting the "high voting activity" of the population despite attempts from Kiev to disrupt the vote. He said no new international talks were planned on Ukraine.
Oleksandr Turchynov, Ukraine's acting president, told the country's parliament: "The farce which terrorists call the referendum will have no legal consequences except the criminal responsibility for its organisers."
The Kremlin has called the new government in Kiev "neo-fascist" and Kiev has accused Russia of organising the separatist movement by providing weapons and tactical advice. Nevertheless, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, last week asked the separatists to delay their referendum, which appeared to be an attempt to distance Russia from the vote, but was ignored.
There were a number of irregularities with the count and procedure, and it seems unlikely that the figures announced are an accurate reflection of views in the region, with most of those who disagreed with the proposition staying at home.
Nevertheless, there has been an increasing mood of defiance, especially as a Ukrainian army operation against the armed separatists resulted in multiple casualties. It is hard to judge how many people support the armed takeover of government buildings and attempts to separate from Ukraine, but feelings are running high.
The referendum question was worded ambiguously, appearing to offer state sovereignty for the Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics". Roman Lyagin, head of the de facto central election committee in Donetsk, said before the vote that nothing would change in terms of state borders as a result of the vote.
He said that, in future, the region would be free to decide whether to stay within Ukraine, become independent or join Russia. In the end, it apparently took only two hours to make the decision, apparently making a mockery of what voters had been told in the runup.
In Luhansk, separatists announced that more than 96% of ballots had been cast in favour of the independence of the region from Ukraine.
"Congratulations on the birth of the Luhansk republic," said Vasily Nikitin, deputy head of the region's separatist movement. "We are now preparing an appeal to the UN and international community asking them to recognise us."
Nikitin said the constitution of the new "country" was almost ready, and added that its residents would not participate in Ukrainian presidential elections planned for 25 May. Donetsk's de facto authorities have also said they will not allow voting in the elections. A key demand of Moscow has been to postpone the elections.
In Luhansk, one resident, Anatoliy Sukharev, 80, approached Nikitin and asked whether there would be a second referendum on joining Russia.
"What is next? When are we going to have this referendum?" he asked. Nikitin said a second referendum would happen, but the republic needed to "organise as a country" first.
But for many Ukraine-oriented residents, recent events have been a tragedy.
"My father is a businessman, now he is trying to sell all his businesses here before moving away. Many people I know have already left," said Olesia, 20, who refused to give her last name fearing retribution.
"I can love Luhansk only if it is a Ukrainian Luhansk," she said.
The eastern regions are entering an uncertain situation, with tension and anger rising on both sides. Ukrainian army and affiliated paramilitary units killed unarmed civilians in Mariupol last week and in Krasnoarmeysk during the voting on Sunday. For their part, the rebels in Donetsk have taken hostages among pro-Ukraine activists and been accused of torture.
It is unclear whether either side is ready for talks. With a number of armed gangs in the region, there is every danger of conflict with Kiev forces and of events slipping into violent chaos.
A Kremlin-linked MP, Vyacheslav Nikonov, said the Ukrainian military operation in eastern Ukraine represented "genuine fascism" and said that the residents of Luhansk and Donetsk deserved no less support. "Indeed, they deserve much more support from us, than the residents of Crimea," he said.
However, he added that Moscow would have to weigh the "economic, political, and military risks" before deciding whether it should absorb the regions.
Gazprom, Russia's state energy company, also told Ukraine it had to settle a $3.5bn (£2bn) gas debt, and pay in advance for deliveries in June, or be cut off.
In Brussels, EU foreign ministers added 13 people and two firms to their visa ban and asset freeze list over Ukraine, according to two officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the measure had yet to be officially announced. The EU has targeted a number of officials but the sanctions have been far narrower than US sanctions over Ukraine


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ks-join-russia

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...98403654_s.jpg Drudge Report

Russia To Ban USA From Using Space Station...

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=858&sh=449

Russia to ban US from using Space Station over Ukraine sanctions - Telegraph
In retaliation for imposing sanctions, Russia will also bar its rocket engines from...
The Telegraph|By Reuters

Russia to ban US from using Space Station over Ukraine sanctions

In retaliation for imposing sanctions, Russia will also bar its rocket engines from launching US military satellites

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...t_2863681b.jpg From left: Steve Swanson from the US and Alexander Skvortsov and Oleg Artemyev from Russia before the launch Photo: Camera Press/Ria Novosti

Reuters
7:56PM BST 13 May 2014

Russia is to deny the US future use of the International Space Station beyond 2020 and will also bar its rocket engines from launching US military satellites as it hits back at American sanctions imposed over Ukraine crisis.

Russia’s deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced a series of punitive measures on Tuesday against the US in response to sanctions imposed after Russia annexed Crimea.

The two countries have long cooperated closely on space exploration despite their clashes in foreign policy.

The Space Station is manned by both American and Russian crew, but the only way to reach it is by using Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft.

The US is keen to keep the $100 billion (£600) ISS flying until at least 2024, four years beyond its original target.

Related Articles

US and Russia put differences aside for Nasa mission
26 Mar 2014
Russia charges Nasa astronauts $70m per seat
01 May 2013
Nasa finds mysterious hurricane on Saturn
30 Apr 2013
Damaged spacecraft docks with space station
26 Apr 2013
Ukraine crisis: worlds apart on wish list for peace RBTH

At a time when Moscow is struggling to reform its accident-plagued space programme, Mr Rogozin said US plans to deny export licences for some high-technology items were a blow to Russian industry. “These sanctions are out of place and inappropriate,” Mr Rogozin said. “We have enough of our own problems.”
Moscow’s response would affect NK-33 and RD-180 engines which Russia supplies to the US, Mr Rogozin said. “We are ready to deliver these engines but on one condition that they will not be used to launch military satellites,” he said.
RD-180 engines are used to boost Atlas 5 rockets manufactured by United Launch Alliance, a partnership of Lockheed Martin and Boeing that holds a virtual monopoly on launching U.S. military satellites.
Mr Rogozin said Moscow was planning "strategic changes" in its space industry after 2020 and aims to use money and "intellectual resources" that now go to the space station for a "a project with more prospects".
He suggested Russia could use the station without the United States, saying: "The Russian segment can exist independently from the American one. The U.S. one cannot."
The US space agency NASA is working with companies to develop space taxis with the goal of restoring US transport to the station by 2017, but the United States currently pays Russia more than $60 million per person to fly its astronauts up.
Mr Rogozin said Russia will suspend the operation of 11 GPS sites on its territory from June and seek talks with Washington on opening similar sites in the United States for Russia's own satellite navigation system, Glonass.
He threatened the permanent closure of the GPS sites in Russia if that is not agreed by September.
He said the suspension of the sites would not affect everyday operations of the GPS system in Russia, where it is used by millions of Russians for navigation on their smartphones and in their cars.
The upheaval in Ukraine - where the United States says Russia is backing separatists and the Kremlin accuses Washington of helping protesters to topple a Moscow-friendly president in February, has led to the worst East-West crisis since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
In addition to the hi-tech sector sanctions, the US has imposed visa bans and assets freezes on officials and lawmakers and targeted companies with links to President Vladimir Putin. The European Union has also imposed sanctions.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said earlier on Tuesday that the latest EU measures were an "exhausted, trite approach" that would only deepen discord and hamper efforts to defuse the crisis in Ukraine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html

State Department: Russia Has Oligarchs, U.S. Private Citizens

Establishment pretends government officials do not benefit from close connections to financial elite

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 13, 2014

Asked today about Hunter Biden’s insider deal to run the legal department at Burisma Holdings, the largest gas producer in Ukraine, Obama spokesman Jay Carney and State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said Biden is a private citizen and his appointment has nothing to do with the government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UVrvkn0Bmvg

It was insinuated by a reporter Hunter Biden is comparable to a Russian oligarch, a characterization summarily dismissed by Psaki.
Imagine, however, if Hunter Biden, who has ties to the financial elite thanks to his influential father and once managed a hedge fund, was targeted by travel restrictions and sanctions like the Russian oligarchs currently are. Let’s say Obama’s “inner circle” was targeted by Russia for drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan. How big would the double standard be? How loud would the howls be at The New York Times and The Washington Post, the American equivalent to Russia Today and The Voice of Russia?
In the United States, the establishment likes to pretend government officials and their families do not benefit from close connections to the financial elite. In fact, government and banks and large transnational corporations have enjoyed a revolving door for some time. It is entirely fair to say they own the government lock, stock and barrel.
The corporate media excoriates Russia for regulating markets in favor of selected oligarchs and a continuation of Soviet era cronyism. However, the same situation exists in the United States and has for some time.
“Washington corruption — in the pattern of Vladimir Putin — is driving inequality and sinking family incomes. Higher taxes may catch your family doctor but politicians will find a way to exempt their supporters among the very wealthy,” writes Peter Morici.
Russia’s state-run media rarely takes the oligarchs to task. Likewise, in the United States, the state-run media, masquerading as a free press, while on occasion criticizing billionaires, rarely points out the fact bankers and transnational corporations own the government.

http://www.infowars.com/state-depart...vate-citizens/

Why Are Ukraine Troops Using UN Helicopters, Russia Foreign Minister Asks

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/14/2014 16:30 -0400

A clearly irritated Sergei Lavrov - Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs - appeared on Bloomberg TV this morning and warned that "Ukraine is as close to civil war as you can get." The minister further exclaimed that Russia "would like to understand how helicopters with a UN logo were used against protesters in the south-east," adding that "Russia has serious suspicions that mercenaries from the USA are acting in Ukraine’s south-east." Furthermore, Lavrov warned that "attempts to force Ukraine into NATO may have a strong negative impact on the whole system of European security." But apart from that... BTFWWIII

A UN-marked Helicopter being used by Ukraine forces against Donetsk regional militia

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...40514_UN_0.png

And the raw feed via LiveLeak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C_g5TKSb8AI

Ironically - the UN also wants to know why...

The UN has voiced concerns over the apparent use of UN-marked helicopters by Kiev troops in their military operation against Donetsk regional militia. A video of a white-painted Mil Mi-24 strike helicopter with UN logo has emerged.

When inquired about the United Nations’ stance on the use of peacekeeper-marked military hardware in non-peacekeeper operations, the office for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson said such use would violate UN rules.

“It is the responsibility of Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) that provide Contingent Owned Equipment to peacekeeping missions to remove all logos and signage bearing the UN's name once such equipment has been repatriated to the home country or is no longer being used for official UN purposes,” the office told RT.

It added that UN-marked aircraft can be used for missions tasked by the UN and that UN’s Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support is in contact with the Ukrainian authorities to clarify the issue.

And - as Lavrov explains in the clip below - Russia seriously wants to know why...

As ITAR-TASS reports,

Russia strongly opposes attempts to force Ukraine into NATO, Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov stated in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

“Attempts to force Ukraine into NATO may have a strong negative impact on the whole system of European security, and we would be strongly opposing it,” he stressed. The minister added that this issue concerns not only Ukraine and NATO, but Russia as well.

According to Lavrov, Moscow urges to investigate the alleged Kiev’s using of helicopters with UN marks in the military operation in the country’s south-east. “Ukraine is as close to civil war as you can get,” the Russian minister emphasized. “We would like to understand how helicopters with UN logo were used against protesters in the south-east,” the minister said.

“Russia has serious suspicions that mercenaries from the USA are acting in Ukraine’s south-east,” Lavrov pointed out.

Commenting on the news about the start of the ‘round table’ on ways of settling the crisis in Kiev, the Russian minister noted that for the success of the national dialogue, Ukraine needs an equal participation of all the country’s regions in this process.

“I don’t know which the exact list of participants of the widely advertised ‘round table’ in Kiev is. We are convinced that for the success of the national dialogue, an equal participation of all Ukraine’s regions is needed, and not only of the south and east, but of the west as well,” Sergei Lavrov said.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-minister-asks

6 Ukraine Soldiers Killed, 8 Injured Ahead Of Tomorrow's "Leave Or Face War" Deadline

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/13/2014 11:05 -0400

With another day left until the 48-hour "leave or face war" deadline imposed by the newly-independent regions of Ukraine, Interfax is reporting:

• *SIX UKRAINE SOLDIERS KILLED, 8 INJURED AFTER CONVOY ATTACK: IFX
• *ATTACK ON UKRAINIAN ARMY CONVOY NEAR SEPARATIST-HELD SLOVYANSK

This follows earlier concerns from Germany's Schaeuble who said he "can imagine" a worsening of the Ukraine crisis. As AP reports,

Ukraine's defense ministry says 6 servicemen ambushed, killed in the restive east.

And from the Ukraine defense ministry:

Today, May 13 , about 13.00 on the outskirts of the village Oktyabrske ,Slavic district, 20 km from Kramatorska, while driving a convoy of military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was cynical and insidious fired from an ambush . Terrorists attacked the Ukrainian paratroopers with grenade launchers, were busy aimed fire with small arms.

Over 30 attackers arrived early and were located along the river in the bushes. The first shot from a grenade launcher terrorists hit the engine of the other BTRiv who approached the bridge. There was an explosion. Other BTR tried to push the damaged fighting machine that caught fire , away from the village. The soldiers took the fight .

After the first volley of heavy weapons from terrorists killed two soldiers, 3 more were wounded. Overall, as a result of prolonged clashes killed 6 members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine . 8 injured varying degrees of severity.

All the wounded and dead were evacuated.

if this is any indication what to expect tomorrow when yesterday's 48 hour ultimatum expires, the S&P should easily hit 2000 when the Ukraine civil war bursts out of the gate.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...e-war-deadline

Russia Retaliates: Blocks GPS, Bans US Use Of Its Rocket Engines

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/13/2014 10:11 -0400

Just as Russia had promised, sanctions were not effective and so they went straight to targeted bans. On the heels of The Pentagon admitting that they had "no solution" to replacing Russian rocket engines in the launch systems for US military satellites (as we have covered extensively), Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin this morning announced:

• *ROGOZIN: RUSSIA TO HALT U.S. GPS BASES IN RUSSIA ON JUNE 1:IFX
• *RUSSIAN BAN ON ROCKET USE FOR US MILITARY SATELLITE LAUNCHES: IFX

He further added that Russia will not extend its partnership in the International Space Station beyond 2020 (which suggests Russia does not expect a quick resolution to the current tensions).

As RT reports,

Moscow is banning Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit, said Russia’s Deputy PM, Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of space and defense industries.

According to Rogozin, Russia is also halting the operation of all American GPS stations on its territory from June 1.

Russia currently hosts 11 ground-based GPS stations, the Deputy PM said.

The move comes after the US refused to place a signal correction station for Russia’s own space-based satellite navigation system, GLONASS, on American territory, he explained.

This is a major problem for the US military because (as Bloomberg reports),

The Pentagon has no “great solution” to reduce its dependence on a Russian-made engine that powers the rocket used to launch U.S. military satellites, the Defense Department’s top weapons buyer said.

“We don’t have a great solution,” Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said yesterday after testifying before a Senate committee. “We haven’t made any decisions yet.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Air Force to review its reliance on the rocket engine after tensions over Russia’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea region prompted questions from lawmakers about that long-time supply connection.

United Launch Alliance LLC, a partnership of Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., uses the Russian-made RD-180 engine on Atlas V rockets.

As Putin warned - apparently correctly...

“The US is certainly one of the world’s leaders. At some point it seemed that it was the only leader and a uni-polar system was in place. Today it appears that is not the case. Everything in the world is interdependent and once you try to punish someone, in the end you will cut off your nose to spite your face,” he said.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...rocket-engines

The Farce Is Complete: Joe Biden's Son Joins Board Of Largest Ukraine Gas Producer

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/13/2014 09:35 -0400

The farce is complete...

Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0512_biden.png

R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations. On his new appointment, he commented: “Burisma’s track record of innovations and industry leadership in the field of natural gas means that it can be a strong driver of a strong economy in Ukraine. As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings, Mr. Alan Apter, noted: “The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.”
R. Hunter Biden is a counsel to Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, a national law firm based in New York, USA, which served in cases including “Bush vs. Gore”, and “U.S. vs. Microsoft”. He is one of the co-founders and a managing partner of the investment advisory company Rosemont Seneca Partners, as well as chairman of the board of Rosemont Seneca Advisors. He is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Masters Program in the School of Foreign Service.
Mr. Biden has experience in public service and foreign policy. He is a director for the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, The Center for National Policy, and the Chairman’s Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute. Having served as a Senior Vice President at MBNA bank, former U.S. President Bill Clinton appointed him an Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy Coordination under Secretary of Commerce William Daley. Mr. Biden served as Honorary Co-Chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural Committee.
Mr. Biden is a member of the bar in the State of Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court of Federal Claims. He received a Bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University, and a J.D. from Yale Law School.
R. Hunter Biden is also a well-known public figure. He is chairman of the Board of the World Food Programme U.S.A., together with the world’s largest humanitarian organization, the United Nations World Food Programme. In this capacity he offers assistance to the poor in developing countries, fighting hunger and poverty, and helping to provide food and education to 300 million malnourished children around the world.
Company Background:
Burisma Holdings is a privately owned oil and gas company with assets in Ukraine and operating in the energy market since 2002. To date, the company holds a portfolio with permits to develop fields in the Dnieper-Donets, the Carpathian and the Azov-Kuban basins. In 2013, the daily gas production grew steadily and at year-end amounted to 11.6 thousand BOE (barrels of oil equivalent – incl. gas, condensate and crude oil), or 1.8 million m3 of natural gas. The company sells these volumes in the domestic market through traders, as well as directly to final consumers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...e-gas-producer

"People's Governor" Of Newly-Independent Luhansk Survives Assassination Attempt

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/13/2014 10:41 -0400

Just 2 days after the people of the Luhansk region voted for secession to Russia - despite protestation from the West and calls for delays from Putin - the self-proclaimed "people's governor" of the region has been injured in an apparent assassination attempt this morning. A car carrying Valery Bolotov was shot at and the press office reports that "he is injured and is currently in a private hospital." Of course, it is unclear who opened fire upon the governor but it certainly won't please Putin who has vowed to protect the rights of his people in that region...
Via Novinite,

The self-declared People's Governor of Luhansk Region in eastern Ukraine was injured in an assassination attempt, Tuesday.

A car carrying the Luhansk 'people's governor' Valery Bolotov was fired on Tuesday in the Luhansk region, his press office said, the CNN reports.

"Yes, Valery Bolotov is injured, and he is currently in a private hospital," Southeastern Army spokesman Vasiliy Nikitin told RIA Novosti.

The assassination attempt occurred in the Luhansk Region at around 11:00 am local time, he said, without specifying the perpetrator or the weapon used in the attack. Bolotov's life is not currently in danger, Nikitin added.

The reported attack comes amid increasing tensions in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists staged a referendum Sunday asking residents whether they should declare independence from Ukraine.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...nation-attempt

Ron Paul Asks "What Does The US Government Want in Ukraine?"

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 22:33 -0400

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

In several eastern Ukrainian towns over the past week, the military opened fire on its own citizens. Dozens may have been killed in the violence. Although the US government generally condemns a country’s use of military force against its own population, especially if they are unarmed protesters, this time the US administration blamed the victims. After as many as 20 unarmed protesters were killed on the May 9th holiday in Ukraine, the State Department spokesman said “we condemn the outbreak of violence caused by pro-Russia separatists.”
Why are people protesting in eastern Ukraine? Because they do not believe the government that came to power after the US-backed uprising in February is legitimate. They do not recognize the authority of an unelected president and prime minister. The US sees this as a Russian-sponsored destabilization effort, but is it so hard to understand that the people in Ukraine may be annoyed with the US and EU for their involvement in regime change in their country? Would we be so willing to accept an unelected government in Washington put in place with the backing of the Chinese and Iranians?

The US State Department provided much assistance earlier this year to those involved in the effort to overthrow the Ukrainian government. The US warned the Ukrainian government at the time not to take any action against those in the streets, even as they engaged in violence and occupied government buildings. But now that those former protesters have come to power, the US takes a different view of protest. Now they give full support to the bloody crackdown against protesters in the east. The State Department spokesperson said last week: “We continue to call for groups who have jeopardized public order by taking up arms and seizing public buildings in violation of Ukrainian law to disarm and leave the buildings they have seized.” This is the opposite of what they said in February. Do they think the rest of the world does not see this hypocrisy?

The residents of eastern Ukraine have long been closer to Russia than to the US and EU. In fact, that part of Ukraine had been a part of Russia. After February’s regime change, officials in the east announced that they would hold referenda to see whether the population wanted autonomy from the US-backed government in Kiev. The US demanded that Russian President Putin stop eastern Ukraine from voting on autonomy, and last week the Russian president did just that: he said that the vote should not be held as scheduled. The eastern Ukrainians ignored him and said they would hold the vote anyway. So much for the US claims that Russia controls the opposition in Ukraine.

Even though the Russian president followed US demands and urged the eastern Ukrainians to hold off on the vote, the US State Department announced that the US would apply additional sanctions on Russia if the vote is held! Does this make any sense?

The real question is why the US government is involved in Ukraine in the first place. We are broke. We cannot even afford to fix our own economy. Yet we want to run Ukraine? Does it really matter who Ukrainians elect to represent them? Is it really a national security matter worth risking a nuclear war with Russia whether Ukraine votes for more regional autonomy and a weaker central government? Isn’t that how the United States was originally conceived?

Has the arrogance of the US administration, thinking they should run the world, driven us to the brink of another major war in Europe? Let us hope they will stop this dangerous game and come to their senses. I say let’s have no war for Ukraine!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...t-want-ukraine

"Ukraine's Destiny Is To Go Medieval"

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 17:15 -0400

Authored by James H. Kunstler,

My country can cry all it likes about yesterday’s referendum vote in eastern Ukraine, but we set the process in motion by sponsoring the overthrow of an elected Kiev government that was tilting toward Russia and away from NATO overtures. The president elected in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, might have been a grifter and a scoundrel, but so was his opponent, the billionaire gas oligarch Yulia Tymoshenko. The main lesson that US authorities have consistently failed to learn in more than a decade of central Asian misadventures: when you set events in motion in distant lands, events, not policy planners at the State Department, end up in the driver’s seat.
And so now they’ve had the referendum vote and the result is about 87 percent of the voters in eastern Ukraine would prefer to align politically with Russia rather than the failing Ukraine state governed out of Kiev. It’s easy to understand why. First, there’s the ethnic divide at the Dnieper River: majority Russian-speakers to the east. Second, the Kiev government, as per above, shows all the signs of a failing state — that is, a state that can’t manage any basic responsibilities starting with covering the costs of maintaining infrastructure and institutions. The Kiev government is broke. Of course, so are most other nations these days, but unlike, say, the USA or France, Ukraine doesn’t have an important enough currency or powerful enough central bank to play the kind of accounting games that allow bigger nations to pretend they’re solvent.
Kiev owes $3.5 billion to Russia for past-due gas bills and Moscow has asked Kiev to pre-pay for June deliveries. This is about the same thing that any local gas company in the USA would demand from a deadbeat customer. The International Monetary Fund has offered to advance a loan of $3 billion, of which Kiev claims it could afford to fork over $2.6 billion to Russia (presumably needing the rest to run the country, pay police salaries, et cetera). Ukraine is in a sad and desperate situation for sure, but is Russia just supposed to supply it with free gas indefinitely? As wonderful as life is in the USA, the last time I checked most of us are expected to pay our heating bills. How long, exactly, does the IMF propose to pay Ukraine’s monthly gas bill? In September, the question is liable to get more urgent — but by then the current situation could degenerate into civil war.
The USA and its NATO allies would apparently like to have Ukraine become a client state, but they’re not altogether willing to pay for it. This kind of raises the basic question: if Russia ultimately has to foot the bill for Ukraine, whose client state is it? And who is geographically next door to Ukraine? And whose national histories are intimately mingled?
I’m not persuaded that Russia and its president, Mr. Putin, are thrilled about the dissolution of Ukraine. Conceivably, they would have been satisfied with a politically stable, independent Ukraine and reliable long-term leases on the Black Sea ports. Russia is barely scraping by financially on an oil, gas, and mineral based economy that allows them to import the bulk of their manufactured goods. They don’t need the aggravation of a basket-case neighbor to support, but it has pretty much come to that. At least, it appears that Russia will support the Russian-speaking region east of the Dnieper.
My guess is that the Kiev-centered western Ukraine can’t support itself as a modern state, that is, with the high living standards of a techno-industrial culture. It just doesn’t have the fossil fuel juice. It’s at the mercies of others for that. In recent years, Ukraine has even maintained an independent space program (which is more than one can say of the USA). It will be looked back on with nostalgic amazement. Like other regions of the world, Ukraine’s destiny is to go medieval, to become a truly post-industrial agriculture-based society with a lower population and lower living standards. It is one the world’s leading grain-growing regions, a huge advantage for the kind of future the whole world faces — if it can avoid becoming a stomping ground in the elephant’s graveyard of collapsing industrial anachronisms.
Ukraine can pretend to be a ward of the West for only a little while longer. The juice and the money just isn’t there, though. Probably sooner than later, the IMF will stop paying its gas bills. Within the same time-frame, the IMF may have to turn its attention to the floundering states of western Europe. That floundering will worsen rapidly if those nations can’t get gas from Russia. You can bet that Europe will think twice before tagging along with America on anymore cockamamie sanctions. Meanwhile, the USA is passing up the chance to care for a more appropriate client state: itself. Why on earth should the USA be lending billions of dollars to Ukraine when we don’t have decent train service between New York City and Chicago?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ny-go-medieval

Donetsk Warns Ukraine Army Located In The East To "Leave In 48 Hours" Or Face War

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 14:37 -0400

Update: And just to make sure Russia has a catalyst:

• UKRAINE FORCES ATTACK EASTERN CITY OF SLOVYANSK, INTERFAX SAYS

* * *
With the US having voiced its support for Ukraine's "anti-terrorist" operations, and Russia strongly supportive of pro-Russian people's decisions to regional self-determination, the threats coming from the newly independent regions are a concern (that markets clearly do not care about):

• DONETSK ARMY SAYS WILL FIGHT UKRAINE FORCES IF DEADLINE IGNORED

Ukrainian military forces have 48 hours to leave the region or Donetsk own "anti-terrorist" forces will fight. Of course, with the US already saying the referendums are illegal and not recognizing them, we suspect it will be time for more sanctions soon (despite the lessons below).

Insurgent group army of so-called Donetsk People’s Republic “will start its own anti-terrorist operation in Donetsk region” against Ukrainian military forces if they don’t heed seperatist army chief Igor Girkin’s 48-hour ultimatum to leave or obey him, head of seperatist group, Denis Pushilin, says by phone.

So... buy stocks?
And a different perspective on which the western approach to resolving the Ukraine crisis may not be exactly "working."
Lessons on Sanctions Based on Past Experience (via PIIE)
1. Don’t overreach. Policymakers should avoid inflated expectations of what sanctions can accomplish. Sanctions seldom impair the military potential or change the policies of an important targeted power. Modest goals contribute to successful outcomes. Thus it may make more sense to achieve the modest goal of thwarting an impending invasion of Eastern Ukraine than to try to reverse the fait accompli of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
2. Russian economic integration with the West is an advantage. Economic sanctions are most effective when aimed against close trading partners with more to lose.
3. Don’t count on Russian public opinion. It is hard to “bully a bully” with economic measures. Democratic regimes are more susceptible to economic pressure than autocratic regimes like Russia.
4. Slam the hammer; don’t turn the screw. Economic sanctions are best deployed with maximum impact. Gradually imposed steps may simply strengthen the target national government’s resolve. In the present case, threatening very heavy sanctions if Russian armed forces cross the Ukrainian border has the best chance of deterrence.
5. International cooperation is not always essential, but in the case of Russia, it probably is. A large coalition of sanctioning countries does not necessarily make the sanctions highly likely to succeed. Financial sanctions against Iran, on the other hand, succeeded in large part because they were backed by an international coalition of countries willing to forgo Iranian oil imports and dealings with Iranian banks. To be sure, the effort to gain international support can dilute their scope. But the United States has little choice but to gain the cooperation of Western Europe in this case.
6. Choose the right tool. Sanctions deployed in conjunction with other measures, such as covert action or military operations, increase chances of success. So far, the United States has been reluctant to provide substantial military assistance to Ukraine, out of concern that Russia will escalate its own intervention. Instead, the military dimension of US support has been limited to greater assistance to NATO allies in the region, especially Poland.
7. Don’t be a cheapskate or spendthrift. Sanctioning governments must balance the benefits against the costs borne domestically to sustain public support at home. At present, the United States, but especially Europe, are facing the resistance of major business firms over the possibility of severe energy and financial sanctions.
8. Look before you leap. Sanctioning governments should weigh their means and objectives against unintended costs and consequences. In the Ukrainian case, all signs indicate that President Obama and his European counterparts (especially Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany) are giving each step of the sanctions regime their carefully guarded attention.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...rs-or-face-war

Seen On The New Donetsk Republic Leader's Wall...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 10:53 -0400

Just a few days ago we highlighted what some had outlined as "Novorossiya" (New Russia) - the new territory being 'created' by the Russian Spring... today courtesy of @kdzieciol, we see it from a slightly different angle - on the wall of Denis Pushilin's office - the leader of the new independent Donetsk Republic...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...512_novo_0.png
"Map of #Ukraine redrawn at Donetsk Peoples' Republic leader Denis Pushilin's office. Room 1007"
Angle not clear enough? Here it is again:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...508_novo_0.png


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...c-leaders-wall

East Ukraine's Donetsk Declares Itself Sovereign: Asks Putin To "Consider Absorption" Of Newly Independent State

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 10:44 -0400

Just as we predicted last week, Crimea 2.0 is officially here.

• DONETSK PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC DECLARES ITSELF SOVEREIGN STATE: RIA
• UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST LEADER PUSHILIN SAYS ASKING MOSCOW TO CONSIDER THE ABSORPTION OF DONETSK REGION INTO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

While Putin has not yet confirmed it will, begrudgingly, annex Donetsk as a reminder earlier today the Kremlin said it "respects" the independence vote and calls for a "civilized implementation." And what could be more civilized than annexing two regions of Ukraine in under two months without firing a single shot?
Here is the official announcement by Donetsk leader Denis Pushilin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zs1TMn3GT0&feature=player_embedded

As a reminder from last week:
Look no further than the Crimea case study:

1. Donetsk declares independence
2. Kiev, the west and NATO condemn the results, sternly refuse to accept the outcome, and issue more sanctions against Russian politicians and oligarchs
3. Newly "independent" Donetsk requests military support from friendly Russia to defend its population, and the Russian tanks roll across the border

And as other regions in east and south Ukraine follow in the Donetsk' footsteps, assuring Russia a land connection to Crimea and cutting off Kiev from the Donbas industrial zones and the Slavyansk shale gas, Putin wins again.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...sk%20gas_0.gif

In the meantime, while we await Russia's latest bearhug embrace of a formerly Ukrainian territory, here is Gazprom's take:

• RUSSIAN PREMIER MEDVEDEV SAYS GAVE ORDER TO GAZPROM ON UKRAINE
• GAZPROM TO MOVE UKRAINE TO PREPAYMENTS FOR GAS TOMORROW
• GAZPROM TO HALT GAS SUPPLY TO UKRAINE JUNE 3 IF NO PAYMENT: CEO

It is amazing what one can achieve when one has all the commodity leverage.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...bsorption-new-

Putin Speaks On Ukraine Independence Vote: "Respects" Result, Calls For "Civilized Implementation"

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2014 08:02 -0400

As previously reported, the key event of the weekend was the east Ukraine independence referendum which, as expected, passed by a landslide. Of course, the outcome of the referendum itself was largely irrelevant: all that mattered was that it happened, and that it gave the Kremlin the necessary and sufficient justification to intervene and enter the eastern territory when so needed. And hours ago, in its first official statement on the referendum, the Kremlin said Monday "it respects the secession referendum in eastern Ukraine and hopes for a "civilized implementation" of the results through talks between Kiev and representatives in the east." In other words, at least in the eyes of Putin, Ukraine no longer has a legitimate claim to remain in east Ukraine.
From the WSJ:

Pro-Russian separatists declared victory in Sunday's vote, ratcheting up tensions between the West and Moscow. In its first comments since the referendum, the Kremlin appears to challenge the West and Kiev's standpoint that it was illegitimate. (Read the latest updates on the crisis in Ukraine.)

The Kremlin said in a statement that Moscow welcomes all possible efforts to start negotiations between Kiev and separatist regions with the involvement of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"Moscow views with respect the expression of the will of the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and expects that the practical implementation of the outcome of the referendums will be carried out in a civilized manner without any recurrence of violence, through dialogue between representatives of Kiev, Donetsk and Luhansk," the statement said.

And while the EU promptly proceeded with another round of largely meaningless sanctions, announced moments ago...

• EU FOREIGN MINISTERS ADOPT SANCTIONS ON 2 CRIMEAN COMPANIES, 13 PEOPLE OVER UKRAINE CRISIS -EU DIPLOMAT

... Russia continued to rub it in, when soon after the Kremlin statement was released, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read it aloud during a live television broadcast. Mr. Lavrov said that Moscow sees no sense in a new round of four-way meetings akin to the Geneva talks in April between Russia, Ukraine, the U.S. and the EU, saying the Kiev government instead needs to directly negotiate with representatives of its eastern regions.
Following the Kremlin statement, Donetsk was ecstatic:

"This is great news, very happy news. Excellent, excellent," Miroslav Rudenko, one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic said in response to the Kremlin's statement, which rebels in Ukraine's southeast see as a sign of support.

And while we previously reported that a Russian annexation vote (coupled with the implementation of the Ruble as currency), could come as early as next weekend, for now things are not quite clear on how long until Russia becomes the de facto land owner:

Mr. Rudenko described as unlikely the Crimea scenario—in which Russia quickly followed up a popular referendum with annexation—and said the Donetsk People's Republic therefore would take steps to develop as a sovereign state. Those include "integration steps" such as joining a Kremlin-run customs union with former Soviet republics and building relations with the neighboring Luhansk People's Republic, he said.

A poll by Kiev International Sociology Institute showed last month that less than a quarter of the people polled like the idea of federalization of Ukraine. This idea was supported more widely in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

To be sure Donetsk now can afford to wait - all it needs are a few more provocations by the Ukraine army to make up Kremlin's mind for it. One party whose time may have run out, however, is the Kiev government, whose IMF lifeline was conditional on keeping the country together. It failed. And now we wait to see what the IMF response will be since it is Russia, not the west, which continues to win the proxy war in Ukraine.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...implementation

France’s Sale of 2 Ships to Russians Is Ill-Advised, U.S. Warns

By MICHAEL R. GORDONMAY 14, 2014


Photo http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...-master675.jpg

The Vladivostok warship, one of two ships ordered by the Russian Army, in France last week. Credit Jean-Sebastien Evrard/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — In a closed-door meeting in February 2010, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged his French counterpart not to proceed with the sale of two amphibious assault ships to Russia because it “would send the wrong message to Russia and to our allies in Central and East Europe.”

The French official, Hervé Morin, acknowledged that each of the ships — so-called Mistral-class vessels built for the French Navy to carry troops, landing craft, and helicopters — was “indeed a warship for power projection,” according to a confidential diplomatic cable on the meeting, which was made public by WikiLeaks. But Mr. Morin “asked rhetorically how we can tell Russia we desire partnership but then not trust them,” the cable added.
Related Coverage

• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v3.jpg
  Talks on Ukraine Crisis Open in Kiev Without Representation for SeparatistsMAY 14, 2014
  
  

With Russia’s annexation of Crimea and some 40,000 Russian troops deployed near Ukraine, Western officials are no longer putting their trust in Russia’s intentions. But despite American objections, the sale is still on track, and the first ship is scheduled for delivery late this year.

During a visit here on Tuesday, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said his government would decide in October whether to proceed with the delivery of two of the ships, and asserted that France had struck the right balance between “dialogue and firmness” in its dealings with Moscow. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in his meeting with Mr. Fabius that the sale was not helpful, seeking a way to prevent it, according to a State Department official. But Mr. Fabius later asserted to reporters that

Mr. Kerry had not demanded that France cancel the sale.
To critics, the 1.2 billion euro, or more than $1.6 billion, deal that France struck with Russia has emerged as a classic instance in which a European nation has elevated its business dealings with Moscow over exhortations by the United States to take a firm line on Russian meddling in Ukraine.

But the cables obtained by WikiLeaks show that the United States had concerns about the way Russia was obtaining the ships since 2009. In an appearance before Congress last week, Victoria Nuland, the senior State Department official for European

Affairs, said that the Obama administration had “consistently expressed our concerns about this sale.”
Yet the security relationship between the United States and France in recent years has generally been strong. As Mr. Fabius hastened to remind reporters this week, France was poised to participate in an American-led military strike on Syria last year in response to the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons, until Mr. Obama halted the military option in return for an agreement that Syria destroy its chemical arsenal.
The ships were on the back burner in discussions with the French government. But with Russia’s annexation of Crimea, they re-emerged as a major issue.
If they are delivered, the ships would augment the Russian military’s capabilities against the very nations that now appear to be most vulnerable to the Kremlin’s pressure — namely the Black Sea states of Ukraine and Georgia and the Baltic states that belong to NATO.
“The technology and capability represented by the Mistral should not be passed to a Russian Federation that continues to threaten its neighbors,” said James G. Stavridis, the retired admiral who served as NATO’s top commander from 2009 to 2013.
“Russia has nothing like it, and without French help could not build it anytime soon,” said Stephen J. Blank, an expert on the Russian military at the American Foreign Policy Council.
“Since helicopters can also be armed with missiles, it can be a platform for a heliborne missile attack as well as what we in the States call an air assault or heliborne landings or amphibious landings,” Mr. Blank added.
The French defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, has played down the significance of the pending sale, saying that France would only be delivering unarmed “civilian hulls.”
But Senator Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and three other lawmakers said in a recent letter to President Obama that each of the ships would be able to carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft, 60 armored vehicles, 13 tanks and up to 700 soldiers.
The Kremlin has joined the debate as well. Dmitri O. Rogozin, a deputy prime minister, recently suggested that a decision to derail the deal would hurt France more than Russia. “France is starting to undermine trust in itself as a reliable supplier,” he said on his Twitter account. “Probably our colleague is not aware of the number of jobs created in France thanks to our partnership.”
French officials first informed their Western counterparts in 2009 that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was president at the time, was interested in selling the warships to Russia. That December, a cable from the American Embassy in Paris outlined the economic logic behind the deal. The Russians, an embassy economic officer wrote, had little confidence in their own shipyards, and Mr. Sarkozy was interested in lining up new clients for France’s ailing shipbuilding industry.
Continue reading the main story Recent Comments

Jeff Hackney

9 minutes ago Given American arms sales to countless repressive regimes - including but not limited to Egypt with its mass executions and Israel with its...
Carolyn

11 minutes ago The French realize that the delivery of war ships is not going to affect the outcome in Ukraine. It's just a question of whether the French...
Gaston

11 minutes ago Business is business. If anyone ought to understand this, it would be the Americans.

• See All Comments
• Write a comment

Georgia, whose breakaway regions were occupied by Russian troops in 2008, was worried by the potential sale, especially after a Russian naval commander was quoted as saying Russia’s Black Sea Fleet could have carried out its mission during that conflict “in 40 minutes” if it had possessed a ship like the Mistral.
In a November 2009 cable, John R. Bass, the American ambassador to Georgia, described the deal as “the wrong ship from the wrong country at the wrong time.”
“Not only on the symbolic level is the sale problematic; this type of ship will give Russia a new capability to enforce, or threaten to enforce, its will in the Black Sea,” wrote Mr. Bass, who currently serves as a top aide to Mr. Kerry.
In a January 2010 meeting, William J. Burns, who was serving at the time as the third ranking State Department official, and Michèle A. Flournoy, then the senior Pentagon policy official, pressed the issue in a meeting in Paris with their French counterparts.
Michel Miraillet, a French defense official at the time, argued that the sale would be a “gesture of good will to Russia” as its navy was “in dire condition,” according to a cable describing the meeting. If France did not make the sale, he argued, the Netherlands or Spain would sell a similar ship.
But Ms. Flournoy responded that the sale would “fly in the face” of Mr. Sarkozy’s role in resolving the 2008 confrontation between Russia and Georgia and would send a “confusing signal” to Russian and European nations, the cable noted. If France wanted to engage Moscow it should “find a different confidence-building measure than a Mistral sale,” she added.
Nonetheless, in 2011 France went ahead and signed a contract with Russia for two ships. Russia is considering buying another two Mistral-class ships after the first two are delivered.
With more than 1,000 jobs at stake and President François Hollande of France vowing not to run for re-election if unemployment does not improve, there appears to be little interest within the French government in canceling the sale. One option, some Western diplomats say, might be for the French Navy to buy the ships, but that would add substantially to the French military budget in a time of austerity.
After the delivery to Russia of the first ship, which is named the Vladivostok, the second ship is to be handed over by 2016. In a paradoxical twist of history, that ship is named the Sevastopol, after the city in Crimea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/wo...s-us.html?_r=1

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...01293316_n.jpg


https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...79034480_n.jpg

In more other news, Bush/Cheney have still not been arrested for war crimes and invading Iraq.


Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com
www.cnn.comPresident Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

They are ALL Screwed in the Head

Russian Foreign Minister Demands Obama Reply to Claim U.S. Mercenaries in Ukraine

Academi denies its mercs are helping junta in Kyiv eliminate opposition

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 14, 2014


http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/w...uwCMAMezuu.jpg

Earlier this week, Academi, the mercenary successor to Blackwater, told the German newspaper Zeit Online it does not have personnel on the ground in Ukraine assisting the junta in its effort to roll back opposition.
Bild am Sonntag, the largest-selling Sunday newspaper in Germany, reported last Sunday the presence of 400 mercenaries from the company were operating in Ukraine. The report followed an announcement in early May that the CIA and FBI are in the country assisting the regime.
Former CNN Intelligence Correspondent and current Vice President at Academi, Suzanne Kelly, told the German news website her company does not have personnel in Ukraine and does not plan to send any. She characterized media reports linking Academi to Blackwater as “incredibly irresponsible.”
Academi is in fact linked to Blackwater and its successor, XE Services. In December, 2001 The Washington Post ran a story with the headline “Ex-Blackwater firm gets a name change, again.”
Kelly’s less than forthright remark about the company also casts doubt on the assertion the mercenary firm is not assisting the coup government in Kyiv.
On Wednesday the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said Russia has “very strong” suspicions about Academi inside Ukraine. Lavrov and the Russian government are demanding a response from the Obama administration on the issue.
“I sent a message from ambassador to Washington asking him to respond to these assertions from the German media,” he said during an interview with Bloomberg News, according to The Hill. “Rumors to this effect were spread even before and [Secretary of State] John Kerry rejected them. Now they popped up again, and we’d like to see whether this is true or not.”

This article was posted: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 10:45 am

Related Articles

• CIA, FBI and Now Academi Mercenaries on the Ground in Ukraine
• Blackwater Mercenaries Reported in Donetsk, Ukraine
• Former Blackwater Mercenaries Hired as Thought Police in Eastern Ukraine
• Russia Says U.S. Mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine
• Russian Foreign Minister: Hillary’s ‘Friends of Syria’ undermines peace process

http://www.infowars.com/russian-fore...es-in-ukraine/

Top Russia Expert: Ukraine Joining Nato Would Provoke Nuclear War

One other thing. Russia has about, I think, 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield nuclear weapons. You use these for short distances. They can be fired; you don’t need an airplane or a missile to fly them. They can be fired from artillery. But they’re nuclear. They’re radioactive. They’ve never been used. Russia has about 10,000. We have about 500. Russia’s military doctrine clearly says that if Russia is threatened by overwhelming conventional forces, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. So when Obama boasts, as he has on two occasions, that our conventional weapons are vastly superior to Russia, he’s feeding into this argument by the Russian hawks that we have to get our tactical nuclear weapons ready.

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...70e0ce7afb99f4 Freedom Outpost

MH17 Dutch Report: Obama Lied Again — Airplane Was NOT Shot Down by a S2A Missile - Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/BkjIA

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&cfs=1&upscale


MH17 Dutch Report: Obama Lied Again — Airplane Was NOT Shot Down by a...
MH17 Dutch Report: Obama Lied Again — Airplane Was NOT Shot Down by a S2A Missile
freedomoutpost.com


MH17 Dutch Report: Obama Lied Again — Airplane Was NOT Shot Down by a S2A Missile

Dean Garrison 12 hours ago
9 Comments

Here is what we know so far. The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile and was launched by an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine. -Barack Hussein Obama

The Dutch preliminary report is in on the MH17 tragedy and it appears highly likely that Barack Obama was again lying, imagine that, to try to justify an increase in hostilities toward Russia. Furthermore, it would appear that the most likely explanation is that MH17 was shot down by Ukraine or an allied fighter jet that was allowed within Ukrainian airspace. Due to evidence of shelling, the report naturally leads to a conclusion that the plane was in fact taken down by an air-to-air strike and not a surface-to-air missile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oeuUEltGP0

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky reports:

According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Report:
"Flight MH17 with a Boeing 777-200 operated by Malaysia Airlines broke up in the air probably as the result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." (emphasis added)
While the report does not identify the nature of the "high energy objects", the assessment suggests that the plane was perforated by "a large number" of unspecified projectiles or "bullets".

This preliminary assessment including photographic evidence does not suggest that the plane was hit by "one or more" missiles, which is Washington's official version. As we recall, Western governments as well as the mainstream media blamed both Moscow and "the Russian-backed rebels" and claimed, without a shred of evidence, that a Russian-made Buk missile was responsible for the plane crash.

If you have been paying attention you likely already knew this. The Dutch Safety Board report simply makes it official. We ran a report by Mike Shedlock back in July that featured much of the same evidence that the Dutch used in making their assessment. Here is an excerpt:

Haisenko provides this High-Res Image of MH17 Cockpit.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...7-1024x675.png

Click on image for sharper image, or click on the preceding link for an even bigger image.

Haisenko Notes

• Cockpit shows traces of shelling, clean round hole, about 30 mm caliper.
  
• Some holes are bent inward, some outward
  
• Rivets bent outward
  
• Moreover, small cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which hint at the fact that fragments have penetrated the outer hull from the inside of the cockpit.
  

Bullet Holes in Shell

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...llet-holes.png

Now the Controversy

The rest of what Haisenko has to say is quite controversial. Here is my modified translation (corrections welcome).

So what can be happening? Russia has published radar recordings that show at least one Ukrainian SU-25 in close proximity of MH17. This corresponds with the statement of the lost Spanish controller who claims to have seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH17.

Is the Russian government more trustworthy than our own government?
In this case that would appear to be true, but you cannot always stand on that presumption. Figure out who benefits and that will normally lead you to who is lying.
The United States wants war in both Ukraine and Syria and our government will do whatever it has to do to establish justification for intervention. You must keep this in mind in the ISIS debate. The vast majority of Americans support attacks on ISIS. I would be in that majority as well, but… I am also not naive enough to believe that our government might not have manipulated ISIS into doing exactly what they wanted them to do. I feel the American people "got played" and now we have little choice but to support another war. Obama wanted greater intervention in Syria and he found a way to get it. That is just my opinion.
Think about that as President Obama lays out his grand strategy tonight on prime time television.
The intervention and nation building continue…
ad infinitum…
ad nauseam…
The betting man understands that every time Obama opens his mouth he is very likely lying.
In this case, it is worse than most of his lies. 300 innocent people died and there is a very good chance that we were either directly involved, or at the very least complicit. Even worse than 300 innocents who died, is the fact that they might have been intentionally sacrificed in an attempt to gain support for more war on Russia (financial or militarily). That is what human life is worth to this administration.
Let's kill people so we have an excuse to kill more.
The scariest fact in all of this is that every single top level government employee, civilian or military, who was in the loop, knew what we were doing. It is not just Barack Obama. It is all of them at the top. His closest advisers, legislators with top security clearance, our military brass… None of them can be trusted.

Try to digest that with your bran flakes this morning.

Full report below:

Dutch Preliminary Report on MH 17 Crash

Scribed document at the page link:

Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.



http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/mh...a-s2a-missile/

France ready to participate in Iraq airstrikes
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/World/201...1KuEZWx6r1V.99

http://www.alipac.us/f19/longtime-ri...t-isis-310695/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/u-s-10-nato...threat-310518/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

Quote:

---

The betting man understands that every time Obama opens his mouth he is very likely lying

---

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lsAJrbMeD-...1600/7bfq7.jpg

Russian Retaliation Begins: Gazprom "Limiting EU Gas", Cuts Poland Supplies By 24% In Past Two Days

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2014 15:00 -0400

Update: Bloomberg notes that Russian gas deliveries to Europe are suddenly in accelerating flux.

• Ukraine today received request from Poland to ship 11mcm/d of Russian gas, Ihor Prokopiv, CEO of Ukraine’s pipeline operator Uktransgaz, says in Kiev. Gazprom sent note it’s ready to supply just 7mcm, Prokopiv says
• Poland halted reverse gas flow to Ukraine of 4mcm/d by 3pm Warsaw, later than initially planned, Prokopiv

And yet:

• GAZPROM SAYS GAS FLOWS TO POLAND REMAINING AT 23MCM/D
  

So all is well on the surface. Just don't look underneath.

Over the weekend, we commented that in response to Europe's latest, and most serious, sanction round which would finally impact Russian energy giants Rosenft, Gazprom Neft (but not Gazprom) and Transneft, "suddenly the stakes for Russia, and thus Europe, just got all too real, as Putin will now have no choice but to really ramp up the retaliatory escalation, which following the food ban can only mean one thing: a staggered reduction in gas flow to Europe."
And while Europe appears to have blown its load prematurely, with the sanctions leaked before Europe actually has the consensus to implement them (it is now a daily threat by Europe which is screaming that it will impose the sanctions any minute yet not actually doing so), Russia has no such moral quandaries and three days following our forecast, here comes Gazprom confirming once again that it is perfectly happy to play the "mutual defection" strategy in the ongoing and ever escalating game theory between Europe and Russia for one simple reason: it has all the leverage.
From Bloomberg:

• RUSSIA LIMITING EU GAS TO RESTRICT REVERSE SUPPLY TO UKRAINE

In other words, this is only the beginning as Ukraine has clearly made the case that it will plug its gas reserve gap using "reverese flow" of Russian gas in transit to Europe. More importantly, this follows news earlier today from Poland’s PGNiG which said Gazprom lowered supply by 20%-24% in past 2 days.
So is this the beginning of the quite literal, ahead of the winter, European cold war? It looks like it, although for now it is all covered up in diplomacy with Bloomberg reporting that the Russian exporter "set volumes of daily natgas deliveries to Poland at level of end of last week due to preparations for heating season in Russia, Gazprom official says by phone, asking not to be identified in line with corporate policy." That, and conveniently Gazprom decided to "carry out some maintenance work at its pipeline system in Russia." Some maintenance work which suddenly saw Poland, which is 80% reliant on Russian gas, receive up to a quarter less Russian gas...
Finally, Gazprom noted that it also has to pump additional 7.3bcm of fuel to local underground inventories for winter in next month.
To be sure, Poland refused to tip its cards, and quickly commented that it won’t be hurt "as its underground storage is full", as was to be expected simply to avoid giving Russia all the leverage, something we also explained previously, when we observed in "Here Is Why Europe Just Launched The "Nuclear Option" Against Russia" that the Europe's 2014 winter war will be between the amount of gas held in European reserves, and how long Russian companies can go without obtaining European funding.
Then again, and once again confirming it is all about leverage, and who has it, Gazeta.ru reports that it took Poland just hours to halt its reverse flow to Ukraine:

Poland has suspended gas supplies to Ukraine in reverse flow. This was stated by the head of the company "Ukrtransgaz" Igor Prokop'ev, reports RIA "Novosti."

"Not everything is so simple. Today, Russia has begun to limit the supply of gas to the Republic of Poland to thwart reverse with Poland, we learn. At two o'clock in Poland ceased to reverse the Ukraine within the 4 million cubic meters ", - he explained the situation.

Earlier Polish PGNiG reported about the reduction of Russian gas supplies by 24%.

Gazprom’s press service declines to provide immediate comments, although none is needed after taking a quick look at the European dependence on Russia gas map conveniently placed below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...20russia_0.jpg


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...es-20-past-two-

Putin To Head Military-Industrial Commission, Sees Nuclear Deterrence As Top Task

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2014 14:35 -0400

When we exposed the shift in Russia's military doctrine towards one of nuclear deterrence and pre-emptive strikes, many eschewed it as fantastical thinking of extremists. They were wrong. Speaking at a defense meeting this morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared he is taking charge of Russia's military-industrial complex:

• *PUTIN SAYS DRAFT NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE SHOULD BE READY BY DEC.
• *PUTIN CALLS ENSURING NUCLEAR DETERRENT TOP DEFENSE TASK TO 2030
  

This does not seem like de-escalatory conversation as NATO continues to push - to justify its existence - and Putin now prepares an increasingly Cold-War-esque response threat (following an overnight nuclear missile test).

As Reuters reports,

President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Wednesday taking direct charge of a commission that oversees Russia's defense industry as Moscow tries to reduce reliance on Western equipment following sanctions over the Ukraine crisis.

He also said NATO was using rhetoric over the conflict in Ukraine to "resuscitate itself" and that Russia had warned repeatedly that it would have to respond to such moves.

And overnight, RIA reports a successful Russian Nuclear Missile test:

• *RUSSIA SUCCESSFULLY TESTED BULAVA MISSILE, RIA SAYS
• *RUSSIA SAYS BULAVA MISSILE TEST FIRED FROM SUBMARINE: RIA

Russia’s Vladimir Monomakh nuclear submarine launched Bulava missile from White Sea to shooting range in Kamchatka, state-run RIA Novosti reports, citing Defense Ministry’s spokesman, Igor Konashenkov.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0_bulava_0.jpg

Defense Ministry earlier said 2 Bulava tests planned for 2014, in Sept. and Nov.: RIA

He added:

• *PUTIN SAYS UKRAINE CRISIS BEING USED TO REVIVE NATO
• *PUTIN SAYS U.S. EXIT FROM MISSILE-DEFENSE TREATY CREATES THREAT
• *PUTIN ORDERS 2016-2030 DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT BUDGET BY END OF OCT

And who will be in charge of all this...

• *PUTIN SAYS HE'LL HEAD RUSSIAN MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

As RIA reports,

"Decree on the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, it is subordinated to the president directly. We discussed this issue with the government, the Prime Minister, and decided that it would be more effective than her work is built keeping in mind the fact that it will deal with a large power issues now import ", - Putin said at the meeting.

He added that the deputy was appointed vice-premier Rogozin, executive secretary - deputy defense minister Borisov.

"We hope that the new status of the commission, as well as its broad powers allow better coordinate cooperation between the Ministry of Defense and the other departments and defense enterprises, to solve all questions on the organization of the state defense order execution", - Putin said.

No surprise there!
And then there's this...

• *RUSSIA, IRAN TO RESUME TALKS ON CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PROJECTS SOON

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...rence-top-task

http://www.alipac.us/f19/poroshenko%...expert-310255/

The Big Lie in the ‘News’ ‘Reporting’ About Ukraine and Russia

Posted on September 11, 2014 by Eric Zuesse.

Here it is, in purest form, via a typical ‘news’ ‘report’ from CNN:
“While questions about Russia’s tactics remain, its strategy has become more clear: The Kremlin appears to have decided to prevent Ukraine turning West and leaving what Russia regards as its sphere of influence.”
However, did the U.S., in the early 1960s, decide to accept Cuba’s having turned away from the U.S. sphere of influence that had existed under the prior, corrupt, Cuban leader, Fulgensio Batista, and Cuba’s then becoming instead a new Soviet satellite, under Fidel Castro? And, in particular, how did the U.S. feel about Cuba’s new Soviet ally trying to insert Soviet missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba, right next door to us?
Did we like that? Did we even let that happen (which would be like Ukraine’s joining NATO, and then allowing Ukraine to get U.S. missiles)?
Of course not! (It was called the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.)
Nor will Russia let that happen to them in Ukraine. Putin is the same on that matter as Kennedy was, when the shoes were on the other feet — Soviets were the danger to the world’s peace then in Cuba, but Americans are the danger to the world’s peace now in Ukraine.
And this comes already after polls, such as this one, had previously shown that, globally, the U.S. is already considered to be, by far, the most dangerous nation in the world — considerably more dangerous than Russia is.
Are the ‘news’ ‘reporters,’ and the editors and the producers and the other ‘news’ managers, who hire and fire those ‘news’ ‘reporters,’ really so ignorant of the relevant history on this subject (the Cuban Missile Crisis, and its reverse analogue today in Ukraine), as they pretend to be? Of course not! But they want their public to remain that way (ignorant of it, or at least not to make the link), because the people who pay them, their advertisers, want the public’s ignorance to stay that way: trusting, even when it shouldn’t be. And we call this (the ‘journalism’ that those masters of the ‘press’ — or propaganda — deliver to us) a ‘free press,’ as if it were, though it’s actually a capitalistically controlled press, to manipulate the public in the way that virtually all advertisers want them to be manipulated: to trust the way that things are, rather than to question — much less to oppose — it.
The people who own and control, and hire-and-fire, the employees at CNN, The New York Times, Fox ‘News,’ etc., have a collectively shared agenda, to portray the United States as if this country were a democracy (so that their audience will trust them — this ‘free press’ — and so that their sponsors will thereby continue to generate income from their trusting complacent market), despite America’s not being a real democracy anymore; and a crucial part of that agenda, at a time like this when the U.S. President is aiming to surround Russia with our missiles in new NATO member-states, is to portray Russia as being a dictatorship, though it’s not that anymore — it’s not even the Soviet Union anymore, nor even communist, anymore. The ideological Cold War between capitalism and communism is over, and capitalism won. Yet, the ‘news’ establishment, and the book publishers, portray Russia as if it were little or nothing but an extension of the communist U.S.S.R. in geographically truncated form. (By contrast, here’s the actual reality on that matter.)
This typical CNN fictitious ‘news’ ‘report’ about Ukraine then continues its deception, as follows:
“That means denying Ukraine membership of Western institutions like the European Union, and NATO.”
Here’s the relevant background on that: The U.S. tried repeatedly to assassinate Fidel Castro in order to get rid of the danger. There’s no evidence, yet, that Putin is attempting any such thing in Ukraine, though we might drive him to try doing that. We might drive him to perpetrate a Ukrainian counter-coup, to overthrow the regime that Obama installed in his violent February 2014 coup that overthrew the leader Ukraine had elected in their last nationwide election, the election that occurred in 2010. (No nationwide election has occurred in Ukraine since then. The leader whom Obama installed in February 2014 there, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is still in power from Obama’s February coup, though a figurehead Ukrainian President was ‘elected’ on 25 May 2014 in ‘elections’ that were held in only the areas of Ukraine that had voted in 2010 against the man whom Obama overthrew in February 2014 (and Obama now wants to cement that victory of his, by getting rid of the voters for the man he overthrew: getting rid of the people who live in that area, as a consequence of which they are being exterminated and driven out) — so, that recent ‘election’ wasn’t a nationwide one, even though this Obama-installed Government is slaughtering the people in those very same regions that didn’t vote for it, and is claiming the sovereign right to do that and to call those resistors ‘terrorists.’) That’s the reality of the relevant background.
The next sentence in this typical CNN (supposed) ‘news’ ‘report’ is:
“What’s more, the Kremlin appears determined to achieve its goal regardless of the cost.”
Actually, however, it is the United States that has expended the vast sums to install the current Ukrainian Government, and then to retain it. Obama’s agent controlling Ukraine, who is Victoria Nuland, said in December 2013, three months before the coup, that we had already spent “more than five billion dollars” to establish “democracy” in that land where we soon thereafter actually ended Ukraine’s struggling democracy. Then, the IMF (which is to say, mainly U.S. taxpayers) lent another $17 billion, to enable this new Government to exterminate the resistors (and to aid U.S. firms to take over the country’s agriculture and gas); and, then, on 9 September 2014, the great economist Michael Hudson bannered “The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine”; and he wrote that, “Four months later, on August 29, just as Kiev began losing its attempt at ethnic cleansing against the eastern Donbas region [where Ukraine’s troops are clearing away the residents so as to install gas-fracking wells], the IMF signed off on the first loan ever to a side engaged in a civil war, not to mention rife with insider capital flight and a collapsing balance of payments.” Hudson noted that, “The IMF’s Articles of Agreement forbid it to make loans to countries that clearly cannot pay, prompting its economists to complain at last year’s October 2013 annual meeting in Washington that their institution was violating its rules by making bad loans ‘to states unable to repay their debts.’”
In other words: Obama as the U.S. President is acting like the megabank presidents did who had crashed their banks in 2008 by carrying out Ponzi schemes for ever-rising sales-commissions to their employees, and for ever-higher executive bonuses to themselves, via pumping out tons of liars’ ‘loans’ [now IMF ‘loans’ to an insolvent Ukraine] to people who couldn’t repay those loans and who would inevitably be driven bankrupt though trying to do so — all in order to produce then ever-growing quantities of rigged AAA-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that ended up robbing pension funds (while those megabank CEOs pocketed enormous sums in their bloated bonuses). And, as happened with the (still continuing) Wall Street bailout, U.S. taxpayers are left holding a multi-trillion-dollar debt for our children and grandchildren as taxpayers to pay, while today’s oligarchs (and their agents, such as, perhaps ultimately, a retired Obama) stash secret offshore bank accounts with their essentially stolen cash, as payoffs for services rendered in these mega-heists.
But this sort of thing isn’t “News That’s Fit to Print” — not even when it actually happens, as it has (since George W. Bush, at least), and as it seems likely to continue happening, because there is no accountability applied to the very biggest of thieves: they buy the government, and they own the ‘news’ media, and they fool the public, and blame ‘democracy’ (that’s us) for the resulting national stagnation if not decline.
It’s all a racket. The name for it is “fascism.” It’s actually Ponzi-scheme capitalism. And this fact is news that’s not fit to print, in a fascist country — at least not by fascist ‘news’ media, which benefit by perpetuating that type of Ponzi scheme — the nationalistic type.
So: we get ‘news’ that portrays America’s first-ever installation of an outright racist-fascist (otherwise called ideologically “nazi”) regime, in Ukraine, exterminating its own ethnic-Russian population (the people who live in Ukraine’s southeast), as if America were instead ‘protecting’ Ukraine against ‘Russian aggression.’
Such ‘news’ is not to be believed, because it is false; it is fake ‘news,’ not real “news” — not news at all, but instead mere myth-propagation. It is nothing more than nationalistic propaganda. It can equally be characterized as “aristocratic” propaganda (which is the reason why the conservatives in Britain are explicitly called “Tories”). (NOTE: There is a profound difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is democratic; nationalism is aristocratic. Patriotism used to be strong in America, but nationalism has increasingly replaced it. The very idea of ‘winning’ a nuclear war is nationalistic, and it is also traitorous; it is also false: it’s based on myths.)
Nationalistic propaganda is what Americans are reading, and seeing on television, about Ukraine, Russia, and American foreign policy.
Here, then, is the real news about Ukraine: Obama has broken the dysfunctional Ukraine into what will now inevitably be two or more failed states, just as George W. Bush did to Iraq, but Obama used mainly the State Department and CIA and IMF to do it, rather than the U.S. military (no “boots on the ground”). Putin is trying to manage the consequences of Obama’s aggression, in a way that will avoid a nuclear war with the U.S.
And so the Big Lie in the ‘news’ ‘reporting’ about Ukraine and Russia is that the Ukrainian regime and the man who installed it (Obama) are defending democracy against aggression from dictatorial Russia.
———-
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...ne-russia.html

WAR is the one ace in the hole 'o' has of accomplishing his 'hope and change' ...

---------------------------------------------

Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

Posted on June 13, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Preface by Washington’s Blog: Daniel Estulin is saying the same thing.
By Eric Zuesse:
On Wednesday, June 11th, CNN headlined “U.S. Sends B-2 Stealth Bombers to Europe,” and reported that “they arrived in Europe this week for training.” Wikipedia notes that B-2s were “originally designed primarily as a nuclear bomber,” and that “The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.”
In other words, the primary advantage of the newer, “Stealth,” version of B-2, is its first-strike (or surprise-attack) nuclear capability. That’s the upgrade: the weapon’s ability to sneak upon the target-country and destroy it before it has a chance to fire off any of its own nuclear weapons in response to that “first-strike” attack. The advantage of Stealth is creating and stationing a nuclear arsenal for the purpose of winning a nuclear war, instead of for the goal of having continued peace via “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Some historical background is necessary here, so that a reader can understand why this is happening — the switch to an objective of actually winning a nuclear war (as opposed to deterring one). One cannot understand what’s happening now in Ukraine without knowing this bigger picture.
(This account is written under the assumption that the reader already knows some of the allegations it contains, but not all of them, and that the reader will click on the link wherever a given allegation requires documentation and support.)
I have previously reported about “How and Why the U.S. Has Re-Started the Cold War (The Backstory that Precipitated Ukraine’s Civil War),” and, “Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?” I pointed out there that we don’t really need to re-start the Cold War, at all, since communism (against which the Cold War was, at least allegedly, fought) clearly lost to capitalism (we actually won the Cold War, and peacefully) but that America’s aristocracy very much does need to re-start a war with Russia — and why it does. (It has to do with maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, something that benefits America’s aristocrats enormously.)
Consequently, for example, a recent CNN Poll has found that Americans’ fear of Russia has soared within just the past two years. Our news media present a type of news “reporting” that places Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, into a very bad light, even when it’s unjustified by the facts.
The situation now is thus rather similar to that right before World War I, when the aristocracy in America decided that a pretext had to be created for our going to war against Germany. That War had already started in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep the U.S. out of it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P. Morgan and Company. This was documented in detail in an important 1985 book, Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well summarized in Business History Review, by noting that: “J.P. Morgan & Co. served as Britain’s financial and purchasing agent, and the author makes especially good use of the Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in London to probe that relationship. Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to pay for North American imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely central to Anglo-American relations. How to manage those politics became the chief preoccupation of Her Majesty’s representatives in the United States,” and most especially of Britain’s financial and purchasing agent in the U.S.
In 1917, after almost two years of heavy anti-German propaganda in the U.S. press that built an overwhelming public support for our joining that war against Germany, Congress found that, in March 1915, “J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media” so that we’d join the war on England’s side. Whereas back then, it was Germany’s leader who was being goaded into providing a pretext for us to declare war against his country, this time it’s Russia’s leader (Putin) who is being demonized and goaded into providing such a pretext, though Putin (unlike Germany’s Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing the pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion of Ukraine). Consequently, Obama’s people are stepping up the pressure upon Putin by bombing the areas of neighboring Ukraine where Russian speakers live, who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just a few more weeks of this, and Putin’s public support inside Russia could palpably erode if Putin simply lets the slaughter proceed without his sending troops in to defend them and to fight back against Kiev’s (Washington’s surrogate’s) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama has been warning about.
I also have reported on “Why Ukraine’s Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance.” The article argued that “This civil war is of massive historical importance, because it re-starts the global Cold War, this time no longer under the fig-leaf rationalization of an ideological battle between ‘capitalism’ versus ‘communism,’ but instead more raw, as a struggle between, on the one hand, the U.S. and West European aristocracies; and, on the other hand, the newly emerging aristocracies of Russia and of China.” The conflict’s origin, as recounted there, was told in its highest detail in an article in the scholarly journal Diplomatic History, about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 fooled the Soviet Union’s leader Mikhail Gorbachev into Gorbachev’s allowing the Cold War to be ended without any assurance being given to the remaining rump country, his own Russia, that NATO and its missiles and bombers won’t expand right up to Russia’s doorstep and surround Russia with a first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a chance to get its own nuclear weapons into the air in order to destroy the U.S. right back in retaliation.
That old system — “Mutually Assured Destruction” or MAD, but actually very rational from the public’s perspective on both sides — is gone. The U.S. increasingly is getting nuclear primacy. Russia, surrounded by NATO nations and U.S. nuclear weapons, would be able to be wiped out before its rusty and comparatively puny military force could be mustered to respond. Whereas we are not surrounded by their weapons, they are surrounded by ours. Whereas they don’t have the ability to wipe us out before we can respond, we have the ability to wipe them out before they’ll be able to respond. This is the reason why America’s aristocracy argue that MAD is dead. An article, “Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War” was published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, “the indirect effects ['nuclear winter'] would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global warming.) However, aristocrats separate themselves from the public, and so their perspective is not necessarily the same as the public’s. The perspective that J.P. Morgan and Co. had in 1915 wasn’t the perspective that the U.S. public had back then, and it also wasn’t the perspective that our President, Woodrow Wilson, did back then, when we were a democracy. But it’s even less clear today that we are a democracy than it was in 1915. In that regard, things have only gotten worse in America.
So, President Obama is now trying to persuade EU leaders to join with him to complete this plan to replace MAD with a first-strike nuclear capability that will eliminate Russia altogether from the world stage.
As I also documented, the IMF is thoroughly supportive of this plan to remove Russia, and announced on May 1st, just a day prior to our massacre of independence-supporters in the south Ukrainian city of Odessa on May 2nd, that unless all of the independence supporters in south and eastern Ukraine can be defeated and/or killed, the IMF will pull the plug on Ukraine and force it into receivership.
Obama clearly means business here, and so the government that we have installed in Kiev is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine, in order to convince the residents there that resistance will be futile. Part of the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the losses of all of Ukraine’s unpaid debts to Russia, so that far less of Ukraine’s unpaid debts to the IMF, U.S. and E.U., will remain unpaid. It’s basically an international bankruptcy proceeding, but without an international bankruptcy court, using instead military means. It’s like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment, and the one with the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is the reason why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down the rebellion in Ukraine’s southeast. What’s important to the IMF is not land, it’s the Kiev government’s continued control over the assets in the rebelling part of Ukraine — assets that will be worth something in a privatization or sell-off to repay that debt. However, for Obama, what is even more important than repaid debts is the continued dominance of the U.S. dollar. Wall Street needs that.
Among other indications that the U.S. is now preparing a nuclear attack against Russia is an article on May 23rd, “U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System,” and also a June 10th report from a website with good sources in Russian intelligence, which alleges that Ukrainian President Petro “Poroshenko secretly met with … [an] American delegation headed by the Director of … the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, Frank Archibald, which also included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current – Raymond Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA agent in the Polish intelligence Agency, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who is working as senior Vice President of the insurance company Brower. Poroshenko and Archibald signed a paper entitled an ‘Agreement on Military Cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine’”
Furthermore, barely a month before the CIA and State Department overthrew the previous, the pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, the government of Netherlands decided, after 18 years of “dithering,” to allow the U.S. to arm our F-35 bombers there with nuclear weapons. And this was already after Holland’s “Parliament in November signed off on a government plan to purchase 37 F-35As to replace the Dutch air force’s aging fleet of nuclear-capable F-16s. The Netherlands is widely understood to host about two dozen U.S. B-61 gravity bombs at the Volkel air base, as part of NATO’s policy of nuclear burden-sharing.”
Moreover, Obama isn’t only beefing up our first-strike nuclear capability, but is also building something new, called “Prompt Global Strike,” to supplement that nuclear force, by means of “a precision conventional weapon strike” that, if launched against Russia from next-door Ukraine, could wipe out Russia’s nuclear weapons within just a minute or so. That might be a fallback position, for Obama, in case the EU’s leaders (other than Netherlands and perhaps one or two others) might happen to decide that they won’t participate in our planned nuclear invasion of Russia.
Certainly, Obama means business here, but the big question is whether he’ll be able to get the leaders of other “democratic” nations to go along with his first-strike plan.
The two likeliest things that can stop him, at this stage, would be either NATO’s breaking up, or else Putin’s deciding to take a political beating among his own public for simply not responding to our increasing provocations. Perhaps Putin will decide that a temporary embarrassment for him at home (for being “wimpy”) will be better, even for just himself, than the annihilation of his entire country would be. And maybe, if Obama pushes his indubitable Superpower card too hard, he’ll be even more embarrassed by this conflict than Putin will be. After all, things like this and this aren’t going to burnish Obama’s reputation in the history books, if he cares about that. But maybe he’s satisfied to be considered to have been George W. Bush II, just a far better-spoken version: a more charming liar than the original. However, if things come to a nuclear invasion, even a U.S. “victory” won’t do much more for Obama’s reputation than Bush’s “victory” in Iraq did for his. In fact, perhaps Americans will then come to feel that George W. Bush wasn’t America’s worst President, after all. Maybe the second half of the Bush-Obama Presidency will be even worse than the first.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...ck-russia.html

Poland Says Russian Gas Deliveries Tumble By 45%; Europe To Launch Sanctions On Friday, Russia Will Retaliate

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/11/2014 - 09:34 http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../Syphoning.jpgYesterday, when Gazprom was supposedly "troubleshooting its systems", we reported that in what was the first salvo of Europe's latest cold (quite literally, with winter just around the corner) war, Poland complained that up to 25% of its usual gas deliveries from Russia had been cut. Russia indirectly hinted that this was also a result of Ukraine using "reverse flow" to meet its demands, with Europe allowing Kiev to syphon off whatever gas it needs without paying Gazprome for it. It also led Poland to promptly admit it would halt reverse flow to the civil-war ridden country. Fast forward to today when Polish financial website Biznes reports that things are going from bad to worse in Russia's energy retaliation war, after Poland claimed a 45% shortfall in Russian natgas imports as of Wednesday.

US Unveils Latest Russian Sanctions, Putin Immediately Responds That Russia Drafting Retaliation

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpgSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 09/12/2014 10:22 -0400

Moments ago, as was widely preannounced, the US Treasury unveiled its latest round of Russian sanctions. While the bigger picture was well-known, here are some of the highlights:

• U.S. SANCTIONS FOCUS ON FINANCIAL, ENERGY, DEFENSE SECTORS
• U.S. TREASURY ADDS SBERBANK TO SANCTIONS LIST,
• U.S. TREASURY SANCTIONS AFFECTS GAZPROM, GAZPROM NEFT, LUKOIL, ROSNEFT, AND SURGUTNEFTGAZ
• U.S. TIGHTENS DEBT FINANCING RESTRICTIONS TO 30 DAYS

As Bloomberg reports, action deepens existing sanctions on Russian financial institutions, expands sanctions on Russia’s energy sector, targets additional energy- and defense-related firms, U.S. Treasury says in statement. "Today’s actions demonstrate our determination to increase the costs on Russia as long as it continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty," Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen says in statement
Treasury Dept says it “maintains significant scope to expand these sanctions.”
Sberbank added to sanctions list; Treasury also tightens “debt financing restrictions by reducing from 90 days to 30 days the maturity period” for sanctioned banks
Also imposes sanctions that “prohibit the exportation of goods, services (not including financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for Russian deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil”
Step affects 5 cos.: Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegas, and Rosneft, Treasury says
And instantly: PUTIN: GOVT DRAFTING PROPOSALS TO RETALIATE AGAINST SANCTIONS

• PUTIN SAYS RUSSIA TO RETALIATE ONLY IF IT SERVES ITS INTERESTS
• PUTIN SEES MORE POSITIVES THAN NEGATIVES IN LATEST SANCTIONS
• PUTIN SAYS UKRAINE `HELD HOSTAGE' BY OUTSIDE INTERESTS
• PUTIN SAYS RUSSIA WON'T IMPOSE TRAVEL BANS IN RETALIATION

And Rosneft is pissed, via Bloomberg:

• Rosneft is improper target for sanctions as co. doesn’t influence political process, spokesman Mikhail Leontyev says by phone.
• Leontyev declines to comment on effect of sanctions, saying lawyers are studying issue
• New sanctions are even more groundless, unjust than previous measures
• Sanctions seem to target EU, U.S. partners; affect shareholders
• “If the sanctions are meant as a scare tactic, then the object of the scaring is an unlucky choice, because we have no influence over the process”

So back to square one, as Russia and China get progressively closer.
* * *
Full statement from the US Treasury:
*WASHINGTON – *Due to continued Russian efforts to destabilize eastern Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew today determined that persons operating within Russia’s defense and related materiel sector may now be subject to targeted sanctions under Executive Order 13662. In addition, the U.S. Department of the Treasury today extended targeted financial sanctions to Russia’s largest bank, deepened existing sanctions on Russian financial institutions, expanded sanctions in Russia’s energy sector, and increased the number of sanctioned Russian entities in the energy and defense sectors.
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has made a determination that persons operating within Russia’s defense and related materiel sector may now be subject to targeted sanctions under Executive Order 13662. Following Secretary Lew’s determination, Treasury has imposed sanctions that prohibit transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States involving new debt of greater than 30 days maturity issued by Rostec, a major Russian conglomerate that operates in the defense and related materiel sector.
Treasury has added Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank of Russia, to the existing prohibitions on U.S. persons providing equity or certain long-term debt financing. In addition, we have tightened the debt financing restrictions by reducing from 90 days to 30 days the maturity period for new debt issued by the six Russian banks subject to this restriction. These banks are Bank of Moscow, Gazprombank OAO, Russian Agricultural Bank, Sberbank, VEB, and VTB Bank.
Treasury has designated and blocked the assets of five Russian state-owned defense technology firms – OAO ‘Dolgoprudny Research Production Enterprise,’ Mytishchinski Mashinostroitelny Zavod OAO, Kalinin Machine Plant JSC, Almaz-Antey GSKB, and JSC NIIP – for operating in the arms or related materiel sector in Russia.
Treasury has also imposed sanctions that prohibit the exportation of goods, services (not including financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for Russian deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil, to five Russian energy companies – Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegas, and Rosneft – involved in these types of projects. This measure complements restrictions administered by the Commerce Department and is similar to new EU measures published today. U.S. persons have until September 26, 2014 to wind down applicable transactions with these entities pursuant to a general license that Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued today.
Treasury has also imposed sanctions that prohibit transactions in, provision of financing for, or other dealings in new debt of greater than 90 days maturity issued by two additional Russian energy companies – Gazprom Neft and Transneft.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our determination to increase the costs on Russia as long as it continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. “The United States, in close cooperation with the European Union, will impose ever-increasing sanctions that further Russia’s isolation from the global financial system unless Russia abandons its current path and genuinely works toward a negotiated diplomatic resolution to the crisis.”
Despite the severity of these actions, Treasury maintains significant scope to expand these sanctions, and impose additional sanctions, against individuals and entities under the authorities of Executive Orders (E.O.) 13660, 13661 and 13662 should the Russian Government not take steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine.
* *
"Imposition of Sanctions on Several Russian State-Owned Firms Pursuant to E.O. 13661 and E.O. 13662 for Operation in the Defense or Related Materiel Sector in
Russia"
Treasury today has also imposed new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions targeting firms operating in Russia’s defense sector.""
* *
*Determination about Russia’s Defense and Related Material Sector and Imposition of Sanctions against Rostec.
*Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew today made a determination under E.O. 13662 that persons operating within Russia’s defense and related materiel sector may now be subject to targeted sanctions. Following Secretary Lew’s determination, Treasury issued a new directive that imposes sanctions on Rostec, a major Russian conglomerate that operates in the defense and related materiel sector. Directive 3 pursuant to E.O. 13662 prohibits transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt of greater than 30 days maturity issued by Rostec, and its 50 percent or more owned subsidiaries, effectively cutting it off from U.S. debt financing.

*Rostec* is a Russia-based state-owned holding company for Russia’s defense industry. Rostec produces, develops, manufactures, and exports civil, military, and dual-purpose high-technology goods, and is involved in the manufacturing of weapons and military equipment. Rostec-held subsidiaries manufacture and export military products valued in the billions. Treasury designated Rostec’s Director General, Sergei Viktorovich Chemezov, on April 28, 2014, pursuant to E.O. 13661.
*Designation of Additional Defense Technology Companies under E.O. 13661.
*Treasury has also designated and blocked the assets of five Russian defense firms under E.O. 13661 for operating in the arms and related materiel sector in the Russian Federation. The firms designated today under E.O. 13661 include OAO ‘Dolgoprudny Research Production Enterprise,’ Mytishchinski Mashinostroitelny Zavod OAO, Kalinin Machine Plant JSC, Almaz-Antey GSKB, and JSC NIIP. The designated firms are responsible for the production of a range of materiel, from small arms to mortar shells to tanks. As a result of today’s actions under E.O. 13661, any assets of these entities that are within U.S. jurisdiction must be frozen. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States involving these entities are generally prohibited. ""
*OAO ‘Dolgoprudny Research Production Enterprise’* is a Russia-based company, which is primarily engaged in the production of weapons and ammunition, including the Buk missile system, known in the West as “Gadfly” or SA-11 or SA-17.
*Mytishchinski Mashinostroitelny Zavod, OAO* is a Moscow-based company that has produced weaponry and equipment focusing primarily on anti-aircraft missile systems and chassis for tracked military vehicles.
*Kalinin Machine Plant JSC* is a Russia-based, state-run company involved in the production of special purpose products such as weapons, ammunition, and combat anti-air missile system facilities for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Kalinin Machine Plant JSC produces artillery guns for infantry and anti-air defense and specializes in the production of launchers and anti-air missiles.
*Almaz-Antey GSKB* is a Moscow-based subsidiary of the Almaz-Antey Concern, which was designated under E.O. 13661 on July 16, 2014. Almaz-Antey GSKB designs and manufactures air defense systems for the Russian Ministry of Defense.
*JSC NIIP* is a Zhukovski-based Russian defense industrial firm owned by the Almaz-Antey Concern. JSC NIIP develops anti-aircraft defense systems, including on-board radar systems for MiG and Sukhoi fighters, and anti-aircraft missile systems for land forces, including the KUB and BUK systems.
"Expansion of Prohibition of Certain Types of Activities with Several Russian State-Owned Financial Institutions Pursuant to E.O. 13662"
Treasury today has imposed new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions in Russia’s financial sector.
*Imposition of Sanctions against Sberbank of Russia and Lowering of Allowable Maturity for New Debt Issuance for Sanctioned Financial Institutions.
*Treasury has also modified Directive 1 pursuant to E.O. 13662 to lower the allowable maturity for new debt from 90 to 30 days, and has added Sberbank to the list of entities subject to the restrictions in Directive 1. Directive 1 pursuant to E.O. 13662 now prohibits transactions in, provision of financing for, or other dealings in new debt of greater than 30 days maturity and new equity of the banks listed under this Directive, by U.S. persons or within the United States. As a practical matter, this step will further remove access to U.S. dollar financing for these financial institutions, and impose additional significant costs on the Russian Government for its continued provocations.
*Sberbank of Russia *is Russia’s largest financial institution. Sberbank accounts for approximately one-quarter of Russian banking assets and one-third of its banking capital.
" "
"Prohibition of Certain Types of Activities with Several Russian State-Owned Energy Companies Pursuant to E.O. 13662"
Treasury today has imposed new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions targeting firms operating in Russia’s energy sector.
" "
*Prohibition on Goods, Services, and Technology for Certain Energy Sector Activities. *New Directive 4 issued pursuant to E.O. 13662 prohibits the provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology by U.S. persons or from the United States in support of exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation and extending from its territory, and that involve five listed Russian energy companies: Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegas, and Rosneft. Treasury initially imposed sanctions against Rosneft, Russia’s largest petroleum company and third-largest gas producer, pursuant to E.O. 13662 on July 17, 2014. Today’s step, which complements Commerce Department restrictions and is similar to new EU measures published today, will impede Russia’s ability to develop so-called frontier or unconventional oil resources, areas in which Russian firms are heavily dependent on U.S. and western technology. While these sanctions do not target
or interfere with the current supply of energy from Russia or prevent Russian companies from selling oil and gas to any country, they make it difficult for Russia to develop long-term, technically challenging future projects.
*OAO Gazprom* is a Russia-based, government-owned global energy company engaged in gas exploration, production, transportation, storage, processing, and sales. It is one of the largest joint stock companies in Russia.
*Gazprom Neft *is an integrated Russian oil company engaged in the exploration, development, production, transportation, and sale of crude oil and gas, and is also involved in oil refining, marketing of petroleum products, oil field services, and construction and development of exploration wells. Gazprom Neft is majority owned by Gazprom.
*Lukoil OAO* is a Russia-based integrated oil and gas company. Lukoil is engaged in the business of oil exploration, production, refining, marketing, and distribution. The company is an owner of refineries, gas processing, petrochemical plants, and gas station networks located in Russia and abroad.
*Surgutneftegas *is a Russian oil company involved in oil and gas production and exploration, gas processing, power generation, output and marketing of petroleum products, petrochemicals and gas products.
* *
*Imposition of Sanctions against Gazprom Neft and Transneft. *Treasury has added two Russian energy companies, Gazprom Neft and Transneft, to the prohibitions under Directive 2 pursuant to E.O. 13662. Transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt of greater than 90 days maturity for these two companies, and their 50 percent or more owned subsidiaries, by U.S. persons or within the United States are prohibited. This sanction will impair their ability to raise financing in U.S. dollars, which is critical for their exploration and development of new oil fields.
*AK Transneft OAO* is Russia’s government-owned pipeline company. The company provides services for oil and oil products transportation via trunk pipelines systems within the Russian Federation and abroad.
* * *
And the FAQ for today's sanctions as released by the Treasury:
407. May a U.S. person consent to a replacement of its participation by a non-U.S. person in a long-term loan facility that was extended to a person subject to Directives 1, 2, or 3 prior to the sanctions effective date?
A U.S. person is not prohibited by Directives 1, 2, or 3 from engaging in transactions necessary to exit or replace its participation in a long-term loan facility that was extended to an SSI entity prior to the sanctions effective date. This would not constitute dealing in new debt. U.S. persons involved in such facilities should ensure that all newly negotiated drawdowns or disbursements from the facility utilize repayment terms that are not prohibited by the applicable sanctions effective date. See FAQ 394? for additional information on what constitutes a permitted drawdown or disbursement from an existing long-term loan obligation. [9-12-2014]
408. Is a U.S. person permitted under Directives 1, 2, or 3 to extend credit for greater than 30 days (for persons subject to Directives 1 or 3) or 90 days (for persons subject to Directive 2) to a non-sanctioned party for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from a person subject to Directives 1, 2, or 3?
Directives 1, 2, and 3 do not prohibit U.S. persons from extending credit for longer than 30 days (for persons subject to Directives 1 or 3) or 90 days (for persons subject to Directive 2) to non-sanctioned parties for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from an SSI entity, so long as the SSI entity is not the indirect borrower. [9-12-2014]
409. If a person determined to be subject to Directives 1, 2, or 3 makes successive draws under a short-term facility created after the sanctions effective date (e.g., it borrows $100 million with a 15-day maturity, then at the end of the 15 days, the debt “rolls over”), does the facility become prohibited if the SSI borrower makes successive short-term borrowings that cumulatively add up to more than 30 days (for persons subject to Directives 1 or 3) or 90 days (for persons subject to Directive 2)?
Two conditions must be met for short-term facilities created after the sanctions effective date to be permissible. As long as (1) each individual disbursement has a maturity of 30 or 90 days or less (depending on the applicable Directive) and the disbursement is paid back in full before the next disbursement and (2) the lender is not contractually required to roll over the balance for a cumulative period of longer than 30 or 90 days (depending on the applicable Directive) at the borrower’s request (i.e., it has the option to refuse the request for a new short-term loan and terminate the facility), the loan is not prohibited, even though the same borrower may obtain a series of short-term loans from the same lender over a cumulative period exceeding 30 or 90 days (depending on the applicable Directive). U.S. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated after the sanctions effective date with a repayment term of longer than the applicable authorized tenor if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement are negotiated or re-negotiated on or after the sanctions effective date. Such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited extension of credit. [9-12-2014]
410. Are U.S. persons prohibited from entering into new contracts after the sanctions effective date with persons subject to Directives 1, 2, or 3 that provide payment terms to the SSI entities of greater than 30 days (for persons subject to Directives 1 or 3) or 90 days (for persons subject to Directive 2)? For instance, if a U.S. person agrees to sell shares or assets to an SSI entity in a corporate transaction that becomes effective on or after the sanctions effective date, is the U.S. person prohibited from agreeing to deferred purchase payments, even if no interest is involved, that may be paid more than the permissible number of days later by the SSI entity?
Directives 1 and 3 prohibit new extensions of credit to SSI entities of greater than 30 days maturity and Directive 2 prohibits new extensions of credit to SSI entities of greater than 90 days maturity, and these prohibitions include deferred purchase agreements extending payment terms of longer than 30 days or 90 days (depending on the applicable Directive) to an SSI entity. Such agreements would constitute a prohibited extension of credit to an SSI entity if the terms were longer than the permissible number of days and the agreement was entered into on or after the sanctions effective date. OFAC does not consider the inclusion of an interest rate to be a necessary condition for establishing whether a transaction represents new debt. [9-12-2014]
411. What does the prohibition contained in Directive 3 under Executive Order 13662 mean? What is the scope of prohibited services?
OFAC issued Directive 3, introducing new prohibitions on all transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt of longer than 30 days maturity of persons determined to be subject to the Directive, their property, or their interests in property. Transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States involving derivative products whose value is linked to an underlying asset that constitutes new debt with maturity of longer than 30 days issued by a person subject to Directive 3 are authorized by General License 1A pursuant to Executive Order 13662.
412. What does the prohibition contained in Directive 4 mean? What is the scope of prohibited services?
OFAC issued Directive 4, introducing new prohibitions on the provision of goods, services (except for financial services), and technology for certain activities involving certain persons operating in the energy sector of the Russian Federation. Directive 4 prohibits the direct or indirect provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation and extending from its territory, and involve any person determined to be subject to Directive 4 or that person’s property or interests in property. The prohibition on the exportation of services includes, for example, drilling services, geophysical services, geological services, logistical services, management services, modeling capabilities, and mapping technologies. The prohibition does not apply to the provision of financial services, e.g., clearing transactions or providing insurance related to such activities.
On September 12, 2014, OFAC issued General License 2, authorizing for 14 days all services and activities prohibited by Directive 4 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving persons determined to be subject to Directive 4. In order to qualify under this General License, a transaction must (1) occur prior to 12:01 am E.D.T. September 26, 2014, and (2) relate to operations, contracts, or agreements that were in effect prior to September 12, 2014. General License 2 does not authorize any new provision, exportation, or re-exportation of goods, services, or technology except as needed to cease operations, contracts, or other agreements involving affected projects.
Please see this page for the Department of Commerce’s related license requirement on exports of certain goods for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil or gas.
413. For the purposes of Directive 4, how does OFAC define "deepwater" projects that have the potential to produce oil?
A project is considered to be a deepwater project if the project involves underwater activities at depths of more than 500 feet.
414. Does Directive 4 apply to projects that have the potential to produce gas?
If a deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale project in the Russian Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation and extending from its territory, and involving a person named under Directive 4 has the potential to produce oil, then the prohibition applies, irrespective of whether the project also has the potential to produce gas. If the project has the potential to produce gas only, then the prohibition does not apply.
415. For persons determined to be subject to multiple Directives, how do the prohibitions and exemptions listed under one Directive affect prohibitions and exemptions under the other Directives?
Each Directive operates independently of the others. If a transaction involves a person subject to two Directives, for example, a U.S. person engaging in that transaction must comply with the requirements of both Directives. Exemptions in one Directive apply only to the prohibitions contained in that Directive and do not carry over to another Directive. For example, if a person is subject to both Directive 2 and Directive 4, the exemption for the provision of financial services by U.S. persons or in the United States under Directive 4 does not supersede the prohibition in Directive 2 on dealing in debt of longer than 90 days maturity of such a person. For these reasons, when OFAC references a prohibition involving an "SSI entity" in these FAQs or in other guidance, it is referring to an entity subject to the Directive(s) at issue in a particular FAQ or piece of guidance.
416. What does the "sanctions effective date" mean in the context of sectoral sanctions pursuant to E.O. 13662?
For purposes of the sectoral sanctions, "sanctions effective date" means the date a person is determined to be subject to the prohibition(s) of the relevant Directive. When a person has been previously determined to be subject to a Directive and the prohibition in the Directive is subsequently amended, (1) the sanctions effective date for the prohibitions of the original Directive remains the date on which the person was identified as subject to the prohibitions of that Directive, and (2) the sanctions effective date for the amended Directive is the date of the amendment (or other date specified in the amended Directive).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...drafting-retal

http://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif




POPE: WWIII UNDERWAY




http://drudgereport.com/

WW-III Prelude: German Leopard-2 Tanks In Ukraine.

Saturday, September 13, 2014 19:25
(Before It's News)

http://pravdoryb.info

According to the report Ukrainian Fascist Junta begun full scale offensive on Yasinovataya, Donetsk Region. Locals reporting heavy artilery firing on civilians from Makeevka, Donetsk Region. As reported earlier Kiev Junta used ceasefire to resupply and regroup Fascist forces in the region.

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...images/RPG.png

Here is the image of one of the 34 German tanks taken in Ukraine on 13 September 2014 heading EAST.

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...1410635402.jpg http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...1010462906.jpg http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...1010463439.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mlx8LvFnGE

P.S. German tank batallion has not been declared as part of “Rapid Trident” exercise. Total amount of participants - 1100 from Azerbajdzhan, Cananda, Georgia, Germany, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, England, US contingent alone consist of 200 soldiers. Thus 700 strong German tank batallion deployed and driven under its own power across 3 countries leave no room for imagination.

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...ges/large1.png

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...ages/large.png

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...ges/large2.png

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...ges/large3.png


Actual screenshots of Ukrainian Fascists taken by Norwegian TV2 Channel.


http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unre...t-2460694.html

Russia Admits WW3 Is Coming! ‘There Is A War Coming In Europe’

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:10
(Before It's News)
By Susan Duclos

One statement reported on by FT basically says it all, making it clear that Russia is gearing up for World War III and there is nothing that can stop it at this point.

The initial story is about the recent news of a $50 billion judgement against Russia, and the details of that can be seen at the FT article (free subscription) and in the video below, but it is the last paragraph of the FT article about a statement made by a person close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, that really brings the reality of what is coming, home.

One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine. “There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”

That is what everyone has been gearing up for. That is why the Ukraine situation was set up, orchestrated and preparations are being made to pull out old war plans from the cold war era.

WW III is what all of it has been about and we were warned consistently that this would happen because when global economies are ready to crash, war is the option TPTB always fall back to.

MAJOR UPDATE – Mother Of All Bombshells! Huge US Military Buildup In Ukraine – “This Is All Looking Pretty Ugly” – Gregory Mannarino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm3za00__sQ

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...ear-war(3).jpg

Cross posted at Wake up America

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-con...g-2453412.html

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...4933f57bd24e1e Drudge Report

WARNING TO ASSAD: DON'T SHOOT DOWN OUR PLANES!

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...sw=1050&sh=550


Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama
Before recently announcing an escalated campaign against Islamic extremists, President Obama privately reflected on another time when a president weighed military action in the Middle East.
www.nytimes.com|By PETER BAKER

Middle East |​​NYT Now

Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama

By PETER BAKERSEPT. 13, 2014

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...-master675.jpg

President Obama on Wednesday in Washington. Mr. Obama says he is aware of the “political price” he pays for being deliberate. Credit Pool photo by Saul Loeb

WASHINGTON — Just hours before announcing an escalated campaign against Islamic extremists last week, President Obama privately reflected on another time when a president weighed military action in the Middle East — the frenzied weeks leading up to the American invasion of Iraq a decade ago.
“I was not here in the run-up to Iraq in 2003,” he told a group of visitors who met with him in the White House before his televised speech to the nation, according to several people who were in the meeting. “It would have been fascinating to see the momentum and how it builds.”
In his own way, Mr. Obama said, he had seen something similar, a virtual fever rising in Washington, pressuring him to send the armed forces after the Sunni radicals who had swept through Iraq and beheaded American journalists. He had told his staff, he said, not to evaluate their own policy based on external momentum. He would not rush to war. He would be deliberate.
“But I’m aware I pay a political price for that,” he said.
His introspection that afternoon reflected Mr. Obama’s journey from the candidate who wanted to wind down America’s overseas wars to the commander in chief who just resumed and expanded one. For Mr. Obama, that spring of 2003, when President George W. Bush sent troops to topple Saddam Hussein, has framed his own presidency. He has spent nearly six years trying to avoid repeating it.
In forming a plan to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria using airpower and local forces, but not regular American ground troops, he searched for ways to avoid the mistakes of the past. He felt “haunted,” he told his visitors, by the failure of a Special Forces raid to rescue the American hostages James Foley and Steven J. Sotloff — “we just missed them,” he said — but their subsequent murders were not the real reason he opted for war, although he noted that gruesome videos released by ISIS had helped galvanize public support for action.
He was acutely aware that the operation he was about to embark on would not solve the larger issues in that region by the time he left office. “This will be a problem for the next president,” Mr. Obama said ruefully, “and probably the one after that.” But he alternated between resolve as he vowed to retaliate against President Bashar al-Assad if Syrian forces shot at American planes, and prickliness as he mocked critics of his more reticent approach to the exercise of American power.
“Oh, it’s a shame when you have a wan, diffident, professorial president with no foreign policy other than ‘don’t do stupid things,’ ” guests recalled him saying, sarcastically imitating his adversaries. “I do not make apologies for being careful in these areas, even if it doesn’t make for good theater.”
Mr. Obama went on to reveal his thoughts on challenges he faces in combating the threat from ISIS. He expressed his frustration with the French for paying ransoms to terrorists, asserted that Americans are kidnapped at lower rates because the United States does not, resisted the idea of Kurdistan’s breaking away from Iraq and even speculated on what he would have advised ISIS to do to keep America out of the war in the region.
This account of Mr. Obama’s thinking as he arrived at a pivotal point in his presidency is based on interviews with 10 people who spoke with him in the days leading up to his speech Wednesday night. In quoting his private remarks, the people were recalling what he said from their best memories.
The president invited a group of foreign policy experts and former government officials to dinner on Monday, and a separate group of columnists and magazine writers for a discussion on Wednesday afternoon. Although three New York Times columnists and an editorial writer were among those invited to the second session, this account is drawn from people unaffiliated with The Times, some of whom insisted on anonymity because they were not supposed to share details of the conversations.
The president they described was calm and confident, well versed on the complexities of the ISIS challenge and in no evident rush to end the discussions. A briefing book sat in front of him during the second of the sessions, but he never opened it. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State John Kerry joined him for the dinner, and Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, and Susan Rice, the national security adviser, sat in on the meeting with the journalists, but none of them said very much.
Mr. Obama was relaxed enough, as he discussed the array of foreign policy crises facing him, that at one point he ridiculed President Vladimir V. Putin’s rationale for intervening in Ukraine to protect Russian speakers by saying the United States should intervene in Mexico to protect enclaves of Americans. When a writer jokingly asked if he was announcing plans to invade Mexico, he laughed and said no, Canada, because it has more oil.
The guests came away with different impressions; some said they thought he still seemed ambivalent about the course he was taking in Iraq and Syria, while others said he appeared at peace.
“It’s fair to say when the president imagined where he’d be in this sixth year, I doubt he expected to be here,” said Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Bush administration official who was among the guests at the dinner Monday. “But he’s been forced to react to events here.”
Jane Harman, a former Democratic congresswoman from California who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said she thought Mr. Obama had evolved. “He was all in,” she said. “I don’t know what the definition of reluctant is, but I certainly think he’s totally focused, this man at this time.”
If his thinking has evolved, Mr. Obama admitted no errors along the way. While some critics, and even his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, have faulted him for not arming moderate Syrian rebels years ago, Mr. Obama does not accept the premise that doing so would have forestalled the rise of ISIS.
“I have thought that through and tried to apply 20-20 hindsight,” he told some of his guests, as one recalled. “I’m perfectly willing to admit they were right, but even if they were right, I still can’t see how that would have changed the situation.”
He defended his decision to wait to approve airstrikes until last month in Iraq and last week in Syria, saying he wanted first to force Iraq to replace its government with a more inclusive coalition that could draw disaffected Sunnis away from supporting ISIS and take on the task of combating it.
But while Mr. Obama sees bolstering the new Iraqi government as his path to ultimate success on that side of the border, he struck his guests as less certain about the endgame on the Syrian side, where he has called for Mr. Assad to step down and must now rely on the same moderate Syrian rebels he refused to arm in the past.
Mr. Obama acknowledged it would be a long campaign, one complicated by a dearth of intelligence about possible targets on the Syrian side of the border and one that may not be immediately satisfying. “This isn’t going to be fireworks over Baghdad,” he said.
Asked by one of the columnists what he would do if his strategy did not work and he had to escalate further, Mr. Obama rejected the premise. “I’m not going to anticipate failure at this point,” he said.
He made clear the intricacy of the situation, though, as he contemplated the possibility that Mr. Assad might order his forces to fire at American planes entering Syrian airspace. If he dared to do that, Mr. Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system, which he noted would be easier than striking ISIS because its locations are better known. He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.
Mr. Obama dwelled on the killings of the two American journalists, Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff, telling guests that he had authorized the Pentagon to develop a rescue attempt this summer on the same day the matter was brought to him. It was conducted within days and executed flawlessly, he said. He noted that the United States does not pay ransom to terrorists, but remarked with irritation that President François Hollande of France says his country does not, when in fact it does.
Mr. Obama had what guests on Wednesday afternoon described as a bereft look as he discussed the murders of Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff, particularly because two other Americans are still being held. Days later, ISIS would report beheading a British hostage with another video posted online Saturday.
But the president said he had already been headed toward a military response before the men’s deaths. He added that ISIS had made a major strategic error by killing them because the anger it generated resulted in the American public’s quickly backing military action.
If he had been “an adviser to ISIS,” Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, “Stay out of here; this is none of your business.” Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.
It was clear to the guests how aware Mr. Obama was of the critics who have charged him with demonstrating a lack of leadership. He brought up the criticism more than once with an edge of resentment in his voice.
“He’s definitely feeling it,” said one guest. At one point, Mr. Obama noted acidly that President Ronald Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon only to have hundreds of them killed in a terrorist attack because of terrible planning, and then withdrew the remaining ones, leaving behind a civil war that lasted years. But Reagan, he noted, is hailed as a titan striding the earth.
“He’s not a softy,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter and attended the dinner Monday, said of Mr. Obama. “I think part of the problem with some of his critics is they think he’s a softy. He’s not a softy. But he’s a person who tries to think through these events so you can draw some long-term conclusions.”
Mr. Haass said attention to nuance was a double-edged attribute. “This is someone who, more than most in the political world, is comfortable in the gray rather than the black and white,” he said. “So many other people in the political world do operate in the black and white and are more quote-unquote decisive, and that’s a mixed blessing. He clearly falls on the side of those who are slow or reluctant to decide because deciding often forces you into a more one-sided position than you’re comfortable with.”

A version of this article appears in print on September 14, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/wo...bama.html?_r=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

The Iraq Proxy War: Mapping Whose Troops Are Involved

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/14/2014 20:33 -0400

There is another "broad coalition" in The Middle East. With fighter from Sudan and Sweden to Spain and Switzerland, the following map shows where all the foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq's 'new crusades' are from...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...crusades_0.jpg

Source: AFP

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...s-are-involved

Over 1000 US, NATO Troops Begin Military Exercises In Ukraine

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/16/2014 - 07:59 http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0exercises.jpgRussia could care less whether Ukraine signs meaningless accession agreements with Europe (as it just did) because at the end of the day, Ukraine needs Russia's gas (if only for the next 4-6 years until Hunter Biden develops Ukraine's shale deposits and the Qatar gas pipeline finally crosses Syria). Russia, however, is very angry when NATO gets ever closer to its borders, which it just did when earlier today, more than 1,000 troops from 15 NATO and non-NATO countries, including the US of course, are taking part in a military exercise in Ukraine.