Wednesday 21st of August 2019

the game of empire...


Problems and conflicts of the last two decades that could well be solved through peaceful political and diplomatic ways… were dealt with through the use of military force. That was the case in former Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya, and Syria,” Gorbachev said in an address to the participants of a conference in Moscow on Friday. The event was dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Reykjavik meeting between the former Soviet president and his US counterpart, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.  

Gorbachev warned that invasions have brought no real solutions to problems, and only resulted in eroding international law and establishing a “cult of force.”

The former Soviet leader expressed deep concern about the growing militarization of politics, calling it “a departure from the… principles that allowed us to end the Cold War.”

“There has been a collapse of trust in relations between the world’s leading powers that, according to the UN Charter, bear primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,” he said. The speech has been published on the official website of the Gorbachev Foundation.

crimea is russian...

For the public support of Crimea’s annexation, Mikhail Gorbachev has been banned from entering Ukraine for five years,” said a statement on the official Twitter feed of Ukraine’s security agency SBU, ending several days of public debate about the move.

When questioned about the decision, 85-year-old Gorbachev refused to make a statement, saying: “It’s up to the journalists to comment” on what has happened. Earlier this week, Gorbachev said he “doesn’t visit Ukraine, and has no plans to do so,” and insisted he “will not be dragged down into political squabbles.”

“I’m always with the free will of the people and most in Crimea wanted to be reunited with Russia,” Gorbachev told the Sunday Times over the weekend, in reference to the events of April 2014, when its population had a referendum and voted to join Russia.

While Gorbachev was generally critical of Vladimir Putin during the lengthy interview, he said he would have also accepted Crimea into Russia if he had been in the Kremlin at the time.

germans for crimea after reunification...

Ever since Crimea once again became a part of Russia, the peninsula began attracting conservative Russian Germans who apparently became disaffected with Berlin's policies.

It’s small wonder that Crimea, with its warm climate and sea, is a popular destination for Russians. But it turns out that ever since Vladimir Putin made it clear that the peninsula will forever remain a part of Russia, it also started attracting Russian Germans – ethnic Germans who were born in Russia

And while some of them simply want to make their own impression of the new Crimea, others actually entertain the idea of settling there, German TV broadcaster ZDF reports.
Since Crimea’s reunification with Russia, about 1,500 Russian Germans contacted Yuri Gempel, chairman of the Crimean German National and Cultural Autonomy, and asked him to help them relocate there, claiming that they fell a greater connection to the Russian Empire than to modern day Germany.It should be noted that a considerable number of Germans used to live in Crimea since the times of Tsarist Russia, but all of them ended up deported from there during World War II.

"Some of them are displeased with the current refugee problem. And many are unwilling to put up with the dismantling of the Christian and family values," Gempel explained.

One of the would-be settlers, a Russian German named Willi Sdor, said that it is hard to find a decent-paying job in Germany when you have an accent which makes him feel himself as a "second-rate citizen" there.

Read more:

encircling china...

Unlike the North Atlantic region, the Asia Pacific “has never been managed by a region-wide, formal structure comparable to NATO in Europe,” Carter said. Instead, with the help of the US, regional powers have formed a security network built on bilateral, trilateral and multilateral agreements. Carter praised the security arrangement and the role played by America in forging it.

“The value of American engagement in the Asia-Pacific is irrefutable. And it is proven over decades,” he said, exemplifying deployments of advanced weapons like F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter jets, B-2 and B-52 bombers, strike submarines and surface warfare ships.

“The United States will remain, for decades, the primary provider of regional security and a leading contributor to the region’s principled security network.”

China’s inclusion would make it stronger, and the US would like to see that happen, the official said. But Beijing’s actions are going against the principles of this network, including the freedom of navigation and overflight, he said.


It would be favourable for the Chinese to join and throw the Americans out...

heavy boost for syrian forces...


'Iranian Hulk' signs up to fight in Syria

1 July 2016 Last updated at 01:51 BST

An Iranian power-lifter, nicknamed after a Marvel superhero, has become an international social media star with more than 100,000 followers on Instagram. Sajad Gharibi has also volunteered to join Iranian forces fighting alongside the Assad regime in Syria.



See toon at top...


gorbachev: the cold war is being reheated by the USA...


  • Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev has accused Nato of preparing for "offensive operations" against Russia.

As the Western alliance held a summit in Warsaw, Poland, Mr Gorbachev criticised Nato’s decision to deploy 4,000 more international troops in Eastern Europe.

Tensions have been mounting between Russia and Nato member states, in particular the US, as diplomatic spats and military excercises have increased in frequency.

Mr Gorbachev, the eighth and last leader of the Soviet Union, said: “Nato has begun preparations for escalating from the Cold War into a hot one.

“All the rhetoric in Warsaw just yells of a desire almost to declare war on Russia. They only talk about defence, but actually they are preparing for offensive operations.”


However, Nato’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the organisation’s decision to triple its military presence in Eastern Europe was a purely defensive move.

“Nato poses no threat to any country. We do not want a new Cold War. We do not want a new arms race. And we do not seek confrontation," he said.

The move comes after concerns among Western countries regarding the intentions of President Vladimir Putin after Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

Prior to the Nato summit, Russia assembled troops, trucks and equipment at its Baltic bases, highlighting its military readiness.

In a speech after Nato leaders agreed to increase troop numbers in eastern Europe, Mr Stoltenberg said: “What we have seen is a Russia which has invested heavily in modern defence capabilities over many years, which has modernised its forces, its equipment, and has used military force against a sovereign nation in Europe, violating Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and that's the reason why we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance.

“Russia is neither a strategic partner – we are not in the strategic partnership with Russia which we tried to develop – but we are neither in a Cold War situation.

“We are in a new situation which is different to anything else we have experienced before.”

As part of the reinforcement, Britain will send a 500-strong battalion to Estonia and a further 50 troops to be stationed in Poland.

read more:
See toon at top...


the world is tired of tension...


A day before the Russian and US presidents are due to meet, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called on Moscow and Washington to make up for lost time and restore trust in order to de-escalate global tensions.

"First of all, it's good that this meeting will finally take place, but it's a pity that this is happening only now,” Gorbachev told RIA Novosti on the eve of the first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

“Much time is lost. We have to restore trust.”

"At one time, people in President [Ronald] Reagan’s own administration would literally not let him go to [our] meeting in Geneva. But he did not succumb to pressure, and we, for our part, came forward with serious constructive proposals."

“We now need an impulse from the leaders, as happened in Reykjavik in 1986. We must put everything on the negotiating table and establish a mechanism for interaction, not on any single points, even important ones, but on all issues,” Gorbachev emphasized.

At the 1986 Reykjavik Summit, Gorbachev and then-US President Reagan came close to a sweeping agreement that would have radically reduced the number of nuclear weapons possessed by both super powers. Nevertheless, the progress attained at that meeting eventually resulted in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and the USSR.

read more:


see toon at top...


no-one wants war? tell this to the US neocons....

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has urged Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to stage direct negotiations, warning that an incidental clash between American and Russian forces could lead to open warfare.

'Return to sanity': Gorbachev calls for US-Russia summit amid fears of nuclear treaty collapse

“I am very alarmed,” Gorbachev, who led the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991, told Interfax news agency. “The situation hasn’t been this bad in a long time, and I am very disappointed in how world leaders are behaving themselves. We see evidence of an inability to use diplomatic mechanisms. International politics has turned into exchanges of accusations, sanctions, and even military strikes.”

Gorbachev, whose Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 was partly awarded for his ground-breaking summits with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush that helped end the Cold War, urged the current leaders in the Kremlin and the White House to follow his example.

“Because Russia and the US are at the sharp end of the current crisis, their leaders must meet. They need to meet half-way, for a day or two of serious negotiations with involvement from foreign and defense ministers,” Gorbachev said.

In the current absence of diplomatic progress, Gorbachev is particularly worried about “preventing incidents involving Russian and American troops and armaments.”

“I am sure no one wants war, but in the current febrile atmosphere could lead to great trouble,” said Gorbachev, 87, who added that the present escalation of disagreements between the major powers is due to the fact that “ordinary people are not yet aware of the threat hanging over them.”

Recent international flashpoints involving Moscow have included the Sergei Skripal incident in the UK last month and the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, last week, which may yet provoke an armed intervention from the West in an area where Russian forces are already stationed.


Read more:


Read also:



See toon at top... Note the date.

Note also that Putin is trying his darnest to deal with a completely mad US administration. 


"Nevertheless, we still hope that common sense will eventually prevail and international relations will enter a constructive course, the entire world system will become more stable and predictable.”

Moscow will continue to advocate strengthening “global and regional” security, and will fully adhere to its “international responsibilities and develop cooperation with our partners on a constructive and respectful basis.

“We will pursue a positive, future-oriented agenda for the world; and work to ensure stable development, prosperity and the flourishing of mankind,” Putin said.

Putin’s statements came shortly after a new batch of threats from by his US counterpart. Earlier on Wednesday, Donald Trump warned Russia to “get ready” for “nice and new and ‘smart’” missiles targeting Syria. His tweet followed a promise by Moscow to intercept any incoming projectiles in Syria, and to hit the locations from which they were launched.

Washington is presenting its probably strikes as a “response” to the alleged chemical incident in Syria, which was reported on April 7. While no solid evidence that the purported chemical attack has emerged, top US officials have squarely pinned the blame for it on Damascus.


read more:

meeting of boogeymen...

If it actually occurs, never in the 75-year history of such US-Russian meetings will an American president have had so much opposition and so little support at home.

Discussing the apparent decision to hold a prepared Trump-Putin meeting in July, Cohen points out there have been dozens of such US-Soviet/Russian top leadership events since the precedent was set by FDR [Franklin D. Roosevelt] and Stalin in 1943, during World War II. That was a meeting of allies, and included Winston Churchill. After the war, all the rest have been between the two Cold War “superpower” rivals or purportedly post–Cold War leaders. Every American president after FDR participated in at least one summit with his Soviet or Russian counterpart, and some presidents in multiple ones, including Eisenhower with Khrushchev, Reagan and George H.W. Bush with Gorbachev, and Clinton with Yeltsin.

If “summits” with large agendas and all of their political and media rituals are distinguished from occasional meetings on the “sidelines”of other events, the former have usually had several purposes: to solidify a mutual national-security partnership between the two leaders, typically on behalf of improving relations, or what became known as détente; to enhance both leaders’ political standing at home and in the world; to send a message to their respective elites and bureaucracies that obstructing, let alone sabotaging, the leader’s détente policy will no longer be tolerated; and by way of announced agreements and positive media coverage to broaden domestic elite and popular support for détente. Summit agendas have varied over the decades, some shaped by ongoing regional or other issues, but one item has been constant from Eisenhower and Khrushchev in the 1950s to Obama and then–Russian President Medvedev in 2009: managing and reducing existential dangers inherent in the “nuclear superpower arms race.”

Full summits have had various results. Some had few consequences for better or worse. The third Eisenhower-Khrushchev meeting in Paris in 1960 was aborted by the Soviet shoot-down of a US U-2 spy plane (sent, some think, by “deep state” foes of Eisenhower’s détente policy). Several summits were historic achievements, at least eventually. The Eisenhower-Khrushchev “spirit of Camp David” in the 1950s diminished the mutually isolating Cold War that prevailed until Stalin’s death in 1953, opening up new possibilities for “peaceful coexistence.” Nixon and Brezhnev established the modern tradition of détente, in the 1970s, including the expanded role of summits in that process. The multiple Reagan-Bush-Gorbachev summits claimed to have ended the Cold War. Several summits did more longer-term harm than good, particularly the highly touted Clinton-Yeltsin meetings, which were mostly decorative covering for Clinton’s winner-take-all approach to a weakened post-Soviet Russia; and Obama’s with Medvedev—the “reset” summit—which was badly conceived and conducted by the White House. During his 18 years as Russia’s leader, Putin has had two full summits with American presidents, though both are mostly forgotten or ill-remembered: with Clinton in Moscow in 2000 and with George W. Bush in Washington and at the latter’s Texas ranch in 2001. Clinton and Bush spoke positively about Putin at the time, but, of course, do so no longer. (Therein lies a serious debate yet to be had as to who and what changed, and why.)

If the summit with Putin happens in July, it will be Trump’s first with him, though the two had a long “sit-down” at the G-20 meeting in Germany a year ago. A Trump-Putin summit will resemble its many predecessors in various ways, but also be unique in two unprecedented respects. Rarely if ever before, as Cohen has previously argued, have US-Russian relations been so perilous. And never before would an American president have gone to a Soviet or post-Soviet summit with so much defamatory opposition and so little political support at home, indeed so defiled in his capacity as commander in chief. Two years of still-unproven Russiagate allegations that Trump is a “Putin puppet,” a “quisling,” or an otherwise “treasonous” president, are without precedent in the 75 years of such crucial meetings. As already adumbrated in commentary on a possible summit, any Trump-Putin agreements that enhance American and international security, of the kind for which previous US presidents were applauded, are likely to be denounced by most representatives of the bipartisan political-media establishment at best as “a grand illusion” and at worst as the treacherous acts of Russia’s “useful idiot,” as a “reward” to Putin for his misdeeds, as “Putin…essentially being given a free hand,” as “upsetting our closest allies in Europe.” If Trump’s laudable summit breakthrough with North Korean leader Kim was widely traduced as incompetent, security cooperation with Putin will be construed as sinister.

Cohen ends with two larger points:

As he has argued previously, Russiagate, by crippling Trump’s presidential duty to cope with the gravest international threats, has itself become the number-one threat to American national security, a reality for which the Democratic Party, though not solely, bears a very large responsibility. In other circumstances, we might reasonably hope that a Trump-Putin summit would begin to reduce the dangers inherent in the new nuclear arms, the trip-wire proximity of US and Russian forces and their proxies in Syria, the smoldering civil and proxy wars in Ukraine, the growing NATO buildup and provocative military exercises on Russia’s borders, and the near-vaporizing of Washington-Moscow diplomacy by the large-scale expulsions of diplomats on both sides. (Regarding politically charged sanctions, Trump does best leaving this to the European Union, which must vote, also in July, on whether to continue the ones it imposed on Moscow.) Summits have traditionally diminished such crises, but the ever-looming Russiagate crisis makes this “leadership meeting at the top” unprecedented in this regard as well.

Nor is Putin himself immune. Even apart from the lack of any facts or logic supporting the charge that he “attacked American democracy”during the 2016 presidential election, a failed or discredited summit would diminish his own political position at home. Hard-liners in Russia’s military-security (and intellectual) establishment continue to believe that Putin has never really shed his admitted early “illusions”about negotiating with an always-treacherous Washington and, still more, that the Russiagate-plagued Trump would be unable to carry out any commitments made at the summit. Meanwhile, Putin’s popular ratings at home, while still very high, are being eroded by a long-overdue decision to gradually raise the pension age for Russian citizens—from 55 for women and 60 for men, an entitlement taken for granted for many decades. However rational and necessary the decision may be, popular protests are already underway and spreading.

Given the unprecedentedly perilous nature of US-Russian relations today, a Trump-Putin summit is imperative. Nevertheless, efforts will continue to be made, publicly and in the shadows, to prevent it from happening. If Russiagate or another “scandal” does so, or subsequently undermines any of its achievements, Trump might not try again. Nor might Putin. What then?

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (You can find previous installments, now in their fifth year, at

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.


Read more:


Read from top.

a war with no victory possible...

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has lashed out at American plans to withdraw from the crucial INF Treaty that he signed with Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. It means a new arms race is on, he says, and Russia must not give up.

READ MORE: Trump threatens to build up US nuclear arsenal until Russia, China 'come to their senses'

Gorbachev criticized the planned US withdrawal from the milestone Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was announced last week. On Thursday, the retired leader offered his take on what is currently happening between the US and Russia, and what is likely to come next in an op-ed published in the New York Times.

A new arms race has been announced. The INF Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs.

The first and only president of the USSR warned that Donald Trump's decision further dismantles the security system forged after World War II. The Republican president is keen to "release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles," Gorbachev wrote. And that, in turn, would see the demise of all accords that helped secure peace since the defeat of the Axis.

READ MORE: Gorbachev: Trump’s move to quit INF is ‘narrow-minded’, a clear ‘mistake’

It's a path to war with no victory possible. "There will be no winner in a 'war of all against all' – particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out." But Russia will not and should not sit idle and let this happen, Gorbachev said.


Read more:


Read from top.


Blame the yankees 100 percent for this dangerous crap...


See also:

when the united nations are in favour of the end of the world...

half a league, half a league, half a league onward...


by George Galloway


The next Crimean War would be the last war and no poet would be left alive to chronicle it for the remaining cockroaches, the only beings which would likely survive it.

Surprisingly, few amongst the general public had yet to wake up to the fact that the endless baiting of Russia, the cycle of war-games sanctions and false accusations could well lead to all-out war between NATO and the Russian Federation – multiple nuclear-armed superpowers, ramshackle no longer. Events this week in the Russian waters off Crimea and the subsequent war-mobilization of the Ukrainian neo-fascist government may well prove a wake-up call.

Ukrainian coup-president Poroshenko, with his country mired in debts and his presidency hanging by a thread trailing miles behind his main rival, has decided on the “Wag the Dog” manoeuvre – look over there he cries as he mounts the most serious provocation yet by sailing military and other ships into Russian territorial waters with the inevitable Russian response.

Invoking martial law, he may even cancel the forthcoming presidential poll and will certainly fundamentally change the political landscape through draconian legislation, including closing down opposition using the actually fascist militias in Ukraine as his shock troops.

Predictably he has called upon his allies in NATO to come to the aid of his beleaguered regime, beggared by his own recklessness. Trump – facing imminent Armageddon in Washington as the Mueller Enquiry closes – may welcome the opportunity to wag his own Dog. Theresa May – possibly in the last days of her premiership otherwise – ditto. Macron, the streets of his capital on fire with 77% of his people favoring the arsonists rather than him, likewise.

A dangerous constellation of weak, collapsing Western governments and leaders suddenly find their interests coinciding with the tin-pot tyrant Poroshenko. And into the Valley of Death they might just be ready to send their people charging. If they do they will find a resolute Russia far stronger than at Balaclava. Strong and united enough in fact to prevail. Unity in NATO countries is something even the Victorian master propagandist Tennyson would find it hard to spin. And certainly the moth-eaten second-rate spin-doctors of the NATO hirelings – the laughably named “Integrity” unmasked by Anonymous last week – “ain't no Lord Tennyson, bruv.”

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.


Read more:


Read from top.


See also:


the empire's liberal-progressives-neocons want war as they fear the truth more than bombs...