Here's the latest news that the main stream media seems to lose...
14 Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I have not sent them, neither did I command them, neither spake I unto them, but they prophesy unto you a false vision, and divination, and vanity, and deceitfulness of their own heart.
15 Therefore thus saith the Lord, Concerning the prophets that prophesy in my Name, whom I have not sent, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land, by sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.
16 And the people to whom these prophets do prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem, because of the famine, and the sword, and there shall be none to bury them: both they and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.
(1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
April 18, 1946
Nuremberg Diary (Farrar, Straus & Co 1947), by Gustave Gilbert (an Allied appointed psychologist), who visited daily with Goering and his cronies in their cells, afterwards making notes and ultimately writing the book about these conversations.
|Posted by George Freund on August 28, 2016 at 9:25 AM|
09:23, 27 August 2016
The battalion say "fighters are withdrawn in order not to interfere in surrendering military positions and entire cities"
National Battalion "Azov" on the orders of the commander of the National Guard under the order of the National Guard Commander General-Lieutenant Yuriy Allerov will be withdrawn from Mariupol. 10 days ago of the battalion was transferred to Zaporizhia region for performing absolutely extrinsical missions to special forces.
This was reported by the press service of "Azov".
"Command of the Natioanl Guard has not invented anything better than to put the "Azov" fighters to keep the watch on non-performing checkpoints and observation posts outside the ATO zone. Previously, these tasks were performed by local Zaporizhia national guards, mostly regular soldier, who are now being sent to Mariupol checkpoints in the ATO zone "- reads the statement.
See also: Donbas region: 27 attacks reported, - ATO HQ
It is reported that the order on "Azov" withdrawal was signed before the celebration of Independence Day, when the front-line city demanded reinforcements.
The battalion assumed that "the withdrawal is necessary in order to Azov soldiers do not interfere with the government and pro-Russian command of the National Guard to surrender their military positions and the entire city."
As it was reported earlier, the contact group in Minsk announced the need for permanent ceasefire from 1 September.
See also: Contact Group to develop new measures to search for missing in Donbas, - Sajdik
This is a strange bit of information. One would expect to leave these forces in place in case of hostilities. However, it appears The Ukraine is preparing for an assault that will cause them to cede territory in the first days. They are already then preparing fall back positions. Remember the battlefield must be fluid like the sea between opposing forces. It is better to have tactical advantage than to fight to the last man for the doomed inch of territory. How far back are they prepared to go is the question? I suspect once the Russian army starts to move, the Polish border may be the cut off point depending on what NATO does in response. If they interfere, action in the Baltic states will relieve the pressure and Germany's preparation warning will make good sense. If you prepare, invest the next few weeks wisely assessing your own needs just in case things escalate quickly. Should NATO warplanes and naval vessels engage Russian counterparts prepare to evacuate potential targets yourself. You don't want to be near a military base, port, or airfield.
|Posted by George Freund on August 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM|
A Pro-Russian rebels tank is driven at speed in the town of Luhansk, eastern Ukraine, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2014
17:44 Aug. 26, 2016
Ukrainian intelligence officers repeatedly report on Kremlin deploying more weapons and troops to Donbas
Donbas sees a tenfold increase in military equipment deployed by Russia, the aggressor country, as compared to 2014.
An amount of military hardware grew by over 20 times in some areas of eastern Ukraine.
Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euroatlantic Integration published the graphics of Ukraine's General Staff on Facebook.
"For more than two years, several districts in Ukraine's two regions have been war-stricken. Russia has ignited the flames of war and fuelled the conflict, sparing neither resources nor human lives. This infographic shows how much Russia spends on killing Ukrainians who want to live free." reads the statement.
Read also Russia creating three divisions for deployment at Ukraine border – Intel
According to the General Staff:
- a number of Russian tanks in militant-occupied territories in eastern Ukraine increased by 20 times since 2014 - from 30 to 600 items;
- a number of armoured combat vehicles increased by 10 times - to 1,260 items;
- a number of artillery projectiles and multiple launch rocket systems increased by 10 times - up to 1,060 items;
- a number of air defence units also increased by 10 times - up to 470 items.
10,000 Ukrainians were killed by ‘Russian-terrorist forces' over the past two years, since the conflict in the Donbas region broke out, recently reported Ukraine's Defence Council. More than 20,000 have been wounded and 1.8 million forced to flee their homes.
Three or four Russian military brigades, comprising about 10,000 regular servicemen, are currently involved in the hostilities in the Donbas conflict zone. Nearly 40,000 Russian soldiers are stationed near the Ukraine-Russia border, according to Stratfor analysts.
According to Ukraine's Intelligence Department, the militant group keeps increasing near the (Ukrainian) border. By 2018, the (Russian) contingent will consist of about 70,000 troops, Ukrainian officials say.
The world will wake up when the lights go out and their devices stop working. However, they may never ever know what the reason was because they are addicted to pop culture and think that is important. You who read and analyze will know, but that won't be much comfort. The world and your life will never be the same again. Privation and hardship will be for the lucky ones. Others may learn what modern weapons are all about. They will suffer severely because they let it happen. There will be no treatment for the egregious wounds. Modern medicine will cease to exist. Of course we could storm the Bastille and drive the bastards out, but that takes moral courage and effort. Even changing the channel is difficult, but necessary. The million dollar question is will they do it this time? Will the drills go live? It can happen in a heartbeat and the soft and comfortable world we have known will disappear with it. I'll laugh for the first few days at the people who let corporate media do their thinking for them. I'll hand them back their mantra. No lights, no food, no water, world war - that's just a conspiracy theory. The race goes to the swift. How fast can you think?
|Posted by George Freund on August 28, 2016 at 8:50 AM|
Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback tactical bombers during the military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War, May 9, 2015 in Moscow, Russia
14:33 Aug. 27, 2016
Kremlin 'checks out if Russian troops are put on full combat readiness'
Aerospace forces of Russia's Western and Central military districts started relocating aviation equipment to operational airfields of the Southern Military District near the Ukrainian border, as part of 'a sudden inspection of Russian troops' combat readiness".
Read also Russian assault troops land under cover of two submarines in annexed Crimea
"Fighter jets and bomber aircraft, as well as military transport and attack helicopters will perform a flight over a distance of 500 to 2,500 kilometres", the press-office of Russia's Defence Ministry reported on August 27.
The Il-76 military transport aircraft will transfer technical staff of aviation units as well as airfield and special equipment.
After relocation, Russia's aviation units will join the operation aviation group under a single command and begin to perform their tasks.
Under the order of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow started 'suddenly inspecting combat and mobilisation readiness of Russian Armed Forces, involving 100,000 soldiers - Ukrainian intelligence officers claim.
On August 25, Russian troops near the Ukrainian border were put on full combat alert 'to bring crisis situation under control', according to Putin's instructions.
The inspection will last till August 31.
Watch also Russia deploys special forces to Ukraine border as part of military drills
Sukhoi Su 27 fighter jets from the Russkiye Vityazi [Russian Knights] aerobatic team perform stunts over Sevastopol during the closing ceremony of the Crimean leg of the 2016 Aviadarts military aviation competition (Getty Images)
Crimea was seized from Ukraine by Russia in February 2014. Ukraine's Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) officially declared February 20, 2014, a beginning of Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea and Sevastopol. Numerous world leaders strongly condemned the illegal annexation and launched a range of economic sanctions against Russia.
Despite the overall resentment, Moscow rejects the notion "occupation", naming its deeds instead "a renewal of historical justice".
On July 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin abolished the Crimean federal district by making Crimea and Sevastopol part of Russia's Southern federal district. Under the president's decree, the District now consists of Adygea, Kalmykia, Crimea, Krasnodar Territory, Astrakhan region, Volgograd region, Rostov region and Sevastopol. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry expressed its protest over such a decision and stated that Crimea remains a Ukrainian territory.
|Posted by George Freund on August 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM|
August 27, 2016 -
- Novorossiya - translated by J. Arnoldski
Testing of the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has continued with the redeployment of radar stations and S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems in the Southern Military District to new locations. This was reported by RIA Novosti on August 27th with references to the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Russian defense ministry.
“The testing of radar stations and S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems upon arrival at new positions has commenced the deployment and technical maintenance of equipment to be put in a state of combat duty,” the source reports.
|Posted by George Freund on August 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM|
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, August 23, 2016
Germany has just warned its citizens of an upcoming catastrophe and urged them to stockpile food, water and money for at least 10 days, to be autonomous and independent until the government has caught up putting the necessary public safety systems in place – in case of a ‘catastrophe’. There was no mention on the type of disaster awaiting them. A war, an economic and or monetary collapse, or both? – The warning was later downplayed as part of a ‘routine exercise’ in Germany’s new defense strategy.
On a related note, against many Members of Parliament and several ministers, the German Bundeswehr (army) has declared Russia as an enemy nation. This is akin to a declaration of war. The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, Alexei Puschkow, has posted the Twitter message:
‘The decision of the German government declaring Russia to be an enemy shows Merkel’s subservience to the Obama administration.’
The idea of the German warning is to scare people. People who are afraid can be easily manipulated. While buying supermarkets’ shelves empty, they will ask for more police and military protection. That’s precisely what Washington and the EU want – a militarization of Europe. Germany, being Obama’s chief vassal, is the mouthpiece for the rest of Europe. At the same time, this scare tactic is an indirect warning of a threat of aggression from Russia. The past weeks of western lie-propaganda have shown Russia’s protection of Crimea with heavy maneuvers in the Black Sea, depicting them as a preparation of war towards the west. Never mind that Ukraine’s self-styled lord Poroshenko has threatened to take Crimea back, amassing troops and tanks at the border of this historic and strategic Russian peninsula.
Of course, things do not look good for the US-NATO led West with its EU stooges. Turkey’s President Erdogan has turned away from the notorious west to Mr. Putin and may be abandoning his alliance with Washington, Brussels – and NATO. Russia has asked Ankara to use its Incirlik airbase in the south, close to the Syrian border, currently mainly occupied by NATO, storing some 50 US nuclear warheads and uncountable US fighter jets and helicopters, plus housing at least 5,000 US-NATO troops. Turkey’s Prime Minister, Binali Yildirim, said last Saturday, that Russia could use the base, but denied that any such request has been made by Russia. In fact, according to EurActiv.com, “the Pentagon has initiated the transfer of 20 B61-type aviation bombs with nuclear warheads from the Turkish Incirlik air base to the Deveselu base in Romania currently hosting the US missile shield.” Although the Romanian Foreign Ministry has denied this news, it is nonetheless largely credible, says Valentin Vasilescu of Russia’s katehon.com.
|Posted by George Freund on August 27, 2016 at 8:40 AM|
A Turkish army tank drives towards to the border in Karkamis on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern Gaziantep province, Turkey, on Aug. 25, 2016. Source: Reuters
August 26, 2016 KOMMERSANT
Ankara is carrying out a full-scale ground operation in Syria. This format has not been coordinated with Moscow and threatens to undermine the warming of Russian-Turkish relations.
The relations between Moscow and Ankara have been subjected to a new test. The Turkish army, with air support from the U.S.-led coalition, entered Syria on Aug. 24, starting the anti-terrorist operation Euphrates Shield, which was not coordinated with Damascus. By evening, the border town of Jarabulus had been captured from Islamic State.
The Turkish operation was approved by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who arrived on a visit to Ankara, while the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed deep concern. The operation in Syria, not coordinated with Moscow, threatens to complicate the process of normalization of bilateral cooperation, which was agreed in St. Petersburg on Aug. 9 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Not a ground operation, says Turkey
Erdogan announced the beginning of the operation on the morning of Aug. 24, explaining that it was directed against the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group and Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) forces, which Ankara also considers to be a terrorist group.
The preparation took several days. As Turkish special forces conducted reconnaissance on the territory of Syria, Turkish tanks and heavy artillery were moved to the border areas.
Following heavy bombardment of Jarabulus (a total of 63 targets were fired at 224 times in the first hours) and a series of air strikes involving aircraft from the U.S.-led international coalition, Syrian Free Army (FSA) troops were able to enter the city and take it under control in a matter of hours.
They did not meet serious resistance: The ISIS militants who were in Jarabulus began to leave the city already on the eve of the operation, and almost completely retreated during its active phase.
Turkey insists that what is happening cannot be considered to be a ground operation: The task is to open a corridor for the armed forces of the moderate Syrian opposition for cleansing Jarabulus from terrorists.
Turkish territory has been repeatedly shelled from the city in recent years.
Smoke rises from the Syrian border town of Jarablus as it is pictured from the Turkish town of Karkamis, in the southeastern Gaziantep province, Turkey, on Aug. 24, 2016. Source: Reuters
Surprise for Russia
According to a military source, the Russian special services had information about Turkey's intention to carry out the operation, but its scale was unexpected. "This city could have been taken by a much smaller force; they will not stop in this region and are likely to go further," the source said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed deep concern in connection with the Turkish operation in Syria. "Moscow is [...] especially alarmed by the prospect that the situation in the conflict zone will continue to deteriorate, resulting in greater civilian losses and heightened ethnic tensions between Arabs and Kurds," the ministry said in a statement.
The official Syrian authorities, meanwhile, described the actions of the Turkish forces as an "invasion." The Syrian Foreign Ministry, which called on the UN Security Council to urgently intervene in the situation and to "end the aggression," said in a statement that Syria "condemns the crossing of the Turkey-Syria border by Turkish tanks and armored vehicles towards the Jarabulus area with air cover from the U.S.-led coalition and considers it a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty."
Following a visit to Ankara, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden did not accept these claims, but actively supported the actions of Turkey and made it clear that he regards them as an important step in the fight against ISIS.
An anti-Kurdish operation in disguise
"In the Euphrates Shield operation, Turkey is supporting the moderate Syrian opposition with its tanks, artillery and aircraft," said Alexander Vasilyev, a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow. "Such a scheme and model has been already used by the Turks."
According to him, the Turks earlier successfully interacted with loyal local Kurds in northern Iraq in the same way. "They set up a network of support centers and military bases at that time," Vasilyev said. "In such a way, Ankara tried to fight the Kurdistan Workers' Party and move this fight from the south-east of Turkey to northern Iraq."
Meanwhile, according to Vasilyev, Turkey's operation is directed against the Kurds, even if it is masquerading as part of the fight against international terrorism.
Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based defense think tank, finds it very symbolic that the Euphrates Shield operation coincided with Biden's visit to Ankara.
"Given that the relationship between Ankara and Washington in recent weeks reached a low point, this operation was the ideal opportunity for both sides to divert attention from the issue of exiled Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen and demonstrate that the United States and Turkey remain strategic allies," said Pukhov.
For Moscow, Ankara's operation was an unpleasant surprise, demonstrating that the expectations for a convergence of the countries’ positions on Syria that emerged after the meeting between Putin and Erdogan were premature.
In deciding about the operation in Jarabulus, the Turkish leader has sent a signal that relations with the U.S. remain a priority for him, and he prefers to act in the framework of the antiterrorist coalition led not by Moscow, but Washington.
According to Kommersant's information, in case of aggravation of the situation, the Russian military and diplomats are ready to employ bilateral channels of communication with their Turkish counterparts, as well as express their concerns to the U.S. if necessary.
According to Vladimir Sotnikov, director of the Moscow-based Russia-East-West center, Ankara's actions could seriously affect the process of normalization of bilateral cooperation that was agreed by presidents Putin and Erdogan in St. Petersburg.
"Erdogan is playing his own game and is still on the other side of the conflict," he said.
Authors: Georgy Stepanov, Sergei Strokan, Ivan Safronov.
|Posted by George Freund on August 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM|
The Kavkaz-2016 exercise will be held in the Southern, North Caucasus and Crimean federal districts.
August 25, 2016 TASS
The surprise combat readiness check, declared in the Southern, Western and Central military districts, the Northern Fleet and the Air and Space Force and Airborne Troops is part of preparations for the Kavkaz-2016 exercise due in September, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
"The surprise check is being held under a general plan for preparations for the strategic command and staff exercise Kavkaz-2016. Drills will be held at ground test sites and also in the Black and Caspian seas," the Defense Ministry said.
At the moment the participating troops are getting the equipment, weapons and ammunition, taking military vehicles to the column formation areas and get the equipment ready for marches to railway stations and airdromes.
The surprise combat readiness check began on Thursday morning and will end on August 31. It encompasses the troops of the Southern Military District, some forces of the Western and Central districts, the Northern Fleet, the Aerospace Force and the Airborne Troops.
The Kavkaz-2016 exercise will be held in the Southern, North Caucasus and Crimean federal districts.
Earlier, preparations for the Kavkaz-2016 exercise were held in the Southern Military District, including the Volgograd Region, the Krasnodar Territory, North Ossetia and Crimea with 2,500 troops and 350 pieces of military equipment taking part.
Will the drill go live and start the war to end all wars? NATO is best advised to start a spring campaign to avoid a Russian winter. Russia is best advised to start a fall campaign so that NATO countries freeze in the dark. Either way everybody loses.
|Posted by George Freund on August 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM|
AUGUST 26, 2016 | PIPER MCGOWIN | THE DAILY SHEEPLE
Dr. Drew Pinsky’s program on HLN will end next month after five years. While the mainstream media is referring to the development as a “no-brainer” citing low ratings, it cannot be missed that the move comes just days after Dr. Drew discussed his “grave concerns” about Hillary’s health live on air.
“Dr. Drew and his team have delivered more than five years of creative shows, and I want to thank them for their hard work and distinctive programming,” CNN EVP Ken Jautz said in a statement. Dr. Drew’s last show will be September 22.
As previously reported, Dr. Drew pointed out that after Clinton fainted and fell down hitting her head in late 2012, she suffered from a “transverse sinus thrombosis,” an “exceedingly rare clot” that “virtually guarantees somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system.”
Dr. Drew went on to ask, “What’s wrong with her coagulation system, has that been evaluated?” He also mentioned the “weird” medication Clinton has been taking might be making things worse.
In addition to his show being cancelled, KABC-AM promptly took down the webpage featuring the interview as well, titled “Dr. Drew Speaks Out on Hillary’s Health”; it’s now a dead link that takes viewers to a “Whoops! Page not found” message.
Dr. Drew was one of the few mainstream media personalities who is actually discussing the real concerns many Americans share about Hillary’s health, considering how badly the establishment elite are attempting to shove her into the Oval Office. The rest of the media seems complicit in total obfuscation on the matter, going so far as to label anyone who questions her health as “sexist”.
|Posted by George Freund on August 26, 2016 at 7:45 AM|
Canada’s defence minister tours Africa to lay groundwork for military intervention
By Roger Jordan
16 August 2016
Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan confirmed Monday that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will soon announce a major military deployment to one or more African countries.
Speaking to Canadian press by teleconference from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Sajjan said the Canadian Armed Forces’ intervention in Africa will be “for a long-duration.”
Over eight days, Sajjan had travelled to Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, and the DRC on a fact-finding mission. He was accompanied by Romeo Dallaire, a retired Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Lieutenant-General and well-known proponent of “humanitarian” military interventions, and Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court justice, prosecutor for the International Court and head of the International Crisis Group.
Behind claims of a Canadian “reengagement” with United Nations’ peacekeeping missions, the Trudeau Liberal government is preparing to wage war on the African continent in order to bolster Canadian imperialist interests. Canadian military officials have already indicated that up to a thousand troops and warplanes could be deployed to one or more countries, with potential locations including Mali, the Central African Republic, and the DRC.
In each of the aforementioned three countries, Canadian troops would be involved in counterinsurgency warfare. In Mali, France, under the guise of a UN peacekeeping mission, is mounting a neocolonial intervention in support of a government fighting Islamist separatists in the country’s north. Since April, more than a hundred UN “peacekeepers” have been killed in Mali. In the Central African Republic and the Congo shaky western-supported governments are embroiled in civil wars.
Sajjan is expected to soon make a recommendation to cabinet as to where Canadian troops will be deployed in Africa, with a public announcement slated to take place ahead of a UN peacekeeping summit in London next month.
The Africa deployment is being planned and implemented in the midst of a full government defence policy review, the first in more than two decades. The review is being used by the Liberals, the corporate media, and military-security establishment to push for major hikes in military spending, the further militarization of the Arctic, Canada’s participation in the US anti-ballistic missile shield, and the procurement of a vast array of new weapons, including advanced fighter jets, a flotilla of war ships, and armed drones.
Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance indicated the advanced state of the preparations for the Africa deployment when he declared last month that a major CAF deployment to Africa would be taking place “very soon.”
In an interview from Ethiopia with the Globe and Mail, Sajjan sought to prepare the public for Canadian troops waging war. He said that it was a misnomer to call the coming African deployment a peacekeeping mission, saying it would be better to describe it as a “peace support operation.” “I think,” continued Sajjan, “we can definitely say what we used to have as peacekeeping … is no longer. We don’t have two parties that have agreed on peace and there’s a peacekeeping force in between.”
The Globe and Mail, National Post and prominent commentators on military affairs have been urging the government to “level” with Canadians and warn them the coming CAF intervention in Africa will be difficult and involve fierce combat and casualties. Many have cited Canada’s role in Afghanistan, where the CAF waged a brutal counterinsurgency war for seven years in support of the US-NATO occupation of the impoverished Central Asian country, as providing ideal experience for the upcoming Africa mission.
However, the Liberal government has thus far sought to encourage illusions about Canada’s supposed natural vocation as a peacekeeper, to avoid arousing deep popular opposition to militarism and war. During last year’s election campaign, Trudeau cynically used the issue of “peacekeeping” to contrast his Liberals from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which had promoted a bellicose Canadian nationalism, and cast the country as a “warrior nation.”
After becoming prime minister, Trudeau made a point of visiting United Nations’ headquarters in New York to pledge Ottawa’s reengagement with the UN, and launch a bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, which becomes vacant in 2021.
It is thoroughly dishonest to portray Canada as a force for “peace,” and the Cold War “peacekeeping” missions mounted by successive Canadian governments as anything other than a defence of the interests of the imperialist powers in some of the most impoverished and conflict-ridden regions of the world.
Canadian imperialism was a major belligerent in both of the imperialist world wars of the last century, and throughout the Cold War the bulk of Canada’s military forces were involved in the US’ preparations for war with the Soviet Union. Beginning with the 1956 Suez crisis, Canada, with US encouragement and blessing, did play a prominent role in UN peacekeeping missions. Such missions were used to defuse crises, particularly those like Cyprus and Suez that threatened to destabilize, if not tear apart, NATO. Canada used such missions to gain international leverage and to cultivate the image of an “honest broker” working to stabilize international relations as part of refurbished liberal Canadian nationalism that was used to contain social opposition at home and bind working people to establishment politics.
The Canadian bourgeoisie shifted its strategy dramatically in the wake of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Over the past quarter century, Canada, under Liberal and Conservative governments alike, has participated in every major US war and military intervention, with the sole exception of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Currently, Canada is playing a significant role in all three of Washington’s major military-strategic offensives: the Mideast war aimed at consolidating US hegemony over the world’s most important oil-producing region; the military encirclement of Russia in Eastern Europe and the Baltic; and the economic, diplomatic and military campaign to isolate, encircle and prepare for war against China.
It therefore comes as no surprise that Ottawa’s plans in Africa are being closely coordinated with US imperialism. As Sajjan’s trip began, it was publicly revealed for the first time that Canadian Special Forces have been operating in Niger providing training to the West African country’s special forces for the past three years. This relationship almost certainly arose out of the CAF’s participation in the Operation Flintlock exercise the US African Command has mounted in Niger and other West African countries since 2011. Sajjan is reportedly considering replacing the Special Forces troops now deployed in Niger, a land-locked country rich in uranium and other resources, with regular CAF soldiers.
The Canadian government has no qualms about collaborating with the most ruthless regimes. While in Addis Ababa, Sajjan pledged increased cooperation with the Ethiopian armed forces. He praised Ethiopia’s role in the Horn of Africa, where it has served as a key ally of US imperialism by deploying troops to Somalia to combat Islamist forces and prop up the pro-US regime in Mogadishu.
Predictably, Sajjan had nothing to say regarding the Ethiopian government’s recent brutal suppression of protests. According to Amnesty International, government forces opened fire on anti-regime protesters in several cities earlier this month, killing 97 people.
The pledge to step up military cooperation with Ethiopia, which has one of Africa’s largest militaries, comes just months after Sajjan travelled to Cairo and pledged increased military-security collaboration with the bloody Egyptian dictatorship of General Sisi.
Since 2013, Canada has repeatedly provided logistical support to French troops in Mali, deploying military transport planes to ferry in equipment and supplies. Last fall, when Paris, under Operation Barkhane, expanded France’s military operations across their former colonial possessions in western and central Africa, including Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Niger, CAF aircraft were again enlisted to transport French troops and supplies.
The Liberals’ pretence that their interest in African “peacekeeping” is motivated by altruism is further exposed when one considers the substantial commercial interests corporate Canada has in Africa, and especially in the countries identified as the most likely destinations for CAF troops.
Canada is a global player in the mining industry, with more than 55 percent of the world’s publicly-traded mining companies listed on the Toronto stock exchange.
In Mali, Canadian-based Iamgold is one of the two principal owners of the country’s largest gold mine and total Canadian mining investments were estimated by Ottawa in 2014 at more than $1 billion. Canadian big business is also hoping that the Canada-Mali Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which came into force in June, will increase its opportunities for plundering the country’s human and natural resources. Ottawa has pursued FIPPAs with a number of African countries to ensure that their governments can’t interfere with Canadian corporate interests and so as to encourage “structural adjustment” (that is privatization and the slashing of public services) and deregulation.
The DRC is the third most important destination for Canadian mining investment in Africa, reportedly accounting for $3 billion of the approximately $30 billion Canadian miners have invested in the continent. Canadian companies have been accused of profiting from the looting of Congolese resources that occurred after troops from Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi entered the country in 1998. A UN report in 2002 specifically named nine Canadian-based mining companies for having breached Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rules in their African operations.
|Posted by George Freund on August 25, 2016 at 10:30 AM|
RUSSIA, U.S. ARMY
August 21, 2016
Ambiguous Threats and External Influences in the Baltic States Phase 2: Assessing the Threat
Page Count: 68 pages
Date: November 2015
Originating Organization: Asymmetric Operations Working Group, Asymmetric Warfare Group, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
File Type: pdf
File Size: 3,554,802 bytes
File Hash (SHA-256):89C66F94CEAEB07F31B2CB6A25556413763706FD02CDA06347D785CB7BCE3C9E
• Russia’s strategic objectives in the Baltic region do not focus on the Baltic States as final targets, but on using the Batlic States to discredit and dismantle the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and undermining the European Union (EU) by using the Baltic States. Experts in Russia and European security from the United States and the Baltic region agree that Russia could use the Baltic States toward this end by employing any one of a spectrum of actions, to include direct invasion with conventional forces, an incursion and occupation using irregular forces like the one witnessed in Crimea in 2014, or longterm fostering of social, political, and economic instability. Disagreement existed among experts as to which approach was more likely.
• NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective defense in the case of an armed attack makes a direct invasion with conventional forces highly unlikely, though not without its proponents. More likely, according to several experts, are longterm efforts to destabilize the Baltic States through social, economic, and political levers because the Kremlin does not wish to risk a conventional armed conflict with NATO.
• Russia stands to gain little by taking Baltic territory, with the exception of a land corridor to Kaliningrad through Lithuania. The prospect of a more unified and reinvigorated NATO in response to Russian annexation of Baltic territory deters Russian invasion and occupation.
• Internal unrest aimed at changing the government in Moscow continues to be one of the Putin administration’s chief concerns. This and other domestic concerns can prompt and drive Russian foreign policy. For instance, taking bold actions in its near abroad is used to support arguments for preserving the current regime.
• From an energy perspective, Lithuania stands in the most vulnerable position after losing its status as a net exporter of energy, but certain interdependencies between Russia and all three Baltic States decrease the potential efficacy of energy as a lever of influence. Russia has demonstrated, however, that it is willing to suffer economic losses for political gain.
• Regarding economic relations, Russia could leverage the actual economic marginalization of Russian compatriot populations, who earn less and have higher unemployment rates than ethnic Balts. However, the Baltic investment and export/import environments are increasingly insulated from Russian interference by greater ties with the Nordic countries and the rest of the EU, as well as the ability to find and tap into alternative markets when Russia has imposed embargoes in recent months. The logistics and transit sectors remain vulnerable because of heavy Russian involvement and ownership.
• Russian media dominate the information space with programming superior in quality, variety, and quantity in part because it receives extensive funding and support from the Kremlin. Russian compatriot populations typically choose to engage in this information space, and youth tend to eschew all TV and printed media in favor of Internet sources for news and entertainment. Russian media present a perspective that derides the Baltic States and its allies and exalts Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union. Laws and regulations have proven ineffective at tempering Russian messaging or holding Russian media companies accountable.
• Moscow supports and organizes non-government organizations (NGOs) in each Baltic State that enforce Russia’s compatriots policy, a program intended to foment social and political tension in countries where Russian compatriots reside by calling attention to alleged human rights violations and advocating interpretations of history that vilify that country and make the Soviet Union heroic. A popular position among Russian compatriot groups in the Baltic States continues to be that those countries support the rise of neo-fascism and neo-Nazism targeting Russian residents. Russian agents and provocateurs have attempted to organize protests and demonstrations against the Baltic governments but have been able to mobilize few people.
• Citizenship and language reforms in Estonia and Latvia remain contentious issues, but the percentages of stateless persons continues to decrease, and youth whose first language is Russian increasingly acquire Estonian and Latvian as a second language to gain better education and employment prospects.
• The Russian compatriot populations in the Baltic States are diverse and complex and do not represent unified segments of those national populations. The Polish minority in Lithuania is more organized and united in its support of Russian policies and deserves greater attention than it currently receives. Among the Russian compatriot populations, there appears to be a psychological crisis wherein many support Russia emotionally as their homeland, but struggle to rationally explain or reconcile Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine with their idea of a benevolent Russia. Many reported a Crimea-like scenario could not occur in the Baltic States. A large contributor to that perception is that the standard of living in the EU incentivizes Russian compatriots not to repatriate and not to desire Russian interference, though they may desire certain policy changes by the Baltic governments.
• From a military perspective, the Baltic States depend on the NATO alliance to deter and, if necessary, answer military threats. Individually, the Baltic militaries remain too small to defend themselves against a full-scale Russian invasion, but the relatively high levels of professionalism and capability of their border guards and law enforcement provide protection from border incursions and internal disturbances growing out of control. Recent legislation in Latvia and Lithuania, as well as 2007/2008 legislation in Estonia, clarifies the circumstances in which national militaries can be mobilized internally and how they are to support law enforcement bodies.
• Overall, the Russian threat to the Baltic States resides much more in efforts to divide their societies than it does in efforts to annex their territory. A conventional invasion by Russian armed forces risks a revitalized NATO newly unified against it without acquiring significant gain, while Russian-sponsored NGOs and political parties could potentially sow sufficient discord in each country as to make them liabilities for NATO and the EU without incurring an Article 5 response.
Related Material From the Archive:
U.S. Army Special Operations Command Primer on Russian Unconventional Warfare in Ukraine 2013-2014
Asymmetric Warfare Group Report: Psychological and Sociological Concepts of Radicalization
United States Army Special Operations Command Unconventional Warfare Pocket Guide
U.S. Army Special Operations Command Counter-Unconventional Warfare White Paper
U.S. Army Mastering the Human Domain: Identity Operations for Strategic Landpower
Bilderberg Meetings 1964 Conference Report Williamsburg, United States
Danish Defence Intelligence Service Risk Assessment 2015
Bilderberg Meetings 1978 Conference Report Princeton, United States
Tags: Hybrid Threat Hybrid Warfare North Atlantic Treaty Organization Russia Unconventional Warfare