Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Washington’s “puppeteers” have decided to abandon their Grand Strategy

21.09.2015 Author: Dmitry Mosyakov

The US Grand Strategy is Taking a U-turn


While analyzing the ongoing events of today, one can get a strong impression that Washington’s “puppeteers” have decided to abandon the existing model of international relations and attempt to build a completely new one. The concept of globalization that has been pivotal for decades is now finally left aside, instead we are being presented with the concept of global instability, that would allow the US to preserve its domination over the world by destroying the stability of political formations, which will ultimately become the breeding ground for numerous conflicts. In the meantime, Washington will be manipulating opposing regional parties in different parts of the world to make them confront each other.

The globalization strategy, which was being implemented after the Cold War and aimed at ensuring American dominance in the developing world, has ultimately failed. The concept of this strategy lied in an attempt to achieve the re-orientation of Eastern countries toward the US by manipulating local political regimes into opening their markets to private investments, while forcing governments to minimize the role they played in the private sector. At the end of the process the US would have shaped the world in accordance with its political, economic, spiritual and cultural preferences, it would have created a new American international order in which the US would have been a recognized leader for decades to come.

The brightest Western minds from Hoffman to Robertson rushed to develop different concepts of globalization, to point out positive aspects of this process. Yet the absolute majority of this research stressed the inevitable displacement of traditional Eastern values needed to embrace the order. It’s particularly curious that globalization has been portrayed all along as a natural process, as if nobody was noticing that it would benefit only a single power. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have become the main tools of this process, but in order to play this game states were required to agree with the so-called Washington Consensus, by launching an all-out privatization and liberalization of their respective economies. The dominance of the United States was to be secured by an indirect measure – through the control of the main financial and material resources, and most importantly – through the control of the “rules of the game” on the international stage.

Around the mid-2000s it became clear that this well-conceived strategy had backfired and US dominance could not be preserved by enhancing globalization further. At that time the United States had to face serious opponents, who were getting ever more determined to defy American dictates. It was determined in a practical way that in the globalization race, countries that did not proclaim “democratic values” succeeded further than others. Authoritarian regimes took the lead without promoting American values or obeying Washington elites. China and Vietnam can both serve as a perfect example of this statement. Even if one is to look at South Korea, Japan or Singapore, there are fairly authoritarian regimes in those countries even though they operate under the guise of obeying democratic practices. The East has won the race for globalization by replacing the private economy with minimal state formula with a new one – a mixed public-private economy with a dominant role for the state.

As for the spread of Western cultural stereotypes, even if it occurred somewhere, it was limited to urban areas, while the majority of the population of Eastern states remained faithful to their traditional views and values. Moreover, in some countries the active expansion of the Western mass culture intensified traditionalism and religious extremism. Therefore, instead of witnessing societies dominated by American values, the East saw the rise of a mixed model of states who sought to pursue an independent policy and did not want to follow the orders of the United States. Sino-American rivalry for supremacy in the East and South-East Asia, the policy of the Turkish President Erdogan, who seeks Islamization and turns to the East, the ongoing criticism of the United States voiced by Thai generals – those are just a few examples of the true “fruits of globalization.”

Naturally, such a course of events hasn’t pleased the masterminds of US policy which is why Washington has apparently decided to rewrite the script, by radically changing the rules of the game, and maybe even start a new one. Unlike with the globalization project, the West didn’t present any scenario to the world. Therefore it is difficult to tell when exactly the new game was stared, it is most likely that somewhere between 2005 and 2006, when the American invasion of Iraq was not followed by pacifying measures, instead the US intensified destructive processes and aimed at splitting the country into separate regions. Washington was happy to provoke clashes between the Sunni and Shia’a branches of Islam, and most importantly did nothing to stop the growth of extremist and terrorist organizations in this country.

The general outlines of this grand strategy became more or less apparent in 2011 with the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring.” Everyone was asking the question: why were Americans aimed at toppling relatively stable regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and why do they pave the way for the most extreme forces or even religious fanatics who hate the United States? – The answer can be seen clearly today, with the new strategy being manifested fully not only in the Middle East but everywhere “US interests” lie. The emergence and spread of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL), put the whole Middle East in a state of uncertainty and chaos, the disturbing events in Ukraine and Afghanistan, the attempts to undermine the power of military circles in Thailand, the government of Najib Razak in Malaysia, the ongoing opposition to any attempts to achieve an inter-Korean settlement and inciting conflicts worldwide – those are the traits of the new US strategy that can be defined by the promotion of global instability.

The point of this strategy is that by promoting conflicts America would be able to undermine sustainable national and regional associations, which crave for independence and also interfere with US ambitions. Washington hopes that, on the one hand, conflicts would weaken potential competitors, and on the other – will allow the United States to manipulate various players amid the conflicts.

In Southeast Asia, for example, they are building an entire chain of anti-Chinese governments. They are trying to win over Vietnam, while preparing an “orange revolution” in this country. The US is seeking to remove the Thai military government and replace it with much more American-oriented politicians. In Cambodia, the preparations are being made to ensure that pro-American forces win in the next election and sack the prime minister Hun Sen, who has turned this country into another of China’s major ASEAN partners. In Burma, which President Obama has visited twice, Washington is pushing local generals to start a new military conflict with China, while tensions are mounting in the area of ​​Kokang, yet they promote “their champion” – human rights activist and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to key positions in the state. If we add to this long list the righteous anti-China politicians in the Philippines, where American troops have already returned, it’s safe to claim that the US forms up a whole chain of countries, set up to unleash a conflict with China in order to undermine its image and absorb its potential energy in the conflict. In this scenario, there is no doubt that the whole region instead of enjoying successful and sustainable progress will be on a war footing and hugely dependent on the US.

A world full of internal and external conflicts, dependent on the will of American puppeteers and thus left for the taking of the United States – that’s the prospect of further implementation of the new US foreign policy strategy. We may now stop wondering why Americans are undermining the stability of even loyal political regimes, as they do in Malaysia, seeking to remove from power the Prime Minister Najib Razak and the main political force in the country in the face of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). After all, it was the American Wall Street Journal that accused him of stealing 700 million dollars of public funds, which paved the way for massive anti-government unrest. It seems that the political elites in many countries, including those closely affiliated with the United States should prepare for social unrest and the “Orange Revolution.” For now there is only US interests that matter anymore, and there’s only as many rules as Washington is willing to obey.

Dmitry Mosyakov – Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Centre for Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine

Monday, September 28, 2015

At the railway station in Kiev explosion - social network

At the railway station in Kiev explosion - social network

Of Korrespondent.net, today, 2:43
At the railway station in Kiev explosion - social network
Photo: Social networks
Medics arrived at the station

There is one victim.

In Kiev, at the railway station "South" explosion, eyewitnesses in social networks, transmits the "112".
In particular, from Kiev, Dmitry Sinenko wrote that in about 23:25 near the "South" station detonated firecracker.
As a result of the explosion, there is one victim, who immediately gave first aid.
As at 00:25 on September 29 have already arrived the scene explosives.
Recall SBU does not exclude that the explosion in Odessa under the building was the seat of the organization for their activities in the region.

British PM David Cameron:“9/11 Truthers” & “Conspiracy Theorists” Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

British PM David Cameron: “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

An Open Letter

Dear Mr Cameron
I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL.  In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed ‘non-violent extremists’, including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible.  It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable.  Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level.  Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as ‘non-violent extremists’, are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?
Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the ‘High Rise Safety Initiative’?
Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers?  This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now.  How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?
 Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the  9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?
But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.
I repeat my previous point.  To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief.  I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.
Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be ‘non-violent extremists’ who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:
·         Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released
·         100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11
·         Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
·         More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
·         Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record
·         Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11
·         Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11
The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward.  According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation.  That to me sounds like extremist behaviour.  In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.
It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war.  It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11.  So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?
You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat.  Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be ‘non-violent extremists’.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.
9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East.  It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11.  Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror.  For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as ‘non-violent extremists’ simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.
The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak.  It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label.  It is far too late for that.  For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Drew – MSc
UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The U.N. Resolution Condemning the 53 year US Trade Embargo on Cuba

The U.N. Resolution Condemning the US Trade Embargo on Cuba

On Monday, September 28th, Cuban President Raul Castro is scheduled to address the UN General Assembly in New York.  He is expected to call on the representatives of member states to support a motion to lift the U.S. trade embargo against his country that has been in place since 1962. Two days ahead of his scheduled address, Castro held a plenary meeting at UN headquarters where he claimed that the embargo has caused an estimated $1.1 trillion in damages and identified it as the primary obstacle to the development of the Cuban economy.
In 1991, Cuba formally asked the UN for assistance in ending the blockade.  Since then, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution criticizing the impact of the embargo in each of the subsequent years. In fact, in the last vote, held in October 2014, 188 of the 193 members voted for the non-binding resolution, with only the U.S. and Israel voting against it and the three pacific island nations of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau abstaining. Over the last 23 years, no more than four countries have ever voted against this resolution, with the U.S and Israel being the constants. Meanwhile, support for the resolution has grown steadily with fewer abstentions, as members of the General Assembly, including many U.S. allies, cannot justify the devastating economic impacts on the daily lives of the Cuban people.
In December 2014, President Barack Obama announced his intent to re-establish normal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.  Since then, palatable progress has been made towards this objective, including the recent opening of embassies in Washington and Havana. Nonetheless, American companies are still not permitted to do business in Cuba on account of the American trade embargo, which remains intact in spite of President Obama’s calls for Congress to lift it. In fact, the embargo has actually been “further tightened under President Obama’s administration, particularly in the financial sector…The United States had historically used the enormous technological power of its recently denounced mass espionage system to persecute and monitor Cuba’s financial transactions and economic relations.  From January 2009 to September 2013, fines imposed on 30 United States and foreign entities for relations with Cuba and other countries amounted to more than $2.4 billion.”[1]
Presently, the Republican-controlled Congress represents the main obstacle to the complete elimination of the embargo, which would permit the free flow of U.S. investment into Cuba. This is evidenced by a recent interview with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, where he explicitly stated that Congress was strictly opposed to lifting the trade embargo.
However, this position faces significant opposition from many American companies that regard Cuba as a new and profitable frontier to be conquered. For example, “Cargill, Procter & Gamble, Caterpillar, and other major U.S. companies[2]” have lent their support to Engage Cuba[3], a privately funded organisation that advocates for lifting the trade embargo. This organization meets with industry and civic leaders and pressures lawmakers to lift the trade embargo. Reports published by Engage Cuba have stated that, in the event that the embargo is fully lifted, “U.S. merchandise exports to Cuba could reach $4.3 billion” and “U.S. service exports to Cuba could reach $1.6 billion”[4] per year. Engage Cuba is a profit-oriented organisation whose primary objective is to facilitate the domination of the Cuban market by major American companies.
President Raúl Castro has made it clear that Cuba will continue to support self-determination and the national sovereignty of each country regardless of any changes or improvements in U.S.-Cuba relations. However, despite President Obama’s pledge that, “On Cuba, we are not in the business of regime change”, which he made at the Summit of the Americas in April, there is evidence to suggest that the U.S. will seek certain concessions and guarantees from Cuban officials before ultimately agreeing to fully lift its economic embargo on the island. More recently, at the re-opening of American embassy in Havana, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry indicated that Washington expects changes to Cuba’s political and economic structures, when he stated: “We will continue to urge the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations under U.N. and Inter-American human rights covenants”.
Perhaps, Washington longs for a return to the scenario that prevailed before the revolution when Americans essentially managed Cuban domestic affairs in a manner that suited their own interests. Prior to the 1959 revolution, Americans supported Fulgencio Batista’s (1901-1973) dictatorial and corrupt regime, which oppressed the population and committed countless crimes against democratic principles, freedom and human rights. His ruled basically managed the Island in the interests of American businesses and organized crime.
Even though Cuba is well-known for its commitment to peace, social justice, equality and humanitarian aid since its Socialist revolution in 1959, U.S. officials have constantly criticized the Cuban government for engaging in actions against democratic principles. Washington often states that Cuba need to improve its record on free speech and human rights, release political prisoners, and institute multiparty elections. It is not surprising that Washington would make regime change a prerequisite for lifting the economic embargo[5], as the island’s regime stands as a symbol of resistance to neo-colonialism, capitalism, and Washington hegemony in the world. It appears that Washington has never abandoned the view expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to President James Monroe in 1823, stating that Cuba would make “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states”, as it would allow the U.S. to exert control over the entire Caribbean. Despite recent developments in Cuba-U.S. diplomatic relations, it seems unlikely that Cuba would surrender its sovereignty or abandon its socialist principles, as summarized by the following statement made to the UN General Assembly by Cuba’s Minster of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodriquez Parrila, in 2014: “Cuba would never renounce its sovereignty or the path chosen by its people to build a more just, efficient, prosperous and sustainable socialism.”
Next month, the U.N. General Assembly will once again vote to call for an end to the American embargo. Given recent developments, the world will be intrigued to see the vote cast by the American representative.  A vote for the resolution, or even an abstention, could serve as a powerful indication that Obama is truly committed to normalizing relations with Cuba, as he claimed last December when he publicly stated that he would go so far as to exercise his executive powers if need be.
[3] Engage Cuba is a “public policy organization dedicated to coalescing and mobilizing American businesses, non-profit groups and concerned citizens for the purpose of supporting the ongoing U.S.‐Cuba normalization process and enacting legislation to reform U.S. travel and trade restrictions with Cuba.” It is “supported entirely by American businesses and private foundations” (http://engagecuba.org/?page_id=21). Engage Cuba began organizing itself in April 2015 with the aim of helping “negotiate an agreement between the Florida-based Stonegate Bank and the Cuban Interests Section in Washington to resume bank transactions from the diplomatic mission.” Its members include “the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Council of the Americas, and the American Society of Travel Agents. The coalition also brings together academic and civic organizations that favor rapprochement with Cuba, including CubaNow, Cuba Study Group, and the Center for Democracy in the Americas.” (http://engagecuba.org/?page_id=21)
[5] The U.S. trade embargo has been accepted as the best mechanism to reverse the socialist revolution by all of the ruling administrations since it was originally established.  This position was best summarized by Lester D. Mallory, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, on April 6, 1960: “The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition… The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship… every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action which… makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

Putin in New York is in potential danger. Will someone attempt a "regime change" hit ?

Putin in New York is in potential danger. Will someone attempt a "regime change" hit ?

09/28/2015 - 16:42

Lev Pirogov

This is not to say openly. Something to read about it manages only "between the lines". For example:

"The Head of State will arrive in New York at the jubilee session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 28 with a one-day visit. It provided quite a heavy program: performance, as well as a number of meetings, including with US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. After that Vladimir Putin will leave the US and return to Moscow. When asked what is the reason it is a one-day visit, the press secretary of the head of state, Dmitry Peskov, told journalists: "The president has many, many years living in the chart, which is quite hard physically. '"

That is a direct answer to the question "what is the reason," a spokesman for bias. Why is that?

Is it because that even those few hours that will hold the President of Russia in the hospitable American soil, his security will have to work at full capacity?

Of course, it happens that the Russian President during his visit to America, it will be reputational hit. So what? Do not fall WTC towers were hit reputation? But how much benefit it is extracted. At least eight years delayed the financial crisis ... And the visit of a fact not an interstate, "the host country" - the UN, not the US, you never know what can happen, it was possible, almost to run almost reach him that pridurochnoy of Femen?

US country with a rich tradition of political assassinations and provocations. Four killed their own presidents. Even at ten assassinated. More than any state in the world can boast of such a "harvest." And this is only on the surface. And how many "absurd tragic accidents", "coincidences" and "accidents" make up the underwater part of an iceberg! That's just the last:

Congressman Sonny Bono (former member of the famous duo "Sonny and Cher") was killed after was appointed to investigate corruption in the United States at the highest levels. Bono was in charge of the files of judicial corruption and drug trafficking by the CIA.

Senator Paul Uelstoun, died in a plane crash after demanded further investigation of the explosion of the twin towers and the opposition led by the US war in Iraq. The airliner, which crashed during landing, he does not put out a few hours to burned the evidence.

Former Congressman Wayne Owens found dead during the investigation коррупцииамерикано-израильско-палестинского треугольника.

US Federal prosecutors Thelma Colbert and Shannon Ross, is investigating crimes related to the Bush family, "committed suicide" in a few weeks, one after another.

Federal Judge John Roll shot dead shortly after he ruled against Obama and the US government. Arrow quickly caught, they turned out to be drug-addled loner. But why the media carefully obscured the death of John Rolla in favor of the other victims of the shooting?

In each of these cases there are a lot of testimony and investigative inconsistencies that cast doubt on the official version of what happened. And that's just politics. On other objectionable nothing to say.

For example, the author of "grand deception" and other best-selling books about the September 11 attacks, Philip Marshall suddenly killed their children (17-year-old son and 14-year-olddaughter), homemade dog and shot himself. His fellow journalists conducted their investigation, which proved a complete falsity of the arguments of the official investigation.

Reporter Michael Hastings, criticized the methods of waging war in Afghanistan and questioned the fact of destruction of Osama bin Laden, for some reason, clocked in his car to the high speed, crossed several streets at a red light and crashed boiled.

Two FBI agents involved in the investigation, "the Boston terrorist attack" a month after the murder of Tamerlane tsarnaev died after falling from a helicopter during unplanned exercises.After learning about the incident, the deputy of the legislature of New Hampshire Stella Tremblay, who is suspected of organizing "the Boston terrorist act" and demanded that the US intelligence services thoroughly investigate urgently for half the price sold his house and left in an unknown direction, leaving a note of resignation from his post ...

In addition to political killings, the US used two ways to eliminate unwanted: it is sex scandals (charges could not be confirmed later, but the resignation of objectionable policies has already taken place - as it was with the head of the IMF, Strauss-Kahn), and ... cancer. When he learned that he was ill with cancer, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, referring to the leaders of Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador: "I do not blame anyone, it's just my thoughts, but please, Evo, take care of yourself, please, Daniel, take care of yourself, please , Correa, take care of yourself, because it all looks very strange. "

Strange seemed that too many independent Latin American leaders developed cancer at the same time. Among them, the Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who replaced him as Cristina Kirchner, Brazilian president Lula da Silva, who came to power after him, Dilma Rousseff, Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo (though he was overthrown during a coup arranged by the CIA, but it was shortly thereafter diagnosed and cancer too). After the pro-American president of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos began peace talks with the guerrillas, "the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia," he also developed cancer.

Barely alive after a mysterious intestinal cancer and Cuban leader Fidel Castro. However, Castro is a special case. He survived more than six attempts on his life. It is hoped that during the recent visit of Vladimir Putin to Cuba and his dialogue with Fidel Castro, not less efficiently communicate and share experiences and representatives of the security services.


Saturday, September 19, 2015

Western Media: Moscow Negotiations between Russia and the US on Syria must begin

Western Media: Moscow Negotiations between Russia and the US on Syria must begin.

Starting a dialogue between Moscow and Washington on the Syrian settlement on the level of defense ministers was a major victory for Russia, writes the Los Angeles Times. «This confirms that Moscow has become even more important player, despite attempts US to isolate "- the newspaper notes. US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to London, said the imminent start of negotiations, the aim of which would be to" identify the various options available to us when we consider the next steps in Syria. 

Shortly after it became aware of a telephone conversation between the heads of the defense departments of the two countries. So far, the Obama administration has just loudly condemned Moscow for its actions against Syria, the newspaper said. According to analysts, the start of negotiations is a recognition by the White House need to revise their basic concepts on the crisis. The conflict transformed the region so that the representatives of the US administration, "there is no other choice but to try to be in front. 

This requires the maintenance of ties with Moscow ", - quotes edition of the word Julianne Smith, a former adviser to Joe Biden.Washington may be more flexible on certain issues concerning settlement in Syria, says Smith. Kerry has hinted at a new level of flexibility in the administration's position. And his "conciliatory" remarks contrasted sharply with statements made ​​two weeks ago in a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.According to the statements of various US officials, the primary goal of negotiations between Moscow and Washington is to prevent accidental conflict between the Russian and American military personnel in Syria . 

On Thursday, the Foreign Ministry said that Moscow is ready to provide information on the Washington military-technical cooperation with Damascus. It also noted that the main task of Moscow in Syria - do not support the president of the republic, Bashar Assad, and the battle with militants "Islamic state", "who represent a threat to national security has the Russian Federation." On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that without the participation of the Syrian authorities in the fight against the terrorist group "Islamic State" militants from the country is not expelled. 

On Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the US-led coalition against the "Islamic state" would bring more benefit if coordinate with the Syrian leadership. According to him, Moscow has information that the US know the specific location of positions of the terrorist group "Islamic State", but did not give the order on application


By John Helmer, Moscow
The Dutch Government has decided to launch a missile attack on Moscow in October. By suppressing all evidence obtained from the bodies of victims of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, officials of the Dutch Safety Board and associated Dutch military officers, police and prosecutors are preparing to release a report on the crash with a gaping hole in its veracity.
At the same time, and apparently unknown in The Netherlands, an Australian coroners’ report on the identification and forensic testing of the bodies carried out in The Netherlands reveals post-mortem evidence to show that in their public statements the Dutch government officials have been lying about metal evidence they claim to have found. This evidence has not only been buried with the passengers’ remains. It has been buried by the Dutch Government and by coroners in the UK and Australia, who are now legally required to investigate independently what caused the deaths of citizens in their jurisdiction. All are withholding the CT scans, X-rays, autopsy and other post-mortem results, including metallurgical assays, the documentation of which accompanied the coffins of the aircraft’s victims from The Netherlands to their homelands.
Erwin Muller (below, left), co-chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), the official aviation accident body, and Fred Westerbeke (right), a Dutch police officer heading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a forensics unit of the Dutch prosecution authority, have announced that on July 1 a draft “final” report on the destruction of MH17 was issued to the states participating in the investigation.
There are 7 of these states, according to the DSB: The Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia The JIT is a more restricted group comprising Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian, and Belgian security and intelligence officers. The Malaysians asked to join the JIT three months after its inception. The Dutch officials also claim they have been considering comments from officials of the other governments, and have scheduled October 13 for public release of the DSB document.
What the DSB report means now hinges — government officials, pathologists and lawyers say — on four lookalike words with fundamentally different meanings. The “first” is onderdelen (parts) which DSB officials have been using to refer to a Buk ground-to-air rocket. The second term is “metallfragmente” and “metalen deeltjes”, which Westerbeke and his spokesman have been using interchangeably to mean metal from outside the MH17, and also from the fuselage itself. The third key word is “missile”, which Australian coronial investigators say refers, not to a Buk or any other type of explosive ordnance, but to “flying objects which strike the body”. The fourth term is “raket”, which Dutch investigators, including those engaged in the official identification of the MH17 victims, say applies to air-to-ground rockets like Buk, as well as to air-to-air, infrared and other rockets fired by aircraft.
For the Dutch to make the case that MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made and Russian-deployed Buk ground-to-air missile, the metal in the corpses and body parts is the only certain evidence which has been recovered from the crash site; analysed painstakingly in the record of the Dutch investigations; and repatriated in certified dossiers Dutch and other sources say accompanied the coffins when they were flown home. This documentation is now held in files in The Netherlands and in the coronial agencies of all the countries to which remains and coffins have gone.
Over the past week Dutch, British, and Australian officials all refuse to confirm they are holding this evidence. Nor will they answer questions about when, or if, they plan to commence inquests at which this evidence must be presented publicly.
Dirk Huyer, the chief coroner in Ontario, home province of Andrei Anghel, the lone Canadian passenger to lose his life on MH17, says Canada is not going to investigate. “It is very uncommon for the death investigation system to become involved in a death that occurred outside of the province… Our authority for investigation is limited to Ontario—we do not have any authority to direct investigation outside of our provincial jurisdiction.” Accordingly, his office has not been involved in the MH17 investigation, “and therefore there will be no inquest.”
If the inquest evidence does not substantiate the difference in meaning of the ambiguous terms issued publicly so far – and if the inquests themselves are postponed indefinitely so the evidence is kept secret, then one conclusion is certain – there is no evidence that a Buk missile explosion struck MH17 and caused the death of those on board.
Professor George MaatA Dutch pathologist, Professor George Maat (right) who had participated directly in the identification of the bodies at Hilversum military base, was fired in April by the Dutch government for presenting medical students studying identification techniques with illustrations of the records he made. Last month Maat wrote to contradict claims circulating on Ukrainian websites that an X-ray showing metal fragments originated from either an MH17 victim, or from the Dutch investigation. The fabrication can be examined here. Maat presented no X-rays at his controversial lecture, and has aired no claim that missile shrapnel was identified in victim bodies.
An Australian coronial investigation, reported at a professional meeting of international coroners and pathologists in Melbourne, Australia, last November, has reported the only authenticated details of the process which the Dutch undertook after the crash. The two authors of the report are David Ranson (below, left) and Iain West (centre); the first is an associate professor of forensic pathology and deputy director of theVictorian Institute of Forensic Medicine; the second is the deputy state coroner at theCoroners Court of Victoria. This is the official agency in charge of receiving all 27 Australian victims of the MH17 crash. The Victoria state coroner, Judge Ian Gray (right), is also in charge of conducting investigations and inquests on 18 victims who were residents of Victoria, and who have been returned for burial to families in the state.
Reporting “the features of the remains”, Ranson and West say that “fire damage” was pervasive: “all patterns [including]…complete incineration, partial incineration, unburned”. The injuries they identify include those which destroyed the body “variably” and “completely”. There were, they report, “massive internal injuries with little external signs” and “no haemorrhage round fractures”. According to sources involved in the MH17 investigation, this means there was no blood pressure, and the victims were dead before they hit the ground.
Most importantly, the Australian experts report: “missile injuries [were] rare but present.” An Australian expert source who is familiar with the evidence covered by the Ranson-West report but who spoke on background, warns: “Don’t confuse the meaning of the word missile. It means flying objects which strike the body.” It is not known whether Ranson and West were shown X-rays or CT scans of the Australian victims. Their full report can be read here.
When MH17 was downed over eastern Ukrainian territory on July 17, 2014, a total of 298 people were on board. To date, remains of 296 have been recovered and officially identified, according to Dutch reports. The nationalities of the victims, reported from airline releases, are Dutch, 193; Malaysian, 43; Australian, 27; Indonesian, 12; British, 10; German, 4; Belgian, 4; Philippino, 3; New Zealanders, 1; and Canadians, 1. The identities of the 2 unrecovered individuals have not been released.
The Australian report spells out the problems of gathering and authenticating evidence in Ukraine, where there was “no forensic control”; where the international air crash guidelines issued by Interpol weren’t followed; and where there was “inappropriate interim storage and body preservation.” When the bodies reached the Dutch military barracks, where investigation took place, there was, according to Ranson and West, “CT scanning of contents of coffin.” They describe the triage procedure followed: “If suspicious foreign objects [identified on the scans], Proceed to Limited Forensic Autopsy. If no suspicious foreign objects – Proceed to DVI [Disaster Victim Identification] examination area.”
This reveals that CT scans were done of all remains, and thus a CT scan has been recorded for every victim whose body has been recovered and repatriated or transferred to the next of kin. There is no reference to X-rays at this stage of the Dutch procedure; they may have been taken during the “limited forensic autopsy”. One reason for suspecting that X-rays appearing in Ukrainian media are fakes is that the Dutch procedures used CT scans instead.
Ranson and West explain the steps followed for the main nationalities and the kinds of testing and evidence collected for identification.
The Australian report does not reveal what evidence was gathered in the “limited forensic autopsy”. But Ranson and West reveal that “suspicious foreign objects” detected in the CT scans as “missile injuries” were “rare”. Just how rare has been admitted, inadvertently, by the Dutch prosecutor Westerbeke.
What is certain, medical pathologists say, is that the Dutch autopsied remains in order to remove what the Australians are calling “suspicious foreign objects” when they were spotted. The timing of the repatriation process also indicates that Westerbeke had taken control of these “objects” and had tested them, assaying the metals and comparing the results with munitions specifications, by the time in October when the last repatriations to Australia took place. There can be no doubt, says a Dutch source, that “by then Westerbeke knew exactly what metal or metals he was dealing with.”
When the Dutch DVI process was completed, and to ensure that remains were reliably identified before repatriation, the Australian report says there were “documents and identification label checks.” For each individual, these materials included “CT scan and photography.”
Australian sources report these materials were then attached to each coffin for repatriation. All the Australian coffins were flown to Melbourne, transported to the Victorian coroner’s morgue, and re-certified. Those victims whose residence and next of kin were in other states were flown on to those destinations.
Australian sources say the Australian forensic and coronial court process is “alive and ongoing, but not yet started.” The sources say also “there have been meetings with the Australian Federal Police” (AFP), and this process is also continuing. Included in this police and government intelligence investigation are the Australian pathologists who worked on the DVI line in Holland, as well as other experts. The AFP has already collected a dossier of evidence, covered by a summary brief, which is circulating for discussion at meetings the AFP has called with the experts. This process and the brief are secret; some of the experts and investigators involved in the ante-mortem and identification process have been excluded. According to one expert, “there is enormous variation among the victims. Lots of possibilities [on cause of death] are being canvassed.”
Victorian coroner Gray was asked to say whether he has decided that the inquests he will hold will be restricted to identification of the victims, or will be extended to cause of death and forensic issues. Inside sources believe Gray will be guided by the AFP report. Gray was asked to say whether he will “be taking and considering evidence of victim injuries, including X-rays, CT scans, and reports of the Dutch authorities (LTFO, JIT, DSB) which accompanied the remains on repatriation? Will [he] be taking testimony from the Australian Federal Police (AFP)?”
His spokesman, Nola Los, replied: “Judge Gray will need to approve the release of any information relating to details regarding the Victorian victims of MH17. Unfortunately he will not be available to do so until next week.”
Los and Gray confirm the Australian count of 27 victims in all; 18 Victorians. Their cases are “open”, Los says, “that an inquest date is being considered for later this year.”
In the UK, where press reporting of the alleged Buk missile attack is widespread – as it is in Australia and Canada — there is a similar blackout in the coronial system. Altogether, 10 British nationals or residents have been identified on board the aircraft. However, because some were dual nationals or resident in other countries, the UK media have reported just 4 burials in the UK. Others may have been buried in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
The government in London has announced that “special arrangements were made by the Chief Coroner [Judge Peter Thornton QC], following the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 disaster in Ukraine in July 2014. Coroners have a duty to investigate violent or unnatural deaths which occur overseas where the body is returned to England and Wales. In this case, with the consent of all families concerned, all repatriated bodies were received first in one central coroner area where one senior coroner co-ordinated all arrangements with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police. The coroner’s co-ordinated investigations will be subject to the outcome of the extensive Dutch inquiries.”
Catherine MasonThe coroner in charge is Catherine Mason (right), who heads the coroners court in Leicester. A lawyer and nurse by training, she previously served in junior coroner posts in other regions, and has been chief coroner in Leicester for 6 years. A check of her court records for the MH17 victims’ names reveals that on September 22, 2014, the inquest into Richard Mayne’s death was opened, then immediately adjourned without a new date. A month later, on October 27, the inquest into the death of John Alder was also suspended. The legal authority cited for Mason’s action was Schedule
1 Paragraph 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. This provides carte blanche: “a senior coroner may suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a person’s death in any case if it appears to the coroner that it would be appropriate to do so.”
Last week Mason was asked how many MH17 victim inquests she is conducting and their individual names. What circumstances, she was asked, “have you deemed to be appropriate for suspension in these cases? Have you delegated authority for evidence gathering and forensic testing in these cases to another body, British or foreign? To whom has this delegation been made, and on what authority?” Finally, Mason was asked what post-mortem or autopsy evidence of the victims’ remains she is holdng. Mason refuses to answer. A source at her court says Mason is deferring “while inquiries are conducted abroad.” The source implies the British Government has decided to rely on the Dutch for evidence.
In The Netherlands, the aviation accident body, the DSB, published its preliminaryreport in September 2014. For details of what evidence it identified and what conclusions it drew, read this. The day after the DSB release, the principal Russian official responsible for Russian participation in the Dutch investigation, Oleg Storchevoy (below), Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency (RosAviation), said the DSB had missed crucial evidence.
Oleg Storchevoy
“The investigation should further study the data from the radars and post mortems of the victims. All these steps are widely regarded as a must in civil aviation and no preliminary conclusions are usually made before completing all of them. Regrettably, significant time has been wasted, and some of the data will be unavailable – I now refer to the remains of the victim’s bodies and the plane’s debris which are not secured enough and located in the zone of an armed conflict. Nevertheless, this work must be done to ensure a speedy and unbiased investigation into the cause of the crash.”
Storchevoy was telling the DSB what it was already admitting in the preliminary report. On page 4, the report claimed it would include the “result of the pathological investigations” in “further work…to substantiate the factual information.” At page 32 the DSB repeated the promise that for “Further Investigations” it would analyse “results of pathological investigation”.
On September 25, RosAviation released the text of the letter Storchevoy had sent to DSB itemizing the evidence the DSB investigation should cover for its final report. Here is the 24-point release. Point 3 is a priority for evidence: “Pathological examination of the dead passengers and crew members, including the presence of submunitions and other foreign bodies and substances.”
At DSB Chairman Muller was asked to confirm he had read Storchevoy’s letter, and to say what reply he had sent. He refuses to say. He was then asked: “When the remains were released to relatives and repatriated, what death certificate was issued by the Dutch authorities? What was given as cause of death? Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results?”
Sara VernooijMuller’s spokesman Sara Vernooij (right) replied, saying “as long as the investigation is ongoing we can’t give any information or details. The Dutch Safety Board will publish the final report on 13 October, before that we won’t issue any information concerning investigation material or sources.” But that cannot be true, she and Muller were told, since in recent days the DSB has issued news releases disclosing “information or details” on the purported discovery and investigation of Bukmissile parts; and on the manner and consciousness of victims ahead of their deaths.
Vernooij then conceded these were “information or details”, but she now claims: “I can’t give any more details than we already gave.” As for the questions to Muller about what evidence had been collected before repatriation, and what went on the Dutch death certificates, Vernooij said: “The repatriation and the identification is done by the forensic team of LTFO, spokesperson is Mr. Fransman (j.s.t.fransman@minvenj.nl ).”
3_1712The Landelijk Team Forensische Opsporing (National Forensic Investigations Team, LTFO) in the Netherlands is a police and military organ of the Dutch Government, headed by Arie De Bruin (right). In investigating the MH17 victims’ remains, the Dutch were joined by a German officer of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the Federal Criminal Police, and the equivalent AFP officer from Australia.
According to a Malaysian government release, the MH17 victim identification operation was “assisted by Executive Officers of (a) logistic and accommodation, (b) Ante-mortem (AM) Process, (c) post-mortem (PM) Process, (d) Reconciliation process and (e) Release Process . The other countries involved in the MH17 operation were Malaysia, Belgium, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Indonesia. The team leaders of the 6 countries were officially appointed as executive officers in the DVI MH17 Organisation. A team of international forensic experts led by Dutchman Gert Wibbelink of the Dutch National Forensic Investigations Team, or LTFO, was handed control of the investigation in Kharkiv. The LTFO has eight staff members in Ukraine, including Mr. Wibbelink. “We have been collecting DNA samples, hair, fingerprints, information about scars or tattoos or moles,” from the victims’ first-degree relatives, Jos van Roo, the LTFO team leader in the Netherlands, said in an interview.”
Jean FransmanFor LTFO, spokesman Jean Fransman (right) was asked on Friday whether the LTFO procedures for the MH17 victims included an autopsy to determine cause of death and find shrapnel, bullet or other metal fragments; and to attach CT scan, X-ray and other pathological test results to the repatriated remains. Fransman claimed: “I’m not the spokesperson for the LTFO. But I will forward your questions to my colleagues.” The first point was false; the second, a deadend. When informed that he had been identified as LTFO spokesman by the DSB and on the signature line of his own email, and that he was making a record of misinformation and evasion by LTFO, Fransman stopped responding.
Fransman, like his boss de Bruin, did not know that the questions they refuse to answer have already been published by the Australians. This is the only publicdisclosure by LTFO of what it has been doing.
The remaining Dutch official to be asked the questions the Australians answered last year is Westerbeke of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian and Belgian governments have announced that the JIT is bound by its founding agreement on August 7, 2014, to keep confidential the evidence it has been finding. Westerbeke’s record is one of leaking to the Dutch and German media, and to the BBC, details DSB claims to be withholding until next month. Westerbeke has made a record too of leaking one detail, and then contradicting it later.
According to this graphic, published by Westerbeke’s men, one of the key forms of evidence in his criminal investigation is “metal particles from victims’ bodies”.
On September 12, 2014, Westerbeke told a Dutch paper, De Volkskrant, that metal fragments had been found in victims’ bodies. According to this report, Westerbeke (and a police spokesman, Patricia Zorko) counted 500 samples that had been taken; this appears to be a count of what the Australians are calling the “limited forensic autopsy”. Explaining why the Australians have reported “missile injuries rare but present”, Westerbeke told the local newspaper there were 25 “metalen deeltjes” – that’s to say, “metal particles”, just as Westerbeke had put into his chart. If 25 of 500 samples had tested positive for metal, that was a rate of 5%.
Another way of estimating the rarity of the metal found can be gauged from a report written by Ranson for Coroner Gray in Melbourne, and then circulated to the families of victims. This indicates that more than 700 body parts were identified at Hilversum. If 25 tested positive for metal, then that’s a rate of just 3.6%. That appears to be a very small incidence in a jet aircraft struck from outside the fuselage. This number is also less than half the metal particles in the purported X-ray published by the Ukrainians. Westerbeke’s 25 count eliminates the Ukrainian picture as a fabrication.
The Ranson-West report confirms that for timing, these pieces of evidence had been collected early in the triage process at Hilversum barracks, possibly weeks before Westerbeke leaked the details. The DSB failed to mention them in its September report. Westerbeke himself omitted to say what testing he had already done on the “metal particles” to identify the metal.
BBC version of what Westerbeke said on September 12, 2014, adds detail: “At a news conference in Rotterdam on Friday, Fred Westerbeke…said that the investigation was particularly interested in the origin of 25 pieces of iron [sic], drawn from 500 samples. ‘The most likely scenario was that the plane was shot down from the ground,’ he said. ‘If we can establish that this iron is coming from such a missile, that is important information of course,’ he said. ‘At this moment we don’t know that, but that is what we are investigating.’”
Two other reporters listening to Westerbeke detected ambiguity in what he was actually claiming about the metal evidence. A DutchNews website claimed to have heard Westerbeke say the metal was found “between the wreckage [on the ground] and in some of the bodies, which could come from a missile.” A Reuters reporterclaimed the metal particles had been found in passenger luggage, as well as in bodies. The location of both Westerbeke omitted to say, concealing thereby whether they were concentrated in a pattern of shrapnel, and whether the metal samples were identical in all 25 cases.
A month later Westerbeke tried again, this time for German consumption. On October 27, 2014, Der Spiegel quoted Westerbeke as conceding the “Metallfragmente” could be “shrapnel from a Buk missile, possibly also parts of the aircraft itself.” Between Westerbeke’s two press leaks, the reporters had failed to notice that Westerbeke had taken 45 days not to confirm the nature of the metal he was holding. But he was conceding the original leak was losing its initial meaning. If the metal had been tested and compared against the aluminium, titanum and other alloys in the aircraft wings, walls and floor, then Westerbeke must have known whether “iron” was ruled in, or out.
Nine months then elapsed before Westerbeke started leaking again. Here he is in aninterview obligingly scripted in advance by the BCC, and broadcast on July 17. This time Westerbeke omitted to say anything at all about “metal”—and the BBC forgot to ask. Notwithstanding, there was no hesitation in London to headline the story: “MH17 investigator: Missile strike most credible scenario”.
Last week Westerbeke was asked to explain where all the missile metal had flown. Specifically, the Dutch policeman was asked questions to which the Australian coronial investigators had already revealed the answers. “Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results? What release to any party of the investigation, including next of kin, has there been of these data, the so-called metal particle data?”
Westerebeke refuses to answer. This is the black hole the Dutch have created in their own investigation, but they are unable to fill it with “iron”, and they cannot explain how the alleged detonation of a Buk warhead could release so little recovered shrapnel; possibly none at all.