Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017

This Big Lie today, which is to be described here, is the lie, upon the basis of which the Cold War against the dictatorial communistic USS.R. — which Cold War had been such a boost to US weapons-makers such as Lockheed Martin while it lasted — actually became restored in 2014, and continues today,

The Current Big Lie Is...




Tyler Durden's picture
The Big Lie today is as enormous as, and potentially far more harmful than, any Big Lie throughout history has been; and, it will be exposed fully here, and will be documented even more fully, by means of the links that are provided in this summary of it. (This Big Lie is certainly important enough for that care, because if the lie is continued unexposed, that massive fraud will produce World War III, a world-destroying nuclear war, perhaps even soon.) So, this will be only a summary of it, but a completely documented summary — not a mere ‘exposé’ that’s expected to be believed because it is already generally suspected or thought to be the case, but, instead, something that's presented in the expectation that the key facts of the case have, to the contrary, been so effectively hidden from the public, as to make necessary here the providing of full documentation of it, for anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this ongoing rape of history — the super-dangerous Big Lie that’s ongoing right now.
This Big Lie today, which is to be described here, is the lie, upon the basis of which the Cold War against the dictatorial communistic USS.R. — which Cold War had been such a boost to US weapons-makers such as Lockheed Martin while it lasted — actually became restored in 2014, and continues today, as, this time, not a ‘cold’ but a hot war, by the US and its allies, all united together (for the benefit of the owners of their international corporations, and especially of the big US arms-suppliers) against democratic post-communist Russia (which gets blamed for trying to defend itself, at every step of the way that it does so). This increasingly hot war started in early 2014 (after at least three years of advance-preparation of it by the US Administration of American President Barack Obama), in Ukraine (formerly a part of the USS.R.), when a CIA coup that was perpetrated under the cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, against the democratically elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych — when this CIA coup installed there, in Ukraine, a rabidly anti-Russian government, bordering Russia. That is certainly a provocation to war, just as would be the case if instead Russia had overthrown Mexico’s government and installed there a rabidly anti-US regime.
In this Big Lie, which reigns today and is almost universally believed in the US to be true, that bloody coup in Ukraine is simply ignored, and instead the focus is placed upon the peaceful and voluntary breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine, which breakaway actually resulted directly from that coup, which was the real precipitating-event for ’the new Cold War’ — the basis of the US-and-allied economic sanctions against Russia, and for the massing of NATO troops and weapons onto Russia’s borders, ready to invade Russia. (How would Americans feel if the Russian government did all of that, to us?)
The Big Lie today is this: that the reason for the economic sanctions against Russia, is that ‘Putin’ or Russia ‘stole’ or ‘conquered’ or ‘seized’ the Crimea region of Ukraine.
The Big Truth, about the matteris that US President Obama conquered Ukraine itself (all of it), via a February 2014 CIA coup that he had secretly started planning by no later than 2011, which on 20 February 2014 culminated with the violent overthrow of the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, who had won 90% of the votes in the far-eastern Donbass area of Ukraine, and 75% of the votes in the far-southern Crimea area of Ukraine, both of which intensely pro-Yanukovych regions refused to be ruled by the Obama-appointed rulers — the hard-right, fascist and rabidly anti-Russian, team that the Obama regime imposed upon Ukraine, after Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland told Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine on 4 February 2014, that «Yats» (Arseniy Yatenyuk), a hard-right and even racist anti-Russian Ukrainian politician, was to become appointed to run the country as soon as the coup would be over, which happened 23 days later (and Yatsenyuk did then receive the appointment and establish very hard-right anti-Russian policies — including massacres of ethnic Russians in Ukraine).
The legalities of the situation are as heinous on America’s side as the moralities are; and, yet, America’s vassal-states, in the EU and elsewhere, slavishly honor Obama’s sanctions against the victim-nation here, Russia (even while acknowledging that the residents of Crimea are overwhelmingly supportive of having separated themselves from Ukraine and grateful to Russia for now protecting them against the rabidly anti-Crimean US-imposed rulers of Ukraine). Furthermore: by no later than 26 February 2014, the leaders of the EU knew that the ‘revolution on the Maidan’ had, in fact, been a brutal coup, nothing at all ‘democratic’ — but decided to ignore that fact. So, they too are culpable in this, though not nearly to the extent that Obama is.
On Friday 21 July 2017, the anti-Russian Reuters ‘news’ (propaganda) agency headlined «Crimean scandal prompts Siemens to retreat from Russian energy» and reported that, «Germany's Siemens tried to distance itself from a Crimean sanctions scandal on Friday, halting deliveries of power equipment to Russian state-controlled customers and reviewing supply deals. The industrial group said it now had credible evidence that all four gas turbines it delivered a year ago for a project in southern Russia had been illegally moved to Crimea, confirming a series of Reuters reports». The false underlying assumption in this propaganda-article was that the «scandal» it refers to had been initiated and perpetrated by Russia, not by the United States government (which initiated the sanctions against Russia, which Siemens and Russia are now being punished for). The Wikipedia propaganda site says in its article «Russian financial crisis (2014–2017)» that «The financial crisis in Russia in 2014-2015 was the result of the collapse of the Russian ruble beginning in the second half of 2014» and barely even mentions the economic sanctions, other than to say, «The second [reason for it] is the result of international economic sanctions imposed on Russia following Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine» — implying, but not stating, that Russia had started that war — which just happened to be on its doorstep, not on the doorstep of the US — as if Mexico had been taken over by an enemy nation and the people of America were being threatened, which is what this takeover by the US government was equivalent to for the Russian people: a very real and grave national-security threat to them.
The Reuters article simply ignored the fact that Ukraine had been seized by Obama, and it simply presumed that Crimea (and also Donbass) had been seized by Putin. (Furthermore, the appeal by Donbass to become a part of Russia, was declined by Putin on 17 September 2014. But, still, the lie is also being pumped by pro-US-regime ’news’media, that Russia is trying to steal Donbass from Ukraine’s government. The US team’s lying is beyond bizarre. Sometimes, by their using carefully veiled language to deceive without outright asserting their lies, they implicitly blame Russia regarding the impasse in Donbass, even three years after Putin said no to that appeal by the residents of Donbass. And, still: Russia, which had — despite the Obama regime’s refusal to participate — signed and even had helped set up the Minsk agreements to settle the war in Donbass, gets blamed in the US-allied press for what are actually Ukraine’s refusal to honor the commitments it had signed to there. As usual, the victims get blamed. And the Trump Administration says that «there should be no sanctions relief until Russia meets its obligations under the Minsk agreements». No good deed will go unpunished — ever.)
Nor has Reuters (nor the rest of the US regime’s press) reported that a power-struggle is now occurring in the post-coup Ukraine, between the overt nazis (or racist-fascists) there, and the post-coup (that’s the fascist but not outright nazi) elected government (in elections that excluded non-fascists). The fascists, whom the current US regime supports, are being attacked by the nazis. The nazis are being led by Dmitriy Yarosh, whose followers are unabashedly nazis and often even boldly flash German Nazi Party insignia. The US Obama regime was one of only three governments throughout the world that voted against a resolution that had been introduced in the United Nations condemning fascism, racism and denial of the Holocaust. The two other pro-Nazi nations were Ukraine, whose US-installed regime felt the resolution to be personally offensive even though it wasn’t specific to Ukraine and didn’t even mention Ukraine, and the other country was Canada, which is a US vassal-nation and also has a powerful community of Ukrainian Nazis who escaped Ukraine right after WW II ended in 1945. Canada’s current Foreign Minister, appointed by the Liberal Party’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is Chrystia Freeland, a racist-fascist who is proud of her Nazi grandparents and who championed in Canada the fascist takeover of Ukraine. 
When the International Criminal Court issued, on 14 November 2016, its annual «Report on Preliminary Examination Activities», it included, on pages 34-43, a section on «Ukraine,» but considered only accusations that the Obama-installed Ukrainian government had lodged against Russia, and none of the demonstrated crimes (which are amply documented in the links herein), including the illegal coup, that the Obama regime had, in fact, perpetrated against not only the people of Ukraine, but the people of Russia next door; and the discussion by the ICC did not (such as an influential but grossly false Forbes article six days later headlined and yet provided no documentation for, «International Criminal Court: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine Is A 'Crime,' Not A Civil War») even allege that any «crime» had been committed by any party; but, nonetheless, the Russian government (which had never ratified the treaty that established the Court) condemned the report as being «one-sided,» which was an understatement, because the report included many gross falsehoods, outright lies, such as (and I boldface the falsehood):
«At the time of the start of the events that are the subject of the Office’s preliminary examination, the democratically-elected Government of Ukraine was dominated by the Party of Regions, led by President at the time, Viktor Yanukovych. The Maidan protests were prompted by the decision of the Ukrainian Government on 21 November 2013 not to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union».
As I and others have documented, the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President started well before that time, and the coup even was already being organized inside the US Embassy there by no later than 1 March 2013; and the US State Department had begun its work to prepare it, no later than 2011 — it didn’t simply ‘happen’. And it certainly wasn’t ‘democratic’; it ended whatever democracy Ukraine had. Furthermore, Yanukovych’s turn-down of the EU’s offer was, itself, a part of the Obama regime’s plan: Yanukovych had turned it down because the Ukrainian Academy of Science’s analysis of the EU’s offer (which had been prepared in accord with the US government’s urgings) had concluded that to accept the deal would produce losses for Ukraine of $160 billion
This is the Big Lie straight out of hell, because, unless the United States acknowledges publicly that it has been lying, and that the anti-Russia sanctions that the US initiated, are based on that lie and should therefore never even have been imposed (and should not be honored anywhere), there will be war between Russia and the US. Either those sanctions will be entirely lifted, or else nuclear war will inevitably result, because Russia will not forever tolerate having its economy squeezed to death on the basis of a clear lie. But how can such sanctions be ended unless the perpetrator — here, clearly, the US — publicly acknowledges that former US President Barack Obama, and his Administration, lied through their teeth, in order to impose them, in the first place? The US government would need to renounce, to the entire world, that former US President. Or else, WW III would seem to be well-nigh inevitable. This is an extremely serious matter, which isn’t so much as even being discussed — much less, debated. WW III could result from it, but it is entirely ignored. The Big Lie just continues to be promoted, instead of exposed.
Back on 20 February 2015, I headlined «Crimea: Was It Seized by Russia, or Did Russia Block Its Seizure by the US?» and, in the years since, the documentation that it was Obama not Putin who initiated (perpetrated) the new ‘Cold War’, has only increased. But the ‘news’media hide this fact (just as they hid that article), because they exist in order to pump the Big Lie, not to puncture it. (And, of course, that also is why they won’t publish this, though it, too, is sent to all of them free-of-charge to publish.)
Donald Trump condemns many of his predecessor’s actions and decisions and statements; but, on this one, which is the most important of them all and is blatantly a fraud (the blame for the entire catastrophe in Ukraine), Trump remains alternately supportive, and noncommittal, regarding Obama’s most enormous Big Lie. Now, after half a year in office, does he even care — or does he instead simply lack the courage?
It is clear what a real leader would do — expose and renounce that biggest of all Big Lies. Only a coward would not.

US-Marine feuert gegen iranisches Boot Im Persischen Golf kommt es zu einem militärischen Zwischenfall. Laut US-Angaben gibt ein US-Patrouillenboot Warnschüsse in Richtung eines sich schnell nähernden iranischen Schiffs ab. Teheran kontert mit einer anderen Version.

Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017

140 Meter entfernt: WarnschüsseUS-Marine feuert gegen iranisches Boot

Im Persischen Golf kommt es zu einem militärischen Zwischenfall. Laut US-Angaben gibt ein US-Patrouillenboot Warnschüsse in Richtung eines sich schnell nähernden iranischen Schiffs ab. Teheran kontert mit einer anderen Version.
Ein Schiff der US-Marine hat im Persischen Golf Warnschüsse gegen ein Boot der iranischen Revolutionsgarden abgefeuert. Das iranische Boot habe sich dem Patrouillenschiff "USS Thunderbolt" mit großer Geschwindigkeit bis auf eine Entfernung von nur knapp 140 Metern genähert, sagte am Dienstag ein Mitarbeiter des US-Verteidigungsministeriums. Die Revolutionsgarden bestritten diese Version des Vorfalls.
Nach Angaben des Pentagons reagierte die iranische Besatzung auf andere Warnsignale nicht, worauf die US-Crew die Schüsse abgefeuert habe. Daraufhin habe das iranische Schiff angehalten, sagte der Mitarbeiter. Mit ihren Verhalten hätten die Iraner gegen die international anerkannten Schifffahrtsregeln verstoßen.
Die Revolutionsgarden bezichtigten hingegen die US-Besatzung der "Provokation und Einschüchterung". Nach ihrer Darstellung war es das US-Schiff, das sich dem iranischen Boot näherte. Die iranische Crew habe darauf aber nicht reagiert, sondern ihre Fahrt fortgesetzt.
Auf den Meereswegen der Region hatte es bereits zuvor ähnliche Vorfälle gegeben. Im Januar feuerte in der Straße von Hormus die Besatzung eines US-Zerstörers Warnschüsse gegen vier Schiffe der Revolutionsgarden ab, die sich laut US-Angaben ebenfalls mit großer Geschwindigkeit genähert hatten. Im Januar 2016 nahm die iranische Marine vorübergehend die Besatzung von zwei US-Patrouillenbooten fest.

Mit Trump kommt politischer Stimmungsumschwung



Seit dem Amtsantritt von Präsident Donald Trump vor einem halben Jahr haben sich die Spannungen zwischen den USA und dem Iran verschärft. Trump will zwar bis auf Weiteres an dem unter seinem Vorgänger Barack Obama ausgehandelten Atom-Abkommen mit Teheran festhalten. Am Dienstag beschloss das US-Repräsentantenhaus jedoch weitere Sanktionen gegen den Iran.
Bei einem Besuch in Saudi-Arabien im Mai hatte Trump den Iran als Förderer des Extremismus angeprangert und dazu aufgerufen, das Land international zu isolieren.
Quelle: n-tv.de , bad/AFP

Die Bundesregierung wiederum befürchtet, dass das Gesetz den Weg zu Sanktionen auch gegen deutsche Unternehmen ebnen könnte. Diese könnten ebenso wie Firmen in anderen europäischen Ländern wegen gemeinsamer Projekte mit Russland wie etwa der Erdgaspipeline Nord Stream II von Strafmaßnahmen betroffen sein.

POLITIK
Trump (r.) muss den neuen Sanktionen gegen Russland noch zustimmen.
Trump (r.) muss den neuen Sanktionen gegen Russland noch zustimmen.(Foto: picture alliance / Evan Vucci/AP)
Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017

Russland, Nordkorea, IranUS-Repräsentantenhaus billigt Sanktionen

Nach den mutmaßlichen russischen Hackerangriffen während des US-Wahlkampfs im vergangenen Jahr schlagen die USA jetzt zurück und verhängen Sanktionen. Präsident Trump muss noch zustimmen. Und Russland steht nicht allein da.
Das US-Repräsentantenhaus hat nahezu einstimmig neue Sanktionen gegen Russland gebilligt. Die Strafmaßnahmen sollen wegen der mutmaßlichen russischen Hackerangriffe während des US-Wahlkampfs sowie der Annexion der Krim-Halbinsel verhängt werden. Zugleich stimmte die Kongresskammer auch für neue Sanktionen gegen den Iran und Nordkorea.
Als Nächstes muss der Senat dem Gesetzentwurf zustimmen. Das Weiße Haus signalisierte in den vergangenen Tagen, dass Präsident Donald Trump voraussichtlich den neuen Sanktionen zustimmen wird. Zuvor hatte es noch so ausgesehen, als könnte Trump sein Veto einlegen, da er bessere Beziehungen zu Moskau anstrebt.

Auch Sanktionen gegen deutsche Firmen?



Zudem sollen durch das Maßnahmenpaket die Vollmachten des Präsidenten eingeschränkt werden, die Sanktionen später von sich aus zu lockern.
Die Bundesregierung wiederum befürchtet, dass das Gesetz den Weg zu Sanktionen auch gegen deutsche Unternehmen ebnen könnte. Diese könnten ebenso wie Firmen in anderen europäischen Ländern wegen gemeinsamer Projekte mit Russland wie etwa der Erdgaspipeline Nord Stream II von Strafmaßnahmen betroffen sein.
Quelle: n-tv.de , bad/AFP

The bill also asks the treasury to prepare a report in the next six months on the potential impact of expanding debt-related sanctions to include sovereign debt, as well as the potential impact of expanding sanctions to some oligarchs found to be close to the state and parastatal companies. This could be interpreted to suggest that sovereign debt will be added to the sanctions framework once the report has been prepared.

House Overwhelmingly Passes Veto-Proof Russia Sanctions Deal




Tyler Durden's picture
Setting up a showdown not between the US and Russia as some hope, but between Washington and the EU which has emerged as the most vocal opponent of ongoing, unilateral anti-Russian escalation by the US vowing swift retaliation, moments ago the U.S. House passed bipartisan legislation codifying and imposing further sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, and preventing the president from acting unilaterally to remove certain sanctions on Russia. Just three Republicans - Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Jimmy Duncan (Tenn.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) - voted against the bill, which passed 419-3.
More importantly, the measure also bars U.S. companies from investing in energy projects in which Russian companies have at least a 33% stake, and may penalize European companies that colaborate with Russian companies on energy projects, the source of Europe's recent fury.
Here are the main details of the draft legislation:
  • Codifies existing US sanctions on Russia and requires Congressional review before they are lifted.
  • Reduces from 30 days to 14 days the maximum allowed maturity for new debt and new extensions of credit to the state controlled financial institutions targeted under the sectoral sanctions.
  • Reduces from 90 days to 60 days the maximum allowed maturity for new debt and new extensions of credit to sectoral sanctions targets in the energy sector, although this largely only brings US sanctions in line with existing EU sanctions, which already impose a 30-day maximum for most energy companies.
  • Expands the existing Executive Order authorising sectoral sanctions to include additional sectors of the Russian economy: railways and metals and mining.
  • Requires sanctions on any person found to have invested $10 million or more, or facilitated such an investment, in the privatisation of Russian state-owned assets if they have “actual knowledge” that the privatisation “unjustly benefits” Russian government officials or their close associates or family members.
  • Authorises (but does not require) sanctions “in coordination with allies” on any person found to have knowingly made an investment of $1 million or more (or $5 million or more in any 12-month period), or knowingly provided goods or services of the same value, for construction, modernisation, or repair of Russia’s energy export pipelines.
  • Orders the treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to prepare detailed reports within the next 180 days:
    • on Russia’s oligarchs and parastatal companies including individual oligarchs' closeness to the Russian state, their involvement in corrupt activities and the potential impact of expanding sanctions with respect to Russian oligarchs, Russian state-owned enterprises, and Russian parastatal entities, including impacts on the entities themselves and on the economy of the Russian Federation, as well as the exposure of key US economic sectors to these entities.
    • on the impact of debt- and equity-related sanctions being extended to include sovereign debt and the full range of derivative products.
According to Goldman, the most important impact would be that the bill codifies existing sanctions. Both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have argued that this restricts the President’s ability to negotiate a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, as lifting codified sanctions has proven very difficult in the past.  The bill also asks the treasury to prepare a report in the next six months on the potential impact of expanding debt-related sanctions to include sovereign debt, as well as the potential impact of expanding sanctions to some oligarchs found to be close to the state and parastatal companies. This could be interpreted to suggest that sovereign debt will be added to the sanctions framework once the report has been prepared.
The potentially most controversial and impactful part of the sanctions bill concerns the potential inclusion of Russia’s gas and gas pipeline sector. However, at this stage the text only provides for sanctions imposed in consultation with US allies. As we have described in recent days, there is no appetite across most of Europe to contemplate such an extension.
But more than anything, however, Tuesday’s vote amounted to a rebuke of President Trump, whose administration had pushed to water down the bill’s provisions giving Congress the power to veto the lifting of sanctions.
“This strong oversight is necessary. It is appropriate. After all, it is Congress that the Constitution empowers to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said, quoted by The Hill.
Ironically, with The House scheduled to depart Washington for the August recess at the end of this week, the latest anti-Russia sanctions package will likely be its biggest legislative accomplishment to date. The GOP-controlled Congress has not been able to send bills fulfilling any of Trump's campaign pledges, such as repealing the healthcare law and reforming the tax code to Trump's desk thus far. However, when it comes to Russia, the laughing stock that is a Republican-controlled Congress has always managed "to come out on top."  As such, its biggest victory heading into the summer recess is the measure constraining the president amid investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to sway the 2016 election.
Making matters even more complicated for the Trump administration, which urged lawmakers to ensure the president have flexibility to adjust sanctions policy, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority meaning Trump has no choice but to accept it.
In recent days, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered mixed messages in recent days.  On Sunday, Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” that the administration supports the bill. But on Monday, she told reporters on Air Force One that Trump is “going to study that legislation” before making a final decision.
In addition to binding Trump, the bill establishes new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, in addition to Russia.  White House had lobbied against the Senate-passed measure, arguing it needed flexibility to adjust economic sanctions against Moscow.
Under the House bill, existing sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and interference in the 2016 election would be codified into law. New sanctions would go into effect against Iran for its ballistic missile development, while North Korea’s shipping industry and people who use slave labor would be targeted amid the isolated nation’s efforts to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
The sanctions legislation has been stalled in the House since the Senate passed the legislation by a 98-2 vote last month. The first snag came from House lawmakers who noted that the Senate bill violated the constitutional requirement that all revenue-raising measures originate in the lower chamber.  After the Senate approved changes to address the constitutional issue, House Democrats then objected to a provision requested by GOP leaders that prevented them from forcing votes to block Trump from lifting sanctions.

A compromise reached over the weekend by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) ensures that any House member can force a vote on a resolution of disapproval to block sanctions relief that has already passed in the Senate.

It also allows either the House majority or minority leaders to introduce a resolution of disapproval.
Meanwhile, the complaints emerged, and not just from Europe: oil and gas companies raised concerns about provisions limiting the extent to which American and Russian energy companies could interact. Those companies warned that provisions banning American investments supporting the maintenance or construction of Russian pipelines could inadvertently prevent U.S. development near Russian sites.
In an effort to address those concerns, the latest version of the bill clarifies that only Russian energy export pipelines can be sanctioned, something which will not help as Brussels contemplates how to retaliate. It also establishes that the ban on U.S. investments in deepwater, shale or Arctic offshore projects applies only if there are Russian entities with an ownership interest of at least 33 percent.
“In the process of making Russia pay an economic cost for their bad behavior, we must ensure we are not harming U.S. interests at home and abroad,” warned House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas). 

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee is supportive of the sanctions package, but expressed concern that it might not have a smooth path to passage in the Senate.

“It seems we may be on the floor before we ironed out all our differences with the other body,” Engel said, citing the late addition of North Korea sanctions. “I hope we don’t face further delays when this bill gets back to the other house.”
And now we wait to see how Europe, which over the weekend vowed to "retaliate within days" should the legislation pass, will respond. And, of course, how long until Russia expels some 30 US diplomats now that it is abundantly clear the US won't return the seized Russian diplomatic compounds as Putin has been demanding in recent weeks.F