martedì 29 aprile 2014

The ‘assassination’ of former Polish president

The ‘assassination’ of former Polish president Lech Kaczynski: Who benefits?


Lech Kaczynski (18 June 1949 – 10 April 2010); President of Poland 23 December 2005 – 10 April 2010.
(image credit: Wikipedia).
Jaroslaw Kaczynski – the twin brother of Lech Kaczynski, the former Polish president who was killed in a plane crash in Russia in April 2010 – has recently spoken out and stated that his brother’s death is looking increasingly like an assassination. Currently head of Poland’s Law and Justice party, Jaroslaw had already previously suggested that the incident, from which there were no survivors, may not have been a pure accident. But his latest comments have gone even further. Calling for the Brussels EU to investigate, as quoted by the Associated Press, he has now openly suggested that “if there were explosions (on board the plane), if this catastrophe looks increasingly like an assassination, then this means there is a new quality to international politics.”
The crash happened as the president’s plane was attempting to land at an airport near Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010. The presidential delegation of more than 80 high level officials had been traveling to Russia to attend a memorial event marking the 70th anniversary of the crime of Katyn, a traumatic event in Polish history, which for many decades poisoned relations between Poles and Russians. In 1940, a mass execution of more than 20,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia took place in a forest surrounding the village of Katyn.
Upon the discovery of the executions, the Soviet Union claimed that they had been carried out by the Nazis. In the 1990s, however, Russia officially condemned the perpetration of the killings and attributed them to Stalin’s secret police, the NKVD. Since that time, Poland and Russia have gradually progressed on the declassification of the relevant historic documents and, in an interview in a Polish newspaper in 2008, Vladimir Putin referred to the killings as a ‘political crime’.
The official address prepared by the then President Lech Kaczynski for the occasion of the Katyn memorial event in 2010 had acknowledged the way towards reconciliation between these two nations:
”May this wound fully and finally heal. We are already on this path. We Poles acknowledge and value the actions of Russians of recent years. This path, which is bringing our nations together, we should continue to travel, not halting on the way or retreating back.”
The crash sent a shock wave through the whole of Poland and has spurred questions, investigations and controversies about its cause. Two years on, it still instigates conflicts and divisions among Polish society.

If this wasn’t an accident, who could have gained from it and why?


Part of the fuselage from the crash site near Smolensk
(image credit: Wikipedia).
The only path to the truth behind the crash that killed the President is through asking ‘who benefits?’ from it.
Immediately after the event, the press and a distrusting public alleged rival Polish politicians, or the Russians, as its perpetrators. However, it is interesting to note that, during the many heated debates surrounding the crash and its investigation, no one elaborated the most plausible scenario, namely: With this crash, the Brussels EU lost its single fiercest governmental opponent from across the whole of Europe.
Not only that – given that the president’s entire political/ideological support staff and top military chiefs vanished with him – the outcome resulted in not merely the ‘decapitation’ of the Brussels EU’s staunchest opponent but the wholesale ‘eradication’ of a problem. In short, this was the vanishing of the entire Brussels EU “opposition apparatus” in Poland.
In this sense, one could further argue that even the deceptive cover of such a move was perfect. With the crash happening on a flight to one of the most traumatic and historic places in the entire history of Polish-Russian relations, if there were subsequently ever any accusations about an assassination plot, any investigation would inevitably point towards Russia – even if the Russian government had nothing to benefit from such a crash occurring. With Russia once already having been responsible for killing Polish citizens at this site, Big Media could inevitably infer, through a simplistic and superficial analysis, that it had done so again and that this is clearly what had happened.
But there are still further implications for such a ‘çrime’: Seemingly now convinced that there has been a cover-up, the president’s brother, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is forced to turn to the Brussels EU – his brother’s arch enemy – to ask for help through an official investigation. In such a situation, one could easily be forgiven for thinking that the puppet masters in the Brussels EU must be smiling triumphantly about the “solution” to their Polish problem. And of course, they can now have their official EU journals report about this ‘plot’, because they have just been appointed as international ‘judges’ – by none less than the brother of the victim himself.
One could say that it couldn’t have been written better in a John Le Carré novel.
Or is it the ‘curse of Katyn’ again?

lunedì 28 aprile 2014

I segreti dei golpe in mano alla NATO

Parla il generale Inzerilli: “i veri segreti sono custoditi dalla NATO”
di Andrea Pellegrino - 27/04/2014
Fonte: Il Manifesto Visto su: Ariannaeditrice

«Vuol sapere cosa penso della dese­cre­ta­zione? Sono con­tento. E sa per­ché? Se c’è qual­cuno che ha tra­dito il suo impe­gno o che ha voluto pro­teg­gere una parte è giu­sto che esca il nome. Si deve capire chi è stato un imbro­glione, la sua iden­tità, così non getta più fango sul paese o sul ser­vi­zio di intelligence».
Paolo Inze­rilli non è un mili­tare qual­siasi. Gene­rale dell’esercito — ormai in pen­sione — capo di Gla­dio per quat­tor­dici anni, poi pas­sato allo stato mag­giore del Sismi. Custode di segreti, ha adde­strato per anni gli agenti che ancora oggi agi­scono sotto coper­tura «in tutti gli sce­nari più com­plessi all’estero». Per lui dese­cre­ta­zione potrebbe voler dire puli­zia. Ma in fondo sem­bra cre­der poco all’annuncio di Renzi: «L’archivio di Gla­dio è stato seque­strato nella sua inte­rezza dalla magi­stra­tura. In que­sti casi gli atti ven­gono declas­si­fi­cati a “vie­tata divul­ga­zione”, e al ter­mine del pro­ce­di­mento penale devono essere resti­tuiti. La stessa cosa è suc­cessa con le com­mis­sioni d’inchiesta. La magi­stra­tura e gli organi par­la­men­tari hanno basato le loro deci­sioni – giu­di­zia­rie o poli­ti­che – anche sulla base della docu­men­ta­zione dell’intelligence. Che novità potrà dun­que uscire? Nes­suna, ritengo». Ma non tutto — ammette — è noto. «I veri archivi che rimar­ranno segreti sono quelli Nato, que­sto sì. Lì nes­suno può entrare — rac­conta a il mani­fe­sto -, serve sem­pre l’accordo di tutti i paesi ade­renti al patto». E rivela come quelle carte furono negate anche alle pro­cure che inda­ga­vano sull’organizzazione segreta: «Quando la magi­stra­tura chiese di acce­dere all’archivio Gla­dio bloc­cammo l’accesso alla docu­men­ta­zione con clas­si­fica Nato, che non sono mai usciti dai caveaux».
Gli osta­coli che ancora esi­stono per una vera tra­spa­renza sono tanti. Forse troppi, ed è que­sto la vera que­stione che dovrà affron­tare Renzi: «Oggi in tanti dimen­ti­cano che non è stato mai abro­gato il decreto regio del 1941, fir­mato dal Re e da Mus­so­lini. Per assurdo ti pos­sono per­se­guire se foto­grafi una sta­zione dei treni. C’è poi un’altra que­stione, fon­da­men­tale». Prego, gene­rale: «La norma del 2007 voluta da Ber­lu­sconi e dall’allora capo dei ser­vizi De Gen­naro pre­vede che vi sia una limi­ta­zione di accesso anche per i docu­menti declas­si­fi­cati. Una volta che per­dono la clas­si­fica l’accesso è con­sen­tito solo agli “aventi diritto”. Lei, come gior­na­li­sta, non li può vedere. Se non si rimuove que­sto punto la dese­cre­ta­zione non serve a nulla». Un pro­me­mo­ria per Mat­teo Renzi.
Una cosa è però certa ed appare — nean­che troppo vela­ta­mente — tra le parole, sem­pre sop­pe­sate, di Inze­rilli. Ci sono strut­ture ancora poco note, pro­ba­bil­mente asso­lu­ta­mente ine­dite: «La guerra non orto­dossa — rac­conta l’ex capo di Gla­dio — aveva un coor­di­na­mento in Ita­lia. Vi face­vano parte – oltre al Sismi – il 9° bat­ta­glione Col Moschin (incur­sori dei para­ca­du­ti­sti, ndr), il Com­su­bin (incur­sori della Marina mili­tare, ndr), il Sios dell’Aeronautica e una parte della Marina mili­tare, per la for­ni­tura dei mezzi». Non solo. I nostri ser­vizi e i reparti spe­ciali dell’esercito e della Marina si sono occu­pati atti­va­mente del ter­ro­ri­smo: «E’ esi­stito anche un altro coor­di­na­mento. Nel 1984 si costi­tuì un “comi­tato per l’antiterrorismo”. Qui sedeva la VII divi­sione del Sismi, che io rap­pre­sen­tavo, gli incur­sori del Col Moschin e del Com­su­bin e il Gis dei cara­bi­nieri. Era l’epoca di Ful­vio Mar­tini». Una strut­tura che in pochi cono­scono. Secondo il sena­tore Felice Cas­son (oggi al Copa­sir e in pas­sato tito­lare delle inda­gini su Gla­dio) all’epoca vi fu una vera e pro­pria rior­ga­niz­za­zione della strut­tura segreta, con la costi­tu­zione di diversi livelli di segre­tezza. E su que­sto punto forse i docu­menti che saranno dese­cre­tati potranno chia­rire molti aspetti.
Paolo Inze­rilli non nega il coin­vol­gi­mento dei ser­vizi in epi­sodi ancora oscuri: «Le devia­zioni? I “casini” sono avve­nuti quando si appog­giava una parte, quando man­cava l’equilibrio. Le fac­cio un esem­pio: io dovevo par­lare con tutti, ovvia­mente. Quando dove­vamo incon­trare gli israe­liani man­davo un uffi­ciale filoi­srae­liano, accom­pa­gnato, però, da uno filo­pa­le­sti­nese. Poi, al ritorno, sen­tivo tutti e due, sepa­ra­ta­mente. I pro­blemi sono nati quando qual­cuno non ha man­te­nuto que­sto equilibrio».

C’è poi il livello poli­tico, che quasi sem­pre si è tirato fuori, evi­tando di ammet­tere respon­sa­bi­lità evi­denti: «Io ho per­so­nal­mente indot­tri­nato su Gla­dio tanti mini­stri e, in una fase suc­ces­siva, pre­si­denti del con­si­glio, come Bet­tino Craxi. Molti di loro poi hanno soste­nuto di essere all’oscuro, di non cono­scere l’esistenza dell’organizzazione. In quel caso, però, c’erano le loro firme sui docu­menti». Carte che ora aspet­tiamo di poter leggere.

Ecuador orders US Military Officers to Leave

Ecuador orders US Military Officers to Leave the Country

Ecuadorian Deputy Foreign Minister Leonardo Arizaga confirmed today that a group of US military men that remained at the embassy of that country in Quito will have to leave the country by request of the national Government. Exactly, the Security Operation Office will be closed by the end of April, Arizaga told the news agency Prensa Latina.
The Ecuadorian official said the issue of the US South Command troops’ withdrawal was presented by President Rafael Correa and Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño months ago, when both of them denounced an excessive presence of military men from that country at the US embassy.
Arizaga stated that he tackled the issue with Deputy Undersecretary of the US State Department for the West Hemisphere, Alex Lee, when hi visited Ecuador in late March.
The Ecuadorian deputy foreign minister clarified that the US South Command troops’ withdrawal does not affect the personnel of the US Military Attache’s Office, which is subordinate to the State Department.
We are not going to continue having relations the United States regarding security, but Government to Government, through the attaches’ offices, based on mutual respect, said Arizaga.
Correa, who after taking power in January, 2007, refused to renew the contract that allowed the United States using the military base of Manta, ordered in late 2013 to investigate into the presence of 50 US military men in Quito.
Correa also demanded then to know the reasons for four US military men were on board of a helicopter of the Ecuadorian Air Force that had been shot months before by a Colombian irregular group in an area near the border with Colombia.

martedì 22 aprile 2014

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov interview

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov interview

Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the Sunday Evening Show with Vladimir Soloviev
Translated by Don Hank (all footnotes and links were added by the translator)
Original interview on video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itd9WaolJtY 
Original Russian text:
http://el-murid.livejournal.com/1717453.html

Question: Hello, Sergey Viktorovich. What a feeling it is to realize that you are now not just the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs military. Every time I see and listen to you, I have a feeling of tremendous anxiety and that the world has gone mad. My generation does not remember this level of escalation. What is actually happening?
Lavrov: I think the entire world system is being reformatted, because after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, those we refer to by the collective word “West” missed a historic opportunity when Russia proposed a number of initiatives that would allow us to truly unite not only the European continent, but also the Euro-Atlantic, including Eurasia. There were suggestions to center this work around the OSCE based on equality of all states. There were suggestions that after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the major threats to the countries that were part of the NATO-North Atlantic bloc had ceased to exist or, at least, would not expand.
We were assured of this; we talked a lot about the fact that now everyone is interested in peer collaboration, which will be based on respect for each other’s security interests, that security is indivisible, and no one would ensure his own security at the expense of others. First they assured that the unification of Germany would not mean the spread of NATO rules and armed forces to the territory of the former GDR. Then this promise, of course, was forgotten. Then they promised not to expand NATO further to the East, not to cover Eastern and Central European countries, as recorded in a number of agreements, which, unfortunately, were not issued legally. But these promises were also violated. Then there were the political declarations signed at the Summit of the OSCE and they created the NATO-Russia Council which ensured NATO countries would not put substantial combat forces on the territory of the new member states of the North Atlantic bloc. This promise also failed to withstand the test of time, like the declaration of indivisible security that I mentioned earlier.
We started asking questions about why the military infrastructure of NATO is moving closer to our borders; why create a missile defense, for which we have good reason to believe that it carries risks for our strategic forces of nuclear containment. We were told not to worry, because it is not against us. But our calculations and facts that Russian experts have repeatedly provided to jointly explore the U.S. and other NATO partners say the opposite. Serious discussion on these topics was not conducted for all these years.
After this the EU Eastern Partnership was initiated, which covered six post-Soviet states – Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, with priority given to Ukraine.
As you know, the EU has offered Ukrainians an association agreement and a free trade zone. We politely raised the issue that we have a huge amount of trade, economic, investment and industrial relations with Ukraine and it would be nice to consider together about how to develop our relationship. They said “We will first make an agreement with the Ukrainians, and then we’ll show you what you have agreed upon.” We were assured that the Association Agreement and free trade zone would be standard – the same as the European Union had concluded with Mexico, South Korea and some other countries. Then, when the already initialed agreement appeared on websites (we had not seen it before that), it turned out that the draft document goes much further than the standard agreements, which we were told about by the EU. It goes so far as to directly affect Russian-Ukrainian trade and economic cooperation, impeding the functioning of the CIS free trade zone, which, incidentally, was formed at the initiative of the and the insistence of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, ie at the insistence of the Ukrainians, and creates discriminatory conditions for Russian goods, worsening the agreements reached after Russia joined the WTO. Our efforts, already at the stage of holding an expert, professional, depoliticized conversation between Ukraine, Russia and the EU, were rejected, although Ukrainians were on board. And they were rejected with the words: “Do not interfere in EU-Ukraine cooperation.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/uk-tells-russia-dont-in_n_4841424.html)
Q: Of course, we are a regional power, which, as it turned out, lost some sort of war. Somehow I have not seen any foreign soldiers marching in a victory parade on Red Square. But it turns out they can shout to our representative at the UN, “Do not forget that you are the losers!”[1]
U.S. President Barack Obama tells us that we are a regional power and no one wants to talk to us (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/25/obama_regional_power_russia_is_no_threat_to_us.html). Why should we be informed of what is happening on our borders? Our destiny is to observe and, as I understand it, to continue the theme of decay, begun in 1991. Then we will gain love and respect. In other words, crumble into dust.
Lavrov: At the heart of what is happening is a winner syndrome which has emerged under the new conditions, and which they cling to in the depths of their souls, assuring us that in the “cold war” there were no winners, and we all have benefited from the fact that we now share common values. Of course, there is also the hurt pride: they believed they could ignore us and do whatever they saw fit with Russia’s neighbors and partners, without asking our opinion, ignoring our legitimate interests. Of course, there is obvious resentment over the fact that the next project of the Georgian Saakashvili[2] type had not panned out. All this is definitely being manifested.
Question: But this is manifesting itself in our relationship as well. We thought they were the allies on the Elbe[3], but it turns out that they saw us as the losing country, to which they only had to give McDonald’s and throw us a bone from a distance. Now it seems that the problem is not in relations between Ukraine and Russia, but between Russia and the U.S., which is behaving as though Alaska had voted for reunification with Russia. Why suddenly such an emotional, and I’d say extreme, reaction?
Lavrov: This proves only one thing: the expansion of NATO, the hasty inclusion in NATO and the European Union of new states, including Baltic countries, which did not meet the criteria for membership, but yet were instantly absorbed under an EU policy called the “Eastern Partnership” – all this was conceived with a significant proportion of American schemes to keep Europe under its thumb and to ensure formats of NATO and the EU which would give the U.S. a substantial voice. Concerns that Europe could suddenly become independent or more independent and less dependent on the Euro-Atlantic link are definitely present in Washington.
We can see it. No one talks about it openly, but it manifests itself in all the practical specific steps taken by the United States in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. We were concerned about this because the problem is not in Russian-”Western” or in Russian-Ukrainian relations, but in Ukraine, where there is a deep statehood crisis which must be overcome, and it can only be overcome by the Ukrainians themselves. We are in favor of this being done on the basis of a national dialogue of  awareness on the part of those who came to power in Kiev, and the need to reach out to all Ukrainians, without exception, including all political forces and all regions of the country, starting a real constitutional reform that is transparent and comprehensive. That’s what we need to talk about. Encouraging Ukrainians to hold this national dialogue and constitutional process must be a joint effort of Russia, the U.S. and the EU. But, unfortunately, our Western partners are trying to present the case as if everything revolves around a Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Question: The Pentagon saw Russian troops on the border with Ukraine. Interestingly, the broadcaster CNN, came and videotaped, but did not find the troops. U.S. State Department officials saw Moscow’s hand in the events in the East and South-East of Ukraine. But when we asked for evidence, we were told: “Why? Everyone has free access to the social networks.”
This is a new logic in international diplomacy when a country decides on its own: “Here we see it, here we don’t; we accept this evidence but not the other. Everything the Russian side says is untrue, and we don’t take it into account, and everything the official Ukrainian side says, is considered legitimate. Europe and America represent ultimate truth.” So what’s the point of even talking to them if they don’t hear us?
Lavrov: You’ve always got to talk, and with everyone. It is always better to talk than not to talk and accumulate misunderstanding.
As for our troops allegedly preparing to roll across the Russian-Ukrainian border in the South-East of the country, I can say that they were training. This was announced, no one hid this fact. Within the framework of the OSCE and the so-called Open Skies Treaty, we have the obligation to inform partners about certain exercises, starting with a certain size and number of deployed forces and materiel, and that’s what we did. Moreover, in response to requests, including those of Ukrainians, Americans and Europeans, inspections were conducted, representatives of these countries were invited, who visited the exercise area and according to their own statements, they drew an official conclusion, finding no threatening military activities. After that, our representatives in the OSCE officially asked the inspectors to make their conclusion known in this esteemed organization. They have not yet done so.
Soloviev : Are they embarrassed?
Lavrov: They probably are. It just does not fit into the overall scheme of the whole situation from the West’s viewpoint.
Question: The Russian delegation went to PACE, where we were frankly humiliated, deprived of all rights except one – the sacred right to pay for membership.
S.V.Larov: And sit in the hall.
Q: Neither the West nor America wants to see the revival of the spirit of slumbering Nazism in the “right sector,” Banderovtsy, Shukhevich,[4] Svoboda (the ”Freedom Party”)[5], the same party that the EU once considered anathema, delegated five members to the current Ukrainian government, and the unpleasantness disappeared instantly. There is a feeling that countries that once had not supported the Hitler coalition were taking revenge on us for having won the Great War.
Sergei Lavrov: I have had many conversations with my colleagues about the nature of the coalition that broke the agreement of February 21, signed by the leaders of three parties that entered into it, and carried out a coup d’état. Of course, we talked about Svoboda (the “Freedom Party,” see footnote). I repeatedly asked John Kerry and foreign ministers of Europe, where one can explore their position on Svoboda and on that party’s policy documents, which provide a direct reference to their succession Declaration in June 1941, proclaiming their mission of helping Hitler impose a new order. I was unable to get a reference to public statements made in this regard.
We certainly know about the numerous speeches of the American, Israeli, and world community as to what the Svoboda Party is, not to mention the “right sector.” In conversations John Kerry told me: “We understand they have a troubled past, but, according to our observations, they are moving toward the political mainstream. “Laurent Fabius [French Foreign Minister--Translator] in one of his speeches said that Svoboda is “just a little bit to the right of others.” An astounding statement!
We have said that such an attitude toward the memory of those who fought and defeated fascism, who saved Europe from Fascism, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to us to attempt to install in a European a country a coalition involving such people.
Question: This is not a coincidence, but a certain trend. On the one hand, they refuse to see absolute Nazis in the face of Svoboda. On the other hand, when a representative of the Russian delegation to the UN Security Council said that the tragedy in Syrian Kesab, where there is genocide of the Armenian people, cannot be ignored, the Americans blocked this decision. Isn’t this a double standard? Unfortunate Armenians must suffer because Armenia supports Russia?
Lavrov: Fortunately, it is better to be a refugee than to die. The vast majority in Syrian Kesab managed to escape: some to other Syrian districts, some to Lebanon. There were no massacres in the area with photos distributed in the Internet, but photos from other areas of Syria were shown on the internet, and that makes them no less horrific. But the idea of conducting ethnic cleansing in Kesab had emerged. This attempt was obvious, and at one point, it was partially successful. Therefore, when we proposed a clear and unequivocal comment on this topic in the UN Security Council, they said, “But let’s simultaneously condemn the Assad regime, because he is also doing bad things.” There is always a constant linkage tactic, a refusal to condemn specific acts of terrorism in Syria, citing the fact that they would not have happened if Assad had voluntarily disappeared, a violation of all the resolutions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, bilateral documents clearly stating that terrorism cannot be justified on any grounds.
Q: A lot of questions about the reunification with the Crimea. We see it quite differently. On radio station “Vesti” and on television, when I consider this topic with our distinguished guests, they all note that a 16,000 strong Ukrainian military corps was stationed in the Crimea. Officially, there were also Russian troops. More than 2.5 million men, and not a shot was fired. This is a real show of will that Americans and Europeans do not want to see. Can no one can tell the essential difference between the Yugoslav scenario and Crimea? Can no one see parallels between the reunification of West and East Germany, and of Russia and the Crimea? Has the level of political blindness and deafness reached an all-time high?
Lavrov: I think I’m pretty sure that everyone sees everything and everyone understands. But thanks to an ideologically charged atmosphere bent on restraining our country, and ill-concealed anger over the fact that it defended its legitimate interests, long violated despite all the constitutions and laws of secession from the USSR, no one has every concealed  the geopolitical project of Russian containment (and this is where it all started ). This is unfortunate and sad. If anyone needed proof of our suspicions and fears, it is no longer needed. All these years our Western partners have lied to us when vowing theirs commitment to a united Europe without dividing lines, swore that they would fully respect our interests and that security is indivisible, etc.
As for parallels that suggest themselves (Kosovo, and more), we are constantly told that “Kosovo was a special occasion; thousands of people were killed there.”[6] This has no part in any civilized framework. It seems that for residents of Crimea, with its overwhelming majority in favor of reunification with Russia, to receive recognition of their inalienable rights, it is necessary that as much blood must be shed in the Crimea as in Kosovo? Excuse me, these are totally unfit parallels and analogies.
But there is a more direct parallel; it is quite interesting — I mentioned it earlier — but I will tell you more. During the decolonization of Africa, in the Comoro islands, which were owned by the French, were released somewhat late from the colonial yoke — independence came only in the early 70s, later than in most other African countries. By arrangement with the colonial power, a referendum was held in which all the Comoros voted for independence except one, Mayotte, the majority of whose residents voted against independence. But the conditions of the referendum were that all should vote en bloc and if the majority said they want independence, then independence would be recognized.
Our French colleagues at the time refused to recognize the results of the referendum, although they were accepted by the UN General Assembly, and they said that a separate additional referendum would be held, and the vote on each island would be tallied and each island would get the status for which it voted. The referendum was repeated. Mayotte again voted against independence, and the UN General Assembly again disagreed with the results of the independent vote. But France said it would recognize the vote of the Mayotte residents. Contrary to the numerous decisions of the UN, which condemned this approach and did not recognize the results of the referendum, Mayotte became a French Overseas Department, i.e., a full-fledged member of the French Republic, in 2011.
Q: It is interesting that neither trade nor political nor economic sanctions followed.
Lavrov: Yes. I repeat, despite disagreement on this by the UN General Assembly, the EU ignores the decision of the international community.
Question: The sanctions against Russia are unusual, very harsh. The officially declared ones seem personalized and reflect resentment, while the informal, economic ones are unique. Everything is forgotten:  the right of business to make a profit and business freedom, and sanctions have even been imposed against journalists[7] for having the audacity to speak their minds. When this was published on the Ministry website warning the Russians that 111 countries signed a treaty with the United States, according to which Russian citizens can turned over to the American authorities…
Lavrov: Or robbed
Question: Or robbed, even on trumped up charges. So it turns out that Russians had better not go abroad?
Lavrov: It is absolutely better to travel. We do everything in our power to broaden these capabilities: annually concluding additional agreements on visa-free regimes, facilitating travel to many countries. Such arrangements exist with nearly all the countries of Latin America, many countries in Asia, and we have been ready to do this with the EU for a long time. Long before the Ukrainian crisis all the arrangements were ready, but their approval was delayed under the influence of a well-known minority[8] in the European Union, which wanted to hinder our rapprochement with the EU solely for reasons of ideological bias.
Question: For reasons of historical revenge..
Lavrov: Including for reasons of historical revenge. Probably in the minds of many, these phobias still play a dominant role.
Travel, of course, needs to be safe, and we pay attention to this issue. For example, during the exacerbation of the situation in Egypt or Thailand when unrest and riots occurred, we were obliged to warn our citizens that it was not safe to go there, so it was best to stay in the resort areas, etc. But what you’re talking about is a problem of a completely different nature associated with the extension of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction to territories that do not belong to them, but in which Americans feel entitled to seize citizens of other countries if Washington has issues with them. (http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-issues-travel-warning-about-us-citing-threat-kidnapping-1402265). This happened to the Russians K.V. Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout, who were arrested not for anything they had done, but had been lured into a conversation, during which they made certain statements, which undercover agents interpreted as sufficient grounds for their arrest. They were extradited to the United States in violation of the legal and procedural norms of Senegal and Thailand. These are not the only two examples. There are also such cases in European countries and Canada. Recently, at the request of Americans, Russian citizens were taken from Costa Rica, despite our protests and demands to comply with the requirements of applicable law. Therefore, we are obliged to warn Russians that if they have had some kind of relationship with our American partners, if they have reason to believe that there are issues with them, even the most innocuous, it is better…
Q: To go to Sochi!
Lavrov: Why? To Crimea!
Q: That’s a choice: you can go to Sochi or Crimea.
Lavrov: This is true.
Q: It was no accident that I said you were the most popular minister, and not only in Russia. Numerous articles, written by you or about you, have recently appeared in the foreign press, have created an image of a powerful politician. You are both hated and loved, are respected but people say that you allow yourself to make harsh statements. And you are right to do so. But you also point out that you have had for many years a good personal relationship, in particular, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Now you probably see him more often than your own family, holding “marathons” lasting several hours.
Lavrov: But not on the same issues.
Question: I hope we are still a traditional country. When you are dealing with John Kerry, do you ever feel like you are talking to a robot, who can’t hear you, doesn’t want to admit the obvious? Speaking of that, the following question arises: where is there a higher arbiter, who in the case of a dispute between the two major powers can say “break” and decide who is right and who is wrong, if each side claims that it is right and only its opinion is valid?
Lavrov : I cannot describe any of the partners as a robot or, in other words, say they lack understanding. Absolutely not. Secretary of State John Kerry is a highly intelligent man with a vast experience in the United States Senate. As senator, he was the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a presidential candidate in a US election that was won by Bush. He is a very erudite, experienced politician and diplomat.
Most of my other partners in conversations that are not intended for the public, express understanding and behave absolutely properly. With them, you can talk, discuss, exchange arguments, even sometimes disagree on things. I note parenthetically that we never say that our line is absolutely correct, and refuse to give an inch, centimeter, millimeter. Absolutely not. Convince us, because we never reject reasonable arguments and compromises since politics is the art of the possible. It is not part of our tradition to dictate to the rest of the world. This is just a trait of some other powers. I would really like the “unipolar world syndrome” to quickly disappear, because the world can only be multipolar. And the stronger the other poles, besides America, the more useful it will be for Washington itself.
Question: But the U.S. can’t see that.
Lavrov: They’ll have to see it, and I think they already do. Just as in the case of talking about Ukraine, or anything else, they will have to admit it. They understand it, sense it internally. Even when the U.S. decided to bomb Iraq or go to Afghanistan, they began to cobble together a coalition, seeking to include even the small island states willing to send at least some signals unit or two staff officers. And in the end, it all added up and it was announced that dozens of states (40 +) formed the coalition and the effort was legitimized, etc. They already knew it was inconvenient to go it alone, and they still understand that.
As you know, on the eve of the recent vote by the UN General Assembly resolution in support of the sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea, which is a clear anti-Russian step, there was no capital, where U.S. ambassadors would not go and impudently request to vote for the resolution, saying that they just have to do it. Those who did not agree were blackmailed and threatened. We know this. For obvious reasons I cannot name the countries and names, but it happens.
Q: And yet it didn’t work.
Lavrov: It didn’t work because only half of the members of the UN supported this resolution.
Question: The wisest was Israel, where there was a strike at the time, and they couldn’t vote.
Lavrov: You asked about the visible and invisible sanctions reaching the point of absurdity, when journalists are forbidden to practice their profession, etc. Besides what lies on the surface, we know that all over the world messengers were sent and American and European ambassadors from different countries were instructed to seek a freeze on normal working contacts with our representatives. In Moscow, the ambassadors of the EU and the U.S., apparently, also agreed to communicate less with us on issues that they believe are of interest to us. Although on issues interest to them, they will definitely be in touch with us.
Here you need to understand a simple thing: international relations are based on reciprocity – “Do as is done to you.” We will not retaliate or act out of spite, but we will take a balanced approach to specific situations arising.
When they make statements about certain arrogant new sanctions against Russia, it is entertaining to listen to what follows that. For example, NATO announced it would freeze most practical projects, including the “helicopter” project for Afghanistan. It splits the cost in providing service to Soviet and Russian helicopters, spare parts supplies, primarily with Russian enterprises, training for pilots and maintenance personnel. There are a  number of other projects, including training to combat drug trafficking in Afghanistan and Central Asia. These were projects of the NATO-Russia Council. In announcing these sanctions, one of the Vice Secretary General of NATO, when asked by reporters, said: “We understand that these are the areas in which it is very important to achieve results, but we will continue to seek cooperation in these areas in other formats.” In other words, the NATO-Russia Council will not do it, but the members of the Alliance will seek ways to continue these projects under another “umbrella”. This shows contrived, artificial ideas in line with the logic of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
Question: Have these people who are “cutting off their nose to spite their face” put us in a category all by ourselves or is there someone lower down the list than us? Are we alone? Unfortunately, we have people who always vote the same way as we do, like have North Korea, although they’re not the best example. They are willing to do anything to “cut off their nose” to spíte the US. Are there any countries that can be called “wise people” who support Russia?
Lavrov: We have serious support. If smaller countries still cannot afford to openly talk about this because they are too dependent on the West economically and financially, countries that feel more self-reliant and take a serious approach to international relations, understand what is now in question. The problem now is not that it is necessary to help the Ukrainians to overcome the crisis, although that is important, but, as I said, reformatting the world system, the objective formation of a polycentric world order. In late March at the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, we met with the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries. A statement was adopted which emphasizes the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other countries, condemns any policy of unilateral sanctions and expresses commitment to all the principles of the UN Charter in its entirety.
Question : Is BRICS on our side?
Lavrov: BRICS, I think, is not just for us, but understands that the stakes are enormously high, and not in terms of “who wins and who loses,” but in terms of defending their legitimate interests in this changing world.
Question: How long will this last? Have we ended the era of “peace, friendship, chewing gum” and entered a new round of “cold war”? Changing relations, sanctions, extreme rhetoric – will this go on for a decade?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I don’t expect it to last a decade. Even now you can see a number of signs that our Western partners are “torn .” On the one hand, they see quite calm reaction on the part of Russia: They failed to ruffle us with the sanctions which go far beyond the scope of basic human decency. Therefore, our partners want to continue to annoy us hoping to ruffle…
Q: They want to ruffle us to achieve what result? So we could write our names on the Brandenburg Gate[9] again? What’s the idea here?
Lavrov: In simple terms, they want to see how we felt now that we’ve been punished.
Question: Call the parents, bring the report card. Are we school kids or what?
Lavrov: Something like that. It has nothing to do with the real problems of international life, Europe, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian. In parallel, they have to understand that without us it would be very difficult to solve many problems, and I’m not just talking about Syria or Iran. We’re not about to declare: “If you do this to us, then let the bloodshed continue in Syria; we will not deal with a political settlement or provide humanitarian assistance; let Iran build a nuclear bomb.” Russia will not do this, because we’re responsible people, unlike many who are trying to push us in this direction. Without us it will hardly be possible to seriously address the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula – we don’t want to have a nuclear bomb at our borders.
In addition to the political context and the problems on the agenda of the international community (I can’t use this term without irony, because the West applies this term solely to itself and to those who support it unconditionally), there are the economic and business interests. You can read the press or participate in some activities conducted by business circles of Germany, Italy, Spain, France or the USA. In America, a number of companies are deeply invested in the Russian economy: for PepsiCo, for example, Russia is the second biggest market, while Coca-Cola planned to invest $5 billion by 2016; ExxonMobil invested a mere $10 billion; Boeing, Caterpillar and many others work here. Their response shows that they are not welcoming the signals from Western governments, like, “Come on, guys, don’t develop too much cooperation with Russia.” Businessmen are convinced that it is necessary to maintain and cultivate our economic cooperation not only because business always wants profit, but also because business is not sure that these sanctions are lawful.




[1] Referring to a hysterical outburst by Samantha Powers, US ambassador the UN.—Tr.
[2] Mikahil Saakashvili, US backed former Georgian president—Translator.
[3] Lavrov is referring here to the link-up of Soviet and American forces at the Elbe River near the end of WW II.–Translator
[4] Ukrainian nationalists widely accused of collaboration with the Nazis in WW II—Tr.
[5] A party now holding top positions in Ukraine thanks to Western support. Their leader Oleh Tyahnybok, who posed famously with John McCain during the Maidan uprising, is listed by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre as the world’s 5th
most dangerous anti-Semite.
[6] Lavrov is referring to the fact that, despite the irregularity of an outside state (the US in that case) intervening in a war of secession, the US was given the green light during the Kosovo War (1998-9) to bombard Serbian cities, under the pretext of alleged “genocide” of Kosovars by Serbs. Later investigations revealed numerous murders of Serbs by Kosovars as well. The US bombing raids killed untold numbers of civilians. Meanwhile the “international community” has recently condemned Russia for intervening in Crimea to save lives, saying that not enough casualties had accumulated to justify the intervention. Lavrov is nonplussed that the “international community” would require people to be killed to justify intervention and is suggesting it should be the other way around: the fewer the casualties the more successful, and hence, justified, the intervention is—Translator.
[7] There are indeed reports of such sanctions in the Western media, such as here.
[8] I am not sure what “minority” Lavrov is referring to here. However, the UK, for example, has had rocky relations with the Russian Federation over issues of extradition and the Litvinenko murder. Yet despite strong anti-Russian sentiments in the political class, over 60% of UK citizens polled recently by The Independent said Putin was their favorite world leader. Their own David Cameron scored 1%!
[9] TV host Vladimir Soloviev is alluding here to the Battle for Berlin after which the fallen Russian heroes were commemorated with a memorial at Brandenburg Gate. The names of some of the Russian fallen are inscribed on this memorial—Translator.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a responseortrackback from your own site.

martedì 15 aprile 2014

Marra: al Procuratore di Roma sulla denuncia Bilderberg

Marra: Rinnovo della richiesta, al dr. Pignatone, Procuratore della Repubblica di Roma, di intraprendere, contro l’organizzazione criminale bilderberg, le iniziative di cui alla mia denunzia 050429, del 1.2.2013, di nuovo favorevolmente ripresa, nei giorni scorsi, dall’informazione mondiale, compresa quella russa, ebraica, araba, polacca ecc.

Le scrivo, Ill.mo Sig. Procuratore Pignatone, circa la denunzia n. 050429, che presentai il 1.2.2013 contro l’organizzazione criminale bilderberg (documento in PDF).


Denunzia già all’epoca tradotta e pubblicata, solo in inglese, da 62.400 siti di informazione, e che è stata ripresa nei giorni scorsi in tutto il mondo, in termini sistematicamente durissimi contro il bilderberg, e di conseguenza anche contro le magistrature che lasciano continui a infierire contro l’umanità e il pianeta.
Denunzia ripresa in inglese da siti come Infowars, di Alex Jones, e Cokme intellihub (472 milioni di visite), ma nelle rispettive lingue anche in Cile, in Russia, nella Repubblica Ceca, in Arabia, Israele eccetera, e che dunque è stata letta da centinai di milioni di persone ed è ‘ritornata’ dopo un anno perché la invero singolare disattenzione della giustizia, lungi dal sopirlo, inasprisce il crescente sdegno dell’opinione pubblica mondiale.
Bilderberg che la magistratura deve fermare d’urgenza, e non può più né ignorare né processare per assolverlo, perché è pur vero che i delitti sono presunti fino alle condanne definitive, ma in questo caso nessuno ha dubbi che questa sia pur potentissima e ricchissima feccia vada fermata, visto che in Italia l’azione penale è obbligatoria e non occorrono chissà quali consapevolezze giuridiche per capire l’illiceità del suo operato.
Né rileva che taluno potrebbe obiettare che la magistratura italiana non interviene per gli stessi motivi per i quali non interviene nessuna altra magistratura del mondo, perché sarebbe un’asserzione giuridicamente molto errata.
Ciò infatti, di fronte all’evidenza dei delitti, è solo un motivo in più per dover intervenire con la massima veemenza e urgenza.
Tanto più, se mi consente una previsione, che il dissenso sociale verso questa cosca sarà in breve tale che in un posto o l’altro d’Italia si ergeranno comunque un PM e un Giudice decidendo di non poter continuare a guardarne inerti l’operato.
Né si può ritenere che la Sua Procura, o qualunque altra, abbia altre priorità, perché il rilievo giuridico dell’azione che le chiedo di intraprendere è tale che, al confronto, i processi alla mafia, camorra e ‘ndrangheta sono bagatellari.
Deferenti ossequi,

14.4.2014

Alfonso Luigi Marra

martedì 8 aprile 2014

CIA official dies in apparent suicide

CIA official dies in apparent suicide

More Sharing Services

A senior CIA official has died in an apparent suicide this week from injuries sustained after jumping off a building in northern Virginia, according to sources close to the CIA.
CIA spokesman Christopher White confirmed the death and said the incident did not take place at CIA headquarters in McLean, Va.
“We can confirm that there was an individual fatally injured at a facility where agency work is done,” White told theApple-converted-space”> Washington Free Beacon. “He was rushed to a local area hospital where he subsequently died. Due to privacy reasons and out of respect for the family, we are not releasing additional information at this time.”
A source close to the agency said the man who died was a middle manager and the incident occurred after the man jumped from the fifth floor a building in Fairfax County.
Many agency employees are known to work under stressful conditions and high stress is considered a part of the profession, for the three general types of employees: Intelligence analysts and support personnel, technical services operators, and members of the clandestine services, the agency’s elite spying branch.
The CIA is known to operate or rent space in a number of semi-secret locations in the country, including at least one high-rise building in Tysons Corner.
The agency also operates a number of top-secret facilities used by its clandestine service officers, including agency safe houses.
No other details of the death could be learned.
The agency is currently engaged in a high profile dispute with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D., Calif.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has said the CIA has blocked efforts by the committee to investigate harsh interrogation of terrorists.
Committee staff members working at a CIA facility in Northern Virginia to investigate agency interrogation practices also have charged that the CIA covertly searched the agency’s computers that were being used in the investigation.
The agency subsequently reported that several Senate staff members had improperly and possibly illegally removed classified material from the CIA. The FBI was asked to investigate the mishandling of classified information in the case.
The agency is under pressure from Congress to declassify a 6,000-page report on agency interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, used to glean information from al Qaeda terrorists captured after the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.
The agency also this week came under scrutiny from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence over the agency’s role in obscuring the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell told the committee that agency analysts concluded that a protest took place in advance of the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
Morrell testified that “subsequent information revealed this judgment to be incorrect.”
The CIA was operating a facility in Benghazi with a large number of agency personnel whose activities had not been made public.
Speculation about the CIA annex in Benghazi has focused on the agency’s role in supplying weapons to Libyan militias that in turn were shipping the arms to Islamist rebels in Syria.

• Bill Gertz is senior editor of theApple-converted-space”> Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining theBeaconApple-converted-space”> he was a national security reporter, editor, and columnist for 27 years at theApple-converted-space”> Washington Times. His Twitter handle isApple-converted-space”> @BillGertz.

Intelligenza artificiale e sovranità popolare: domande e risposte di ChatGPT

 Elaborazione di ipotesi per implementare la sovranità popolare Argomenti: LEX MONETAE - Creazione di moneta da parte dello Stato - Debito p...