PUTIN’S “NUCLEAR” REMARK CHECKS U.S. MOVES IN EASTERN EUROPE

Screen Shot 2014-08-29 at 6.29.35 PM

U.S. has violated ABM and numerous other treaties

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 29, 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks on Russia’s nuclear arsenal appear to be partly in response to a U.S. claim Russia has violated a 1987 nuclear missile treaty.

“It’s best not to mess with us,” Putin said at a youth camp near Moscow.

On August 1, prior to the unverified claim Russia has invaded Ukraine, Obama mentioned the alleged treaty violation during a telephone call between to the two leaders.

The U.S. claims Russia tested a cruise missile prohibited under the treaty signed by President Reagan and General Secretary of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on December 8, 1987.

The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges.

During coverage of the alleged treaty violation, the establishment media neglected to mention that the United States has violated and abrogated a number of international treaties, including the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

The U.S. considered the ABM treaty a “Cold War relic.”

In 2002 then president George W. Bush announced the treaty is “now behind us” and declared his commitment to deploy missile defenses “as soon as possible.”

In 2007, then Russian Prime Minister Putin said the so-called NATO missile “defense shield” would lead to a new arms race and enhance the probability of mutual destruction.

Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania have indicated they would host anti-missile systems, but in 2009 Obama said a defense against short- and medium-range missiles using AEGIS warships would be deployed instead.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, contender Mitt Romney said Obama’s move represented a “gift to Russia,” a remark reflecting the attitude of Republicans and many in the establishment toward nuclear deescalation.

In addition to placing anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, Russia is concerned about the United States using the situation in Ukraine as a pretext to introduce troops near its border.

Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. has deployed hundreds of troops in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

U.S. Violates Treaties with Russia

According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, the United States routinely violates international treaties.

“The United States has violated, compromised or acted to undermine in some crucial way every treaty that we have studied in detail,” said Nicole Deller, principal editor and co-author of a report produced by the two organizations.

In addition to the ABM treaty, the U.S. has violated the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The Bush administration undercut the NPT when it insisted reductions in strategic weapons previously agreed upon with Russia can be reversed.

The U.S. reached this conclusion after a Nuclear Posture Review expanded “options for using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.”

EX-CIA OFFICIAL PROPOSES ASSASSINATION OF PUTIN

Screen Shot 2014-08-28 at 8.00.35 PM

Former intelligence official wants sanctions against Russia to lead to the removal of Putin, “with a bullet hole in the back of his head” if necessary

by KIT DANIELS | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 28, 2014

In a recent op-ed, a former CIA official suggested the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin, by assassination if necessary, should be the primary objective of the Obama administration in its strategy for Ukraine.

Herbert E. Meyer, who served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration, said the goal of U.S. sanctions against Russia “should be to get the Russians who’ve been keeping Putin in power, or tolerating Putin in power, to throw that knockout punch.”

“If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us,” he stated.

To ensure Putin’s removal, Meyer suggested, the Obama administration should strike a wedge between the Russian business elite and the Kremlin that could serve as a catalyst for an attempt on Putin’s life.

“That’s why the sanctions will work if the president and his European counterparts will keep tightening the screws; if they keep making commerce more difficult for Russia’s serious business executives, for instance by blocking their access to capital, and if they keep making life more miserable for Russia’s playboy oligarchs, for instance by canceling their credit cards and denying landing rights to their private jets,” he added. “And if the president and European leaders keep telling these Russians – bluntly and publicly – that all this will end the moment Vladimir Putin leaves the Kremlin for good.”

The former CIA official is describing a centuries-old tool of statecraft in which a foreign power creates discontent between the nobles of another country and their ruler to ensure the eventual overthrow of that ruler.

But given today’s explosive increase in tensions between Russia and Ukraine, which could very well lead to another world war, Meyer’s suggestion is particularly disturbing considering is it likely that current Western intelligence officials also share similar views.

And the destabilization of the Russian government with the loss of Putin will only create chaos in the East, chaos which can be exploited by the global financial elite who hold no allegiance to any nationality.

“Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident,” journalist Brandon Smith wrote.

Obama threatens Russia with new sanctions over Ukraine

Screen Shot 2014-08-09 at 5.02.10 PM

President Barack Obama acknowledged during an impromptu press conference on Thursday afternoon that the United States is considering new sanctions to impose against Russia over the escalating crisis in Ukraine.

From the White House, Pres. Obama told reporters that he’s certain Russia is playing a direct role in the ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine between anti-Kiev separatists and the country’s military, and that the US is weighing further sanctions to intensify the restrictions previously waged against Moscow.

“As a result of the action Russia has already taken and the major sanctions we’ve imposed,” Obama said, “Russia is already more isolated than any time since the end of the cold war.”

“The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Throughout this process we’ve seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they’ve done,” Obama added.

That behavior, he added, “will only bring more cost and consequences to Russia.” After speaking with allies, Obama continued, he expects a new wave of sanctions to come soon. The president is expected to meet with NATO partners next week, and said the US “will continue to stand firm with our allies and partners” to protect Ukraine from further encroachment.

“In our consultation with our European allies,” Obama said, “…my expectation is we will take additional steps, primary because we have not seen any meaningful action on the part of Russia to try and actually resolve this in a diplomatic fashion.”

Earlier Thursday, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said during a press conference that there are “additional tools and sanctions” being considered against Russia.

Psaki and the president’s remarks sandwiched a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York City, during which representatives from the US, United Kingdom, Australia and others all urged Russia to refrain from further escalating the situation near its border with eastern Ukraine.

“In the face of this threat, the cost of inaction is unacceptable,” Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, said during the meeting.

Vitaly Churkin, Power’s Russian counterpart, deflected blame and warned the US: “Stop interfering in the affairs of sovereign states.”

On his part, Pres. Obama added that the US has ruled out the possibility of a military response.

“We are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem. What we’re doing is to mobilize the international community to apply pressure on Russia. But I think it is very important to recognize that a military solution for this problem is not going to be forthcoming,” he said.

“Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states who are close by are,” he added, “and we take our Article Five commitments to defend each other very seriously — and that includes the smallest NATO member as well as the largest.”

OBAMA ON ISIS: ‘WE DON’T HAVE A STRATEGY YET’

Obama stressed the “limited” nature of any potential operation in Syria

by Matt Wilstein | 4:45 pm, August 28th, 2014 VIDEO

President Barack Obama spoke to the press from the White House Briefing Room Thursday afternoon in order to address both Russia’s “stealth invasion” of Ukraine and the possibility of military airstrikes on ISIS in Syria. The second of those issues was the subject of the first question Obama received from new Meet The Press host Chuck Todd.

When the president called on Todd first, whom he called a “big cheese” and congratulated on his new role, but said it would be the last time he would be asking him a question as a member of the White House Press Corps. “I’m glad you said ‘in the press room,’” Todd joked.

Answering Todd’s question about how he prioritizes using military action against ISIS in Syria and potentially helping President Bashar al-Assad in the process, Obama stressed the “limited” nature of any potential operation in Syria. He said in order to find success, the U.S. will need “Sunni partners,” who as of now are “not in place.”

Later, Obama said, “I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as commander in chief I have the authority to engage in the acts we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress, and I do think it will be important for Congress to weigh in, for our consultations with Congress to continue to develop so the american people are part of the debate.”

“But,” he added, “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

“There is no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done,” Obama said.

NATO chief eyes more bases in E. Europe to confront Russia

Screen Shot 2014-08-27 at 4.08.17 PM

Under the pretext of an ‘overt’ Russian threat, NATO is pushing for a ‘readiness action plan’ that will bring the Cold War military bloc closer to Russian borders than ever – even despite objections from some NATO members.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the 28-nation military bloc, which meets next week in Cardiff, Wales, would attempt to overcome internal opposition and agree to the deployment of military bases near the Russian border.

Two NATO warships heading to Black Sea

Amid the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, which is fracturing the country along east-west ideological lines, NATO is preparing to install for the first time military “reception facilities” in Eastern European countries, including Poland and the three Baltic countries: Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

“We have something already called the NATO response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed,” Rasmussen said in an interview with several European newspapers. “Now it’s our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very, high readiness. In order to be able to provide such rapid reinforcements you also need some reception facilities in host nations. So it will involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters.”
Screen Shot 2014-08-27 at 4.11.12 PM

The bottom line, according to the NATO chief, is that there will be “a more visible NATO presence in the east.”

Asked whether there would be permanent NATO presence in Eastern Europe, he said, “The brief answer is ‘yes’. To prevent misunderstanding, I use the phrase ‘for as long as necessary’. Our eastern allies will be satisfied when they see what is actually in the readiness action plan.”

Rasmussen, whose term expires on September 30, said the new NATO forces in Eastern Europe could be “deployed within hours.”

Needless to say, NATO’s militarization of the region will not sit well with Moscow, which has watched with increasing alarm since the collapse of the Soviet Union – despite pledges from the Western military bloc not to expand further east – as NATO continues its march towards Russia’s western border.

Currently, the Polish port city of Szczecin, which military experts anticipate will serve as one of NATO’s new “reception facilities,” represents NATO’s easternmost military presence.

Ironically, NATO’s latest enlargement plans are being opposed not just by Russia, but by its very members, some of whom do not see the point in aggravating tensions with Moscow.

It should come as no surprise that the United States and the United Kingdom, distant as they are from any potential fireworks on the European-Russian border, favor a military escalation in Eastern Europe. Other major NATO members, however, including France, Spain and Italy, have expressed serious reservations to the plans.

Meanwhile, Germany, NATO’s second strongest member, remains uncommitted to the expansion plans.

This should come as no surprise considering the recent deterioration in relations between Washington and Berlin.

Paratroopers from the U.S. Army’s 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team participate in training exercises with the Polish 6 Airborne Brigade soldiers at the Land Forces Training Centre in Oleszno near Drawsko Pomorskie, north west Poland, May 1, 2014. (Reuters/Kacper Pempel)Paratroopers from the U.S. Army’s 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team participate in training exercises with the Polish 6 Airborne Brigade soldiers at the Land Forces Training Centre in Oleszno near Drawsko Pomorskie, north west Poland, May 1, 2014. (Reuters/Kacper Pempel)

Germany was forced to take a critical new look at its powerful American partner following Edward Snowden’s shocking NSA revelations, which showed massive US and UK spying on German citizens. Even Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal mobile phone was caught up in the international surveillance net.

Remarkably, Rasmussen asserted that Russia “does not consider NATO a partner,” when it was NATO that flat-out refused Russian participation in the controversial US missile defense system, also planned for Eastern Europe. Such cooperation, had it been given the green light, would have sealed the so-called reset between the two Cold War-era foes, bringing to end years of mutual suspicion and antagonism. Instead, the US and NATO opted to keep Russia on the sidelines, ensuring nothing less than another full-blown arms race.

Speaking on the subject of Crimea’s decision to hold a referendum to join the Russian Federation under the threat of military attack by pro-Kiev forces, Rasmussen commented that “nobody had expected Russia to grab land by force.”

At the same time, the outgoing NATO chief reiterated claims – surprisingly without providing any sort of unassailable proof, in this age of advanced surveillance equipment – that Russia is actively participating in the Ukrainian upheaval.

“We have seen artillery firing across the border and also inside Ukraine. We have seen a Russian military buildup along the border. Quite clearly, Russia is involved in destabilizing eastern Ukraine … You see a sophisticated combination of traditional conventional warfare mixed up with information and primarily disinformation operations. It will take more than NATO to counter such hybrid warfare effectively,” Rasmussen was quoted as saying.

NATO officials, however, have admitted their intelligence is not perfect.

“We can only watch from 23 miles (37km) up,” one official told the Guardian.

Ukrainian servicemen rest in the shade next to an armoured vehicle topped with a Ukrainian flag as they take up a position near the eastern city of Debaltceve, in the region of Donetsk, on July 30, 2014. (AFP Photo/Genya Savilov)Ukrainian servicemen rest in the shade next to an armoured vehicle topped with a Ukrainian flag as they take up a position near the eastern city of Debaltceve, in the region of Donetsk, on July 30, 2014. (AFP Photo/Genya Savilov)

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko is to attend the NATO summit, where the 28-member bloc has prepared four ‘trust funds’ to finance Ukraine’s military logistics, command structures, and cyber defense forces, and to pay overdue military pensions.

Yet somehow Rasmussen was able to say of Russia’s embattled neighbor.

“Ukraine follows its own path…It is actually what we will decide to do at the summit, to help them build the capacity of their security sector, modernize it,” he said.

Meanwhile, it looks as if Rasmussen will be passing around the proverbial hat during next week’s summit, looking to collect more money from NATO members, even as their own countries are facing economic turmoil amid IMF-enforced austerity measures.

“Since the end of the Cold War we have lived in relatively good weather. Now we are faced with a profound climate change. That requires more investment,” said the NATO chief.

It will be interesting to see how many member states take up this latest challenge, which threatens to ratchet up European-Russian tensions to levels not seen since the Cold War.

Meanwhile, there is no question as to how Russia views NATO’s relentless eastward encroachment.

“No matter what our Western counterparts tell us, we can see what’s going on,” President Putin said in July at an emergency Security Council meeting in Moscow. “As it stands, NATO is blatantly building up its forces in Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea areas. Its operational and combat training activities are gaining in scale.”

Putin stated that NATO’s military build-up near Russia’s border, which includes the US-built missile defense system, is not just for defensive purposes, but is an “offensive weapon” and an “element of the US offensive system deployed outside the mainland.”