's invitation is awaiting your response

would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond? Confirm you know You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn

Hi mika123., I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Miroslav Confirm that you know Miroslav Miroslav Antić Nuclear Operator at Ontario Power Generation Ontario, Canada You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe This email was intended for mika123. serbian. Learn why we included this. If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

Inside Obama's Secret Outreach to Russia

3252 Dec 31, 2014 10:59 AM EST

By Josh Rogin

President Barack Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

This month, Obama's National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

"I don't think that anybody at this point is under the impression that a wholesale reset of our relationship is possible at this time, but we might as well test out what they are actually willing to do," a senior administration official told me. "Our theory of this all along has been, let's see what's there. Regardless of the likelihood of success."

Leading the charge has been Secretary of State John Kerry. This fall, Kerry even proposed going to Moscow and meeting with Putin directly. The negotiations over Kerry's trip got to the point of scheduling, but ultimately were scuttled because there was little prospect of demonstrable progress.

In a separate attempt at outreach, the White House turned to an old friend of Putin's for help. The White House called on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to discuss having him call Putin directly, according to two officials. It's unclear whether Kissinger actually made the call. The White House and Kissinger both refused to comment for this column.

Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each other and very rarely speak.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry's conditions included Russia adhering to September's Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. The issue of Crimea would be set aside for the time being, and some of the initial sanctions that were put in place after Crimea's annexation would be kept in place.

"We are willing to isolate the issues of Donetsk and Luhansk from the issue of Crimea," another senior administration official told me, naming two regions in Eastern Ukraine under separatist control. "If there was a settlement on Donetsk and Luhansk, there could be a removal of some sanctions while maintaining sanctions with regard to Crimea. That represents a way forward for Putin."

Meanwhile, Kerry has been proposing increased U.S.-Russian cooperation on a wide range of international issues. Earlier this month, he invited Lavrov to a last-minute diplomatic confab in Rome to discuss the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After one meeting with Lavrov in Paris in October, Kerry announced that he had discussed potential U.S.-Russian cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Yemen. But the apparent warming was overshadowed by Lavrov's quick denial of Kerry's claim that Russia had agreed to assist in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State in Iraq.

Kerry has seemed more enthusiastic about mending ties with Russia than Obama himself. After the president gave a blistering critique of Russian behavior in a major United Nations speech, saying that "Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition," Kerry urged Lavrov to ignore his boss's remarks, according to Lavrov. "Kerry said we have so many serious things to discuss that of course that was unfortunate, let's not focus on that," Lavrov told Russian reporters.

State Department officials insist that Kerry is clear-eyed about the challenges of trying to work with Russia, but that he believes there is no other responsible option than to see what can be accomplished.

"Secretary Kerry is not advocating internally or with Russia for a reset in the relationship, and in fact in meetings he has taken a strong and at times skeptical stance," one senior State Department official told me. "As the nation's chief diplomat he is simply always exploring ways to make relationships more productive."

There is also a belief among many both inside the State Department and the White House that sanctions are working. The Russian economy is tanking, albeit due largely to collapsing oil prices and not targeted punishments. One senior administration official argued that absent the sanctions, Putin might have been even more aggressive in Ukraine. Moreover, this official said, the sanctions need time to work and might yet prove to have greater effect on Putin's decision-making in the months ahead: "We'll see how they feel as their economy continues to deteriorate and the Ukrainian economy refuses to collapse."

If the Russians are getting ready to cave, they aren't showing it. Putin remains defiant and Russian military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels continues. The Russian leadership has been rejecting Kerry's overtures both in public and private. Diplomatic sources said that Lavrov has refused to even discuss Kerry's conditions for partial easing of sanctions. And Putin has made a hobby of bashing the U.S. in public remarks. 

To many of the administration's critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, pursuing engagement with Moscow is based on naivety and wishful thinking.

"It's a strategy worthy in the finest tradition of Neville Chamberlain," incoming Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain told me. "I think the Russians are doing fine. Meanwhile, what price has Vladimir Putin paid? Very little."

The legislative branch has also been active on Russia this year, but its efforts run counter to the administration's policy and sometimes have the indirect effect of putting more roadblocks in front of the Obama-Kerry push to find a way forward.

On Dec. 18, Obama reluctantly signed a bill authorizing new Russia sanctions and military aid to Ukraine that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Afterward, the White House awkwardly said that the legislation did not signify any change in policy. 

And this week, the State Department sanctioned four more Russian officials, but not over Ukraine. The officials were added to a list of human rights violators under the Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2012, named after the anti-corruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison. In response, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement saying that the Magnitsky Act sanctions "place in question the prospects for bilateral cooperation in resolving the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian crisis, and other acute international issues."

These latest punishments show that it may be impossible to de-link the problems in the bilateral relationship from the opportunities, as the Obama administration wants to do. They also show that there will always be chances for those in Washington and Moscow who want to stoke the tensions to do so, jeopardizing any progress.

Some experts believe that any plan to warm U.S.-Russian relations is unlikely to succeed because it doesn't have the full support of either president.

"It's very clear that between the Putin Kremlin and the Obama White House there is a very bad chemistry. Its not a question of simply distrust, it's a question of intense dislike between the two leaders," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest.

Also, some experts feel, placing the diplomacy in the Kerry-Lavrov channel dooms its outcome, because the Russians know that Kerry himself has no power to make major decisions and Lavrov has to be careful not to be seen as cozying up to the U.S.

"The more Kerry creates a perception he has a special relationship with Lavrov, the more he puts Lavrov in a difficult position with officials in his own capital, starting with Putin," said Simes. "It's clear that when Kerry deals with Lavrov and hopes that because they have overlapping interests, that would allow cooperation where useful, that is not a model of relationship that Putin is prepared to accept."

Obama has made it clear that in his last two years in office he is prepared to make big moves on foreign policy even if they face political or legislative opposition, such as normalizing relations with Cuba or pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran. But when it comes to Russia, he is unwilling to place his own credibility behind any outreach to his nemesis Putin.

The administration's cautious engagement with Moscow is logical: Why not seek a balance in a complicated and important bilateral relationship? But by choosing a middle ground between conciliation and confrontation -- not being generous enough to entice Russia's cooperation yet not being tough enough to stop Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe -- Obama's policy risks failing on both fronts. 

To contact the author on this story:
Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-31/inside-obamas-secret-outreach-to-russia

Vojislav Seselj, dirigeant du Parti Radical de Serbie, récemment libéré de la prison du TPIY donne une interview exclusive à Eurasie Express

Browse: Home » Vojislav Seselj, dirigeant du Parti Radical de Serbie, récemment libéré de la prison du TPIY donne une interview exclusive à Eurasie Express

express 31 December 2014

Vojislav Seselj, une course de vitesse avec le temps…

Pendant douze ans, alors qu'avec Slobodan Milosevic il était le plus célèbre des prisonniers embastillés dans la forteresse du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, Seselj avait une bonne longueur d'avance. Les événements tels qu'ils se déployaient confirmaient en tous points ses vues essentielles sur la corruption constitutive du Tribunal, les conséquences fatales du globalisme et les machinations coloniales ourdies par les Occidentaux dans sa Serbie natale. Mais maintenant, alors que le Tribunal, pressé par ses maîtres de lui trouver à tous prix un motif de culpabilité, se trouve dans l'impossibilité de formuler le moindre argument en ce sens au terme d'un combat judiciaire inéquitable de plus d'une dizaine d'années, Vojislav Seselj a vraiment peu de temps pour confirmer son triomphe.

Comme Hugo Chavez, Seselj est sérieusement atteint d'un cancer qui s'est déclaré dans d'étranges circonstances. Le calcul du Tribunal et de ses maîtres est clair : le nouveau décès d'un haut dirigeant dans leurs geôles, comme celui de Milosevic, serait sérieusement embarrassant. Après que le détenu Seselj ait lui-même démoli la machine impitoyable de l'accusation, un verdict de culpabilité juridiquement crédible semble très peu probable. Mais il ne peut y avoir d'acquittement pour l'homme qui sur le plan politique incarne une menace majeure pour les intérêts globalistes occidentaux dans une Serbie géopolitiquement vitale. Un cancer du foie avec un pronostic vital de trois à six mois, qu'il soit spontané ou provoqué, est précisément la solution idéale que Ponce Pilate eût volontiers approuvée. Laissons le donc revenir en Serbie, causer un peu d'agitation, et quitter ensuite ce monde dans des circonstances dont ses geôliers puissent se laver les mains. L'affaire close, il sera inutile d'écrire un jugement forcément condamné au ridicule.

Les difficultés à affronter pour celui qui s'efforcerait de renverser les marionnettes solidement installées dans le système néo-colonial imposé à la Serbie après la "révolution orange" du 5 octobre 2000 sont énormes. Dans la Serbie humiliée de l'après-2000, le concept de "domination globale absolue" a atteint son apogée. Les services de renseignements occidentaux infiltrent ses institutions officielles et les dirigent de l'intérieur. Des agents d'influence étrangers ont pénétré le moindre recoin des médias et tous les pores de la vie publique. Des O"NG" occidentales richement dotées décident des paramètres de ce qu'il est permis de penser et intimident les dissidents en toute impunité.

La nation serbe, qui s'est vaillamment opposée aux agresseurs otaniens il y a tout juste quinze ans, est maintenant exténuée, sans illusions et à la dérive. On l'entend à peine respirer. Sa seule chance de revenir à la vie tient dans la rencontre sincère avec un homme passionné, sorti du ventre de la bête à la Haye en vainqueur incontestable de l'une des incarnations du Monstre voué à la destruction de la Serbie :

Eurasie Express : Vojislav Seselj, quel est votre statut actuel ? Vous avez été relâché pour raisons de santé en attente de votre jugement : envisagez-vous de reprendre une activité politique ?

Vojislav Seselj : J'ai littéralement été expulsé par le Tribunal de La Haye. S'ils avaient eu la moindre raison de me trouver coupable, ils en auraient déjà fait état depuis longtemps. Ils n'ont pas pu parce qu'ils ont été incapables de démontrer mon implication dans quelque crime de guerre ou contre l'humanité que ce soit. J'ai été relâché par La Haye sans conditions aucunes et bien sûr j'ai immédiatement repris mes activités politiques. En fait, je ne les avais jamais interrompues à La Haye. La politique est ma meilleure thérapie.

E.E. : Vous avez bénéficié d'une faveur qui a été refusée à Slobodan Milosevic, pourquoi à votre avis ?

V.S. : Ma libération temporaire n'a rien à voir avec mon état de santé. Il ne savaient tout simplement plus que faire de moi plus longemps. J'ai démoli le Tribunal de La Haye, j'ai rendu vain l'acte d'accusation produit contre moi en 2003, j'ai ridiculisé le ministère public et ses faux témoins. Que leur restait-il donc à faire ? Leur seule échappatoire était de me mettre à la porte de Scheveningen, et c'est ce qu'ils ont fait le 12 novembre 2014.

E.E. : Le président Milosevic a-t-il été délibérément assassiné ? Pouvez-vous nous donner votre témoignage à ce sujet et quelles étaient vos relations avec lui ?

V.S. : J'ai traversé plusieurs phases dans mes relations avec Milosevic. Je me suis opposé à lui lorsqu'il était évident qu'il prenait de mauvaises décisions. J'étais son opposant politique et il m'a fait incarcérer. Lorsqu'il agissait dans l'intérêt de la nation, je le soutenais, mais nous n'avons jamais été amis. C'est seulement à La Haye que nous le sommes devenus. Milosevic a été l'un des Serbes qui ont perdu leur vie au Tribunal de La Haye. Le Tribunal est responsable de sa mort. Ne serait-ce que parce qu'ils ne se sont pas assurés qu'il disposât des soins médicaux dont il avait besoin.

E.E. : Quelles étaient vos conditions de détention ?

V.S. : Scheveningen est une prison hollandaise dont une partie est louée aux Nations Unies pour pourvoir aux besoins du Tribunal de La Haye. Je n'ai aucun commentaire à faire sur les conditions de vie dans le bloc de détention. Une prison est une prison.

E.E. : Quelles étaient vos relations avec les autres détenus du TPIY, notamment avec les Albanais Haradinaj et Limaj ?

V.S. : Chacun en prison se trouve dans une position très spéciale. Il faut vous y adapter. J'avais de bonnes relations avec tout le monde à mon étage. Avec certains je jouais aux échecs, ou à différents jeux de cartes, mais je préférais la compagnie de ceux qui aimaient lire. C'est avec eux que j'avais le plus de sujets en commun.

 

E.E. : Votre libération provisoire préjuge-t-elle du jugement qui sera rendu à votre égard ?

V.S. : Qu'un jugement soit rendu ou pas dans mon cas ne me concerne plus du tout. Je n'y retournerai jamais volontairement. J'ai été à leur disposition pendant douze années et ils ont eu suffisamment de temps pour rendre un jugement. S'ils décident mon retour à Scheveningen, alors Tomislav Nikolic et Alexandar Vucic, qui ont été mes plus proches collaborateurs dans la réalisation de tous ces crimes de guerre supposés, devront m'arrêter et me transférer là-bas.

E.E. : Y a-t-il un lien entre la décision du TPIY de vous libérer et la marche de la Serbie vers l'intégration à l'Union européenne ?

V.S. : Bien sûr que non, et le Parti Radical de Serbie et moi-même ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour arrêter la marche fatale de la Serbie vers l'Union européenne. L'Union européenne est un mal et n'existe que que pour opprimer les petits Etats-nations. Nous allons résister à ce mal et nous utiliserons tous les moyens démocratiques à notre disposition dans ce but.

E.E. : Vous connaissez le TPIY de l'intérieur, quel jugement portez vous dessus ?

V.S. : Je savais avant même d'aller à La Haye que le Tribunal était un instrument américain et que c'était une cour illégale créée principalement pour condamner les Serbes, de façon à déclarer les Serbes responsables des crimes commis sur le territoire de l'ex-Yougoslavie et détourner l'attention des USA et des autres grandes puissances occidentales qui sont en fait coupables de la désintégration sanglante de l'ex-Yougoslavie. J'en ai parlé avant de partir pour La Haye, et aussi quand j'y étais, et ma position n'a pas changé. Je suis fier de ce que devant l'opinion mondiale j'aie réussi à démolir ce pseudo-tribunal.

E.E. : Que pensez-vous de la politique du gouvernement serbe actuel dirigé par d'anciens radicaux qui ont fait scission en 2008 pour créer le Parti Progressiste de Serbie ?

V.S. : En 2008 un coup a été tenté à l'intérieur du Parti Radical de Serbie. Un grosse quantité d'argent a été investie dans ce projet et le régime du Parti Démocratique alors au pouvoir, dirigé par Boris Tadic, a également donné un coup de main pour la formation du Parti Progressiste de Serbie. Nous savions que l'Occident avait besoin d'un tel parti pour accomplir ses basses oeuvres en Serbie. Alexandar Vucic et Tomislav Nikolic ont apporté la preuve concernant le Kosovo et Métochie qu'ils étaient prêts à faire tout ce que Boris Tadic n'avait pas osé faire. Et ils l'ont fait. Avec Ivica Dacic (1) ils ont signé l'accord de Bruxelles qui a de facto livré le Kosovo et Métochie aux Albanais. A cause de la soi disant "voie européenne" ils ont plongé le pays et les gens dans la crise économique et la misère sociale. Ils conduisent une politique félonne et servile à laquelle le Parti Radical de Serbie va s'opposer par tous les moyens légitimes. L'Occident va se servir de Vucic et Nikolic et ensuite en disposer comme du papier toilette. Ils sont tout juste bons à cet unique emploi et ceux qui les ont mis au pouvoir les ont déjà passés aux profits et pertes. Leur mort politique est déjà programmée.

E.E. : Que pensez-vous du rapprochement récent entre le gouvernement serbe et la Russie, notamment au sujet du gazoduc South Stream auquel Bruxelles s'est opposé et des sanctions contre la Russie auxquelles la Serbie a refusé de s'associer ?

V.S. : Le régime d'Alexandre Vucic essaye de jouer un double jeu. Leur orientation essentielle est l'Union européenne, tandis que la coopération avec la Russie n'est pas sincère. S'ils y sont contraints, ils vont adopter les sanctions contre la Russie parce qu'ils sont des marionnettes des Occidentaux. En ce qui concerne South Stream, le Parti Radical de Serbie pense que c'est le meilleur accord que la Serbie ait conclu, et que même si South Stream n'est pas construit la Serbie recevra d'importants bénéfices économiques grâce à cet accord.

E.E. : Pensez-vous que la Serbie puisse rejoindre l'Union douanière avec la Russie tout en étant associée d'une manière ou d'une autre avec l'Union européenne ?

V.S. : Nous sommes pour une étroite collaboration avec la Russie et nous sommes opposés à l'Union européenne. Le comité exécutif du Parti Radical de Serbie a adopté une résolution appelant à la dissolution de l'Union européenne. La Serbie a signé un accord de libre-échange avec la Russie et jusqu'à présent aucun régime n'en a tiré tous les avantages pour que la Serbie puisse pleinement en bénéficier. Nous sommes pour l'Union douanière avec la Russie et pour la participation au système de sécurité collective (2) qui s'est formé autour d'elle, comme pour toutes les autres formes de coopération. La coopération avec la Russie va renforcer la Serbie dans tous les domaines, politique, économique, culturel…

E.E. : Sur quelles forces politiques pouvez-vous compter en Serbie, combien de députés radicaux vous sont-ils restés fidèles ?

V.S. : Le Parti Radical de Serbie connaît à l'heure actuelle une phase de renforcement significatif de nos unités de base. Nous sommes ouverts à tous ceux qui ont été trompés en abandonnant notre parti et en rejoignant le Parti Progressiste de Serbie. Nous nous attendons à ce que tous les patriotes sincères rejoignent nos rangs parce que le Parti Radical de Serbie est la seule option patriote en Serbie.

E.E. : Allez-vous rejoindre l'alliance des forces patriotiques d'opposition favorable au rapprochement avec la Russie (3) ?

V.S. : Nous sommes prêts à discuter avec des gens sérieux. Dveri n'est pas encore enregistré en tant que parti politique et le PDS s'est divisé en plusieurs fractions. Celle qui se trouve sous la direction de Sanda Raskovic-Ivic a été créée par Alexandar Vucic et nous n'avons rien à dicuter avec eux. Nous pouvons néanmoins dicuter avec Nenad Popovic, Slobodan Samardzic et Sinisa Kovacevic. Mais il est encore trop tôt. Nous pensons que chaque parti doit se présenter individuellement aux élections et que les coalitions peuvent être formées seulement après.

E.E. : Votre libération n'a-t-elle pas des motifs de politique intérieure ?

V.S. : Ma libération provisoire n'a rien à voir avec cela, mais elle a des conséquences sur la scène politique serbe. Nous nous préparons sérieusement à organiser des meetings à travers toute la Serbie pour expliquer aux gens le caractère désastreux du régime d'Alexandar Vucic et Tomislav Nikolic. Je suis convaincu que dès 2015 nous réussirons à provoquer des élections législatives anticipées et que nous réaliserons des gains importants à cette occasion. J'ai déjà rendu visite à de nombreuses villes en Serbie. J'ai été invité dans des émissions de télévisions locales et dans les municipalités j'ai été accueilli par une foule énorme. L'opinion publique est manifestement favorable au Parti Radical de Serbie, en dépit du fait qu'Alexandar Vucic se soit arrangé pour que je ne sois entendu sur aucun média de fréquence nationale.

Interview du 29 décembre 2014. Présentation et réalisation : Stephen Karganovic. Questions et notes : Frédéric Saillot. Traduction : Stephen Karganovic et Frédéric Saillot.

(1) Dirigeant du Parti Socialiste de Serbie, il est vice-premier ministre et ministre des Affaires étrangères de Serbie. Tomislav Nikolic et Alexander Vucic, ex-radicaux et dirigeants du Parti Progressiste de Serbie sont respectivement président et premier ministre de Serbie.
(2) L'OTSC, Organisation du traité de sécurité collective, qualifiée d'OTAN russe, regroupe l'Arménie, la Biélorussie, le Kazakhstan, la Russie, le Tadjikistan, le Kirghizistan ainsi que la Serbie comme Etat observateur.
(3) Dveri (Les Portes), mouvement non parlementaire, et le Parti Démocratique de Serbie (PDS), présidé par Sanda Raskovic-Ivic, ont annoncé le 16 novembre 2014 la création d'une alliance de forces patriotiques d'opposition favorable au rapprochement avec la Russie (Dépêche Ria Novosti du 18/11/2014).

http://www.eurasiexpress.fr/Seselj/

How the CIA Launched the «Financial Pearl Harbor» Attacks on Russia and Venezuela

Wayne MADSEN | 20.12.2014 | 00:00

Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan's long familiarity with Saudi Arabia, owing to the time he spent there as the CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and his knowledge of Saudi oil operations, has paid off. Petroleum industry insiders claim that Brennan's agents inside Saudi Aramco convinced the firm's management and the Saudi Oil Ministry to begin fracking operations in order to stimulate production in Saudi Arabia's oldest oil fields. The Saudis, who are not known for their hands-on knowledge of their nation's own oil industry, agreed to what became an oil pricing catastrophe which would not only affect Saudi Arabia but oil producing nations around the world from Russia and Venezuela to Nigeria and Indonesia. By pumping high-pressure salt water into older wells, some at a depth of three to six thousand feet, an inordinate amount of pressure was built up. The CIA's oil industry implants knew what would occur when the fracking operations began. Due to the dangerously high water pressure, the Saudis were forced continuously pump oil until the pressure became equalized. That process is continuing. If the Saudis ceased pumping oil, they would permanently lose the wells to salt water contamination. In the current "pump it or lose it" situation, the Saudis are forced to pump at a rate that may take up to five years before they can slow down production rates to pre-glut levels. The corporate media, including the Bloomberg and Dow Jones virtual business news monopolies, issued news reports claiming that the Saudis agreed to keep production high at the November meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order to retain their market share amid increased U.S. oil production from fracking.  The net result of the CIA-inspired fracking operations, which the Saudis were warned not to pursue by petroleum engineers working for some foreign-based firms like Schlumberger, is that there will be an oil supply glut for the next 5 years. The glut will be followed by a reduction in Saudi oil production unless new oil fields are brought on line. There is now a major push by U.S. and Canadian oil companies to bring online the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States to offset the expected sharp rise in oil prices in four to five years. But with Canada suffering financially from the drop in oil revenues, the Keystone XL project is also on financially shaky ground. The CIA operation to frack Middle Eastern oil fields was not only limited to Saudi Arabia. Oil industry sources have revealed that similar fracking caused over production problems in Kuwait and Iraq. The CIA's sabotage of Saudi and other oil fields is not a first for the agency. In 1982, a massive and devastating explosion of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline was said to have been the work of Trojan horse software implanted by a Canadian company on behalf of the CIA. Former U.S. Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, who served in the Ronald Reagan White House, confirmed the CIA's role in the industrial sabotage. The CIA cooperated with the Israeli Mossad in creating the Flame computer virus that crippled Iran's nuclear enrichment equipment. Another CIA-Mossad virus, Stuxnet, had wreaked havoc on nuclear power plants around the world. The CIA is believed to have played a part in the crash of the Russian-made Sukhoi Superjet 100 in May 2012 in Indonesia. A Russian military intelligence spokesman said that U.S. industrial sabotage in downing the flight, which killed 45 Indonesian and Russian nationals, was considered a likely cause. The crash came after the head of the Russian space agency, Roskosmos, said he believed that it was possible that the failure of the Phobos-Grunt mission to the moons of Mars may have been caused by American sabotage. The CIA's use of industrial sabotage against the Cuban sugar industry, the Chilean and Zambian copper industries, and the Haitian rice industry is legendary. Explosions at oil refineries in Iran, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela, pipeline explosions in Syria and Libya, and a Brazilian Petrobras marine oil rig collapse, have been attributed to CIA proxy terrorist groups. The result of the sudden decline in oil prices has resulted in heavy damage to the economies of the CIA-targeted countries of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Brennan and his economic warfare operatives absolutely banked on the Saudi over-production to harm the economies of all three countries and the CIA has not been disappointed. The CIA figures that «regime change» would bring to power pro-U.S. governments in Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Already, from his base in Switzerland, exiled Russian tax evader billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky has called for President Vladimir Putin's violent overthrow and even his assassination. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress took its cues from the CIA and voted to impose devastating economic sanctions on both Russia and Venezuela. President Barack Obama approved the congressional sanctions. Similar congressional legislation to increase sanctions on Iran is pending. Russia has been harmed the most by the CIA's Saudi oil production scheme. The Russian ruble fell 56 percent in value against the U.S. dollar while Russian interest rates climbed to 17 percent. The price of shares of Russia's largest lending bank, Sberbank, fell 18 percent. Although the Russian economic collapse has resulted in financial ripples around the world, with Austrian and French banks losing their stock values and the value of the Polish zloty and Hungarian forint falling against the dollar, the Obama administration says that there will be no easing on economic sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine. Obama has also put the individual and institutional investments of American holders of Russian bonds in dire jeopardy. The Pacific Investment Management Company's (PEBIX) Emerging Markets Bond Fund, which holds over $800 million in Russian bonds, has lost almost 8 percent in value in the past few weeks.  Meanwhile, basic staples in Venezuela, including cooking oil, rice, and corn flour, are becoming hard to obtain. On the Venezuelan black market, the U.S. dollar has jumped 1700 percent in value against the Venezuelan bolivar. The CIA is using the financial collapse to push for an undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government and CIA operatives are providing cash payments to Venezuelan opposition politicians and provocateurs. Iran, which has been under punitive Western economic sanctions for a number of years over its nuclear power program, is probably best able to weather the storm. Iran has built up a rather impressive domestic food production, telecommunications, and oil industry infrastructure to survive the sanctions. However, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears very aware of the Saudi role in the conspiracy to drive down oil prices. Recently, Rouhani said of the drop in oil prices, "The main reason for [it] is political conspiracy by certain countries against the interest of the region and the Islamic world and it is only in the interest of some other countries . . . Iran and people of the region will not forget such conspiracies.» The economic hardships imposed on oil-producing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has resulted in an opportunity for the Islamic State to gain adherents in the country, especially among the young and unemployed population. The economy of China, which is hoping to begin pumping oil from lucrative marine reserves in the South China Sea, is feeling the strain of lower oil prices. Mexico, wracked with social instability, has also suffered from the CIA's machinations. However, instability in Mexico has always been advantageous for the CIA, which continues to benefit from the illegal drug trade that keeps the agency's slush fund accounts flush with cash. Brennan's and the CIA's industrial sabotage of the Saudi industry will continue to have far-reaching effects on the world economy. Oil industry insiders fear that the CIA has unleashed something that may deal a devastating blow to the global economy from which it will be difficult to recover.

 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/12/20/how-cia-launched-the-financial-pearl-harbor-attacks-russia-venezuela.html

Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack

December 19, 2014

Exclusive: Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

When America's opinion-making herd gets running, it's hard for anyone to get in the way regardless of how erroneous or unfair the reason for the stampede. It's much easier – and career-wise safer – to join the pack, which is what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has done regarding Russia, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin.

In the latest example of the New York Times' endless Putin-bashing, Krugman begins his Friday column with what you might call a "negative endorsement" of the Russian president by claiming that ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has "an embarrassing crush on the swaggering statesman."

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (Photo credit: David Shankbone)

But Krugman misleads his readers. Giuliani wasn't really praising Putin when he said "that is what you call a leader" in commenting on Putin's decisiveness. Some liberal defenders of President Barack Obama simply cherry-picked the quote to counter Giuliani's attempt to disparage Obama by comparing Obama's chronic indecisiveness to Putin's forcefulness.

In the fuller context, Giuliani was not expressing a fondness for Putin at all. Indeed, he disparaged the Russian leader as "a bully" and urged a tough-guy response to Putin over Ukraine. "Instead of him pushing us around, we push him around," Giuliani said in the Fox News interview. "That's the only thing a bully understands."

So, why did Krugman begin his Putin-bashing column by misrepresenting what Giuliani was saying? It may have been a form of "negative endorsement." Since many American liberals hate Giuliani, Giuliani's praise is supposed to translate into liberal hatred for Putin.

But "negative endorsements" are inherently unfair. Just because Josef Stalin might have liked Franklin Roosevelt and because we may hate Stalin, that doesn't mean we should hate Roosevelt, too. The use of "negative endorsement" is akin to guilt by association. And, in this case, Krugman was playing fast and loose with the facts as well

Krugman also opts for some of the most hyperbolic language that has been used in the U.S. mainstream media to distort events in Ukraine. For instance, Krugman claims that "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine without debate or deliberation." But that really isn't true either.

The Ukraine crisis is far more complicated and nuanced than that, as Krugman must know. If he doesn't, he should consult with fellow Princeton professor Stephen F. Cohen, who has bravely challenged the prevailing "group think" on both Ukraine and Russia.

Cohen, one of America's premier Russia experts, has even warned that "American media coverage of Vladimir Putin … has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security. …

"[M]ainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin as a czar-like 'autocrat,' or alternatively a 'KGB thug,' who imposed a 'rollback of democratic reforms' under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed instead a 'venal regime' that has permitted 'corruptionism,' encouraged the assassination of a 'growing number' of journalists and carried out the 'killing of political opponents.' Not infrequently, Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin."

Yet, Cohen said, "there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true, or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putin's personal enemies, particularly Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies – or, in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of 'Putin's Russia.'" [For details from Cohen's article, click here.]

'Shock Therapy'

Indeed, much of what Krugman finds so offensive about Putin's Russia actually stemmed from the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market "shock therapy" which translated into a small number of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and resources, making themselves billionaires while leaving average Russians near starvation.

When Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin in 2000, Putin challenged some of the oligarchs and pushed others out of the political arena, while also moderating some of the extreme policies and thus making life somewhat better for the average Russian, thus explaining Putin's broad popularity. Putin could be fairly criticized for not going further, but economist Krugman must surely know this history regarding how the Russian "kleptocracy" got started.

Yet, Krugman slides into the now common demonization of Putin. "Mr. Putin never had the resources to back his swagger," Krugman smugly writes.

"It's quite a comedown for Mr. Putin. And his swaggering strongman act helped set the stage for the disaster. A more open, accountable regime — one that wouldn't have impressed Mr. Giuliani so much — would have been less corrupt, would probably have run up less debt, and would have been better placed to ride out falling oil prices. Macho posturing, it turns out, makes for bad economies."

In other words, Krugman buys into the "group think" that blames Putin's "macho posturing" over Ukraine for the current financial crisis in Russia, which has resulted from falling oil prices as well as the U.S.-led sanctions punishing Russia for its alleged "aggression" in Ukraine.

That puts Krugman in the same camp as the neocons who have pushed the bogus narrative that the megalomaniacal Putin is trying to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The actual facts, however, disprove that narrative. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia."]

Putin himself has a much better understanding of recent Russian history – and what Official Washington's goals are regarding him and Russia – as he explained in an end-of-year news conference on Thursday.

Asked if the economic pain was the price for accepting Crimea back into Russia, Putin responded: "No. This is not the price we have to pay for Crimea. … This is actually the price we have to pay for our natural aspiration to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization, as a state. …

"I gave an example of our most recognizable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. … [M]aybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone.

"But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over. … And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all.

"So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realize."

The Neo-Nazi Reality

There is another unpleasant reality about Ukraine that Krugman ignores — its neo-Nazi element — apparently not wanting to be out of step with his New York Times colleagues who have studiously looked the other way. Again, Krugman could learn something from his fellow Princeton professor Cohen, who has recounted the grim facts about neo-Nazism in Ukraine, facts that would put Putin's supposed "invasion" in defense of Ukraine's ethnic Russians in a different light.

In an article for The Nation magazine, Cohen wrote: "Independent Western scholars have documented the fascist origins, contemporary ideology and declarative symbols of Svoboda and its fellow-traveling Right Sector. Both movements glorify Ukraine's murderous Nazi collaborators in World War II as inspirational ancestors. Both, to quote Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok, call for an ethnically pure nation purged of the 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' and 'other scum,' including homosexuals, feminists and political leftists.

"And both hailed the Odessa massacre [on May 2 when ethnic Russian protesters were trapped in the Trade Union building and burned alive]. According to the website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was 'another bright day in our national history.' A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, 'Bravo, Odessa…. Let the Devils burn in hell.'

"If more evidence is needed, in December 2012, the European Parliament decried Svoboda's 'racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles.' In 2013, the World Jewish Congress denounced Svoboda as 'neo-Nazi.' Still worse, observers agree that Right Sector is even more extremist. …

"In December 2012, a Svoboda parliamentary leader anathematized the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis as 'a dirty kike.' Since 2013, pro-Kiev mobs and militias have routinely denigrated ethnic Russians as insects ('Colorado beetles,' whose colors resemble a sacred Russia ornament). More recently, the US-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, referred to resisters in the Southeast as 'subhumans.' His defense minister proposed putting them in 'filtration camps,' pending deportation, and raising fears of ethnic cleansing.

"Yulia Tymoshenko — a former prime minister, titular head of Yatsenyuk's party and runner-up in the May presidential election — was overheard wishing she could 'exterminate them all [Ukrainian Russians] with atomic weapons.' 'Sterilization' is among the less apocalyptic official musings on the pursuit of a purified Ukraine."

By leaving out this troubling context, it's much easier to mislead Americans about what is actually happening in Ukraine. Instead of understanding Russia's interest in protecting ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from these brutal neo-Nazis, the crisis can simply be presented as Putin's "aggression" or – as Krugman says – how "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine." [For an earlier case of Krugman's distortions on Ukraine, click here.]

More fitting Krugman's expertise about the dangers of free-market extremism, he might do better looking at the consequences of those strategies on both Russia and Ukraine, where corrupt oligarchs also took power and have now moved to the center of Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime.

And, if Krugman wants some current example of cronyism, he might look at the curious case of Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. diplomat who parlayed $150 million in U.S. AID funds designed to help Ukraine develop an investment-based economy into a personal fortune and now into the post of Ukraine's new Finance Minister.

According to corporate records, the U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine involved substantial insider dealings by Jaresko, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled. Meanwhile, the $150 million stake provided by the U.S. taxpayers appears to have dwindled to less than $100 million. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's Made-in-the-USA Finance Minister."]

But critical reporting about the U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime would violate Official Washington's narrative that prefers the Kiev authorities to be dressed in white hats while Vladimir Putin wears the black hat.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/19/krugman-joins-the-anti-putin-pack/

Oil War on Russia: Ridiculous People and Unintended Consequences

Column: Politics

Region: USA in the World

The once rather ordered world we knew even a decade ago is becoming more and more dis-ordered. That's not to say it's chaotic because chaos is merely the emergence of new patterns we do not yet understand. This is dis-order. And it is being fostered by ridiculous power-addicted people in the West who are flailing around to try to hold on to their eroding power over our world and over us. I say ridiculous because we need only look at the initiatives they have launched in recent months to advance their power agenda.

First these power-addicted very rich oligarchs through their neo-conservative networks in the US State Department and in the CIA initiated what was foolishly dubbed the Arab Spring. That was in Tunisia in December 2010. By all accounts an utter and complete flop, their Arab Spring caper, even by oligarch calculations.

They have largely lost Egypt by their stupid attempt to shove the Muslim Brotherhood death cult down the throats of Egypt's citizens.

Then their war in Libya, where their fig leaf of "democracy" Color Revolution couldn't work, they bombed Qaddafi and Africa's most stable and most prosperous tribal monarchy back to the stone age and unleashed dis-order there that still is a disaster by all measures.

Then the same stupid oligarchs, advised by their ridiculous neo-con think-tankers and Obama Administration neo-cons such as the loveless National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Obama's putative psychological "Rasputin," rolled out of Libya directly into Syria in January 2012.

They did so to apparently run a repeat of the Qaddafi fiasco. Only in Syria the stakes were global and far different from Libya. It involved national security issues for Russia, for Iran and indirectly, for China. Today, nearly three years on, despite the CIA and Mossad efforts to use their creation, ISIS, or the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) to terrify the American war-weary public to agree to yet another war in the Middle East, after the fiasco of Iraq and Afghanistan the trillions of US tax dollars and destroyed lives of US servicemen and women, Bashar al Assad remains in power. Granted he presides over a land devastated by death and destruction, thanks to those loveless, ridiculous western Oligarchs. But the oligarchs and their partner-in-crime, Netanjahu, Brooklyn's least-honorable son, have not got what they wanted in Syria.

More recently, they have tried to panic us into agreeing to mass vaccination with untested, likely toxic medications to try to justify Obama's War on Ebola. Only no one seems to believe them. The increasingly ridiculous Dr Margaret Chan, the Director General of WHO, who was guilty of criminal mis-conduct five years ago when she bowed to Big Pharma wishes and declared a non-existent Swine Flu as global "Pandemic Level 6," tries to utter terrifying statements about Ebola, but nobody much is paying attention.

They Oligarchs of destruction unleashed neo-con artist Victoria Nuland at the State Department along with documented liar, CIA Director John Brennan, to turn Ukraine over to a gaggle of criminals and self-styled neo-nazis, complete with Swastika tattoos and black ski masks. The hope was it would make Putin and the Russians go berserk and invade Ukraine as civil war against ethnic Russian-speakers in east Ukraine raged, targeting women, elderly, children, anyone who walked.

That Ukraine State Department coup too has blown up in their faces as Russia turns to her East and the South, making a dazzling array of strategic agreements with China for energy and military cooperation, with India, with Brazil and the list continues.

Then the same ridiculous Oligarchs unleashed the drones of their National Endowment for Democracy in Hong Kong in a vain effort to spread their dis-order to China, which was becoming far too independent of the Oligarchs' New World Order agenda. That too has flopped.

Old Saudi Arabia vs New Saudi Arabia

Now the same ridiculous American Oligarchs hovering around such loveless characters as David Rockefeller, have come to the brilliant strategy of unleashing their "super-weapon" against Putin's Russia—full-scale oil price war. Backed by The US Treasury's neo-con David S. Cohen, whose title is aptly named as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the John Kerry State Department in September came up with the bright idea to rerun the 1986 State Department-Saudi operation to collapse Russia by getting the Saudis to collapse oil prices.

The execution of the oil collapse has so far been technically flawless. Oil prices on average have plummeted almost 30% since September. The only problem is that the power-addicted Oligarchs and their ridiculous neo-con hired thinkers overlooked the fact that, in the process, they would bankrupt their very vulnerable shale oil bonanza.

For the past several years, the United States Government has bought on to the shale oil bonanza myth. It has shaped US foreign policy decisions, given people in Washington the false illusion they can risk blowing up much of the world's Middle East without threatening global oil supplies, or Ukraine, because The United States of America is becoming the New Saudi Arabia.

But now the knife cuts the other way. John Kerry's brilliant Saudi plan is being used by those same Saudis, not only to bring Russia to her knees, which it hasn't managed to do. It is being used by the Old Saudi Arabia to cripple the shale oil basis of the New Saudi Arabia. The Saudis clearly, as was seen in the recent OPEC meeting, want to burst the US shale oil bubble in order to reassert control of the Old Saudi Arabia over world oil markets.

On November 27 following an indecisive OPEC meeting where the Saudis refused various pleas to reverse and stop the price fall, the traded price for the marker crude that US shale oil is priced at, West Texas Intermediate, fell below $66 a barrel, a five year low with no bottom in yet sight. The sharp rise in US shale oil output in the past three years has enabled the US to take over the decisive leverage role once held by the Saudis, that of Swing Producer. That means if the powers that be in Washington decide world oil prices are too high, it can cut supply one way or another. If too low, restrict supply.

That did not make the Saudi royals happy. Perhaps when Kerry proposed to the Saudi King, with Prince Bandar in the room last September, that Saudi Arabia help Washington break Russia by collapsing Russian oil revenues, King Abdullah and Bandar happily agreed. But now it seems the Saudi focus is less to hurt Russia and more to shoot down the US shale oil competition. Shale oil is unconventional and expensive to drill compared with conventional oil.

Only extraordinary, sustained prices above $100 a barrel the past five years made shale profitable. In 2014 and by present estimates 2015 shale oil will account for an extra 2 million barrels of US domestic oil output, the largest output since 1970. Now Wall Street banks with billions lent to US shale producers are re-examining their portfolio and considering calling in those loans or at the very least not lending further to a losing game. However, shale oil, unlike conventional, requires an escalating investment to drill ever new wells as the old deplete far faster than conventional. That is the Ponzi core of the shale oil mirage.

Unconventional shale oil costs from $50 to $100 a barrel just to produce. Conventional US oil by contrast costs from $10 upwards. By calculations of leading US shale oil bankers, "If prices go to $80 or lower, which I think is possible, then we are going to see a reduction in drilling activity."ii That was said in October when prices hovered around $90. Come this spring, we can expect numerous US shale oil companies to hit the hard wall of bankruptcy or insolvency.

The Russians are apparently not as alarmed as they were in 1986, the previous time Washington and the Saudis ran such a price collapse operation. Lukoil part-owner Leonid Fedun told the press recently, "The shale boom is on a par with the dot-com boom. The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish." According to a report on RT, Russian Economic Development Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev told a meeting of cabinet ministers after the OPEC decision that the government had cut its oil price estimate for its 2015 Budget from $100 to $80 a barrel. ö Low oil prices will not ruin the economy the Russian Economic Development Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev has said, adding that the oil price estimate for the 2015 budget has been slashed to $80 a barrel from $100 a barrel. "We aren't going to collapse," he said.

So much for the Oligarchs' ridiculous plans to make USA into the New Saudi Arabia and bankrupt Russia in the process.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/12/16/ridiculous-people-and-unintended-consequences/

 

The End of Turkey in Europe

< back to Freedom At Issue Blog

December 16, 2014

By

Nate Schenkkan

Program Officer, Eurasia

On December 17, 2013, Turkey woke up to mass police raids across the country. The chief executive of state-owned HalkBank was detained, and television stations showed shoeboxes stuffed with millions of American dollars pulled out from under his bed. The sons of three cabinet ministers were also taken for questioning. Investigators would soon come knocking for the son of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, then the prime minister, now the president, and the most powerful man in the country.

One year later almost to the day, after 12 months in which the government successfully fought to suppress the corruption scandal by reassigning the prosecutors and police who investigated it, Erdoğan and his allies have taken revenge. On Sunday, December 14, the authorities announced a case against 31 people suspected of "establishing and managing an armed terror organization" with the intent of seizing state power. The targets are leading members of the Islamist Gülen movement, also commonly called the Cemaat, including the editor in chief of Zaman, one of the country's highest circulation newspapers, and the president of Samanyolu, a major television broadcaster. Zaman, Samanyolu, and other Gülenist media outlets pushed last year's corruption investigation onto their front pages and nightly broadcasts, and kept it in the headlines as recordings of high-ranking officials leaked onto the internet all last winter and spring. The corruption investigation and its wall-to-wall coverage in the movement's press were widely interpreted as a declaration of war by the Cemaat against the ruling party, with which it had long been allied.

The official charges announced this week apparently allege a sweeping and byzantine plot connected to Gülenist media support for the investigation of a rival Islamist group called Tahşiye that may have been close to the government. The case includes claims that two soapy television dramas carried by Samanyolu were part of the operation against Tahşiye; several members of the shows' staff have been arrested. Within Turkey, however, there is no question that the true motivation for the probe is revenge for the corruption scandal. Erdoğan himself has left no doubt about his intentions, vowing throughout the year to hunt down his opponents in the so-called "parallel structure."

It is no small irony that the government is deploying such a convoluted case against the Gülen movement and its supporters in the media. Despite their carefully cultivated image abroad as liberal democrats, at home the Gülenists have a record of fighting dirty. The Gülenist press avidly backed the prosecution of thousands of Kurdish activists in the KCK case, and hundreds of members of Turkey's military and secularist elite on absurd charges in the Ergenekon and Balyoz cases. For many years, the movement cheered Erdoğan's rise to power as its best chance to break the Kemalist old guard. A popular image circulating on Turkish social media on Sunday showed the now-arrested editor in chief of Zaman together with Erdoğan in 2012, smiling and holding a framed copy of the newspaper with the headline "The Triumph of Democracy."

Through their supporters in the police and judiciary, the Gülenists did not hesitate to go after journalists and others who crossed them. For this reason, the most promising development from Sunday's events is the stirring of solidarity within Turkey's press. Journalist Ahmet Şık wrote a hard-hitting book on the Gülenist movement and in return was sent to jail on cooked-up charges that Zaman loudly supported. But on Sunday he tweeted, "The Cemaat was among the forceful supporters of fascism a few years ago. What they are going through today is also fascism. To oppose fascism is a virtue." Zaman's Washington correspondent thanked Şık for his support and acknowledged, "We could never have supported your freedom in such a way." Leftist and secularist press organizations like the Turkish Journalists' Association and Turkish Journalists' Union also condemned the arrests. The new press freedom organization P24—which counts among its founders Andrew Finkel, a foreign journalist living in Turkey for decades who was fired by Today's Zaman when he criticized its support for Şık's imprisonment—issued a statement titled "No to the Police State!"

It will be up to Turkey's media and civil society to stop this crackdown. The simple truth is that external actors have lost all influence in Turkey. In response to Sunday's arrests, the European Union quickly issued an unusually harsh statement reminding Turkey that respect for rule of law and fundamental rights are required for accession to the bloc. Turkey's membership bid has been officially open but practically frozen for years due to unrelated objections from France and Cyprus. On Monday Erdoğan responded to the statement by saying he was not worried about whether Turkey would be accepted into Europe, and telling the EU to "keep your advice to yourself." At least one pro-accession member of the European Parliament has already proposed officially freezing Turkey's candidacy. It is time to take this drastic step.

Proponents of the accession process—myself included—have argued that it remains by far the best mechanism for Europe and the United States to promote the sustainable development of democratic institutions in Turkey. But Turkey's leaders have explicitly rejected the EU, in action and in words. Sunday's crackdown adds to the agonizing list of the last year and a half: the prosecutions of the Taksim Platform and of the soccer fan club Çarşı for an "attempted coup" during the Gezi Park protests, the unapologetic censorship of protected speech online and offline, the empowerment of the National Intelligence Agency to act as an unaccountable tool of executive power, and Erdoğan's formation of a "shadow cabinet" to rule the country from the presidency in violation of the constitution.

A European vision for Turkey will never move forward with this government. It is time to freeze the accession process, and to prepare for a Turkey that remains outside of Europe indefinitely. Those who dream of a democratic future for the country need to start thinking differently about how to support the cause.

Analyses and recommendations offered by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of Freedom House.

https://freedomhouse.org/blog/end-turkey-europe

US House Votes Overwhelmingly for 'New Cold War' With Russia

US House Votes Overwhelmingly for 'New Cold War' With Russia
Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/07/house-chooses-new-cold-war-with-russia/

Last week the US House voted overwhelmingly in favor of an anti-Russia resolution so full of war propaganda that it rivals the rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War. Ironically, much of the bill condemns Russia for doing exactly what the US government has been doing for years in Syria and Ukraine! For example, one of the reasons to condemn Russia in the resolution is the claim that Russia is imposing economic sanctions on Ukraine. But how many rounds of sanctions has the US government imposed on Russia for much of the past year? I guess sanctions are only bad when used by countries Washington doesn't like.

A Russophobic Rant From Congress

A Russophobic Rant From Congress
Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/a-russophobic-rant-from-congress.html

Hopefully, Russians realize that our House of Representatives often passes thunderous resolutions to pander to special interests, which have no bearing on the thinking or actions of the U.S. government. Last week, the House passed such a resolution 411-10. As ex-Rep. Ron Paul writes, House Resolution 758 is so "full of war propaganda that it rivals the rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War." H. R. 758 is a Russophobic rant full of falsehoods and steeped in superpower hypocrisy ... Russia is charged with using "trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure" and interfering in Ukraine's "internal affairs." This is almost comical. The U.S. has imposed trade barriers and sanctions on Russia, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Burma, Congo, Sudan, and a host of other nations.