Catégorie : OIL

Oil is behind US and its satellite the wars since the end of the WWII

Catégories
Anti Russia Crusade Blog OIL Propaganda WARS & CRISES

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONNISM AND RESPONSABILITY TO PROTECT, THE WEST DOUBLE STANDARD

Russia libya

Obviously, comparaison is not reason, but it is not irrelevant to compare the motives that drive Russia to launch its military operation in Ukraine and those that triggered NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011.

 

Here are the motives that NATO put forward to justify Serbia’s bombing.

  1. NATO has been leading a peace-support operation in Kosovo – the Kosovo Force (KFOR) – since June 1999.
  2. KFOR was established when NATO’s 78-day air campaign against Milosevic’s regime, aimed at putting an end to violence in Kosovo, was over.
  3. The operation derives its mandate from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the Military-Technical Agreement between NATO, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia.
  4. KFOR’s original objectives were to deter renewed hostilities, establish a secure environment and ensure public safety and order, demilitarise the Kosovo Liberation Army, support the international humanitarian effort and coordinate with the international civil presence.
  5. Today, KFOR continues to contribute towards maintaining a safe and secure environment in Kosovo and freedom of movement for all.
  6. NATO strongly supports the Belgrade-Pristina EU-brokered Normalisation Agreement (2013).

 

Aiming at regime change in the rich oil Libya, fomenting violence and demonstrations behind the scene in the city of Benghazi starting on February 17,2011, the USA, France,UK and their lackeys in the Arab world and in Africa, have used the United Nations as tool to impose a no fly zone in the North African nation and providing a veneer of legality to their war of aggression by invoking humanitarian interventionism and the responsibility to protect civilians threatened by horrible dictator.

 

On 17 March 2011, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 authorizing the use of force in Libya.2 While Germany, Brazil, China, India, and Russia abstained, the resolution drafted by France and the United Kingdom and cosponsored by Lebanon and the United States received ten favourable votes out of fifteen (South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

 

Focusing on protecting the civilian population, Resolution 1973 called for an immediate cease-fire and the complete cessation of violence against civilians. It authorized Member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, while excluding any form of occupation of Libyan territory.3 In addition, it allowed Member States to take all measures required to implement the flight ban over Libyan airspace (the ‘No-Fly Zone’). Finally, the text strengthened the arms embargo, banning flights of Libyan airlines and freezing Libyan financial assets such as those already defined in Resolution 1970 of 26 February 2011. Implicitly underlying this call for the protection of civilians was the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), although the R2P concept was not always explicitly raised in the debates leading to the adoption of the resolutions.

Russia’s humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect of civilian population in Ukraine’s Donbass

 

Russia’s military operation in Ukraine a month ago, on February 24 provoked hysteric response in the West denouncing Putin’s invasion and his so called war crimes. If we compare NATO’s bombing of Serbia and Libya in the name of humanitarian interventionism and the responsibility to protect, one can observe Putin has used the same humanitarian interventionism and the responsibility to protect as justification to intervene militarily in Ukraine.

 

President Putin announced on February 24 that in response to a request by the heads of the Donbass republics he had made a decision to carry out a special military operation in Ukraine in order to protect people « who have been suffering from abuse and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. »

 

The situation on the line of engagement in Donbass escalated on February 17. At that time, Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) reported the most massive bombardments by the Ukrainian military over past months, which damaged civilian infrastructure and caused civilian casualties. On February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognizing the sovereignty of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Subsequent treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance were signed with their leaders.

 

NATO’s relentless and pervasive propaganda wants us to make believe its bombing of Serbia and Libya has been motivated by mere humanitarian and moral principles while Putin’s military intervention in Ukraine is presented as a war of aggression and invasion of «independent state». In fact, Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine has really the form of humanitarian intervention and applying the principle of the responsibility to protect the civilian population in the two popular republics in Donbass and by no means invasion and war of aggression according to NATO’s motives by bombing Serbia and Libya. In looking at things in this way, Imperial west shows its binary mind and the dominance of the principle of double standard when it comes to protect its strategic and economic interests all over the world, to perform a regime change or to topple recalcitrant leaders looking for a genuine independence and development of their nation.

Catégories
Anti Russia Crusade Blog European Union fascism Geopolitics NATO Nazism OIL Propaganda WAR ON TERROR WARS & CRISES

HOW WESTERN PROPAGANDA INVENTS FAKE RESISTANCE AND FAKE VICTORY TO HIDE UKRAINE’S DEFEAT ?

The West is waging ferocious and relentless psychological warfare since Russia’s military special operations in Ukraine, a campaign aiming at brainwashing the populations according to basic principles of Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels that played key role in the manufactured consent and the mobilisation of the Germans for war against Bolshevism, communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular.

One can observe that there are the same so called experts who appear in the MSM and they repeat invariably the same words and the same things about the conflict in Ukraine. Their basic strategy is the strategy of delusion and deception by hammering the same message home, parroting without checking out all the facts what they have heard and told by the experts of manipulation working within the PSYOP. For example, such so called experts try to convince themselves and the viewers through TV that Russian’s losses are too big to win the war and the Ukraine’s resistance is so strong that Russian invaders would be sonner or later be repealed and even Ukrainian fighters would reach Moscow.

From day one, Ukraine’s fate has been sealed. Russian’s special operations have been focused on the destruction of Ukrainian principal military locations and command centers. This is largely accomplished since the beginning.
Consequently, Putin’s military Blitzkrieg paved the way for the second objective, removal of criminal regime in Kiev and establishing Ukraine as fully neutral nation. This main political objective would be achieved through

1. Demilitarization of Ukraine, meaning destruction of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and her military-industrial complex;

2.Denazification is only partially met by means of physical annihilation of military arm of the Ukrainian Neo-Nazism, the police and state security. The imminent fall of Mariupol gives the final blow to the last neo nazi stronghold. The fall of Mariupol would allow the Russian to affect more forces for besieging Ukraine third city, Odessa.It is a matter of one or two weeks. During the WWII, France capitulated. Germany and Japan capitulated. Why not Ukraine ?

Catégories
Blog European Union fascism militarismus NATO Nazism OIL WAR ON TERROR WARS & CRISES

RUSSIA HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO CHANGE THE GAME ON HER BORDERS BY MILITARY MACHINE

RUSSIA NATO

Putin’s decision to launch military special operations in Donbass and Ukraine did not come out from nowhere.

On Monday, February 21st President Putin, also acting on the request of the Donbass Republics, and the recommendation of the Russian Security Council, made the momentous and logical decision to do exactly that.The Minsk Agreements, though supported by Russia, were being impeded and sabotaged by some European nations, by the Kiev regime and the USA. Since 1999,Putin witnessed the dismembrement of Yugoslavia,bombing by NATO of Serbia in 1999, American invasion of Afghnaistan in 2001,Iraq invasion in 2003,color revolution in Georgia in 2004 and in Ukraine the same year, color revolution in Georgia in 2008, the so called Arab Spring in 2011 used by the US and NATO to topple Libyan regime and the Syrian regime. Putin witnessed also NATO expansion in Eastern Europe whose members went from 16 after the demise of the USSR to 30 today.

The Americans and their satellites states go further and claim a right to expand their alliance, but on what legal, moral or security grounds this right is based they cannot say. They claim that nations have the right to join NATO of their own free will, but this again is a distortion of the facts. The NATO Treaty states that accession to the Treaty is by invitation only. So there is no right of any nation to freely choose to join NATO. That is a decision ultimately controlled by NATO, by the United States in fact, not the nation seeking to join.

Earlier this year President Putin sent to the American president a proposal for a Treaty which would guarantee the peace in Europe. The offer was met with contempt and rejected out of hand by the Americans who played games with the text and offered to negotiate on peripheral items, while ignoring Russia’s demands that NATO cease its expansion, withdraw American nuclear weapons from Europe, dismantle the bases and equipment it has placed all over eastern Europe in preparation for war on Russia and agree not to place missile systems close to Russia’s borders.

On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry released draft agreements on the security guarantees that Moscow expects to receive from Washington and NATO. The documents clearly require that NATO cease its eastward expansion and return its military infrastructure to the 1997 borders.The proposed measures include guarantees that NATO will not advance eastward, including the accession of Ukraine and other countries into the alliance, as well as non-deployment of serious offensive weapons, including the nuclear one

The United States and NATO handed their written responses to Russia’s security proposals over to Moscow on January 26, 2022 without any crucial concession.

Moscow’s reaction to Washington’s response on security guarantees published on February 17 underscored that the US provided no response to Russia’s proposal to bring back nuclear weapons to its soil, but just agreed to deal with the issue of non-strategic nuclear weapons without taking into account the specifics of its location

On February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a special military operation based on a request from the heads of the Donbass republics. The Russian leader stressed that Moscow had no plans to occupy Ukrainian territories and the goal was to demilitarize and denazify the country.

On the morning of February 24, Russia officially launched a « special military operation » against Ukraine, designed, as Russian President Vladimir Putin explained, to « demilitarize » and « denazify » the neighboring state. The goal of the operation is to protect the people of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), he said. The Ukrainian authorities subsequently severed diplomatic ties with Russia, urging its partners to create an « anti-Putin » coalition against the Russian troops entering Donbass and shelling military infrastructure facilities throughout the country. On the evening of February 24, the press service of the Ministry of Defense reported that DPR and LPR troops advanced 6-8 km from the front line with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the Russian armed forces completed all the tasks assigned for that day. Also, two Su-27 and two Su-24 aircraft, as well as one helicopter and four Bayraktar TB-2 UCAV belonging to Ukraine were shot down, and 83 ground military infrastructure facilities of Ukraine were incapacitated.

So far, the US, its satellites states and NATO are waging hysterical propaganda against Russia and Putin becoming in the West Putler(Putin = Hitler) The question of when the DPR and LPR will liberate their territories within the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as written in their Constitutions, remains open. In addition, Russia’s military operations should should change regime in Kiev and set up buffer zone including the entire left bank of Ukraine, as well as its Black Sea regions. Dnepr, Zaporozhye, Mariupol, Odessa, Ochakov, Nikolaev, Kherson, and other cities that have industrial and defense enterprises essential to the Russian Federation. If they are controlled by Moscow, this means that Russia has defeated the West and taken its Slavic partner out of the sphere of influence of the United States and NATO.

Catégories
Anti China Crusade Anti Russia Crusade Blog Geopolitics OIL WARS & CRISES

US NEW STRATEGY TO COUNTER CHINA AND RUSSIA

Geopbv

In 2018, the United States government has declassified its Indo-Pacific strategy initially set to be released to the public at the end of 2042. The strategy was initially devised throughout 2017, going on to be approved and enforced by President Donald Trump in 2018 shortly after the US National Defense Strategy was finalised. At its heart, the strategy highlights a deep concern with China’s rising influence in the Western and Central Pacific and plans to deal with an increasingly belligerent North Korea, while seeking to use its South-East Asian allies to contend with China and North Korea and to strengthen India to counter Chinese military power.

Countering China in the South China Sea

The strategists highlight China’s growing dominance in the Indo-Pacific and consider Beijing as is the United State’s primary adversary and strategic opponent in the area. While the document does not mention the South China sea dispute, it reflects a concern over China’s claims there and in other parts of the Western Pacific. The strategy to counter China aims to build US capabilities until they are “capable of, but not limited to” denying China control of the air and the sea in the “first island chain”, referring to a string of Pacific islands surrounding China that include Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. China claims most of these waters. Second, it emphasizes the strategy emphasizes the need to defend the first island chain, and dominate all areas outside it.

disputed zones in the South China Sea

A US Navy oceanographic survey

Since last September, a US Navy oceanographic survey ship has been conducting extensive activities in a large area of the South China Sea to collect underwater geographical and hydrological data to support its submarine warfare in the region against China.

This situation also drew attention from some military observers after a US nuclear-powered attack submarine struck an unidentified underwater object in the South China Sea earlier this month, which again highlighted the US Navy’s need to learn more about the region.

The USNS Mary Sears (T-AGS 65), a Pathfinder-class oceanographic survey ship, entered the South China Sea on September 26 and started extensive surveys. From October 1 to 4, the ship operated in waters south of China’s Hainan Island, from October 5 to 9, it approached the coastline of Vietnam, and by Sunday it had arrived in waters near the Nansha Islands. The Pathfinder-class oceanographic survey ship is specialized in the detection and surveying of underwater terrain, meteorology and hydrology.

The USNS Mary Sears (T-AGS 65)

While the ship seems to be conducting scientific research, its true mission is to support submarine and anti-submarine warfare, the USS Connecticut, a Seawolf-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, struck an underwater object in the South China sea on October 2.

the USS Connecticut, a Seawolf-class nuclear-

This accident means the sea map the submarine was using was outdated, and the US Navy was conducting scientific research to draw underrates maps with the mission to support submarine and anti submarine warfare and help navigate friendly submarines or place detection device to locate hostile submarines.

Countering China and Russia in the Middle East

President Joe Biden’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance Lt. Gen. Ronald Clark, who spoke at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference Oct. 12 emphasized the challenges of strategic competition with Russia and China to American interests, including nonmilitary events taking place across the Middle East. The major challenges to the command’s operations are China, Russia, Iran and “violent extremist organizations around the world,” he said. But the commander primarily cited Russia and China, which he said are making moves in the Middle East to “set conditions for future operations.” 

Both nations blur the lines between competition, crisis and conflict. While it falls short of actual conflict, Clark said these actions are a part of strategic competition and will shape future conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. “Events in one theater will spill over — undoubtedly — to another,” he said. “Bottom line: All of our competitors are setting conditions in the [command’s area of responsibility] right now that we need to respond to.”

Middle East map

For example, China engages in unrestricted warfare, which consciously expands the battlefield from traditional domains such as land, air and sea to social spaces, politics, culture and economics. An important piece of that in the Middle East is the Belt and Road Initiative, which consists of a number of economic investments by the Chinese government and Chinese-owned companies in foreign countries. “The Belt and Road Initiative touches virtually every country in [the command’s area of responsibility],” said Clark, pointing to a $300 billion investment by a Chinese-owned company into the port of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. China continues to import massive amounts of oil from the Middle East, helping Iran build a new export facility that will allow it to continue pumping oil past the Strait of Hormuz. 

Hormuz Strait

Meanwhile, Russia is practicing its own form of hybrid warfare using nonmilitary means to create an operational environment where a smaller military force can come in and achieve its objective, Clark said. For example, a 2017 deal allowed Russia to expand the Port of Tartus in Syria, and it can now hold up to 12 nuclear-powered ships or submarines, he added. “That now allows the Russians — if they want to — to project power into the Mediterranean and into Eastern Europe,” he said.

Syria’s Tartus port

The US Central command’s area of responsibility is vast. It includes 21 countries that make up more than 4 million square miles and are home to 550 million people in 22 ethnic groups speaking 20 different languages.

Oil locations in the Middle east

Importantly for American interests, he added, it’s also home to vast oil reserves. Nearly 30 percent of the petroleum and crude oil products from around the world flow through three chokepoints that fall under the command’s purview. Clark pointed to when the supercargo ship Ever Given recently clogged up the Suez Canal for days as an example of the importance of those chokepoints. That incident disrupted 12 percent of global trade with an estimated cost of $9 billion.

 

 

 

Translate »