Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+83
DerWolf
owais.usmani
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Podlodka77
Scorpius
nomadski
Arkanghelsk
Airbornewolf
TMA1
Sujoy
miketheterrible
kvs
lancelot
ALAMO
Krepost
RTN
mavaff
Arrow
elconquistador
Backman
mnztr
calripson
SeigSoloyvov
LMFS
Hole
par far
LaVictoireEstLaVie
Rodion_Romanovic
PhSt
jhelb
MiamiMachineShop
GunshipDemocracy
andalusia
George1
Vann7
starman
Svyatoslavich
JohninMK
Sochi_Olympic_Park
Hannibal Barca
eric1
ATLASCUB
Cowboy's daughter
BKP
Project Canada
Grazneyar
Solncepek
higurashihougi
Godric
Cyrus the great
Book.
PapaDragon
Walther von Oldenburg
andrewlya
max steel
victor1985
Werewolf
whir
franco
iamstevefaith
Kyo
ahmedfire
magnumcromagnon
SSDD
Regular
Corrosion
SOC
sepheronx
AlfaT8
Viktor
GarryB
TR1
Austin
milky_candy_sugar
Palestinian
Cyberspec
flamming_python
TheRealist
mike3121
Serbia Forever 2
nightcrawler
lulldapull
Russian Patriot
87 posters

    Russia - USA Relations

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Kiko Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:48 am

    Fact is mad, shithead Nancy wishes to handle and monopolise US foreign policy herself. See her intention on scrapping the "One China one policy" by insisting on a travel to Taiwan.
    Depending on how things evolve, Russia may be willing to take the initiative itself and anticipate the breaking of relations before the push to Central and Western Ukraine.

    Washington crosses the last frontier in relations between Russia and the United States, by Alena Zadorozhnaya, Daria Volkova and Tatiana Kosolapova for VZGLYAD. 21.07.2022.

    Speaker of the lower house of the US Congress Nancy Pelosi threatened to declare Russia a "country sponsor of terror." According to her, the congressmen will do it themselves, bypassing the State Department, which for some reason is delaying such an announcement, although Ukraine is asking for it. Is it really possible that this threat will come true, and what consequences could this have for Russia and the United States?

    Speaker of the House of Representatives of the US Congress Nancy Pelosi essentially issued an ultimatum to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken - according to her, Congress itself will add Russia to the list of countries sponsoring terrorism if the State Department does not do so. Politico reported this on Wednesday .

    According to the publication, Pelosi formulated the ultimatum during a telephone conversation with Blinken this week. Congressional legislation is a more difficult path than a one-man decision by the secretary of state, “but it will give the administration the political cover needed to increase economic pressure on Putin and toughen rhetoric against him,” an unnamed representative of the American parliament told Politico.

    The publication recalls that the current law gives the Secretary of State himself the right to blacklist certain countries, but legislators can take the initiative.

    To be clear, inclusion on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism means that the country in the eyes of the United States "repeatedly supports acts of international terrorism." Getting on the list means that Washington has the right to impose tough unilateral sanctions on the state - similar to those that apply against Iran.

    Sanctions may include restricting or banning the sale of weapons and dual-use goods, and according to some experts, the possible blacklisting of our country "will make all transactions with Russia almost impossible for American persons." But there is one more important detail - representatives of the blacklisted state are deprived of diplomatic immunity in the United States.

    The list currently includes four countries: North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Syria. In the past, it included Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and the now defunct South Yemen. The secretary of state can add or remove countries from the list - for example, in January last year, Mike Pompeo returned Cuba to it. There are no embassies of these states in Washington.

    “The resolutions adopted earlier in Congress committees calling on the Biden administration to recognize Russia as a sponsor of terrorism are only advisory in nature. But if Congress passes the document through all the "gears" of both chambers, then it can simply oblige the head of the State Department to blacklist Russia, ”explains Americanist Malek Dudakov in an interview with the VZGLYAD newspaper.

    Moscow has already stated that they assess the consequences of such a step “very negatively”. “Although, on the other hand, it is very difficult to do something that could further damage relations between Russia and America, they are already in an unenviable position,”   Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying. The representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, previously called the initiative "a measure of an idiotic nature." The diplomat warned that such a move would not go unanswered.

    Note that Blinken is by no means opposed to including Russia in the list. Pelosi only criticizes him for being indecisive. Back in April, the secretary of state said that Washington was  looking into  adding Russia to the list, and stressed: “There is no doubt that the Russians are terrorizing the Ukrainians.” And his spokesman, Ned Price, clarified that officials are continuing to examine whether Russia meets the listing criteria. In addition, the sanctions that Washington had already imposed against Moscow in early spring "are the same steps that will entail inclusion in the list of state sponsors," Price justified.

    In turn, Dmitry Labin, professor at the Department of International Law at MGIMO, believes that Moscow could theoretically reciprocate such an act by Washington, since there are also facts of support for terrorist groups by the United States authorities, both in history and today.

    “However, everyone should take into account the principles of international law. Such qualifications should only be given by the relevant international organizations. One state has no jurisdiction over another state," Labin concluded.

    Americanist Boris Mezhuev doubts that Pelosi's ultimatum will be implemented. “This will mean a break in diplomatic relations. The Russian ambassador in Washington will lose immunity, respectively, the US ambassador in Moscow will also lose diplomatic immunity in our country,” the expert says. “I think America is not ready for this at the moment. This is just some additional threat, which is most likely due to the fact that the Democrats, led by Mrs. Pelosi, are madly hoping for re-election in November, ”the specialist believes.

    Dudakov also does not believe that parliament will soon pass the document pushed by Pelosi and Graham. “There are many pressing issues before Congress, for example, the approval of new budgets, including the military one. This will be an important agenda until the beginning of October, and there are already elections to Congress. Questions of international relations will recede into the background, the Americanist believes. - I would consider such statements as informational noise. But behind him, of course, are Ukrainian lobbyists.”

    At the same time, not everyone in the White House and the State Department would like this, the expert added, they realize that this will be a very radical step. “They understand that the situation in Ukraine is not turning in favor of Kyiv. Sooner or later it will be necessary to start negotiations with Moscow. And if the United States recognizes us as a sponsor of terror, what kind of negotiations can we talk about?” the interlocutor asks rhetorically. “At the same time, this, of course, cannot be ruled out either. We see how the West over and over again pushes its red lines to some unthinkable borders,” Dudakov summed up.

    Thus, Pelosi is essentially threatening to jeopardize the entire diplomatic relationship between Russia and the United States. We are talking about the threat of the most radical step in bilateral relations, the crossing of the last line within the framework of diplomacy. If the congressmen nevertheless blacklist Russia, then our embassy and consulates in the United States will have to expect certain provocations, predicts Anatoly Kapustin, first deputy director of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the government, in the past, president of the Russian Association of International Law Anatoly Kapustin.

    “Attempts may be made to detain our diplomats,

    Yes, but only if there are good reasons. An arrest is hardly possible, this is already a scandal, a clear violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, - the lawyer emphasized. “National law cannot override international law, including within the United States itself.”

    In any case, our diplomats will have to be more vigilant and behave accordingly, not give rise to provocations. Our representatives may start to find fault, stop for traffic violations, and so on,” Kapustin warned.

    The interlocutor recalled that the first international diplomatic norms appeared three hundred years ago. “In 1708, during the reign of Peter the Great, Andrei Matveev, the Russian envoy to Holland, was arrested in London for non-payment of debts. In response, there were threats to use the Russian fleet. The British apologized - and then the first rules on diplomatic immunity were adopted in the kingdom. Since then, these norms have only been strengthened. It never occurs to anyone to cancel them,” Kapustin said.

    https://vz.ru/world/2022/7/21/1168787.html
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:59 am

    If the US wants to recognise Russia as a supporter of terrorism... ironic considering their own support of Al quada and ISIS and the Kurds in Syria, but Russia should simply respond by closing diplomatic relations with them completely until they are prepared to be rational.

    This would mean they will obviously try to exclude Russia from the UN as it is based in the US, which of course means the Russians would probably have to denounce the UN and all ties with that organisation too which would be a huge can of worms but there are probably a lot of clever things they could do instead that would damage the US more than it damages Russia.

    Uranium and oil and gas sales to the US could cease immediately measures need to be abrupt so there is no time to adapt and prepare their economy for the hit it will take... pile on as many problems at once to maximise the effect.

    flamming_python, Werewolf, Hole, Broski and Urluber like this post

    franco
    franco


    Posts : 6703
    Points : 6729
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  franco Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:42 pm

    US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan has left his post

    US Ambassador John Sullivan has completed his work as Ambassador to Russia and left Moscow today. This was announced on Sunday, September 4, according to the website of the American diplomatic mission.

    According to the US Embassy, after leaving, Sullivan will end a forty-year career in public service, during which he served under five US presidents, including the post of Deputy Secretary of State, senior positions in the US Departments of Justice, Defense and Commerce.

    It is stated that Washington is preparing a rotation for the post of ambassador to Moscow and there is no question of any lowering of the level of the US diplomatic mission in Russia.

    Elizabeth Rood will serve as Charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow until her successor arrives.

    Ambassador Sullivan was appointed to Russia in December 2019 and served in this position for almost three years.

    Earlier, on September 1, the EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer left his post. He said that he leaves this position with a calm soul, having done everything he could.

    https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.0877918b-6314b7e2-24e3bb9b-74722d776562/https/iz.ru/1390189/2022-09-04/posol-ssha-dzhon-sallivan-pokinul-svoi-post?main_click
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10632
    Points : 10610
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Hole Sun Sep 04, 2022 7:55 pm

    Earlier, on September 1, the EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer left his post. He said that he leaves this position with a calm soul, having done everything he could.
    If he believes this he is a really dumb man.

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2684
    Points : 2682
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  lancelot Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:19 am

    So will both governments pick new ambassadors? Will the US wait until the midterms to select someone?
    flamming_python
    flamming_python


    Posts : 8988
    Points : 9050
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  flamming_python Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:46 am

    Hole wrote:
    Earlier, on September 1, the EU Ambassador to Russia Markus Ederer left his post. He said that he leaves this position with a calm soul, having done everything he could.
    If he believes this he is a really dumb man.

    No just another self-indulgent self-worshipper like the rest of the EU elite

    He tried to get those russkie barbarians to see the error of their own ways and their own backwardness but they wouldn't listen and there's only so much 1 man can do, he has no choice but to admit.

    GarryB, franco, kvs, Hole, Kiko and TMA1 like this post

    avatar
    andalusia


    Posts : 728
    Points : 790
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  andalusia Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:42 am

    What do you guys think of this article by Paul Craig Roberts?

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-kremlins-limited-military-operation-in-ukraine-was-a-strategic-blunder/
    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 1121
    Points : 1119
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  TMA1 Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:29 am

    Eh, there is some alright analysis but imo there are fundamental flaws predicated upon certain preconceived notions he has. As a result it colors all of his reasonings and as a result he misses the mark frequently in that article.

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10632
    Points : 10610
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Hole Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:36 am

    Typical american BS. The destroy everything/kill anyone approach dind´t help them in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...

    GarryB, kvs and Broski like this post

    JohninMK
    JohninMK


    Posts : 14628
    Points : 14763
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  JohninMK Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:23 pm

    Parking this somewhere safe. Sorry its a bit dense but there is a large amount of very valuable and hard to unpeel information in it.


    The Hidden Truth about the War in Ukraine
    August 1, 2022 Jacques Baud
    
    The cultural and historical elements that determine the relations between Russia and Ukraine are important. The two countries have a long, rich, diverse, and eventful history together.
    This would be essential if the crisis we are experiencing today were rooted in history. However, it is a product of the present. The war we see today does not come from our great-grandparents, our grandparents or even our parents. It comes from us. We created this crisis. We created every piece and every mechanism. We have only exploited existing dynamics and exploited Ukraine to satisfy an old dream: to try to bring down Russia. Chrystia Freeland’s, Antony Blinken’s, Victoria Nuland’s and Olaf Scholz’s grandfathers had that dream; we realized it.
    The way we understand crises determines the way we solve them. Cheating with the facts leads to disaster. This is what is happening in Ukraine. In this case the number of issues is so enormous that we will not be able to discuss them here. Let me just focus on some of them.

    Did James Baker make Promises to Limit Eastward Expansion of NATO to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990?
    In 2021, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that “there was never a promise that NATO would not expand eastward after the fall of the Berlin Wall.” This claim remains widespread among self-proclaimed experts on Russia, who explain that there were no promises because there was no treaty or written agreement. This argument is a bit simplistic and false.
    It is true that there are no treaties or decisions of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) that embody such promises. But this does not mean that they have not been formulated, nor that they were formulated out of casualness!
    Today we have the feeling that having “lost the Cold War,” the USSR had no say in the European security developments. This is not true. As a winner of the Second World War, the USSR had a de jure a veto right over German reunification. In other words, Western countries had to obtain its agreement, in exchange for which Gorbachev demanded a commitment to the non-expansion of NATO. It should not be forgotten that in 1990 the USSR still existed, and there was no yet question to dismantle it, as the referendum of March 1991 would show. The Soviet Union was therefore not in a weak position and could prevent the reunification.
    This was confirmed by Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, in Tutzing (Bavaria) on 31 January 1990, as reported in a cable from the U.S. embassy in Bonn:
    Genscher warned, however, that any attempt to expand [NATO’s] military reach into the territory of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) would block German reunification.
    German reunification had two major consequences for the USSR: the withdrawal of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG), the most powerful and modern contingent outside its territory, and the disappearance of a significant part of its protective “glacis.” In other words, any move would be at the expense of its security. This is why Genscher stated:
    …The changes in Eastern Europe and the process of German unification should not “undermine Soviet security interests.” Therefore, NATO should exclude an “expansion of its territory to the East, i.e. to get closer to the Soviet borders.”
    At this stage, the Warsaw Pact was still in force and the NATO doctrine was unchanged. Therefore Mikhail Gorbachev expressed very soon his legitimate concerns for USSR national security. This is what prompted James Baker, the American Secretary of State, to immediately begin discussions with him. On 9 February 1990, in order to appease Gorbachev’s concerns, Baker declared:
    Not only for the Soviet Union but also for other European countries, it is important to have guarantees that if the United States maintains its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not one inch of NATO’s current military jurisdiction will spread eastward.
    Promises were thus made simply because the West had no alternative, to obtain the USSR’s approval; and without promises Germany would not have been reunified. Gorbachev accepted German reunification only because he had received assurances from President George H.W. Bush and James Baker, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, her successor John Major and their Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, President François Mitterrand, but also from CIA Director Robert Gates and Manfred Wörner, then Secretary General of NATO.
    Thus, on 17 May 1990, in a speech in Brussels, Manfred Wörner, NATO Secretary-Geenral, declared:
    The fact that we are prepared not to deploy a NATO army beyond German territory gives the Soviet Union a solid guarantee of security.
    In February 2022, in the German magazine Der Spiegel, Joshua Shifrinson, an American political analyst, revealed a declassified SECRET document of March 6, 1991, written after a meeting of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany. It reports the words of the German representative, Jürgen Chrobog:
    We made it clear in the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. Therefore, we cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others.
    The representatives of the other countries also accepted the idea of not offering NATO membership to the other Eastern European countries.
    So, written record or not, there was a “deal,” simply because a “deal” was inevitable. Now, in international law, a “promise” is a valid unilateral act that must be respected (“promissio est servanda“). Those who deny this today are simply individuals who do not know the value of a given word.

    Did Vladimir Putin disregard the Budapest Memorandum (1994)
    In February 2022, at the Munich Security Forum, Volodymyr Zelensky referred to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and threatened to become a nuclear power again. However, it is unlikely that Ukraine will become a nuclear power again, nor will the nuclear powers allow it to do so. Zelensky and Putin know this. In Fact, Zelensky is not using this memorandum to get nuclear weapons, but to get Crimea back, since the Ukrainians see Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a violation of this treaty. Basically, Zelensky is trying to hold Western countries hostage. To understand that we must go back to events and facts that are opportunistically “forgotten” by our historians.
    On 20 January 1991, before the independence of Ukraine, the Crimeans were invited to choose by referendum between two options: to remain with Kiev or to return to the pre-1954 situation and be administered by Moscow. The question asked on the ballot was:
    Are you in favor of the restoration of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Crimea as a subject of the Soviet Union and a member of the Union Treaty?
    This was the first referendum on autonomy in the USSR, and 93.6% of Crimeans agreed to be attached to Moscow. The Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Crimea (ASSR Crimea), abolished in 1945, was thus re-established on 12 February 1991 by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR. On 17 March, Moscow organized a referendum for the maintenance of the Soviet Union, which would be accepted by Ukraine, thus indirectly validating the decision of the Crimeans. At this stage, Crimea was under the control of Moscow and not Kiev, while Ukraine was not yet independent. As Ukraine organized its own referendum for independence, the participation of the Crimeans remained weak, because they did not feel concerned anymore.
    Ukraine became independent six months after Crimea, and after the latter had proclaimed its sovereignty on September 4. On February 26, 1992, the Crimean parliament proclaimed the “Republic of Crimea” with the agreement of the Ukrainian government, which granted it the status of a self-governing republic. On 5 May 1992, Crimea declared its independence and adopted a Constitution. The city of Sevastopol, managed directly by Moscow in the communist system, had a similar situation, having been integrated by Ukraine in 1991, outside of all legality. The following years were marked by a tug of war between Simferopol and Kiev, which wanted to keep Crimea under its control.
    In 1994, by signing the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons of the former USSR that remained on its territory, in exchange for “its security, independence and territorial integrity.” At this stage, Crimea considered that it was—de jure—no longer part of Ukraine and therefore not concerned by this treaty. On its side, the government in Kiev felt strengthened by the memorandum. This is why, on 17 March 1995, it forcibly abolished the Crimean Constitution. It sent its special forces to overthrow Yuri Mechkov, President of Crimea, and de facto annexed the Republic of Crimea, thus triggering popular demonstrations for the attachment of Crimea to Russia. An event hardly reported by the Western media.
    Crimea was then governed in an authoritarian manner by presidential decrees from Kiev. This situation led the Crimean Parliament to formulate a new constitution in October 1995, which re-established the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. This new constitution was ratified by the Crimean Parliament on 21 October 1998 and confirmed by the Ukrainian Parliament on 23 December 1998. These events and the concerns of the Russian-speaking minority led to a Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia on 31 May 1997. In the treaty, Ukraine included the principle of the inviolability of borders, in exchange—and this is very important—for a guarantee of “the protection of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious originality of the national minorities on their territory.”
    On 23 February 2014, not only did the new authorities in Kiev emerge from a coup d’état that had definitely no constitutional basis and were not elected; but, by abrogating the 2012 Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law on official languages, they no longer respected this guarantee of the 1997 treaty. The Crimeans therefore took to the streets to demand the “return” to Russia that they had obtained 30 years earlier.
    On March 4, during his press conference on the situation in Ukraine a journalist asked Vladimir Putin, “How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility that it joins Russia?” he replied:
    No, we do not consider it. In general, I believe that only the residents of a given country who are free to decide and safe can and should determine their future. If this right has been granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this has been made possible in many parts of the world, then no one is excluding the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is laid down in several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke such a decision and will not feed such feelings.
    On March 6, the Crimean Parliament decided to hold a popular referendum to choose between remaining in Ukraine or requesting the attachment to Moscow. It was after this vote that the Crimean authorities asked Moscow for an attachment to Russia.
    With this referendum, Crimea had only recovered the status it had legally acquired just before the independence of Ukraine. This explains why it renewed its request to be attached to Moscow, as in January 1991.
    Moreover, the status of force agreement (SOFA) between Ukraine and Russia for the stationing of troops in Crimea and Sevastopol had been renewed in 2010 and to run until 2042. Russia therefore had no specific reason to claim this territory. The population of Crimea, which legitimately felt betrayed by the government of Kiev, seized the opportunity to assert its rights.
    On 19 February 2022, Anka Feldhusen, the German ambassador in Kiev, threw a spanner in the works by declaring on the television channel Ukraine 24 that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding. Incidentally, this is also the American position, as shown by the statement on the website of the American embassy in Minsk.
    The whole Western narrative about the “annexation” of Crimea is based on a rewriting of history and the obscuring of the 1991 referendum, which did exist and was perfectly valid. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum remains extensively quoted since February 2022, but the Western narrative simply ignores the 1997 Friendship Treaty which is the reason for the discontent of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens.

    Is the Ukrainian Government Legitimate?
    The Russians still see the regime change that occurred in 2014 as illegitimate, as it was not done through constitutional process and without any support from a large part of the Ukrainian population.
    The Maidan revolution can be broken down into several sequences, with different actors. Today, those who are driven by hatred of Russia are trying to merge these different sequences into one single “democratic impulse”: A way to validate the crimes committed by Ukraine and its neo-Nazis zealots.
    At first, the population of Kiev, disappointed by the government’s decision to postpone the signing of the treaty with the EU, gathered in the streets. Regime change was not in the air. This was a simple expression of discontent.
    Contrary to what the West claims, Ukraine was then deeply divided on the issue of rapprochement with Europe. A survey conducted in November 2013 by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) shows that it was split almost exactly “50/50” between those who favored an agreement with the European Union and those favoring a customs union with Russia. In the south and east of Ukraine, industry was strongly linked to Russia, and workers feared that an agreement excluding Russia would kill their jobs. That is what would eventually happen. In fact, at this stage, the aim was already to try to isolate Russia.
    In the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor, noted that the European Union “helped turn a negotiation into a crisis.”
    What happened later involved ultranationalist and neo-Nazis groups coming from the Western part of the country. Violence erupted and the government withdrew, after signing an agreement with the rioters for new elections. But this was quickly forgotten.
    It was nothing less than a coup d’état, led by the United States with the support of the European Union, and carried out without any legal basis, against a government whose election had been qualified by the OSCE as “transparent and honest” and having “offered an impressive demonstration of democracy.” In December 2014, George Friedman, president of the American geopolitical intelligence platform STRATFOR, said in an interview:
    Russia defines the event that took place at the beginning of this year [in February 2014] as a coup organized by the US. And as a matter of fact, it was the most blatant [coup] in history.
    Unlike European observers, the Atlantic Council, despite being strongly in favor of NATO, was quick to note that the Maidan revolution had been hijacked by certain oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. It noted that the reforms promised by Ukraine had not been carried out and that the Western media stuck to an acritical “black and white” narrative.
    A telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Kiev, revealed by the BBC, shows that the Americans themselves selected the members of the future Ukrainian government, in defiance of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. This conversation, which became famous thanks to Nuland’s famous “F*** the EU!”
    The coup d’état was not unanimously supported by the Ukrainian people, either in substance or in form. It was the work of a minority of ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine (Galicia), who did not represent the whole Ukrainian people. Their first legislative act, on 23 February 2014, was to abrogate the 2012 Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law, which established the Russian language as an official language along with Ukrainian. This is what prompted the Russian-speaking population to start massive protests in the southern part of the country, against authorities they had not elected.
    In July 2019, the International Crisis Group (funded by several European countries and the Open Society Foundation), noted:
    The conflict in eastern Ukraine began as a popular movement. […]
    The protests were organized by local citizens claiming to represent the Russian-speaking majority in the region. They were concerned both about the political and economic consequences of the new government in Kiev and about that government’s later abandoned measures to prevent the official use of the Russian language throughout the country [“Rebels without a Cause: Russia’s Proxies in Eastern Ukraine,” International Crisis Group, Europe Report N° 254, 16 juillet 2019, p. 2].
    Western efforts to legitimate this far-right coup in Kiev led to hide the opposition in the southern part of the country. In order to present this revolution as democratic, the real “hand of the West” was cleverly masked by the imaginary “hand of Russia.” This is how the myth of a Russian military intervention was created. Allegations about a Russian military presence were definitely false, an event the chief of the Ukrainian Security service (SBU) confessed in 2015 that there were no Russian units in Donbass.
    To make things worse, Ukraine didn’t gain legitimacy through the way it handled the rebellion. In 2014-2015, poorly advised by NATO military, Ukraine waged a war that could only lead to its defeat: it considered the populations of Donbass and Crimea as enemy foreign forces and made no attempt to win the “hearts and minds” of the autonomists. Instead, its strategy has been to punish the people even further. Bank services were stopped, economic relations with the autonomous regions were simply cut, and Crimea didn’t receive drinking water anymore.
    This is why there are so many civilian victims in the Donbass, and why the Russian population still stands in majority behind its government today. The 14,000 victims of the conflict tend to be attributed to the “Russian invaders” and the so-called “separatists.” However, according to the United Nations—more than 80% of civilian casualties are the result of Ukrainian shelling. As we can see, the Ukrainian government is massacring its own people with the help, funding and advice of the military of NATO, the countries of the European Union, which defends its values.
    In May 2014, the violent repression of protests prompted the population of some areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine to hold referendums for Self-Determination in the Donetsk People’s Republic (approved by 89%) and in the Lugansk People’s Republic (approved by 96%). Although Western media keeps calling them referendums of “independence,” they are referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). Until February 2022, our media consistently talked about “separatists” and “separatist republics.” In reality, as stated in the Minsk Agreement, these self-proclaimed republics didn’t seek “independence,” but an “autonomy” within Ukraine, with the ability to use their own language and their own customs.

    Is NATO a defensive alliance?
    NATO’s rationale is to bring European Allies under the US nuclear umbrella. It was designed as a defensive alliance, although recently declassified US documents show that the Soviets had apparently no intention to attack the West.
    For the Russians, the question about whether NATO is offensive or defensive is beside the point. To understand Putin’s point of view, we have to consider two things that are usually overlooked by Western commentators: the enlargement of NATO towards the East, and the incremental abandonment of the international security’s normative framework by the US.
    In fact, as long as the US didn’t deploy missiles in the vicinity of its borders, Russia didn’t bother so much about NATO extension. Russia itself considered to apply for membership. But problems stated to appear in 2001, as George W. Bush decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to deploy anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) in Eastern Europe. The ABM Treaty was intended to limit the use of defensive missiles, with the rationale of maintaining the deterrent effect of a mutual destruction by allowing the protection of decision-making bodies by a ballistic shield (in order to preserve a negotiating capacity). Thus, it limited the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles to certain specific zones (notably around Washington DC and Moscow) and prohibited it outside national territories.
    Since then, the United States has progressively withdrawn from all the arms control agreements established during the Cold War: the ABM Treaty (2002), the Open Skies Treaty (2018) and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (2019).
    In 2019, Donald Trump justified his withdrawal from the INF Treaty by alleged violations by the Russian side. But, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) notes, the Americans never provided proof of these violations. In fact, the US was simply trying to get out of the agreement in order to install their AEGIS missile systems in Poland and Romania. According to the US administration, these systems are officially intended to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles. But there are two problems that clearly cast doubt on the good faith of the Americans:

    The first one is that there is no indication that the Iranians are developing such missiles, as Michael Ellemann of Lockheed-Martin stated before a committee of the American Senate.
    The second one is that these systems use Mk41 launchers, which can be used to launch either anti-ballistic missiles or nuclear missiles. The Radzikowo site, in Poland, is 800 km from the Russian border and 1,300 km from Moscow.

    The Bush and Trump administrations said that the systems deployed in Europe were purely defensive. However, even if theoretically true, it is technically and strategically false. For the doubt, which allowed them to be installed, is the same doubt that the Russians could legitimately have in the event of a conflict. This presence in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s national territory can indeed lead to a nuclear conflict. For in the event of a conflict, it would not be possible to know precisely the nature of the missiles loaded in the systems—should the Russians therefore wait for explosions before reacting? In fact, we know the answer: having no early-warning time, the Russians would have practically no time to determine the nature of a fired missile and would thus be forced to respond pre-emptively with a nuclear strike.
    Not only does Vladimir Putin see this as a risk to Russia’s security, but he also notes that the United States is increasingly disregarding international law in order to pursue a unilateral policy. This is why Vladimir Putin says that European countries could be dragged into a nuclear conflict without wanting to. This was the substance of his speech in Munich in 2007, and he came with the same argument early 2022, as Emmanuel Macron went to Moscow in February.

    Finland and Sweden in NATO—A Good Idea?
    The future will tell if Sweden’s and Finland’s decision to apply for NATO membership was a wise idea. They probably overstated the value of the nuclear protection offered by NATO. As a matter of fact, it is very unlikely that the US will sacrifice its national soil by striking Russian soil for the sake of Sweden or Finland. It is more likely that if the US engages nuclear weapons, it will be primarily on European soil and only as a last resort on Russian territory, in order to preserve its own territory from nuclear counter-strike.
    Further, these two countries, which met the criteria of neutrality that Russia would want for its direct neighbors, deliberately put themselves in Russia’s nuclear crosshairs. For Russia, the main threat comes from the Central European theater of war. In other words, in the event of a hypothetical conflict in Europe, Russian forces would be engaged primarily in Central Europe, and could use their theater nuclear armies to “flank” their operations by striking the Nordic countries, with virtually no risk of a U.S. nuclear response.

    Was it Impossible to Leave the Warsaw Pact?
    The Warsaw Pact was created just after Germany joined NATO, for exactly the same reasons we have described above. Its largest military engagement was the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 (with the participation of all Pact nations, except Albania and Romania). This event resulted in Albania withdrawing from the Pact less than a month later, and Romania ceasing to participate actively in the military command of the Warsaw Pact after 1969. Therefore, asserting that no one was free to leave the treaty is not correct.

    Jacques Baud is a widely respected geopolitical expert whose publications include many articles and books, including Poutine: Maître du jeu? Gouverner avec les fake news, and L’Affaire Navalny.
    https://archive.ph/jkYC0#selection-199.0-707.1
    https://www.thepostil.com/the-hidden-truth-about-the-war-in-ukraine/

    GarryB, markgreven, kvs and Hole like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Kiko Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:45 pm

    Biden did not rule out the possibility of meeting with Putin at the APEC or G20 summits, 10.06.2022.

    US President Joe Biden did not rule out the possibility of meeting with Russian state leader Vladimir Putin at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or G20 summits.


    According to RIA Novosti, answering a question about the possibility of such a meeting, Biden replied: "We'll see."

    The G20 summit is scheduled for November 15-16, the event will be held on the Indonesian island of Bali. The Kremlin noted that the format of Russia's participation in the summit will be determined immediately before the trip .

    Putin's aide Yuri Ushakov said that the schedule of foreign policy contacts of the Russian leader in the autumn will be intensive : the G20 summit on November 15-16 in Indonesia, APEC on November 18 in Thailand.

    https://russian.rt.com/world/news/1057902-baiden-putin-vstrecha
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:06 am

    Really don't think Putin will have much to say to the old codger... or what the point of any discussion would be.

    kvs and Hole like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15093
    Points : 15230
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  kvs Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:15 pm



    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Kiko Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:04 pm

    'My kingdom for a horse' (Shakespeare's Richard III):

    A Panicked Empire Tries to Make Russia an 'offer It Can’t Refuse', by Pepe Escobar for The Cradle. 01.30.2023.

    Those behind the Throne are never more dangerous than when they have their backs against the wall.

    Their power is slipping away, fast: Militarily, via NATO’s progressive humiliation in Ukraine; Financially, sooner rather than later, most of the Global South will want nothing to do with the currency of a bankrupt rogue giant; Politically, the global majority is taking decisive steps to stop obeying a rapacious, discredited, de facto minority.

    So now those behind the Throne are plotting to at least try to stall the incoming disaster on the military front.

    As confirmed by a high-level US establishment source, a new directive on NATO vs. Russia in Ukraine was relayed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Blinken, in terms of actual power, is nothing but a messenger boy for the Straussian neocons and neoliberals who actually run US foreign policy.

    The secretary of state was instructed to relay the new directive – a sort of message to the Kremlin – via mainstream print media, which was promptly published by the Washington Post.

    In the elite US mainstream media division of labor, the New York Times is very close to the State Department. and the Washington Post to the CIA. In this case though the directive was too important, and needed to be relayed by the paper of record in the imperial capital. It was published as an Op-Ed (behind paywall).

    The novelty here is that for the first time since the start of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the Americans are actually proposing a variation of the “offer you can’t refuse” classic, including some concessions which may satisfy Russia’s security imperatives.

    Crucially, the US offer totally bypasses Kiev, once again certifying that this is a war against Russia conducted by Empire and its NATO minions – with the Ukrainians as mere expandable proxies.

    'Please don’t go on the offensive’

    The Washington Post’s old school Moscow-based correspondent John Helmer has provided an important service, offering the full text of Blinken’s offer, of course extensively edited to include fantasist notions such as “US weapons help pulverize Putin’s invasion force” and a cringe-worthy explanation: “In other words, Russia should not be ready to rest, regroup and attack.”

    The message from Washington may, at first glance, give the impression that the US would admit Russian control over Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson – “the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia” – as a fait accompli.

    Ukraine would have a demilitarized status, and the deployment of HIMARS missiles and Leopard and Abrams tanks would be confined to western Ukraine, kept as a “deterrent against further Russian attacks.”

    What may have been offered, in quite hazy terms, is in fact a partition of Ukraine, demilitarized zone included, in exchange for the Russian General Staff cancelling its yet-unknown 2023 offensive, which may be as devastating as cutting off Kiev’s access to the Black Sea and/or cutting off the supply of NATO weapons across the Polish border.

    The US offer defines itself as the path towards a “just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Well, not really. It just won’t be a rump Ukraine, and Kiev might even retain those western lands that Poland is dying to gobble up.

    The possibility of a direct Washington-Moscow deal on “an eventual postwar military balance” is also evoked, including no Ukraine membership of NATO. As for Ukraine itself, the Americans seem to believe it will be a “strong, non-corrupt economy with membership in the European Union.”

    Whatever remains of value in Ukraine has already been swallowed not only by its monumentally corrupt oligarchy, but most of all, investors and speculators of the BlackRock variety. Assorted corporate vultures simply cannot afford to lose Ukraine’s grain export ports, as well as the trade deal terms agreed with the EU before the war. And they’re terrified that the Russian offensive may capture Odessa, the major seaport and transportation hub on the Black Sea – which would leave Ukraine landlocked.

    There’s no evidence whatsoever that Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the entire Russian Security Council – including its Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev – have reason to believe anything coming from the US establishment, especially via mere minions such as Blinken and the Washington Post. After all the stavka – a moniker for the high command of the Russian armed forces – regard the Americans as “non-agreement capable,” even when an offer is in writing.

    This walks and talks like a desperate US gambit to stall and present some carrots to Moscow in the hope of delaying or even cancelling the planned offensive of the next few months.

    Even old school, dissident Washington operatives – not beholden to the Straussian neocon galaxy – bet that the gambit will be a nothing burger: in classic “strategic ambiguity” mode, the Russians will continue on their stated drive of demilitarization, denazification and de-electrification, and will “stop” anytime and anywhere they see fit east of the Dnieper. Or beyond.

    What the Deep State really wants

    Washington’s ambitions in this essentially NATO vs. Russia war go well beyond Ukraine. And we’re not even talking about preventing a Russia-China-Germany Eurasian union or a peer competitor nightmare; let’s stick with prosaic issues on the Ukrainian battleground.

    The key “recommendations” – military, economic, political, diplomatic – were detailed in an Atlantic Council strategy paper late last year.

    And in another one, under “War scenario 1: The war continues in its current tempo,” we find the Straussian neocon policy fully spelled out.

    It’s all here: from “marshaling support and military-assistance transfers to Kyiv sufficient to enable it to win” to “increase the lethality of military assistance transferred to include fighter aircraft that would enable Ukraine to control its airspace and attack Russian forces therein; and missile technology with range sufficient to reach into Russian territory.”

    From training the Ukrainian military “to use Western weapons, electronic warfare, and offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, and to seamlessly integrate new recruits in the service” to buttressing “defenses on the front lines, near the Donbass region,” including “combat training focusing on irregular warfare.”

    Added to “imposing secondary sanctions on all entities doing business with the Kremlin,” we reach of course the Mother of All Plunders: “Confiscate the $300 billion that the Russian state holds in overseas accounts in the United States and EU and use seized monies to fund reconstruction.”

    The reorganization of the SMO, with Putin, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, and General Armageddon in their new, enhanced roles is derailing all these elaborate plans.

    The Straussians are now in deep panic. Even Blinken’s number two, Russophobic warmonger Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, has admitted to the US Senate there will be no Abrams tanks on the battlefield before Spring (realistically, only in 2024). She also promised to “ease sanctions” if Moscow “returns to negotiations.” Those negotiations were scotched by the Americans themselves in Istanbul in the Spring of 2022.

    Nuland also called the Russians to “withdraw their troops.” Well, that at least offers some comic relief compared with the panic oozing from Blinken’s “offer you can’t refuse.” Stay tuned for Russia’s non-response response.

    https://www.unz.com/pescobar/a-panicked-empire-tries-to-make-russia-an-offer-it-cant-refuse/

    GarryB, franco, markgreven, flamming_python, kvs, zepia and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:23 am

    So before this part of the conflict started (the conflict started in 2014 with the coup of course, but I am referring to the Russian entry into this conflict) HATO had obviously decided that although they don't give a shit about the Ukrainian people on either side of this little civil war conflict between Ukrainians under their thumb and Ukrainians who just want to speak Russian and trade with Russia, they wanted the resources that are there... Titanium and Lithium and many other rare earth minerals and resources... not to mention those black fertile areas of farmland.

    Their first plan was for Kiev to attack the Donbass in force with HATO equipment support and HATO advisors to lead the way, but Russia got wind of what they were doing and attacked first... they were no doubt hoping that Russia would not interfere the way they had not interfered in that slow burning conflict up until that point despite Kiev claiming they were fighting an invading Russian force.

    Well now they had an invading Russian force and of course it blew them away, HATO still wanted those resources but didn't much care about Ukrainians on either side... this was a chance to arm one side and damage the other... the other being Russia... the intent to create a second Afghanistan invasion situation where guerilla warfare tied down and paralyses a weak conscript army that dies a death of 1,000 cuts and then HATO can dictate terms for them to leave and they can take back Crimea.

    Ironically it is the west that is suffering... HATO thought the combination of a peer enemy with relatively modern equipment and HATO training and of course super sanctions on Russia would collapse its economy and Putin would be overthrown and Russian troops would not just withdraw from Ukraine and Crimea but stand and watch as western organisations NGOS enter Russia and do what they did in the 1990s... but with a lot more to asset strip and technology to steal.

    Well it turns out it is the west that is blinking and the Russian Army is doing a good job... HATO never thought they would need to send more than the Stingers and the Javelins and the NLAWS, but then they had to escalate with Warsaw Pact equipment... which was actually a bonus because too many of their new HATO members clung on to their Soviet era stuff because western stuff is too expensive... well they wont have any choice now, so that was rather encouraged by the US, and now it is extending to Cold War era HATO stuff that the US wants to replace with new US stuff... for a price of course the logistics costs are going to really hit hard... but ignore that for the moment... even now with Challenger II tanks promised to Kiev Britain is already demanding that they are not used in places where they might be captured... so the above article talking about the new tanks in the far west of the country rings true... which would make them useless except to counter any attempt to cut off the Polish border.

    I hope that Russia realises that there can be no agreements with the west because they simply cannot be trusted.

    Ironically I think US fears of a Russia Germany China alliance are unfounded... when Germany said yes to Leopards I suspect the Russians realised the Germans want to kill Russians just like the Americans do... what agreements can Russia have with such people... I suspect as gas supplies to Asia increase the gas supplies to Europe will diminish and then end... no matter how much money they offer... Russia is done with the west.

    flamming_python, kvs, Hole, Kiko and Broski like this post

    Begome
    Begome


    Posts : 158
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Begome Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:50 am

    https://rutube.ru/video/84212046d3d7fdabe9b149ea6abdd3eb/

    Vovan and Lexus prank on John Bolton, where they pretend to be Poroshenko; in it, Bolton basically approves of terrorism like the assassination of Daria Dugina.

    Keep in mind that Bolton apparently plans to run for president in 2024 thinking that Trump won't make it and Biden is too senile to be allowed to run again (quite possible).

    If WW3 doesn't start before then and this guy actually wins...well...repent, repent, the End is nigh! thumbsup

    GarryB, Hole and TMA1 like this post

    Godric
    Godric


    Posts : 800
    Points : 826
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Godric Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:12 pm

    Russian Diplomats are being harassed by the US via the FBI








    personally speaking the best solution is the dissolution of New York's UN building during a session and reconvening in Geneva (where there is loads of UN buildings capable of hosting the UN) or move it to Singapore after a 3 week period and keep all further UN business in either Geneva or Singapore or both countries in future, as America constantly interferes in UN diplomats by interfering, harassing or blocking entry into the US for UN diplomats, thus breaking the UN charter

    GarryB and Firebird like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:41 am

    They don't do anything of importance anyway... why not just have a Zoom UN and all those delegates can save their countries millions of dollars and just stay at home and all talk online.

    The whole exercise is a money pit and ego trip for most of them being ex politicians and nobodies who don't know what diplomacy is any more.

    Listen to any western leader talking about an upcoming meeting with Russia or China or Iran and they talk about gathering levers so they can "negotiate" from a position of strength because obviously you can't talk to them and find out what they want and work out some way both sides can have what they need and some of what they want.

    Diplomacy is now just a word in the west which no longer means what it used to mean.

    I mean... China managed to talk Saudi Arabia and Iran to get back to normal relations... Russia managed to talk to Israel and Turkey and Iran and get a more stable situation in Syria...

    Will be an interesting test for the UN rules and regulations because the US is clearly breaking those rules so lets see what the UN plans to do about it... either the US is going to have to back off or the UN will start getting direct threats from the US... either way it is pretty clear the US are children who should be sent to their room and not allowed to go to their own birthday party...
    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Kiko Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:28 pm

    Hersh announced the risk of conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation due to American intelligence, 09.13.2023.

    Hersh: problems in the US intelligence community could lead the country into conflict with Russia.

    The administration of US President Joe Biden is ignoring individual intelligence reports that relate to Ukraine due to the unfavorable information they contain. American journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh reported this on September 13.

    The journalist added that problems in intelligence work could lead to conflict with Russia.

    “If left unchecked, [it] could lead a short-sighted White House into an extended war with Russia that no one wants,” Hersh wrote.

    The journalist pointed out that "much of the CIA's ongoing reporting on Ukraine's failed offensive has been ignored by [US Secretary of State Antony] Blinken and other foreign policy officials in the Biden administration."

    He called it a common reality that post-9/11 presidents have not hesitated to manipulate and lie about even the most competent intelligence reports if they don't fit into their political agenda. According to him, one of the senior intelligence officials told him that the reports of the Pentagon Intelligence Agency were ignored for the sake of political expediency 10 years ago, as they are now.

    At the same time, Hersh notes that last week US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that he was confident in the ultimate success of Ukraine’s counter-offensive. The journalist suggests that the reason for such a statement could be the “insanely optimistic” assessments of the Pentagon intelligence department.

    Earlier, on May 17, Hersh already stated that Biden was receiving incomplete intelligence about the conflict in Ukraine . In particular, according to journalists, according to secret Pentagon documents leaked online, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, secretly from the White House, insisted on a missile strike on Russia.

    At the same time, on August 17, a former State Department employee, retired US Marine Corps officer Matthew Ho said that American intelligence often provides erroneous intelligence that is easy to manipulate in accordance with the political agenda. At the same time, information in documents often differs.

    The special operation to protect Donbass , the start of which was announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 24, 2022, continues. The decision to hold it was made against the backdrop of an aggravation of the situation in the region due to shelling by the Ukrainian military.

    https://iz.ru/1573633/2023-09-13/khersh-zaiavil-o-riske-konflikta-ssha-c-rf-iz-za-amerikanskoi-razvedki

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty The US made a mistake in important negotiations with Russia, by Evgeny Krutikov for VZGLYAD. 12.22.2023.

    Post  Kiko Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:57 pm

    The US made a mistake in important negotiations with Russia, by Evgeny Krutikov for VZGLYAD. 12.22.2023.

    Moscow and Washington are right now playing a complex game related to exchange options for Americans and Russians located in Western countries and Russia. At least, this is the conclusion that can be drawn from a series of recent statements by officials on this matter. And in this game, for a number of reasons, the United States is clearly losing. What is it about?

    White House National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby said on December 21 that the United States was exploring the possibility of putting forward a new proposal to Russia for a prisoner exchange. “We are working hard to possibly develop another proposal that could be more successful in getting Americans Paul (Whelan - VZGLYAD note) and Evan (Gershkovich - VZGLYAD note) out of Russia,” he said in during the briefing. According to him, in the last few days the United States has “put forward a serious proposal” on the issue of a possible exchange of Whelan, but the Russian Federation allegedly “rejected it.” In addition, back on December 19, Kirby said that the United States was trying to find ways to exchange Gershkovich and Whelan.

    On December 14, during the “Results of the Year,” Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed the hope that a solution would be found to the issue of the exchange between the Russian Federation and the United States of Gershkovich and Whelan. Putin drew attention to the fact that humanitarian considerations should form the basis of such decisions. The President added that the American side should also listen to Russia and make an appropriate decision.

    And on the eve of Kirby’s statement, Paul Whelan himself accused the US authorities of abandoning him by missing several opportunities for an exchange. “I know the US has all sorts of proposals, but this is not what the Russians want. So they go back and forth like they're throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. The problem is that while they do this, my life is flowing away. Five years have passed! Whelan said, calling it a “serious betrayal” by Washington.

    According to the American, the administration of former American leader Donald Trump consistently refused to exchange him for Viktor Bout. In December 2022, Bout, who spent 14 years in an American prison, was exchanged for basketball player Brittney Greiner. “It’s very hard for me to realize that I could have been home many years ago. It is very unpleasant to realize that they made these mistakes. They practically abandoned me here,” Whelan said, emphasizing that all the promises of the US authorities “turned out to be empty.”

    And all this against the background of convictions of 14 citizens of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in Poland on charges of espionage for the Russian Federation and even some sabotage such as posting leaflets at rural railway stations in South-Eastern Poland. According to Polish counterintelligence, one of the main roles in this “spy network” was played by a 20-year-old Russian hockey player who played in a provincial club of the Polish second league. The Poles proudly call this mixture of kindergarten and rural amateur activities “the largest Russian spy network.”

    That is, the chronology of events is as follows. On December 14, Vladimir Putin at the “Results of the Year” “expresses hope” that a solution to the exchange can be found if “Russia is listened to.” December 19 Kirby says the US is "trying to find ways to exchange detainees." On December 20, the BBC aired an interview with Whelan, in which he curses Washington and says that he was “forgotten.” In his words there is a strange phrase that with each new detention of Americans in Russia, “his case moves to the back of the queue.”

    In such interviews, all words are verified. Understanding people may perceive this phrase by Whelan as a veiled warning that arrests of American agents in the Russian Federation may continue, and then the queue for exchange will increase even more.

    After all, it is built not according to the principles of “who is last?”, but according to the conditional significance of the figure of the exchanged person. And the “net weight” of a particular candidate is often not related to his position in society, military rank or other merits. The main criterion may be the amount of information that the detainee has. The longer a person sits, the greater the chance that he will babble something else. Just out of resentment or fatigue. Sometimes they change people only after there is nothing left to learn from them.

    But the issue is always resolved so individually that public appeals from exchange candidates have never played a role. This is all an instrument of a traditional game somewhere in a neutral point in the world in a nice restaurant. Information pressure that accompanies personal negotiations.

    By the way, such pressure should not be underestimated. Intelligence services traditionally create fog around their activities, but newspaper publications and even sometimes memoirs of veterans have been and will forever remain one of the methods of putting pressure on the enemy and/or informing him in “our game” (our game - a British term that collectively refers to all types and forms confidential interaction between various intelligence services).

    On December 21, Kirby again said that “the United States is working on a new proposal” for an exchange that could have “greater success ” than previous ones. And here the Poles also intervene, passing various verdicts on the “largest Russian spy network.” That is, the game suddenly accelerated in pace.

    Whelan has been in prison for five years. 11 left. Dark prospect. And he, apparently, seriously hoped that he would be exchanged for Booth. At least it seemed logical to both him and his lawyers. He is a career employee of US military intelligence, and in the States it is customary to fight for their military personnel. But Booth and Yaroshenko were eventually traded for lesbian basketball player Brittney Greiner.

    Apparently, Greiner had a stronger support group in Washington than Whelan, which is why she was unexpectedly at the top of the list. Greiner’s candidacy was lobbied by the entire Washington LGBT lobby, led by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, not to mention the fact that Greiner is also black.

    Karine Jean-Pierre's partner, Susan Malveaux, is a famous CNN journalist who gave heartbreaking reports about “a poor girl in the Russian Gulag” almost once a week. And if Jean-Pierre worked as an adviser to Biden when he was still vice president, then the Louisiana Creole Malvo worked in the White House Situation Room even during the attack on New York on September 11. Together, this couple can lobby for anything. True, they seemed to break up a couple of months ago, but Whelan is now neither hot nor cold from this. He, a white, heterosexual former Marine, does not have such a support group and does not expect to have one.

    When this Washington campaign lobbied for the exchange of Bout and Yaroshenko for Greiner, and not for Whelan, it objectively played on the side of Russia. Greiner is a nobody, she was detained on a “criminal” basis, and objectively she should have been at the bottom of the list. In general, she could simply have been pardoned as a gesture of goodwill. But the noise made around her figure disavowed Whelan, who, in fact, was simply doing his job as an intelligence courier.

    Moscow, by and large, does not care who to exchange our citizens who are in American or European prisons with. If they themselves offer an exchange that is inadequate in terms of status, then that’s their problem. We only benefit from this. Whelan, as an exchange resource, was preserved, and Booth and Yaroshenko returned home in exchange for the foolish drug addict.

    Now, according to unconfirmed reports, the main subject for the exchange may be Krasikov, accused in Berlin of the murder of the Chechen-Georgian militant Khangoshvili, who was close to the CIA. There are candidates in Norway, Slovenia and now in Poland. Now convicts in Poland can be added to this structure. But in any case, the Americans have driven themselves into a situation where their attempts to minimize losses in the exchange of Whelan and Gershkovich no longer work. The story with Greiner sharply undermined their negotiating positions.

    The main American negotiating argument now remains that Krasikov and other potential Russian candidates for exchange are not on US territory and not under American jurisdiction. Answer from Moscow: these are your problems, negotiate with the Germans, Norwegians, etc.

    The Americans begin to say that there is democracy everywhere, the judicial system, internal problems of the German and Norwegian governments, etc. The answer from Moscow: don’t be ridiculous. The exchange of prisoners and intelligence personnel is always outside the competence of “democracies”. Come when you are able to discuss something in detail. The disoriented Kirby, repeating his readiness for “new proposals” twice in a row, is what comes to the surface from the American side in response to all these indirect proposals and hints.

    Well, let them think and prepare a proposal. After all, Whelan's future is determined by a Russian court for another 11 years. But the Russian side still has room for maneuver even without taking into account the opinion of the American side. Difficult, but possible. And they themselves are to blame.

    https://vz.ru/world/2023/12/22/1245620.html

    GarryB and franco like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:55 am

    The main American negotiating argument now remains that Krasikov and other potential Russian candidates for exchange are not on US territory and not under American jurisdiction. Answer from Moscow: these are your problems, negotiate with the Germans, Norwegians, etc.

    Viktor Bout and Julian Assange did not commit crimes in the US but one managed to end up there and the other seems to be on his way.

    I would suspect if Assange was told the Americans wanted him so they could swap him with Whelan he would drop all appeals and be there in very short order... in fact they might even pretend that is the case to get him to the US so they can execute him.

    Hole likes this post

    avatar
    andalusia


    Posts : 728
    Points : 790
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  andalusia Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:55 pm

    The United States just claimed more territory under the their continental shelf according to this article, I see there is some areas close to Russia. What do you guys think? https://www.iflscience.com/the-united-states-just-grew-by-1-million-kilometers-in-size-72412
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38893
    Points : 39389
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 13, 2024 10:30 pm

    So new areas of ocean have been scooped up by the new colonial master to be exploited and abused... no real surprises there...

    kvs likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15093
    Points : 15230
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  kvs Sat Jan 13, 2024 10:46 pm

    Russia can enforce its sea-shelf claims.   The US is a paper tiger that does not even have functional ice breakers.  It can wave its dick around
    until it falls off.

    Hole likes this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2831
    Points : 2875
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Kiko Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:22 am

    Wonder whether upon Old Mac Donald's investiture there might be organised a Russia-US summit somewhere right in the heart of Europe (Budapest?, Bratislava?).

    Sponsored content


    Russia - USA Relations - Page 37 Empty Re: Russia - USA Relations

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:22 am