[Disarmo] Francia in Africa, NATO in Ucraina e altre cosucce (english) : [stopnato] Digest Number 4886

[glry <glry at ngi.it>]

-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto: [stopnato] Digest Number 4886
Data: 12 Dec 2013 14:08:40 -0000
Mittente: stopnato at yahoogroups.com
Rispondi-a: No Reply<notify-dg-stopnato at yahoogroups.com>
A: stopnato at yahoogroups.com

There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. France Uses Military To Tighten Grip On Africa
    From: Rick Rozoff

2. Interview: NATO Is Engaged In Wars Of Aggression Against Small Count
    From: Rick Rozoff

3. Interview: What is going on in Ukraine?
    From: Rick Rozoff

4. Russia Modernizing, Building Its Defenses In Response To Modern Thre
    From: Rick Rozoff


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. France Uses Military To Tighten Grip On Africa
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:42 pm ((PST))

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_11/France-seeking-to-tighten-grip-on-Africa-6065/


Voice of Russia
December 11, 2013


France seeking to tighten grip on Africa
Sergey Duz


The French military seems to be holding its ground in Africa. Observers
point out that Paris's formally peacekeeping operations amount to an
attempt to make the most of its presence in France's former colonies
politically and economically.

The French launched a challenging operation in the Central African
Republic a week ago to disarm militants who are involved in religious
conflicts. Paris has since reported casualties and said it will beef up
its military presence there. Some observers believe that Paris is
clearly trying to gain a competitive edge on the international scene
through restoring its influence on its former colonies. This is what the
Head of the Centre for Euro-Atlantic Studies and International Security,
Tatyana Zvereva, says about it in a comment.

"All major world players have been showing interest in the African
continent recently, such as the United States, the European countries
and, of course, China. Beijing has long-standing ties to Africa.
European countries, too, have long since built ties with many of their
former African colonies. This is true of France, too. General de Gaulle
laid the foundation of stable relations with these countries, and France
is interested in cementing the ties in question, because it needs
markets for its goods and is interested in Africa's rich mineral resources".

Last week, the UN Security Council unanimously voted for a military
invasion of the Central African Republic following another aggravation
of the 40-year long political crisis there. The international mandate
that Paris has been granted is a kind of shield that fends off all
accusations in a bid to make a profit on the colonial drama. Commenting
on the situation is the Head of the Centre for French Studies of the
Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Europe, Yuri Rubinsky, and
this is what he says.

"The UN Security Council has approved the latest two operations
involving the French armed forces in Mali and the Central African
Republic. France has grown noticeably more active in Africa over the
past year, firstly, because Paris has encountered problems in its main
foreign policy area, the European Union. By stepping up activities in a
region that's outside Europe but is closely linked to Europe it is kind
of making up for France's weakened positions in the EU. Secondly, France
is clearly concerned about the fact that its influence has been lowering
under the US and China's pressure. In short, France has launched a
struggle for an important bridgehead. Paris makes it clear that it is
not about to withdraw from Africa, but is, conversely, going to expand
its positions. Whether the effort will prove successful or not is
another pair of shoes".

Notably, Paris played host last week to a summit on peace and security
in Africa. According to Western press reports, the agenda logically
reflected France's concern about its diminishing influence on such
former French colonies as the Congo [fprmer Belgian colony] and Cote
d'Ivoire.

France has invariably seen the region as its sphere of influence.
Meanwhile, major players in global economy are competing for business in
Africa, and France is running the risk of being left behind. So, it's
easy to understand why Paris is prepared to invest in military
operations there. If the effort proves successful, Paris will get
political and economic dividends; for the colonial system, even if it's
dead, should nonetheless bear fruit.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe,
and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
======================================================================








Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Interview: NATO Is Engaged In Wars Of Aggression Against Small Count
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:42 pm ((PST))

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_11/NATO-engaged-in-wars-aggression-against-small-countries-Rick-Rozoff-0170/


Voice of Russia
December 11, 2013


NATO engaged in wars of aggression against small countries - Rick Rozoff
John Robles
Recorded on December 7, 2013


Audio at URL above


Having established itself on the European continent in the devastating
aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
has emerged as a tool for the execution of aggressive wars against small
countries that maintain some modicum of independence and for which they
are targeted for destruction by the West and NATO. US/NATO are following
a policy summed up by the words of former US President George Bush, one
of “either you are with them or they will destroy you”, and we have seen
proof of that since the invasion of Yugoslavia. As for the encirclement
of Russia with interceptor missiles, now that the supposed pretext for
that missile shield is gone, the threat from Iran, the intent of the
encirclement of Russia is clear, the target has always been Russia. Rick
Rozoff spoke to the VOR’s John Robles about this and more.

The West and the United States through its military wing NATO, which has
expanded into a global military force, continues to attempt to expand
its influence into the former Soviet space. Although NATO, which is
struggling to stay relevant, should have been disbanded at the same time
that the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved,
continues to expand worldwide. Recently the ambassador of the Russian
Federation to Serbia gave a speech in which he called Serbia's
membership in NATO a red line for the Russian Federation.

With events in Ukraine and continued war games, which envision military
operations against regular army forces in the Caucasus, and the
continued building and expansion of the US missile shield, even though
the supposed purpose of that shield – the Iranian nuclear program – is
no longer a threat, NATO continues to show itself as a threat to
regional and international security and continues to operate,
apparently, with the goal of existing only to expand itself so as to be,
as the US Pentagon recently stated, an "effective tool for the
projection of the US force worldwide".

The Voice of Russia spoke to Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the
Stop NATO website and international mailing list about these issues and
more.

You are listening to part 2 of an interview with Rick Rozoff. You can
find part one on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

Robles: Back to NATO for a minute and the comments by the Russian
ambassador to Serbia. I believe he said that NATO was, and you quoted
him as saying that NATO was organized and founded to fight the Soviet
Union, and it wasn’t clear what its objectives are now, right? What do
you think are its objectives? If you can, again. We’ve talked about this
many times in the past.

Rozoff: I think Chepurin's, the Russian ambassador’s comments were meant
to be rhetorical rather than strictly accurate. He knows what the
current objective of NATO is, as do we and, I’m sure, most of your
listeners and what it is is no longer even maintaining the pretense of
being a defensive organization, but rather having been transformed into
what I would consider to have been an aggressor in the Cold War, to
begin with… maybe, perhaps not in terms of a “hot” war, but,
nevertheless setting up a military bloc in a continent that had just
been devastated by a world war.

But, nevertheless, what we know is in the post Cold War period NATO has
emerged not as an alleged defender of the territory of its member
states, but as an expeditionary military force that is used outside the
territory of NATO member states in wars of aggression against
essentially defenseless and for the most part small countries, that is
evidenced, of course, by the 1999 seventy-eight-day air war against
Yugoslavia, the six-month air war and naval blockade against Libya, the
war against Afghanistan in its 13th year – that’s what NATO is about now.

Robles: Smaller countries that what?

Rozoff: Smal countries that maintained some modicum of independence and
non-alignment and for which they have been destroyed. Let me as blunt as
I can be about that. Countries, like Yugoslavia, that were founding
members of the Non-Aligned Movement had to be taught a lesson and in the
words of Voltaire from the novel Candide “for the encouragement of others”.

That is; if anyone dreams about maintaining a semblance of neutrality,
of military non-alignment, of not permitting their sons and daughters to
be dragooned into foreign wars…as perhaps the Russian ambassador to
Yugoslavia, I mean to Serbia, warned his audience. If you really want
your sons and daughters to kill and die in countries like Iraq and Libya
and Syria, then joining NATO is your ticket to that.

But if you don’t, then in the viewpoint of the US and its major NATO
allies you are marked for extinction. You are either with us or against
us, to use the infamous terminology of the last American
commander-in-chief. And I think it is irrefutable at this point that the
world’s sole military superpower (and again, that designation is by
Barack Obama, that’s how he identifies his own country, for which he is
commander-in-chief) you are either with us or we’ll destroy you.

Robles: Back to Ukraine a little bit, and this is a little bit away from
NATO. The incentive was economic for Ukraine. There would be billions of
dollars coming into the country from the European Union. That figure was
in the single digit billions in over like a 7-year period, I think. Yet,
if they join the Customs Union of Russia, the Republic of Belarus,
Kazakhstan and integrate further into other economic blocs, namely
Russian-led blocs, the incentives are in the hundreds of billions of
dollars in the same period. Can you comment on that?

Rozoff: Yes, thanks for that arithmetic. I wasn’t familiar with that but
it doesn’t surprise me. The intent of course is to buy off the political
leadership of Ukraine, so that somebody retires to Monaco or something
with a few billions stashed away as opposed to doing anything for the
benefit of the Ukrainian people.

There’s been an energy war being waged for over 20 years. Ukraine is not
only targeted by the Eastern Partnership, but it is one of the countries
that contributes to the acronym GUAM - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
Moldova - which the US set up in the early 1990s to act as an energy
transit corridor to squeeze Russia out of the European natural gas and
oil market.

For a while GUAM was with two Us (GUUAM), because Uzbekistan was in
there, but then dropped out. But now it is Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
Moldova.

And by the way, John Kerry (the US Secretary of State) has been in
Moldova recently, where with the change of government with one of these
so-called “color revolutions” recently there is a much more pro-NATO regime.

The thing is, I think we have to remember about Ukraine’s Orange
Revolution the occasion to allude to where Viktor Yushchenko through
extra-constitutional means was installed as president, essentially, in
2004, when he ran for re-election, he got 5% of the vote, which is a
good indication of how popular he truly was with the Ukrainian public.

The US seems to be wanting to punish the Yanukovych government for
making decisions not to align themselves with the West against Russia,
not independent of, but explicitly against Russia.

Robles: What do you think about these sanctions? Obama and the US
Government is saying they are thinking of sanctions against Yanukovych.

Rozoff: It follows on heels of several years. You talked about the
former now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the Obama
administration as a whole threatening Ukraine because of the court case
and the incarceration of Yulia Timoshenko, who was, if you will, Joan of
Arc of the Orange Revolution and has been sitting in a jail cell for
years now because of crooked natural gas deals. And these are the
standard-bearers of US democracy or the so-called democracy in the
former Soviet space.

You know, it is not one thing, it is another. The US has to continually
exercise pressure and threats and the menace of economic or worse
actions against countries to kind of keep them in line.

By the way, before we end this thing, there was a comment a couple of
days ago, I think two days ago, by the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
stating that now with the historic, apparent, deal between the US and
Iran on Iran’s nuclear program: What conceivable justification can there
possibly be for the US and NATO continuing their encirclement of Russia
with interceptor missiles.

Robles: Exactly! I was just going to ask you about that. I’m glad you
brought that up. And North Korea if you could and Iran. Yes, exactly!
What is the point now? What are they going to say now?

Rozoff: I guess, I would ask the question: why didn’t NATO not
immediately state (if you are to believe anything they say) that they
now see the error of their ways and they are abandoning the Phase
Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system. Of course, they won’t say
that, because the target has never been Iran, the target has been
Russia. Lavrov has called their bluff.

Robles: Has that had any resonance over there?

Rozoff: Far too little. I mean, I wish people had really seized on that.
I’ve seen a couple of comments, but not enough. This is something the
whole disarmament and antiwar movement needs to pick up and pick up with
a vengeance.

Robles: I think the taxpayers too, I mean American taxpayers are
indebted for how many generations?

Rozoff: You are correct.

Robles: I mean, the next, I don’t know, two hundred generations are
going to have to pay for the current war debt and they just want to keep
building and building it up even more.

Rozoff: Two years ago, when the US military spending was in the
neighborhood of $718 billion a year, which is in constant dollars the
highest level since WW II, the official military spending came down to
something like $2,400 per year for every man, woman and child in the US.
Official military spending.

Robles: Against whom? Against some US-backed Al Qaeda terrorists in the
desert somewhere in the Middle East?

Rozoff: I have my own opinion about whose assets they truly are, but, I
mean that of course is ludicrous.

Robles: Can you comment on where do you think Iran is going? I think
that’s very important. That’s going to change the whole game in the
Middle East, I think.

Rozoff: Again, assuming even for the sake of argument that Iran is a
rogue state that presented a threat to somebody and now that threat has
been diminished, I just don’t buy that argument. It has not been a
threat to his neighbours or anybody else, not for centuries surely.

And the fact that a more Western-leaning government has come to power
since the last election, first of all suggests that elections in Iran
actually mean something, as opposed to here, where the foreign policy is
not going to change in any substantive way because individual or one
party wins the election.

But I don’t yet know whether the new government in Tehran is willing to
make peace with the US principally or otherwise and how many concessions
they are willing to grant the US in order not to be bombed. I can’t say.

Robles: Can you comment on Netanyahu’s comment? He was huffing and
puffing, he was all upset and he said that making an agreement with Iran
is granting them some sort of legitimacy, making them a legitimate
state. Since when wasn’t the Islamic Republic of Iran a legitimate country?

Rozoff: From the point of view the US and Israel of course it never has
been. I mean, they much preferred the hereditary monarch – the Shah of
Iran – their close military as well as political and energy ally
incidentally.

And I’m sure in both instances, just like the US, which staged a coup
d'état in Iran in 1953 overthrowing Mosaddegh and installing the Shah,
until the US and its allies – Israel and Saudi Arabia – which have a
joint interest in criticizing Iran, until those three countries install
some puppet regime in Tehran, they are not going to be satisfied and
they are going to continue to bluster. But I think we have to keep in
mind that the sort of government they would envision for Iran would be
one that’s in the least representative or democratic.

Robles: Anything else?

No, but thank you for the opportunity. It’s been a very far-ranging, but
I hope a coherent discussion and I’m appreciative of the opportunity.

Okay, have a good one Rick.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe,
and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
======================================================================







Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Interview: What is going on in Ukraine?
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:43 pm ((PST))

http://www.taylor-report.com/


Taylor Report
December 9, 2013


What is going on in Ukraine?
And what are the implications for NATO and its projects?


Featured Guest: Rick Rozoff



Description:

Rick Rozoff came on the program to discuss recent events in Ukraine and
the US-China standoff over the East China Sea.



Audio Files:

Interview with Rick Rozoff

http://www.radio4all.net/responder.php/download/73103/80847/92956/?url=http://www.radio4all.net/files/anonymous at radio4all.net/16-1-RozoffUkraine.mp3

MP3 Page:

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/73103

Link:

Stop Nato
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/







Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Russia Modernizing, Building Its Defenses In Response To Modern Thre
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:14 pm ((PST))

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_11/Russia-modernizing-and-building-its-defenses-in-response-to-modern-threats-8984/


Voice of Russia
December 11, 2013


Russia modernizing and building its defenses in response to modern threats
John Robles


The Russian Federation is responding to developing and current threats
to its security and attempts by the West to shift the global strategic
military balance in its favor, with US/NATO's missile "defense" shield
being cited as one of the key threats faced by Russia in maintaining a
strategic balance and one for which against which measures are being
taken. Attempts by the US/NATO to militarize the Arctic are also being
addressed as well as attempts by US/NATO to tip the balance of the
nuclear deterrence and project its "force" globally, in particular with
regard to the Middle East.

President Vladimir Putin, speaking to an expanded meeting of the Russian
Ministry of Defense on Tuesday stated that plans by US/NATO to expand
its missile defense plans in Europe have not stopped and continue
unabated, hence Russia is forced to respond. Speaking of the
continuation of US/NATO missile "defense" plans is clearly in response
to statements by US/NATO that despite the supposed threat of Iran (the
pretext for the ABM shield) being eliminated they will not change their
plans for installing missiles in Europe.

President Putin has publically stated and now confirmed what many have
been saying for years regarding the ABM shield being installed in order
to neutralize any response from Russia. The fact that with minor
modifications the missiles making up the shield could be converted into
first strike weapons were not touched upon by the president but given
the context this is clear and is something he is no doubt aware of.

President Putin said that the West is attempting bring about a shift in
the strategic balance.
"There are ongoing attempts to violate, 'blur' the strategic balance.
First of all, they are related, of course, with plans to build a US
missile defense," President Putin said.

With regard to the massive modernization taking place in the Russian
military and across the entire spectrum of the Russian armed forces
President Putin underlined the fact that leading countries are actively
modernizing their arsenals, investing heavily in the development of
weapons including in are where new generation technologies are being
used. He stated that Russia is no exception.

Regarding exercises that have been held in 2013, President Putin said
confirmed the reliability of Russia's nuclear shield and he spoke highly
of the increased combat capabilities of the aerospace defense forces,
especially with regard to Russia's own missile defense warning and
interception systems.

Regarding continued upgrades the President stated that in 2014, the
Armed Forces will receive more than 40 most advanced intercontinental
ballistic missiles, more than 210 aircraft and helicopters and more than
250 armored vehicles. In response to threats the nuclear missile
carriers Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh and part of a
constellation of six new satellites, will be deployed and on active watch.

Recently the Head of the Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs Alexei
Pushkov also spoke about the US/NATO "shield" and said that NATO will
now have nothing to justify the need for the creation of a European
missile defense shield if the Iranian "problem" is solved.

Mr. Pushkov stated the: "The NATO missile defense system in Europe needs
the so-called Iranian threat to explain its existence. If the Iranian
problem is solved, there will be nothing to explain (missile) defense."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also recently made a similar
statement at a media forum in Rome, stating that "… if an agreement on
Iran will be realized, the reason for the creation of a missile defense
system in Europe will disappear."

US/NATO are recalcitrant however with a source in NATO recently stating
that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization sees no reason to revise
plans for a European missile defense arrangements in relation to Iran's
nuclear program. Despite claiming for years that the ABM shield was
being built against an Iranian threat US/NATO has regrouped and updated
their clearly false claims taking them one step further.

A NATO spokesperson in Brussels recently told Interfax that: "We know
that more than 30 countries have or are acquiring ballistic missile
technology that could eventually be used as carriers of not only
conventional warheads, but also weapons of mass destruction".

One might ask US/NATO if it is possible for countries with more
primitive technologies to change their configurations to deliver, even
nuclear payloads, why are we supposed to believe that US/NATO cannot do
the same with their Advanced Capability 3 interceptor missiles and their
own missile defense elements. The answer is that they can be quickly
changed into first strike weapons and Russia knows this. Who these now
"30" countries are that US/NATO needs to defend itself against are in
not clear nor was it stated, but clearly it is a disingenuous argument
needed to justify their continued plans to surround Russia with missiles.

President Putin made the connection between diplomatic efforts and
military strength underling Russia's staunch position in always seeking
a diplomatic solution to conflicts. He noted in his speech that Russia
has consistently advocated settlement of international and regional
issues exclusively by diplomatic means, adding that the "factor of
military deterrence" often plays a significant role.

It is important to recall that President Putin also recently disbanded
the Kremlin working group which was seeking to find ways of cooperation
with US/NATO on missile defense. Clearly surrounding Russian and oneself
with US/NATO rockets is not something that the Kremlin is too keen on
being a party to.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe,
and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
======================================================================







Messages in this topic (1)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    stopnato-normal at yahoogroups.com
    stopnato-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    stopnato-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------