[Disarmo] Libia, Nato, Gaza - [stopnato] Digest Number 5107

[Jure Ellero LT <glry at ngi.it>]

- Recensione ad un libro sulla Libia
- Tempi grassi per l'industria militare : fonte NATO
- USA-NATO pronti per la guerra totale : Chossudowsky
- Summit NATO in Georgia
- Il riarmo nel Baltico : fonte NATO
- Dopo trent'anni di guerra alla Libia, la situazione attuale : Francis 
A. Boyle, Law Building, Illinois USA
- Video: Cos'è Gaza per i Palestinesi, in conferenza dr. Rania Masri, 
giovane donna palestinese


Buona lettura.

J. Ellero

--------

Data: 27 Aug 2014 07:52:24 -0000
Mittente: stopnato at yahoogroups.com


There are 7 messages in this issue.


1. An Ode To NATO's War Against Libya
    From: Rick Rozoff

2. Going Global: NATO Commander Addresses Death Merchants
    From: Rick Rozoff

3. Dangerous Crossroads: US-NATO To Deploy Ground Troops, Conduct Large
    From: linguisticresearch

4. Georgian Regime Prepares For NATO Summit
    From: Rick Rozoff

5. Baltic Sea: NATO Maintains Expanding Fleet Of Warplanes
    From: Rick Rozoff

6. FW: Imposing Order through Violence
    From: Boyle, Francis A

7. Agree with her or not, this is one Palestinian woman who doesn't hal
    From: Kim Scipes


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. An Ode To NATO's War Against Libya
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:59 am ((PDT))

http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/book-review-an-ode-to-natos-mission-in-libya/article6350743.ece


The Hindu
August 26, 2014

An ode to NATO’s mission in Libya
Hari Narayan

On October 20, 2011, a low-resolution video shot in Sirte, Libya went 
viral. It showed a motley mob of about 20 mutineers shouting what 
sounded like insults at a 69-year-old Bedouin — their prized ‘catch’. 
The old man’s face was bloodied; he looked dumbfounded and was perhaps 
making an attempt to beg for mercy. Moments later, the aged captive was 
dead, his body used as a trophy.

The old, khaki-clad Bedouin was Muammar al-Qaddafi. Though both his life 
and his 42-year rule in Libya were marked by eccentricity, his death 
could not but evoke empathy. NATO’s mission creep — a spin-off from the 
powers granted to it by U.N. resolution 1973 — was complete.

Toppling Qaddafi by Christopher S. Chivvis — who was with Pentagon at 
that time and currently works for the U.S.-government-funded think tank 
RAND Corporation — is an ode to the intervention. Though it does express 
scepticism in a few chapters, its overall tone is one of approval and, 
at places, celebration. Long on technical details and short on depth, it 
reads more like a military template for future interventions than a 
genuine soul-searching effort.

Chivvis puts on the back-burner an honest attempt at understanding the 
uprising while expecting the reader to genuflect to the restraint 
practised by the U.S. as it decided to step back and allow France and 
Britain to dominate the mission. This, even as it supplied the bulk of 
the arms.

Some questions the book could have addressed include: Why did the rebels 
decide to script such a grisly death for Qaddafi — a patriarch clearly 
in his autumn? Was his overthrow the result of foreign conspiracy, 
considering that he had antagonised quite a lot of regimes due to his 
fiercely independent foreign policy? Was Libya really on the verge of 
genocide when the West decided to intervene?

A report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), Making sense of Libya 
(released on 6th June 2011, much after the intervention began), provides 
some answers. It revealed that the revolt’s original authors were not 
native Libyans in Benghazi but those from the Libyan diaspora, vocal 
opponents of Qaddafi’s style of functioning who had been responsible for 
his vilification in the western media.

Hugh Roberts, ICG’s North Africa Project Director during the uprising, 
gave a comprehensive analysis in his article, Who said Gaddafi had to 
go? (London Review of Books, November 17, 2011). The essay proves a 
sober counter to Chivvis’s celebratory monograph.

Roberts’s essay answers most of the questions Chivvis’s book doesn’t. In 
the Cold War years, Libya had been of strategic interest to the U.S. 
primarily because of its location along the coast of Mediterranean, 
providing it a vital link between Europe and North Africa and North 
Africa and West Asia. Up to the discovery of oil in 1960, the primary 
source of revenue for Libya was from the Wheelus Air Base, which was 
once called by a U.S. Ambassador as “a little America … on the sparkling 
shores of the Mediterranean.” Having once had about 4,600 Americans, it 
was rendered defunct once oil was discovered and a Qaddafi-led coup 
happened in 1969.

Roberts also deals with the minutiae when he points out that the 
conflict was more internecine than international — it was between the 
Arab villages and Berber hamlets; between militias from the mountains 
and those from the coast; and between the light-skinned Libyans and 
their black neighbours.

So, was Libya another Afghanistan where tribal identities triumphed over 
national ones? Or was it converted into an anarchy along Afghan lines 
post-intervention?

Dirk Vandewalle, in his book A history of modern Libya, expounds that 
just like many other countries in Africa, Libya was a creation of 
convenience for colonial powers. The United Kingdom of Libya was created 
in 1951 by integrating three distinct regions – Cyrenaica (east), Fezzan 
(southwest), and Tripolitania (west) — without a binding force.

Libyans had suffered vicious suppression at the hands of their Italian 
colonisers, who tried to create an extension of metropolitan Italy in 
Tripolitania, settling Italians while massacring natives. This only 
fostered tribal loyalties and created distrust toward political 
institutions.

Though Qaddafi’s interests lay in keeping Libya politically inactive, 
his government’s generous redistribution of oil revenues did create an 
effective welfare state. As per a UNICEF (2009) report, Libya had a 
literacy rate of 95 per cent for males and 78 per cent for females and a 
life expectancy of 74. It had a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 
55, out of 182 countries considered, ahead of most sub-Saharan and many 
Asian countries.

It would be more persuasive to say that the Libyan civil war was a 
conflict created by history — between the culturally and economically 
disparate western and the eastern regions — best resolved politically by 
Libyans themselves, with diplomatic support from outside, which the ICG 
offered. However, NATO was more intent on scripting a change its way.

Chivvis is so absorbed in the details of NATO’s military manoeuvres 
that, even with the benefit of hindsight, he gets his facts entirely 
wrong. This becomes particularly bewildering in the final chapter, 
written when the negative repercussions of the intervention were being felt.

For instance, Chivvis still maintains that Qaddafi government killed 
“several hundred civilians” prior to the intervention. Hugh Roberts had 
invalidated this as early as 2011 by citing Human Rights Watch, which 
said that as late as on February 21, when the genocide bogey had reached 
its peak, the total death toll was 233. Compared to this, the total 
death toll in Tunisia was 300 and that in Egypt was 846.

Chivvis claims that the intervention offered hopes for protesters in the 
other conservative regimes in the region against brutal crackdown. This 
after the West chose to overlook protests in Bahrain — where the U.S. 
Fifth Fleet is stationed — when the Sunni-minority monarchy crushed the 
non-violent Shia demonstrators.

Chivvis also makes the ludicrous claim that Syrian President Bashar 
Al-Assad would have suppressed his population earlier and more violently 
had NATO not intervened. He completely ignores the fact that it was 
NATO’s misadventure in Libya that strengthened al-Qaeda-linked elements 
in Syria. This in turn led to the birth of Islamic State (IS), an 
ultra-jihadist group that the U.S. is currently fighting in Iraq.

Chivvis occasionally engages in plainspeak. Like when he emphasises the 
positive fall-out of the intervention on the U.S. arms industry. Citing 
an unclassified document, he says that the U.S. went on to sell $261 
million worth of ammunition and spare parts to its allies. This while 
‘leading from behind!’

And, finally, he admits, in passing, the ambivalence the rebels 
gradually started to feel toward NATO’s intentions, when the latter 
started dictating the course of action. One of them even went on to 
question if NATO’s aims were ‘different’ to their own.

The ICG document proved to be prescient in its outlook when it said that 
with an escalation of hostilities, the outcome “... may be not a 
transition to democracy but rather a potentially prolonged vacuum … that 
could aggravate an already serious humanitarian crisis.”

About a year after Qaddafi’s death, another video, graphic in its 
details, emerged. It pertained to the death of Christopher Stevens, U.S. 
ambassador to Libya, killed when its consulate in Benghazi, the 
birthplace of Libya’s uprising, was attacked. A fringe terrorist 
organisation strengthened by the intervention, ansar al-Sharia was 
blamed. From one grisly murder to another, Libya’s faux-revolution had 
come a full circle.


===============================================


________________________________________________
2. Going Global: NATO Commander Addresses Death Merchants
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:59 am ((PDT))

http://www.act.nato.int/sact-addresses-industry-leaders-at-going-global-defense-initiative-event


North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Allied Command Transformation
August 16, 2014



SACT Addresses Industry Leaders at "Going Global Defense Initiative" Event


NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), French Air Force 
General Jean-Paul Paloméros addressed industry and business 
representatives as keynote speaker at the Kick-off Workshop for 
Virginia's Going Global Defense Initiative held in Norfolk, Virginia, 
August 14.

 The Going Global Defense Initiative, launched by the Virginia Economic 
Development Partnership (VEDP), is an effort to mitigate the impact that 
defence spending cuts have on Virginia's economy. The VEDP focuses on 
assisting Virginia businesses in capturing export opportunities overseas.

Norfolk is home to Allied Command Transformation (ACT), the only 
permanent NATO headquarters located outside of Europe. The command 
oversees NATO's military transformation ensuring the organisation is 
capable of effectively taking on future security challenges.

General Paloméros talked to the business leaders about cooperative 
effort of NATO and industry, and how their support for the Alliance was 
vital to ACT's success, saying "the Allies recognise that in our current 
strategic context, we are facing new needs in terms of knowledge, no 
longer developed within the Defence realm. Today, Academia and Industry 
are leading in these areas of interests."


===========================================


___________________________________________________
3. Dangerous Crossroads: US-NATO To Deploy Ground Troops, Conduct Large 
Scale Naval Exercises against “Unnamed Enemy”
    Posted by: "linguisticresearch" LinguisticResearch at gmx.de
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:00 am ((PDT))


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/08/25/dangerous-crossr\
oads-us-nato-deploy-ground-troops-conduct-large-scale-naval-exerc\
ises-against-unnamed-enemy.html
<http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/08/25/dangerous-cross\
roads-us-nato-deploy-ground-troops-conduct-large-scale-naval-exer\
cises-against-unnamed-enemy.html>


Dangerous Crossroads:       US-NATO To Deploy Ground Troops,
Conduct Large Scale Naval       Exercises against “Unnamed
Enemy”                                EDITOR'S CHOICE

<http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/editor-choice.html>
 | 25.08.2014 | 18:44


The World is at a                   dangerous Crossroads.

The Western military                   alliance is in an advanced
state of readiness. And so                   is Russia.

Russia is heralded as                   the
“Aggressor”. US-NATO military confrontation with
Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in                   the US Senate under
“The Russian Aggression Prevention
Act” (RAPA) has “set the US on a path towards
direct                   military conflict with Russia in
Ukraine.”

Any US-Russian war is                   likely to quickly
escalate into a nuclear war, since                   neither the
US nor Russia would be willing to admit                   defeat,
both have many thousands of nuclear
weapons ready for instant use
<http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-force\
s/> , and both rely                   upon Counterforce
<http://fas.org/pub-reports/counterforce-minimal-deterrence-new-n\
uclear-policy-path-toward-eliminating-nuclear-weapons/>
 military                   doctrine that tasks their
military, in the event of                   war, to preemptively
destroy the nuclear forces of the                   enemy. (See
Steven Starr, Global                     Research
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russian-aggression-prevention-a\
ct-rapa-a-direct-path-to-nuclear-war-with-russia/5397171> ,
August 22, 2014)

The Russian Aggression                   Prevention Act (RAPA) is
the culmination of more than                   twenty years of
US-NATO war preparations, which                   consist in the
military encirclement of both Russia                   and China:

> From the moment the                     Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, the United States                     has relentlessly
pursued a strategy of encircling                     Russia, just
as it has with other perceived enemies                     like
China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in
central Europe, all of them formerly allied with
Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is
now directly on Russia’s borders.  (Steven
Kinzer, Boston Globe,
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2014/03/03/cold-war-o\
ver-russia-isn-zero-sum/Df9VSHeJFpKUz3tRKDjUXJ/story.html> March
3, 2014, emphasis added)

On July 24, in                   consultation with the Pentagon,
NATO’s Europe                   commander General Philip
Breedlove called                   for “stockpiling a
base in Poland with enough weapons,                   ammunition
and other supplies to support a rapid
deployment of thousands of troops against Russia”.(RT,
July 24, 2014). According to General Breedlove, NATO
needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned
capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept
follow-on forces”:

“He plans to recommend                   placing supplies
— weapons, ammunition and ration                   packs
— at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx
of thousands of Nato troops” (Times, August 22, 2014,
emphasis added)

Breedlove’s “Blitzkrieg
scenario” is to be presented at NATO’s summit in
Wales                   in early September, according to The
London Times.                     It is part and parcel of
the Russian                     Aggression Prevention Act
(RAPA
<https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2277>
) which directs                   President Obama to:

“(1) implement a plan                   for increasing
U.S. and NATO support for the armed                   forces of
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and
other NATO member-states; and

(2) direct the U.S.                   Permanent Representative to
NATO to seek consideration                   for permanently
basing NATO forces in such countries.”
(S.2277 — 113th Congress (2013-2014))

More generally, a                   scenario of military
escalation prevails with both                   sides involved in
extensive war games.

In turn, the structure                   of US sponsored military
alliances plays a crucial                   role in war planning.
We are dealing with a formidable                   military force
involving a global alliance of 28 NATO                   member
states. In turn, the US as well as NATO have
established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network
of                   bilateral military alliances with
“partner” countries                   directed
against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.


Major US-NATO Naval                   Exercises

War preparations are                   invariably accompanied and
preceded by major military                   exercises.

US-NATO multi-warfare                   naval exercises are to be
conducted off the Florida                   coastline under
operation FLEETEX, with the                   participation of
the US, Canada, Germany and Turkey.

The underlying premise                   of these war games is
“global warfare”. All four NATO
member states are adjacent to strategic sea corridors,
which are contiguous to Russian maritime areas,
respectively the Bering Sea and straits (US), the
Arctic Ocean (Canada), the North Sea (Germany) and the
Black Sea (Turkey).

The Florida war games                   are predicated on
multi-country integration and                   coordination of
naval operations directed against an                   unnamed
enemy:

FLEETEX are                   multi-warfare naval exercises
designed to promote                   force integration and test
multiple war fighting skill                   sets. Ships
from the U.S., Canadian, German and                   Turkish
navies will participate in the exercises. This
port visit and FLEETEX are part of a series of
training exercises in which SNMG2 will participate
during its deployment to the Western Atlantic. This is
the first time in several years that a NATO task force
has conducted transatlantic operations in North
America. These events offer multiple opportunities for
training at the highest levels of maritime operations.

FLEETEX will feature                   anti-air, anti-submarine,
live fire and ship handling                   scenarios designed
to provide high-end warfare                   training and
valuable experience through integrated                   task
group training. SNMG2, CSG8 and Canadian forces
will train together as a force to learn how to work as
a cohesive unit in response to a variety of threat
scenarios.

SNMG2 ships currently                   deployed to North America
include the U.S. flagship,                   USS LEYTE GULF (CG
55), the German ship FGS                   NIEDERSACHSEN (F 208),
and the Turkish ship TCG                   KEMALREIS (F 247).

….

During the port visit,                   SNMG2 will coordinate
with representatives from the                   Canadian navy and
Carrier Strike Group 8 (CSG8) to                   prepare for
the exercises…

“Any opportunity we have                   to train with
multiple NATO navies simultaneously is
extremely valuable,” said Rear Adm. Brad Williamson,
Commander SNMG2. “This period will allow us to build
integration and teamwork, and I’m excited to train
with and share experiences between Allied shipmates.”

SNMG2 is permanently                   available to NATO to
perform a wide range of tasks,                   from real world
operations to exercise participation.
Composition of the force varies as allied nations
contribute assets on a rotational basis. SNMG2 will be
led by a U.S. Navy admiral and flagship until June
2015. (For further details see North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Allied Maritime Command HQ MARCOM Public
Affairs Office, aco.nato.int
<http://www.aco.nato.int/snmg2-is-in-florida-to-prepare-for-fleet\
ex.aspx> ,                    August 18, 2014, emphasis
added)

Black Sea War                     Games

It is worth noting that                   FLEETEX is one among
several US-NATO naval war games                   directed
against an unnamed enemy. In July, NATO
conducted naval exercises in the Black sea, in an area
contiguous to Russia’s maritime borders.

NATO’s “Breeze” formally
hosted by Bulgaria took place from July 4 to July 13,
with the participation of naval vessels from Greece,
Italy, Romania, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S.

The underlying scenario                   was the
“”destruction of enemy ships in the sea and
organization of air defense of naval groups and
coastal infrastructure.”

The exercises were                   “aimed
at improving the tactical compatibility and
collaboration among naval forces of the alliance’s
member states…” (See Atlantic
Council
<http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/video-dueling-na\
to-russia-naval-exercises-on-black-sea> , see also Russia,
U.S. ships sail in competing Black Sea exercises
<http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140707/NEWS/307070042/Russia-\
U-S-ships-sail-competing-Black-Sea-exercises> ,
July 7, Navy Times 2014)

Ironically, NATO’s July                   Black Sea games
started on exactly the same day as                   those of the
“unnamed enemy”[Russia], involving its
Crimea Black sea fleet of some 20 war ships and
aircraft:

Russia has made it clear                   they don’t
welcome NATO’s presence in the Black Sea.
Russia’s navy let it be known that it is following the
exercises with reconnaissance aircraft and
surveillance ships.

“The aviation of the                   Black Sea Fleet
is paying special attention to the
missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf which, though not
formally the flagship of the ‘Breeze’ exercises,
effectively is leading them,” a Russian naval source
told NTV. (Ibid)

Deployment of                     Ground Forces in Eastern Europe

Since 2006, the US has                   been building up its
weapons arsenal in Poland on                   Russia’s
Western border (Kalingrad). The deployment of
US forces in Poland was initiated  in July 2010
(within 40 miles from the border), with a view to
training Polish forces in the use of US made Patriot
missiles. (Stars and Stripes, 23 July 2010).

In recent developments,                   the Pentagon announced
in early August the deployment                   of US troops and
National Guard forces to Ukraine as                   part of a
military training operation. US-NATO is also
planning further deployments of ground forces (as
described by NATO General Breedlove) in Poland,
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as well as in Georgia
and Azerbaijan on Russia’s southern border.

These deployments which                   are envisaged in the
draft text of the “Russian                   Aggression
Prevention Act” (RAPA) (S.2277 — 113th
Congress (2013-2014)) are envisaged as part of a
“defensive” strategy in the case of a
“Russian                   invasion”:

Russia’s annexation of                   Crimea and the
conflict in eastern Ukraine have                   alarmed
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – like Ukraine,
former Soviet republics with Russian-speaking
minorities.

NATO’s 28 leaders are                   expected to
discuss plans to reassure Poland and the
Balticsat a summit in Wales on Sept. 4-5.

Germany’s Angela Merkel,                   during a short
visit to Latvia on Monday, pledged NATO                   would
defend the Baltic states, although it would not
send permanent combat troops.

“Any country, including                   the Baltic
states, also Poland, have to strengthen                   their
infrastructure … so they can host additional
troops for training and crisis situations,”
Latvia’s                   Defense Minister Raimonds
Vejonis told Reuters.

In Latvia’s case that                   would mean
investments in Adazi base for ground                   troops,
Lielvarde air base and Liepaja naval base, he
said, adding he hoped NATO would contribute to the
spending.

Latvia and Lithuania                   spend respectively just
0.9 and 0.8 percent of GDP on                   defense but have
pledged to meet the alliance’s target                   of
2.0 percent by 2020.

“There is no direct                   military threat at
the moment, but we have to develop                   our armed
forces, we have to create infrastructure, we
have to be ready to host representatives of NATO
countries if there suddenly is a military
aggression,”the minister said. Baltics and Poland need
more military infrastructure. (Reuters, August 22,
2014)

Deployments on                     Russia’s South Border
with Azerbaijan and Georgia

Deployment on Russia’s                   Southern border
is to be coordinated under a three                   country
agreement signed on August 22, 2014 by Turkey,
Georgia and Azerbaijan:

Following the trilateral                   meeting of
Azerbaijani, Turkish and Georgian defense
ministers, Tbilisi announced that the three countries
are interested in working out a plan to strengthen the
defense capability.

“The representatives of                   the governments
of these three countries start to                   think about
working out a plan to strengthen the                   defense
capability,” Alasania said, adding that this
is in the interests of Europe and NATO.“Because, this
transit route [Baku-Tbilisi-Kars] is used to transport
the alliance’s cargo to Afghanistan,” he said.

Alasania also noted                   that these actions are
not directed against                   anyone. (See Azeri
News <http://www.azernews.az/azerbaijan/69900.html> , August 22,
2014, emphasis added)

Russia and                     Obama’s “Pivot to
Asia”

In the Far-east,                   Russia’s borders are
also threatened by Obama’s “Pivot
to Asia”.

The “Pivot to Asia” from                   a
military standpoint consists in extending US
military deployments in the Asia-Pacific as well as
harnessing the participation of Washington’s allies in
the region, including Japan, South Korea and
Australia. These countries have signed bilateral
military cooperation agreements with Washington. As US
allies, they are slated to be involved in Pentagon war
plans directed against Russia, China and North Korea:

Japan and South Korea                   are also both part of a
grand U.S. military project                   involving the
global stationing of missile systems and
rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan
Administration. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global
Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China,
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-military-alliance-encircling\
-russia-and-china/5605>  Global                   Research,
October 5, 2007)

This Pentagon strategy                   of military encirclement
requires both centralized                   military decision
making(Pentagon, USSTRATCOM) as
well coordination with NATO and the various US
regional commands.

While Russia is formally                   within the
jurisdiction of US European Command                    (USEUCOM),
US war plans pertaining to Russia are
coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters
(USSTRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska, which in turn is in
liaison not only with US European Command (USEUCOM)
but also with USPACOM and USNORTHCOM, both of which
would play a key strategic role in the case of war
with Russia.



Source: historyfuturenow.com
<http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-do-we-need-the-military-t\
rade-and-security/>

US-Australia                     Military Agreement

On August 12, the US and                   Australia signed a
military agreement allowing for the                   deployment
of US troops in Australia. This agreement                   is
part of Obama’s Pivot to Asia:

The U.S. and Australia                   signed an agreement
Tuesday [August 12] that will                   allow thetwo
countries’ militaries to train and work
better together as U.S. Marines and airmen deploy in
and out of the country.

“This long-term                   agreement will broaden
and deepen our alliance’s                   contributions
to regional security,” U.S. Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday. He described the
U.S.-Australia alliance as the “bedrock” for
stability                   in the Asia-Pacific region.

…

Since 2011, the number                   of Marines there has
grown from about 250 to more than                   1,100 now.
Australian Defense Minister David Johnston                   said
the northern territory looks forward to the
Marine presence growing to the 2,500 limit.

Ironically, coinciding                   with the announcement of
the US-Australia agreement                   (August 12), Moscow
announced that it would be                   conducting naval
exercises in the Kuril Islands of the                   Pacific
Ocean (which are claimed by Japan):

“Exercises began                   involving military
units in the region, which have                   been deployed
to the Kuril Islands,” Colonel Alexander
Gordeyev, a spokesman for Russia’s Eastern Military
District, told news agency Interfax. (Moscow Times,
August 12, 2014)

The Dangers of a                     Third World War

While this renewed                   East-West confrontation has
mistakenly been labelled a                   “New Cold
War”, none of the safeguards of The Cold War
era prevail. International diplomacy has collapsed.
Russia has been excluded from the Group of Eight
(G-8), which has reverted to the G-7 (Group of Seven
Nations). There is no “Cold War East-West dialogue”
between competing superpowers geared towards avoiding
military confrontation. In turn, the United Nations
Security Council has become a de facto mouthpiece of
the U.S. State Department.

The timeline towards war                   with Russiahas been
set. The Wales NATO venue on                   September 4-5,
2014 is of crucial importance.

US-NATO will not,                   however, be able to win a
conventional war against                   Russia, with the
danger that military confrontation                   will lead to
a nuclear war.

In the post-Cold war                   era, however, nuclear
weapons are no longer considered                   as a
“weapon of last resort” under the Cold War
doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction”
(MAD).  Quite                   the opposite. nuclear weapons
are heralded by the                   Pentagon as
“harmless to the surrounding civilian
population because the explosion is underground”. In
2002, the U.S. Senate gave the green light for the use
of nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Nukes are part of the “military toolbox” to be used
alongside conventional weapons.

When war becomes peace,                   the world is turned
upside down.  In a bitter irony,                   nukes are
now upheld by Washington as “instruments of
peace”.

In addition to nuclear                   weapons, the use of
chemical weapons is also                   envisaged.

Methods of                   non-conventional warfare are also
contemplated by                   US-NATO including financial
warfare, trade sanctions,                   covert ops,
cyberwarfare, geoengineering and                   environmental
modification technologies (ENMOD). But                   Russia
also has  extensive capabilities in these
areas.

Western leaders in High                   office are Involved in
a Criminal Undertaking which                   Threatens the
Future of Humanity

What we are dealing with                   is a World War III
Scenario, which is the object of                    the Wales
NATO Summit on September 4-5, 2014, hosted                   by
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. The agenda
of this meeting has already been set by Washington,
NATO and the British government. It requires,
according to PM David Cameron in a letter addressed to
heads of State and heads of government of NATO member
states ahead of the Summit that:

“Leaders [of NATO                   countries] must
review NATO’s long term
relationship with Russia at the summit in response to
Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. And the PM wants
to use the summit to agree how NATO will
sustain a robust presence in Eastern Europe in the
coming months to provide reassurance to allies there,
building on work already underway in NATO.”
(See PM                     writes to NATO leaders ahead of
NATO Summit Wales                     2014
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous-crossroads-us-nato-to-dep\
loy-ground-troops-conduct-large-scale-naval-exercises-against-unn\
amed-enemy/PM%20writes%20to%20NATO%20leaders%20ahead%20of%20NATO%\
20Summit%20Wales%202014> )

It is essential                   to undermine the
“military timeline”, namely to:

1) block the holding of                   the upcoming NATO
Summit meeting at the Celtic Manor                   Resort,
Newport, Wales (image right) on September 4-5,
through political pressure and mass
protest.The objective of this NATO venue, is to “build
a political consensus” for a war directed against the
Russian Federation, which could potentially lead the
World into a Third World War. It is therefore
essential to break this “political consensus”.

2) In addition to the 28                   NATO member states,
represented by their respective                   heads of State
and heads of government, NATO “partner”
countries will also be represented. In all, the
governments of 60 countries will be in attendance. It
is therefore crucial to initiate a vast Worldwide
antiwar campaign in all 60 countries to stall the NATO
Summit meeting in Wales.*

3) block the adoption of                   the “The
Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) in
the US Congress, through pressure on senators and
members of Congress, it should be understood that the
text of the NATO Summit communique (which already
exists in draft form) is broadly similar to that
of “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA).

4) initiate a broad                   anti-war debate and protest
movement throughout the US                    and NATO member
states.

5) undermine the                   legitimacy of the
US-NATO-Israel military agenda                   through
counter-propaganda directed against mainstream
media coverage;

World public opinion                   must be made aware
of these impending war plans.

Spread the word far and                   wide.

Note

*Further details: Summit                     Meeting of NATO
Heads of State and Government,                     Newport,
Wales, United Kingdom – 4-5 September 2014
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_111553.htm?mode=pressre\
lease>

By Prof Michel
Chossudovsky, globalresearch.ca
                              Tags: NATO
<http://www.strategic-culture.org/tags/nato.html>  Eastern
Europe
<http://www.strategic-culture.org/tags/eastern-europe.html>
 Russia <http://www.strategic-culture.org/tags/russia.html>
 US <http://www.strategic-culture.org/tags/us.html>


==========================================


____________________________________________
4. Georgian Regime Prepares For NATO Summit
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am ((PDT))

http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=51832&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=0

Rustavi 2
August 25, 2014

 	
Working meeting with the President


The President of Georgia today held a preparatory meeting for the NATO 
Summit in Wales - the meeting was attended by Defence Minister Irakli 
Alasania, National security Secretary Irine Imerlishvili, Deputy Foreign 
Minister Davit Zalkaliani and State Minister for Euro-Atlantic 
Integration Davit Dondua.

The President listened to the report by the senior officials regarding 
the preparatory activities.

The NATO Summit will be held in Wales on  4-5 September. The delegation 
of Georgia will be led by President Giorgi Margvelashvili.


====================================================================


http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=51841&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=0

Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014


NATO does not recognize Abkhazia `elections`


The NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made a special 
statement regarding the so-called presidential elections held in 
Georgia`s breakaway Abkhazia last Sunday.

`NATO does not recognise the election held on 24 August in the Georgian 
region of Abkhazia. This election does not contribute to a peaceful and 
lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. NATO Allies do not 
recognise the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia as 
independent states.

The Alliance reiterates its full support for the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised 
borders`, the statement says.


====================================================


http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=51839&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=0

Rustavi 2
August 26, 2014

 	
PM assigns Cabinet to assist Ukrainian colleagues


The Prime Minister of Georgia has assigned the Cabinet to provide 
maximum support to their colleagues in Ukraine. Irakli Gharibashvili 
addressed the ministers at the meeting of the government this morning.

`It will be reasonable if we provide humanitarian assistance to our 
Ukrainian friends,` Irakli Gharibashvili announced.

He also questioned Health Minister Sergeenko about the details of his 
decisions to take Georgian doctors to Ukraine. The delegation is due to 
leave for Kiev tomorrow and assist their colleagues in treating the 
people injured in the battles against the separatists.

Minister Sergeenko will be accompanied by the Chief of the Emergencies 
Department, Zurab Utiashvili.
Concurrently, several senior authorities, including the representatives 
of the Ministry of Finance are expected to arrive in Tbilisi. Georgian 
colleagues will share their experience of overcoming crisis in specific 
sectors.


======================================


______________________________________________
5. Baltic Sea: NATO Maintains Expanding Fleet Of Warplanes
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am ((PDT))

http://www.aco.nato.int/alliance-solidarity-in-the-baltic-region-continues.aspx


North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Air Command
August 26, 2014


ALLIANCE SOLIDARITY IN THE BALTIC REGION CONTINUES


Ramstein, GERMANY: As NATO’s current Baltic Air Policing (BAP) rotation 
draws to a close at the end of August, outgoing fighter detachments are 
working hard to prepare hand over responsibilities and tasks.

The 36th rotation of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing will commence in 
September with six Portuguese F-16 fighter aircraft deploying to 
Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania to execute the mission as the lead nation. 
Canada, Germany and The Netherlands will be augmenting the mission.

The official BAP handover/takeover ceremony will take place at Siauliai 
Air Base, Lithuania, on 1 September 2014. The outgoing nations; Poland, 
United Kingdom, Denmark and France will pass responsibility for the 
Baltic airspace to the four incoming nations.

Four Canadian CF-18s will operate from Siauliai Air Base alongside 
Portugal. Germany will deploy four Eurofighters to Ämari Air Base, 
Estonia, and the Netherlands will have four of its F-16s at Malbork Air 
Base, Poland. All assets will be used to ensure 24/7 availability of 
Quick Reaction Alert (Intercept) forces to secure the airspace over 
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

NATO’s BAP is a standing peacetime mission and has been conducted since 
April 2004. As the Baltic States do not have their own means to provide 
air policing of their territory, they have been assisted by other NATO 
members to preserve the integrity of their sovereign airspace in 
peacetime, and to ensure their collective security. So far, 14 NATO 
nations have supported this mission.

In line with NATO’s extensive assurance measures, Allies have offered 
additional assets under the NATO Air Policing framework since April 2014.

Story by HQ AIRCOM Public Affairs Office


======================================


____________________________________________
6. FW: Imposing Order through Violence
    Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" fboyle at illinois.edu facboyle
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:06 am ((PDT))


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

Feed: Dissident Voice
Posted on: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:01 AM
Author: Ludwig Watzal
Subject: Imposing Order through Violence


In Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to 
Terminate the Qaddafi 
Revolution<http://www.powells.com/partner/36683/biblio/0985335378?p_isbn> Francis 
A. Boyle tells the story of what happened, why it happened, and what 
went wrong between the United States and Libya from a perspective of a 
professor of international law. Among the U.S. Empire’s serving 
international law professors, Francis A. Boyle is an exception among 
American international law professors, because he offers his legal 
advice for government of states that are the victims of Western 
aggression. He has been opposing unlawful policies of states with his 
only available “weapon”: international law. He could be described as a 
defender of the downtrodden of the current international system such as 
the Palestinian people, Libya under Muammar al Gaddafi, and others. 
Beyond that, he has contributed a great deal to the advancement of 
international law by, inter alia, drafting the Biological Weapons 
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Since the early 1980s, Boyle visited Libya numerous times and advised 
the government on international legal cases. He convinced Gaddafi to sue 
the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of 
Justice (ICJ) over the Lockerbie bombing allegations. Before this 
lawsuit was filed, U.S. President Bush Sr. ordered the Sixth Fleet off 
the coast of Libya to carry out hostile maneuvers in preparation for 
another illegal attack as was done by his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. 
After Boyle filed these two lawsuits at the ICJ, Bush ordered U.S. 
warships to stand down. Boyle also tried to support Gaddafi during the 
U.S./NATO war of 2011 but to no avail. Gaddafi fought and died for 
Libya, defending his country against the West like his hero Omar Mukthar 
had done against the Italian colonizers.

Francis A. Boyle is a leading American expert in international law which 
he teaches at the University of Illinois, Campaign. He is also the 
author of numerous books on American foreign policy, international law 
and the foundations of the world order. He served on the Board of 
Directors of Amnesty International and as an adviser to the Palestinian 
Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. This 
delegation was headed by the highly respected Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi. 
Boyle was not responsible, however, for Yasser Arafat’s decision to 
secretly negotiate with Israel in Oslo behind the back of the 
Palestinian delegation. He bears thus no responsibility for the 
resulting “Declaration of Principles”, for which the Palestinian people 
have been paying since then a terrible price.

[9780985335373]<http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/9780985335373.jpg>In 
his book, Francis A. Boyle relates the history of U.S. foreign policy 
towards Libya, starting with the Reagan administration in 1981 till the 
U.S./NATO war that led to the overthrow of Col. Gaddafi. Before going 
into nuts and bolts, Boyle criticizes the American political 
establishment and explains why U.S. domestic and international policies 
are in a malaise. The reason, as stated by him, lies in the mindset of 
the American political and intellectual establishment which he believes 
is strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Although he admits to 
differences between the views of American lawyers and those of political 
scientists, the author submits “that both groups essentially endorse [a] 
Hobbist perspective on the world of international relations and domestic 
affairs”. This commonly shared Hobbism “has become responsible for many 
of the major crimes, blunders, and tragedies of contemporary American 
foreign policy decision-making”. (p.19)

According to Boyle, Hobbesian power politics contradicts several of the 
most fundamental principles upon which the United States is apparently 
founded: the inalienable rights of the individual, peoples’ 
self-determination, the sovereign equality and independence of states, 
non-interventionism, respect of international law and organizations, and 
the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Although various U.S. 
administrations “tried to live up to these principles” the net result 
has been a “counterproductive creation of a series of unmitigated 
disasters” (p. 30) for the U.S. One of the greatest mistakes has been 
the subversion of the entire post-World War II international and legal 
order that the United States helped to construct in 1945. I think that 
the Bush warriors and the U.S. power elite do not believe that their 
policy was a disaster.

The author accuses in particular the Reagan and the Bush junior 
administrations’ policy of double standards. They often “resort to 
legalistic subterfuges by pleading principles of international law in 
order to disguise their realpolitik foreign policy decisions”. (p. 31) 
Although the rules of international law are not a blueprint for reaching 
all policy objectives, they can still serve as a guideline for 
decision-makers as to what they should do to avoid running into 
troubles, writes Boyle.

Boyle’s criticism of the American foreign policy towards Libya is based 
on his functionalist, Fullerian, and an anti-Hobbesian framework of 
analysis for international law and organizations. In two chapters, the 
author describes the series of conflicts between the U.S. and the Libyan 
leader over the Gulf of Sidra and the allegations of international 
terrorism made by the U.S. against Libya during the Reagan presidency. 
Chapter four contains a description of the Lockerbie bombing allegations 
and the legal dispute by the U.S. and the United Kingdom against Libya 
as a result. The policies of the subsequent U.S. administrations, 
beginning with Bush senior, Clinton to Bush junior, which aimed at the 
control of the Libyan oil fields, writes Boyle.

In 2011, according to Boyle, the neoliberal Obama administration took 
over Libya’s oil fields under the pretext of the so-called 
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, illustrating its fraudulent 
manipulation of international humanitarian law. He debunks not only R2P 
but also its predecessor “humanitarian intervention” (Serbia) with the 
standard criteria of international law as an excuse to overthrow 
unpopular governments in order to replace them with imported U.S. 
puppets like in Afghanistan or in Kosovo. He argues that all the wars 
started under a humanitarian pretext resulted in humanitarian catastrophes.

The author doubts whether the U.S. and NATO will be able to establish a 
puppet regime in Libya because of “significant residual support for 
Gaddafi and his Green Revolution” and of the highly volatile political 
and military situation throughout the country as the killing of the U.S. 
ambassador in Benghazi has shown. “All the U.S./NATO really care about 
in Libya is its continued free flow of oil from Eastern Libya organized 
around Benghazi.” (p.155) The rest of the country can disintegrate into 
the Sahara as far as the U.S./NATO is concerned. According to Boyle, 
Obama uses the R2P doctrine in order to destabilize Syria and overthrow 
the Assad Family regime.

Boyle even goes so far as claiming that R2P has been used by powerful 
Western countries to justify wanton military aggression and military 
occupation of weak countries in the South. This schema is based on 
racism because the aggression was carried out by “white” people from the 
North against “colored” people from the South. History teaches us indeed 
that great powers do not use military force for humanitarian reasons. 
The U.S. and its major allies have been behind most of the humanitarian 
atrocities in the modern world. (p. 156) Humanitarian interventionism is 
only used in a mere “propagandistic sense”. (p. 159)

The World Court has already rejected R2P/Humanitarian Intervention twice 
and so did the UN General assembly. Western powers claimed “that there 
existed supposed principles of customary international law that 
permitted them to engage in the unilateral threat and use of military 
force against other states, peoples, and regions of the world. In 
particular, these alleged ‘principles’ included the so-called doctrines 
of intervention, protection, and self-help.” (p. 161) These supposed 
doctrines (R2P/Humanitarian Intervention) were unanimously rejected by 
the International Court of Justice. The author counters R2P with the 
rule of law. This doctrine is for him nothing more than “imperialist 
propaganda for wars of aggression in the name of human rights”. (p. 166) 
For Boyle, the U.S. and NATO form “the Axis of Genocide”. In this 
chapter, Boyle gave a damning indictment of the R2P doctrine. Some human 
rights organizations around the world should rethink their policy of 
being cheerleaders of a doctrine that serves not the people but only 
Western neo-imperialism.

A detailed analysis on the 2011 U.S./NATO war on Libya is given in 
chapter six. Since 9/11 the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle 
East have engaged in “unlimited imperialism” and a “global warfare” 
against Arab, Muslim and African states in order to steal their 
hydrocarbon resources. (p. 176) “Libya 2011 was a Nuremberg crime 
against peace perpetrated by the United States, France and Britain that 
was aided and abetted and facilitated by the NATO Alliance and its other 
member states.” (p. 185) Accomplice in this international crime was the 
Arab League.

The book is a scathing critic of modern Western imperialist policy, 
especially in its Islamophobic and racist version against the Muslim 
world that might constitute the only force that has the potential to 
defeat Western unlimited imperialism.


View 
article...<http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/05/imposing-order-through-violence/>



=================================================


___________________________________________________
7. Agree with her or not, this is one Palestinian woman who doesn't hal
    Posted by: "Kim Scipes" kimscipes at earthlink.net kscipes
    Date: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:11 am ((PDT))

Folks—

This is a 30 minute talk, given recently in North Carolina.  It is 
powerful—and thought provoking: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=hHAmAULY23U&app=desktop .

I urge you to listen


In international solidarity—

Kim Scipes


==========================================


END





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

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

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


J. Ellero