The Last Days of Obama: Napoleonic Maneuvers at the Security Council

Caleb Maupin
New Eastern Outlook

It seemed to come almost out of nowhere. The United States usually protects Israel from critical resolutions at the UN Security Council. However, in a dramatic move, the US abstained and a resolution criticizing recent settlement activity was passed by the 15-member body.

But this was not the end. John Kerry, Obama’s former Secretary of State, gave a lengthy address a few days later. Kerry’s speech was not so different from the statements of previous leaders, both Democrats and Republicans. He defended Israel’s existence, and denounced almost all forces actively opposing Israel.

However, Kerry harshly criticized specific Israeli policies. While Kerry’s speech defending the UN abstention uttered the standard, mildly critical, pro-Israeli talking points, it did contain some words that, taken out of context and spread throughout the internet, could and did indeed make a lot of Israelis and Zionists very angry. The most quoted one was:

“If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both.”

Kerry was alluding to the fact that if Palestinians are absorbed into Israel in a “one state solution” but Israel remains a “Jewish State” this will not be democratic. According to Kerry, under such circumstances Palestinians would be second class citizens, i.e. non-Jews in a Jewish state.

Immediately, Kerry’s speech was decried by Israelis. Netanyahu fired back, as did the entire pro-Israeli blogosphere. The Republican and Likud Party aligned voices escalated the shrill accusations that Obama was a secret Muslim, a member of the Muslim brotherhood, a terrorist sympathizer, a Neo-Nazi, a Communist, and everything else he has been called for 8 years straight.

Meanwhile, Israel did not stop its settlement activity, and was not really affected at all by the resolution. The billions of dollars in US aid to Israel continued. Obama has left the office on January 20th, and is now replaced by Donald Trump, who claims to be more pro-Israel than Obama. The UN Security Council is not taking any specific action to halt the settlement activities condemned in its resolution.

Nothing really changed, but a lot of dramatic, heated words were exchanged between the USA and its closest Middle Eastern ally. Why did this happen?

Read more

John Kerry admits that Russia entered Syrian war to stop ISIS, U.S. used ISIS to pressure Assad

Sott.net

Back in late September, the New York Times published an interesting piece: Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors. (PolitRussia's Ruslan Ostashko commented on it here.) But the NYT piece left out THE most damning statements made by Kerry. The full video is below, followed by one of the biggest revelations: 

[...]

 26:09: "I mean, the reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger. Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth. And that's why Russia came in. Because they didn't want a Daesh government. And they supported Assad. And, and, uh, and we we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that, that Daesh was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. Uhh, we thought our, we could probably manage, uh, you know, that Assad might then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, you've got Assad and you've got Putin to support him." 

So there you have it. From the horse's mouth. The U.S. knew that Russian intervention in Syria was for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of destroying ISIS and stopping them from taking control of the country. You know, 'ISIS', the mass murderers who have been slaughtering Europeans. And yet, the US responded to Russian efforts by repeatedly accusing Russia of 'killing civilians' and attempting to thwart Russian efforts at every turn. 

Read more (Video)

Syria - Russian Surprise Attack Blows Up Kerry's Delaying Tactic

"The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations. You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for the Russian air force."

 

Moon of Alabama

 

The U.S. is unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.

After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S. supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.

Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its "moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate" friends.

The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates" continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.

After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently expressed the Russian consternation:

The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months. I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Read more

From villains to heroes: The Empire's ridiculous narrative about Al Qaeda

Ulson Gunnar
New Eastern Outlook

Syrian President Bashar al Assad would seem like a natural ally to the United States and the European Union. He heads a secular government and presides over a secular nation. It is a nation where extremist political factions like the Muslim Brotherhood are outlawed and armed terrorist groups hunted down and eliminated. There was even a point in history before the 2011 war began within and along Syria's borders that Washington even feigned such an alliance with Damascus.

The London Telegraph in its article, "John Kerry and Bashar al-Assad dined in Damascus," reported:

Mr Kerry visited Damascus in February 2009, when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He said in a press conference during the visit: "President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process.

"Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region."

Mr Kerry met with Mr Assad at least six times, and on one occasion - seen in the photographs - dining with the two men's wives at the Naranj restaurant in central Damascus.

Though the US considered at the time Syria to be a "state sponsor of terrorism," that was only because of its support of Lebanon's Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda and its affiliates who the US Army's own reports indicate the government was working against even during the US occupation of Iraq when Syria was used as an entry point into the country along its southern borders. Ironically, the US Army's reports would indicate that many of the networks now considered "rebels," were involved in facilitating Al Qaeda's transit through Syrian territory into Iraq to kill Americans using Saudi cash.

Read more

 

Russia Saving World From Total War

Finian Cunningham
Sputnik

The deployment this week of a US missile system in Eastern Europe is another step towards all-out global war. Despite Western propaganda demonizing Russia, the truth is that it is Russian military might that is actually holding the line to prevent such a cataclysm.

The United States and its NATO allies are already at war with Russia. This is not hyperbole. It is fact. The US and its allies are amassing weapons and troops on Russia’s borders, and engaging in simulated attacks from various directions.

Orwellian language of “war games” in Western media serves to diminish the disturbing fact that NATO forces are preparing offensive strikes on Russia.

War machinery on both sides are locked on. The encounter last month of the US warship with Russian fighter jets in the Baltic Sea is but one of many such close encounters occurring almost every week. Granted, weapons have not actually been fired yet. Nevertheless, the weapon machinery is engaged.

Again, Western media serve to normalize what is a balefully abnormal situation. At the behest of Washington, the Western countries are trying to blockade Russia with economic sanctions. This is just another provocative act of war.

Moreover, diplomatic channels between Washington and Moscow seem attenuated to levels as low as at any time during the former Cold War. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has apparently maintained a cordial working relationship with his American counterpart John Kerry, but apart from that individual rapport the bilateral position between the two powers has sunken to an all-time low.

Read more
 

Putin lays it all out on the table for Obama regarding Syria

Mike Whitney
Counterpunch

Why is John Kerry so eager to convene an emergency summit on Syria now when the war has been dragging on for four and a half years?

Is he worried that Russia's air campaign is wiping out too many US-backed jihadis and sabotaging Washington's plan to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad?

You bet, he is. No one who's been following events in Syria for the last three weeks should have any doubt about what's really going on. Russia has been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. That, in turn, has strengthened Assad's position in Damascus and left the administration's policy in tatters. And that's why Kerry wants another meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pronto even though the two diplomats met less than a week ago. The Secretary of State is hoping to cobble together some kind of makeshift deal that will stop the killing and salvage what's left of Uncle Sam's threadbare Syrian project.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Iran had been invited to the confab which will be held in Vienna on Thursday. The announcement is bound to be ferociously criticized on Capital Hill, but it just shows to what extent Russia is currently setting the agenda. It was Lavrov who insisted that Iran be invited, and it was Kerry who reluctantly capitulated. Moscow is now in the drivers seat.

And don't be surprised if the summit produces some pretty shocking results too, like a dramatic 180 on Washington's "Assad must go" demand. As Putin has pointed out many times before, Assad's not going anywhere. He's going to be a part of Syria's "transitional governing body" when the Obama team finally agrees to the Geneva Communique which is the political track that will eventually end the fighting, restore security, and allow millions of refugees to return to their homes.

The reason the administration is going to agree to allow Assad to stay, is because if they don't, the Russian Airforce is going to continue to blow US-backed mercenaries to smithereens. So, you see, Obama really has no choice in the matter. Putin has put a gun to his head and made him an offer he can't refuse.

That doesn't mean the war is going to be a cakewalk for Russia or its allies. It won't be. In fact, there have already been some major setbacks, like the fact that ISIS just seized a critical section of the Aleppo-Khanasser highway, cutting off the government's supply-lines to Aleppo. This is a serious problem, but it is not a problem that can't be overcome nor is it a problem that will effect the outcome of the war. It's just one of the obstacles that has to be dealt with and surpassed. Taking a broader view, the outlook is much more encouraging for the Russian-led coalition which continues to cut off supply-lines, blow up ammo dumps and fuel depots, and rapidly eviscerate the ability of the enemy to wage war. So, while the war is certainly not a walk in the park, there's no doubt about who's going to win.  

Read more

Is Washington Planning a Terrorist Operation against Syria in the Wake of the Elections?

Global Research
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky 

With security heightened throughout the country, elections in Syria are proceeding normally.  

The country has largely been pacified following the retreat of terrorist opposition forces from Homs in early May. 

The  elections have not been disrupted and no major terrorist event has been reported. 

Reports confirm a high turn out.

The aftermath of this election including the response of US-NATO is of crucial significance. 

Washington has already announced that it will not recognize the results of the June 3, elections. 

According to the New York Times, the elections are taking place “Amid Fear and Pressure” and are therefore categorized as “illegitimate”.

In a twisted logic the elections are portrayed by the Western media as an obstacle to achieving real democracy. The Western consensus is that the elections will contribute to a “continuation of the civil war” despite the defeat of the insurgency.

A “Continuation of the Civil  War” is a US Foreign Policy option. It is a means to implement Regime Change.

Scenarios of civil war are on the US-NATO drawing board. Confirmed by US statements, the underlying military-intelligence agenda is to foster a continuation of the civil war, namely to rebuild the terrorist insurgency.  
 
There are indications that Washington and its allies are planning a new wave of destabilization involving the influx of weapons and death squads to be carried out in the wake of the June 3 Elections. This “civil war destabilization scenario” is to be supported by a new package of US military aid announced by President Obama on May 28th, less than a week before the June 3 elections. 


In mid May, two weeks before the elections, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the US and its allies “would increase all aspects of support for the mainstream Syrian opposition fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad”.

 

Confirmed by John Kerry, these efforts consist in accelerating the flow of weapons to opposition fighters ahead of the elections:

“Every possible avenue will be pursued by one country or another,… I’m not going to discuss specific weapons and what country may or may not be providing [weapons], but out of today’s meeting [May 15, less than 3 weeks before the June 3 elections] every facet of what can be done will be ramped up, and that includes a political effort, aid to the opposition… economic efforts and sanctions.” (quoted in Guardian, May 15, 2014)

Kerry’s May 15 statement to speed up the flow of weapons to opposition rebels was followed two weeks later by a formal announcement by President Obama.

A week before the Syrian elections at his May 28 West Point Military College address, president Obama formally confirmed a new military aid package to be channeled to Syria’s “freedom fighters”.

Was this new flow of US military aid initiated prior to the elections?

According to a statement (May 22, 2014), by Mr Ahmad Al-Jarba,Chairman of the “opposition” Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the weapons will arrive “within weeks”. A subsequent report coinciding with President Obama’s official confirmation on May 28, stated within a period of “three weeks”, which includes the week leading up to the June 3, elections:

“[Mr Al Jarba] …did not not specify the quality of the weapons or reveal whether they will include the highly effective “Man Pad” anti-aircraft missiles, which could effectively change the balance of power on the ground” (5pillarz.com, May 31,  2014)

President Obama “spoke of two-pronged support aimed at assisting the armed opposition” against both Bashar Al as well as against the jihadist terrorist organizations which are fighting government forces.

This contradictory statement by president Obama was largely intended to reaffirm America’s commitment to “fighting terrorism”, rather than “supporting terrorism” in Syria, something which by now has been amply documented. The evidence confirms that the opposition terrorist insurgents are supported by US-NATO and Israel, trained in Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.

According to reports, President Obama  … “wants to combat the burgeoning power of the Islamist armies – which the US identify as “terrorists”” while financing and training the so-called “moderate opposition”.

This is an obvious smokescreen: There is no such thing as a moderate armed opposition in Syria.
While the Western media, echoing Obama’s concern regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the al-Nusra Front, fail to acknowledge that the bulk of US military aid is channeled covertly to these two terrorist organizations, which are supported by US intelligence.

The timely resolution of France at the United Nations Security Council directed against Syria was intended to create confusion in the weeks leading up the elections:

Syria’s Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, accused the UN of facilitating a plot against the regime. France, he said, was inciting public opinion against Syria within the UN and had launched a “futile” bid to have the Syrian file investigated at the International Criminal Court (ICC).(5pillarz.com, May 31, 2014)

According to Ja’afari, France’ resolution was aimed at:

“piling up political pressure on the Syrian government and throwing into confusion the presidential elections so as to end up in a state of constitutional, political and security vacuum.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The latest reports out of  Damascus suggest that the security situation is under control. No incidents were reported on the day of the elections. The elections are proceeding normally.

The mask comes off as duplicitous Kerry says West's 'Trans-Atlantic' global hegemony is at stake in Ukraine, NATO should 'return' to its original mandate of 'fending off Russia'

Sott.net/RT

NATO must return to its original goal of fending off Russia, seizing the chance presented by the Ukrainian crisis to sever Europe from Moscow and move it closer to America, the US secretary of state said. Or else the bloc's global leadership may be lost.

John Kerry delivered the confrontational call in a speech to the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, DC. He said the stand-off in Ukraine had resulted from a "uniquely personally-driven set of choices" and is "a wake-up call" for NATO. He added that now the military bloc must turn the page on two decades of focusing on expeditionary operations and take a stand against "Putin's Russia."

"After two decades of focusing primarily on our expeditionary missions, the crisis in Ukraine now call us back to the work that this alliance was originally created to perform," Kerry told the audience.

Comment: "Our expeditionary missions"?! Wow, is that statement ever dripping with imperialistic hubris! In one phrase, Kerry has let slip the mask of 'humanitarian intervention', 'Right to Protect', 'War on Terror' and all the other BS Western liberal paramoralisms to acknowledge that the bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere were in fact military operations 'out there on the periphery of our empire'.

As regards "what this alliance was originally created to perform", NATO was originally the military occupation by the U.S. of Western Europe once WW2 ended. The only thing that has changed is that its sphere of influence has extended right up to Russia.

Read more

‘Russian agents captured in Ukraine? Show them!’ – Lavrov

Strategic Culture.org

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed as “not serious” reports of Russian agents captured in Ukraine. He accused US politicians of distorting facts and wrongfully interpreting the Geneva agreement on de-escalation.

Lavrov lashed out at western politicians while speaking at a young diplomats’ forum in Moscow. The minister accused his counterparts in the EU and the US of making unsubstantiated statements.

"Kerry has many times mentioned that Ukrainian intelligence captured Russian agents,” Lavrov said. 

“So, show them to the people, have them on TV. Kerry says they don’t want to disclose the identities of those people who are engaged in the captures. This is not serious.”
While the west is accusing Russia of not following through on the Geneva agreement, Lavrov believes the attitude stems from misinterpretation of the de-escalation agreement.
“Representatives of the US State Department, Victoria Nuland in particular, claim that in Geneva we agreed upon ‘separatists’ leaving the occupied buildings,” Lavrov said. “This is a lie, this could not have been written, because we were promoting the approach that ensures the simultaneity of processes and equal responsibilities of the sides when it comes to vacating illegally occupied buildings and disarming illegal groups.”

Lavrov said that Russia would not allow the distortion of the text of the Geneva agreement. He also questioned assertions made by John Kerry a day earlier concerning Kiev’s full compliance with the Geneva agreement. Kerry said authorities in the Ukrainian capital were “removing the barricades in the Maidan and cleaning up the square.”

“Instead of tires, they are now setting up concrete blocks there,” Lavrov said. “No one is going to clear the place.”

Lavrov complained that his western counterparts were not abandoning the language of slogans, even in one-on-one telephone conversations.

“If you think that when John Kerry, William Hague or Laurent Fabius call me, they speak differently in those personal contacts and say something you don’t know from their public speeches, you are mistaken,” Lavrov said, adding that he was still making attempts to have a real constructive dialogue with the officials he mentioned.

All kinds of sanctions against Russia are a sign of Western states having “got lost in their own game,” he said.

“The West generally wants – and the whole thing started with that – to capture Ukraine, with the intention being solely based on geopolitical ambition, not on the interests of the Ukrainian people.”

When the West realized it couldn’t get it its own way, it grew frustrated, Lavrov said. The frustration has been revealed in the “hard efforts on the sanctions trackway.”

The West Marches East: The U.S.-NATO Strategy to Isolate Russia

Andrew Gavin Marshall

In early March of 2014, following Russia's invasion of Crimea in Ukraine, the New York Times editorial board declared that Russian President Vladimir Putin had "stepped far outside the bounds of civilized behavior," suggesting that Russia should be isolated politically and economically in the face of "continued aggression."

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, lashed out at Russia's " incredible act of aggression," stating that: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pre-text." Indeed, invading foreign nations on "trumped up pre-texts" is something only the United States and its allies are allowed to do, not Russia! What audacity!

Even Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, proclaimed Russia's actions in Ukraine to be "aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic ," threatening "the peace and stability of the world." This is, of course, despite the fact that Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea took place without a single shot fired, and "faced no real opposition and has been greeted with joy by many citizens in the only region of Ukraine with a clear majority of ethnic Russians."

Indeed, Russia can only be said to be an "aggressive" and "imperial" power so long as one accepts the unrelenting hypocrisy of U.S. and Western leaders. After all, it was not Russia that invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, killing millions. It is not Putin, but rather Barack Obama, who has waged a "global terror campaign," compiling "kill lists" and using flying killer robots to bomb countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and even the Philippines, killing thousands of people around the world. It is not Putin, but rather, Barack Obama, who has been sending highly-trained killers into over 100 countries around the world at any given time, waging a "secret war" in most of the world's nations. It was not Russia, but rather the United States, that has supported the creation of "death squads" in Iraq, contributing to the mass violence, civil war and genocide that resulted; or that has been destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, increasing the possibility of nuclear war.

All of these actions are considered to be a part of America's strategy to secure 'stability,' to promote 'peace' and 'democracy.' It's Russia that threatens "the peace and stability of the world," not America or its NATO and Western allies. That is, of course, if you believe the verbal excretions from Western political leaders. The reality is that the West, with the United States as the uncontested global superpower, engages the rest of the world on the basis of 'Mafia Principles' of international relations: the United States is the global 'Godfather' of the Mafia crime family of Western industrial nations (the NATO powers). Countries like Russia and China are reasonably-sized crime families in their own right, but largely dependent upon the Godfather, with whom they both cooperate and compete for influence.

Read more

 

‘Letter to Jews’, Kerry cited, appears to be fake

Comment: Kerry and the State Department deceiving yet again. It's like a re-run of "House of Cards." Kerry is also looking stranger and stranger. His face seems to have melted. Does pathological lying do that? 

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

 

RT

A letter urging the Jews of Donetsk to get registered, which the US Secretary of State cited in Geneva, is a fake says a man whose signature appears on the communication.

Following the four-side meeting on the Ukrainian crisis in Geneva on Wednesday, John Kerry lashed out at a letter that was allegedly sent to Jewish citizens in Ukraine’s eastern town of Donetsk, asking them to register and report all their property, or be stripped of citizenship and face expulsion.

“In year 2014, after all of the miles traveled in all the journey of history, this is not just intolerable, it’s grotesque… beyond unacceptable,” he stated.

Images of the letter have been circulating online.

Read more

Rigging the Game Against the Palestinians

Paul R. Pillar  RINF Alternative News

Now that Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempt to breathe life into the diplomacy known as the Middle East peace process has been widely pronounced – even by those who appropriately salute his efforts – to be a failure, different quarters are chiming in with recommendations for what to do next about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some suggestions are helpful; others would only help to perpetuate the Israeli occupation and lack of an agreement, and may be tacitly intended to do just that.

The New York Times editorial board proposes that the United States, as a last act before ending this phase of its active diplomacy on the problem, post on the international bulletin board its own sense of what the principles of a final settlement ought to look like. This is probably worth doing, and it has the merit of reflecting the fact that the basic lines of a feasible two-state solution have been apparent for some time.

Perhaps this would help to clarify who is resisting such a settlement and who is not. This has been tried before, however, most notably with the Clinton parameters, and it was insufficient to push the process over a finish line.

A couple of other limitations and uncertainties, revealed in the most recent diplomacy, would have to be overcome for such a U.S. declaration of principles to help. One concerns whether the Obama administration would be able and willing to backtrack on how, in its recent efforts to get some kind of preliminary agreement, it moved away from the consensus feasible settlement and adopted certain Israeli positions, such as regarding a continued troop presence in the Jordan River valley, that were bound to be unacceptable to any Palestinian leader.

Read more

 

World Plunges Toward War After About-Face In Kiev - Was John Brennan Responsible?

LaRouchePAC

As of this writing, the UN Security Council is about to begin as 8:00 PM Sunday Emergency Meeting on Ukraine, summoned by Russia. 
 
The immediate background is that the self-proclaimed Ukraine government dropped its more conciliatory approach to the anti-Maidan demonstrators who are taking over public buildings in eastern Ukraine, after an emergency National Security Council meeting on Saturday evening, April 12. In that connection, the Russian state media Vesti television and RIA-Novosti report that US CIA Director and Obama crony John Brennan visited Kiev that same day, under an assumed name, to advise the Ukrainian defense and interior ministries on what to do. Inquiring about this in Washington, Novosti was told by a US National Security Council spokesman to ask the CIA, which has not yet answered. For its part, London's Daily Telegraph, in reporting the story of the Brennan visit, says that the White House refuses to confirm or deny it. 

After the Security Council meeting, coup-appointed president Turchynov told television cameras that the Army will be used to prevent a "repeat of Crimea" in the southeast, and offered guarantees of safety to anyone who gives up occupation of buildings by Monday morning, the Ukrainian site Zerkalo Nedeli reports. Interior Minister Arsen Avakov posted to his Facebook page that an "anti-terrorist" operation was being launched against building-occupiers in Slovyansk. He said the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) was coordinating forces from all over the country, and that special militia units were being set up to fight the "separatists." He said he counted on "12,000 patriots" to join them.

It is unclear how this overlaps the newly-formed National Guard. Russian media report that armed militants from the neo-Nazi Right Sector are prominent in the fighting in Slovyansk. 

At last report, Avakov had said that one of his Security Service troops had been killed, and there are reports of two deaths among demonstrators and larger numbers of injured on both sides. 

Earlier, in a Saturday evening telephone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Kerry, Kerry had threatened Russia with further sanctions if the eastern Ukraine building seizures continued. (US UN Ambassador Samantha Power did the same on US national television Sunday.) Lavrov had said that any use of force by the coup-installed government in Ukraine would imperil the four-way (Russia, Ukraine, US, EU) talks scheduled for Thursday. 

Sunday's violence precedes a scheduled Monday meeting of EU foreign ministers, and a Tuesday meeting of NATO's North Atlantic Council to consider how to strengthen NATO armed forces on Russia's borders.

Owen Jones: The hypocrisy of the Great Powers is on display again in Ukraine

Anti-war protester demonstrating against Russia's intervention in Ukraine arrested in Moscow.

Stop the War Coalition 
Owen Jones

“Rogue state” is not a term that applies to countries that violate international law, says Owen Jones, but rather to those that have failed to bend to the will of the West.

A mushroom cloud of testosterone has descended on social media; would-be Dr Strangeloves are even demanding military action against Russia, otherwise known as “stage 1 of the nuclear extermination of the human race”. The approach of Western governments, thankfully, has been rather more restrained, though hardly for peace-loving reasons: the City of London-funded Conservative party wants Russia’s money to keep flowing into financial institutions, and the German government wants its gas.

But bluster and self-interest aside, Russia’s invasion helps hold up a mirror to the West’s foreign policy, however much that makes us flinch. “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson was reported to have said in 1918; in the Ukrainian crisis, the first casualty has been irony. “You just don’t invade another country on a phoney pretext in order to assert your interests,” declares John Kerry, Secretary of State for a country which infamously did just that almost exactly 11 years ago. “The world cannot say it’s OK to violate the sovereignty of another nation in this way,” solemnly proclaims William Hague, who merrily waltzed through the division lobby in support of the Iraq war in 2003.

Let’s just think through how both the Russian government and Russian civilians are rationalising aggression in Ukraine. A democratically elected government has been violently overthrown. Prominent among the victorious uprising are right-wing extremists, who have been handed key government posts. There was an attempt to scrap Russian as an official language, moves to ban political parties, and unelected oligarchs have been imposed on Ukraine’s regions, indicative of a growing threat to the Russian minority, many of whom have Russian passports. Russia’s security needs are informed by the fact it has been repeatedly – and catastrophically – attacked from the West, and an agreement with Ukraine allows for the stationing of thousands of troops in Crimea.

Such rationalisations can be easily challenged, of course. A democratic mandate does not grant a government carte blanche to act as it wishes. This was not a coup, but a genuinely popular uprising in the country’s western and central regions, if not in its east and south. It is true that the AK-47-wielding far-right Right Sector did play a decisive role in the revolt’s success, and won respect from more moderate factions for doing so: there is a frightening tradition of conservatives and liberals helping fascists into power.

Read more

'This is not Rocky IV': Kerry tells Russia to be 'very careful' as Putin puts country on war footing

Comment: So, the war machine wants to make money and  new Cold War is just what it needs.

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

The Independent

US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday that Russia must be “very careful” in the decisions it makes on Ukraine, and that the country’s President should remember “this is not Rocky IV”.

“I think Russia needs to be very careful in the judgments that it makes going forward here,” he told US TV network NBC News.

“We are not looking for confrontation. But we are making it clear that every country should respect the territorial integrity here, the sovereignty of Ukraine.

“Russia has said it would do that and we think it’s important that Russia keeps its word,” he added.

Mr Kerry said that Russian President Vladimir Putin should “listen carefully to Ukrainians who have voiced their desire for change,” and reiterated that the US does not view its relationship with Russia as a “sort of continuation of the Cold War.”

“This is not Rocky IV,” he said, referring to the 1990 film depicting a battle between East and West, in which Rocky Balboa fights then-Soviet Union boxer Ivan Drago.

“Believe me. We don’t see it that way", he added.

His comments come after Mr Putin ordered an urgent drill to test the combat readiness of its military forces amid tensions with the West over Ukraine.

According to the Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, the manoeuvres commencing on Friday will last four days.

He added the exercise will involve ships of the Baltic and the Northern Fleets and the air force.

Shoigu's statement made no reference to Ukraine, where tensions remain high following the ousting of Russia-backed President Viktor Yanukovych.

Mr Kerry said he would “decline to speculate” on the whereabouts of Mr Yanukovych or whether he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

"We need to work together in what does not have to be a zero sum game to provide the capacity of the people of Ukraine to choose their future,” Kerry said. "That's all that's at stake."

Read more: Ukraine is not involved in an East-West battle, say US and Britain

Ukraine crisis: Parliament calls for ousted President Yanukovych to face trial as ethnic Russian secession fears grow

Europe and the US must build bridges with Russia over Ukraine’s future. The alternative is in none of our interests

The Do Nothing Peace Machine: Why Zionism Negates Peace

William A. Cook
RINF Alternative News

In 2010 I edited The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction, a collection of articles by world renowned writers who unveil the genocide taking place in Palestine by the occupying power in this “advanced” civilization of 2014, a slow water torture of constant humiliation, destruction and death as the world watches and nothing is done to bring justice to the people of Palestine. In that text, Dr. Jeff Halper details the quest for “peace” that has been crippled by the state of Israel, the intentional, calculated and indifferent response to the conditions facing the Palestinian people every day. He offers this reality:

Israel’s strategy until today is to bypass and encircle them, making deals with governments that isolate and, unsuccessfully so far, neutralize the Palestinians as players. This was most tellingly shown in the Madrid peace talks, when Israel only allowed Palestinian participation as part of the Jordanian delegation. But it includes the Oslo “peace process” as well. While Israel insisted on a letter from Arafat explicitly recognizing Israel as a “legitimate construct” in the Middle East, and later demanded a specific statement recognizing Israel as a Jewish state (both of which it got), no Israeli government ever recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Rabin was forthright as to the reason: If Israel recognizes the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, it means that a Palestinian state must by definition emerge – and Israel did not want to promise that.4 So except for vague pronouncements about not wanting to rule over another people and “our hand outstretched in peace,” Israel has never allowed the framework for genuine negotiations. The Palestinians must be taken into account, they may be asked to react to one or another of our proposals, but they are certainly not equal partners with claims to the country rivaling ours (“The Problem with Israel,” Jeff Halper, 2007).

Seven years ago, November 22, 2007, I wrote an article about George W. Bush’s plan to bring peace to the mid-east, a plan that used the city of Annapolis as its label with Condoleeza Rice acting as emissary from the American government meeting with Israeli and Palestinian officials. That article tracked the reality of the failed peace process from before the Mandate to 2007. It is now 2014 and there is no peace—but there is once again a “peace” initiative under way, an initiative every American President seems obliged to give lip service to knowing beforehand no peace will be affected. Why? Why go through a process all know will not result in peace? Why exercise an illusion? For whose benefit? To what end?

Resting on my bookshelf is a cunning little device, an object I’ve had in my office for decades, a curiosity piece that grabs the attention of children and adults, a strange unfamiliar gadget that appears to have a purpose since it has a handle, two gears fastened to small rounded cylinders that crisscross each other as one turns the handle, it’s called a do-nothing machine. Someone conceptualized it and someone created it and someone turns that handle to do nothing. Why? Why go through a process all know will not accomplish anything? Why spend time on an illusion? For whose benefit? To what end?

There it sits next to The Plight of the Palestinians and it seems to me Obama and Kerry must have one just like it since they initiated a process that they know will accomplish nothing, inspired no doubt by the do-nothing machine. Why? Perhaps it’s to pretend that they are not owned by the Israeli state or perhaps to defend themselves against the perception that they have abandoned any thought of a peaceful two state solution in Palestine or perhaps to extend time once again so Israel can steal more land and create more settlements allowing the slow motion genocide to continue. Perhaps an illusion is better than nothing at all.

Read more

 

How US bankrolling Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians destroys all hope of peace

 US secretary of state John Kerry and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu

 

Stop the War Coalition

 

Will Americans ever acknowledge their government's active role in destroying the chances for a just and lasting peace between Palestine and Israel?

The top recipient of U.S. foreign aid over the past three decades isn’t some impoverished land filled with starving kids, but a wealthy nation with a per-head gross domestic product on par with the European Union average, and higher than that of Italy, Spain, or South Korea.

This top recipient of such aid -- nearly all of it military since 2008 -- has been busily engaged in what looks like a nineteenth-century-style colonization project. In the late 1940s, our beneficiary expelled some 700,000 indigenous people from the land it was claiming.  In 1967, our client seized some contiguous pieces of real estate and ever since has been colonizing these territories with nearly 650,000 of its own people. It has divided the conquered lands with myriad checkpoints and roads accessible only to the colonizers and is building a 440-mile wall around (and cutting into) the conquered territory, creating a geography of control that violates international law.

“Ethnic cleansing” is a harsh term, but apt for a situation in which people are driven out of their homes and lands because they are not of the right tribe. Though many will balk at leveling this charge against Israel -- for that country is, of course, the top recipient of American aid and especially military largesse -- who would hesitate to use the term if, in a mirror-image world, all of this were being inflicted on Israeli Jews?

Read more

 

Israeli security minister slams Kerry over boycott threat, warns IDF may invade Gaza

Comment: Let's keep in mind that Martin Indyk, the State Department’s lead envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has long been suspected of being an Israeli spy. This is a bit like Tony Blair as Peace envoy to the Middle East. The last thing that these hardline Zionists want is peace. They seek chaos. Since Britain and America have made a botched job of regime change in Syria then Israeli extremists are running on full throttle for payback.

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

RT
 
In a heated attack on John Kerry’s speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Steinitz accused the US Secretary of State of holding a gun to Israel’s head in the peace negotiations. Kerry triggered a wave of criticism in Israel when he said there is “talk of boycotts” if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not come to an end.

"The risks are very high for Israel,” Kerry said Saturday. “People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure. We all have a strong interest in this conflict resolution.”

Steinitz retorted: “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests.” He added that Kerry was “messianic” in his mission to find a solution to the conflict.

Furthermore, Steinitz claimed that the US diplomat’s remarks were counterintuitive to the peace effort as they “encourage” the Palestinians to harden their positions in bilateral negotiations.

In response to the continued missile fire on Israel from Gaza, Steinitz said the Israeli army could invade the territory to destroy Hamas and bring the region under the full control of the Palestinian Authority.
“If the drip of rockets from Gaza continues, we will have no choice but to go inside [Gaza] to eliminate Hamas and allow the Palestinian Authority to regain control of the Gaza Strip,” Steinitz said.

Steinitz said that although the number of missiles fired had fallen over the past two years, Israel could not tolerate new attacks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed Kerry’s comments in his weekly address to his Cabinet.

“The attempts to boycott Israel are unethical and unjustified,” Netanyahu said at the beginning of the Cabinet meeting Sunday. “Moreover, they won't achieve their goal.”

The US Secretary of State is hoping to create a framework for the establishment of a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine by the end of 2014. Martin Indyk, the State Department’s lead envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, told Jewish leaders that the new framework will address controversial issues such as the settlements and Palestinian statehood.

Under the framework – which will be made public in a few weeks – Indyk said that about 75 percent to 80 percent would stay in what would become Israeli sovereign territory. In addition, he said the Palestinian Authority would allow settlers who want to remain as citizens of a future Palestinian state to stay in the territory.

Once the document is drawn up, both sides will be expected to sign the agreement to facilitate further peace negotiations.

Iran, US Celebrate Historic Nuclear Deal; Israeli PM Says 'Historic Mistake'

Comment: This is where the stakes get higher and therefore much more dangerous. Expect major false flags in the US to derail this.

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

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, center, embraces EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, during a ceremony at the United Nations after an agreement was reached on Iran's nuclear program, in Geneva, Switzerland, Sunday, Nov. 24, 2013. (AP Photo/Keystone, Martial Trezzini)

Epoch Times

President Barack Obama has said the historic deal struck with Iran on Sunday will block Iran’s path to developing nuclear arms. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is happy the deal will ease sanctions while allowing Iran to continue enrichment to make nuclear fuel. Israeli  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls it a “historic mistake” that will make Iran a greater threat. 

GENEVA — Iran struck a historic deal Sunday with the United States and five other world powers, agreeing to a temporary freeze of its nuclear program in the most significant agreement between Washington and Tehran in more than three decades of estrangement.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani endorsed the agreement, which commits Iran to curb its nuclear activities for six months in exchange for limited and gradual sanctions relief, including access to $4.2 billion from oil sales. The six-month period will give diplomats time to negotiate a more sweeping agreement.

It builds on the momentum of the public dialogue opened during September’s annual U.N. gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between President Barack Obama and moderate-leaning Rouhani, who was elected in June.

The package includes freezing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium at a maximum 5 percent level, which is well below the threshold for weapons-grade material and is aimed at easing Western concerns that Tehran could one day seek nuclear arms.

Obama hailed the pact’s provisions, which include curbs on Iran’s enrichment and other projects that could be used to make nuclear arms, as key to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

“Simply put, they cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb,” he told reporters in Washington.

Read more

U.S. Dismisses Israeli Assessment on Iran as 'Exaggerated, not Based on Reality'

Comment: At least members of the Obama Administration are getting something right...

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

Haaretz 

The State Department rejected on Wednesday Israel's assessment that the deal offered to Iran by the world powers in Geneva could be worth up to $40 billion to Tehran. 

Iran and the P5+1 - the United States, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and China - edged close to a preliminary accord on Iran's nuclear program during negotiations last week. The world powers are considering a temporary and limited relief of international sanctions in exchange for steps taken by Iran to halt most of its nuclear program. 

Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Wednesday that the sanctions relief package offered to Iran could be worth as much as $40 billion to Tehran. 

But when asked about Steinitz's estimate, State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki criticized Israel and said that Steinitz's "number, I can assure you, is inaccurate, exaggerated, and not based on reality." Psaki did not offer an American assessment, but did say it was considerably lower than that of Israel. 

Steinitz said Israel believed the sanctions put in place by the United States and European Union last year cost Iran's economy around $100 billion per year, or nearly a quarter of its output. 

"The sanctions relief directly will reduce between 15 to 20 billion dollars out of this amount," Steinitz said on Wednesday, suggesting that the weakening of the sanctions regime could eventually result in a $40 billion boost to the Iranian economy. 

"This is very significant. It's not all the sanctions. It's not the core sanctions about oil exports and the banking system, but it's very significant relief for the Iranians," he said at an English-language event hosted by the Jerusalem Press Club. 

Signs of a rift between Israel and the U.S. emerged last week over the negotiations with Iran.
On Friday, coming into a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his departure from Israel to Geneva, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel does not see itself bound by any deal made with Iran. 

Kerry said Monday that Netanyahu "needs to recognize that no agreement" with Iran has been reached and his opposition is premature. 

The six world powers and Iran agreed to resume negotiations on November 20.