Showing posts with label TRAFFICO DI DROGA E ARMI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TRAFFICO DI DROGA E ARMI. Show all posts

Saturday, February 29

GIORNALISTI COMPRATI DA DECENNI

Il 13 gennaio 2017, è morto Udo Ulfkotte.A causa di un infarto cardiaco, apparentemente, sebbene l’immediata cremazione del corpo e l’assenza di un’autopsia non mancheranno di alimentare, proprio per lui che è sempre stato descritto come un teorico della cospirazione, gravi dubbi sulle reali cause della sua morte. 

Nato nel 1960 a Lippstadt in Vestfalia studiò diritto e scienze politiche all’Università di Friburgo dove ottenne il dottorato di ricerca con una dissertazione sulla politica americana e sovietica nel Medio Oriente

Nel 1986 entrò alla redazione della Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) dove fu per anni corrispondente dall’estero ed acquisì una profonda conoscenza di decine di Paesi, specie in Medio Oriente. 

In quegli anni, così riferì lo stesso Udo Ulfkotte in un’intervista a Russia Today e nel suo recente libro dedicato al tema, egli partecipò a un diffuso sistema di corruttela dei giornalisti tedeschi,indotti da prebende e pressioni a diffondere notizie la cui finalità non era tanto quella di raccontare la verità, quanto quella…di Alessandro Fusillo

Saturday, July 28

1991-2011 FASCISMO-ECONOMICO OVVERO BUGIE E SANGUE

Guai se la denuncia del nazi-fascismo, risuonata nel 70° anniversario della liberazione di Auschwitz, servisse a depistare l’opinione pubblica dall’altro più pericoloso FASCISCMO quello ECONOMICO, fondato, principalmente, sulla menzogna che giustifica i peggiori atti, terminando in sistematiche aggressioni a POPOLI E CULTURE, AUTOCTONE, DEL MONDO INTERO

Per esempio la Jugoslavia, rasa al suolo dopo la decisione della Germania, assieme al Vaticano (1991) di riconoscere i separatisti, cattolici, sloveni e croati: inaccettabile, per la nascente EUROZONA, la sopravvivenza di un grande Stato, multi-etnico, come la JUGOSLAVIA  e, con l’economia interamente in mani pubbliche. 

Per esempio la Libia, di Muhamar Gheddafi, travolta dopo una sua  decisione di costituire una Banca Centrale africana con  un'unica moneta in oro, alternativa al dollaro. 

E avanti così, dalla Siria all’Ucraina, fino alle contorsioni terrificanti del cosiddetto ISIS, fondato sulle unità di guerriglia addestrate dall’Occidente in Libia contro Gheddafi, poi smistate in Siria contro Assad e quindi dirottate in Iraq. Possiamo chiamarlo come vogliamo, dice John Pilger, ma è sempre fascismo-economico


«Se gli Stati Uniti e i loro vassalli non avessero iniziato la loro guerra di aggressione in Iraq nel 2003, quasi un milione di persone oggi sarebbero vive, e lo Stato Islamico non ci avrebbe fatto assistere alle sue atrocità», scrive Pilger in una riflessione ripresa dal “Come Don Chisciotte”. 


Se gli USA avessero esitato, disse Obama, la città di Bengasi «avrebbe potuto subire un massacro che avrebbe macchiato la coscienza del mondo». Peccato che Bengasi non sia mai stata minacciata da nessuno: «Era un’invenzione delle milizie SCIITE-islamiche che stavano per essere sconfitte dalle forze governative libiche».

I nuovi “mostri” sono «la progenie del fascismo-economico moderno, svezzato dalle bombe, dai bagni di sangue e dalle menzogne, che sono il teatro surreale conosciuto col nome di “informazione”». Infatti, «come durante il fascismo-economico degli anni ‘30 e ‘40, le grandi menzogne vengono trasmesse con la precisione di un metronomo grazie agli onnipresenti, ripetitivi media e la loro velenosa censura per omissione». 

In Libia, nel 2011 la NATO ha effettuato 9.700 attacchi aerei, più di un terzo dei quali mirato ad obiettivi civili, con strage di bambini. Bombe all’uranio impoverito, sganciate su Misurata e Sirte, bombardate a tappeto. Il massacro di Ghedaffi in diretta mondiale, da parte degli uomini del DGSE, mischiati tra la folla, «è stato giustificato con la solita grande menzogna: Ghedaffi stava progettando il “genocidio” del suo popolo». Al posto della verità: Ghedaffi stava denunciando Nicholas Sarkozy per corruzione

L'insignificante Barak Obama, premio Nobel per la pace disse che se gli USA, non fossere intervenuti immadiatamente, la città di Bengasi «avrebbe potuto subire un massacro che avrebbe macchiato la coscienza del mondo» 

Paradossalmente, avvene un ALTRO tragico fatto:" il, prevedibile, massacro dell'ambasciatore statunitense Chris Stevens e della sua scorta a Bengazi sotto la totale INERZIA della Casa Bianca e del Dipartimento di Stato. 

Peccato per il povero Stevens, ma Bengasi non è mai stata minacciata da nessuno: «Era una INFAME invenzione delle milizie islamiche sciite libiche che stavano per essere sopraffatte e sconfitte dalle forze governative tripolitane». Le milizie, aggiunge Pilger, dissero alla “Reuters” che ci sarebbe stato «un vero e proprio bagno di sangue, un massacro come quello accaduto in Ruanda». 

La menzogna, segnalata il 14 marzo 2011, ha fornito la prima scintilla all’inferno della NATO, definito da David Cameron come «intervento umanitario». Molti dei “ribelli” sciiti, segretamente armati e addestrati dalle SAS britanniche, sarebbero poi diventati ISIS, decapitatori di “infedeli”. 

In realtà, per Obama, Cameron e Sarkozy – scrive Pilger – il vero crimine di Gheddafi, come prima anticipato, fù l'imminente indipendenza economica della Libia dal franco francese e dal dollaro USA e la sua dichiarata intenzione di smettere di vendere in dollari USA le più grandi riserve di petrolio dell’Africa, minacciando così il petrodollaro, che è «un pilastro del potere imperiale MONDIALE DO CONTROLLO americano». 

«Era l’idea stessa ad essere intollerabile per gli Stati Uniti, che si preparavano ad “entrare” in Africa -gia nel 1999, corrompendo i governi africani con offerte di Clinton e Blair-collaborazione-militare».

Così, “liberata” la Libia, Obama «ha confiscato 30 miliardi di dollari dalla banca centrale libica, che Gheddafi aveva stanziato per la creazione di una banca centrale africana e per il dinaro africano, valuta basata sull’oro».

La “guerra umanitaria” contro la Libia aveva un modello vicino ai cuori liberali occidentali, soprattutto nei media, continua Pilger, ricordando che, nel 1999, Bill Clinton e Tony Blair inviarono la Nato a bombardare la Serbia, «perché, mentirono, affermando che i serbi stavano commettendo un “genocidio” contro l’etnia albanese della provincia secessionista del Kosovo»


Finiti i bombardamenti della NATO, con gran parte delle infrastrutture della Serbia in rovina – insieme a scuole, ospedali, monasteri e la televisione nazionale – le squadre internazionali di polizia scientifica scesero sul Kosovo per riesumare le prove del cosiddetto “olocausto”. L’FBI non riuscì a trovare una singola fossa comune e tornò a casa.

Il team spagnolo fece lo stesso, e chi li guidava dichiarò con rabbia che ci fu «una piroetta semantica delle macchine di propaganda di guerra». Un anno dopo, un tribunale delle Nazioni Unite sulla Jugoslavia svelò il conteggio finale dei morti: 2.788, cioè i combattenti su entrambi i lati, nonché i serbi e i rom uccisi dall'UCK. «Non c’era stato alcun genocidio.

L' "olocausto” jugoslavo è stato una menzogna».

L’attacco NATO era stato fraudolento, insiste Pilger, spiegando che «dietro la menzogna, c’era una seria motivazione: la Jugoslavia era un’indipendente federazione multietnica, unica nel suo genere, che fungeva da ponte politico ed economico durante la guerra fredda».

Attenzione: «La maggior parte dei suoi servizi e della sua grande produzione era di proprietà pubblica. Questo non era accettabile in una Comunità Europea in piena espansione, in particolare per la nuova Germania unita, che aveva iniziato a spingersi ad Est per accaparrarsi il suo “mercato naturale” nelle province jugoslave di Croazia e Slovenia». 

Sicché, «prima che  gli europei si riunissero a Maastricht nel 1991 a presentare i loro piani per la disastrosa Euro-Zona, un accordo segreto era stato approvato: la Germania avrebbe riconosciuto la Croazia». Quindi, «il destino della Jugoslavia era segnato».

La solita macchina stritolatrice: «A Washington, gli Stati Uniti si assicurarono che alla sofferente Pilger-economia jugoslava fossero negati prestiti dalla Banca Mondiale, mentre la NATO, allora una quasi defunta reliquia della guerra fredda, fu reinventata, CON PRONTEZZAcome tutore dell’ordine imperiale».

Nel 1999, durante una conferenza sulla “pace” in Kosovo a Rambouillet, in Francia, i serbi furono sottoposti alle tattiche ipocrite dei sopracitati tutori. «L’accordo di Rambouillet comprendeva un allegato B segreto, che la delegazione statunitense inserì all’ultimo momento».

La clausola esigeva che tutta la Jugoslavia – un paese con ricordi amari dell’occupazione nazista – fosse messa sotto occupazione militare, e che fosse attuata una “economia di libero mercato” con la privatizzazione di tutti i beni appartenenti al governo.

«Nessuno Stato sovrano avrebbe potuto firmare una cosa del genere», osserva Pilger. «La punizione fu rapida; le bombe della Nato caddero su di un paese indifeso. La pietra miliare delle catastrofi era stata posata

Seguirono le catastrofi dell’Afghanistan, poi dell’Iraq, della Libia, della Siria, e adesso dell’Ucraina. Dal 1945, più di un terzo dei membri delle Nazioni Unite – 69 paesi – hanno subito alcune o tutte le seguenti situazioni per mano del moderno fascismo-economico

Sono stati invasi decine e decine di governi, i loro legali rappresentanti rovesciati, i loro movimenti popolari soppressi, i risultati delle elezioni sovvertiti, la loro gente bombardata e le loro economie spogliate di ogni protezione, le loro società sottoposte a un assedio paralizzante noto come “sanzioni”. Lo storico britannico Mark Curtis stima il numero di morti in milioni

«Come giustificazione, in ogni singolo caso una grande, immensa, sporca menzogna è stata raccontata dalla centrale del fascismo-economico-mondiale.»

Tuesday, April 24

THE SPECIAL FEELINGS BETWEEN C.I.A. AND MONTENEGRO

Dedicate to H.E. JOHN McCAINE (from Adriaticus)

U.S. Congressional investigators want to know what an former CIA operative was doing in Montenegro last fall at the time of an alleged Russian backed coup plot against NATO’s newest member.
Michele Rigby and Joseph Assad
(U.S. authorities say they are curious why former CIA operative Joseph Assad, seen above in 2016 with his wife, Michele, was in Montenegro last fall around when an alleged coup plot was foiled). 
Photo by Lady Hereford/ Palm Beach Atlantic University
Former Central Intelligence Agency‎ Officer Joseph Assad is celebrated in Washington for helping extract dozens of Iraqi Christians from Islamic State territory in 2015‎. Last October, days before a hotly contested national election in Montenegro, Mr. Assad flew to the tiny Balkan country that has been the subject of tensions between the U.S. and Russia.


The imbroglio is a sign that old East-versus-West spy games are alive again in Europe. Current and former U.S. and Russian officials acknowledge privately that their operatives are at work in the Balkans and in Montenegro in particular.


U.S. and Montenegrin officials say the campaign culminated in a Russian-backed plot that was thwarted at the last moment. The government’s opponents say the events amounted to a fake coup intended to rally the people to the ruling party’s side.


Montenegrin officials said they are investigating whether Mr. Assad was hired to help the alleged perpetrators. Prosecutors have charged 14 people in the alleged plot, including what the indictment describes as a group of Serb nationalists, several of whom called themselves The Wolves. 

The indictment, recently upheld by Montenegrin courts, says the men planned to overthrow Montenegro’s government, possibly kill its prime minister and install a pro-Russian regime. It doesn’t charge Mr. Assad, but names him as a potential contractor hired to help to lead a subsequent escape from the country.

U.S. and allied officials have said it makes no sense that the coup plotters would use an outsider to help extract their team from the country. But Montenegrin and U.S. officials said it is possible Russian operatives wanted to associate a former CIA officer unwittingly with the plot so as to obscure Moscow’s responsibility.

U.S. and allied officials said one reason they believe there was a coup planned was that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said his country’s security services had found “undeniable and material” evidence to back the Montenegrin account and cooperated with the investigation.

Prosecutors allege in their indictment that Mr. Assad approached a Florida security firm, Patriot Defense Group, looking for someone to help with “counter surveillance and evacuation” for the opposition party.

Brian Scott, a former CIA official and chief executive of Patriot Defense Group (John McCain), said a staff member spoke with Mr. Assad about general security work in Montenegro for a company affiliated with Patriot. Mr. Scott said he didn’t know if the work was to conduct an evacuation, adding his company quickly turned down the job because it wasn’t aligned with his firm’s mission to assist U.S. companies overseas.

Mr. Assad, who hasn’t been indicted, declined to speak to The Wall Street Journal. His lawyer, Vincent Citro, said Mr. Assad had been in Montenegro to assist a friend and colleague who was managing the opposition’s campaign. Mr. Citro says Mr. Assad had nothing to do with any plot and denies Mr. Assad was working as a spy for Russia or anyone else.

Mr. Citro confirmed there was a call between Mr. Assad and Patriot Defense Group. He said Mr. Assad has cooperated with the U.S. government “to clarify misinformation coming from Montenegro” but said he was told his client isn’t under investigation.

A story about Mr. Assad and his wife on the website of his college alma mater and a 2016 profile in a Florida newspaper provides this sketch of Mr. Assad: He is an Egyptian Christian raised in Lebanon and Egypt and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. He moved to the U.S. to attend Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida, where he focused on political science and biblical studies and graduated in 1994. In 1999, Mr. Assad and his wife, born in the U.S., both joined the CIA.

In 2015, after Mr. Assad moved to a private security consultancy, ABC’s 20/20 featured a segment on how the Assads helped rescue 149 Iraqi Christians from ISIS.

Among those charged in the alleged plot in Montenegro are two accused Russian operatives, three members of the Montenegrin opposition and nine Serbs. The trial will hinge on the credibility of the government’s main witness, a (unindicted) Serb who in a statement cited in the indictment says he was recruited by a Russian intelligence agent to overthrow a government.

Staff members and investigators of the House Intelligence Committee this week reached out to Mr. Assad and Mr. Scott to ask them questions. “If Americans were involved we need to investigate,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), the committee’s chairman. He recently visited Montenegro to meet with prosecutors about the allegations of Russian involvement. “This was an attempt to take down the pro-NATO government by Russian interests,” he said.

Last year, Montenegro’s Democratic Party of Socialists, which has ruled the country since independence in 2006 and has pushed for NATO membership, faced a stiff challenge from the Democratic Front, a coalition of opposition groups that campaigned on an anticorruption platform and called for a referendum on NATO.

The opposition hired Aron Shaviv, a British-Israeli campaign manager who had made his mark producing amusing political advertisements for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. With Mr. Shaviv’s satirical ads poking fun of the government on the air, Mr. Shaviv said, he was followed and pulled over by Montenegrin police and security.

Mr. Shaviv said he called Mr. Assad, with whom he had worked previously, to come to Montenegro to conduct a security assessment. Mr. Assad’s lawyer says his client provided the assessments for Mr. Shaviv, then left on the day of the election.


Montenegrin and U.S. congressional investigators have questioned the timing of Mr. Assad’s exit. In conversations with the Journal, they asked why a security adviser would leave his client on the day of the election, hours after high-profile arrests of alleged plotters.

Mr. Shaviv, who hasn’t been accused in the plot, said the Montenegrin prosecutors’ allegations amount to believing Moscow tried to topple a government using a team made up of a political consultant, a former CIA agent and “some farm boys from rural Montenegro with their hunting rifles.”

Mr. Shaviv said Montenegro’s government faced defeat in the October election and whipped up the “sloppiest conspiracy theory ever concocted.” Both the Montenegrin government and ruling-party officials deny the allegation.


While Russian officials deny they are trying to destabilize NATO aspirants or countries on their borders, U.S. officials said they expect more Russian interference across Europe. 

Gen. Ben Hodges, a senior U.S. Army commander in Europe, said Russia is “going to continue doing this, putting pressure on countries on their periphery.”

Write to Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com and Drew Hinshaw at drew.hinshaw@wsj.com

Friday, April 7

CHEMICAL WEAPONS AFTER 14 YRS CIA & MI6 STILL LIES

On the eve of the 14th anniversary of one of the most contentious and divisive wars in living memory, Peter Taylor forensically investigates how key aspects of the secret intelligence used by Downing Street and the White House to justify the invasion of Iraq, were based on fabrication, wishful thinking and lies.
Using remarkable first hand testimony, this one-hour Panorama special reveals the full story of how two very highly placed sources, both close to Saddam Hussein, talked secretly to the CIA via an intermediary and directly to MI6 in the build-up to the war and said Iraq did not have an active Weapons of Mass Destruction programme. But both were ignored.

In a compelling story of spies and intrigue, deception and lies, key players reveal how sparse British and American intelligence was and how none of the handful of human sources had direct knowledge of WMD production. 

The former CIA Paris Station Chief, Bill Murray, explains how he used an intermediary to recruit Iraq’s Foreign Minister and his frustration when he found crucial intelligence from this source was rejected because it didn’t fit in with the White House’s agenda. 

The intelligence from Iraq’s Foreign Minister was confirmed four months later, when an MI6 officer met Iraq’s Head of Intelligence, who passed on the same message, saying Iraq had no WMD.

Lord Butler, author of the 2004 report into the WMD intelligence, says the British public was misled.

With a series of revelatory interviews, including a shocking exchange with the Iraqi spy and self-confessed fabricator ‘Curveball’, Panorama sheds new light on the spies who fooled the world.

Friday, February 3

JOHN MAcCAINE PLAN UPENDS PENTAGON RULES

In a sharp rebuke to defense contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats and his House counterpart, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain is moving to strip substantial authority for acquiring new weapons from Pentagon leaders and empower the military branches to oversee their own programs.

John McCaine 
McCain’s proposal — details of which were shared with POLITICO by Armed Services staff members on the condition of anonymity — would upend the oversight regime for new weapons that has been in place for nearly 30 years.

The reform plan, already rolled into the National Defense Authorization Act that was approved in a closed committee session last week, would set up a streamlined acquisition process geared toward fielding new weapons in just two to five years. Committee aides said that provision is in part a response to turbulent development programs like the F-35 fighter jet that have taken decades to materialize and cost far more than predicted.

The proposal would also give preference to contracts that place the burden of cost increases on the contractor.

The moves are likely to send shock waves through the halls of the Pentagon and its sprawling network of Beltway contractors.

“Any time you kind of start to rejigger the Pentagon’s internal processes, that causes a lot of controversy inside the Pentagon,” said acquisition expert Andrew Hunter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The provisions they talk about — decentralizing, devolving more to the services — I think are likely to be very controversial.”

The proposal by the Arizona Republican is also likely to overshadow competing acquisition reforms by McCain’s Republican House counterpart, Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, a proposal seen as more modest and industry-friendly.

Under the current system, which Thornberry’s plan would only modify, a central Pentagon acquisition official — the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics — has been in charge of overseeing new weapons. McCain’s plan would restore the power of the Army, Navy and Air Force to manage their own acquisition programs — a role that was taken away by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which centralized authority over military acquisition programs.

“Decision authority for acquisition would reside in the service acquisition executive, who reports to the service secretary,” one Armed Services committee aide said of the proposal.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter endorsed bringing the service chiefs back into the acquisition process during his Senate confirmation process, and top officials from the various services have advocated a larger acquisition role.

“Time is money,” Carter said in a questionnaire he submitted to the Armed Services Committee in February. “Those responsible for budgeting, particularly the service chiefs, need to be engaged in all three processes” — requirements, acquisition and budgeting.

But the new responsibilities in the proposal would also come with significant accountability measures.

If programs managed by the services experience cost overruns, the services would have to pay a fee worth 3 percent of the overrun that would go into a fund managed by the Pentagon’s centralized acquisition office for the development of prototypes for new weapons.

For instance, if an Army program went over its planned budget by $100 million, the service would owe $3 million — and that money could be spent by Pentagon leaders to advance any prototype development program, including, possibly, ones overseen by the Navy or the Air Force.

If a program went over budget by 15 percent, according to McCain’s proposal, the services would have to forfeit control of the project to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition.

The law would apply only to programs launched after the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which put in place more stringent methods for projecting program costs.

“The incentive is for the services not to overrun,” an Armed Services aide said of the new plan, noting that, under the existing rules, cost overruns often just result in more money being appropriated. “The incentive is for them to do things [to avoid cost increases] in the front end.”

The proposal also seeks to tackle what’s become a much-maligned norm in Pentagon acquisitions: big-ticket weapons programs that can take 15 years or more to go from concept to the field.

It sets up a “streamlined acquisition and requirements approach” designed to field weapons in just two to five years — rapidly developing prototypes, testing them, getting them into the field and then upgrading them.

“They do prototyping, they bring out Phase One and they test it, they use it, and then they go on to the next level,” said a committee aide. “It’s a spiral type of development.”

Another aide said McCain views such changes as “an urgent national security issue because if we don’t do something to address the broken acquisition system, that system in and of itself could become the biggest threat to our military technological advantage.”

These and other provisions in McCain’s plan stand in stark contrast to Thornberry’s. The Texas lawmaker, whose acquisition proposal is based on a fact-finding effort launched in 2013, advocates a much more incremental approach that he says will result in new acquisition reform legislation each year for his envisioned six-year tenure holding the gavel.

McCain, who might have just two years at the helm of Armed Services if Republicans lose their Senate majority in 2016, is seeking to put in place significant reforms on a much faster time scale than Thornberry, aides said.

Thornberry’s initial proposal, unveiled in March and tucked into the defense authorization measure passed last week by the House, drew heavily on recommendations put forward by the Pentagon and the defense industry. And some of the Texas Republican’s provisions have been criticized as too industry-friendly, possibly at the expense of taxpayers.

Thornberry’s plan, for example, would weaken the power of the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, an independent watchdog who answers directly to the defense secretary. It would also give Pentagon program managers more leeway to award contracts that put the government on the hook for cost overruns, as opposed to fixed-price contracts under which contractors pick up the tab for unexpected cost increases.

McCain’s plan, on the other hand, does nothing to weaken the Pentagon’s testing office, which can be a thorn in the side of contractors because it often uncovers flaws in their products. And McCain’s proposal would establish a preference for fixed-price contracts.

But like Thornberry’s plan, McCain’s proposal seeks to remove some of the barriers to entry for agile, Silicon-Valley type firms that haven’t traditionally done business with the Pentagon.

The existing system is “a centralized, bureaucratic, risk-averse system, and the committee is trying to move this to a more dynamic, commercial-based approach that’s competitive,” a committee aide said.

The two Armed Services chairmen will have to hash out the differences between their proposals during House-Senate conference negotiations later this year to craft a final version of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill.

Hunter, who is the former head of the Pentagon’s Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, said he’s not surprised that McCain’s proposal is more aggressive than Thornberry’s, saying the senator’s prescriptions “would have pretty profound effects on the system if they were put into place.”

“Whoever is wedded to the status quo will not necessarily like change,” added one of the Senate aides. “Traditional contractors who are used to the rules the way they are may not like change. Traditional oversight officials who manage acquisition programs may have difficulty reacting to a different incentive structure.”

Friday, January 20

MONTENEGRO & NATO: WHY TO DIE FOR THEM??

By Doug Bandow (Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.)

Don't Add Montenegro To 'Obsolete' NATO: Senate Shouldn't Sacrifice U.S. Security For Balkan Mouse. To the shock of European leaders, President-elect Donald Trump has reiterated his attack on NATO as "obsolete." He's right. The U.S. once created military alliances to advance its own security. These days, however, Washington treats them like social organizations, which every nation should be invited to join, irrespective of qualification.

So it was with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s vote last week to admit Montenegro, a quaint but geopolitically irrelevant Balkan state, into NATO. If the measure is approved by the full Senate, Americans will have yet another essentially useless defense dependent, this one a corrupt, long-time one-party gangster state. Quite a model for future alliance expansion.

NATO was established to shield war-ravaged Western Europe from the Soviet menace after the end of World War II. However, Dwight Eisenhower warned against turning the alliance into a welfare program, with the Europeans forever dependent on U.S. defense subsidies. Alas, his successors didn’t listen and today a continent with a larger population and economy than America skimps on its own military while expecting Americans to come to its aid whenever the slightest problem arises. Truly the U.S. dominated alliance is "obsolete."

It was bad enough that Washington felt the need to protect larger, wealthier European nations. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO acted like a gentleman’s club which every civilized European state wanted to join. Thus entered former Warsaw Pact nations and Soviet republics, extending the alliance up to Russia’s borders. That included Poland and the Baltic States, all essentially irrelevant to the security of the rest of the continent and the latter almost indefensible, at least at reasonable cost, as the U.S. and other Europeans finally have come to recognize.

More recent proposals to bring in Georgia and Ukraine suggested that Washington had gone slightly mad. The two prospective members would offer nothing to America’s defense but would bring along potential conflicts with nuclear-armed Russia. Both would be security black holes, almost all obligation and no benefit. (Small military contingents offered for misguided U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are no recompense for confronting a nuclear-armed power in its neighborhood over interests it considers to be vital.)

What now? While tossing out members mistakenly inducted, like the Baltics, would be difficult, Washington should at least stop adding members who add nothing to America’s security.

But the alliance, whose bureaucratic interest is to ever expand, even to the detriment of its members’ actual security, has invited Montenegro to join. It is a postage stamp country with about enough people for one U.S. congressional district. Montenegro deserves its own novel, like the fictional Duchy of Grand Fenwick in The Mouse that Roared. But Podgorica shouldn’t be part of NATO.

Montenegro’s advocates attempted to rush its inclusion through the lame duck session, but were blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kty) and others. Now, like horror villain Freddy Krueger, NATO membership back. Again, the Senate’s usual hawks are attempting to wave the duchy lookalike through before Donald Trump is inaugurated. After all, there is a chance that he would put America’s security ahead of that of Montenegro and kill the move.

What is the case for adding Podgorica to America’s lengthy defense dole? Rather hilariously, the Heritage Foundation headlined a recent study “Support for Montenegro’s Accession to NATO Would Send a Message of Strength.” Yes, it would be tragic if the U.S. and entire European continent had to face the Russian hordes without Montenegro at their side.

The duchy, er, country has 2080 men under arms. To transport them are eight, count them, eight armored personnel carriers, and seven operational helicopters. But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discerned that “Montenegro has some military capabilities which are important also to NATO.” Apparently all those years of declining European defense spending finally had an effect, leaving the rest of Europe dependent on Podgorica!

Seriously, if the West’s survival depends on Montenegro’s inclusion in NATO, we should all be heading for the bunkers. And any capabilities which the country develops are likely to be paid for by American taxpayers with funds to upgrade the Montenegrin legions. If America and Montenegro step forth to conquer the world, it will be in a fantasy movie, not a reality show.

If rebuffed by NATO, it has been argued, Grand Fenwick, er, Montenegro might offer Russia a naval base on the Adriatic. Such an inconstant partner would be a dubious treaty ally. Exactly what the inferior Russian navy would do with such a base is not evident. And such a facility, surrounded by NATO members and on waters dominated by NATO members, would be even less defensible than the Baltics.

If not useful for military purposes, is there any other reason to bring Podgorica into NATO? Last year Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael R. Carpenter testified that Montenegro shared the alliance’s “values of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” It was a unintentionally comedic performance. Whatever Podgorica’s virtues, reflecting the best of the West is not one.

For instance, last year the group Freedom House rated Montenegro as only “partly free” in political rights and civil liberties. And the trend was down. Civil liberties took a particular hit “due to restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly.” There also were concerns “about the independence of the judiciary and the public broadcaster, as well as numerous failures to effectively prosecute past attacks against media workers.” Moreover, Freedom House cited “indirect censorship.” Corruption is a major problem, yet “NGOs that investigate corruption or criticize the government face pressure.”

In its 2015/2016 report, Amnesty International stated: “Threats and attacks against independent media and journalists continued: few perpetrators were brought to justice. Police used excessive force during mass protests organized by opposition parties.” There was unlawful surveillance of critical NGOs.

NOTE: Newspaper VIJESTI Podgorica 
The montenegrin newspaper Vijesti is not uncommon to copy articles from international newspapers. This time even writes in an article published today by Milos Rudovic, false and wile things faked the whole exposure made by DOUG BANDOW in his gorgeous original version published on Forbes.

Tuesday, December 13

RUSSIAN AND SERBIAN RELATIONSHIP

Serijoza Lavrova i Ivica Dacica
Balkan Insight:"The foreign ministers of Serbia and Russia, Ivica Dacic and Sergey Lavrov, on Monday said an arms deal should be finalized on December 21 when Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic is in Moscow".

“Serbia has asked Russia to donate arms, including MiG 29 planes. Since we have asked for them as donations, Serbia will pay only for the adaptation of those arms for Serbia's needs,” Dacic said, adding that adverse reactions from the European Union concerning the deal with Russia did not worry him.

When Croatia get donations [of weapons] from NATO there is no reaction. Who do they [the EU] think Croatia would use those launchers against? Rome, Budapest or Vienna? No, they are for Serbia,” 

Dacic repeated that Serbia had a firm, steady relationship with Russia and that Serbia’s first address in case of a crisis was Moscow, not America.

“I would love to address to US Secretary of State John Kerry. But how could I when Victoria Nuland said the US has been investing in Kosovo's independence for the last 20 years,” Dacic said, referring to the Assistance Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs.

Serbia never was nor will be an anti-Russian country like some countries have become. We will not join to sanctions or any measures against Russia,” Dacic continued.

Asked about deteriorating relations with Croatia, and whether Zagreb could block the EU from opening Chapter 26, the next chapter in Serbia's membership negotiations, Dacic said it was absurd for Croatia to be in such a position.

“If Croatia is the one to decide about Serbia’s EU accession, then I must say, my interest in the EU suddenly dropped down,” the minister said.

Lavrov will continue his visit to Serbia on Tuesday and will take part in a session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization that will be held in Belgrade.


The visit comes after late in October Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev came to Serbia and called for closer cooperation between the countries' respective intelligence agencies.

That visit took place claims that a number of Russians had been were expelled from Serbia for involvement in illegal actions in neighbouring Montenegro, where the authorities claimed they forestalled an anti-Western coup on October 16, election day.

LIES:According to the Serbian daily newspaper Danas, Serbia recently expelled several Russians for alleged involvement in illegal activities in neighbouring Montenegro. Two Russian citizens have been accused of involvement in the alleged coup attempt aimed at overthrowing the country’s government. 

Serbia has denied any involvement in this affair but some experts in Belgrade claim Russian intelligence still has a strong influence on Serbia’s intelligence agencies.

Belgrade maintains close political and military relations with Russia and notably refused to join EU sanctions imposed on Moscow over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its perceived role in the separatist armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Saturday, July 30

                                                                   Margarte Brennan

Since 2012, Ms. Brennan has covered foreign policy issues and traveled with secretaries Kerry, Clinton, and Hagel. She was among the first to interview Secretary Kerry about freezing Iran’s nuclear program and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons. She interviewed South Korean President Park Geun-Hye and reported from Tehran during the 2012 Non-Aligned Movement. She was part of the CBS team to win a DuPont-Columbia Award for coverage of the Newtown Tragedy. Previously, Ms. Brennan spent a decade at Bloomberg Television and CNBC. She is a Council on Foreign Relations term member, University of Virginia alum, and studied Arabic at Yarmouk University as a Fulbright-Hays Scholar.

Thursday, October 1

LIBIA E SIRIA BOMBARDATE SPECIALMENTE DA MENZOGNE

Pubblichiamo una intervista, effettuata dalla radio irlandese LMFM a Fatima Hamrush; ritenendola, di grande  interesse. Sia considerata la fonte, sia perché fa luce sul dramma dei rifugiati di questi giorni.

Dottoressa specializzata in Oculistica,  ha studiato e poi vissuto in Irlanda per molti anni, finché non è tornata in Libia dopo la fine delle "operazioni" della Nato del 2011, per far parte del governo di transizione, come ministro della Salute. 

Dopo un anno è tornata in Irlanda, anche perché minacciata di morte dagli integralisti, dove ha pubblicato numerosi articoli sulla drammatica situazione in cui versa la Libia e, in particolare, sulla dilagante corruzione.

"Io, che ero nel Consiglio di transizione libico, dico:  l’Occidente guardi alle cause delle migrazioni. NATO e petro-monarchie hanno ucciso il Medio Oriente sulla base di menzogne

D. Che cosa ha suscitato la foto del bambino curdo annegato in Turchia?

FATIMA. Finora tutti cercavano di stornare lo sguardo dalla realtà. Ci sono centinai di migliaia di bambini morti. Questo ha avuto il privilegio di essere stato fotografato. Tutto qui. E’ la punta dell’iceberg. Non è la prima e nemmeno l’ultima. Ho confrontato questa situazione con l’Olocausto. L’unica cosa che manca sono le camere a gas. In Medio Oriente c’è una massa di persone che scappano dalle loro case per paura di essere uccise, le donne per non essere schiavizzate dal Daesh. Il fatto che accettino di rischiare di morire alle frontiera o in mare dice chiaramente quanto sia disperata la loro situazione. Vede, il Medio Oriente è in un momento terribile. All’inizio eravamo tutti contenti di queste “primavere arabe”,  e speravamo nel meglio. Ero anche io fra chi voleva il cambio ma ora credo che sia andata malissimo, e non parlo di teorie cospirazioniste, ma di fatti provati. Si sta distruggendo il Medio oriente, per creare una nuova mappa.

D. E chi è dietro questo?

FATIMA. Se il Medio Oriente non fosse ricco, tutto questo non succederebbe! Ci sono molti e potenti  interessi.

D. Interessi da fuori?

Sì. E’ provato ormai da molte cose. Pensiamo alla Libia, il paese che conosco meglio, il mio paese. Quando iniziammo la primavera araba, volevamo un futuro migliore. Ma in seguito, da ministro rimasi scioccata dal numero di compagnie straniere che bussavano alla porta perché volevano concludere affari, quando il paese non poteva. Non solo: i  Servizi segreti stranieri in Libia, sono diventati più presenti e forti dei nostri. Infine, i gruppi estremisti, al Qaeda, gli antenati dell’Isis, erano fiorenti in Libia. Una parte della popolazione aveva all’inizio simpatizzato con loro perché Gheddafi li aveva messi in prigione. Ora vediamo bene che aveva ragione, ma allora non lo sapevamo. Quando lui andò in TV all’inizio della crisi e disse: “Sarete governati da al Qaeda, governerà il paese, schiavizzerà le donne”, i libici ridevano, “ma che sta dicendo? inventa”. Adesso vediamo che aveva ragione. Intere città libiche sono cadute completamente nelle mani del cosiddetto Daesh.  

D.  Il Daesh vuole creare il califfato in Medioriente; la Siria è stata il trampolino. Come mai gli interessi occidentali alla fine li hanno appoggiati, quando quelli dicono di voler distruggere l’Occidente, fanno attacchi, propongono distruzioni?

FATIMA. Devo precisare. Non accuso gli occidentali, vivo qui da 20 anni e il popolo è OK, parlo di certi politici…

D. Robert Fisk parla appunto di disconnessione fra la classe dirigente e le popolazioni…

Sì, lo rispetto e quel che dice riflette davvero quel che avviene in Medio Oriente. Non tutti i politici sono cattivi. Ma molti ritengono che per l’interesse superiore del loro paese si può fare qualunque cosa. Non è giusto. E finalmente questo bambino ha toccato tutti noi.

D.  Davanti a questa fuga in massa di persone che cercano di evitare la morte, l’Europa dovrebbe accoglierne di più?

Queste persone vorrebbero rimanere a casa loro. Vorrebbero la pace. E come mai i paesi arabi del Golfo non li accolgono come rifugiati, visto che sono arabi? Anzi, quando vanno là sono trattati male. Quindi vengono in Europa, ma vogliono tornare indietro se arriva la pace. Ringrazio la Germania per quel che ha fatto. Ma voglio tornare a quello che queste persone vogliono. Io stessa vorrei tornare in Libia e aiutare il mio paese, ma c’è una sentenza di morte su di me da parte dei jihadisti: mi hanno accusata di essere contro la religione, perché ero contro di loro. Così vanno le cose in quei luoghi. Insomma, chi scappa vorrebbe poter tornare a casa!

D. FATIMA. Allora che cosa deve fare l’Occidente? 

Deve guardare alle cause di queste situazioni. Perché è successo? Parliamo ad esempio della Libia. Mi ha molto colpita il fatto di sentire che tutta la discussione a livello europeo è su “come distribuirsi i profughi”. E invece nessuno si sofferma sulle cause, sul perché. Come esempio. Torno sempre alla Libia perché è il caso che conosco bene. Le frontiere libiche sono completamente aperte, perché c’è molta corruzione oggi, e confusione, è il caos totale. Ma le frontiere da dove queste persone arrivano, sono frontiere sorvegliate, presidiate, no? Terra, aereo, mare. Quelli che arrivano da quei paesi, per esempio in aereo dalla Turchia, sono già stati controllati, alla partenza. E così quando partono da paesi africani. Vuol dire è là la radice del problema. C’è una rete mafiosa che manda queste persone, promette loro una vita migliore, sapendo che qualcuno in Libia li tratterà come schiavi, mettendoli su barconi che affondano… Chi manda queste persone? Chi fa loro promesse? Perché queste persone arrivano in aereo in Libia dove non ci sono controlli? I governi potrebbero collegarsi!

D. Dunque i trafficanti… Certo lei dice che le persone vogliono stare nei loro paesi ma non possono, c’è l’Isis. La mia domanda è: dove sono gli Usa e le “forze alleate” che andarono in Afghanistan e  Iraq?

E’ molto facile trovare su internet il video nel quale la stessa Hillary Clinton ha ammesso,  al Congresso:   “we created them”; li abbiamo creati noi.  Nella lotta fra Usa e Unione sovietica, gli Usa crearono al Qaeda, e l’Isis è il figlio di al Qaeda, a un più profondo livello di atrocità. Quel che fanno, lei pensa che serva ai musulmani? Ma no, i musulmani sgozzati, catturati, trattati come schiavi solo le loro prime vittime dirette, e quelle indirette sono i musulmani e gli arabi che scappano.

D. Allora le forze statunitensi e alleate che hanno già creato così tante tragedie storicamente in questo mondo, lei pensa che loro possano combattere e sconfiggere il Daesh?

No, non sono d’accordo. Guardi a tutti i paesi nei quali sono andati, che destino: Iraq, non c’è più l’Iraq adesso!

D. E allora? Lasciamo il Daesh libero di creare il califfato?

Penso che i Servizi segreti occidentali sappiano molto bene come fare. Per esempio guardi cosa èavvenyto alla persona accusata di aver ucciso l’Ambasciatore Chris Stevens a Benghazi, in Libia, i Delta Force sono arrivati dagli USA, lo hanno catturato e portato a Guantanamo. Se vogliono prendere i responsabili, possono farlo così, senza…

D. …Senza andare con bombe e uccidere innocenti…

A proposito di bombardamenti… ricorda quando attaccarono la Libia nel 2011, accusando  le forze di Gheddafi di stupri, di aggregare mercenari ecc.? Nessuna di queste accuse avanzate a livello di Nazioni unite per giustificare ha avuto riscontri. Niente stupri di massa, niente mercenari portati in Libia (c’erano Corpi Speciali a guardia di Gheddafi); e anche la terza scusa secondo la quale le forze di Gheddafi stavano per arrivare a sterminare l’est del paese, si è rivelata falsa.Dunque dopo quest’esperienza, i popoli non vogliono più interventi da parte di qualunque comunità internazionale. Vogliamo che quei paesi che ci mandano terroristi siano fermati.  Possiamo fare da noi. Quando ci buttano questi terroristi nel paese, e non possiamo controllarli, ecco che noi diventiamo  una piscina dove nuotano, una terra di nessuno per questi terroristi!

D. Quindi quelli che si radicalizzano e vogliono partire per il Medio Oriente, dovrebbero essere fermati?

Certo! Si sa chi chi sono. Le dico questo. Il sindaco di Tripoli, la mia capitale, è irlandese, perché ha vissuto qui e ha ottenuto la cittadinanza irlandese, oltre a quella libica. Poi è arrivato in Libia per fare la “rivoluzione”, e si è rivelato essere un estremista, non dirò terrorista, ha aiutato a mandare armi e combattenti in Siria. Ha anche formato una brigata in Siria. E poi, è diventato sindaco di Tripoli! Non lo è più…Comunque l’Irlanda sa di lui!

D. In ogni caso, certo dobbiamo aiutare chi si ammassa alle nostre frontiere, anche se vogliono tornare a casa.

Certo, occorre aiutarli. Ci sono due tipi di migranti. Quelli che scappano dall’orrore, e quelli che vogliono una vita migliore, come gli africani. E dall’altra parte ci sono i terroristi che arrivano qui. L’Intelligence occidentale sa bene come separarli.

Thursday, July 9

KOSOVO AND MACEDONIA TIME OVER

Macedonia is reeling from two shocks. Amid a scandal over leaked wiretaps revealing a state apparatus captured and corrupted by the leading party, a battle in ethnically mixed Kumanovo between police and ethnic-Albanian gunmen, many from Kosovo, caused the region’s worst loss of life in a decade. 

Unless addressed urgently, the double crisis (government legitimacy/regional security) carries risk that could extend to violent confrontation, perhaps in worst case to elements of the conflict narrowly averted in 2001. 

Discredited national institutions cannot cope alone. The opposition has broken off talks on a European Union (EU) mediated deal between parties for reforms and early elections that deadlocked, substantially over whether the prime minister, in power since 2006, must resign and the time a transitional government would need to level the field. 

The EU must press for a comprehensive agreement addressing the state capture and alleged corruption, including independent investigation and monitoring with international help. 

Macedonia and Kosovo, also with aid, should jointly investigate Kumanovo.

In February 2015, the main opposition party began publishing excerpts from what it said was an illegal wiretap program leaked by unidentified persons. 

The massive surveillance, from at least 2010 to 2014, seems to have targeted thousands, including nearly all top opposition and government officials, as well as ambassadors and media figures. 

The fraction of published wiretaps focus on what appear to be conversations of senior government persons plotting to subvert elections, manipulating courts, controlling a nominally independent press and punishing enemies. Many who should be responsible for dealing with apparent illegalities are themselves implicated.

In the midst of this crisis, a police raid in Kumanovo on 9 May found a heavily armed group of ethnic Albanians, including former liberation army fighters from Kosovo

By the time fighting died down the next day, a multi-ethnic neighbourhood was destroyed, eight police were dead and 37 wounded; fourteen gunmen were dead and about 30 in custody. 

Top Macedonian and Kosovo officials had advance knowl­edge of at least some of the group’s activities, but much remains worryingly obscure, including its plans in Macedonia, possible allies on both sides of the border and many details of the police operation.

The incident did not spark ethnic conflict. Ethnic Albanians, roughly a quarter of the population, deeply resent what they perceive to be their second-class status and unequal treatment in a state dominated by ethnic Macedonians. 

They had expected more from the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) that ended the incipient civil war and was meant to give them a power-sharing role in a unitary state. 

For now, there is little constituency for fighting. While the inter-ethnic peace has proven resilient, however, further wiretap releases or a new deadly incident could raise the risk quotient unpredictably.

Macedonia appeared for a time to be building a modern, transparent state and integrating its ethnic-Albanian community, but that progress has ceased, even reversed, at least since a 2008 Greek veto resulting from the two countries’ eccentric dispute over the republic’s name blocked the prospect of EU and NATO integration indefinitely. 

The wiretaps, which appear to illustrate that governing parties have entrenched their power and privileges through corruption and criminality, have also dramatically compromised the ruling coalition’s ethnic-Albanian partner

Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who has denied any wrongdoing, and opposition leader Zoran Zaev are playing high-stakes poker at the EU-sponsored talks, while some of the tens of thousands of activists who held duelling political rallies in the centre of Skopje in May remain encamped outside government and parliament buildings.

The EU, which has a direct stake in the threat to regional stability and a responsibility to assist a country right itself to which it has granted membership candidacy status, should redouble efforts to persuade Macedonia’s leaders to restore trust in government by reaching an inter-party agreement that commits to:

establishing through normal parliamentary procedures an interim government with appropriate membership of all main parties, whose main task should be to implement reforms necessary for credible elections by April 2016 (two years early), especially those related to voter lists, equal media access and abuse of office for partisan purposes:
1. adopting a law in parliament establishing two independent commissions (“A” and “B”), both with authority to request and receive active expert help from the EU, U.S. and others. The mandate of “A” should be to assist with and monitor the transitional government’s efforts with respect to preparing credible early elections; The mandate of “B” should be to deal with the wiretaps, including investigation into the crimes and corruption they appear to show;
2. accepting that the transitional government will remain in office and early elections will not be held unless Commission “A” determines that benchmarks have been met, and implementation is sufficiently advanced;
3. working to improve implementation of the OFA by ensuring equal representation of ethnic Albanians at all levels of public office; a fair share of government investment in ethnic-Albanian areas; and respect for language equality.

The inter-party agreement should further commit Macedonia’s leaders to:

1. seek a joint Macedonia-Kosovo investigation into the Kumanovo incident, with expert assistance from EU and U.S. agencies, in order to improve the security situation and prevent future attacks; 
2. improve bilateral relations with Kosovo, for example by holding regular joint cabinet meetings and cooperating on border monitoring.