US Leaves INF Because "Russia," But Points Missiles at China

August 9, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - We're told that the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty singed in 1987 between the US and Soviet Union was based on claims that Russia had violated it.



While we continue waiting for Washington to provide evidence to prove these claims, the US itself admitted it had already long begun developing missiles that violated the treaty. 

A February 2018 Defense One article titled, "Pentagon Confirms It’s Developing Nuclear Cruise Missile to Counter a Similar Russian One," admitted that:

The U.S. military is developing a ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise missile to counter a similar Russian weapon whose deployment violates an arms-control treaty between Moscow and Washington, U.S. officials said Friday. 

The officials acknowledged that the still-under-development American missile would, if deployed, also violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Just as the US did when it unilaterally walked away from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, the goal is to blame Russia for otherwise indefensible and incremental provocations aimed at Moscow. For example, after the US walked away from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US began deploying anti-missile systems across Europe.

But if Russia is the problem, why did the US also begin deploying similar missiles in Asia?

It is Washington's goal of hemming in its competitors anywhere and everywhere that is at the heart of these serial treaty terminations, not any particular "violation" on Moscow's part.

China Too   

That the US already had missiles under development that would undoubtedly violate the INF Treaty before it accused Russia of such violations, is one indicator of Washington's true intentions. Another is the fact Washington is rushing to encircle China with both defensive and offensive missile systems as well.

China is not a signatory of either the ABM Treaty or the INF Treaty. Its missiles are deployed strictly within its mainland territory with no plans by Beijing to deploy them anywhere else in the future.

The only threat they pose is to any nation that decides to wage war on China, in or around Chinese territory.

Washington's behavior post-INF Treaty indicates that it was its intent to violate the treaty all along, creating the same precarious security crisis in Asia the treaty sought to prevent in Europe.

MH17: Turning Truth & Victims into Pawns

June 29, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - As the wreckage of Malaysian flight MH-17 laid scattered in eastern Ukraine, and many days before the first investigators even arrived on scene, the US had already blamed Russia and separatists it accused of aiding for the tragic downing of the passenger plane and the loss of all 298 people on board.

It would be a July 31, 2014 article by the BBC titled, "Ukraine MH17: Forensic scientists reach jet crash site," nearly 2 weeks after the aircraft's downing that would announce the arrival of forensic scientists at the crash site.

Yet as early as July 21, more than a week before investigators arrived, Newsweek in its article, "U.S. Report Outlines Evidence That Rebels Downed Flight MH17," was already claiming:

The U.S. State Department has outlined the evidence behind its assertion that Russia-backed separatists are responsible for the missile strike that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17. In a statement posted on the website of the U.S. embassy to Ukraine, it said the flight was "likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine."

The assertations made within the report were a summary of accusations the US leveled against Russia even earlier still.

An Australia's ABC would report a day before the investigators' arrival in eastern Ukraine that the US and EU had already leveled additional sanctions against Russia, spurred on by US accusations regarding MH-17.

The article, "MH17: US and EU to impose broad sanctions on Russia over support for Ukraine rebels; fighting keeps investigators from Malaysia Airlines crash site," would note:

The measures mark the start of a new phase in the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cold War, which worsened dramatically after the downing of MH17 over rebel-held territory on July 17. 

German chancellor Angela Merkel, who had been reluctant to step up sanctions before the crash because of her country's trade links with Russia, said the EU measures were "unavoidable".

Washington's accusations and its rush to leverage their impact on public and political circles at the time to pass further sanctions against Russia fits a pattern not of an impartial investigation or search for truth, but a cynical propaganda campaign carried out at the expense of both.

A Familiar Lack of Evidence...

The subsequent Joint Investigation Team (JIT) assembled to supposedly ascertain the truth behind the airliner's downing included among its member states, Ukraine. As others have pointed out, Ukraine was and still is a prime suspect.

Ukraine's decision not to close airspace over contested areas where military aircraft were already being shot down alone makes Kiev at least partially culpable for the loss of MH-17.

Expectations of honesty and cooperation from Kiev (berated by even its Western sponsors as being corrupt, abusive and inept) are unrealistic and their inclusion within the JIT undermines its credibility and any conclusion they reach, especially if that conclusion lacks substantial evidence to support it.

Europe Has no Freedom But to Choose "Freedom Gas"

June 7, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently renamed US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports "freedom gas." But freedom for who? For Europe who already has a cheap and reliable source of natural gas, but is being forced to switch over to more expensive US gas under the threat of sanctions? Certainly not.

Or freedom for Russia who supplies Europe with much of its natural gas to compete openly and fairly with the United States? Most definitely not.

Or is it freedom from competition for the US?  Yes, indeed.

It is often contradictory branding that heralds various chapters of US injustice at home (under the draconian "Patriot Act" for example) and abroad, such as during the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq carried out under the dubious name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Not the Onion

So discredited have US campaigns christened in the name of "freedom" become, that few scarcely believed the US was actually, seriously calling its natural gas exports "freedom gas." However, it is not a headline torn from the pages of the satirical newspaper "The Onion," but rather from the US DOE itself.

In an article from the DOE's official website titled, "Department of Energy Authorizes Additional LNG Exports from Freeport LNG," the DOE states (emphasis added):

“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”

Aside from the almost comical reference to "freedom gas," there is something else revealing about the DOE's claims of  "giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy." 

This is in direct reference to Europe, and Europe's current imports of Russian gas. Russian gas, delivered by pipelines to Europe will always be cheaper than US liquefied natural gas transported by sea to Europe. That is, unless the US, through the threat of sanctions not only against Russia, but against Washington's own allies in Europe, can raise those costs to above the price of US exports.

Articles like Foreign Policy's "U.S. Senate Threatens Sanctions Over Russian Pipeline," make it clear just how far along the US is toward doing just that.

Western "Rights Advocates" Rush to Chechen "Activist's" Aid

April 7, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Human Rights Watch (HRW) executive director Kenneth Roth recently decried legal proceedings against the alleged "leading human rights defender in Chechnya," Oyub Titiyev.

But as with much of what HRW decries, Titiyev has less to do with actually defending human rights, and more to do with ongoing US-subversion in Russia's southern Chechen Republic.

Roth, in a social media post, would claim:

The Russian government's "case" against the leading human rights defender in Chechnya, Oyub Titiyev, is farcical--as many holes as Swiss cheese--but authorities have still locked him up for 14 months and are threatening a four-year sentence.

The article Roth's post would include, leads to an opinion piece in The Moscow Times (written by fellow HRW regional director, Rachel Denber) who insists Titiyev is innocent of drug charges based entirely on Titiyev and his lawyer's own claims.

Whether Titiyev is guilty or not is for Russia's courts to decide. However, the entire process of mobilizing supposed human rights advocacy organizations like HRW to rush to Titiyev's aid illustrates how "rights advocacy" is transparently used to advance politically-motivated agendas, not to actually advance human rights.

No matter what the evidence against Titiyev, HRW and others would claim the charges against him were politically motivated. It is an example of foreign-funded organizations attempting to assert themselves over a nation's sovereign right to manage its own internal affairs, including by overriding local law enforcement and judicial processes.

But there is much more to consider regarding Titiyev's case than this.

Terrorism as Washington's Sword, "Rights Advocacy" as its Shield

Russia's Chechen Republic had previously seen two wars as armed separatists attempted to carve out an independent region from Russian territory. From 1994-1996 and again from 1999-2009 militants waged both open war and an armed insurgency against Russian forces until eventually Moscow prevailed.

Today, attempts to rekindle divisions, upheaval and even violence have been the primary goal of both US-funded and directed "rights advocates" like HRW and US-backed militants, though admittedly Russia now has the upper hand.

As the United States has been revealed to have done elsewhere, the Russian government has accused it of lending direct aid to Chechen militants.

A 2015 BBC article titled, "Russia's Putin: US agents gave direct help to Chechens," would note:

Vladimir Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding rebel fighters in the second Chechen war.   

In order for fighters to have contested Russian control over Chechnya, they would require equal or greater financial and military support than that committed by Moscow. State sponsorship would be the only way of achieving this and the list of potential states both capable and motivated to back Chechen militants is exceedingly short.

Ukraine's Neo-Nazis "Suddenly" a Problem as Power Grows

March 9, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The central role right-wing extremists and literal Neo-Nazis played in Ukraine's "Euromaidan" protests was obvious from the beginning. The square in Kiev the protests unfolded in were filled with the flags of ultra-right party, Svoboda as well as the red and black banners of the Neo-Nazi Right Sector movement.

The Western media never scrutinized who these political parties and militias were leading the protests and often times the violence that eventually overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. This was a deliberate attempt to portray the protests as spontaneous and popular rather than the efforts of fringe extremists merely portrayed as spontaneous and popular.

Since the NATO-organized coup in 2014, right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis have played a growing role in the Ukrainian government. From holding public positions to filling up the rank and file of regular and irregular military units with their members, so bad has it gotten that many involved in initially covering up their role in the 2014 Euromaidan protests are now speaking up.

Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform (CER), a think-tank funded by some of the largest Transatlantic corporate interests, would recently post on social media that:

Ukraine needs to get these people out of Interior Ministry, police & other official structures. They will do more to help Russia, by reinforcing its propaganda about Nazi influence in Kyiv, than Ukraine - regardless of any good that Azov did on frontlines. 

Even as part of Bond's admission, he still attempts to salvage "Azov" (Azov Battalion), a heavily armed Neo-Nazi militia now formally incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard.

While attempting to deny the presence of Neo-Nazis throughout the present day Ukrainian government and military, even official US policy regarding Ukraine reflects their presence and the obvious dangers (or at least, political inconvenience) they pose.

Articles like, "National Guard Decides Not To Give U.S. Arms To Azov Regiment On Request Of United States," clearly illustrate awareness in Washington of the dangers/political inconvenience of yet another one of its client regimes around the globe being cobbled together with some of the most unsavory elements in that nation's society.

As Ian Bond of the CER noted, the Azov Battalion has performed well on "frontlines." Just as designated terrorist organizations in Syria, including Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (IS) proved the most capable forces in the US proxy war against Damascus, Neo-Nazis are proving themselves the most loyal and dedicated proxies in Washington's continued confrontation with Russia.

It is clear that despite "official" US policy being not to arm or train Neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, the fact that the Ukrainian government whom the US does arm and train, in turn arms and trains militias like the Azov Battalion, makes such US policy mere window dressing than anything else.

Again, the US arming and supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who in turn admittedly are arming and funding US designated terrorist organizations, is in actuality Washington's enthusiastic support for such militant groups simply "laundered" through its Gulf ally intermediaries.

The Real Problem 

The real problem isn't that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi political and armed organizations are growing in power, it is the political nightmare of Washington being seen as openly associating with and even supporting them.

Just as the US has played a sort of geopolitical dance in Syria, circling around IS and Al Nusra, while at other times outright shielding them from destruction, attempting to pose as fighting them while clearly preserving their fighting capacity, the US is preparing to perform a similar dance in Ukraine.

Who Gains from Turning Europe into a Potential Nuclear Battlefield?

February 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to make the case for Washington's decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Claims that the Russian Federation has been violating the treaty have yet to be substantiated with anything resembling credible evidence. Also missing is any rational explanation as to why Russia would develop or deploy nuclear weapons capable of launching a nuclear strike on Europe without warning - a scenario the INF Treaty was created to deter.

Bloomberg in its article, "Nuclear Fears Haunt Leaders With U.S.-Russian Arms Pact's Demise," would claim:

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s top civilian, cited recent Russian deployments and evoked a Cold War-style threat of nuclear destruction at a global conference of security and defense officials this weekend in Munich, the baroque German metropolis that’s one of Europe’s richest cities.  

“These missiles are mobile, easy to hide and nuclear-capable,” Stoltenberg said. “They can reach European cities, like Munich, with little warning.”

Stoltenberg, the rest of NATO, Washington, and the many media organizations that work for and answer to both have failed categorically to explain why Russia would ever use nuclear-capable missiles against cities "like Munich, with little warning."

Would Moscow Nuke Russia's Closest Trade Partners? 

While Russia has invested greatly in recent years to expand its economic trade with Asia, it is still heavily dependent on trade with Europe.

The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals not only Europe as the most important region for Russian trade, particularly for Russian exports, but nations like the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy as among Russia's top trade partners.

Russia is currently working with Germany on its Nord Stream 2 pipeline - a pipeline transporting Russian hydrocarbons to Western Europe without passing through politically unstable nations like Ukraine. The project is a keystone of recent Russian efforts to modernize and adapt its hydrocarbon industry around complications arising from US interference across Europe - particularly in the form of the US-engineered 2014 coup in Ukraine and NATO's constant US-led expansion along Russian borders.

And Russian companies aren't the only ones benefiting from Nord Stream 2 or other economic ties between Russia and Europe. Russia imports more from Germany than any other European nation, and Germany is only second to China among all nations Russia imports goods from.

It is highly unlikely Russia is going to launch nuclear missiles at "Munich, with little warning" - because to do so would be entirely without rational justification. Characters like Stoltenberg and the rest of NATO gloss over this obvious gap in their narrative to sell Russia as an unpredictable adversary and an enduring threat to Western Europe, as well as the United States. But by filling in this obvious gap in NATO's logic, we can see who really benefits from turning Europe into a potential nuclear battlefield by stationing short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

Nuclear Battlefield Europe

It is Washington, not Germany nor Russia that opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. It is Washington who seeks to drive a wedge between Western European and Russian economic trade. It is Washington who seeks to galvanize - or coerce - Europe into a united front against Russia - even if it means compromising regional stability - both in terms of economics and security.

Washington - by withdrawing from the INF Treaty - doesn't jeopardize the security of its own territory - but opens up a new dimension to an already ongoing nuclear arms race in the heart of Western Europe. It will be Western Europeans and Russians who face the consequences that emerge from the abandoning of the INF Treaty and any unpredictable - or even accidental - incidents that result from the stationing of short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

As pointed out many times before - NATO itself more than any external threat - represents the greatest danger to its member states in terms of pilfering national treasuries, miring nations in protracted wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores, and exposing member nations to the consequences of these wars including the deluge of refugees fleeing to Europe from them.

The US - by causing chaos and division both within Europe and between Europe and its trade partners - is able to continue exercising control over the continent - literally an ocean away from Washington DC.

The withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the dangerous arms race sure to follow is another example of the US playing the roles of arsonist and fire brigade as a means to maintain the relevance of the international order it constructed over the last century - an order the US serves as the self-appointed leader of.

In terms of simple economics and genuine European security - the United States could not be more irrelevant.

While Germany maintains the United States as its top export destination - the overall European and Asian regions by far contribute more to the German economy. Any instability or crisis in Europe would have an impact on the German economy its trade with the US would in no way compensate for. In terms of imports, the role of the US is even less.

While European trade with Russia is relatively small in comparison to inter-European trade, or with partners in Asia or even the US - Russian hydrocarbons serve an important role in European energy security. And while the cutting of ties between Europe and Russia would certainly hurt Russia more - the chaos used to cut those ties may disrupt stability within Europe itself - chaos that would impact inter-European trade - trade that ties with the US or Asia would not compensate for.

Washington plays a dangerous game, with short-range nuclear missiles being the latest point of leverage it seeks to use in prying Europe away from Russia. It is another illustration of just which nation's government truly poses the greater threat not only to Europe, but to global peace, security and stability in general.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.     

US Withdrawal from NATO Would Benefit Americans Most of All

January 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Alleged discussions between US President Donald Trump and his aides about a US withdrawal from NATO have been making headlines recently.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia," would claim:

There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years. 

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

And while the division or dissolving of NATO most certainly would benefit Russia - removing a malignant and aggressive rogue institution from its borders and the toxic atmosphere of perpetual confrontation it creates - it would also most certainly benefit each and every NATO member many times more.

Despite the many myths surrounding NATO's role in "protecting" its individual members, nothing has undermined the security of NATO member states more than NATO itself.

The Myth of NATO's Purpose 

The reality-show that is American politics has increasingly depended on institutionalized reverse psychology - where a notion that fundamentally appeals to Americans of all political persuasions is passed through "Trump" to create automatic and irrational aversion in at least some segments of the public.

A US withdrawal from an expensive, antiquated, and repeatedly abused military alliance allegedly created to keep in check a Soviet Union that no longer exists is one such universal notion. To polarize debate around the otherwise clear-cut benefits of reducing or dissolving America's role in NATO, "Trump's" alleged desire to withdraw from the alliance has been emphasized, and specifically within the context of "Trump" being an alleged agent of "Russian" influence.

But the truth of NATO's actual purpose and the very real threats it poses to global peace and stability is independent of one's like or dislike of US President Donald Trump.

Far from confronting a Soviet - or now "Russian" threat - NATO instead is used to leverage and abuse Europe's collective political and military power to augment US wars of aggression far beyond the North Atlantic where NATO was supposedly created to protect.

According to NATO's own website, NATO exists to:

...guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Considering this stated purpose, one must wonder what the now 17 year-long US-led NATO occupation of Afghanistan has to do with the freedom and security of  NATO's American and European members - who must cross oceans and seas just to reach Afghanistan - a nation that poses no threat to any of NATO's members nor possesses the means even if it sought to.

The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has seen the rise of terrorist organizations previously unheard of in Afghanistan, including the emergence of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) who use the nation as a springboard to spread across Central Asia. The conflict has bled NATO members of billions in funds and has claimed the lives of NATO member soldiers.

NATO atrocities including the bombing of civilians with manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), torture, and other abuses have further tarnished NATO's reputation as well as consumed the political legitimacy of many individual NATO members involved.

The fact that the numerous goals NATO supposedly seeks to achieve in Afghanistan have gone unmet for now nearly two decades also undermines the legitimacy and credibility of NATO and its member states.

Another recent NATO action was in Libya in 2011. The destruction of Libya triggered a refugee tidal wave that swept Europe, compromising socioeconomic stability and domestic security within the very heart of NATO's supposed area of responsibility.

Libya itself has been reduced to a failed state where terrorism now runs rampant, threatening security across North Africa and serving as a springboard for militancy and terror both regionally and globally.

Foreign Policy in a 2015 article titled, "The New Pirates of Libya: Why the rise of the radical Islamists in North Africa threatens America directly -- and how to stop it," would admit (emphasis added):

Over the last four years, Libya has become a key node in the expansion of Islamic radicalism across North Africa, West Africa, and the Sahel, and into Europe. Arms and fighters have crossed Libya’s porous borders, feeding radical organizations from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to Boko Haram and reinforcing radical trends in the heart of the Middle East. If events in Libya continue on their current path, they will likely haunt the United States and its Western allies for a decade or more. 

The current situation in Libya is the product of a series of significant mistakes, erroneous assumptions, and myths that date back to NATO intervention in 2011.  

NATO is revealed as a geopolitical wrecking ball - knocking down - not upholding regional or global security. The resulting chaos is then used as a pretext to further expand its mandate. Its actions have repeatedly compromised its many member states in ways even the most tenacious outside threat could not.

Washington's Russiagate Conspiracy Theory on Life Support

December 22, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The latest bid to keep Washington's desperate Russiagate conspiracy theory alive has energized distilled segments of the public still convinced of Moscow's global omniscience and its role in manipulating and undermining virtually every aspect of their daily lives.

But recent "revelations" are simply the same accusations made against a Russian-based click-bait farm, repackaged and respun.

The Washington Post's article, "New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the operation’s scale and sweep," would in fact present no new report. Instead, it would present repackaged narratives involving "Russia’s disinformation campaign around the 2016 election." 

The Washington Post would claim:

The report, obtained by The Washington Post before its official release Monday, is the first to study the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), its chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), its ranking Democrat. The bipartisan panel also released a second independent report studying the 2016 election Monday. Lawmakers said the findings “do not necessarily represent the views” of the panel or its members.

The two reports were put out by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and New Knowledge. No information is provided by the Washington Post as to what either of these organizations are, who runs them, or who funds them.

Both reports rehash allegations claiming the Russia-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) conducted an extensive influence campaign through social media during the 2016 US elections.

The total amount of money spent on such operations amounted to approximately $100,000 in Facebook ads. To put this amount in context, the very same Washington Post would report in April 2017 that the total amount spent on the 2016 elections amounted to $6.5 billion - in other words - the amount allegedly spent on Facebook ads by IRA was about 0.001% of total US campaign spending.

Both reports cited by the Washington Post and presented to US Congress did not dispute this. Instead, they attempted to claim the impact of IRA's activities far exceeded this $100,000 in ads.

The New Knowledge report would claim:

The Instagram and Facebook engagement statistics belie the claim that this was a small operation — it was far more than only $100,000 of Facebook ads, as originally asserted by Facebook executives," the New Knowledge white paper said. "The ad engagements were a minor factor in a much broader, organically driven influence operation. 

And to unskeptical, untrained eyes, the figures presented by both Oxford and New Knowledge tabulating millions of views, shares, and likes do appear to "belie the claim that this was a small operation."

Context is King 

But organically driven influence simply means whatever was posted by IRA was picked up by ordinary people and spread by them, not IRA. And while the numbers presented by Oxford and New Knowledge may seem impressive, how do they compare to the "scale and sweep" of the 2016 candidates' efforts on Facebook?

Since neither group of "researches" bothered to provide this important context, it is fortunate that the Western media itself has, albeit deeply buried in older articles.

Blocking Nord Stream 2: To Fight "Russian Dictatorship," US Dictates to Europe

December 20, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Rarely is irony and hypocrisy so thoroughly combined as it was when the US House of Representatives passed resolution 1035 - "Expressing opposition to the completion of Nord Stream II" (.pdf).

Bloomberg in its article, "U.S. House Passes Resolution Opposing Russian Gas Pipeline," would report:

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a largely symbolic resolution expressing opposition to Gazprom PJSC’s $11 billion Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, on concerns that the project will boost the Kremlin’s control over Europe’s energy supplies.

 Bloomberg would also report (emphasis added):

While the resolution is non-binding, it highlights growing Congressional opposition to the Russian project. The Trump administration is reviewing potential sanctions against the European companies involved. The pipeline, which would send Russian gas to Germany, has financing agreements with Engie SA and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, among others.

By passing this resolution, the United States presumes to dictate to all of Europe who they can and cannot do business with.

And while the resolution itself is "non-binding," the resolution itself admits it:

...supports the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream II under section 232 of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (22 U.S.C. 9526).

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline circumvents Ukraine through which Russia had previously shipped natural gas to the rest of Europe. The Russian Federation, and before that, the Soviet Union had for decades reliably supplied Europe with natural gas through Ukraine.

It was not until an openly US-backed putsch swept the elected government of Ukraine from power in 2014 and transformed Ukrainian foreign policy into being openly hostile toward Moscow, that gas flow was jeopardized, prompting Russia to pursue alternatives - including Nord Stream 2.

US Dictates to Europe to Save it from a "Russian Dictatorship?"

Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not a unilateral project - it includes partners from Germany such as Uniper SE and Wintershall, as well as Dutch natural gas infrastructure and transportation company, Gasunie.

The pipeline has also been approved by the elected German government itself.

German public media, Deutsche Welle (DW), in an article titled, "Germany approves Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline," would report:

Germany has given a green light to the construction of the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency said Tuesday. 

The decision means all legal hurdles to building a 31-kilometer (20 mile) section of the pipeline in Germany's exclusive economic zone have been cleared. In January, authorities approved construction of a gas pipeline segment in German territorial waters.

In what is essentially a bilateral deal between Germany and Russia, the US - from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - "expresses opposition" to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and is preparing to target companies involved to prevent the pipeline's completion and use.

It is the ultimate irony and the pinnacle of hypocrisy that the US claims in its own resolution that Russia seeks to "control" European energy markets while the US House resolution itself is an open demonstration of Washington's desire to control European energy policy.

NATO's Aggression Reaches for Russian Waters

December 7, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recent Kerch Strait incident marks a new low amid the US-led expansion of NATO eastward.

The intentional provocation executed by Kiev saw three Ukrainian naval vessels seized by Russia. The vessels were intentionally violating protocol for passing through the Strait - protocol previously agreed upon by Kiev and previously observed by Ukrainian naval vessels.

The extent to which Ukraine was aware of these protocols and the 2003 agreement that put them in place includes entire events organized in Ukraine by NATO-sponsored "think tanks" discussing the necessity to "rip them up" and attempt to assert greater control over the current joint-use of the Sea of Azov.

In the wake of this incident - predictable calls are being made to use it as a pretext to expand NATO even further east, with senior American Foreign Policy Council fellow and former professor at the US Army War College Stephen Blank declaring the need for the US to "lease" Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov, patrol the sea with US warships,  all while committing to the "full-fledged" arming of Ukrainian forces.

Blank's commentary - published in The Hill in a piece titled, "Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an act of war," predicates an anti-Russian narrative and NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine upon a number of blatant falsehoods.

He mentions Russia's "seizure" of Crimea, its "claiming that Crimea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait are exclusively Russian waters," and the building of the Crimean Bridge which Blank claims is impeding Ukrainian commerce in the Sea of Azov - all as Russian provocations.

However, Blank conveniently omits the US-NATO backed putsch that seized power in Ukraine in 2013 - setting off Ukrainian-Russian tensions in the first place. Nowhere in Blank's commentary does he mention the prominent role paramilitary Neo-Nazi organizations have played in both overthrowing the elected government in 2013 and militancy carried out against Russian businesses, institutions, and even Ukrainians of Russian decedent - particularly in Donbass, eastern Ukraine.


Blank would even feign ignorance over Russian President Vladimir Putin's motives in repatriating Crimea and taking measures against a now fully hostile Ukraine sitting on Russia's borders.

Also conveniently omitted from Blank's commentary was any mention of decades of NATO's eastward expansion along with various episodes in NATO's history where it waged wars well beyond its jurisdiction and mandate, including in Libya and Afghanistan.

Coupled together with Blank's prescription for a "response" - it is abundantly clear who stood most to benefit from the Kerch Strait incident - especially considering the systematic expansion of NATO that has been ongoing long before President Putin ever came to power.

Ukraine Provokes Russia to What End?

November 27, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) -  Russia has seized three Ukrainian military vessels violating its territory near Russia's newly completed Crimean Bridge. The incident is a clear provocation carried out by Kiev and possibly engineered by Kiev's Western sponsors - particularly those in Washington and London.

Ukrainian military vessels are in fact permitted to pass from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov provided they notify Russian authorities beforehand. The Sea of Azov - according to a joint agreement signed by Kiev and Moscow in 2003 - is considered internal waters of both Ukraine and Russia.

With the completion of the Crimean Bridge connecting Russian Crimea to the rest of Russian territory across the Strait of Kerch, security measures have understandably increased.

According to Russian state media, Ukrainian military vessels have previously observed agreed upon protocol when transiting the Strait of Kerch with military vessels. For the sake of provocation, they chose not to this time.

TASS would explain in its article titled, "All three Ukrainian Navy vessels that violated Russia’s border detained in Black Sea," that:

The FSB [Russian Federal Security Service] stressed that Ukraine was aware of the procedure for warships’ passage through Russia’s territorial sea and Kerch-Yenikale Canal. "They have already used that procedure for innocent passage," it said.  

This incident is just the latest amid growing tensions in the Sea of Azov.

Tensions in the Sea of Azov are not New 

Tensions have been brewing since Ukraine's NATO-backed regime seized power in 2014. Articles across the Western media and NATO-sponsored conferences predating the most recent clash near the Strait of Kerch have obsessed over shredding past treaties signed by both Kiev and Moscow regarding the use of the Sea of Azov - as well as Ukraine's militarization of the Sea particularly in regards to reasserting some illusion of control over Russian Crimea.

In August of this year, US State Department's Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in an article titled, "Sea Of Troubles: Azov Emerging As 'Tinderbox' In Russia-Ukraine Conflict," would admit that Ukraine was building up a military presence and not only called the 2003 agreement regarding the joint use of the Sea of Azov "controversial," but also admitted that there have been calls within Ukraine to "rip it up."

In October of this year, the "New Europe Center - a US government-funded (pages 32 and 33, .pdf) front that claims to "increase support of Ukraine’s European and Euro-Atlantic prospects among opinion leaders and officials of the EU and the NATO" - held an event titled, "Treaty with Russia on Azov: How Should Ukraine Act?" 

The New Europe Center would summarize claiming:

Kyiv should comprehensively explore the issue of denunciation of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch since 2003, but on the whole this agreement does not correspond to Ukrainian interests.

The consensus among US-funded "experts" was that Kiev should denounce the agreement but had no means to follow through in its desire to pressure Russia out of the the Sea of Azov or change the current status quo in any meaningful way upon denouncing the agreement.

Does US Withdrawal from another Nuclear Treaty Really Benefit Russia?

October 31, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - No. Obviously Russia does not benefit from the scrapping of yet another treaty designed to prevent a nuclear exchange amid a war with the United States.

Yet, as an attempt to frame blatant US provocations as somehow "Russia's fault," a narrative has begun circulating - claiming that not only does the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty somehow benefit Russia - it was via Russia's "puppet" - US President Donald Trump - that saw the treaty scrapped.

Spreading this scurrilous narrative are political provocateurs like former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul who has re-branded himself recently as a prominent anti-Trump voice - feeding into and feeding off of America's false left-right political paradigm.

In one post on social media, McFaul would claim:

Why can’t Trump leverage his close personal relationship with Putin to get Russia to abide by the INF Treaty?

In other posts, he would recommend followers to read commentary published by US corporate-financier funded think tank - the Brookings Institution - on how the US withdrawal "helps Russia and hurts US."

The commentary - penned by former US ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer - admitted that no evidence has been made public of supposed "Russian violations." It also admits that America's European allies - those who would be in range of Russian intermediate range missiles if deployed - have not raised a "stink" with the Kremlin, publicly or privately.

But Pifer claims that the US has no missiles to match those supposedly being developed by Russia, and even if it did, the US would have no where to place them - claiming that NATO, Japan, and South Korea would not allow the US to place such systems on their shores. This, he and McFaul suggest, is why the US' withdrawal from the treaty "benefits" Russia by granting it a monopoly over intermediate range missiles.

Washington's Other Withdrawals Prove Otherwise 

Yet the US has already withdrawn from treaties and twisted the arms of allies to allow newly developed missile systems to be deployed on their shores.

In the aftermath of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from another Cold War-era agreement - the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty scrapped by US President George Bush Jr. in 2002 - the US developed and deployed the Lockheed Martin ashore Aegis ballistic missile defense system in Europe along with the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile defense systems to South Korea - also manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

It is clear the unilateral treaty withdrawals under Bush and Trump, as well as the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems to Europe and East Asia under the Obama administration, represent a continuity of agenda regardless of who occupies the White House.

Coupled with these treaty withdrawals and the subsequent deployment of US missile systems to ring Russia and China - there has been a constant build-up of US troops directly on the borders of both nations.

While those claiming Russia has violated the INF Treaty - and has been doing so for "8 years" as claimed in a 2017 op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton published in the Washington Post, it should be noted that 8 years previously, it would be revealed that in addition to the US placing Patriot missile systems along Russia's borders, plans for wider military deployments in the Baltic states were also in the works.

American Media Seeks to Poison US-Russian Cooperation in Space

October 16, 2018 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - After a string of suspicious incidents involving Russia's venerable Soyuz rocket system, several prominent American newspapers have attempted to poison the last remaining area of significant cooperation between Russia and the United States.

This includes the Washington Post which has placed itself at the center of Washington and Wall Street's anti-Russian campaign. Its article, "Astronauts make harrowing escape, but Russian rocket failure roils NASA," would claim:

A Russian Soyuz rocket malfunctioned two minutes after liftoff Thursday on a mission to the International Space Station, triggering an automatic abort command that forced the two-member crew — an American and a Russian — to make a harrowing parachute landing in their capsule, 200 miles from the launch site in the steppes of Kazakhstan.

The Post would further state:

Thursday’s launch failure came at a dicey moment in the U.S.-Russia space partnership. The two nations have been congenial 250 miles above the Earth’s surface even when events on the ground, such as the Russian annexation of Crimea or the interference of Russia in the 2016 election, have stoked tensions. 

But the United States and Russia have been at odds over the cause of a small hole discovered in August on the Soyuz module — Soyuz MS-09 — currently docked at the space station. Moscow says the hole, now repaired, was the result of deliberate drilling and has suggested sabotage, while the U.S. space agency said this week that investigators will determine the cause.

For NASA itself, it has expressed full confidence in the Russian space program and indicated no desire whatsoever to end its cooperation with its Russian counterparts.

The Guardian in its article, "'We will fly again': Nasa to keep using Russia's Soyuz despite failure," would explain:

Nasa’s chief has praised the Russian space programme and said that he expected a new crew to go to the International Space Station in December, despite a rocket failure. 

Jim Bridenstine spoke to reporters at the US embassy in Moscow a day after a Soyuz rocket failure forced Russian cosmonaut Aleksey Ovchinin and US astronaut Nick Hague to make an emergency landing shortly after takeoff in Kazakhstan. The pair escaped unharmed.

The Guardian would further elaborate:

“I fully anticipate that we will fly again on a Soyuz rocket and I have no reason to believe at this point that it will not be on schedule,” the Nasa administrator said. 

It was the first such incident in Russia’s post-Soviet history - an unprecedented setback for the country’s space industry.

Space travel is notoriously challenging and both incidents could just be unlucky coincidences. It is also entirely possible that quality control within Russia is lagging and needs to be reexamined and reorganized. Even for NASA, episodes of lax quality control and complacency have caused launch failures including that of the space shuttle Challenger.

Papers like the Washington Post, attempting to shoehorn the incident into the much larger adversarial narrative it has invested itself into and aimed at Moscow could indicate merely the cynical leveraging of an otherwise string of unfortunate accidents.

However, US-Russian cooperation remains a serious and prominent contradiction to those in Washington attempting to portray Russia as a threat to global peace and stability. After all, if Russia is so untrustworthy and truly involved in all that it is accused of by Washington, why does Washington still entrust the lives of NASA astronauts to the Russian Federation?

US-Russian Cooperation in Space Represents the Best of Both Nations 

Space truly is the final frontier, and in more ways than one. It was one of the first areas of cooperation between the US and the Soviet Union and is one of the last areas of cooperation between the United States and Russia today. America's NASA and Russia's Roscosmos have proven the height of achievements possible when the US and Russia are able to set aside their differences and move forward together.

The International Space Station represents the pinnacle of human aerospace technology, a permanent homestead in Earth orbit that has been occupied by astronauts and cosmonauts continuously for nearly 20 years. The experience earned on the ISS will be used to further extend humanity's foothold into space, possibly even making us a multiplanetary species.

Liberals Leap to Defend Neo-Con Henchman McFaul

July 29, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Were one to read the Washington Post's article on a Russian proposal regarding the questioning of suspects in various, ongoing US and Russia investigations, they would have imagined former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was about to be shipped to a dungeon beneath the Kremlin for interrogation.

The Washington Post's article, "Outrage erupts over Trump-Putin ‘conversation’ about letting Russia interrogate ex-U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul" fueled anti-Russian hysteria, claiming:

At this week’s summit in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed what President Trump described as an “incredible offer” — the Kremlin would give special counsel Robert S. Mueller III access to interviews with Russians who were indicted after they allegedly hacked Democrats in 2016. In return, Russia would be allowed to question certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs.

One of those U.S. officials is a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, a nemesis of the Kremlin because of his criticisms of Russia’s human rights record.

The Washington Post would compound confusion and hysteria by also claiming (emphasis added):

The willingness of the White House to contemplate handing over a former U.S. ambassador for interrogation by the Kremlin drew ire and astonishment from current and former U.S. officials. Such a proposition is unheard of. So is the notion that the president may think he has the legal authority to turn anyone over to a foreign power on his own.

In reality, the proposal never entailed the US or Russia handing anyone over for interrogation. Bloomberg in an article titled, "Trump ‘Looks Weak’ by Considering Putin’s Interrogation Idea, McFaul Says," would more accurately summarize the deal, stating:

Putin proposed letting Russians observe interrogations of McFaul and other Americans. In exchange, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller could send members of his team to watch Russian questioning of 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week in connection with hacking Democratic Party email accounts and disseminating those messages before the 2016 presidential election.

Americans of interest would be questioned in the United States, by Americans, merely with Russian representatives present, in exchange for American representatives travelling to Russia to watch a Russian interrogation of suspects relevant to ongoing US investigations.

Further evidence is the transcript of the actual statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, posted by Politico, which states unequivocally (emphasis added):

We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They will be present at questioning. In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

Despite these facts, the hysteria has continued to spread in part due to a dishonest media eager to fan the flames of conflict with Russia and Western audiences eager to believe them.

Who is McFaul? And Why are Liberals Defending Him? 

Americans convinced Russia interfered in American elections must then be acutely aware that meddling in another nation's internal political affairs is unacceptable. Thus, McFaul's role in doing precisely this before and during his appointment as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 should elicit condemnation and outcries from these same Americans.

Instead, many Western liberals have leaped to McFaul's defense.

The short answer as to why many in the West are defending McFaul is out of a reflexive response to their blind hatred of US President Donald Trump and Russia. McFaul has positioned himself both as a critic of President Trump and of Russia, fulfilling the only two prerequisites required to garner support among circles entertaining the current anti-Russia hysteria.


Yet McFaul represents special interests and activities that many Americans, left or right of the political spectrum, would find unacceptable - and perhaps especially for those outraged over alleged Russian meddling in American politics.

McFaul's Role in Supporting Global Political Meddling  

Before McFaul served as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 he served on the board of trustees of Freedom House (page 30, PDF).

Freedom House is a US government and corporate-financier funded front that imposes the interests of its sponsors on nations abroad under the guise of expanding "freedom and democracy around the world." This process entails the creation and support of opposition groups to undermine and eventually either oust or overthrow targeted governments.

When McFaul served as trustee for Freedom House, its 2005 annual report indicated the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as sponsors. It also included Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.

Additionally, Freedom House is a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is chaired by a variety of career, pro-war Neoconservatives - Neoconservatives who promoted many of the Bush-era wars Western liberals opposed.

NED is also funded by the US government as well as corporations (page 126, PDF) including Goldman Sachs, convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and the US Chamber of Commerce which itself serves as a collective lobbying front for some of the largest corporations in the US. 

Bloomberg: "America's New World Order is Officially Dead"

July 23, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Hal Brands - the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments - pines of waning American hegemony in his op-ed in Bloomberg titled, "America's New World Order Is Officially Dead."

The sub-headline would further elaborate, "China and Russia have fully derailed the post-Cold War movement toward U.S.-led global integration."

And while Brands blames Russia and China for America's decline - it should be noted that the "US-led global integration" Brands and others within the halls of corporate-financier funded policy think tanks promote, was little more than modern day empire.

Post-Cold War, the United States abused and squandered its monopoly over military and economic power. It led serial wars of aggression across the globe, destroying entire regions of the planet. It proved that whatever the rhetoric was used to sell its unipolar world order to rest of the world, it was in practice an order that ultimately served Wall Street and Washington at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

Russia and China's vision of a multipolar world order is not predicated on institutions the world must surrender its sovereignty, trust, and future to. It is an order built on a much more realist balance of power - where national sovereignty holds primacy and a balance of economic and military power defines and protects the boundaries of international norms. This is in stark contrast to America's vision in which an easily co-opted and manipulated UN made it easy for the largest, most powerful nations to sidestep national sovereignty and even international law, and expand wealth and power through sanctions, invasions, perpetual military occupations, and the creation of subordinate client states.

An Order Built on Betrayal and Brutality 

The international order Brands mourns began with the immediate betrayal of Western promises not to expand its NATO military alliance eastward toward Russia's borders. At the time of the Soviet Union's collapse, a buffer zone existed between Russia's borders and NATO member states - many of these states choosing to benefit from the best of both Eastern and Western relations.

Today, NATO sits on Russia's borders, particularly in the Baltic states where US troops train just shy of the Russian border - in Lithuania which surrounds Russia's Kaliningrad oblast, and in Ukraine where US and NATO members have installed a regime in power dependent on literal Neo-Nazi militants and their respective political wings. 

It is also an international order which saw in Russia's moment of weakness, an opportunity to impose its order by force on former Soviet client states. This not only included NATO's process of expansion in Eastern Europe through sanctions, subversion, and all out war, but also in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It would be US Army General Wesley Clark who best summarized US foreign policy in the proper, realist context it was actually executed in.

In a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," General Clark would reveal this post-Cold War agenda by relating a conversation he had as early as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (emphasis added):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

And of course, that is precisely what the US embarked upon doing. General Clark would also mention a later conversation he had at the Pentagon, regarding how the US planned to use the attacks on September 11, 2001 as a pretext to expand from military operations in Afghanistan and accelerate this process to invade and overthrow the governments of at least seven other nations.

General Clark would state (emphasis added):

 I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer, I said why why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq, he said, oh sir he says, its worse than that. He said he pulled up a piece of paper of his desk, he said, I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran seven seven countries in five years.

While all of these nations were part of a singular, cynical, hegemonic agenda, each nation has been targeted and attacked under false pretenses ranging from false accusations regarding "weapons of mass destruction," to the use of the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) - leveraging "human rights" as a pretext to intervene in wars of Washington's own engineering.

Babchenko Stunt Torpedoes Western Media

June 2, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Some of the most prominent newspapers across the Western World spent much of the end of May editing or deleting humiliating headlines and articles falsely announcing the supposed death of Russian media figure Arkady Babchenko - who turned up very much alive and well shortly after the Ukrainian government claimed he was murdered by assassins.

The humiliation suffered across the Western media also stems from the fact that most articles also included preliminary accusations against Russia for the "murder" - a now familiar pattern of assigning immediate and baseless blame, evident after the 2014 downing of Malaysian airliner MH17 and the more recent Skripal affair.

Blame was not limited to the unprofessional and increasingly exposed Western media. The Ukrainian government itself would go as far as directly accusing Russia from the highest levels of political power in Kiev.

The BBC in its article, "Ukraine blames Russia for journalist murder," would note that even Ukraine's prime minster accused Russia of the supposed "murder," stating (emphasis added):

Ukraine's Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman has accused Russia of being behind the killing in Kiev of the Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko.

"I am confident that the Russian totalitarian machine did not forgive him his honesty and principled stance," the prime minister posted on Facebook.

Yet shortly after the announcement of Babchenko's death and as accusations began to mount against Russia - the Ukrainian government announced that his death was staged by Ukrainian security services.

Ukraine's government now claims that the staged murder was in response to an allegedly "genuine" threat to Babchenko's life.

The Guardian would elaborate in their article, "Arkady Babchenko reveals he faked his death to thwart Moscow plot," claiming:

Details of the precise threat to Babchenko’s life were murky. Vasyl Hrytsak, the head of the SBU, said Russia’s spy agencies had contacted a middleman, identified only as G, and paid him $40,000 to arrange the murder. The middleman in turn approached a former Ukrainian volunteer soldier to carry out the hit, together with additional “terrorist acts”, he said.

The middleman was now in custody, Hrytsak said, showing video of a middle-aged, white-haired man being bundled by officers into a van. Hrytsak added that phone intercepts had revealed his contacts in Moscow. Dozens of contract killings had been averted, he suggested, claiming that the list of potential victims in Ukraine stretched to 30 names.

However, the Ukrainian government's claims regarding the alleged threat to Babchenko's life and the necessity of deceiving to the entire international community are of course predicated entirely on the credibility of Kiev - of which it now has none. 

Some Come Up for Air, Others Dive Deeper 

Despite Kiev's current crisis of credibility - many members of the Western media still busy editing and deleting humiliating jumps to conclusions - find themselves immediately and unquestioningly accepting the Ukrainian government's explanation  - a government who just lied to them about Babchenko's murder in the first place.

Like a deep sea diver whose air tanks have run out - some have sensibly rushed to the surface - denouncing Ukraine's antics as deceitful, dangerous, and self-defeating. Others - however - are inexplicably diving deeper in the belief that an alternative source of air exists somewhere in the abyss of lies below now being constructed to defend Kiev's actions and the Western media's reaction to them. 

One example comes from Washington Post's Anne Applebaum in her article titled, "Ukraine's government just faked a journalist's death. Will it be worth the cost?" It claims: 

Babchenko was not dead. His murder had been staged in order to catch a contract killer who had been paid $40,000 to assassinate him and who was planning to kill others. Babchenko walked into the room. People cheered. The security services gloated: They had, they said, used the fake murder to catch the middleman who paid the would-be assassin.

Plus, of course, they had finally made the Russians look stupid and themselves look smart. What “chaos”? Who’s a “failure” now? They had convinced the world that Babchenko was dead, pulled off a surprise, caught a criminal. Because the security services are under direct control of the Ukrainian president, they may well have helped him in his coming election campaign, and that may well have been part of the point.

Applebaum never fully explains how the Ukrainian operation made "Russians look stupid."

Over the years following a US-organized putsch to seize power in Kiev, Russia has consistently maintained that the Ukrainian government is deceitful, untrustworthy, and illegitimate in the way it seized and now maintains power in Ukraine. 

How the "Skripal Effect" Was Stopped

May 22, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A few years ago the story of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal allegedly being poisoned with a deadly nerve agent in the UK supposedly by the Russian state, would have shook geopolitics and placed immense pressure on Moscow.

Today, while it certainly did shake geopolitics, it was more from the narrative hitting a brick wall than from its desired impact toward cornering the Kremlin.

While the United Kingdom's credibility unraveling played a major role in the UK's own narrative failing, it has been the growing global alternative media that has exposed and diminished the true nature of British credibility in the first place.

Analysts have linked the Skripal affair with a series of other Anglo-American geopolitical maneuvers including staged chemical attacks in Syria and the subsequent missile attack launched against the Syrian state.

However, all of these pretexts failed to find their mark, leaving Western capitals increasingly exposed without the cover of legitimacy they have manufactured and enjoyed in the past.

Russia's Own, Modern Media 

Russia's own international media played a significant role in publicly informing global audiences of alternatives to the UK's Skripal narrative, as well as challenging the UK directly.

The growing influence of Russia's international media helped provide balance to global discourse that was once solely dominated by US and European media organizations.

Long gone are the days of clumsy Soviet state media. Russia's modern media has performed an act of public relations judo, using the most effective techniques of the Western media, and directing them back against the West.

When this involves some of the most dishonest and aggressive agendas driven by Western special interests, they resonate with a global public increasingly disillusioned by the Western media.

For the time being, the global alternative media comprised of small independent media organizations and even individuals, have benefited from working with modern Russia media.

Despite claims of "Russian influence" and "Russian propaganda," it should be noted that citizens and organizations around the globe contributing to, being interviewed by and appearing on Russian media are no different than those appearing on American and European networks.

Attempts to portray it as being somehow different is based on the assumption that Anglo-American and European media is in some way morally superior to that of other nations, yet this assumption in and of itself is predicated on decades, if not centuries of exceptionalism bred from quite immoral hegemony.

Independent media organizations and individual journalists and analysts holding alternative views from the mainstream US-European media are systematically denied a platform to fairly air these views in the West. Contrary to the West's supposed values of "free speech" and objectivity among a "free press," the actions of the Western media promote anything but.

As long as Russia's media focuses on issues such as corrupt global corporations, global military aggression and other global issues barred from being discussed freely and honestly in the West, this partnership will continue to flourish.

The UK's attempts to frame Russia for a "nerve agent" attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter on British soil and thus dishonestly drag the British nation into a wider confrontation with Russia threatened not only Moscow's best interests, but those of the British public as well.

The Alternative Media 

While state media from Russia certainly helped counter the UK's narrative regarding Skripal, thousands of independent media organizations and individuals around the globe also contributed.

News personalities and analysts with large audiences across social media and video platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have grown into an increasingly important counterbalance to the Western corporate media.

To illustrate how effective the alternative media has become, the Western media has intentionally and very dishonestly attempted to lump them in with Russian international media to undermine their credibility.

US Claims of "Russian Meddling" Exposes Its Own Global Meddling

May 1, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - After well over a year of accusing the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 US presidential elections, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has finally indicted 13 Russians for what it calls "interference operations targeting the United States."

The 13 Russians indicted allegedly represent  the "Internet Research Agency" merely referred to as "the organization" throughout the FBI's highly publicized indictment (PDF). The Internet Research Agency was allegedly run by Concord Management and Consulting.

However, the FBI failed to establish any link between the Internet Research Agency's supposed operations and the Russian government. It attempts to claim that Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering are "related Russian entities" with various Russian government contracts - however the FBI failed to detail what this statement meant, merely insinuating that the Internet Research Agency may have been another Russian government contract.

The "Russian meddling" described in the FBI indictment consists of Facebook ads and the creation of accounts posing as American social media personalities commentating on US political issues. The FBI's indictment failed to list any instances of Russian government money, or money from an alleged intermediary being funneled into any actual US political parties, opposition or activist groups, or any US-based media organizations.

Putting the "Full Shape" of "Russian Meddling" Into Perspective 

The FBI indictment claims that monthly funding for the Internet Research Agency's "influencing operations" peaked at $1.25 million, but did not provide any additional information regarding the organization's budget, or how significant this peak was when compared to monthly averages.

The Western media has presented this number as significant. The BBC in its article, "Russia-Trump inquiry: Russians charged over US 2016 election tampering," would claim (emphasis added):

On Friday, Robert Mueller's team released a slate of indictments that lays bare what it asserts is the full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus.

And what an apparatus it was. In the run-up to the US presidential election "Project Lakhta", as it was called, had an operating budget of more than $1m a month.

Yet, to put that "$1m a month" budget into perspective, the BBC alone operates on an annual budget of between 4-6 billion - or up to $500 million a month. This is a monthly budget up to 400 times larger than that of what the BBC calls the "full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus."

Considering that the BBC coordinates its own "influence operations" with other multi-billion dollar media corporations in the United Kingdom, across Europe, and of course in the United States, the gargantuan disparity between the "full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus" and that of the West's own "influencing operations" is put into proper perspective.

When considering the role of US-based corporate lobbyists and their role in influencing both political candidates and the American public ahead of elections - this disparity widens even further.

To suggest that "the full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus" had any significant effect on the outcome of the US election is far fetched at best. To suggest that the Russian government would have conducted such feeble attempts to influence the US presidential election when it is fully aware that large, corporate-financier interests actually determine US policy, is also implausible.

That accusations against Russia are meant to deflect away from America's own growing problems both domestically and abroad, including its attempts to justify a wider confrontation with Russia itself, is a much more likely explanation.

US Exposes the Illegitimacy of its Own Global Meddling 

Should the Russian government have intentionally and directly attempted to interfere in US elections or America's internal political affairs, it would constitute an attack upon American sovereignty and warrant a vigorous US response. However, nothing of the sort has been established yet, with the US having sought to target Russia with wider sanctions and provocations long before the 2016 US elections appeared on the horizon.

That the US has attempted to use what it calls "improper foreign influence on US elections and on the US political system" as a pretext for attacking Russia, its media both in Russia and its US-based networks, its diplomatic mission in the United States, as well as the Russian economy through sanctions, indicates that Washington is more than aware of how inappropriate it is for one nation to attempt to interfere with or influence the internal political processes of another nation.

Yet this is precisely what the United States itself has done - for decades, openly - around the globe.