Voices from Russia

Sunday, 23 April 2017

Guess Which Country is the Undisputed Champion in Election Meddling?



With the entire “Russia interfered in US democracy” story collapsing, Jimmy Dore reminded us which country is the undisputed champion in election meddling. The Carnegie Mellon University study does NOT even include coups and attempts at régime change. The study just counts when the USA tried directly to influence an election for one of the sides. Imagine the results if we added coups, régime change operations, invasions, sanctions, and bombings to the final tally. Here’s a transcript of an NPR interview on the matter:


This is hardly the first time a country tried to influence the outcome of another country’s election. By one expert’s count, the USA did it, too, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. That expert is Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. I asked him to tell me about one election where US intervention likely affected the outcome.


One example of that was our intervention in Serbia (then, Yugoslavia), in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milošević was running for re-election, and we didn’t want him to stay in power due to his tendency to disrupt the Balkans and his human rights violations (sic). Therefore, we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Koštunica. Moreover, we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. In addition, according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.


How often are these interventions public versus covert?


Basically, about one-third of them are public and two-thirds of them are covert. In other words, the voters in the target don’t know before the election.


Your count doesn’t include coups or attempts at régime change. Depending on the definitions, it sounds like the tally could actually be much higher.


You’re right. I didn’t count and discounted covert coup d’états like the USA did in Iran in 1953 or in Guatemala in 1954. I only counted when the USA tried directly to influence an election for one of the sides. I didn’t discuss other types of interventions. However, if we include those, then, of course, the number could be larger.


For example, how often do other countries like Russia try to alter the outcome of elections as compared to the USA?


Well, for my dataset, the USA is the most common user of this technique. Since 1945, Russia or the USSR used it half as much. My estimate is 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know that the Chinese used this technique; the Venezuelans used it when the late Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was in power, and other countries used it, too.


Arguably, the USA is more vocal than any other country about promoting democracy and democratic values around the world. Does this strike you as conflicting with that message?


It depends upon if we help the pro-democratic side (sic), as in the case of Milošević that I talked about earlier. I believe that’d be helpful for democracy. If it helps less-nicer candidates or parties, then, naturally, it can be less helpful.


Obviously, your examination of 20th-century attempts to influence elections doesn’t involve hacking because computers weren’t widespread until recently.


That’s true.


In your view, is technology dramatically changing the game… as we saw in the November election? On the other hand, is this just the latest evolution of an effort that always used whatever tools are available?


I’d say it’s more the latter. Before, without cyber-hacking tools, I’d say that the Russians or the Soviets infrequently did these types of intervention because one had to use old-style methods such as people meeting in the park in secret giving out and getting information and things like that.

23 April 2017

Alex Christoforou

The Duran



Sunday, 30 June 2013

As John Robles Sees It… Holy Day of Vidovdan Celebrated in Serbia

00 The Battle of Kosovo memorial at Gazimestan for Vidovdan in 2009. 30.06.13

The Battle of Kosovo memorial at Gazimestan for Vidovdan in 2009


On Friday, the Serbian people and Serbian Orthodox Christians celebrated Vidovdan, their most important Holy Day. The Serbs celebrate this Holy Day on 28 June, according to the Gregorian calendar, which is 15 June according to the Julian calendar. Vidovdan also is known as St Vitus Day or the Slava of St Vitus. It’s important for many reasons. This year, the capitulation of Kosovo overshadowed the important date. One reason it’s so important is that the date is associated with the epic Battle of Kosovo, when Serbian martyrs gave their lives to defend Kosovo against the Ottoman Empire on 28 June 1389. Ergo, the Serbian Orthodox Church designates it as a Memorial Day for Prince St Lazar Hrebeljanović who led the Serbs against the massive invading army of the Ottoman Empire and perished. During the battle, the legendary Serbian knight St Miloš Obilić killed the Ottoman leader Sultan Murad I. Many other significant events in Serbian history took place on this. For example, on 28 June 1914, a Serb assassinated the Austro-Hungarian crown prince Franz Ferdinand, triggering World War I. Another important event in Serbian history occurred on 28 June 1921 when Serbian King Aleksandar I Karađorđević introduced the Vidovdan Constitution for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

Unfortunately, for the Serbian people, Albanians attack, harass, and persecute them on this Slava. Last year, violence against Serbs included gunfire, buses being set on fire, and forced many Serbs, including women, to remove clothing adorned with national symbols or Cyrillic script. This year, the number of incidents was far less pronounced, but there was still violence on the part of Kosovo Albanians. Near Gazimestan, which is about 5 kilometres from Priština, which is the most important location where Serbs go to celebrate Vidovdan, Kosovo Albanian pelted buses filled with Serbs with stones and other objects, injuring several people. According to the Voice of Serbia:

Abbot Sava Janjić of Visoki Dečani Monastery stated that Kosmet Albanians stoned busses that were taking Serbs back from the celebration of St Vitus day in Gazimestan. Aleksandar Vulin, Director of the Serbian Government Office for Kosmet, noted that several people were injured on that occasion. One girl was in hospital in Sremska Mitrovica and three children were in the health centre in Gračanica. Abbot Sava added that Serbian Patriarch Irinej Gavrilović had safely left the territory of Kosmet, escorted by KFOR.

There were also protests in Serbia according to the site dss.rs in Belgrade:

More than 1,000 nationalists marched in the Serbian capital to protest against the government’s “concessions” over Kosovo in order to win Brussels support. Opposition leader Vojislav Koštunica told the protestors, “Serbian leaders are so spellbound with the EU that they’re betraying Kosovo for it”.

The date is also important for many other reasons and because of many other events other than those mentioned above. Another important event occurred on 28 June 1881, when Austria-Hungary and Serbia signed a secret treaty, giving Serbia the right of recognition as a monarchy, as long as it gave up its independence to the Habsburg Empire. Not entirely related to Serbia, but another important event that took place on 28 June was the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which ended World War I. Yet another event on this date was the final split between the USSR under Iosif Stalin and Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito on 28 June 1948, when an initiative by Soviet delegates of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform), ZhdanovMalenkov and Suslov, entitled Resolution on the State of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia condemned the Yugoslav communist leaders, resulting in the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform. For the Soviets, that split was caused by Yugoslavia’s disloyalty to the USSR and the Eastern bloc. However, for Yugoslavia, the split came about as result of its refusal to become a satellite state of the USSR.

Another important event that marked this date was a historic speech given on 28 June 1989, on the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo, by Slobodan Milošević, later called the Gazimestan Speech. During the speech, he said many things that are still true today. In the context of EU integration, and the fact the majority of the Serbian people are against it, yet, the government continues to move in that direction, the following rings true… “The Serbian leadership remained divided, prone to compromise to the detriment of its own people. … I must say that here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, the Serbs have not used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either”. Perhaps, Milošević pointed up a fault of the Serbian people… their tolerance of others and their acceptance and desire to help those who are less fortunate, only to have their trust betrayed.

He went on to say, “Today, Serbia is united and equal to other republics and prepared to do everything to improve its financial and social position and that of all its citizens. If there is unity, cooperation, and seriousness, it’ll succeed in doing so”. This was true, the West knew it, so, it’s kept the country as divided and fragmented as possible. Milošević characterised the Serbian role in history, “Serbs have never in the whole of their history conquered and exploited others. Their national and historical being was liberational throughout the whole of history and through two world wars, as it is today. They liberated themselves and when they could, they also helped others to liberate themselves”. Maybe, it’s time the Serbian people stood up and stopped helping others.

On the 600th anniversary, Milošević called for “unity, solidarity, and cooperation among people” and then delivered the most famous part of the speech, “Six centuries later, now, we’re being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They aren’t armed battles, although such things can’t be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they can’t be won without resolve, bravery, and sacrifice, without the noble qualities that were present here in the field of Kosovo in days past. Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, finding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilisation in which people will live in the 21st century”. His words seem now like a prediction of the wars to come, and, today, these words ring truer than ever. “Without resolve, bravery, and sacrifice, without the noble qualities that were present there in Kosovo”, Serbs won’t have victory and independence.

“Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself at the field of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. At that time, Serbia was a bastion that defended European culture, religion, and European society in general”. To see that role changed into one of broken subservient subject without its sovereign territory of Kosovo is heartbreaking for any unbiased intelligent observer. “In this spirit, we now endeavour to build a society, rich and democratic, and thus to contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful country, this unjustly suffering country, but also to contribute to the efforts of all the progressive people of our age that they make for a better and happier world. Let the memory of Kosovo heroism live forever! Long live Serbia! Long live Yugoslavia! Long live peace and brotherhood among peoples!” Those words still ring true today.

It is perhaps no coincidence that twelve years later, on 28 June 2001, Slobodan Milošević was taken to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to stand trial. The Western geopolitical architects couldn’t allow such a strong leader to unite the country and defend it and make it strong because that would’ve gotten in the way of building their military bases in the very Kosovo that symbolised great Serbian victories. Now, the West is determined that Kosovo will forever symbolise the complete and total defeat and destruction of the Serbian people.

Kosovo is Serbia.

29 June 2013

00 John Robles. VOR 06.12John Robles

Voice of Russia World Service


Editor’s Note:

Let’s keep it simple. It’s the duty of all Orthodox Christians to support Orthodox Serbia. Full stop, no exceptions. That’s why all decent Orthodox people have to oppose traitors amongst us such as Rod Dreher, Victor Potapov, Alexander Webster, Freddie M-G, Lyonyo Kishkovsky, James Paffhausen, John Jillions, and John Whiteford, who’ve sold out to Western anti-Orthodox interests, often, for the proverbial “mess of pottage”. The worst are those who support the Republican neocons… the lowest of the Anti-Christian crowd.

You can stand with HH… you can stand with Patriarch Irinej… or you can stand with the traitors named above. It’s your choice… I can’t make it for you…

Kosovo IS Serbia.



Sunday, 7 October 2012

Will Russia be Able to Weather the Tempests and Storms?



For decades, Western propaganda trumpeted that the USSR and its “satellites” were to blame for conflicts in the world and the appearance of trouble spots on the planet’s map. Western politicians and the media brazenly claimed that the USSR harboured expansionist plans. Twenty years have passed since the collapse of the USSR. Has the world become any safer? What do we see today? The planet sinks ever deeper into a quagmire of chaos and violence. Acute interstate, social, and religious conflicts flare up, more than ever before. Even in once-prosperous Europe, mass protest actions mount against the attempts of the bourgeois authorities to make not only the proletariat, but also the so-called middle class, bear the brunt of the deepening crisis caused by the greed of the global oligarchy.

However, the most acute and violent conflicts rage outside Europe. Tensions around Iran have built up for many years, and one hears ever-more vocal threats of military intervention against that country. The DPRK is under constant pressure. In the heart of Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for many years, a civil war simmered away unabated. The West’s insane policy with regard to Libya didn’t only destroy one of the most successful states on the continent, but had dire consequences for neighbouring countries. For example, Northern Mali fell into the hands of religious fanatics; it’s seceded for all intents and purposes. A similar process is taking place in East Africa, where the split of Sudan led to a state of constant armed confrontation between its northern and southern parts.


Islamist rebels in Syria


At present, the Middle East is the focus of stormy events. Immediately after the Second World War, the region became a source of constant tension and numerous wars because Israel and its Western allies refused to comply with UN resolutions on ending its occupation of Arab territories, the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland, and the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Meanwhile, during the past two years, almost all the Middle Eastern and North African states were destabilised to varying degrees. Today, a fratricidal civil war ramps up in Syria. Afghanistan and Iraq are areas of great instability. In Turkey, Kurds wage an armed struggle for national liberation. Most recently, relations between the People’s Republic of China and Japan deteriorated sharply over territorial disputes.

None of this is happening accidentally. Of course, each of these conflicts has its own internal causes. However, the main source of global instability is due to the Western powers’ policy of seeking to impose a neo-colonialist development scenario on the whole of mankind. Again, the world is at a turning point in its history. Contrary to recent cheerful claims that the economic recession’s over, capitalism sinks deeper and deeper into an all-embracing crisis. This is inevitable because it hasn’t eliminated the underlying causes of the crisis. This time around, it hit Europe, where a whole group of countries faces bankruptcy. The ruling élites are trying to shift the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the mass of the population. Contradictions between the collective character of modern production and the private appropriation of its results have sharpened.



In what direction will the world move? One needn’t say that the world élite will seek to preserve a capitalist system of social organisation dominated by the “golden billion”, which wallows in money and parasitic consumption. That being said, the more farsighted members of the privileged are beginning to understand and admit that the West is driving the world into a dead end. Franz Müntefering, the leader of the SPD, said, “In 1990, when communism and its planned economy found themselves on their knees, we rejoiced in vain, believing that now the social market economy finally triumphed. In reality, after that, a different capitalism developed throughout the world, with all of its abuses and without any of its social component. Communism exerted a disciplining impact on capitalism. We must consign the present form of capitalism, which doesn’t feel responsible to man and society, to the dustbin. We must stop the abuses of unbridled financial capital”. Former German President Horst Köhler (CDU) said that he saw the breakdown of “Anglo-Saxon capitalism“, run by gamblers and adventurers, saying, “Money-making without rules, without responsibility, and without conscience has collapsed”. The leaders of other European countries echo him. The President of the USA, from which the paroxysms of crisis shaking the whole world emanate, never tires of urging the need for change… sweeping, profound, and fundamental change. Obama hurls accusations at “fat cats”, who grow richer, even at the peak of the economic crisis.

Therefore, sober Western leaders already realise that the “uncontrolled self-regulating market economy” model has reached an impasse and that we need to scrap it. However, the formal leadership doesn’t always lay down foreign policy guidelines. Neoconservatives hidden in the bowels of the American establishment express the interests of the more aggressive transnational monopolies and banks, whose interest is in global control over markets and in political diktat. They believe that they can reach both these ends by using military force, which they increasingly buttress with aggressive information and propaganda campaigns. Another element in the neocons’ strategy is managed chaos. It only seems that all the events referenced above are spontaneous. There’s a profound inner link between them; all of them, to varying degrees, manifest the class strategy of the most-belligerent Western circles, which seek to subjugate the whole world.



The West is the main sponsor of international terrorism, which it uses to further its global ends. There’s a growing conviction in the world that American power structures planned the events of 9/11 (the terrorist strike on New York) to provide a pretext for a “worldwide offensive against international terrorism”, which is, in reality, an expansion of American global economic, military, and media power. However, the concept of a unipolar world is crumbling and collapsing in front of our eyes. Even Zbigniew Brzeziński, a foremost apologist of American globalism, admits the failure of the “American dream” in his recent book. That’s why socialism is increasingly attractive in the 21st century as a new focus of civilisation. Above all, it connotes a harmonious development of productive forces, a reasonable level of consumption, and a prudent attitude to nature, with well-being and progress for each and every one.

Opposition grows worldwide to globalisation American-style. After the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s, it seemed that there wouldn’t be a counterweight to the rampant greed and aggressiveness of the West, but an alternative centre of political and economic influence recently appeared in the alliance of the BRIC states (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). These countries are home to more than half of the world’s population, and account for an ever-growing part of the world economy. South Africa‘s joined the alliance, completing its “southern arc”. The growing economic, political, and military might of the BRIC bloc not only increases its international influence, but also, for the first time since the collapse of the USSR, puts an obstacle in the way of Western expansion, in the way of attempts to restore a neo-colonial world order. We must emphasise that unlike the USSR and the socialist bloc, which provided a powerful political and military alternative to the West, but failed to draw level with our rivals economically at that stage, today, China’s steadily turning into the “workshop of the world”, entering ever-new markets, including Europe and the USA. Together with the fast-growing economies of India and Brazil, that creates a fundamentally new situation in the world.



It’s important that the international system based on the UN, created with the active participation of the USSR, has withstood the test of time. In spite of all the attempts by the USA and its allies to gain control over it, the UN’s still a key element in stabilising international relations. The principle of the balance of forces at the Security Council instituted by its founding fathers, including Soviet leaders, make it possible to restrain open acts of aggression on the part of financial imperialism. With the disintegration of the USSR and the humiliatingly pro-Western policy of the Yeltsin group, including notorious Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, the role of the UN Security Council sharply diminished. This situation lasted a long time, which enabled the USA and its allies to launch a series of brazen acts of aggression against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. However, because of the changing balance of forces, the system of legitimising aggression by using the UN misfired for the first time in the last two decades. That happened when Russia and China vetoed draft resolutions that would give the West the right to perpetrate armed intervention against Syria.

Therefore, the USA and its allies are trying to build a new parallel system of world governance by expanding the role of NATO and the WTO. Their aim is to gain global control not by crude military force, but by preserving and deepening the unfair economic relations and non-equivalent exchange between the rich industrialised North and the planetary South, which possesses vast natural resources. There’s no doubt that the WTO, contrary to its official declarations on removing barriers to international trade, in reality, serves centuries-old colonial goals. They seek to get natural resources and manpower from the South at miserly prices and sell the goods from the North at staggeringly-high prices. They achieve this through a system of international courts entirely dominated by Western representatives. Those recalcitrant leaders who challenge the justice of such a state of affairs are likely to suffer the fate of Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi.


Galician Uniate priest in Nazi service serving traitors in the Waffen-SS… reflect on this… the USA and the UK protected Nazi collaborationist scummers from Estonia, Latvia, and Galicia, and still do!


In the context of the deepening crisis of capitalism and the inevitable concomitant mounting protests, one must assume that the leading imperialist countries would seek to limit the influence of communist and left-wing parties. They’ll intensify persecution and reprisals against their leaders. In particular, Eastern European countries go out of their way to demonstrate their loyalty to Uncle Sam. They openly glorify Bandera and other Hitler accomplices as fighters against communism, erect monuments to surviving fascists, ban Soviet and communist symbols, intimidate honest and upright politicians, and pass legislation that equates communism and fascism. In spite of all this, communist and left-wing movements have noticeably strengthened their positions at the international and regional levels. Elections for parliaments and local legislatures in many countries bring ever more proof of that.

Meanwhile, it’s important to understand to what extent the position of the Russian élite on international issues meets Russian national interests. We see that Russia’s external policy is markedly class-oriented. The constant neglect of the country’s interests for the sake of the personal ambitions and selfish interests of the ruling group manifests this. From the early 1990s, the Russian “élite” was eager to become part of the Western “establishment”. Initially, they kept them out, but then they graciously allowed them to enter the Western club, but only as a junior (and often unprivileged) partner. The Russian élite tolerate all this. It can’t be otherwise, because, as is well known, not only the Russian oligarchs, but top bureaucrats keep their money in Western banks, send their children to Western universities, spend their holidays in Western holiday resorts, and have “standby landing sites” in the shape of apartments, villas, and castles in Western countries.


The Pyatnitsky Choir… one of the national treasures of Russia (they’re more worthwhile than a roomful of crapitalist greedsters… and most people would agree with me).


From the 2011 Slavyansky Bazar festival in Belarus


It’s a well-known truth that one must base a successful foreign policy on three foundations:

  • patriotic sentiment in society
  • a powerful economy
  • powerful armed forces

Russia doesn’t have any of these three components. Speaking about patriotic sentiment, throughout the twenty years after the coup d’état of August-December 1991, the ruling group has, in fact, done its best to eradicate patriotism. Indeed, the very word “patriot” has acquired a derogatory meaning. A continuing process seeks to eliminate love of country, folk traditions, and national customs, and to impose alien values upon us. The state of the Russian economy is well-known. It’s become a source of raw materials for the Western and, more recently, Eastern industry. It’s a semi-colonial economy heavily-dependent on demand on the part of the developed countries, and the slightest fluctuations in the global economy have very unpleasant consequences for Russia. Moreover, the bulk of property has already been withdrawn from our country’s jurisdiction and is in offshore zones. As for the armed forces, they’ve practically lost their combat ability because of continuous “reforms” lasting many years. The share of modern weapons is at best 10 percent. The officer corps has been decimated. The reforms under Defence Minister Serdyukov resulted in the expulsion of tens of thousands of the most experienced and knowledgeable officers from the Army. One can go on detailing the destruction of the national self-consciousness, the ruining of industry and agriculture. The message is clear… we can achieve nothing by merely professing the determination to uphold national interests.



One has to bear in mind that even the modern empire, the USA, with its huge economic, military, and political power, needs allies. The Americans work vigorously to ensure that each of their foreign policy actions gets the broadest possible global support. On the contrary, in recent years, Russia pushed away all its traditional allies. Today, practically, we have only one reliable strategic ally, Byelorussia. However, that fraternal people again and again comes under powerful pressure from pro-Western elements in the Russian ruling élite. One has a feeling that these influential forces at the top would be genuinely glad if Byelorussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko fell from power, and the economic actions of the Russian government indicate attempts to create prerequisites for a worsening of living standards in Byelorussia and for the growth of protest sentiments there.

To sum up, one can safely say that the world has entered a zone of tempests and storms. If the huge Russian ship is to sail through that zone safely, we need a skilful crew and reliable equipment, and the passengers need the assurance that the ship is being steered in the right direction. So far, society’s increasingly doubtful that we’re moving in the right direction. We’re totally convinced that our country would regain its status as a great power, the respect of its rivals, and the trust of its friends only if the popular patriotic forces led by the KPRF came to power.

2 October 2012

Gennady Zyuganov

Chairman of the KPRF Central Committee


As quoted in 21st Century Manifesto


Friday, 6 July 2012

As John Robles Sees It… Syria Update: Syrian “Opposition” Rejects Kofi Annan Peace Plan


The Syrian Government agreed to the Kofi Annan peace plan. Why won’t the armed “opposition” do so as well? We’ve seen it all before, and it’s becoming so obvious that one would have to live in a cave under a rock not to have noticed it… one can’t take the words of the USA through its international spokesman Hillary Clinton at face value. If you tell a lie, if it’s big enough, and you repeat it enough, people will believe it. During the Bush years, it was a key tool of the USA on the American public, now, they’re exporting it, and, as America continues to attempt to take over the world on every front, they attempt to subjugate the entire world to their “big lie”.

Hillary Clinton just can’t seem to get enough of making provocative, if not factually challenged, statements about Russia, but wait, I’m getting ahead of myself. What we’ve seen before is what’s become the standard modus-operandi of the USA in invading countries and raping their resources. To wit:

  • Make a lot of noise about a humanitarian crisis and if one doesn’t exist make it up or create it (lie 1).
  • Make sure the country can’t fight back, force them to disarm (Iraq, Libya, Iran, and now Syria), or get rid of their defensive weapons (lie 2).
  • If needed, arm the opposition in the country, no matter who they are, and deny it (lie 3).
  • Create a reason for a military invasion, this can be weapons of mass destruction, implementing a no-fly zone, etc. (lie 4).
  • Take control of needed resources through front companies, planted officials, and the like (lie 5).
  • Make millions on reconstruction of the countries they destroy, for the good of the people, of course (lie 6).

Now, let’s look at the latest lie by Hilarity Clinton, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but how can you not laugh at some of the utterly hilarious things she says, such as, “…we came, we saw, he died”. Outrageousness! This time, Clinton continues in the same vein by claiming that Russia’s arming the Assad régime to kill poor demonstrators. Of course, it must stop, and, of course, it’s up to the world’s great policeman to come in and blow the hell out of everything in the country (and pillage, of course, and rebuild, no doubt). Which they can’t do yet… because, guess what? Russia sold defensive weapons to Syria. I repeat… defensive. Defensive. Defensive. Defensive.

Now, in reality, Clinton knows this, just as she knows Russia was fulfilling contract obligations when it supplied and serviced Syrian transport helicopters, something we talked about recently. Comments she was forced to take back, by the way. However, the USA needs to make sure that Syria can’t fight back before they invade it (was the recent F-4 downing a test case?). It’s a cowardly strategy, just like the use of drones controlled from the comfort of some bunker in California, by some guy who doesn’t even have to make sure who he’s killing. Therefore, Clinton will keep up the big lie about Russia arming the evil Syrian government, whilst her CIA is running arms to the Syrian opposition and importing terrorists into the country to continue the violence and the killing of Syrian civilians.

Interfax recently reported that Clinton said that it was important that Russia stop providing Damascus with weapons. She stressed it was of utmost importance to cut off the arms supply to the Assad régime, and continues to ignore Russian claims that none of the weapons it’s ferried to Syria are used to crack down on protests, saying the USA has a different opinion. Of course, you have a different opinion, Madam Secretary of State, this doesn’t fit into your prepared scenario, and any weapons of the defensive type must be gotten rid of because the USA needs to be able to go in, wipe out the country, and suffer no casualties, otherwise, the voters back in Iowa might get upset when their boys start coming home in body bags and all of those involved in launching another unprovoked war might have to answer for their deeds.

Given that we know that the USA is just itching to launch an attack on Syria, and continue their damn-it-all-cowboy-diplomacy of shoot first and get paid for the cleanup later, given that we know that the CIA’s backing, funding, and arming the Syrian opposition, it isn’t surprising that said “opposition”, if you can call armed insurgents, mercenaries, and imported terrorists that, have now, lo-and-behold, refused to enter into peace talks and are complaining that participants in the Cairo conference “reject any idea of armed interference to save the people”. This doesn’t fit into American plans for an invasion, and they won’t rest until they see Bashar Assad brutally murdered, as they did with Hussein, Gadaffi, Milošević, and others.

Let’s pause for a minute and look at the Kofi Annan peace plan and at exactly what the Syrian “opposition” opposes in it. The text of the six-point plan:

  1. Commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy.
  2. Commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective UN-supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country. To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards and end the use of heavy weapons in population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres. As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective UN supervision mechanism. Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective UN supervision mechanism.
  3. Ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two-hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level.
  4. Intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily-detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organising access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons.
  5. Ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them.
  6. Respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.

The Syrian Government agreed to the plan. Why won’t the armed “opposition?” In an interview with Bloomberg, Clinton was asked about article 7 of the UN Charter to which she replied, “…if Kofi Annan comes to the Security Council and reports to us that the government’s not cooperating, that other parties aren’t cooperating (does she mean the USA will go in and stop the armed insurgents?), that he’s not making progress. Then, I think we’d have to act”. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter authorises implementation of military force to ward off any threat to the global peace.

Very interesting, the single most dangerous country in the world today, and the single greatest threat to world peace is the USA and their plans for global domination, (the Project for the New American Century anyone?). In reality, we could apply Article 7 to the USA. In the name of world peace, the world could get together, and in the name of world peace, rid these homicidal lunatics of their weapons of mass “humanitarian intervention”.

3 July 2012

John Robles

Voice of Russia World Service



Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.