Saturday, February 14, 2015

 "Kanzlerakte" * versus Friedenspolitik? 
      von Irene Eckert

Es mehren sich  in allerjüngster Zeit die Hinweise auf den postkolonialen Status der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und  auf die damit verknüpfte Verpfändung der deutschen Goldreserven an die USA.

Der deutschen Politik seien somit Fesseln auferlegt. Die Kanzlerin und ihre Mannschaft  hätten demzufolge keinen Manovrierspielraum: Sie alle müssten, entsprechend dem von ihnen unterzeichneten Revers, im Schlepptau der verhängnisvollen, von US-Amerika dirigierten NATO-Politik mitsegeln.


Wenn diese aus geheimdienstlichen Quellen lancierten Informationen zutreffen, dann gilt es noch entschiedener, gegen den von der deutschen Politik maßgeblich mit getragenen kriegerischen Kurs der NATO Einspruch zu erheben. Schließlich haben wir unsere Souveränität im Gefolge  von zwei Weltkriegen eingebüßt. Wollen wir ernstlich einen dritten riskieren, um dann nicht mehr auffindbar zu sein?


Zwingend gebotenen ist Friedenspolitik. Es  gilt das geschriebene, verfassungsrechtlich verbriefte Wort. An dieses offene Wort sind unsere Politiker gebunden und nicht an  ein dubioses Geheimdokument, dessen Existenz ja von der offiziellen Politik  bestritten wird.


Die Mitglieder der Bundesregierung  haben ihren Amtseid auf die deutsche Verfassung geschworen. Diese Rechtsgrundlage verpflichtet  insbesondere auch zur Einhaltung des Völkerrechts, das  noch über  dem Grundgesetz steht. Diese beiden  Rechtsgrundlagen binden die vom Volk gewählten und ihm gegenüber verantwortlichen Politiker zwingend  zur Verfolgung einer friedlichen Außenpolitik.


Von einer solchen kann aber gegenwärtig und schon spätestens seit dem völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg gegen Jugoslawien 1999 keine Rede mehr sein. Es ist daher unsere Aufgabe als informierte  Zeitgenossen, unseren Politikern für eine Abweichung vom in den Abgrund führenden US-amerikanischen Kriegskurs den Rücken zu stärken. Kanzlerakte* hin oder her. Sie ist für uns  null und nichtig und hat als Geheimvertrag keinerlei völkerrechtlich bindende Qualität.


Machen wir uns darüber hinaus bewusst, dass der gefährliche militaristische Kurs gegenüber der Ukraine und Russland 75 Jahre nach dem Ende des faschistischen Krieges,  in niemandes Interesse sein kann. Der Versuch, die Geschichte  des 20. Jahrhunderts umzuschreiben, dient einzig und allein  kriegerischen Eroberungsinteressen und der wahnwitzigen Vorstellung, eine  'einzige Weltmacht'** könne  die ganze Erde unter ihre Kuratel zwingen. Das ist schierer Irrsinn und offenkundig  unmöglich. Je eher unser Land  von der Unterstützung solcher Pläne  abrückt, desto  besser.


Üben wir also auf jede denkbare Weise  Druck auf unser Regierungspersonal und auf unsere  gewählten Volksvertreter aus, damit sie von der Unterstützung der gegenwärtigen NATO-Expansionspolitik und ihrer wirtschaftlichen Begleitmusik, insbesondere in Form von uns selbstschädigenden Sanktionen, Abstand nehmen.


Ebenso gilt es in realistischer Weise auf "friedensbewegte" Kreise einzuwirken, damit sie ihre Forderungen den Realitäten anpassen und jedmöglichen Druck  gegen die US-geführte NATO fokussieren. Unsinnige und unzutreffende Schuldzuweisungen an die Russen müssen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Verteilung von Verantwortung für die zugespitzte Weltlage auf beide "Konfliktparteien", mittels  derer Aggressor und   potentielles Opfer gleichgesetzt  und damit der Aggressor entlastet wird, ist fatal und sofort zu beenden.


Solidarität mit den Opfern der US-amerikanischen und NATO gestützten Kriegspolitik ist das Gebot der Stunde.


________

 Gerd Helmuth Komossa" Die deutsche Karte: Das verdeckte Spiel der geheimen Dienste. Ein Amtschef des MAD berichtet" Ares-Verlag, Wien,  April 2014 

** Zbgniew Brzezinski "Die einzige Weltmacht"Zbigniew Brzezinski. DIE EINZIGE WELTMACHT. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft.


Georgischer Ex-Präsident wird Sonderberater in Ukraine.  
Früherer Staatschef Saakaschwili wird mit Haftbefehl wegen Amtsmissbrauchs gesucht.

Berlin. Der ukrainische Präsident Petro Poroschenko hat den in Georgien mit Haftbefehl wegen Amtsmissbrauchs gesuchten Ex-Staatschef Michail Saakaschwili zu seinem Sonderberater für Reformen ernannt. Einen Erlass dazu veröffentlichte das Präsidialamt in Kiew am Freitagabend auf seiner Internetseite. Der in seiner Heimat in Ungnade gefallene 47-Jährige hatte die Führung in Kiew im Zuge der Ukraine-Krise bereits gelegentlich beraten. Wegen seiner zunehmend autoritären Politik hatte Saakaschwili in der in die EU und NATO strebenden Ex-Sowjetrepublik Georgien die Macht verloren. Der in den USA ausgebildete Saakaschwili war nach der Rosenrevolution von 2003 Präsident und schied 2013 aus dem Amt. 2008 hatte die Südkaukasusrepublik einen kurzen Krieg gegen Russland geführt und in dessen Folge die abtrünnigen Gebiete Südossetien und Abchasien verloren. In Georgien geriet Saakaschwili zuletzt in die Kritik, weil er georgische Soldaten zum Dienst in der ukrainischen Armee gegen die als prorussisch bezeichneten Separatisten im Kriegsgebiet Donbass aufgerufen hattedpa/nd

http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/961834.georgischer-ex-praesident-wird-sonderberater-in-ukraine.html 

Creating a Crisis - It’s NATO’s Way by RON JACOBS,

The following article - although informative - contains questionable assumptions as far as Russia is concerned. It needs to be discussed on the basis  of more insight towards the Russian realities. (Blogger)
 


EDITOR'S CHOICE | 13.02.2015 | 22:25
 
Talk about a contrived crisis. NATO, in its ongoing struggle to create enemies and thereby provide itself with a reason to exist, is now calling Russia its greatest threat. In other words, there really is no threat, unless NATO provokes Moscow and in doing so, creates one. In the current period—one that was preceded most recently by almost complete military domination of the world by the United States—Russia’s recent and relatively mild reactions to its growing encirclement by US client regimes and NATO military forces has been ratcheted up to what NATO is calling the greatest threat faced by NATO since that its heyday. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the Soviet Union (SU) was ever the threat US citizens were told it was by their government, this recent statement by NATO is overblown and, more importantly, potentially quite dangerous.
During the final years of the Soviet Union, numerous discussions took place between officials of the SU under Mikhail Gorbachev and officials of the US and Germany. These discussions intensified after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. A part of these discussions focused on the continuing existence of NATO and its eastern European counterpart, the Warsaw Pact. Although NATO survived the dissolution of the so-called Soviet Bloc, the Warsaw Pact did not. An undertone of the ongoing discussions between Moscow and Washington was an understanding that NATO would not attempt to recruit nations that were previously in the Moscow-led alliance. According to the NATO newsletter NATO Review, this understanding was never written down and was therefore essentially meaningless. In fact, here is a quote detailing this perception from the journal’s spring 2015 edition:
Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe. It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments.”
In other words, Washington lied, again. Consequently, NATO began to invite/entice several nations from the defunct Warsaw Pact into its orbit, beginning with Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999. This resulted in NATO forces moving closer and closer to Russia’s eastern flank. Anyone who suggests that there is no strategic element to the incorporation of these and several other nations bordering (or much closer to) Russia is a liar. Anyone who believes this is a fool. The facts seem pretty clear. Washington and its western allies saw the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its alliance as an opportunity to further intimidate Moscow by moving its military forces closer to Russian borders while simultaneously incorporating the economies of the new NATO nations into the neoliberal fantasy then being constructed in the banks and legislatures of the United States, Britain, and Germany.
It is now 2015. After a US-sponsored coup in Ukraine that installed a government favorable to Washington and its plans, various separatist movements coalesced in regions of Ukraine where the majority of the population favors Moscow. The coup itself was preceded by a reasonably popular movement among Ukrainians that was partially funded by western NGOs and US government agencies fronting as pro-democracy organizations. The movement organized a series of protests following election results they did not agree with. After weeks of these protests, armed elements provoked an insurrection in Kiev that resulted in the aforementioned coup. It was only a matter of days before the separatist elements opposed to the new Kiev government held protests that were attacked. The protests turned quickly to armed rebellions, most likely funded (at least partially) by Moscow. A referendum on secession from Ukraine was held in the Crimean region of Ukraine that went overwhelmingly for secession. Despite the election’s non-recognition by most of the west, Crimea remains separate from Ukraine. In the Ukrainian east, battles continue to rage between Ukrainian military units and separatist militias. Estimates of the dead from this conflict range from 6000 to 50,000.
Europe is understandably concerned. The continent fears the battle may spread and wants the war to end. Meanwhile, Washington seems to be pushing for it to intensify. NATO is sending a total of 30,000 rapid-reaction forces to its easternmost members’ borders. In Washington, legislators from both sides of the aisle together with Secretary of State John Kerry and others in the government are lobbying to send lethal weapons to Kiev’s forces. It is fairly certain that Moscow is already arming the separatists. The possibility of a greater war is genuine.
There are those who see the conflict in Ukraine as evidence of a new “cold” war, like that between the Soviet Union and the United States after World War Two. This comparison is misleading. There were genuine ideological and economic differences that fueled the dispute between the United States and Soviet Union. These differences do not exist in the current moment. The United States operates under a monopoly capitalist economy; so does Russia. Both nations are also nominally democracies that are in reality governments run by oligarchs and banks. A better template to utilize when examining the conflict between Washington and Moscow can be found earlier in history. It is the template of inter-imperial rivalry.
To put it simply, Washington does not want its planetary hegemony challenged. Meanwhile, Russia desires to maintain its domination of the world near its borders, while perhaps also playing with the idea of its own “sphere of influence.” The encirclement of Moscow’s western flank by NATO threatens that domination in a very real way. So, Moscow is fighting back. Russia’s position is not merely a defensive one, but it is certainly the weaker player in this game. If Washington begins to arm Kiev, the stakes for Moscow become even greater.
Meanwhile, Kiev refuses to call the conflict a war. Instead, it is being termed a terrorist operation. Naturally, the reason is related to the neoliberal IMF loans Kiev has coming; such loans would be much more difficult to obtain if it was officially at war. The will of those being conscripted to fight in Ukraine’s military is less than enthusiastic, with draft resistance growing. Antiwar protests in both Russia and Ukraine are also growing in size. However, in the United States the citizens are allowing their politicians and generals to involve their nation in the conflict without any substantial protest.
There are no good guys in this conflict. The people of Ukraine are fighting battles in which they are ultimately pawns. Arming either side is cynical and manipulative and paves the way for an expansion of the war perhaps even beyond Ukraine’s borders. A truce should be agreed to that leaves all forces in place while the warring sides and their sponsors negotiate an end to the armed conflict. The motivation for this war resides in the desire to control resources and territory, directly and otherwise. Those Ukrainians desiring independence from Russia are seeing that desire being manipulated by Washington and local politicians with their own designs. Those desiring independence from the new Kiev government are experiencing a similar scenario. The longer the war continues, the more it will be influenced by Washington and Moscow. And the more blood will be spilled.
RON JACOBS, counterpunch.org

 

Busted: Kiev MPs try to fool US senator with ‘proof’ of Russian tanks in Ukraine (PHOTOS)

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 13.02.2015 | 23:01
 
MPs in Kiev hoodwinked a US senator, presenting his office with photos of columns of Russian military hardware allegedly roaming Ukrainian territory. The photos turned out to have been taken during the conflict in South Ossetia back in 2008.
The photos were “presented to the Armed Services Committee from a delegation from Ukraine in December,” told The Washington Free Beacon Senator Jim Inhofe’s communications director Donelle Harder.
The Americans planned to publish the photos with credits to the Ukrainian MPs, and “they were fine with that,” the spokesperson said.
Yet, after thorough checking, images of the Russian convoys turned to be taken years ago, in 2008 during Georgia - South Ossetia war.
“We are currently making calls to our sources,” Harder said.
“The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice,” Senator Inhofe said in a statement.
“I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008,” the lawmaker wrote.
At the same time the revealed forgery “doesn’t change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood,” the US senator maintains.
The list of members of the Ukrainian delegation that attempted to fool Senator Jim Inhofe does not include high-ranking Ukrainian officials, with probably the sole exception of the commander of the Donbass volunteer battalion Semyon Semenchenko, who visited Washington demanding arms and training for his servicemen.
The Washington Free Beacon said it “regrets the error,” and claims it has obtained new “exclusive” photos of “Russian military forces have been more involved in the arming and training” of the eastern Ukraine self-defense militia. The new photos, allegedly “taken between August 24 and September 5 in the midst of a Russian-backed incursion into Eastern Ukraine … clearly display Russian troops entering Ukraine with advanced military hardware and weapons.”
Senator Inhofe expressed the hope that the new, particularly graphic images, could “act as a wake-up call to the Obama administration and American people” and push the US Congress to back up Senator Inhofe’s bill to supply the Ukrainians with American lethal aid.
Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe
Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe
Having compared Russians with Islamic State (also known as ISIS, or ISIL), Senator Inhofe said that Ukrainian troops “don’t have anything to defend themselves against these [Russian] tanks,” and called on Congress to give “them the equipment and the weaponry they need.”
Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe
Russian tanks, soldiers / Photo provided by Sen. Inhofe
“The Obama admin is so slow to recognize” and identify the problems “taking place around the world,”Inhofe said. “They just don’t want people to believe these things are happening,” he acknowledged, adding: “There’s no better way to do that and draw attention to it than letting people see these pictures.”
RT
Unten das Land der "unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten" aus anderer Sicht.  Annette Klepzig
An dieses Land ist Deutschland seit dem 21.05.1949 bis zu demJahr 2099 durch die "Kanzlerakte" fest gebunden. Jeder Kanzler muss als erstes diese "Kanzlerakte" in Washington unterschreiben. Washington bestimmt über Deutschland.... 
 1 ) Bitte TV-Bericht ansehen. Sehr aufschlussreich !  (12 min)   https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jfat32txi98
23 Januar 2015. Russlands Staatssender "Erster Kanal" berichtet den Russen über: die Kanzlerakte, geheimen Staatsvertrag zwischen USA und BRD, fehlende Souveränität Deutschlands, NSA und Abhörskandal von Merkels Handy, von den USA kontrollierte deutsche Medien und deutsche Goldreserven,
Gerd-Helmut Komossa und sein Buch "Die deutsche Karte",Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA TTIP und den Ukraine-Krieg. Im Video werden kurz die Auftritte von Jürgen Elsässer und Sahra Wagenknecht gezeig 
 2 a ) WR2 Wissen:  Die CIA vor Gericht: Die Entführung Abu Omars und ihre Folgen. Von Aureliana Sorrento

Abu Omar, der Prediger einer Mailänder Moschee, wurde - ohne Beweise oder klare Indizien - verdächtigt, einem Terror-Netzwerk anzugehören. Deshalb beobachtete ihn die Antiterror-Einheit der Mailänder Polizei. Als er 2003 dann spurlos verschwand, fanden Mailänder Staatsanwälte heraus, dass Omar von CIA-Agenten und italienischen Militärgeheimdiensten verschleppt worden war. Sie hatten ihn nach Ägypten geflogen, wo ihn ägyptische Agenten monatelang folterten. Diese Entführung war nur eine von vielen "extraordinary renditions," wie die USA diese Methode ihres "Krieges gegen den Terror" nennen. Doch am 12. Februar 2013 hat das Berufungsgericht Mailand zum ersten Mal neben den beteiligten US-Agenten auch die Spitzen der italienischen Geheimdienste zu langen Haftstrafen verurteilt. Im Juli wurde CIA-Agent Robert Seldon Lady, der die Entführung organisiert hatte, in Panama festgenommen. (Produktion 2013)

Die CIA vor Gericht  /    AUDIO


 We dream about drones, said 13-year-old Yemeni before his death in a CIA strike. By , Hannah Patchett and Adel Shamsan in Sana'a
Mohammed Tuaiman becomes the third member of his family to be killed by what he called ‘death machines’ in the sky months after Guardian interview.
A 13-year-old boy killed in Yemen last month by a CIA drone strike had told the Guardian just months earlier that he lived in constant fear of the “death machines” in the sky that had already killed his father and brother.   “I see them every day and we are scared of them,” said Mohammed Tuaiman, speaking from al-Zur village in Marib province, where he died two weeks ago.   “A lot of the kids in this area wake up from sleeping because of nightmares from them and some now have mental problems. They turned our area into hell and continuous horror, day and night, we even dream of them in our sleep.”   Much of Mohammed’s life was spent living in fear of drone strikes. In 2011 an unmanned combat drone killed his father and teenage brother as they were out herding the family’s camels....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/10/drones-dream-yemeni-teenager-mohammed-tuaiman-death-cia-strike


Wichtige Quellen:

Ukraine, US Agree on Further Coordination if Donbas Conflict Escalates

News | 14.02.2015 | 22:53
Sputnik — Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and US President Barack Obama during a phone talk on Saturday agreed on further coordination of efforts in case of Ukrainian conflict escalation.
“Interlocutors discussed situation in Donbas and expressed concern about the events unfolding around Debaltsevo,” the statement published on Poroshenko’s official website read.
“The President of Ukraine stressed the necessity of OSCE monitoring to confirm the ceasefire. Petro Poroshenko and Barack Obama also agreed on further coordination of efforts in case of escalation,” the statement concluded.
Poroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande also held phone talks earlier on Saturday.
The conversations were held ahead of a ceasefire in southeastern Ukraine, which is due to come into force at midnight local time on February 15 (February 14, 10:00 p.m. GMT).
The ceasefire was one out of the measures agreed on during the last reconciliation talks on Ukraine in the Belarus capital of Minsk.
The leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, and Russia held a 16-hour summit in Minsk on Wednesday and early Thursday. The talks resulted in a new political deal, aimed at stopping the deadly conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The deal was signed by the Contact Group on Ukraine, including envoys from Moscow, Kiev, the self-proclaimed people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
Despite a similar ceasefire agreement signed by the parties in last September, clashes in eastern Ukraine intensified in the first weeks of 2015

Russisches Staats TV berichtet über die "Kanzlerakte" vom 21. 05.1949

NATO not seeking confrontation with Russia - secretary general

News | 14.02.2015 | 00:02
 
TASS - Both Russia and NATO would benefit from constructive relations, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with the Moscow-based Kommersant-FM radio.
He said the world is too complicated to divide the countries into friends and foes and NATO is not seeking confrontation with Russia. In fact, it is trying to establish relations of constructive partnership but it can't not erode the principles on which security is hinged.
Stoltenberg said his experience in the capacity of Norway’s Prime Minister showed that very good and fruitful relations with Russia had been developing for more than two decades after the end of the Cold War and this was true of either Norway-Russia or NATO-Russia contexts.
Both NATO and Russia benefited from it, with open borders, development of trade, political contacts, and practical cooperation.

Washington Wastes No Time to Sabotage Minsk

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 14.02.2015 | 00:00
 
With their noses out of joint and egos bruised, the United States and its European lieutenants immediately got to work to undermine the Minsk ceasefire deal by twisting the terms of the accord and seeking to frame Russia for its imminent failure.
A Washington Post headline set the pace with this headline hours after the Minsk negotiations wrapped up in the Belarus capital. ‘Putin announces ceasefire with Ukraine,’ declared the Post, mendaciously implicating Russia as a protagonist in the year-old conflict, which, it is inferred, is now suing for a peace settlement.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, along with trusty British and Polish allies, warned Russia of more sanctions if the Minsk truce was not «fully implemented».
«The United States is prepared to consider rolling back sanctions on Russia when the Minsk agreements of September 2014, and now this agreement, are fully implemented,» Kerry said in a statement.
In other words, Washington is still peddling the hoary narrative that Moscow is an aggressor and is to blame for the conflict. Rolling back sanctions «when» Minsk is «fully implemented» is the US giving itself a licence to covertly sabotage the ceasefire at every turn and to maintain its unwarranted sanctions on Russia, as well as following up on promised supply of weapons to the Kiev regime. 
There seems little doubt that the Americans are reeling from the diplomatic coup that Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled off in Minsk this week, along with German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. 
Amid threats from the US last week that it was going to flood Ukraine with more heavy weapons, Putin and his European counterparts managed to broker a ceasefire to the conflict after marathon 17-hour negotiations. The truce is to be implemented this weekend and, it has to be said, constitutes only a slim prospect of bringing the civil war in Ukraine to a halt. It is fraught with many thorny issues, such as withdrawal of fighting units on both sides and the accepted definition of a demarcation line. The autonomous status of the separatist Donbas region is also far from clear, or whether Kiev is prepared to follow up with mutual negotiations with the breakaway ethnic Russian population.
Nevertheless, the mere agreement, in principle, by the Kiev regime and the pro-separatist rebels of the eastern Ukrainian region is a welcome chance for a cessation in violence that has cost nearly 5,500 lives and more than one million refugees. That Putin, along with Merkel and Hollande, managed to achieve this tentative breakthrough is something of a feat in diplomatic skills and commitment. The development also tends to negate the official Western narrative that purports to paint Russia as an aggressor and threat to European peace. 
The Minsk deal properly frames the conflict as a civil war between the Kiev regime and the Donbas separatists, which Russia is trying to dampen by acting as a facilitator of negotiations between the warring sides.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was on the mark when he said after the Minsk talks that Russia is a guarantor of the peace deal, not a party obliged to fulfil its implementation. He reiterated that Moscow is not a participant in the conflict, as Western media have, and continue, to assert.
«Russia is the country that was called by the parties of the conflict,» said Peskov. «This is the country that called on the parties of the conflict to sign a complex of measures to fulfil the Minsk agreements. But Russia is not one of the parties to fulfil these measures. This is the country that is acting as the guarantor, that comes forward with a call, but, obviously, it’s not a party that needs to take any actions for [the fulfilment]. We simply can’t do this physically because Russia is not a participant in the conflict,» added the Kremlin spokesman.
It was left to the British premier David Cameron and the ex-Polish president Donald Tusk to undermine the latest Minsk chance for peace by casting aspersions on Russia and re-framing the conflict as one of external aggression on Ukraine.
Cameron talked, with typical British haughtiness, of Putin needing to change his behaviour, while Tusk added to the narrative of demonising the Russian leader by insinuating that he is not trustworthy.
Cameron, speaking at an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday, said: «If this is a genuine ceasefire, then of course that would be welcome. But what matters most of all is actually actions on the ground rather than just words on a piece of paper. I think we should be very clear that Putin needs to know that unless his behaviour changes, the sanctions we have in place won’t be altered.»
Tusk, who is now the European Council President, said: «If [the Minsk agreement] does not happen we will not hesitate to take the necessary steps. Our trust in the goodwill of President Putin is limited. This is why we have to maintain our decision on sanctions.»
Given that the Western-backed Kiev regime has serially violated past ceasefires, which led to the latest escalation of violence, it would be naive to expect that the latest peace bid will be honoured. The Kiev junta has been emboldened to prosecute its criminal war against the Donbas population because of the unswerving political, financial and military support that Washington has indulged. Massive, systematic war crimes by Kiev have been whitewashed and absolved by Washington with spurious, unfounded claims of «Russian aggression».
This is because the US-backed regime-change operation in Ukraine that brought the Kiev junta to power last February is fundamentally predicated on Washington’s long-term objective of destabilising Russia. That is why the prospects of a ceasefire being implemented are something of an oxymoron. A peace settlement in Ukraine would only be an impediment to Washington’s geopolitical objective of undermining Russia.
The criminal regime in Kiev has become something of a specialist in committing false flag terrorist atrocities, which it and its Western sponsors then duly attribute to «Russian-backed rebels». The massacre in Donetsk on January 21, in Mariupol on January 24, and this week in Kramatorsk, in which up to 17 people were killed from Smerch rockets, have all the hallmarks of false-flag operations perpetrated by the US-backed, trained and equipped Kiev regime forces. 
In the Kramatorsk incident, on the eve of the Minsk summit, the Kiev regime claimed that the Smerch rockets were fired from separatist-held Gorlovka, which is 80 kilometres away, and the outer limit of the munition’s range. The separatists denied the attack, saying that they do not target civilian areas. Hours after the massacre, Kiev President Petro Poroshenko arrived in Kramatorsk for photo-opportunities with victims lying on hospital beds. That Poroshenko would hurry to a town that is under fire is doubtful if the rebel threat was real. Also speaking as if from a script, he said: «It is savages who use cluster bombs against civilians. It is a crime against humanity when civilians are killed by Russian weapons in their homes.»
The next day, the «outraged» Poroshenko was in Minsk warmly shaking hands with Putin. So much for Russia war crimes. 
To say that the latest ceasefire will be easily sabotaged is an understatement, given the past conduct of the Kiev regime. All it has to do is to keep fighting and committing crimes and that will be «evidence» of Russia not implementing Minsk. That will then allow Washington and its dutiful British and Polish allies, along with the obliging Western news media propagandists, to blame Russia for the failure in «fully implementing» the ceasefire. More American weapons can then be funnelled into Ukraine and more sanctions ratcheted up. 
Russian President Vladimir Putin deserves huge credit for showing statesmanlike leadership over the Ukraine crisis. The trouble is that the Americans are playing a very different and dirty game in which there are no rules to abide by. 
 
Tags: Ukraine US
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/14/washington-wastes-no-time-to-sabotage-minsk.html