Friday, February 26, 2016

Ken Jebsen bei der Berliner Compagnie "Für eine multipolare Koalition des Friedens"

„Berliner Runde – Freidenker im Gespräch“

am Mittwoch, den 9. März 2016, 18.00 Uhr

in den Räumen der „Berliner Compagnie“, Muskauer Strasse 20A, 10997 Berlin*

„Die drohende Kriegsgefahr und was wir dagegen tun können“

Referent und Diskussionspartner: Ken Jebsen
Moderation: Daniel Becker, Dr. Klaus-Peter Kurch

Ken Jebsen wird Probleme für die Diskussion anreißen, wie etwa :

- „Grundlinien der US-amerikanisch-deutschen Mobilisierung gegen Russland"

- "Wer, was, wo ist die deutsche Friedensbewegung?"

- "Was können wir tun für den so notwendigen Aufschwung der Friedensbewegung?"

Diese unsere thematischen Interessen stehen in engem Zusammenhang mit dem Aufruf:

„Sagt NEIN, ächtet Aggressionen, bannt die Weltkriegsgefahr!“ (Nein zur NATO)

und dem dringenden Appell:

„Multipolare Welt gegen Krieg“ (Für eine multipolare Koalition des Friedens)

Wir wünschen uns eine intensive, streitbare und auf die praktische Förderung der Friedensinitiativen gerichtete Diskussion.

Es erübrigt sich, unserer Meinung nach, Ken Jebsen im Rahmen dieser Einladung vorzustellen. Wir verweisen jedoch auf problemorientierte Beiträge wie diesen oder diesen auf unserer Webseite und gegebenenfalls weitere, die in den nächsten Tagen erscheinen. Selbstverständlich steht die Webseite für Meinungsäußerungen offen.

Mit solidarischen Grüßen

Daniel Becker, Klaus-Peter Kurch

im Auftrag des Leitungskollektivs

*Zur Raumfrage: Die Räume der "Berliner Compagnie" befinden sich im Hinterhaus, Eingang Seitenflügel. Da die Veranstaltung im Rahmen unserer Freidenker-Gesprächsreihe stattfindet, wird jedem unserer Mitglieder und regelmäßigen TeilnehmerInnen ein Sitzplatz garantiert. Darüber hinaus sind interessierte Gäste willkommen! Wir bitten aber in Anbetracht der begrenzten Platzzahl um rechtzeitige Anmeldung (bitte mit Tel.Nr. für etwaige Rückrufe).

Die Muskauer Str. ist vom U-Bhf Kottbuser Tor (Haltestelle Adalbertstraße) mit dem Bus Linie 140 Richtung Ostbahnhof zu erreichen. Vier Minuten Fahrzeit bis Waldemar-/Manteuffelstr., dann 240m Fußweg bis Muskauer Nr. 20A.

Ex-NATO Generalsekretär Solana:" Vorrücken der Nato an Ostgrenze Widerspruch zu NATO-Russland Akte"

gen Grundakte

Das Vorrücken von Militärstäben der Nato an die Ostgrenze der Allianz widerspricht laut dem Ex-Generalsekretär der Allianz Javier Solana der Nato-Russland-Grundakte.

14:21 14.02.2016(aktualisiert 14:23 14.02.2016) Zum Kurzlink

Moskau: Nato kurz vor Verletzung der Grundakte mit Russland

„Ich glaube, dass das Vorrücken von Militärstäben weiter nach Osten der Grundakte und der Möglichkeit des Bestehens einer Struktur für Zusammenarbeit – und zwar des Nato-Russland-Rates – die die Akte vorsieht, widersprechen wird“, sagte Solana auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz.

Nato-Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg hatte am Mittwoch erklärt, dass die Verteidigungsminister der Mitgliedsländer in Brüssel den Vorschlag gebilligt haben, die militärische Präsenz des Bündnisses im Osten Europas, im östlichen Mittelmeerraum und im Schwarzen Meer auszubauen. „Konkrete Beschlüsse werden im Juli beim Nato-Gipfel gefasst“, so der Allianzchef.

Russlands NATO-Botschafter Alexander Gruschko

Russischer Nato-Botschafter: Keine Konfrontation, aber Antwort an Allianz

Laut Pentagon-Chef Ashton Carter will Washington im Jahr 2017 die Summe von 3,4 Milliarden Dollar für militärische Aktivitäten in Europa ausgeben – das Vierfache dessen, was bisher im US-Militärbudget für Europa aufgewendet wurde. Mit diesem Geld sollen zusätzliche Rotationen von Nato-Truppen sowie die frühzeitige Stationierung von schweren Waffen finanziert werden, damit die Allianz „im Krisenfall“ seine Truppen schnell nach Europa verlegen könnte.

Weiterlesen: http://de.sputniknews.com/militar/20160214/307837315/nato-osteuropa-verstoss-grundakte-solana.html#ixzz41GgxINVC

Pentagon attacks on Russia linked to military budget debate in Congress

“Russian threat" top-seller for Pentagon.

26 Feb, 2016 01:55 https://www.rt.com/news/333669-us-nato-russia-threat/

Edited time: 26 Feb, 2016 02:05

Get short URL

Statements warning of a so-called “Russian threat” to US security are linked to discussions in Congress on next year’s military budget, said a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, noting the idea of this “threat” has been a “top-seller” for the Pentagon.

“We were not surprised by the loud statements of US security officials who saw Russia as the main threat to US national security,” said Russia’s Ministry of Defense spokesman, Igor Konashenkov.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. © Gary Cameron

“It is not a thing to be impressed by,” he said, adding that the statements have the same timing each year. “The reason is simple – the discussion of the military budget in Congress for the next year.”

He pointed out that the idea of a so-called Russian threat is not new. “One needs to remember that the ‘Russian threat’ has been the best-selling threat delivered by the Pentagon not only to Congress, but also to NATO partners since the middle of the previous century,” he said. “What would they do without us?”

Earlier in February, the Pentagon proposed a $582.7 billion defense budget that emphasizes emerging threats from Russia, China, and Islamic State militants (IS, former ISIS, ISIL). The proposed budget would quadruple the last year's request for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) to $3.4 billion in a bid to reassure NATO allies.

Moscow’s statement comes as General Philip Breedlove, Commander of US European Command (EUCOM), outlined major security challenges in Europe while speaking before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. He said that the top two were a “resurgent, aggressive” Russia and IS.

“Russia continues to foment security concerns in multiple locations around the EUCOM AOR. Concurrently, we deal with a variety of transnational threats that largely emanate from instability in Iraq, Syria, North Africa, and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).”

Breedlove said Russia has “chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat” to the United States and its allies and partners in Europe.

He claimed that Russia wants to exert influence over its neighbor-states to create a “buffer zone,” as it sees the US and NATO as a threats.

He accused Moscow of failing to “share common security objectives with the West” and pledged to continue to take steps aimed at deterring Russia.

NATO intensified its military activities in Europe after the eruption of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014. The alliance carried out a number of massive military drills last year, including “Trident Juncture 2015,” the biggest since 2002, which included 36,000 international troops, as well as more than 60 warships and about 200 aircraft from 30 states. Russia has repeatedly stated that it regards NATO’s enlargement as a threat to its national security.

“Je Suis Homs”: UN Security Council Silence on Homs, Damascus Terror Attacks, Who Was Behind Them? The International Community’s Double Standards

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 24.02.2016 | 17:45

Failure to condemn terrorist attacks in Damascus’ southern Sayeda Zeinab district and Homs last Sunday, killing scores, injuring hundreds, causing enormous damage shows US/Russia negotiated cessation of hostility terms won’t stop future incidents.

In letters to Ban Ki-moon and Security Council president (Venezuelan UN envoy) Raphael Ramirez, Syria’s Foreign Ministry condemned the body’s silence, its failure to denounce flagrant terrorism, encouraging future incidents by irresponsible inaction – especially encouraging Ankara and Riyadh to continue supporting ISIS and likeminded groups waging war on Syria.

The letters demanded action, punitive measures imposed on state-sponsors of terrorism – not forthcoming.

Washington, Britain and France block it, partnering with Ankara and Riyadh, continuing support for ISIS and other terrorist groups, assuring endless conflict – foiling US/Russia announced cessation of hostilities terms before their implementation.

Expect no meaningful change for the better on the ground ahead. Obama’s war on Syria continues, its objective unchanged – destroying Syrian sovereignty, replacing it with another US vassal state, looting its resources, exploiting its people, eliminating an Israeli rival, isolating Iran ahead of targeting its independence the same way.

Washington deplores peace and stability. Achieving them defeats its imperial objectives. All its post-9/11 wars since October 2001 continue raging – with no resolution in sight, a key indication of what to expect in Syria going forward.

On Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was less than optimistic, saying ceasefire “is going to be difficult to implement. We know that there are a lot of obstacles, and there are sure to be some setbacks.”

Moscow and Damascus vow to continue combating terrorists responsible for gruesome atrocities, wanting Syrian sovereignty destroyed, caliphate authority replacing it.

They’re irresponsibly blamed for doing the right thing – UK Foreign Minister Phillip Hammond, speaking for Britain, America and their rogue allies lied, saying:

Cessation of hostilities “will only succeed if there is a major change of behavior by the Syrian regime and its backers.”

“Russia, in particular, must honor this agreement by ending its attacks on Syrian civilians and moderate opposition groups, and by using its influence to ensure the Syrian regime does the same.”

Moscow and Washington will work with pro-Western UN envoy to Syria Steffan de Mistura, a US-appointed stooge, aiming to assure all parties abide by ceasefire terms.

So far, no meaningful mechanism was established to mediate reported violations, no enforcement procedure, nothing to hold violators accountable.

Putin expressed optimism after years of failure to end violence, bloodshed and chaos – at the same time stressing “(s)trikes will continue to be carried out against” terrorist groups. They’re excluded from terms agreed on.

The deal calls for opposing parties to decide by Friday whether they’ll comply with cessation of hostility terms – terminology short of a formal, more binding, durable ceasefire.

A White House statement released after Obama and Putin spoke on Monday was guarded, welcoming the agreement with no assurance of success – maintaining the pretense of phony US war on ISIS.

Reality on the ground belies hope for achieving a breakthrough toward conflict resolution after years of failure.

It bears repeating what other articles stressed. Washington wants war, not peace. Obama didn’t launch it to quit.

Resolving it requires calling off his dogs, ending support for ISIS and other terrorist groups, cutting them off entirely, reigning in Ankara and Riyadh, deciding his Syria policy failed and moving on.

Realpolitik has no Hollywood endings. War in Syria rages with no end in sight.

Stephen Lendman, globalresearch.ca