Kritik an der Nato: Ischinger warnt vor Kriegsgefahr mit Russland

http://spon.de/aeL9t

“China will react if provoked again: you risk the war” Alessandro Bianchi interviews Andre Vltchek

 June 22, 2016 Andre Vltchek's unconventional, anti-colonial, anti-racist, southern view deserves to be studied and thought through.  Having said this  blogger disagrees with some of his statements, especially with respect to all dependent workers being victims of capitalism and views of Western people depending on obnoxious propaganda and miss-information

COMMENTS:

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/06/22/china-will-react-if-provoked-again-you-risk-the-war/

The AntiDiplomatico (Italy) interviews philosopher, Andre Vltchek: “Russia and China are forming an incredible defensive wall to protect humanity from Western terrorism.”

Andre Vltchek has become renowned in Italy for being the co-author, along with Noam Chomsky, of the famous book “Western Terrorism” (Ponte alle Grazie).

A documentary filmmaker, novelist, essayist, philosopher and intellectual, multi-faceted Vltchek is the cosmopolitan man par excellence, a “true revolutionary” as he likes to call himself. In recent years with his camera and his extraordinary commitment against injustice on this planet he has explored every corner of the Earth and taken over the length and breadth of Western terrorism, one that our media likes to censor and hide from our consciences.

After the interviews with the great Australian journalist John Pilger and the famous American playwright John Steppling, we have the honor and privilege of speaking to our great friend of l’AntiDiplomatico, asking some questions on burning current international issues.
*

This interview first appeared in the Italian language, published by ‘L’AntiDiplomatico’

*

Alessandro Bianchi: I start with a brutal question: What has become of a country that it offers Donald Trump as its ‘best candidate’?

Andre Vltchek: It is not much different from the country that it has been for decades, even centuries. Since the beginning, the US presidents (all of European stock, of course), had been promoting slavery, extermination campaigns against the native population of North America, barbaric wars of aggression against Mexico, and other Latin American countries, the Philippines, etc. Has anything changed now? I highly doubt it. Donald Trump is horrendous, but he is also honest. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama were great speakers, but unrepentant mass murderers.

 In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in your opinion, is abstention the only form of “rebellion” by a population completely excluded from the decision-making stage?

“Democracy” means nothing else other than, “rule of the people”, in Greek. There is nothing democratic about the political concepts of the United States and Europe. And there is absolutely nothing democratic about the “global arrangement” through which the West has been ruling over the rest of the world for decades and centuries. The second part is, I’m convinced, much more important, much more devastating; in the West, people have been tolerating their insane political system in exchange for the countless privileges they are getting from their countries’ plundering of the planet, and from violating entire nations and continents. But in Africa, Asia and  elsewhere, those “un-people” have no choice at all.

Is Bernie Sanders really the change that many in Europe have described?

 Bernie Sanders is like those liberal members of the German National Socialist Party during the WWII, or of the Italian Fascist movement during Mussolini. They’d do much for their own workers and peasants, socially… as long as funds were flowing in from the countries plundered by their imperialism. Under Bernie Sanders, Western workers would definitely do much better, but the rest of the world, the “wretched of the Earth” would still have to pay the bill.

What would happen to the world under a Hillary Clinton’s presidency?

 Nothing exceptional – things would stay the same: sponsorship of “Color” or “Umbrella” or whatever “revolutions”, some more coups, “regime changes”, direct invasions, bombing, propaganda warfare against China, Russia, Iran, South Africa and what is left of the Latin American revolutions. There would be plenty of torture in “secret centers”, but it would not be as advertised and glorified as it would be if Trump were elected. World War III would become a great possibility, but such a scenario is quite possible under any new US administration… To answer your question: business as usual.

What did you feel when you recently saw Obama speaking in Hiroshima and not apologizing for what was done by his country, declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world’s first atomic power – hope for a world without nuclear weapons?

I’m quite immune to such speeches, aren’t you? Although, yes… somehow Obama’s is much more disgusting than others, because he is smart and we all “know that he knows”. It is clear that he is thoroughly dishonest. It would be somehow more acceptable to see George W. puking over sushi. And Trump: he’d probably declare in Hiroshima that he’d nuke half of Asia if it would help the West to retain its control over the world. At least one would not harbor any false hopes.

Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with China?

 Yes it will. I have no doubt about it. China is one of the greatest cultures on Earth, and it is one of those countries that suffered immensely from colonialist horrors and humiliation. Chinese people are indignant. Indignant! For decades, despite everything, they tried to make peace with the West. They are in fact the most peaceful big nation on Earth, and what do they get in return? They get insults, provocations and intimidation.

The Western public should learn and remember one essential thing about China: no matter what European and North American propaganda barks about the People’s Republic, China is much more “democratic” than the West. It is democratic in its own way. For thousands of years, it developed its own political system. Its rulers, no matter who they are, are given a conditional right to govern by the people. In the past, but even now it is called a “Heavenly Mandate”. If the rulers fail to respect the will of the people, they get deposed. And the Communist Party of China is greatly respectful of the desires of the majority of the Chinese people. When they want liberal reforms, they are delivered. When they want more Communism and an epic fight against corruption, like now, China’s government immediately reacts. It is powerful and democratic, although it is a very specific and complex arrangement.

And now, the Chinese people are outraged and they are sending clear signals to Beijing: “do not succumb to the West.” “If you do, our nation will suffer immensely, and the rest of the world will turn to ashes.”

Do understand: Chinese people are brilliant; the West cannot fool them. And they are thoroughly sick of Western imperialism. This time, if confronted and provoked, the Chinese government would yield to the pressure from its people: it would be forced to give orders to fight – to defend its motherland!

Although it is NATO action that is placing military installations more and more to the East, in Europe our information apparatus feeds the fear of the danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits from spreading these Russophobe feelings?

Of course, the Empire! Of course, the Western supremacists!

With Russia, it is very similar to China: people there have had it up to here with the West! The Russian people suffered immensely from Western imperialism. Throughout their history they fought countless invasions led by the French, Scandinavians, Brits, North Americans, Germans, Poles, Czechs and others. Tens of millions of Russian people died, fighting all sorts of Western expansionism. They defeated Nazism. They helped to liberate much of our world from colonialism. Of course the West never forgave Russia for fighting the epic battles against its expansionism and colonialism.

But it is not only European and North American propaganda that is responsible for the present state of things: it is also the people, quite ordinary people, living in the West.

For years now, the fake European ‘left’ has tried to portray European citizens as victims of the US imperialism. It is even trying to make the world feel sorry for those European workers who do not get a fair deal from their governments! It is thoroughly absurd. Overwhelmingly the majority of European citizens are unhappy with the social deal they get, yes; and that is why they are so angry with their governments. Because they want more, much more! They couldn’t care less that their benefits, salaries and other privileges, have been, for decades and centuries ‘subsidized’ by the plunder of other parts of the planet; that they are paid for by blood. There is absolutely no solidarity in the West towards its own victims, and the recent ‘refugee crises’ is direct proof of it. Fanon and Sartre had already determined more than 50 years ago, each and every European citizen is responsible for (and has been benefiting from) the countless genocides and unbridled theft. It has to be repeated again and again: you give Europeans once again ‘all benefits that they can eat’, you make them work shorter hours, and you give more money, and they’d be back in a self-congratulatory, self-righteous mode; damned be the rest of the world. The only reason so many are so pissed off at the US is because they see North America as promoting a ‘bad deal’ for its own masses, not because it is ruining the rest of the world!

So, back to Russia… Russia, despite its heavy flirtation with capitalism and some quite unsavory oligarchs, is still building its foreign policy on the Soviet ideals of internationalism, solidarity and logic. And even domestically, President Putin is slowly, step-by-step, restoring many important Soviet achievements that were torpedoed by a nitwit – Gorbachev, and a gangster – Yeltsin. Let’s not forget that one poll after another clearly demonstrates that well over 50% of Russian citizens still wants both socialism and the USSR back. And the Russian government is listening.

The West, both the elites (consciously) and ordinary people (sub-consciously), want Russia to go to hell; to disappear, drown, explode. It is because Russia is once again defending humanism all over the world. If it succeeds, the elites would lose their power over the planet, and the ‘ordinary citizens’ of the West would lose their privileges; the plunder would have to stop, and the life of one African or Asian person would suddenly gain the same value as that of a one European or North American. And that would be really ‘unacceptable’!

On top of it, Russia and China have become two great allies. They’d never be divided as they were during the Cold War days. Russia and China together cannot be defeated: militarily, economically or morally. The West can only try to destroy them internally, through horrendous sets of tricks, propaganda and toxic lies. But now even such a scenario is unlikely. Russian people, like their Chinese comrades, are well aware of what is going on. And there are tens of millions of their martyrs who are reminding them what is to be expected from the West.

Encircled and provoked, Russia is once again turning into a mighty monolithic defense wall. Its people are ready! They want peace, above anything else. But if they’d have to fight for their own survival, and for the survival of the world, they will. And this time again, if there is a showdown, two enormous nations, Russia and China, standing side-by-side, will defeat fascism!

That is why Russia is hated. That is why China is hated. They are forming a tremendous, final defense line protecting humanity from the Western terror.

Since the advent of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, which began with the famous Obama’s speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder keg. Was it an external plan – a planned destruction of the states hostile to rulers in Washington, like Libya and Syria in particular, or was it a real quest for democracy and freedom?

Both. Some socialist movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, for instance, were genuine. I was making films about the so-called Arab Spring, and I’m well aware of how complex the situation really was. But it goes without saying is that the West immediately infiltrated and ‘derailed’ the revolutions, turning them into what you have described.

Remember, the West had absolutely no appetite for risking its dictatorial powers over the area. It had no desire to let democratic and revolutionary forces take control of these countries. Why? Just look, again, at the polls: the majority of Arab people see the United States and Israel (definitely not Iran or Syria) as the greatest danger to the world. Could you imagine what the Arab people would do if true democracy (rule of the people) were to be victorious? They’d side with Russia and China, not with the West. And they’d throw their ‘elites’, groomed in and by the West, straight out the window.

Is it right today, to define Aleppo as the “Stalingrad of Syria” and “the cemetery of the dreams of fascist Erdogan” as stated by the Syrian President Assad?

Yes, it is like that, or at least, it is somewhere along those lines. Aleppo, Homs… Yes. I wrote about it earlier, comparing Syria to Stalingrad.

.

What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria? It risks crystallization like the Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – and Raqqa, which would become a new Berlin?

The Western planners are definitely trying to fragment the entire Middle East. They already have done, on several historical occasions. But this is a new chapter. They play with the Arab countries as if they were simply some milking cows. There is no regard for human lives, or local national interests. It is because the West, despite its hypocritical rhetoric (political correctness) does not really consider non-whites and non-Christians as human beings. You kill millions, so be it. You ruin 5 regional states; who cares?

What role, in your opinion, do the human rights NGOs play in the current international context?

 Even that term, ‘human rights’, makes me ill. You have to really go back to Fanon and Sartre… They said it all. Human rights are only for ‘humans’, therefore for the West. And for the rest of the Planet: there, the ‘human rights’ are used to discredit uncomfortable, even ‘hostile’ governments through countless implants like NGOs. Who talks about the real human rights violations, those committed by the West? Europeans and North Americans have already butchered hundreds of millions of people, or close to one billion, to be precise. They have been looting, torturing and raping. Even now, they are killing millions directly and tens of millions indirectly. But it does not count; because their victims are not white, therefore not human, and as a result, they don’t really have any rights.

14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq. Today the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, and Washington uses all the weapons at its disposal to return to Latin America. Is, in your opinion, President Rafael Correa right when he says that we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region?

Definitely! Comrade Correa gets it right, most of the time. This is new, ‘final’ offensive of the Empire in Latin America. I have just returned from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay; it is absolutely horrible what is going on there. The Empire is trying to finish both BRICS and all the Latin American revolutions.

If that is the case, considering what has also happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, which techniques are being used today?

The same as ‘before’, the same techniques, which have been used against, for instance President Allende and ‘Unidad Popular’ in Chile, before the 9-11-1973 US-orchestrated coup.

The West is supporting, even financing the right-wing media, it is financing ‘the opposition’, encourages capital flight of billions of dollars, works closely with the local ‘elites’ to create ‘deficits’, ‘uncertainty’ and despair. It creates corruption scandals, and it even supports fake ‘left’ anti-government movements. And of course it is training and corrupting some key military cadres.

The future of the world offers at the moment two possible paths: a US unilateralism, particularly in the event of Clinton’s presidency, made up of areas of “free” trade treaties around the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions as the desperately poor products of them, profits only for multinationals, and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this vision (Libya and Syria style); or, the second possibility: a period of multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, self-determination and peace. If the alternative project to the ‘Washington Consensus’ were to prevail, it would be that of the BRICS and regional integration in Latin America, designed and built by Chavez, Lula and Kirchner. And which of the two views will prevail in your opinion?

There will be great battles fought for the future of the world! The coming years will be very tough. In order for the second scenario to win, the world would have to return where the struggle for independence and against Western colonialism and imperialism was lost or abandoned more than 50 years ago. Let’s face it: the world was never really completely de-colonized. It would be total hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

One of the popular views in the liberal circles of the West is that we are actually ‘all victims of capitalism’. I disagree. This savage global capitalism is only one of the most terrible bi-products of the dominant Western culture of racism, greed, brutality and unbridled desire to control the world. The world is still being battered by the Western/white/Christian supremacy dogmas and practices, by the most primitive and fundamentalist ‘principles’.

The truth has to be unveiled. If the West insists, if it keeps pushing, the battles have to be fought. And they will be fought. And the forces of internationalism, humanism and solidarity will have to be victorious, or soon there will be nothing left of the human race.

---

Alessandro Bianchi, nato a Roma, dirige il sito di politica internazionale “L’Antidiplomatico”

Andre Vltchek

Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

German Foreign Minister Accuses NATO of Warmongering

PETER KORZUN | 22.06.2016 | 

NATO has expedited the process of concentrating forces at the Russian border.

But its activities are not limited to the deployment of troops and ships. The bloc’s leadership states that it may now have grounds to use force if a major cyberattack is launched against it by persons in a non-alliance country like Russia. Such an action could trigger a collective response by NATO. «A severe cyberattack may be classified as a case for the alliance. Then NATO can and must react», NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview published by Germany’s Bild newspaper on June 16.

He spoke after the June 14 decision was made by NATO defense ministers to designate cyber as an official operational domain of warfare, along with air, sea, and land.

The NATO meeting stressed that a cyberattack could rise to the level of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5, which allows the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been attacked.

Specifically, the West is alleging that Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer.

It’s well known that Hillary Clinton broke the rules and used an unsecured home computer. Now if somebody took advantage of her negligence, it might constitute an attack against the United States and require 28 NATO member states to go to war, if the US government decides it is the right thing to do!

The recent attack on the Democratic National Convention servers, which leaked the Democrats confidential files on Trump and Hillary donors’ lists, was blamed on Russian hackers who allegedly worked for the government.

Later it surfaced that it was done by a hacker, who had no relation to Russia.

NATO’s story about Russia threatening the West is questioned by a Foreign Minister of a leading alliance member who has criticized NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe as «warmongering» and called for phasing out the European Union sanctions against Russia if there is substantial progress in the peace process in Ukraine. «What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots», German Foreign Minister Steinmeier told Bild in an interview.

Sharply criticizing the ongoing NATO war games in Eastern Europe, Steinmeier said that inflaming the standoff with Russia would endanger European security and increase risk of reviving an «old confrontation». The statement was made ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw to kick off on July 8. The Minister believes that the ongoing large-scale Anakonda-16 NATO military exercise in Poland, simulating the repulsion of «Russian aggression» against the country, is counterproductive. The training event was the first time German tanks crossed Poland from west to east since the WWII.

«Let me be clear: there will be more NATO troops in Poland after the Warsaw Summit» Jens Stoltenberg said last month. «Anyone who thinks you can increase security in the alliance with symbolic parades of tanks near the eastern borders is mistaken», he added.

Rather than inflaming the situation further «through saber-rattling and warmongering», there ought to be more space for dialogue and cooperation with Moscow, Steinmeier said contradicting NATO’s leadership. It would be «fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence», German FM said, calling to give way to diplomacy instead of military posturing.

In a separate interview also published on June 19, Steinmeier said, the European Union sanctions against Russia should be gradually eased if there is substantial progress in the peace process. 

«Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They should rather give incentives for a change in behavior», Steinmeier told the Redaktions Netzwerk Deutschland, a network of local newspapers.

The comments by Steinmeier were the sharpest indications of a division within Germany’s ruling coalition over policy towards Russia. Steinmeier’s Social Democrats have backed a more conciliatory stance toward Moscow than Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc, the Christian Democrats. Merkel has repeatedly said that sanctions imposed against Russia can only be lifted once a peace agreement, known as the Minsk accords, is fully implemented.

Steinmeier’s stance also testifies to the fact that there is no unity on Russia’s policy inside NATO.

For instance, right after his statement, Stephen Sestanovich, the George F Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, demanded Steinmeier’s resignation.

Aleksey Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament, welcomed Steinmeier's comments as a «voice of reason». «Steinmeier spoke against Stoltenberg's course for scaring Russia. Some voices of reason could be heard from behind the curtain of threats and hysterics», Pushkov said in a tweet July 17.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on June 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that NATO has «an absolutely slapdash attitude to our position on anything», adding that it was the US that had unilaterally quit the missile defense treaty, which was initially signed to «provide strategic balance in the world».

NATO «needs a foreign enemy, otherwise what would be the reason for the existence of such an organization», the Russian President concluded.

Putin assured his audience that he does not want to proceed to a new Cold War, as «no one wants it». «However dramatic the logic of the development of international relations might seem on the outside, it’s not the logic of global confrontation», he explained.

NATO’s bellicosity towards Russia appears to go far enough to split the alliance. It’s serious enough to make the disagreements surface and become public domain right before the NATO summit expected to take a number of decisions doomed to provoke Russia and give rise to tensions in Europe. Steinmeier’s statement reflects a growing concern among leading Western politicians over the wisdom of the anti-Russian stand.

sourcehttp://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/22/german-foreign-minister-accuses-nato-of-warmongering.html

Tags: NATO  Germany  Steinmeier 

Gedenken an 27 Millionen tote Sowjetbürger von Sofia bis Berlin (RT)

https://deutsch.rt.com/kurzclips/39063-gedenken-an-27-millionen-tote/

Hillary Clinton: "Destroy Syria for Israel " Weakileaks Quote (New Observer)

Subject: Clinton: Destroy Syria for Israel -

http://newobserveronline.com/clinton-destroy-syria-israel/

Stimmen der Vernunft zum heutigen 75. Jahrestag des deutschen Angriffs auf Sowjetrussland Betrachtungen von Irene Eckert

Wichtige Worte

Außenminister Steinmeier hat am Vorabend des 75. Jahrestages des Überfalls auf die SU und in Anbetracht der

aggressiven NATO-Manöver vor Russlands Haustüre „Europa davor gewarnt, die Beziehungen mit Russland durch „lautes Säbelrasseln und Kriegsgeheul“ zu verschlechtern. Die Militärs könnten keine größere Sicherheit an den östlichen Nato-Grenzen gewährleisten. Stattdessen müsste man einen aktiveren Dialog mit Moskau führen.“ Dem ist unbedingt zuzustimmen.

Alt-Bundeskanzler Schröder nennt die Stationierung weiterer NATO-Truppen in Osteuropa gegenüber der Süddeutschen einen schwerer Fehler. In der Tat.

Hubert Seipel, ein renommierter Journalist schreibt ein erhellendes Buch über die Aufwärts- Entwicklung, die das post-sowjetische Russland unter Putins Führung nahm. Seinem 2015 bei Hoffmann und Campe erschienen Titel „Putin – Innenansichten der Macht“ ist eine weite Verbreitung und gründliche Lektüre zu wünschen. Nüchtern, objektiv und historisch aufschlussreich liefert es Argumente gegen den immer reißender werdenden, aggressiven Strom der Russlandverleumdung.

Solch späte, warnende Stimme verdienen dringend Gehör. Seipels Beitrag trägt den Stempel des Kenners. Als ehemaliger Auslandskorrespondent und Redakteur von Stern und Spiegel hat er über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg viele Stunden an der Seite des russischen Präsidenten verbracht. Die ARD sendete 2012 seine Dokumentation „Ich, Putin“.

Vor dem Hintergrund der sich zuspitzenden NATO- Aggression gegen Russland erscheint Seipels Publikation geradezu sensationell. Nur solch konkrete Schreibe, die historisch reale Bezüge enthält und auf Fakten rekurriert, kann uns aus dem gemeinsam zu verantwortenden Dilemma führen.

Für eine neue Qualität der Deutsch-Russischen Beziehungen

Für eine neue Qualität der Deutsch-Russischen Beziehungen wirbt die IALANA-Juristen-Vereinigung in einem Aufruf zum morgigen Jahrestag des Angriffs auf die Sowjetunion vor 75 Jahren. Es ist zu hoffen, dass er breite Unterstützung gefunden hat und in der Presse Beachtung finden wird. Die Juristen betonen „Die deutsch-russischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen sind für beide Länder von herausragender Bedeutung. Russische Kunst, Literatur, Musik und Ballett gehören ebenso zu den Säulen europäischer Kultur wie die deutsche. Dies kann die Basis sein für freundschaftliche Beziehungen, in denen offen und mit Verständnis für die jeweiligen historischen Erfahrungen und Interessen der anderen Seite über unterschiedliche politische Konzepte im besten Sinne eines Diskurses gestritten werden kann.“ Diesen Selbstverständlichkeiten muss man mit Nachdruck zustimmen.
Zu Bedauern ist allerdings, dass die IALANA gegen die Beteiligung von deutschem Militär an den laufenden NATO-Manövern ganz dicht an Russlands Grenzen in ihrem Appell zum Jahrestag nicht Stellung bezieht. Auch die wichtige Kampagne für die Schließung der US-Militärzentrale in Ramstein spart diesen zentralen Aspekt unbegreiflicher Weise ebenfalls aus. Selbst die Initiative „NATO raus aus Deutschland – Deutschland raus aus der NATO“ setzt nicht den Fokus gegen die nukleare NATO-Speerspitze gen Osten mit ihrer Stationierung neuer sogenannter nuklearer Abwehrschirme.

Russland bedroht kein Land in Europa und der Welt

Einzig die Freidenker stellen auf ihrem Verbandstag am 5. Juni in Potsdam fest: „Russland bedroht kein Land in Europa und der Welt“ , sondern „Die Aufrüstung und der neue Aufmarsch der NATO bedrohen die staatliche Existenz Russlands“ .

Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung online http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=22874 vom 21. O6. ’16 zitiert die Freidenkervereinigung weiter: „Die USA, die NATO und die EU betreiben seit 1991 eine Politik der Einkreisung, Zurückdrängung und Destabilisierung Russlands. Mit dem Putsch in der Ukraine, ständigen Manövern und dem Vorrücken der NATO direkt an die russische Westgrenze wird eine Zuspitzung der unmittelbaren Konfrontation betrieben.“

„Das AEGIS-Raketensystem, stationiert auf vier Kriegsschiffen und landgestützt seit Juni 2016 in Rumänien sowie ab Herbst in Polen, verkürzt die Raketen-Vorwarnzeiten für Russland. Die USA wollen sich die „risikofreie“ nukleare Erstschlagfähigkeit sichern, indem ein Gegenschlag ausgeschaltet wird. Das irreführend „Raketenabwehrschild“ genannte AEGIS-System ist offensiv: Auf Knopfdruck von der US-Air Base Ramstein können die landgestützten Startvorrichtungen auch die seit 1987 verbotenen atomar bestückbaren Cruise-Mittelstreckenraketen abschießen, was eine neue Qualität der nuklearen Bedrohung nach Europa zurückbringt.“

In Russland den Partner erkennen

Endlich die gebotenen Worte. Fakten werden benannt. In letzter Minute findet hier die Überwindung der unsinnigen Schuldzuweisung gegen Russland statt. Diese Worte müssen weitestmögliche Verbreitung finden. Die bisherige Zurückhaltung oder das Üben in Äquidistanz, die vor allem in der vermeintlich friedensbewegten „Zivilgesellschaft“ immer noch fast flächendeckend anzutreffen ist, muss unter Heranziehung unwiderlegbarer Fakten überwunden werden. Wenn wir überleben wollen, müssen wir kooperieren wollen. Wenn wir ein möglicherweise zufällig ausgelöstes nukleares Inferno ausschließen wollen, dann müssen wir deutliche Worte formulieren. Nur wenn wir die Kriegstreiber anprangern, können wir den nötigen Widerstand gegen sie organisieren.
Dafür gilt es zu erkennen und zu benennen, wer zum wiederholten Mal in der Geschichte eine aggressive, zum Krieg anheizende Außenpolitik betreibt. Die Rauchschleier niederträchtiger Propaganda müssen gelüftet werden. Die für die Kriegspolitik Verantwortlichen in den NATO-Staaten, in unserem Deutschland, sind namentlich anzuprangern. Demgegenüber müssen wir in Russland einen Verbündeten, einen Partner sehen und keineswegs einen Feind.

Konstruktive Rolle Russlands in der Staatengemeinschaft betonen

Es gilt aufzuzeigen, dass Russland innerhalb der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft eine positive, dem Frieden zu arbeitende Rolle spielt. Das Zurückdrängen der vom Ausland finanzierten und infiltrierten Terrorbanden Syrien und das Zustandekommen des Iranabkommen sprechen eine für jedermann eine überzeugende Sprache. Das gleiche gilt für den zurückhaltenden Umgang Russlands mit der aggressiven Ukrainepolitik des Westens und der Bedrohung russischer Bürger im Osten des Landes.

Die Verlängerung der EU-Sanktionspolitik gegen Russland für sechs Monate am Vorabend des Jahrestags ist als eine weitere unerhörte Provokation zu brandmarken gegen die deutsche Bürger Stellung beziehen müssen.

Krieg gegen Russland und China

Statt Krieg gegen den Terror?

Autor: Jürgen Heiducoff
Datum: 21. Januar 2016 

Der Autor war Soldat in zwei Armeen: In der NATIONALEN VOLKSARMEE der DDR und der BUNDESWEHR des Vereinigten Deutschland. Zuletzt war er militärpolitischer Berater der Botschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Afghanistan. Sein letzter Rang: Oberstleutnant.

Das Jahr 2016 wird eine Reihe sicherheitspolitischer Highlights des Westens (Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, Warschauer NATO – Gipfel, Weißbuch) bereit halten bevor nach der Amtsübernahme eines neuen US – Präsidenten erfahrungsgemäß eine Periode der Washingtoner Entscheidungsträgheit folgt. Ohne genau zu wissen, was der Osten (Russland und China) aktuell zur Sicherheitspolitik beizutragen hat, ist eine rege Diskussion in den deutschen Think Tanks mit vielen Konjunktiven losgebrochen. Die gefährlichste Entwicklung zeichnet sich in Richtung einer neuen nuklearen Abschreckung ab. 

Wird der „Krieg gegen den Terror“ durch den „Krieg gegen Russland und China“ überlagert? 
Das wäre ein Zweifrontenkrieg, denn das europäische Russland liegt im Osten und China im Westen von den „Staaten“ aus gesehen. Die Manöveraktivitäten der USA nebst Partnern sind die „Speerspitze“ nach Osten; die Präsenz der Navy nebst Überflügen von B – 52 – Kernwaffenträgern über das Südchinesische Meer und über Seoul ein Zeichen gegen Peking. Die Strategie der USA aus Hillary Clinton's Beitrag „Amerikas Pazifisches Jahrhundert“ im US-Magazin „Foreign Policy“ vom November 2011 ist nie bestritten oder zurück genommen worden.
Nun ist nach dem durch Obama „als großen Erfolg starker Diplomatie“ gefeierten Atomabkommen mit dem Iran völlig unklar, welche Überraschungen der Friedensnobelpreisträger in seinen letzten Wochen noch auf Lager hat. Nur eines ist sicher: die europäischen Partner werden folgen. 
Knüpft Obama an seine Prager Rede vor fast sieben Jahren an und leitet neue diplomatische Schritte zur Verwirklichung seiner Vision von einer Welt ohne Atomwaffen ein? Dann dürften die Genfer Gespräche über eine weltweite Ächtung und ein Verbot von Kernwaffen nicht weiter verzögert werden. Bisher versuchen US-Diplomaten gefolgt von denen anderer Nuklear- und NATO – Staaten diese Debatten gegen den Willen der Mehrzahl der Staaten in den Vereinten Nationen zu verhindern.

Warum modernisieren die USA die in Deutschland gelagerten Kernwaffen statt sie abzuziehen?
Verschärft Obama den Konfrontationskurs vor allem gegen Russland mit einer Neuauflage der nuklearen Abschreckung?
Das wäre dann die endgültige Abkehr der „führenden Demokratie“ von jeglicher Humanität und Vernunft in der Außenpolitik. 
Die Nuklearstrategie als Experimentierfeld? Die Erprobung der modernisierten Kernwaffen der USA in Europa anzudrohen – ein "Symbol der Perversion menschlichen Denkens" 1) 
Soll die auf dem Gipfel in Wales erfundene „Speerspitze der NATO“ gegen Russland nuklearisiert werden?
Obama und der NATO – Gipfel in Warschau werden es zeigen. 

Ist es ihm zuzutrauen? Yes, he can!

Und unser deutscher Beitrag? Wir schaffen das schon!

1) Egon Bahr's Bezeichnung für Neutronenwaffen

---

Kommentare

Folgende Leserbriefe wurden zu diesem Artikel geschrieben:

Am 22. Januar 2016 schrieb Michael Kohle:

Nachdem ich gerade auf CP einen Aufruf dazu las, der zum gleichen Thema seine allergrößten Bedenken äußert
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/political-responsibility-in-the-nuclear-age-an-open-letter-to-the-american-people/
möchte ich nochmals das Thema aufnehmen.
Sie haben schon mal geäußert, dass sie auf Verlautbarungen von jenseits des Atlantiks allergisch reagieren. Hinzu kommt, dass ich wahrscheinlich mit meinem permanenten counterpunch-Zitieren so manchem Leser auf den Geist gehe.
Denke aber, dass die nicht mehr zu leugnende geopolitische Lage, insbesondere das penetrante Auftreten der "Masters of the Universe", nicht mehr aus der Mauselochperspektive Deutschland oder Europa auch nur ausreichend ausgeleuchtet werden kann.

Der Patient „Menschheit“ liegt längst auf der Intensivstation, höchstwahrscheinlich kurz vor dem Exitus. Und was tun wir hier?
Wir sinnieren über Symptome. Über den offenen Pustelbefall namens Merkel, über den Darmverschluss Typus Gauck, über Tumore und Metastasen aller Art, zufiele um sie alle zu nennen, das Geschwür Bibi nicht zu vergessen. Und delektieren uns an trefflichen
Formulierungen, klopfen uns auf die Schenkel und gut ist!

Mögen Sie mir verzeihen, es musste einfach mal wieder raus! 

---

Am 21. Januar 2016 schrieb Elke Zwinge-Makamizile:

Vielen Dank, lieber Uli Gellermann, besonders dafür, dass ich Jürgen Heiducoff kennen lernen konnte mit der entscheidenden Feststellung Krieg gegen Russland und China.

Da bin ich schon solange in der Friedensbewegung und kenne nicht einmal unsere Bündnispartner, gerade in so einer wichtigen Frage wie “NATO raus aus Deutschland-Deutschland raus aus der NATO”.
Habe das weitergeleitet und damit gerne auch Ihre Seite.
http://www.rationalgalerie.de/kritik/krieg-gegen-russland-und-china.html