Europeans dropping investigations into Nord Stream sabotage > Virtually, a NATO coup

 

So, this is what happens when the investigators realize, with a good probability, who the perpetrators were, and further realize that they belong to the same organization they do - NATO.

"We have found the enemy, sir, and he is us!" - Pogo.

Denmark ending Nord Stream explosion

 investigation

By Simon Druker

1 of 3 | Denmark is closing its investigation into the explosions that damaged the two Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in 2022, officials confirmed Monday. File Photo courtesy of Danish Defence | License Photo

Feb. 26 (UPI) -- Denmark is closing its investigation into the explosions that damaged the two Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in 2022, officials confirmed Monday.

Danish officials called their investigation "complicated and extensive," but said they would not comment further on the case.

Denmark's investigation was carried out by Danish police with assistance from the Norwegian Police Intelligence Service (PET).

"Based on the investigation, the authorities can conclude that there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines. At the same time, it is assessed that there is no necessary basis for pursuing criminal proceedings in Denmark," the Danish daily newspaper Politiken quotes a joint release by the Copenhagen Police and PET as saying.

The news comes less than a month after Swedish officials announced they were wrapping up their probe into the series of explosions that damaged the two natural gas pipelines. Prosecutors at the time said the country lacked the proper legal authority to continue the investigation.

Why didn't they know that when they started? Who has legal authority to continue the investigation? Why is Russia the only country complaining about Europe abandoning its responsibilities?

Officials have previously declared the explosions and subsequent damage to the pipeline network were caused by "sabotage," but there have been several accusations surrounding who may have been responsible.

Russia has accused Western powers including Britain and the United States of carrying out the attack. The New York Times previously reported a pro-Ukraine group and intelligence official may have been behind the attack.

Ukraine doesn't have the capability of pulling off something like that, not by a long shot.

The United States has accused Russia of carrying out the sabotage, a claim Moscow has vehemently denied. (*SR)

The pipelines are owned by Russia's Gazprom to carry Russian natural gas through the Baltic Sea to Germany.

This befuddles me! Germany knows full well who did it and though it cost German billions of dollars to replace the gas from Russia, they continue to play along with those who are responsible. Germany's government in the past ten years has been absolutely abominable

Only the Nord Stream 1 line was in service at the time of the explosion, with Germany halting work on line 2 before it became active in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Russia spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Denmark's discontinuation of the investigation "close to absurd", according to Russian state-run news agency RIA Novosti.

*SR - Satanic Reversal > when a country blames another for doing what the first country did.

European Politics > Who will replace Stoltenberg at NATO, Ursula von der Leyen, Mark Rutte, or some dark horse?

 

Anneke de Laaf

Curious story in Welt am Sonntag about the position of Yankee spokesperson for NATO. Yes, Die Frau is almost physically Russophobic, but that is rather a requirement for the job - and Rutte will go with whatever narrative will bring him the greatest benefit. Happy to shake hands with Putin to cling a profitable oil or gas deal when this was still allowed (pre 2014) and equally happy to demonize him now that thát is required.

And at any rate, Herr Scholz doesn’t strike me as very influential. If the Yanks would prefer Von der Leyden, Joe would just insist. And Scholz would just have to lump it. Only one boss in NATO.

“The newspaper writes that at the end of 2023, Secretary of State Antony Blinken proposed the candidacy of Mrs. von der Leyen to US President Joe Biden. He turned to Mr. Scholz, but the chancellor “was categorically against” her nomination. According to the Chancellor, Ursula von der Leyen is too critical of the Russian Federation, and he fears that this will have negative consequences in the long term.

Welt am Sonntag clarifies that the favorite among the candidates for the post of NATO Secretary General has become... O. Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte. The publication claims its support is growing. The final decision is planned to be made before the European Parliament elections in June. Bloomberg reported that Turkey had put forward conditions for the approval of Mr. Rutte's candidacy.

Jens Stoltenberg has held the position of NATO Secretary General since October 2014. The Secretary General of the alliance is appointed through informal consultations between the member countries of the alliance, which nominate candidates for this post. The Secretary General is elected for four years, the term can be extended if necessary.”

As much respect as I have for Mark Rutte, which is none, it does appear he would be an improvement of von der Leyen. Or would he?

==============================================================================================

American Aggression Borders on Economic War With France - UPDATED

..

France may lose another multibillion shipbuilding deal to US

11 Dec, 2021 04:24 

An artist's rendering of Lockheed Martin's Hellenic Future Frigate design ©  Lockheed Martin

The United States has approved a massive arms sale to Greece, offering four new frigates and a major modernization package worth up to $9.4 billion, directly challenging a similar preliminary agreement with France.

The US State Department said it approved the potential deals on Friday, announcing the offer of several Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) ships in addition to a separate $2.5 billion plan to modernize Greece’s MEKO Class Frigates.

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally, which is an important partner for political stability and economic progress in Europe,” the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said.

Unfortunately, foreign policy and national security objectives are entirely about weapons sales. France is quite capable of meeting NATO objectives. Why is the USA treating them the same way they treat Russia? It's very disappointing that the EU is tolerating this aggression without a word.

If executed, the scheme to update Greece’s frigate fleet would include the installation of a number of new systems, such as new five-inch artillery cannons and upgraded sonar. Arms dealers Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, VSE Corporation and the UK’s BAE Systems would serve as the primary contractors.

Ever wonder who is running the government? This is Deep State! They care for no-one but themselves.

The announced proposal comes after France declared in September that it had reached a similar agreement with Greece to provide up to four new frigates for $3.4 billion (€3 billion). At the time, however, French military spokesman Herve Grandjean said that while some commitments had been made, no formal contract was yet signed between the two sides. He added that the deal would be finalized after a period of three months, a deadline set to mature sometime in the coming weeks. 

Though it is yet unclear what the US proposal will mean for France’s deal, the move could be interpreted as a major slight by Washington, which already invoked the country’s ire earlier this year after unveiling a nuclear submarine deal with Australia despite a preexisting arrangement with Paris. France, which was slated to sell diesel subs to Canberra, responded by recalling its ambassadors in both the US and Australia, while President Emmanuel Macron sharply criticized the two allies in public.

Two weeks after the AUKUS bombshell, Macron took the stage with Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis to personally announce the sale of French warships to Athens, saying it was time to “stop being naive” while touting the deal as a sign of “Europe’s strategic autonomy and sovereignty.”

=======================================================================================

UPDATE: 12/12/2021

France reacts to rival offer of US frigates to Greece

11 Dec, 2021 23:36

An artists impression of Belharra frigate by the French Naval defence and energy group DCNS

©  DCNS via AFP

The defense ministries of France and Greece have both confirmed that a competing offer from the US will have no impact on an already “signed” and “final” multibillion-euro deal to purchase French Belharra frigates.

France's Ministry of Armed Forces stated on Saturday that a defense contract with Athens had already been “initialled a few days ago,” before the US State Department announced its approval of a potential sale of American frigates.

Since we have been in discussion with the Greeks, the American offer is no longer on the table... We also signed the contract with the Greeks.

Greece’s Defense Ministry also confirmed that the deal with Paris was “final,” since it had been negotiated at the “highest level possible” and “personally announced” by the Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis. The finalized contracts are reportedly expected to be ratified by the Greek parliament “soon.”

Lest the Greek parliament have any doubts, they should check out America's most advanced Naval rust-bucket, the Zumwalt. This is what $4 billion dollars will get you.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency said on Friday it had approved the sale for $6.9 billion of four Lockheed Martin combat frigates, and a separate $2.5 billion program to upgrade Greece's MEKO-class frigates.

The announcement triggered some concerns over the Athens-Paris agreement, especially after a long-existing submarine construction “deal of the century” between France and Australia was abruptly tanked by a bombshell AUKUS pact in September, without any prior warning. Paris was outraged and accused Washington and Canberra of a “stab in the back,” while just two weeks later Macron shared a stage with the Greek PM to personally announce the sale of at least three French warships to Athens for around $3.5 billion, saying it was time to “stop being naive” while touting the new deal as a sign of “Europe’s strategic autonomy and sovereignty.”

This time around, according to the French military, the US “had warned us that this announcement was going to come out” and that Americans allegedly had “no inclination to go further” with an actual sale of their frigates.

=======================================================================================

‘Russia is NOT the Enemy’ - Czech President calls on NATO to focus on terrorism

..

‘Russia is NOT the enemy’: After failure in Afghanistan, Czech

president calls on NATO to focus on terrorism instead of Moscow

18 Aug, 2021 11:23

Czech President Milos Zeman attends the inauguration ceremony at Prague Castle in Prague, Czech Republic.

© Reuters / David W Cerny

The enemy of NATO is not Russia, but international terrorism. That’s according to Czech President Milos Zeman, who spoke on Tuesday about the failure of the American-led military bloc to defeat Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

Yeah, but the problem, Milos, is that the military industrial complex can't get rich fighting terrorism.

Zeman’s comments, given to Prague-based newspaper Parlamentní listy, echo remarks given by French President Emmanuel Macron in November last year, when he urged NATO leaders to shift focus away from Russia and China, noting that terrorism is a “common enemy” for all nations.

The Czech leader also slammed NATO for failing “dramatically” in Afghanistan but noted that he supported the war and the mission to beat Islamic terrorism. He claimed he told both US Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden during NATO summits that troop withdrawal was “cowardice.” The legitimacy of the bloc’s existence is now in question, he said.

The president’s criticism of NATO comes less than a week after militants from the Taliban entered the Afghan capital of Kabul and declared that they had taken control of the entire nation. The situation intensified following Washington’s decision to withdraw its troops from the country.

Zeman is a controversial politician in his home country and has been described as both pro-Russia and pro-China. 

Yeah, but if you are not vehemently anti-Russia and anti-China, then you are labelled pro...

Earlier this year, a group of Czech senators revealed they would be considering a lawsuit against the president after he expressed doubt over allegations that a Russian security service operation had been involved in blowing up an ammunition depot in 2014.

Last week, Moscow daily Vedomosti revealed that Czechia had become the biggest importer of Russian defense products in the entire world, spending $683 million in the first half of 2021. This outlay comes despite Prague being placed by Moscow on its official list of ‘unfriendly countries,’ alongside the USA.

Curious Change of Narrative from NATO regarding Russia; Why?

NATO changes tone: Chief of US-led bloc tells EU officials its members face ‘no imminent military threat’ from Russia or China

15 Mar, 2021 18:43

Russian and Chinese marines taking part in joint excercises in Russia's Far East. © Sputnik / Vitaliy Ankov

There is no imminent threat of a military attack from Russia – or China – against any NATO member states, but the bloc’s very existence is the main reason for this situation, its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has told the EU.

Stoltenberg made the statement – somewhat unusual given NATO’s typically harsh anti-Russia rhetoric – during an address to the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs on Monday.

“I was asked about whether I see any threat against NATO allies from China or from Russia. I don't see any imminent threat of a military attack against any NATO ally,” he said.

“But one reason for that is that we have NATO” and its system of “all for one and one for all” collective defense, the Secretary General said – a reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which stipulates that an attack on one member state triggers a response from the whole alliance.

"That's one of the main reasons why we’ve been able to preserve peace in Europe for more than 70 years,” he insisted.

However, one shouldn’t expect a major shift in NATO’s relations with Moscow and Beijing, as Stoltenberg still lamented what he called “Russia’s destabilizing behavior” and “the rise of China” among the main security challenges for the bloc – along with terrorism, cyberattacks and climate change.

Last month, the NATO head insisted that the military alliance of 30 European states and the North American countries would be “glad” to cooperate with Russia, but was also “ready” for a confrontation if the need arises. He also called for more funds to be allocated to boost the bloc’s presence near Russia’s borders.

That's called 'Empire Building'! And it is the greatest threat to peace in Europe as NATO seeks to virtually surround Russia with NATO-friendly countries. This is completely against the spirit of the agreement between Russia and NATO when Gorbachev broke up the Soviet Union. 

Tensions between NATO and Moscow have been running high since 2014 when Crimea rejoined Russia following a referendum, which the West refuses to recognise, amid the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The bloc responded by deploying more troops and military hardware in Eastern Europe, while sharply intensifying aerial and naval patrols in the region.

Contrary to repeated claims from Poland, the Baltic States and others, Moscow has denied harboring aggressive intentions against any NATO members – and has labeled the alliance’s buildup and military games on its doorstep as a major security threat for the continent, arguing that it only increases the chances of real conflict.

This is a real, or, at least apparent turn-around from the relentless demonizing of Russia by NATO, UK, US, and several EU countries. How are they going to sell weapons systems to Russia's neighbours with a message like that?

Is this message showing concern about the growing relationship between Russia and China? Are they trying to slow that down? 

Or is he just trying to cool the rhetoric, like the article below?

Biden White House resorting to ‘siege of Russia’ by sending troops to NATO borders & ships to Black Sea – leading Moscow senator

15 Mar, 2021 10:59

FILE PHOTO: US servicemen participating in the Saber Strike exercises in Estonia. © Sputnik

With little prospect of scoring a decisive military victory over Russia, Washington is increasingly locked into a strategy of surrounding the world’s largest country with its forces, one of Moscow’s top politicians has claimed.

Aleksey Pushkov, a senator and former head of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, argued in comments on Telegram on Friday that the White House was struggling to demonstrate the tough stance it had promised against the Kremlin, because it had run out of viable options.

“The hesitation about Russia in Washington is evident,” he said, “not because there is a tactical pause, or as a negotiating tactic – [President Joe] Biden is in no mood to negotiate with Russia at all – but for another reason.”

While the new US leader has slammed his predecessor for supposedly making concessions to Moscow, Biden has since found that “the potential for hostility towards Moscow has been almost entirely mobilized by [former president Donald] Trump, both bilaterally and through NATO,” Pushkov wrote.

The senator believes that there are only three possible options for the White House if it seeks to make good on those election promises and strike an even tougher note against Russia.

“Sanctions from hell,” such as the still unapproved package proposed in 2018 by a group of senators including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, “would hit US and European investors, and bring US relations with Russia to a dangerous line, as with Iran,” he argued. “Only Russia is not Iran.”

The second option, Pushkov argues, would be to “push Ukraine into a new war in the Donbass, with US support.” However, the politician says, Kiev’s starting position in the region is unfavorable and it is hard to see how it could change its fortunes. So, he added, “it is not in the US plans to interfere in hostilities on the side of Ukraine.”

Finally, the only remaining option Biden has to punish Russia would be “building up the armed forces on the borders with Russia and in the Black Sea,” Pushkov claims. But, far from being a departure from his predecessor’s policies, “this is simply a continuation of the US’ previous approach under Trump.”

“For these reasons,” he said, “Biden’s toughness on Russia has so far been largely rhetorical. There will be anti-Russian actions, but their aim will be a prolonged siege of ‘Putin’s Russia’ rather than a set of abrupt and risky steps that could bring the situation to the brink of military conflict.”

Russia has already warned that increased activity by NATO members near its borders could lead to disaster, with the US-led bloc staging a series of exercises and flybys across the frontier. Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defense Alexander Fomin said that, throughout 2020, NATO air and naval presence “has increased significantly, and situations that can lead to serious incidents are increasingly emerging.”

Last week, the Kremlin expressed concern at reports in the New York Times which claimed that the White House was mulling “a series of clandestine actions” aimed at Moscow. The steps, it said, were intended as a response to the SolarWinds hack for which Washington holds Russia responsible. President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters that “the fact that the newspaper doesn’t rule out that the American state could be involved in cybercrime is definitely of great concern to us.”

A Reading Error, or Freudian Slip? - Esper Says NATO Must 'Avoid Peace' in Europe

‘A momentary lapse of honesty?’ US Defense Secretary Esper

says NATO must ‘avoid PEACE in Europe’

FILE PHOTO. © Pool via REUTERS/Greg Nash; REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper seemingly mistook the word ‘peace’ for ‘war’ when he made a gaffe in the middle of a speech on the relocation of American troops in Europe.

Esper was delivering important news to reporters: the Pentagon has laid out a plan to withdraw nearly 12,000 American soldiers from its NATO ally Germany.

The blunder occurred just when Esper was arguing that Germany, as the “wealthiest country in Europe,” can and should boost its defense spending.

I’ve said that very publicly, I’ve said that very privately to my

counterparts as well – about the importance of NATO, any

alliance, sharing the burden so we can all deter Russia and…

avoid peace in Europe.

The awkward phrase spurred jokes on Twitter, with some users calling the slip “a momentary lapse of honesty” and “the NATO slogan 2020.”

The Pentagon is planning to pull out a third of its forces stationed in Germany and relocate a part of them across other NATO countries, including Belgium, Italy and Poland.

So, I have been saying for years now that NATO's Raison d'être disappeared with the iron curtain. They have been looking for an excuse to exist ever since. How many wars have they been complicit in fanning the flames? How many times have they demonized the leaders of Syria and Russia in order to justify their continued presence? How many countries have they pursued in violation of the peace agreement with Gorbechev? How many weapons systems have the USA, UK, and France sold to trembling countries which were never under serious threat? NATO's new purpose is to sell weapons. No doubt Secretary Esper accidentally spoke the truth, inconvenient and accidental, but truth.

===============================================================================================

‘Security Risk & Lawbreaker’: German MP Says 70yo NATO Should Retire

Like I've been saying for a few years now...

German lawmaker Alexander Neu lambasted NATO for conducting aggressive wars and raking up defense spending, suggesting Germany should quit its military command, and the bloc be dissolved altogether.

NATO’s 70th birthday is “not a reason to celebrate, but rather an occasion to finally rethink it, before it’s too late,” Neu wrote in Die Freiheitsliebe blog on Thursday.

The lawmaker from the opposition Left Party slammed the US-led military bloc as an organization that poses “significant security risk to the world” and “systematically violates international law.”

NATO revealed its true colors when it waged an “aggressive war” against Yugoslavia without the UN’s approval, and carried out numerous interventions, which claimed the lives of “countless victims,” Neu argued.

He pointed out that last year NATO’s member states spent more than $1 trillion on defense, which is far more than the defense budgets of its rivals, China and Russia, combined.

And how much do you want to bet that most of it went to the USA?

The imperialist competition and the fear of losing economic

and ideological supremacy drive NATO towards more

rearmament and confrontation.

In order to avoid global escalation, the lawmaker proposed that Germany should leave the alliance’s “military structures,” and then NATO itself should be dissolved and replaced by a new “collective security system,” which would include Russia.

Berlin’s contribution to NATO has caused a rift with Washington in recent years, as President Donald Trump repeatedly accused Germany, along with other EU nations, of not spending its “fair share” on the bloc’s collective security. German officials rebuked the criticism, but admitted the country won’t reach NATO’s spending target until 2024.

Founded in 1949, NATO was primarily seen as a bulwark against the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. The alliance continued its existence after the Soviet Union collapsed, and expanded eastwards, despite vehement protests from Moscow.

And despite promises from western leaders to Gorbachev before Glasnost.

I have been saying for years that NATO begins or threatens wars as a way of justifying its existence and for the purpose of arms sales. They are clearly making the world a more dangerous place with their Russia hysteria policy. NATO is far more evil than Russia will ever be.

NATO's Only Purpose - To Sell Weapons for America

European governments are just beginning to see through the bullying of USA/NATO for the reality that it is - sales tactics for US armaments. Russophobia, or is it Russohysteria, is an integral part of it.

‘NATO solidarity clause is called Article 5, not article F-35’ – French defense minister

(L) Lockheed Martin F-35B © Reuters / US Air Force / Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago; (R) French forces

© Reuters / Guillaume Horcajuelo

Europe must move away from full dependency on American weapon supplies, the French defense minister stressed, slamming President Donald Trump’s “conditional” approach towards NATO and his European allies.

Expressing concern that Trump’s idea of NATO’s solidarity is “conditional on allies buying this or that equipment,” the French Minister of the Armed Forces, Florence Parly, wondered if the US commitment to the military block will continue to be “perennial.”

The alliance should be unconditional, otherwise,

it is not an alliance. NATO’s solidarity clause

is called Article 5, not article F-35.

Despite the White House pushing their allies to buy more American weapons, developing European autonomous capabilities in the military field is crucial to national security and essential to moving away from Washington's dominance, Parly argued, noting the US arms industry currently supplies NATO with 100 percent of its strategic bombers and missile defense systems, 92 percent of its drones, and 91 percent of its air tankers.

US arms industry currently supplies NATO with

100 percent of its strategic bombers and missile defense systems,

92 percent of its drones, and

91 percent of its air tankers.

In January, Germany’s Ministry of Defense officially ruled out purchasing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace its aging Tornado fleet and is currently considering upgrading its air power to a fourth-generation Eurofighter Typhoon. Competing against the Franco-German armaments cooperation is Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet. Unlike the Typhoon, the F-18 is certified to carry US-made nuclear bombs as part of NATO's nuclear sharing agreement.

While stressing that France and other NATO allies will do their “best” to spend two percent of their GDP on defense, Parly also called on the US to respect the “autonomy” of European nations to build up their own defense bloc independent of NATO.

“Building a European autonomy should never be seen as a move against the United States,” Parly told the Atlantic Council, in reference to the idea of a joint European Defense Force as advocated by French President Emmanuel Macron. “We need to step up to help without waiting for the US to always foot the bill.”

Weary of Donald Trump’s NATO diplomacy and use of European security as a bargaining chip, last year French President Emmanuel Macron resurrected a decades-old idea of creating a “real European army” independent from its key partner on the other side of the Atlantic. While Germany voiced support for Macron's proposition to better protect the continent against the perceived Russian threat, Trump found the idea simply “insulting,” reiterating that NATO members must spend two per cent of GDP on their protection.

Russia is no threat to Europe and hasn't been since Glasnost. NATO is entirely obsolete except for the hysteria they have created about Russia. This, and arms sales, is the only reason for NATO's continued existence. They should have been disbanded almost 30 years ago. 

I believe in the past 28 years, NATO has contributed to several wars, revolutions and rumours of wars (ie fear-mongering). They are a danger to peace on earth and a colossal waste of time and money. That's just my humble opinion!

Germany: US ambassador Richard Grenell should be expelled,

says FDP deputy leader

US Ambassador Richard Grenell is acting like "a high commissioner of an occupying power," the deputy leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) has said. Grenell has also drawn rebuffs from Germany's two governing parties.

 US Ambassador Richard Grenell in 2018 (Getty Images/O. Andersen)

Wolfgang Kubicki, the deputy chairman of the opposition Free Democrats (FDP), said Richard Grenell's repeated interference in German sovereignty should prompt Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to immediately declare Grenell persona non grata.

"Any US diplomat who acts like a high commissioner of an occupying power must learn that our tolerance also knows its limits," said Kubicki, who is also one of five deputy speakers of Germany's Bundestag parliament.

Wolfgang Kubicki during a plenary session of the Bundestag (picture-alliance/dpa/B. von Jutrczenka)

Grenell had on Tuesday criticized Germany's military spending plans within NATO as insufficient, prompting Kubicki to accuse the envoy of "interfering" repeatedly in political issues of a sovereign country.

Grenell's criticism of Germany's defense spending came weeks after he demanded that Berlin halt Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline being laid across the Baltic Sea to deliver gas from Russia to Germany, and threatened firms involved in the project with sanctions.

The USA does not want Russia's Nordstream 2 gas pipeline to be completed because they want Europe to buy American gas even though it would be considerably more expensive.

Carsten Schneider, caucus manager of the Social Democrats (SPD) within the parliament, told the German news agency DPA on Tuesday that "Mr Grenell is a complete diplomatic failure."

Grenell's behavior, said Schneider, reminded him of "a flail," a farmyard term for somebody who thrashes around wildly, adding that "Mr Grenell damages trans-Atlantic relations with his repeated clumsy provocations."

Turkey Can't Have Both F-35s and Russian Missile System,

NATO Commander Says

FILE - In this file photo taken Dec. 16, 2015 and provided by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service,

Russian S-400 long-range air defense missile systems are deployed at Hemeimeem air base in Syria.

(Vadim Savitsky/Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP, File)

Military.com | By Richard Sisk

Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti said Tuesday that the U.S. should block sales of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Turkey if it goes ahead with its plan to buy the advanced S-400 anti-air missile system from Russia.

"My best military advice is that we don't follow through" on supplying F-35s to NATO ally Turkey unless it backs out of the S-400 deal with Moscow, said Scaparrotti, who is dual-hatted as head of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Scaparrotti said he has two reasons for objecting to Turkey getting the S-400 system, which Russia has billed as a weapons system to counter the F-35 in its sales pitch to Turkey, Arab states and China.

"If they accept the S-400 to establish it in Turkey, there is first the issue that it's not interoperable with NATO systems, nor is it interoperable inside of our integrated missile defense system," he said.

"The second has to do with the F-35. It presents a problem to all of our aircraft, but specifically the F-35, I believe," Scaparrotti said.

And the real reason is, they want Turkey to buy American made missile defense systems!!!

The dispute over the F-35 sale comes at a time of increasing friction between the U.S. and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan over concerns about the way forward in Syria as the U.S. plans to withdraw troops, as well as Turkey's growing ties with Iran and Russia.

Since 2017, Turkey has been negotiating the estimated $2.5 billion purchase of the mobile S-400 system, dubbed the SA-21 Growler by NATO and called the Triumf system by Russia.

In a two-day visit to Turkey last April, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "A priority task in the sphere of military technical cooperation is the implementation of the contract for supplies of S-400 Triumf missile systems to Turkey."

Then-Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik said that Turkey was turning to Moscow after the U.S. and NATO allies refused help in upgrading its air defenses. "They don't agree to the transfer of technologies in the sphere of air defense systems to us" and "do not make price concessions," he said.

Under previous agreements with the U.S., Turkey also had plans to buy more than 100 F-35As, the conventional takeoff and landing model of the stealth fighter. Turkish pilots are already training on the F-35 at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

"I can confirm we have two Turkish jets [from the proposed sale] here at Luke flying in the 63rd Fighter Squadron and several Turkish pilots in training to fly the F-35," 56th Fighter Wing spokeswoman Maj. Rebecca Heyse said Tuesday. "All our jets at Luke are pooled within the squadrons, so on any day U.S. pilots assigned to the 63rd could be flying Turkish or USAF jets while the Turkish pilots could be flying Turkish or USAF jets."

To counter the Russian S-400 sale, the U.S. State Department in December approved the potential sale to Turkey of the Patriot missile system and related equipment for $3.5 billion.

The U.S. offer, if it were accepted by Turkey and approved by Congress, would include 80 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM-T), 60 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles, and related equipment, the State Department said.

"This is a huge decision for Turkey. I would hope that they reconsider this one decision on S-400," Scaparrotti said under questioning by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, at the hearing.

On Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer and James Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria, were in Ankara for meetings with their Turkish counterparts. Palmer was expected to focus on the S-400 sale and the potential risk that going ahead with the deal would scrap the U.S. agreement to sell F-35s to Turkey, the Hurriyet Daily News reported.

In other words, we don't care if we've signed a contract; you buy our Patriot system or forget the F-35s. Personally, I think they should forget the F-35s. 

Is ‘Deep State’ Trying to Block Corbyn Govt? Labour Leader’s Adviser Fears Top Secret Conspiracy

Of course they are! Deep State cannot afford to have a UK PM who is not onboard with demonizing Russia. It would wreck their plans to sell Europe kazillions of dollars of weapons systems and continue to build their NATO Empire.

Demonizing Russia also gives the USA the moral authority to punish China and India, etc., with sanctions

for buying Russian advanced weapons systems. Never mind competing with Russia;

never mind free enterprise; it's buy from US or else. 

Jeremy Corbyn arrives to address a gathering of supporters demonstrating in Parliament Square. June 27, 2016.

© Toby Melville / Reuters

Jeremy Corbyn’s top adviser has questioned whether the ‘deep state’ is maneuvering to block any possibility of a Labour government under his leadership, because the establishment deplores his approach to foreign policy.

Corbyn adviser Andrew Murray has not, to date, been granted a parliamentary security pass, and asks in an article he’s penned in the centre-left publication, the New Statesman, whether such a move is a “political stunt” committed by the “deep state,” in an attempt to prevent a Corbyn administration ever coming into power.

Murray has questioned whether the Mail on Sunday revelations he’s been refused “Commons security clearance” in addition to being “banned from entering Ukraine,” is all just a “curiously-timed episode.”

The Labour adviser writes: “We are often told that the days of secret state political chicanery are long past and we must hope so. But sometimes you have to wonder – this curiously timed episode seems less rooted in a Kiev security scare than in a political stunt closer to home.”

The former chair of Stop the War and current chief of staff to Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, references the Mail on Sunday, which claims a Ukrainian secret service officer told them Murray’s Ukraine ban is because he’s “part of Putin’s global propaganda network.”

Which means, he doesn't adhere to the NATO/DeepState propaganda network. This is unforgivable!

Murray denies such a claim, suggesting the ban is in retaliation to a speech he “made more than four years ago protesting the takeover of Ukraine by ultra-nationalists.”

That's when the Orange Revolution, with help from western powers, overthrew a legally elected government because they were friendly to Russia. They were replaced with a NATO-friendly un-elected government that was and is hostile to Russia. Western/NATO involvement was in contravention to unwritten agreements between Russian President Gorbachev and NATO powers.

It’s Corbyn’s attitude to foreign affairs that Murray says the “deep state” cannot live with, claiming a prospective Labour government would put an end to acting aggressively on the world stage.

He says: “The powers-that-be can perhaps live with a renationalised water industry but not, it seems, with any challenge to their aggressive capacities, repeatedly deployed in disastrous wars, and their decaying Cold War world view.”

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, has told BBC Radio 4s ‘Today Programme’ that Murray’s “deep state” interference claims are “highly unlikely,” and called  for Corbyn’s adviser to produce the evidence, “otherwise it’s just fake news.”

Watson said: “I genuinely don’t know why he has reached that conclusion and presumably he has more knowledge of that than me.”

Murray signs off his article with an apparent dig at the British intelligence services, stating: “Britain could soon have an anti-war government. Vet that, comrades.”

Corbyn Claims NATO Founded to 'Promote Cold War with Soviet Union' in 2014 Video, is He Right?

I hate it when I agree with someone from the far-left of the political spectrum,

but Corbyn is right on this issue again.

(L) Jeremy Corbyn MP © Elliott Franks/Global Look Press (R) NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

© Yves Herman/Reuters

Labour's Jeremy Corbyn suggests “NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union,” in a 2014 video that has surfaced on social media, prompting fierce debate about the validity of such claims - is he right?

The Labour leader was speaking at an anti-war demonstration in Newport, Wales, when he told protestors: “1948, NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union. That resulted in the formation of the Warsaw Pact.”

 Nuddering

@NudderingNudnik

 Watch Jeremy Corbyn state that:

"NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union."

Corbyn’s claims have unsurprisingly divided opinion on social media with some suggesting he completely misunderstands or is deliberately lying about the formation of NATO. Others have defended the Labour leader’s position, claiming “He’s right though. NATO should have been disbanded after the Cold War.”

Steve Smith

@torrenttweet99

Replying to @walking_fox and 2 others

No. Shocking to hear his complete misunderstanding or deliberate lies on the subject. 

Do you really think that less than 10 years after the world's bloodiest conflict, ending in the use of the A-bomb that the Western world would be keen to start another one?

Steve - A cold war is very different from a hot one! A cold war requires hundreds of billions of dollars spent on arms without any intent of ever using them. That was the whole point. Global industrialists made a killing during the two World Wars and, in NATO, found a way to continue to make a killing without actually killing anyone.

Xan Phillips

@XanPhillips

Replying to @NudderingNudnik

Thanks for that. Far better to hear the whole spech. He's right though. NATO should have been disbanded after the cold war. As usual too many vested interests. Look at May in Nigeria. Selling arms. Take arms sales out of GDP would be a start.

Ronan Burtenshaw ✔

@ronanburtenshaw

 Unlike galaxy brain @JeremyCliffe, who is smart enough to know NATO's only historical role was spreading democracy and human rights.

        Jeremy Cliffe ✔

        @JeremyCliffe

        He's... he's really quite thick isn't he?

        https://twitter.com/nudderingnudnik/status/1034494951822946310 …

Max Blumenthal, RT contributor and senior editor at the Grayzone Project, backed up Corbyn, tweeting: “Corbyn’s neocon opponents are spreading footage of him making indisputably factual statements to impugn him.”

Max Blumenthal✔

@MaxBlumenthal

 Corbyn’s neocon opponents are spreading footage of him making indisputably factual statements to impugn him. That someone in UK has had the courage to publicly proclaim inconvenient truths like this one only deepens my respect.

In the unedited version of Corbyn’s speech available on Youtube, the now Labour-leader explains that the creation of NATO, and the subsequent founding of the ‘Warsaw Pact’ in 1955, has meant “60 years of a ludicrous arms race which cost us all billions of pounds and dollars and damaged the civil liberties of people all over the world."

NATO, which stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established after the Second World War in 1949 with 12 founding members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. There are currently 29 members.

NATO’s website states, “Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.”

It’s this “countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union,” which divides opinion on NATO. Does “countering” solely take on a defensive interpretation or does it in practice equate to aggressive posturing?

Brian Johnson

@Saggydaddy

 Corbyn: "NATO was founded to promote conflict with the Soviet Union"

Press: "How dare he the thicko. That's outrageous. Sack him"

NATO: "Err.....we don't mean to point out the obvious but....."

Press: "Sshh you, with your facts. We're journalists we don't need facts" #Corbyn

Lord Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, stated in 1949 that the organization's objective was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” A philosophy seemingly intact to this day, at least with regards to Russians and Americans.

NATO has continued operating even after the end of the Cold War in 1990 when it could have been the perfect time for the alliance to “shut up shop, give up, go home and go away,” as Corbyn suggested. Instead, they have expanded member nations east of Germany and along Russia’s border, and made questionable forays into wars in Afghanistan and Libya, further exacerbating tensions.

Precisely what I have been saying for a few years now - NATO is obsolete and should be abandoned!

Lest you be confused, I am not a Jeremy Corbyn fan; his antisemitism scares me. There is enough antisemitism in the UK without having a government that is such. Mind you, I fully expect that will be the case, and I expect the next, or possibly the second next government in the USA will also be antisemitic. Then the fun will really start! 

Astonishing Article About EU & US Establishment Worried Trump Will Make Peace With Russia

If you have ever suspected that Deep State and NATO were closely linked, if not one and the same, this article should confirm your suspicions. NATO has been obsolete since 1990 and has been wondering around looking for a raison d'etat. 

In the 21st century they have been aggressively provoking Russia by abandoning their verbal agreement to not recruit neighbouring countries into NATO. They accuse Russia of aggression and it is NATO who is the aggressor. Should the USA make peace with Russia, it will once again underline the obvious view that NATO is obsolete.

EU countries should be happy that they may have to spend much less on NATO, but they are not. It is in the nature of Deep State to spend as much as possible on arms; that is their purpose. 

The UK needs NATO to continue the fantasy that Russia is a threat to all Europe and so the EU and the UK need each other. It is Theresa May's pathetic attempt to lessen the impact of Brexit.

German officials join UK and US establishment worried how Trump-Putin summit will affect NATO

© Carlos Barria / Reuters

German politicians are nervous over the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, fearing the US president could take actions that are not in line with NATO, echoing concerns across the channel and the Atlantic.

Ahead of the meeting on July 16 in Helsinki, several German officials expressed their worry in interviews with newspapers throughout the country. The transatlantic coordinator for Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition, Peter Beyer, told the Funke Mediengruppe newspapers that "there are great concerns in the alliance about what agreements Trump and Putin could reach" during the summit, and he lamented that NATO member states had not been included in the planning.

He said that Trump would let Putin "put one over on him" during the meeting in Helsinki, using the US president's recent meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as justification for his rather frank comment.

"Kim has only made promises thus far. We don't know if he has stopped enriching uranium. Only Trump has billed the summit as such as a success," said Beyer, a member of Merkel's Christian Democrats Union (CDU). 

Beyer isn't alone when it comes to concerns surrounding the meeting and the apparent belief that the two leaders can't simply meet in the same way that other world leaders meet every day - and the same way German Chancellor Angela Merkel has met with both Trump and Putin on numerous occasions.

Christian Lindner, the head of Germany's Free Democrats, told Deutschlandfunk in an interview that he did not trust Trump, and that his actions in the areas of trade and security were not in Washington's long-term interest.

"He is too volatile...within 24 hours, Mr. Trump can change his position by 180 degrees," Christian Lindner, the head of the Free Democrats, told Deutschlandfunk. He called for Europe, as the world's largest single economic zone, to take a united stance and act as a counterweight to Trump and Putin. The EU is currently in loggerheads with the US over tariffs on aluminum, steel and other goods.

And then there's Wolfgang Ischinger, the head of the Munich Security Conference and a former German envoy to Washington, who expressed concern that Trump might refuse to sign a communique at next week's NATO summit in Brussels. "It cannot be ruled out," he told Die Welt in a clear reference to Trump refusing to sign the document from G7 meeting in June.

Amid all this scaremongering, Merkel herself said in a Saturday video address that Germany "would like to have reasonable relations with Russia. That is why we will always have discussions in the NATO-Russia Council." She expressed her support for NATO in the next breath, saying it is needed in the 21st century "as a guarantor of our transatlantic alliance," and stating that it "must show determination to defend itself."

The comments come as Trump continues to pressure NATO states to pay their fair share towards the alliance, as Washington currently accounts for more than two-thirds of all defense spending by NATO members. It is one of only six countries to meet the two percent GDP quota.

A page out of Britain's book

The comments by German officials come less than two weeks after The Times reported that the UK also fears that Trump will undermine NATO by striking a "peace deal" with Putin during the meeting. 

OMG no!, Not a peace deal! How could he? What a maniac!

It cited cabinet ministers who are worried that the Russian president could persuade Trump to downgrade US military commitments in Europe, thus compromising NATO countries' defense against so-called "Russian aggression."

Alexander Bartosh, a military expert and former Russian diplomat, told RT that such concerns would come as no surprise, as the UK "has been one of the most active supporters of a hard line towards Russia." He added that the UK feels "a certain loss of its weight in Europe and tries to turn Russian into a kind of boogeyman, seeing the 'Russian threat' as a unifying factor for nations, looking for closer ties with London."

Bartosh also noted that the meeting between the two leaders will merely include trying to find a "unifying agenda for the US and Russia because the relations of the two countries affect not only their own wellbeing, but international security as a whole...none of the sides will be aiming to undermine the integrity of NATO."

They will certainly not be seen to undermine NATO, but it will happen as a consequence of any firm deal which Russia agrees to that prevents them from invading any EU country. And it won't be very long after that that Trump cuts the NATO budget.

Trouble on the homefront

It's not just Europe that fears what could happen in the meeting between Trump and Putin. Even former CIA director John Brennan told MSNBC last week that Trump "is not sophisticated enough" to deal with Moscow.

"I must tell you the Russians will feign sincerity better than anyone I've ever dealt with in my life. So I would be very careful about being swept in and I think Mr. Trump is not sophisticated enough, unfortunately, to deal with these foreign leaders in a manner that is going to protect US national security interests. I think he's naive in these issues," he said.

In fact, many within the US establishment dread the possibility of the summit succeeding, political analyst and media and government affairs specialist Jim Jatras wrote in an op-ed for RT. 

Jatras noted that Trump's desire to actually get along with Russia sounded alarms long before he won the 2016 election. "US reconciliation with Russia would yank the rug out from under the phony justifications for spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to counter a 'threat' that ceased to exist over a quarter century ago," he wrote.

Exactly!

Journalist Neil Clark voiced a similar point in his own op-ed for RT, stating that a successful summit simply won't do, because Russia "must always be regarded as the enemy - unless of course it does absolutely everything the West demands of it." And while he noted that positive moves between Moscow and Washington would be celebrated by ordinary folks, he stated that defense industry lobbyists (read, Deep State) wouldn't be nearly as enthused. 

Peace is not profitable for the war industry!