Showing posts with label abolish NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abolish NATO. Show all posts

24 March 2011

the orwellian spin cycle

[click image]

.

Are we clean yet?
Whether or not you believe that occult elements are at play in this latest round of imperial slaughter and mayhem, what is obvious to all but the most duped and apathetic is that once again we have another war launched by the imperialist powers thinly veiled as a “humanitarian intervention”, dressed up as a mission of peace driven by the use of heavy bombardment and murder, where the truth lies diametrically opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the mainstream media. Nothing is what it seems; the lies and deceptions are as Orwellian as ever. The similarities with Iraq go well beyond the date of the opening salvo — indeed, there are many consistencies between the current attack on Libya and numerous other military interventions and acts of aggression carried out by the US, NATO and their allies in recent years.
I'm dizzy.

.
love, 99
.

23 March 2011

this'll end up being wednesday's libya post

[click image]

.

But right at this instant I'm savoring the dream of NATO disintegrated. Earlier I saw where Turkey was digging in its heels and now I see that Germany has made their position 100% perfectly crystal clear. Goody!

I know, I know, that's going to leave it all—surprise !!!—in our laps... er, our military industrial space lizards' laps, but let me have these few moments of fantasy, will you?

.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

.
love, 99
.

16 January 2011

making dubya look even dumber

[click image]

.

Genghis Ponzi Yoo continues to conduct the Bush Administration STARTLINGLY better than ever before.

.
love, 99
.

15 January 2011

guess we're out begging for more help again

[click image]

.

Filthy space lizards....

.
love, 99
.

01 December 2010

oh, man

[click image]

.

HERE'S THE AUDIO....

.

Now I'm desperate to see it.
Russia's Putin warns West over missile defense: report
By Steve Gutterman Steve Gutterman – Wed Dec 1, 8:38 am ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) — Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told CNN television that Russia would deploy nuclear weapons and "strike forces" if it were shut out of a Western missile shield, adding punch to a warning from President Dmitry Medvedev.

In an interview with Larry King taped on Tuesday, Putin also said the WikiLeaks scandal was "no catastrophe" and told the United States not to meddle with Russian elections.

Putin said missile threats against Europe must be tackled jointly — a reference to an agreement reached at a November 20 Russia-NATO summit to cooperate on missile defense. Plans are sketchy and Russia has warned it wants an equal role.

If Russia's proposals are rejected and Western missile defense installations create "additional threats" near its borders, "Russia will have to ensure its own security," he said.

Russia would "put in place new strike forces ... against the new threats which will have been created along our borders," he said, according to a translation in an excerpt on CNN's website. "New missile, nuclear technologies will be put in place."

Putin said Russia was not threatening the West, but the remarks underscored the Kremlin's insistence on maintaining a significant role in a missile defense system and suggested improving ties could sour again if agreement is not reached.

In his state of the nation address on Tuesday, Medvedev warned that a new arms race would erupt if U.S. and NATO offers of cooperation on missile defense failed to produce a concrete agreement within a decade.

"That's not our choice, we don't want that to happen. This is no threat on our part," Putin said. "We've been simply saying that this is what all of us expect to happen if we don't agree on a joint effort there."

U.S. plans for a missile shield have been a major irritant in its ties with Moscow since the Cold War. Now both Russia and the West are casting missile defense cooperation as a crucial ingredient in recipes to bring the former foes closer.

As part of a campaign to 'reset' strained relations with Moscow, President Barack Obama last year scrapped Bush-era plans for a radar and interceptor missiles in eastern Europe that Russia said would be a major threat to its security.


POWERFUL PUTIN

Russia has been far more accepting of Obama's revised blueprint, which involves shorter-range interceptors. But Putin suggested Russia would feel threatened if the United States pushes ahead without significant Russian input.

The Kremlin warnings come amid uncertainty over U.S. Senate ratification of New START, a strategic nuclear arms limitation treaty signed by Obama and Medvedev in April and seen as the linchpin of improving relations.

Russia emphasizes it could withdraw from New START if a U.S. missile shield develops into a threat to its security.

Putin's interview was conducted shortly after Medvedev delivered his biggest annual address in the Kremlin, timing that seemed to emphasize that the former president has a strong hand on Russia's reins despite now holding Russia's No. 2 office.

"I think he is underscoring for the West that he remains one of Russia's two leaders — that he maintains serious reserves of power and would like to continue to take part in determining foreign policy," analyst Alexei Makarkin told Ekho Moskvy radio.

U.S. diplomatic cables revealed by the website WikiLeaks describe Putin as Russia's "alpha-dog" ruler and Medvedev as a sidekick-like "Robin to Putin's Batman."

In an excerpt from the interview, Putin said the WikiLeaks scandal was "no catastrophe" and that some experts believe it could have been engineered for "political purposes."

Putin steered Medvedev into the Kremlin in 2008 and has suggested he may return in a 2012 vote. He said he and Medvedev would make a "concerted decision" about who would run, CNN said.

Responding to a leaked cable citing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates as portraying Russia as undemocratic, Putin said Gates was "deeply misled," CNN reported.

He said that when Russia raised shortcomings in U.S. democracy, it was told not to interfere. "I would also like to advise you, don't interfere either (with) the sovereign choice of the Russian people," CNN quoted him as saying.
Somebody's just got to get that Larry King interview on tape for me.

.

HUNNERTS OF WIKILEAKS MIRRORS....

.
love, 99
.

19 November 2010

maybe i'm being too cryptic

[click image]

.

I am up past my eyeballs with 'the world' and I try to go off and pay attention to my doctoral degree in Out There, my bodhisattva gig where I find out what people think and how they think and get enough understanding to be able to speak their lingo, and suddenly all that's coming up in my little universe of Out There specialists is THE most unbelievable crap. Some exploitative old witch in Missouri and some UTTER charlatan whose name is known in bliss ninny circles and I'm ready to start batting buildings into the sky in the best tradition of Popeye AFTER his spinach. We are doomed if these people are the ones we must rely on. The ninny exploiters AND the humanity exploiters.
Nato reaches missile shield deal
Alliance agrees to expand Europe-based defence system, but bows to Turkish concerns over naming Iran as a threat.
Last Modified: 20 Nov 2010 | 04:11 GMT

Nato leaders have approved plans to expand a European missile defence system that would protect all of the military alliance's member nations including the US.

Barack Obama, the US president, announced the agreement on Friday at the end of the first day of a summit of leaders from the 28-member grouping in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital.

The system would add security to the US's own system based in North America.

"For the first time, we've agreed to develop a missile defence capability that is strong enough to cover all Nato European territory and populations as well as the United States," Obama said.

He said that the shield "offers a role for all of our allies, it responds to the threats of our times. It shows our determination to protect our citizens from the threat of ballistic missiles".

"An attack on one Nato member is an attack on all,'' he said.

However, officials were careful not to suggest where the ballistic missile threat could come from after Nato-member Turkey raised objections to a system specifically designed to stop attacks from Iran.

Turkey's concerns

"We are categorically opposed to have a country named [as a threat] and our request appears to have been accepted," Abdullah Gul, the Turkish president, told reporters before leaving Ankara, the Turkish capital, to attend the summit.

"Turkey cannot join a project that is aimed at a specific country," he said, stressing that Nato was a defensive alliance aimed at defending its members against any ballistic threat and is not an organisation designed "to intimidate and threaten".

"The project must cover all [Nato] members without exception ... It will not be aimed at Iran, we said it," he said.

Diplomats at the summit said there had been intense debate in the run-up to the summit about whether Iran should be targeted as a specific threat in the public document they adopt.

The US had asked Turkey, a Nato-member, to host some of the radar defences and to approve the proposal.

Turkey is mindful of its delicate position with neighbouring Iran and said it would refuse to sign a Nato document that names Iran as the threat in the final declaration.

"Turkey does not want to be the military front for Nato, it wants to be the diplomatic face of Nato in the Arab and Muslim world," Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, said.

"But any state that would dare launch a missile against Europe would be obliterated the day after - so who would be so suicidal as to launch a missile against Europe?"

Nato compromise

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Istanbul, said: "The compromise that Nato seems to have arrived at, even ahead of this meeting, is that no countries will be cited and the stress will be on this being a defensive system and not an offensive one.

"[Turkey has] worked extremely hard in this region to deal with the perception of threat among its neighbours, to de-escalate the sense of jeopardy and danger and defensiveness and offensiveness ... that has caused so many problems."

McNaught said that Turkey also wanted to make sure that the system would in no way be used to protect Israel from attack.

"It [Turkey] wants to be clear that this system is for the defence of territories from Turkey's eastern border, westward. It wants to be sure this is not a 'proxy' defence system for Israel." she said.

"It does not want any of the intelligence gathered through this system to be shared with Israel."

'Urgent need'

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato's secretary general, said that there was an urgent need for the new missile defence system.

"The fact is that more than 30 countries in the world have or are acquiring missile technologies, some of them can even hit targets in the Euro-Atlantic area. And we intend to build a missile defence system to defend against any of these threats."

The expanded system is expected to cost $273 million over the next 10 years, Rasmussen said.

Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, who will attend the summit on Saturday has previously fought against the missile shield, saying it was a threat to his country's own nuclear deterrence.

But Nato on Friday decided to invite Russia to join the defence shield, extending its protection across Russian territory.
I'd started out the day just about ready to record a rant, a dharma rant and upload it somewhere I could link you to, just so you could hear the intensity of this, but, no, I gotta save that for when I'm perfectly equanimous or it's worse than not going to help.

So I'm spitting music at you assholes instead.

THESE ASSHOLES ARE NOT FIT TO LEAD. STOP THEM.

.

OR here's five hours of space lizard guys talking about NASA, the moon, mars, space aliens if you feel like having yourself a nice long pickle in the brine this weekend.

.

OR be a little more modest and only blow two and a half hours on Hoagland's Johnson-killed-Kennedy gig... via the torsion field physics gonna bounce us off the surface of the planet... and he gets to it eventually. He's such a braggart, name-dropper confabulator that I have gotten to know exactly what I can skip, move the bar on the video player exactly as far as it takes till he's saying something again, but maybe people need all that blather to hear what he trots out for us.

.
love, 99
.

17 October 2010

13 October 2010

oh, of course

[click image]

.

No. Really. This is perfect. They're so far down the propaganda rabbit hole, black ops addled, plausible deniability bouncing off their office walls, nobody knows what to say anymore... and, seriously now, why should they even care? The more this stuff just floats on past us the more assured of their success they become. That means they stop being quite so careful to be incremental about it.

Each day brings further proof of our complete docility.

I know what yer thinkin' and I ain't gonna go through the whole litany every fiery leftist and then on down through even the tepidly lefter righties who pass for "progressives" to those fringe rightists with that curious penchant for big long blasts of truth. It's useless. You treat it all like television. You have been turned into a spectator. It's not real. When you try to remind yourself that it is real it's just upsetting, not gonna get you up from behind your desk and out the door no matter what epithets your boss is screaming in your wake. Nope. No matter how hard you try, it can't be that real.

This is one area where I really do think we are exceptional. I don't think there's another population on earth that remains this placid in the face of this much. Millions of people are in the streets in France because of the pensions issue. Greece keeps rioting. Iceland has scared the living snot out of every one of its officials. Everywhere. EVEN the completely squished Burmese and Tibetans have stood up, but not us, not us, man. That's for lesser mortals.

.

So exasperated, I think I'll just kick back with a movie....

.

And another.

.

Practice... don't think I can get the hang of it....

.
love, 99
.

03 October 2010

why don't humans laugh NATO off the face of the earth?

[click image]

.

I do NOT understand it. Why do so few question the patent absurdity of the maintenance of this organization? WHAT function does it serve? It broadens the base of slaughters for fascists. Forget what they told you its function was, it CLEARLY isn't that anymore.

.
love, 99
.

07 March 2010

time for a parenti fix — now that the link is fixed

[click image, video, hour and twenty minutes]

LINK IS FIXED. MOVED UP AGAIN SO YOU CAN CATCH IT. I'M SORRY. I COULD HAVE SWORN I CHECKED THE LINK. BUT YOU ARE STILL AN ASSHOLE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THIS LECTURE AND BE REMINDED OF HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE.

XOXOXOX
.
I do sometimes have to hear it... loud....

If you think I'm being hysterical about the drumbeating against Iran, a good listen here might help tune you up.

In fact, yer an asshole if you don't take the time to listen to this again.

He was saying all this in 1999... BEFORE Dubya and Fudd. We only woke up because they were so clumsy and arrogant and... honest... but way too many of us are going back to sleep.
.

24 February 2010

president of nothing

[click image for the song that started playing in my head as I was reading this article]

.
The U.S. anti-missile project in Romania: New administration, same old policy
by Vladimir Yevseyev | 24 February 2010
Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences


This month Romania has been a source of unpleasant news for Moscow. President Traian Basescu agreed to host ground-based medium-range missile interceptors on Romanian territory as part of the U.S. missile defense project. The plans call for the ground-based version of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (Aegis BMD) with SM-3 missiles to be deployed in Romania by 2015.

This system cannot be said to threaten Russia's security interests since Russia has no ground-based medium-range (1,000km-5,500km) or short-range (500km-1,000km) ballistic and cruise missiles. These missiles were all scrapped by June 1991 under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States. However, Moscow has expressed concern over this issue based on the following grounds.

First, Washington appears to have abandoned its policy of resetting U.S.-Russian relations and has presented Moscow with a fait accompli instead. U.S. actions contradict the joint statements made by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 1 and July 6, 2009 regarding the need for equitable international cooperation on anti-missile defense. The latter agreement proposed a joint effort to analyse possible missile threats and develop relevant recommendations, primarily for politicians and diplomats. In addition, Moscow and Washington agreed to speed up work to establish the Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC) whose members could notify each other of missile launches. Instead, the current U.S. administration has chosen the path taken by their Republican predecessors, who sought to deploy forward-based missile defense systems at any price. Consequently, Moscow now doubts Washington's willingness to establish a true partnership.

Second, Washington has not provided any information about the number of missile interceptors to be deployed, deployment locations, interception altitudes and missile targeting methods. The lack of information makes it very difficult to speak about the actual contours of the future system. However, it is reasonable to assume that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar system will be deployed in Romania instead of the SM-3 missile system, which hasn't been created yet. This system includes a radar station with a direction range of 1,000 kilometers, which could be deployed in Bulgaria, for example, as well as anti-ballistic missiles that can intercept targets within a radius of 200 kilometers at an altitude of 100-150 kilometers.

Third, the U.S. plans to deploy mobile batteries with SM-3 missiles in Poland by 2018. However, the soundness of this decision is questionable, given that the THAAD system is incapable of intercepting the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which is essential to protect the U.S. against an extremely unlikely but possible Iranian missile attack. If the deployment of THAAD batteries to Romania is to be justified by invoking European security threats in the face of the deteriorating Iranian nuclear crisis, it must be noted that similar batteries in Poland will not be able to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, only Russian missiles. It's hard to conceive of a situation in which such protection would be needed.

One can view the decision of the Polish Defense Ministry to host U.S. Patriot missile air defense systems in the town of Morag near the Russian border in the same light. Initial plans called for modified PAC-2 and PAC-3 guidance systems to be located outside of Warsaw, which would have allowed the Patriot systems to address missile defense tasks effectively. Given the lack of critical facilities in the vicinity, the current position of the Patriot battery renders it essentially useless as a means of missile defense, which confirms that Warsaw's foreign policy is directed against Russia and that Washington backs this policy.

Fourth, one has to admit that deploying elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Romania will neither pose a threat to Russia nor change the strategic balance between Moscow and Washington. However, the U.S. plans to deploy more powerful anti-ballistic missiles in Europe by 2018-2020. These will probably be silo-based missiles, for example upgraded SM-3 missiles with high runway speeds and interception altitudes exceeding 1,000 kilometers, making it possible to destroy not only ICBM warheads but also ballistic missiles launched by Russia. In the latter case, interception will have to occur automatically since the launch phase of the Russian solid-fuel ICBM Topol-M missile lasts only two minutes, which lowers the application threshold of nuclear weapons considerably.

Unfortunately, the decisions of the Obama administration do not leave room for the participation of Russia and its closest allies in the creation of a European security system, which ultimately weakens security and betrays an anti-Russian orientation. It would be far wiser to build a common Euro-Atlantic security system by moving forward on the anti-missile defense project jointly with Russia, rather than push Moscow to the European periphery.
.

Heh. Evidentally, Sirota feels the same way about Cinderella not being in charge....
.
Russia threatens to react to NATO expansion
25 February 2010

MOSCOW, Feb. 24 (Xinhua) — Russia will have to respond as it is concerned by NATO's active eastward expansion and the U.S. plans to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Europe, Russia's top military officer said on Wednesday.

"If we say that we should tackle possible threats together, we should respect each other and trust each other instead of strengthening military blocs near the Russian border," Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the General Staff of Russia's armed forces, said on the Russia Today TV channel.

"This means we have to take appropriate measures in response," Makarov said.

As for Poland's repeated call for demilitarization of Russia's western region, Makarov said no nuclear weapons had been deployed in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

"Last year we withdrew more than 600 tanks, about 600 armored vehicles and about 600 pieces of artillery from the Kaliningrad region. In return we're getting a buildup of the missile defense system. Double standards alarm us," he said.

The general said the missile shield was designed to defend illusory air strikes from Russia. "There are concerns that this missile defense system is directed against Russia."

A new Russian military doctrine approved by President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this month defines NATO enlargement and the deployment of missile defense systems as main external threats of war Russia is facing.
.

20 February 2010

abolish war

[click image]

.
Abolish weapons.
.

04 February 2010

fit to be tied

[click image]

.
I'm sick of griping about Obama, way past sick of it, and am still gobsmacked to find so many people still bending so far over backwards they could bite their own asses in some despicable Us vs. Them effort to call Obama's criminality anything else but the same shit we were screaming bloody murder about during the Bush Administration. The problem with the regular use of colorful speech is that it ceases being colorful, ceases making the intended, the needed, impression. There is no way to speak people into glimpsing and adopting the correct mental posture to see things as they are—extremely haphazard successes there and only fleeting at that—and still less is there a way to keep them all from heading directly to their most secure mental retreat in response to finally, ever, catching that glimpse.

My miniscule bodily retreat, here, called a "cabin" at a lakeside resort, while spending as much time as I can with my swiftly declining father, just about blew to powder when I saw this piece a few minutes ago, mental retreats being even less acceptable to me than buildings bursting into their constituent atoms.
Romania 'to host US missile shield'
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2010

Romania has backed a US plan that would see interceptor missiles deployed in the country as part of a missile shield to protect Europe, its president has said.

Traian Basescu said on Thursday that the country's top defence body had agreed to be part of a system against "potential attacks with ballistic missiles or medium-range rockets".

The US military facilities, which would become operational by 2015, still require parliamentary approval before they can go ahead.

Basescu sought to assure Russia, which had previously condemned plans for a missile shield, that the proposed move was not a threat.

"The new system is not against Russia. I want to categorically stress this, Romania [will] not host a system against Russia, but against other threats," he said.


Russian reaction

Russia is adamant that nuclear arms should be deployed only in the territory of the states possessing such weapons.

US tactical nuclear arms should be withdrawn from Europe, Andrei Nesterenko, the Russian foreign ministry spokesman, said on Thursday.

"Issues of further nuclear disarmament, including tactical nuclear arms, should not be addressed as such, but only in close relation with other types of weapons, including conventional armed forces in Europe and the ballistic missile defence systems.

"In this context, withdrawal of American tactical weapons from Europe back to the United States would be welcome. It should be accompanied by complete and irreversible demolition of the entire infrastructures supporting the deployment of such weapons in Europe," he said.

The announcement of a planned missile defence in Romania comes months after Washington shelved a plan to place missile defence facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland - a move welcomed by Moscow.


Romania 'well-suited'

Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst, said Russia had feared that missiles placed in Poland could be used to attack Moscow with nuclear warheads.

"That was a bit far-fetched but that was believed in Moscow, he told Al Jazeera from the Russian capital.

"The missiles that apparently will, maybe, some day, be put into Romania will be smaller missiles and Romania is further from Moscow than Poland is.

"Russia's official position is that only that missile defence is good which is missile defence together with Russia, a joint control.

"But at least this will be seen as not as dangerous, most likely, as one with Poland, so I don't think that right now there will be that much fuss about it."

The US embassy in Bucharest said that Washington had "determined that Romania is well-suited for the location of this system to provide protection for European Nato allies".


'Iranian threat'

A plan unveiled last September by Barack Obama, the US president, includes land-and sea-based missile systems in and around the Gulf to defend against what it says is a growing Iranian missile threat.

The US offer was brought to Bucharest by Ellen Taucher, under-secretary of state for arms control who leads a team of American experts in Romania, Basescu said.

Teodor Baconschi, Romania's foreign minister, said the plan was first presented to Basescu during a visit by Joe Biden, the US vice-president, to Bucharest in October but was not made public.

"This became official today," Baconschi said.

In past years, Romania's parliament has solidly backed participation in US and Nato-led military ventures, including Romanian troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Add that to the dithering on the START treaty and his outrageous budget for developing new nukes and it has now become perfectly crystal clear that, here, in the one area where there was still a shred of hope Obama wouldn't opt to just get engraved in titanium what Bush left dangling, Obama means to continue threatening Russia. Obama has absolutely no intention of making this a safer, better world. He means to prevail in making it utterly unsafe and bad for living things.

There isn't ANY doubt about this.

What would happen if the American public could get this straight? See it, as in see it and not retreat from the horror, to finally get and keep it straight in their heads... what would that look like? What would happen?
.

20 January 2010

russian news is definitely more informative than ours

[click image]

.
Iran Six weighs new sanctions against Tehran over dialogue

Iran Six mediators are discussing the transition from talks to new sanctions in response to Iran's refusal to fold its controversial nuclear program, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Wednesday.

Iran, which is already under three sets of United Nations sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, recently announced plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities. Western powers suspect it of pursuing an atomic weapons program.

"At present, we are considering the possibility of a transition from dialogue to sanctions because we have always had two parallel ways [to solve this problem]," U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle said in an interview with Echo Moskvy radio.

"The hope is always there that Iran could finally respond positively on IAEA proposals, but if not, we have to be prepared for something more serious [than talks]," Beryrle said.

The U.S. diplomat also praised the changes in the Russian stance on the Iranian nuclear problem, which have recently moved Moscow closer to Washington's assessment of the potential Iranian threat.

"Tactically, I would say we are closer than ever before," he said, adding that neither Russia nor the United States wanted to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The Iran Six are Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France and Germany.

The mediators have long been trying to persuade Tehran to halt uranium enrichment not only through sanctions but also in exchange for economic and diplomatic incentives.

Iran Six envoys last met in New York on January 16 but decided against immediate sanctions against Tehran in the hope to find new political and diplomatic solutions to the problem.

Although Russia is seen as having moved closer to the U.S. position, China is still viewed as stalling on any move toward further sanctions.


MOSCOW, January 20 (RIA Novosti)
.
Poland to move U.S. Patriots closer to Russian border

U.S. Patriot missiles will be stationed in northern Poland about 60 miles (100 km) from the border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad rather than near Warsaw, the Polish defense minister said on Wednesday.

Polish Radio cited Bogdan Klich as saying the decision to set up a Patriot site in the outskirts of the town of Morag, which is much closer to the Russian border than Warsaw, does not bear any considerations of a strategic nature.

"In Morag we could offer the best conditions for American soldiers and the best technical base for the equipment," Klich said.

Poland and the United States signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) last December laying out the conditions for the deployment of U.S. troops on Polish soil.

According to the SOFA, U.S. troops will service Patriot missiles that are to be integrated into Poland's national security system.

The Patriot unit will be manned by some 100 U.S. soldiers, and will comprise up to eight missile launchers.

The first U.S. troop rotation is expected to arrive in Poland by the end of March.

Russia has strongly opposed the previous U.S. administration's plans to place 10 long-range ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a fixed-site radar station in the Czech Republic. When agreeing to host the missile site, Warsaw demanded the Patriots' deployment to improve its defensive capabilities.

Moscow's opposition to the missile defense system went as far as a threat to deploy Iskander-M tactical ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave, but last September U.S. President Barack Obama shelved the proposed Central European missile shield and Russia said it would not place its missiles near the Polish border.

However, Warsaw has insisted that the Patriot systems be placed in Poland under a bilateral security pact regardless of whether plans for a U.S. interceptor missile base in the country go ahead or not.

Russia has not yet commented on the Polish decision to move the location of the Patriot site closer to its borders.

Patriot (MIM-104) is a theater air-defense system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

As well as the U.S., the Patriot is in service in Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. Patriot missile systems were successfully deployed by U.S. forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.


WARSAW, January 20 (RIA Novosti)
.
Poland says basing Patriot missiles nearer Russia not political

Poland's decision to deploy a battery of U.S. Patriot missiles just 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the Russian border is neither political nor strategic, the Polish defense minister said Wednesday.

Bogdan Klich stressed that the base's proximity to Russia's exclave of Kaliningrad had nothing to do with the decision to station the missiles near the town of Morag rather than outside Warsaw.

"It did not have any significance — neither political nor strategic. The only reason was the good infrastructure," Klich told journalists on Wednesday evening.

Polish media reported earlier Wednesday that Defense Ministry experts came to the conclusion that Morag was the best place for the deployment of the Patriot missiles.

"In Morag we could offer the best conditions for American soldiers and the best technical base for the equipment," Klich said on Polish Radio.

Poland and the United States signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) last December laying out the conditions for the deployment of U.S. troops on Polish soil.

According to the SOFA, U.S. troops will service Patriot missiles that are to be integrated into Poland's national security system.

The Patriot unit will be manned by some 100 U.S. soldiers, and will comprise up to eight missile launchers.

The first U.S. troop rotation is expected to arrive in Poland by the end of March.

Russia has strongly opposed the previous U.S. administration's plans to place 10 long-range ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a fixed-site radar station in the Czech Republic. When agreeing to host the missile site, Warsaw demanded the Patriots' deployment to improve its defensive capabilities.

Moscow's opposition to the missile defense system went as far as a threat to deploy Iskander-M tactical ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave, but last September U.S. President Barack Obama shelved the proposed Central European missile shield and Russia said it would not place its missiles near the Polish border.

However, Warsaw has insisted that the Patriot systems be placed in Poland under a bilateral security pact regardless of whether plans for a U.S. interceptor missile base in the country go ahead or not.

Russia has not yet commented on the Polish decision to move the location of the Patriot site closer to its borders.

Patriot (MIM-104) is a theater air-defense system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

As well as the U.S., the Patriot is in service in Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. Patriot missile systems were successfully deployed by U.S. forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.


WARSAW, January 21 (RIA Novosti)
.
Yanukovych rejects debate, says Tymoshenko can show off in kitchen

Ukrainian presidential frontrunner Viktor Yanukovych refused on Wednesday to hold debates with his opponent, saying Yulia Tymoshenko should either take responsibility for every word as prime minister, or go to the kitchen.

"She sees that she has already lost the election and is suggesting I should enter a competition on dirt and lies with her," the leader of the opposition Party of Regions said, quoted by the Unian news agency.

"She is prime minister and must be responsible for her every word. And if she is to be treated as a woman, let her demonstrate her whims in the kitchen," Yanukovych said.

Yanukovych said he has held debates with Tymoshenko for the past five years, and voters showed their preferences in the election's first round on Sunday.

Yanukovych, defeated in the 2004 polls amid vote rigging accusations, garnered 35.3% of the vote on Sunday, while Tymoshenko received 25%. The February 7 runoff is required as none of the candidates won an outright victory with more than 50%.

Tymoshenko criticized Yanukovych for his refusal to take part in televised debates ahead of the initial vote, calling it "common cowardice" and casting doubt on his mental abilities and capability to run the country.

Both Yanukovych, who was openly backed by Moscow in 2004, and Tymoshenko, who has worked with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to resolve the bitter gas disputes of the past year, have pledged to improve ties with Russia. Neither of them took part in televised debates ahead of the first round.


KIEV, January 20 (RIA Novosti)
.
Ukraine may join NATO Response Force in 2015-16

Ukraine has been invited to join the NATO Response Force as a partner country in 2015-16, a spokesman for the NATO military committee said Wednesday.

Colonel Massimo Panizzi said Ukraine would become "the first non-NATO country to join the Response Force."

The Response Force consists of rapid deployment forces with land, air and sea components, capable of swiftly reacting to crisis situations.

Panizzi added that the matter would be discussed at a meeting of Ukrainian and NATO chiefs of staff on January 26 in Brussels.

He described the move as "a significant step forward in the implementation of military reform" that NATO is expecting from Kiev "on its way" toward NATO candidate status.

Asked whether other NATO partners could join the Response Force, Panizzi said: "All partners are invited to cooperate within the framework of the process."

Ukraine was one of the first NATO partner countries to offer to play a role in the NATO Response Force.

The country's pro-Western leadership has been pursuing NATO membership since 2004, when President Viktor Yushchenko came to power.

Ukraine failed to secure membership in the NATO Membership Action Plan, a key step toward joining the alliance, at a NATO summit in April 2008.

Russia vehemently opposes the post-Soviet country's NATO ambitions, and in February 2008 the Kremlin threatened to retarget missiles at Ukraine if it joined NATO.

The NATO Response Force is capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations, including evacuations, disaster management, counterterrorism, and acting as 'an initial entry force' for larger, follow-on forces.

Russia is creating a similar force with its partners in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.


BRUSSELS, January 20 (RIA Novosti)
.
Looks as though both Russia and China are still protecting Iran, and Russia is trying to sound less like it while trying to discourage the resumption of our bullshit missile bases thing, but Poland is moving one of our chess pieces for us anyway. I wonder what color we're going to assign our election rigging in Ukraine this time... or if we're just going to hope the carrot of NATO membership, despite all, will be tempting enough in light of Ukraine's desire to continue not paying for Russia's gas.... I mean, do they think the threat of losing them to NATO will prevent Russia moving their pipeline somewhere less subject to their thefts, or what?

30 December 2009

ya know, it's probably too late to ask this question

[click image]

.
... but did anybody ever think to ask whether Obama was any good at community organizing? Did he, like, get everybody together to demand better community services and then just cave when the local big shots said no? Has he always been a crappy bad faith negotiator who can just talk a good line... if you don't listen too closely?

You know for sure that this would all be handled by now if he were not dicking around, trying to bully even Russia without giving anything worthy in return.
.

21 December 2009

was there a break in the putin vilification machine at all?

[click image]

.
Did it ease between administrations and it's warming back up again, or has there really been no lull and I'm just now catching back up to it?
.

28 October 2009

western leadership is incapable of doing the right thing

[click image]

As you know, I have thought that ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan has been the right thing for the wrong reasons, and I have watched like a hawk for ways to maintain the good and diminish or abolish the bad in this mess. I believe that if we, not just the United States, but every country around the world, just stood guard over the people and sent in experts by the thousands to build a solid infrastructure and establish the right institutions for the management and maintenance of them, that we could all then happily leave Afghanistan to Afghanistan and stop worrying about the maniacs seizing control again.

No military can do this. They might be trained to stand guard, to not do this jackass running after attackers, but simply guard population centers from the depredations of Taliban bullying, while their society is made strong. But the whole concept is not possible. It would involve letting Afghanistan have Afghanistan. It would involve leaching all the profit out of being in Afghanistan. It would involve selflessness in the service of otherfullness. It's impossible.

[Peter B. Collins interviews Peter van Agtmael on Afghanistan....]

23 October 2009

it's way passed the time for nato to die

[click image]
NATO considers beefing up Afghan war support
By LARA JAKES and SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writers – 32 mins ago

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia – Top NATO and United Nations officials signaled Friday they may request more international troops to join American forces in Afghanistan as the top U.S. defense official said President Barack Obama is still weeks away from deciding on a shift in war strategy.

At a Friday meeting of 28 NATO defense ministers, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said allies indicated a willingness to boost military and civilian aid — even as Obama remains undecided over whether to escalate U.S. troop strength to counter Afghan insurgents.

"I do believe that additional international troops will be needed in the future," agreed Kai Eide, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen cited "broad support" from defense ministers to stick with a war strategy devised by American commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal that calls for tens of thousands more combat troops — including as many as 80,000 Americans.

The NATO ministers did not, however, discuss specific numbers of troops to be sent, Rasmussen said. Gates added he did not seek specific aid promises.

NATO officials have largely resisted American entreaties to boost their troop contributions to Afghanistan. Britain recently pledged to send 500 troops but only if NATO and the U.S. increased their numbers as well.

The Obama administration is still mulling whether to approve McChystal's proposed strategy aimed at eliminating terrorist threats by curbing the Taliban, in part by securing communities and protecting local Afghan people.

Top Obama advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, favor a more focused war strategy of targeting al-Qaida leaders in neighboring Pakistan with armed unmanned spy planes and special forces strikes.

In Washington, a senior administration official said Friday that Obama was far from settled on a strategy and that there were no assurances that McChrystal will get what he is seeking. The official was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Gates said Friday that the "analytical phase" of the administration's war strategy review was nearing an end, but cautioned that Obama will sift over options provided by his national security team over the next two to three weeks. That target date could coincide closely with the planned Nov. 7 election runoff between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

An estimated 104,000 U.S. and NATO troops will be in Afghanistan by the end of the year — two-thirds of which are American.

McChrystal, who flew to Bratislava late Thursday, offered the ministers a 15-minute update on the war and his overview of how to win it. The ministers did not ask any questions or have any reaction during the closed-door lunch meeting, according to a U.S. defense official who described it on condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting more candidly.

Gates, the U.S. defense secretary, said he was buoyed by the allied support of the 8-year-old war that has grown increasingly unpopular in NATO nations. He said NATO ministers would remain in Afghanistan until the conflict is successfully resolved, citing "a renewed determination to see this through."

"There were a number of allies who indicated they were thinking about, or were moving toward, increasing either their military or their civilian contributions, or both," Gates said at a news conference in Bratislava. "And I found that very heartening."

Still, several NATO ministers sounded dubious about agreeing to send more forces without assurances by the Obama administration to do the same. They also cited concerns about committing more aid to Karzai's corruption-tainted government — at least before the Nov. 7 runoff.

With 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, Dutch Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop said his country is awaiting the final election results "because the legitimacy of the Afghan government is key."

Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade predicted allies won't increase troop levels until they're assured the government in Kabul is committed to the NATO goals.

"We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops," Gade said. Denmark has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan.

Additionally, Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung of Germany said he does not expect his country to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan when their soldiers' orders come up for renewal in December. Germany's existing policy allows the deployment of up to 4,500 soldiers, and just over 4,200 currently are in Afghanistan.