UN Secretary-General appoints Anita Bhatia of India

UN Secretary-General appoints Anita Bhatia of India as Assistant Secretary-General for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships and Deputy Executive Director of UN Women

New York - United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres announced today the appointment of Anita Bhatia of India as Assistant Secretary-General for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships and Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women).

Ms. Bhatia has had a distinguished career at The World Bank Group, serving in various senior leadership and management positions, both at Headquarters and in the field. She brings extensive experience in the area of strategic partnerships, resource mobilization and management. Ms. Bhatia has served for several years as Director of Global Partnerships for the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of The World Bank Group. She developed and expanded innovative partnerships with public and private sector partners to support IFC strategy in key areas, including fragile and conflict-affected states, gender equality, financial inclusion, support to women-owned businesses and other priorities critical for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, she has served as Director of Development Partner Relations for the World Bank in which she led efforts to ensure strategic alignment between institutional priorities and resource mobilization across the World Bank Group.

In various positions she focused on enhancing sustainability, institutional effectiveness and impact through strategic partnerships. As Head of IFC's Latin America Advisory Operations, based in Lima and La Paz, she successfully grew the Corporation's reach and impact in the region. As Director of Partnerships and Advisory Operations, she oversaw financial management, risk management, portfolio management, knowledge management and learning for Advisory Services across the globe. She has led diverse teams, including as Global Head of Knowledge Management, Head of Business Process Improvement and Head of Change Management. In addition to Latin America, she has worked in Africa, Europe, Central Asia and South and East Asia. 

Ms. Bhatia holds a BA in History from Calcutta University, an MA in Political Science from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in Law from Georgetown University. 

---

UN Women is the UN organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. A global champion for women and girls, UN Women was established to accelerate progress on meeting their needs worldwide. For more information, visit www.unwomen.org. UN Women, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017, New York. Tel: +1 646 781-4400. Fax: +1 646 781-4496.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Putin's ratings fall to all-time low, and the Kremlin knows why

Russia's trust in President Vladimir Putin has declined again. Russia's Public Opinion Research Centre (WCIOM) said that Putin's ratings have fallen to an all-time low. At the same time, however, sociologists speak about a strange paradox at this point.

In the week from May 20 to May 26, Vladimir Putin's rating made up 30.5 percent. This is a new low since 2006.

It is worth noting that sociologists conducted open polls, in which respondents were offered to name politicians whom they trust, and there were no options given to choose from. At the same time, in the case of closed polls, when interviewers specifically ask "Do you trust Putin?" the situation is completely different. In closed polls, Putin's rating is much higher and amounts to 72.3 percent.

Researchers at the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) asked the specific question to people last week and received positive answers "I certainly trust" and "I rather trust" from 62 percent of respondents.

The Kremlin earlier demanded an explanation from WCIOM sociologists in an attempt to realise what caused the fall of confidence in the president against the background of the growth of his electoral approval rating. According to the FOM, the approval rating has grown by five percent since March and amounted to 50 percent.

Experts believe that the difference in the polls can be explained with overall negative sentiments in the country. When answering open questions, like, for example, "Which politicians do you trust?" people often find themselves at a loss or prefer to say "I do not know."

Experts say that it would be better to include other politicians in closed polls and invite respondents to express their opinions on whether they trust Grudinin, Navalny, Shoigu and others.

Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, answering a question about the results of the new studies, said that the president could have only one rating - this is the rating of how people evaluate the president's work. "If you look at the numbers, it turns out that you can approve, but not trust, or you can trust but not approve," he said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Interview: Iran that resists

Interview: Iran that resists

The American withdrawal from the JCPOA, the famous nuclear deal between the United States and Iran, which at the time was also sponsored by Russia and the European Union, opened the door to more than one possible scenario but when nations clash, their people pay the consequences. So what is the current situation in Iran? How do the Iranian people experience American decisions? Since the narrative proposed by the great Western media side with the American line, I tried to enrich the visual with some questions to Davood Abbasi, of ParsToday.

Q) Already in the aftermath of the signing of the JCPOA treaty, Barack Obama's America imposed a new series of sanctions against Iran, in fact immediately beginning to betray its part of the agreement. Why did Iran trust Americans?

A) I think Iran knew very well that the Americans would not have kept the agreement. The dark period of American rule in Iran, at the time of the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavì and the actions over the last 40 years, period of life of the Islamic Republic, have taught all Iranians that the United States cannot be trusted. Therefore, I do not believe that illustrious personalities such as President Rohani or Foreign Minister Zarif really trusted the signing of the Americans. Their move was clever in the same way, because unfortunately the Western media and even part of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, had the habit of insinuating that Iran was planning the bomb. With the agreement and the presence of the international inspectors in Iran, this accusation can no longer be addressed and even in the case of a Tehran withdrawal from this agreement, it will be possible to establish and verify that the Iranian program is solely civil.

Q) At that time there were no alternatives to the agreement?

A) There were alternatives but I believe the choice was right. The country's economy needed to take a breath, there was a need to buy some new airplanes, there was a need for at least a period of reduction in sanctions. The right spirit, however, as anticipated, was to know from the beginning that it would not last long and think from the beginning to the next. We will have to wait for the next few months to see if this has actually been done. For now, the resilience of the Iranian economy and government in the face of "the toughest sanctions in history" is truly exemplary and there are no particularly critical phenomena within Iran. People continue their activities, the economy continues for its course and I believe we can say that the country is immune to any kind of sanctions. In these days it was knew that China purchased 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day in April; India, just in the previous hours, had declared that it will resume its purchases, estimated at around 300,000 barrels a day. With this million barrels sold per day (admitted and not granted that Iran does not sell well elsewhere), the Iranian government can easily manage the economy, the internal market and carry out its functions. Actually, it could do it even with half of these sales, so I would say that the sanctions are proving an incredible fiasco for the Trump administration.

Q) So what will President Trump do? Will he opt for military attack?

A) You see, if the US had had only one chance of success in a military conflict against Iran, eager for wars as they are, they would have already attacked it a hundred times, as they did with other countries in the past. The problem is that the United States knows perfectly well that Iran is too strong; therefore they will never attack, but they use psychological warfare: with troop and military movements they want to make people believe that they have considered the option of war. I believe that right now President Donald Trump is in great difficulty on the issue of Iran and to witness his bewilderment, there are his statements to say the least contradictory. Within a week, he said earlier that the end of Iran had come and then he also said that Iran could become a great country with the government it has today and that he would like to negotiate. Trump is aware that the elections are approaching and he, in about two years, will have to be able to tell the American electorate what he did about the Iran dossier. If the electoral campaign started today, the Democrats would say that with the agreement with Iran, they had peacefully resolved the issue, they had established excellent contacts with Tehran and had made happy European and Asian allies. Trump, at this moment, would have nothing to say except to have violated the agreement, demoralizing among other things the allies of the United States, Europe in the first place, who had great economic interests in collaboration with Tehran. It is clear that the whole history of harsh sanctions, military threats and heavy rhetoric are an attempt by Trump to force Iranians to sit down at the table and renegotiate another agreement, more advantageous to the West. Unfortunately, however, the work of President Trump is so childish, primitive and amateur, that even if Iran wanted to make more concessions, now it is no longer in a position to do them. The Iranian population would never, ever accept a negotiation with a nation that has just violated the nuclear agreement. The Iranian population would never accept to sit at the negotiating table with those who turn badly to the country and with those who threaten Iran and moreover imposed harsh sanctions that go above all to hit the people.

Q) President Rohani's position, known to Westerners since the Iran-Contras affair, came out stronger after the agreement was signed. And now that Trump tore him up?

A) Needless to say, Trump's withdrawal from the agreement has embarrassed the Iranian reformists in front of the population. They had convinced the electorate to vote for them, promising to solve the differences with the rest of the world and to abolish the sanctions; they had also succeeded, but then Trump's withdrawal from the agreement and the return of the sanctions showed that their predictions were not correct. In fact, in light of this, I foresee that a conservative will win in the upcoming presidential elections and that the reformists are in a fairly weak position.

 

Q) Is it true that President Rohani proposed a popular referendum to decide on the continuation of the nuclear program? However, wouldn't it be a risky move and with a desperate taste?

A) President Rohani does not have the power to hold such a referendum. And then it would not make sense to make a referendum about an inalienable right of the country, also recognized by international law. The non-proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signatory, consents to the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. For the production of medicines and electricity. Ironically, Iran, with the sanctions existing, needs both. Assuming that the referendum is done, over 90% of people would vote yes for nuclear power, because they considers it as a right and something necessary for the progress of the country.

Q) What was the reaction of the Iranian armed forces to Trump's decision?

A) The armed forces are on maximum alert to be able to respond to any aggression; this is their duty. Among other things, having also played a role in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq in recent years, they are very well-prepared armed forces. As an experience, they also have the 8-year war against Iraq. I believe they are the most prepared in the region and I believe they are absolutely respectable also in terms of equipment. Precisely for these reasons, the option of attacking Iran is only a propaganda gimmick. Their reaction, therefore, was to raise the level of the alert.

 

Q) And that of the political forces present in the parliament?

A) The political forces present in Parliament are composed of reformists and conservatives. The conservatives immediately declared that the facts show what they had always told: you can't deal with Americans, because they are not worthy of trust and they understand only the language of bad manners and not those of good ones. The reformists tried to justify their position a little but later gave up. At the moment there is a certain unity and the bipartisan goal is to approve measures that reduce the pressure of sanctions on people.

 

Q) How did the clergy express themselves and, in particular, the Supreme Guide, the Ayatollah Khamenei?

A) The clergy condemned the position of the United States, considering it in any case alighned with the historical role of this country and Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that the country must invest in its indigent forces, in its internal production, in its capacities, and therefore develop even more what is called the "economy of resistance". Among other things, visits to neighboring countries by the president and foreign minister indicate that Iran is trying to weave a network of exchanges with its neighbors that sanctions cannot stop.

 

Q) After Trump's decision to withdraw from the treaty, have ordinary people and the Iranian youth felt defrauded of a part of their future?

A) They felt deceived by the United States. The anger was univocal because this time Iran had signed an agreement and it was US who failed in their commitments.

 

Q) How does the Iranian population live this moment so tense, in which any accident can trigger a terrible war with the Americans?

R) In reality there is not all this tension within the country. People have been used to threats from the US for 40 years and don't take them seriously. Life goes on carefree and happy, and this can be confirmed by the many Italian tourists who have been to Iran in the last period. Everyone talks about a welcoming, happy, smiling people. I interviewed many of them for IRIB "Italian Tourists in Iran" section and I could also make audio files available to you. In Iran nobody is worried and they also knows that in the remote case of a war, the country would be able to defend itself.

 

Q) There is a lot of mistrust towards Iran. Because of the more traditional aspects of Shiite Islam or its aspects of social justice, which could supplant the old political paradigms that are already very decadent?

A) I don't understand this question well. I can only say that Iran represents that part of Islam that is wise, responsible and moderate and that the West would do well to strengthen and have as an ally. The West, primarily the USA, has always chosen the alliance with sectors of Islam that are very dangerous and intransigent: Saudi Arabia is the most obvious example.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Russia to modernize Doomsday aircraft

Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry reported about  the imminent modernization of aerial command posts  known as "Doomsday aircraft."

According to Deputy Defense Minister of Russia, Alexei Krivoruchko, the development work on the modernization of the aircraft that carry air command posts on board - the Ilyushin IL-80 and IL-82 - had been completed. Today, it goes about the work to enhance the electronic equipment of the aircraft to command troops under conditions of nuclear war.

There are two second-generation air command post aircraft in Russia: the Ilyushin IL-80, created on the basis of the passenger IL-86 airplane, and the Ilyushin IL-82 built on the basis of the transport airplane IL-76.

At the end of 2016, Alexander Yakunin, director of Rostekh Instrument Making Corporation, spoke about the development of the third generation of Doomsday aircraft. He also said that the military-industrial complex delivered the first air control center of the second generation to the Defence Ministry - the Il-80M aircraft, capable of taking on board top commanders of the Russian armed forces, as well as officers of the General Staff and technical specialists.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Russia closes Northern Sea Route for foreign warships

Russia has been actively strengthening its defense capability in the Arctic region lately. The gradual melting of Arctic ice makes the passage of foreign warships near Russia's northern borders possible. In light of this, a set of rules was introduced for the passage of ships along the Northern Sea Route (NSR).

All foreign countries must comply with the rules, and there can be no exception made. For example, for a destroyer or an aircraft carrier to enter the zone of the Northern Sea Route, the captain of a foreign ship is supposed to warn the Russian Navy 45 days in advance.

Foreign submarines are required to pass the NSR only in the surface position. In addition to the information about the time, the commander of the submarine is obliged to give information about the type of the sub, its displacement, type of power plant and equipment. The commander is also required to report his rank and full name.

A Russian marine pilot will need to stay on board a foreign vessel. If there is a probability that the ship is poorly maintained or may pollute waterways of the Northern Sea Route, Russia has a reason to deny the passage of the foreign vessel.

In the water area of the Northern Sea Route, NATO ships and submarines pose the greatest threat. Therefore, if someone decides to break the rules, foreign vessels will be arrested.

At least ten military bases have been deployed to defend the northern part of the country. Some of them are designed for air defense systems, while others are designed for surface vessels and submarines.

It goes without saying that the new rulebook applies only to warships. Civilian ships can still pass the Northern Sea Route as before. Russia can only profit from assisting foreign merchant ships in passing hazardous areas.

A sea journey from Western Europe to Japan or China is 40% shorter through the Arctic than through the Suez Canal. The countries of East Asia are interested in delivering goods via the Arctic. There are frequent cases of pirate attacks while passing through the Suez Canal.

Therefore, the prospects for the development of the Arctic region are enormous. Yet, in order to keep influence and control on this geostrategic area, Russia needs energy and brains in the first place.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Looking for Democracy, the antidote for extremism

Looking for Democracy, the antidote for extremism

The poor turnout in last week's European Parliamentary elections showcases the lack of interest in politics and its growing distance from the people

The turnout in last week's European Parliamentary elections was hailed by the media as being the highest in twenty years, being fractionally over fifty per cent of the electorate, as a whole. However in some countries the turnout was thirty per cent, reflecting a general trend of distancing between people and politics across the globe, in local, legislative and presidential elections.

The extremists will always turn out

In general, those with more extreme views will be more likely to turn out to vote than those with centrist views. This means that it is easier for a firebrand populist to garner votes than a level-headed someone with experience and responsibility but who has problems communicating the complexity of the issues with the electorate.

This means that the one who stands up and declares "Let's close all the hospitals and eradicate disease, forever!" or promises "Zero taxes so you have more money in your pocket, let THEM pay for it!" or even "Get rid of the foreigners, empty our prisons and get jobs back!" will receive some very loud cheers and "yays".

In the UK, the Brexit campaign was staged to a backdrop of racism and lies, such as "350 million pounds a week for the National Health Service" (perhaps those promising this should be forced to pay it from their own pockets), slurs against "Islamization" and "Pakis" (Pakistanis, a racist heading encompassing Somalis, Eritreans, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, basically anyone wanting to emigrate to the UK, none of them being EU citizens) and idealistic nonsense about "taking our country back", whatever that means.

The tangible consequences of populism and absenteeism

Such arguments have consequences, and looking at the result of the 2019 European Parliamentary election, we see the following:

Right-Wing Nationalists (ENF) up from 37 members to 58

Populists (EFD) from 31 to 54

New or Unaffiliated MEPs up from zero to 29

True, the Greens rose from 52 to 69 seats and the center grew (unfortunately at the expense of the Left in general and also at the expense of the Conservatives to the right of center), however the Alt Right, Populists and Unaffiliated received 141 of the 751 seats. In other words, nearly 20 per cent. Hitler's Nazi Party peaked at just 37 per cent of the vote, yet he was swept to power on a populist ticket of Make Germany Great Again, Freedom, and Law and Order.

When people have nothing, or when they are dissatisfied with what they have, they will turn to the one who says "I understand you, I am one of you, let us make THEM change and I will deliver what you want". This is a blanket remedy for the jobless, homeless, hopeless, poor and anyone bored with the Establishment who wants to see something different, even those who want to see a political real-life version of the Simpsons in Congress or Parliament for entertainment.

While it is also true that people these days have bread on the table, clothes, universal schooling, universal healthcare and in general are not dying in thousands on the streets, the fact remains that the populist vote is increasing and with populism, comes extremism, and with extremism, comes imbalance, going against the grain of centuries of socio-economic and societal development.

Democracy requires education

The antidote to this is democracy. Real democracy, not the insult we see today in which most people have not a clue what they are voting for, what the policies of the party they are supporting are, what their vote represents in the European Parliament and to which Euro-groups their parties belong. They vote for "him" or "her", meaning the image of the Leader of the Party on television and nothing else.

Hence the ridiculous reasons given for voting or not, such as "Oh he does wear some nice ties", or "(s)he looks honest", or "I didn't vote Brexit, it's Latin, I voted Leave", or "It's the fish and chips, isn't it?" or "It's them Pakis" or whatever else in whatever country. And hence the Bolsonaros in Brazil and the Trumps in the USA. And Farage in the UK.

This does not mean that all those voting for them are idiots, what it does mean is that if the rest of the population is not careful, one day an idiot is going to be elected, if such has not already happened.

The solution is, again, education. If all schools adopted a program in which civil responsibilities and issues were taught, then people would have a clear idea when they reached voting age about what the political groups represented, how politics works at local, national and international levels, the benefits of each voting system and so on. If they understood the issues they would be more likely to vote and for sure the extremists would not disappear but would become fringe groups raising issues for the center to take up. This is called political maturity and a sustainable model of governance.

We are never going to get there if people do not get up and vote, either through educational programs or else because they are forced to by law, as in the case in Brazil.

Food for thought.

Photo: Nineteenth-century painting by Philipp Foltz depicting the Athenian politician Pericles delivering his famous funeral oration in front of the Assembly.

http://bit.ly/2WbHnPN

  

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

 Twitter: @TimothyBHinchey

timothy.hinchey@gmail.com

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey works in the area of teaching, consultancy, coaching, translation, revision of texts, copy-writing and journalism. Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru since 2002, and now Co-Editor of the English version, he contributes regularly to several other publications in Portuguese and English. He has worked in the printed and online media, in daily, weekly, monthly and yearly magazines and newspapers. A firm believer in multilateralism as a political approach and multiculturalism as a means to bring people and peoples together, he is Official Media Partner of UN Women, fighting for gender equality and Media Partner with Humane Society International, promoting animal rights. His hobbies include sports, in which he takes a keen interest, traveling, networking to protect the rights of LGBTQI communities and victims of gender violence, and cataloging disappearing languages, cultures and traditions around the world. A keen cook, he enjoys trying out different cuisines and regards cooking and sharing as a means to understand cultures and bring people together.

Join the most international forum on the Net

http://engforum.pravda.ru/

Pravda.Ru 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Why can't the Serbs fight for their land in Kosovo?

Why are the Serbs not fighting for their land in Kosovo and Metohija, where Serbian statehood and Serbian Orthodoxy were born? The answer is about their state of mind.

The battle on the Kosovo field near Pristina in 1389 means as much for the Serbs as the battle on the Kulikovo field in 1380 (now the Tula region) means for the Russian. It was a battle for independence between joint forces of the Serbs and the Bosnians led by Prince Lazar, and the army of Turkish Sultan Murad I. The battle ended in victory for the Turks, but they were too exhausted to continue conquering Serbia; the Turkish sultan was killed.

Afterwards, in the heyday of Serbian statehood in the 18th-19th centuries, Kosovo and Metohija's largest cities, such as Pec, Pristina and Prizren, were significant political, economic and religious centers, around which Orthodox monasteries were founded. Today, they have remained in Serb-populated cities of the region. For example, the official residence of the Serbian archbishops and patriarchs is located in the monastery of the Pec Patriarchate.

In a nutshell, those lands that are currently occupied by the Albanians are Serbian sanctuaries, which had been lost as a result of the defeat of Serbian statehood in 1999. It is no coincidence that Russia's support in the non-recognition of Kosovo's independence is extremely important for the Serbs. It is worthy of note that Kosovo has not been recognized either within the UN or the EU (five countries of the European Union did not recognize the independence of Kosovo).

Therefore, if the Kosovars give a reason to return those lands by force, one should use the chance. The chance was given on May 28, when the Kosovo Police (ROSU) conducted an operation in the north of Kosovo and Metohija, which resulted in the arrest of 19 police officers and nine citizens, among them a Russian citizen, a member of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Mikhail Krasnoshchekov. One of the affected individuals, Radenko Milovanovic from Zubin Potok, told reporters that the ROSU fired upon them, ambushed houses and chased women and children.

A meeting of the National Security Council was held in Belgrade. Serbian President Alexander Vucic ordered to bring the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the army to full combat readiness; troops were pulled up to the border. Noteworthy, these territories in the north of Kosovo have their own police on the budget of Belgrade, and the Belgrade budget supports the local authorities too.

Milorad Dodik, chairman of the Presidium of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), told RTRS that the special operation came as a serious blow to the "fragile peace" in Kosovo and Metohija in an attempt to provoke another exodus of the Serbs. According to Dodik, the international community must show a reaction to the crisis.

Political analyst Dragomir Anzelkovic told RTS that a real war in Kosovo was unlikely, but a conflict of "certain intensity" was possible. Military intervention may happen if they start killing the Serbs and establish control in the north, he explained. "In this case, the Serbian army will enter the north of Kosovo," said Anzelkovic. Anzelkovic added that the Serbian authorities maintain contacts with centers of power in the West that block mass actions of the Kosovars against the Serbian side.

Alexander Vucic announced on May 28 that the international community condemned the excessive use of force. According to him, representatives of major powers noted that the police raid had nothing to do with the struggle against crime.

Vucic, of course, is not the president who will fight for his land, but Russia could support him.

Mikhail Alexandrov, Doctor of Political Sciences at the Moscow State University for Foreign Relations, believes that the Serbs have always been oriented towards the West from the psychological point of view. "Back in the times of Tito (Josip Broz Tito - the leader of Yugoslavia in 1945-1980) they were not part of the Warsaw Pact. They would boast of independence and the fact that they could go to the West to earn money, buy a new Mercedes and enjoy freedom that the Warsaw Pact did not have."

"They had eventually fallen a victim to NATO's aggression, and Yugoslavia was dismembered. If Slobodan Milosevic had used ground troops in Kosovo, NATO would not have carried out a large-scale ground operation. At least, Kosovo could have been divided into two, and Russia could have deployed its troops there. The Serbs could have easily deployed their troops in Kosovo," Mikhail Alexandrov said in an interview with Pravda.Ru.

He continued in an interview with the Pravda.Ru correspondent that, like, "Serbia actually surrendered Montenegro without a fight, now Kosovo will be lost, then Vojvodina (inhabited by Albanians).

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Trump's Peace Message While Endless US Wars Rage

Trump's Peace Message While Endless US Wars Rage

by Stephen Lendman

Throughout the post-WW II era, US presidents endorsed peace while waging endless preemptive direct and/or proxy wars of aggression on one nation after another worldwide.

All US wars are based on Big Lies and deception because hard truths would show no just cause exists for attacking other countries. None since WW II ended threatened America.

None threaten it now - not Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, or nations the US attacked post-9/11.

Longstanding US policy calls for dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations. Peace and stability defeat its imperial agenda, why endless US wars rage with no near-term prospect for resolution, plans drawn to attack other nations when ordered.

Waging wars feed the US military, industrial, security, media complex, including Wall Street controlling the nation's money, the supreme power over all others. 

Corporate America profits hugely from endless wars of aggression, why they're waged, along with wanting all sovereign independent nations transformed into US vassal states.

On Memorial Day, the nation honors its war dead, ignoring the responsibility of its leadership for going to war for power and profits, not over threats to US security.

Since WW II ended, US military personnel sacrificed their lives and welfare for imperial conquest and plunder, an endless cycle of permanent wars on humanity.

Powerful interests want the world made safe for corporate America. Wars waged have nothing to do with humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, democracy building, or protecting the US from foreign threats - everything to do with advancing the nation's imperium and profit-making.

Ahead of the Memorial Day weekend, a White House "proclamation on prayer for peace" was an exercise of mass deception, saying:

"...(B)rave Americans of every generation have given their last full measure of devotion in defense of our country (despite facing no foreign threats), our (fast eroding) liberty, and our founding ideals" by self-serving 18th century bankers, lawyers, politicians, merchants, slave traders, and others resembling what today we'd call a Wall Street crowd.

Honoring fallen warriors has nothing to do with what the White House called patriotism, what Samuel Johnson once called "the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Born on the 4th of July, 1946, Vietnam combat left anti-war activist Ron Kovic paralyzed and wheelchair-bound.

Naked aggression against a nation threatening no one changed his life and countless others of his generation.

The same goes for many thousands of others involved in all US wars - physically harmed or disabled, affected by epidemic levels of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Earlier independent reports showed that nearly half of Afghan and Iraq war vets endure emotional and/or physical combat injuries, many maimed for life.

Other reports revealed that around two dozen US combat veterans commit suicide daily, consumed by unbearable trauma and emotional pain from what they endured in war theaters.

According to military.com, in 2018, "(t)he US military...experienced the highest number of suicides among active-duty personnel in at least six years."

"A total of 321 active-duty members took their lives during the year, including 57 Marines, 68 sailors, 58 airmen, and 138 soldiers."

The official numbers conceal what's unreported, a generation of US youths gravely harmed physically and emotionally from service in war theaters, suicides the tip of the iceberg.

It's the option for far greater numbers than the official few hundred, mostly post-combat service, countless numbers of vets unable to unjust to civilian life from what they endured.

Many deaths on active duty and back home aren't called suicides. Misreporting conceals the toll of wars on US military personnel.

Combat-related trauma is long-lasting, many suicide victims aged-50 or older. According to a Center for a New American Security (CNAS) report, veterans commit suicide every 80 minutes.

The study said "America is losing its battle against suicide by veterans and service members. And as more troops return from deployment, the risk will only grow."

Many vets return home feeling helpless. Marine Corps vet Jason Christiansen watched his life unravel. "At one point, I was sitting there with a gun in my mouth," he said. A friend urged him to seek help.

The Veterans Crisis Line gets hundreds of thousands of calls. Most often, help from the Department of Veterans Affairs is too little, too late, US policymakers showing indifference to its youth sent to battle on false pretenses. 

As a 1950s vet, I personally saw the disturbing state of VA healthcare, including from conversations with Vietnam-era combat veterans getting sub-standard care.

It's because of inadequately funded/hard to navigate bureaucracy I experienced firsthand, why I long ago abandoned the VA as a source once free, then very cheap prescription drugs if available, my only occasional need. At times what I sought wasn't offered.

The White House "prayer for lasting peace...(for) a peaceful future in which the horrors of war are a distant memory" is belied by disdain for peace and stability by US policymakers - waging endless wars, dreaming of more.

In May 1950, weeks before Harry Trump's aggression against North Korea based on a Big Lie, a joint congressional resolution called on sitting US presidents to issue a prayer for permanent peace on Memorial Day annually.

On May 24, a White House statement said:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 27, 2019, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time when people might unite in prayer."

The hypocrisy of the above statement is glaring at a time endless US wars of aggression rage in multiple theaters against nations threatening no one.

Others could and no doubt will be launched ahead, part of Washington's permanent war on humanity, no end of it in prospect.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Nancy Pelosi: America’a Neville Chamberlain

By David Hoffman

One common question students ask when told they are required to study history is, "Why do I need to learn about dead people and past events that can't be changed?"

The answer is simple:  History teaches lessons, and, if these lessons are ignored, history repeats itself.

In 1938, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, signed the now infamous "Munich Agreement," which gave the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler.  The following year Hitler invaded Poland.

Prior to this invasion, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the now infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop "Non-Aggression" Pact.  Two years later, in "Operation Barbarossa," Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.  Some historians believe that Stalin's refusal to listen to spies who had learned of Hitler's intentions resulted in the needless loss of up to 20 million Soviet lives.

So, the lesson history has taught is simple:  You can never appease a fascist.

Yet that is exactly what current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and others of her ilk, are doing when dealing with America's wannabe dictator Donald Trump.

Although Pelosi is quick to pontificate about Trump being an obstructionist and/or engaging in a "cover-up," it is painfully evident that she is unwilling to do anything about it, thus facilitating, (as I argued in Pravda.Report on May 16, 2019), an America that is reaching "the brink of fascism."

Some pundits have attributed Pelosi's aversion to impeaching Trump to political expediency, claiming that she believes impeachment would be a politically unpopular move that will hurt the chances of Democrats to win the White House and both Houses of Congress in the 2020 elections.

But, as I discussed in a recent article, America's Choice: A Party of Criminals or a Party of Cowards (April 24, 2019), Pelosi's strategy is quixotic at best, and devastating to America at worst.

Trump has several months left in his presidency, and the damage he can inflict during that time is enormous.  In addition, recent history has exposed the fallacy of Pelosi's scheme.

As I said in the America's Choice article, "the Republicans did not hesitate to impeach [Bill] Clinton, even though it was politically unpopular to do so.  According to a 1999 article on CNN.com, only 'a third of the country' supported his impeachment, and more than 50% agreed with the Senate's ultimate decision to allow him to remain in office.  In addition, . . . Republican George W. Bush obtained office after Clinton, [and], until the final two years of his time in office, Bush enjoyed a Republican majority in one or both Houses of Congress . . . ."

So, let's examine what the future holds-a future that could be easily prevented absent Pelosi's "policy of appeasement."

Trump Will Be Elected to Another Term.  What Pelosi forgets is that the Republican machine, on both the state and federal levels, have instituted a system of gerrymandering and suppression laws to dilute the votes of people who traditionally vote Democrat.

Also, should the presidential election be close, Trump has a partisan United States Supreme Court eager to ensure he is illegally coronated, just as George W. Bush was in 2000.  And, by the time the 2020 election arrives, there may be one or more Trump advocates, masquerading as "justices," added to this court.

The Economy Will Collapse:  Again, history has taught this lesson with another president who also wanted to be king-Andrew Jackson.  Jackson's economic policies were designed to reward his friends, and punish his enemies, regardless of their impact on the economy.  The full brunt of this impact, however, did not occur until after Jackson left office; thus, the blame was placed on his successor, Martin Van Buren. 

Which means that, on the remote chance a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, the repercussions from Trump's flawed economic policies will be blamed on him or her.

The United States Congress Will be Powerless:  Trump and his minions believe they have absolutely nothing to fear from any actions Congress might take, and Pelosi is only reinforcing this belief.

This means that for the next several months, Trump and his toady Mitch McConnell will continue to rush through the nominations of poorly qualified Trump cheerleaders to federal judgeships.

Since these judgeships are lifetime appointments, even if Pelosi's dream of Democrats winning control of Congress and/or the White House becomes reality all the legislation they pass that is contrary to Trump's agenda will simply be struck down as "unconstitutional."

The Destruction of the Environment Will Pass the Point of No Return.  For a man who purports to love "free speech," as long as the speaker is saying what he wants to hear, Trump has been especially active in silencing talk within his administration about climate change and has demonstrated a willingness to weaken current environmental laws and protections of environmental landmarks to further enrich his cronies.

In American law, there is a legal defense commonly known as "withdrawal."  This normally applies to attempted or conspiracy crimes.  The theory is if a person withdraws from his/her planned illegal action before reaching a certain "tipping point" then there is no crime; however, beyond that "tipping point" a crime is committed, even if it is unsuccessfully completed.

The same holds true for the environment.  With global warming, in particular, there is a tipping point that the world will be unable to come back from.  While nobody knows exactly where that point is, is the fate of the earth really something that Pelosi and her ilk should allow Trump to play "Russian Roulette" with?

America Will Once Again Be Engulfed in a War Manufactured By Draft Dodgers and Based On Lies.  In another example of history potentially repeating itself, if the election poll numbers start going against Trump, who avoided military service because of alleged "bone spurs," he may take a page from the Bush/Cheney Iraqi playbook and start a war to improve his reelection chances.  Already some members of the Trump administration, like John Bolton (who, like George W. Bush, enlisted in the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam) are beating the war drums against Iran.

In other words, Pelosi's policy of appeasement, like Chamberlain and Stalin's, could also result in a catastrophic loss of human lives, and untold amounts of destruction.

One of my favorite songs of the late, great folk singer Phil Ochs is Love Me, I'm A Liberal.  In this song, Ochs criticizes the vacuous commitment of those who pay lip service to causes, but who lack the commitment, courage, and integrity to make real sacrifices in support of them.  In his view, such people may be more dangerous than one's enemies.

Ochs is right.  Trump's megalomania, mendacity, racism, and corruption are visible for all to see, so the evils that result should not be surprising.  The real enemies are people like Pelosi who passively watch as these evils blossom and grow and do absolutely nothing.

David R. Hoffman

Legal Editor of Pravda.Report

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Nationalists gain big numbers in EU elections for good reason

By Giovanni Giacalone

The European election results clearly incline to a nationalist and anti-EU establishment line, as numbers show: in France Marine Le Pen's National Front (RN) surpassed Macron of over 1%; in the UK Nigel Farage's Brexit party had a stunning victory with a 31% while in Italy Matteo Salvini's Lega party confirmed itself as the first political force in Italy reaching an amazing 34%. These results add up with the "eastern wind" coming from Hungary, Austria and Poland, countries where the nationalist parties came out as winners, especially Orban's Fidesz as the party gained a 52.33%, leaving the pro-EU Coalition way behind with a 16.19%.

A surprise? Not really. In fact many do believe that things could not have been otherwise since the old "technocratic" block had become distant from the real daily-life needs of the people. Politicians in Brussels are often perceived as living in a different "dimension", unaware of people's real issues.

The European Union's rhetoric based on common ethical and political values remained a theory that never found a practical outcome and the best example is the immigration crisis as the EU never found a shared political line to face the emergency.

Same exact problem with foreign politics in the war-torn Middle East and North Africa, as each country pursued its own interests based on specific strategic aims and Libya is a great example as Italy, France and the UK all have different agendas there.

The economic situation is no exception as it is a common perspective among many EU citizens, especially in the southern part of Europe, that life was far more affordable before the Euro.

Overall it can be stated that today many Europeans tend to perceive Europe more as a problem rather than an opportunity for better life conditions.

Several pro-EU parties claimed that the nationalist movement did not manage to obtain a majority in the EU parliament and interpreted this as a defeat. But is it really so? Indeed it would have been utopic to think that the nationalists would have managed to obtain a majority in Brussels, however the consent among nationalist voters throughout Europe has drastically increased and that is a fact.

Claiming that the pro-EU political forces are still strong and the nationalists are marginal in Europe means willingly wanting to avoid seeing a clear and present problem; this type of behavior will only lead to a further nationalist consent in future elections.

The Italian case

Matteo Salvini's victory in Italy is a very interesting example as his success is mainly due to a series of elements, first of all the fact that he actually did what he had promised during the electoral campaign; something not so obvious in Italian politics where words often do not lead to practical actions.

Covering the position of Minister of Interior, Matteo Salvini's first priority was security as he was well aware that the massive and uncontrolled immigration from Africa generated a peak of delinquency within Italy and it even caused the risk of jihadist infiltration through the immigration flow, as plenty of cases have shown.

Since the previous governments did not show any intention of actively putting a stop to the departures from the Libyan coasts, as soon as Salvini was elected last year, he immediately proceeded with the "closed-ports" policy which had a positive effect as the arrivals of illegal flows drastically reduced and expulsions increased.

In order to put such a policy into action, Salvini had to confront a very violent political and ideological offensive, a series of judicial initiatives perpetrated against him by some Italian prosecutors and plenty of threats coming from different parts.

Additionally, even the Vatican attacked Salvini's "closed ports" policy and some clergy members even stigmatized such measures as "anti-Christian"; a clear interference in another country's internal matters.

However, this "all against one" strategy only brought more consent to Salvini's Lega party and that's all in the numbers as it went from last year's 17% in the national elections to a 34% in the current European elections.

On the other hand, the political party Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S), which is currently in power together with Lega, had a disastrous outcome as it dropped from last year's 32% to a current 17%.

A defeat that can be attributed to many factors, but the most important can be related to its ambiguity in relation to the political agenda that was supposed to have been implemented after the deal signed last year between Salvini and M5S's leader, Luigi Di Maio, such as the "closed ports" political line which found some obstruction inside M5S.

In addition, during the EU electoral campaign, M5S strongly attacked Salvini; an electoral move that paralyzed the political agenda in a phase when Italy needed quick reforms, something that the Italian people did not appreciate.

The point is that M5S is not a political party, but rather a "movement" with different political and ideological mindsets, a peculiarity which makes it unstable.

Now the power relation between Lega and M5S have drastically changed as Salvini's party is now the one with the big numbers and this situation will clearly have an impact in the upcoming months.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Ukraine forces Russia to lose goodwill spirit in releasing Ukrainian sailors

The release of Ukrainian sailors could be a gesture of goodwill, but Ukraine does not contribute to this possibility, Anatoly Salutsky, writer, publicist and expert of the UN Alliance of Civilisations believes.

The Kremlin responded to the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg on Ukraine's claim about the incident in the Kerch Strait. "Russia's position cannot change. The investigation in connection with the violation of the law on the border should be completed, and a trial should take place," Dmitry Peskov, Putin's official spokesman said on May 27.

The Hamburg court ruled Russia should release three Ukrainian ships and 24 Ukrainian servicemen and let them to return to Ukraine. However, the court did not consider it necessary to demand the Russian Federation should cease the criminal prosecution and refrain from initiating new cases against them, as was requested in Ukraine's lawsuit. The court also ordered both parties to refrain from any actions that could aggravate the dispute.

Ukrainian media outlets spread a fake news story, in which the Hamburg court also found Russia guilty of violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Even if it was a question of the territorial waters of Russia, warships and their crews cannot be arrested by security forces of foreign states and subjected to the jurisdiction of foreign ships. However, this is an opinion of Ukrainian deputy foreign minister, Elena Zerkal, but not of the Hamburg International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Roman Kolodkin, the Russian judge of the tribunal, voted against the resolution of the court. Kolodkin said that Russia and Ukraine, when signing and ratifying the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, made special statements in which they excluded the consideration of the Kerch incident within the framework of the procedures stipulated by the convention.

Roman Kolodkin also noted that Ukraine conducted a provocative act trying to cross the border of the other party to the dispute in violation of well-known procedures. Ruslan Khomchak, the new head of the Ukrainian General Staff, confirmed that it was dangerous to send ships to the Kerch Strait at that time. According to Khomchak, one needs to ask questions to commander of the Ukrainian Navy, Igor Voronchenko.

Russia may not execute the court decision, because during the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1997, it was stipulated that Moscow had no obligation to adopt dispute settlement procedures provided for by the convention that lead to binding decisions on the implementation of sovereign rights and jurisdiction. The case in question carries an aspect of the status of the Kerch Strait.

Aleksander Vylegzhanin, a professor at the Department of International Law at the Moscow State Institute for Foreign Relations, told Pravda.Ru that residents of the Crimea voted for the reunification with Russia after the coup in Kiev in 2014. Accordingly, the Kerch Strait remains under the jurisdiction of Russia, whereas this water area used to be considered the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine.

"The Hamburg Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the status of the Kerch Strait, because one needs to consider a number of other issues, namely, whether the United States intervened in the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and whether Crimea's territorial sovereignty changed," Alexander Vylegzhanin told Pravda.Ru.

According to the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, it could have been possible to avoid the crisis in the Kerch Strait if the Ukrainians had observed the requirements of the Russian legislation concerning navigation in the given region. "We urge the Ukrainian side to act accordingly henceforth," a representative of the department said.

Anatoly Salutsky, a writer and expert at the UN Alliance of Civilizations, said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that Russia and Ukraine had made all necessary legal reservations when the countries signed the convention. Ukraine turned to Europe with a request to impose sanctions on Russia, but they are not likely to follow.

"The utterly wrong thing to do here is to threaten Russia. If Ukraine had not done so, Russia could have freed the sailors as a gesture of goodwill. Yet, Ukraine wants to impose sanctions, Ukraine threatens Russia, which makes a possibility for a goodwill gesture unlikely. We need to choose a moment and release the Ukrainian sailors, but it should only be a gesture of goodwill, rather than submission to the ruling of the International Tribunal of the United Nations," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

Also read:

Arrested Ukrainian navy man admits Kerch incident was provocation

Russia and Ukraine clash in Kerch Strait off Crimea. Ukrainian navy men wounded

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Iran 2019: peace or war?

The signing of the JCPA treaty, the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran, was one of the two events that in recent years have raised many hopes for peace in the Middle East and the world. The other was the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency, for the many promises made during the electoral campaign regarding both the normalization of diplomatic relations between America and Russia and the progressive abandonment of a purely aggressive diplomacy, based exclusively on the armed forces and the concept of exceptionalism. However, in reality, all the hopes of a positive evolution are now frustrated and the drums of war seem to roll stronger than ever.

The JCPOA was conceived as a beautiful ... carnivorous plant, destined to block, with the seductive scent of its illusory promises, all Iranian research in the nuclear and missile field, the latter perhaps even more essential for the defense of the Islamic Republic given the objective importance of missiles in air defense, in the artillery and naval warfare. Although the official document does not refer in any way to rockets and missiles, the almost total dismantling of Iran's long-range missile program had to be contemplated in some reserved annex. Many scientists have been fired and no Iranian, mechanical or in the flesh, has orbited the Earth, as former president Ahmadinejad wanted.

On the other hand, if a satellite or a human being can be placed in high orbit, a nuclear warhead can also be delivered to a distant country. Making a comparison between Iran and North Korea, it is clear that being equipped with atomic bombs and missiles to launch them is a reasonable guarantee that no invasion will be attempted. No D-Day, no disembarkation in Normandy because every American army that tried to land on the North Korean coasts would be wiped off the face of the Earth and at least a couple of American cities would see above them a gigantic and deadly atomic mushroom. Hence, the understandable fears of Western chancelleries and the angry panic of the Jewish state. One of the keys to understanding both the de facto imposition of the JCPOA on Iran and its inevitable demise lies in the incurable mutual hostility between the Islamic Republic and Israel, of which many in Tehran would like the disappearance. It certainly does not help that Israel insists on considering Palestinians less than human and refuses to consider any peaceful and humane solution to the Palestinian problem. Therefore, Israel too craves the disappearance of the Islamic Republic, replaced by some form of more manageable Chaosthan, Libya-style or worse.

Europe and Russia were sponsors of compliance with the agreement and were therefore left stunned by Trump's decision. Europe had once again accepted its historic role as supporting actor of Washington, that of the faithful vassal who ratified the master's decisions, anticipating at least the lavish business that the treaty promised. Russia instead aimed to stabilize that part of its distant southern borders, calming down the fears of Tel-Aviv but at the same time maintaining the balancing role of Tehran's regional power. After the signing of the agreement, Moscow unblocked the delivery of the S300 air defense systems, already paid by Tehran and whose supply it had then refused for a long time.

The European disappointment has not followed: not only the European Union lacks of high-level political personalities (we have no Lavrov, for example) but its current evolution, or involution would be better to say, is leading it to be more and more a prison of peoples that a common home, with all due respect to the naive who think they can change it "from the inside". The French and German companies that had started new business with the Iranians were thus forced to interrupt all relations. In the face of declarations of principle.

Moscow is faced with a difficult choice: to acknowledge the impossibility of trusting the Americans or to continue to offer a second chance that will always earn that extra year of which Russia has, according to the proverb, always needed before a war? The Iranians will have complained to Putin and someone will also have reproached the Russians with the famous "we told you so!" More, they will have presented a shopping list, new weapons systems, countermeasures, military assistance, on which Russia however seems to be vague. Tehran will have reminded the Russians that it was thanks to the sacrifice of the Pasdarans that so many Russian soldiers did not die in Syria and that, indeed, those few who fell are instead celebrated as immortal heroes. Here, the impression remains that relations between Moscow and Tehran are based more on a forced collaboration in perennial friction than on a happy choice: there are peculiarities in the social structure of the Islamic Republic that make it difficult to accept but Moscow will have to choose, first or later. The open fronts are many: Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Russian interests in Libya are hardly defensible for obvious reasons, military successes in Syria can still suffer a sudden setback and Moscow could lose a precious ally with which is better understood than ayatollahs. Venezuela is far away and although geography is favorable against an attack by neighboring nations, also vassals of Washington and militarily weaker than Caracas, the Bolivarian Republic could not withstand a fierce American attack.

Clearly, I am not suggesting the abandoning of Venezuela for Iran but I have the clear impression that the focus of the current crisis is Tehran. In other words: if Tehran falls, Moscow also falls and Russia will end up divided by the winners as a protectorate to be exploited.

President Rohani has put all his credibility into play by defending the JCPA: the American withdrawal greatly weakens his prestige, built since the days of the Iran-Contras affair. Today a rumor says that Rohani would like to propose a popular referendum on the continuation of the nuclear program. It seems to me a desperate and unwise move. More as Pontius Pilate than from enlightened statesman. If the yes wins, the Iranian people could easily see themselves condemned en masse as a criminal people and end up subject of international retaliation. If the nay wins, well ... it would be good to remember that it is not enough to be right: there must be someone who recognizes you. President Rohani reminds me some Italian politicians of our unfortunate Democratic Party: they would do better to retire to private life, to disappear like their party, but they don't.

A war is hardly reasonable and that between Americans and Iranians would be no exception. Alone, Iran has no hope of winning and, as I have already said, it is in Moscow's interest that the Islamic Republic does not fall. In any case, the material damage of the war would be enormous, not only limited to Iran and the armies on the field but also to Saudi Arabia which is unable to defend its thousands of kilometers of pipelines. The price of oil would skyrocket with all the negative consequences easily imaginable. However, fleets and armies are positioning themselves: for the moment, it is only the classic gorilla performance but the situation could get out of hand easily.

How did we get to this point? It is sad to have to admit it, but the election of Donald Trump, with all his good intentions as a reformer of the American system, has fallen the situation. The part that lost, the one that had its standard bearer in Hillary Clinton, the part that triggered the American imperial wars in the Middle East, the part that had no qualms about murdering three thousand of its compatriots in the 9/11 attack in the name of the teopolitics and the manifest destiny of America, this part panicked, fearing to end up in the gas chamber or suicided in some strange way. The result was the gigantic setup of the Russiagate and the incredible hoax of Trump as Kremlin's agent. Apparently, Trump saved himself by relying on the Jewish lobby he always frequented but he had to pay the bill. If true, who in Tel-Aviv has always considered that even the falsity of the JCPOA was itself an excessive concession to the Iranian ayatollahs, was therefore satisfied.

References:

1) https://www.voltairenet.org/article205087.html

2) https://reseauinternational.net/liran-pourrait-devenir-un-enfer-pour-les-etats-unis-et-leurs-allies

3) https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trumps-slurred-speech-tied-to-low-battery-in-putins-remote

*****************

Costantino Ceoldo - Pravda freelance

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Murmansk-BN electronic suppression systems take half of the world under control

In April of 2019, Russia saw the deployment of Murmansk-BN complexes of radio-electronic suppression in the Kaliningrad region. Thanks to the move, the military command of the Russian army could hear and see a lot better in the Wester direction, having thus left competitors behind in the development of the means of electronic warfare or EW jamming technology.

The Murmansk-BN is a strategic EW jamming system. No other country in the world has a system similar to this one. In our times, it is impossible to conduct either a global or a local conflict without  means of electronic warfare. Many developed countries introduce artificial intelligence technology, while the role of man in hostilities decreases.

The Murmansk-BN complex performs the functions of radio intelligence intercepting enemy signals and causing interference at a distance of up to 8,000 km.

In a nutshell, Russia has taken control of military radio communications in Europe. If necessary, the Russian military command will be able to disrupt communication between ships, UAVs and different classes of enemy aircraft. The complex itself looks like seven 32 meter antennae aimed at the sky. The antennae are installed on military KamAZ trucks.

From the territory of the Kaliningrad region, Murmansk-BN will cover not only the whole of Europe, but also the entire central and northern Atlantic Ocean, all of Canada and half of the territory of the United States. The complex takes control of 90% of Africa in the southern direction, and in the south-east  - all of China and India.

The deployment of Murmansk-BN complexes was not spontaneous. It was an asymmetric response to the American concept of the network-centric war.

Now, in order for the Americans to take advantage of the Network-centric War, they will have to use wired cable systems for communication, which seems nonsensical.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Lightning strikes Soyuz booster rocket after launch

A lightning struck the Soyuz-2.1 booster that blasted off from Plesetsk cosmodrome. All the equipment continued working regularly, the booster delivered the satellite on board into orbit as was scheduled.

During the blast off, the lightning struck the head fairing and then the third stage of the launch vehicle, which was recorded in the telemetry data transmitted from the rocket to Mission Control.

The natural phenomenon in no way disturbed the launch as Soyuz space rockets are protected against lightning strikes.

The incident occurred during the 14th second of the flight.

The launch of the Soyuz-2.1b booster rocket was conducted on May 27 at 09:23 Moscow time from launcher No. 4 of the State Cosmodrome of Plesetsk. The Glonass-M spacecraft was successfully launched into calculated orbit.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

The UK: A country in cloud cuckoo land

The Brexit vortex has seen a once-proud country tear itself apart pitting nation against nation, region against region and class against class

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

On the surface, according to the government of soon-not-to-be Prime Minister Theresa May, the United Kingdom has everything going for it - good employment figures (inside the European Union), a stable economy (inside the European Union), good Universities, a strong technological sector, an inventive workforce, competence, reliability. A collection of three countries (England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) a principate (Wales), and three Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey), brimming with good music, a healthy cultural scene, great ideas, a large internal population (66.5 million). Peoples with an admirable focus on the community and voluntary work, nations of animal lovers which gave the world cricket, fish and chips, James Bond and the British Gentleman.

Wow! So what went wrong? Islands are great places for myths to hide behind and for national stereotypes to be formed. The problem is when the myths are found out for what they are. The word Cricket in fact comes from the Dutch krick, meaning stick and fish and chips comes from the Portuguese pataniscas de bacalhau, meaning codfish patties fried in batter. Where is Britain without cricket and fish n' chips?

As for James Bond and the British Gentleman, let us try and find them in a crowd of soccer hooligans or among the uncivilized yobs having a burping contest sitting outside a pub downing pints of luke warm beer before the thing degenerates into a massive fight with glasses thrown, girls swearing, bags of excrement and plastic cups of urine being hurled. And if you want to see practically the same antics in a different venue, visit the House of Commons. Regarding the Prime Minister's view of booming Britain, speak to a few people outside the South-East and you will find a different story and a sorry picture.

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

Visit the United Kingdom during the daytime and you will find a civilized, pleasant country with an agreeable atmosphere, well-kept gardens with a flair for preserving the past in stately homes and castles. Visit the UK after six o'clock p.m. and the scene will degenerate into a real life version of a medieval Armageddon painting.

So in this Jekyll and Hyde scenario, for every Gentleman there is an antithesis, for every hero, a Nemesis. Hardly surprising when you start to go deeper and examine what is British society. A collection of peoples from Western Europe, basically, some of whom came from across the sea after others had walked across the land bridge which existed between East Anglia and Holland. They came from Belgium, they came from northern France, they came from Denmark, they came from Sweden, they came from Norway, they came from Germany. They came from Rome, they came from Normandy.

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

This is the British people, a mish-mash of peoples from the Continent (gasp) of Europe. Read the Venerable Bede and you will find confusing descriptions of the English (Germans) fighting the British (Britons), fighting the Scots from Ireland (where they originally came from) and attacks from Mona (the Isle of Man). You will find references to appeals forn Rome to send a legion to defeat these savages...and Europe, at the time, corresponded in kind. And this is exactly what we see today with Brexit. We see nation against nation (Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to Remain), we see region against region (Greater London, for instance, voted to Remain), we see socio-economic class against socio-economic class (the lying toffs leading the easily led poorer educated against those with knowledge and brains). And we see the British economic well-being being bailed out every year and sustained every year by the EU.

Given the current situation, the conclusion is shocking: nobody in the media and in the two main political parties in England (Conservative and Labour) and neither of the leaders (Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn) have been able, in this melee, to read the British people. They continue to say that the result of that fateful and ludicrous referendum in 2016 must be respected, when it is clear that most British people do not want to leave the European Union and when the original referendum was run on a campaign of sheer lies by the Leave movement.

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

What is worse is the fact that however bad Theresa May might have been as Prime Minister (a person who perhaps tried her best but who did not have the personal skills to do the job and who did not have the courage to own up and take the flak for the Windrush Scandal, allowing someone else to fall on their sword for her), something even worse can appear in the Tory Party's leadership contest.

Now is not the time to attack Theresa May because there is no joy in kicking someone when they are down and cannot defend themselves and seeing her in tears twice in public in the last days makes one question the ethics of the tabloid newspapers which were quick to gloat and jeer and the journalists who stuck the knife in with cruel headlines such as "Tearesa". Whatever her personal characteristics (more suited to the position of junior minister and probably excelling at this level), it is clear that she loves her country and that she did what she could in a difficult situation. Common decency would dictate that if a person is crying, whoever they are, it is time to leave them alone.

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

With Jeremy Corbyn unable to understand that the will of the British people is in Europe, where they came from originally, and that the Leave movement has run out of steam, belonging to the elderly and those who cannot understand simple economic principles, and with the Tory Party possibly getting ready to elect a hardline Brexiteer, the United Kingdom is in a very dark place, between the wall and a sword and frankly, in could cuckoo land. The solution is the Lib-Dems and the Greens, preferably the latter.

In the 1980s, the United Kingdom seemed to have been able to reinvent itself arising from the ashes of its imperial and colonial past, no longer deporting whole populations in secret and giving their islands to the bedmaster, the USA and seemingly happy to go with the rest of Europe and form an economic community. Half a century later, we are back to square one.

Most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

Today the United Kingdom needs to pull together, hold a second referendum this time based on the reality that leaving the EU would spell utter and total disaster by hemorrhaging jobs, destroying the fabric of employment for decades to come and destroying the future of the country's youth. A societal castrophe would follow an economic collapse. These are the facts and these are the reasons why most Members of Parliament, including Theresa May, backed the Remain campaign in 2016. Why did they not stick to their guns?

The definition of going against common sense is what? Living in cloud cuckoo land.

Photo:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Jardim_das_Del%C3%ADcias_Terrenas#/media/File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg

Photo 2: The author in 2018

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Twitter: @TimothyBHinchey

timothy.hinchey@gmail.com

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey works in the area of teaching, consultancy, coaching, translation, revision of texts, copy-writing and journalism. Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru since 2002, and now Co-Editor of the English version, he contributes regularly to several other publications in Portuguese and English. He has worked in the printed and online media, in daily, weekly, monthly and yearly magazines and newspapers. A firm believer in multilateralism as a political approach and multiculturalism as a means to bring people and peoples together, he is Official Media Partner of UN Women, fighting for gender equality and Media Partner with Humane Society International, promoting animal rights. His hobbies include sports, in which he takes a keen interest, traveling, networking to protect the rights of LGBTQI communities and victims of gender violence, and cataloging disappearing languages, cultures and traditions around the world. A keen cook, he enjoys trying out different cuisines and regards cooking and sharing as a means to understand cultures and bring people together.

Join the most international forum on the Net

http://engforum.pravda.ru/

Pravda.Ru 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

American militarism destroying the future of humanity

"The culture of peace is universal. It is shared by people and nations Worldwide. Today's "culture of war" is a US hegemonic project predicated on the creation of conflict and divisions within and between countries. It is this (unilateral) project of global warfare which is intent upon destroying civilization."

(Professor Michel Chossudovsky, "Towards a Culture of World Peace". Global Research: 5/16/2019).

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

Warmongering is anti-Human Impulse

The draconian ferocity of aggressive wars continues as we watch the unwarranted aggressive events unfolding against Iran in the Persian Gulf Region. One sees a contrast between a real issue and an imaginative problem. The motivating factor signals one thing that American ruling elite thinks: "we are the most powerful nation on earth" and nobody else should challenge our supremacy - the naïve malignity mindset of the American current leadership. In the 21ts century advanced technological warfare consequential outcomes will leave nothing intact except the dead entities of all the living beings. Be it Mr. Bolton, Pompeo or Trump, they have no logical understanding as to how their actions could undermine the rest of living humanity. In all probabilities, the war hysteria is a distraction from domestic issues facing the Trump administration. Rationality for peace requires objective reasoning. Could we, the conscientious humanity hold these naïve people back from triggering another nuclear disaster in the Middle East Arab region? Resolution of problems by reason and dialogue rather than belligerency and aggression. Sanctity of human life is grounded in the tenets of moral and intellectual leadership and being open to listening and learning to voices of REASON. If the Iranian leadership was smart, it should have acted fast to seek unity of the immediate neighbors (Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and of all the Arabs and Muslim nations to counteract a powerful moral force of reason to thwart the US plan. The world is fast becoming a violent place at crossroads. All ways of human life require safeguard and protection from great evils. Ben Tarnoff ("Weaponised AI is Coming. Are Algorithmic Forever Wars our Future?" ICH: 10/13/18), notes the speedy belligerency:

The wars of 9/11 continue, with no end in sight. Now, the Pentagon is investing heavily in technologies that will intensify them. By embracing the latest tools that the tech industry has to offer, the US military is creating a more automated form of warfare - one that will greatly increase its capacity to wage war everywhere forever.

America or its allies in the Arab Middle East face no formidable enemy except themselves against their own naïve designs of military superiority. There is no substance to any perceivable challenge  or military threat to America from Iran. So why should America rush its armada to the Persian Gulf?  It is not for peace, and not to protect the humanity from any imminent threat of war from any corners of the strategic game-play in the region. Rationally speaking, American leadership mindset appears devoid of reason and accountability. Wars do not bring diverse humanity to peacemaking but simply destroy the opportunities for dialogue and peaceful resolution of problems. Undoubtedly, the US current administration needs a powerful challenge to make a navigational change. Imagine if Russia or China were to employ their armadas across the Atlantic or the Pacific regions, would it be rational and a peace-making strategy for the global observers or for the American leadership? Today some 62 of the American organizations have asked the US Congress to consider a resolution to stop the war threats against Iran. America is imposing a sadistic war strategy on the rest of mankind.   

The UNO and its major organs responsible for global peace and security have proven to be ceremonial debating clubs and acting contrary to the essence and purposes of the Charter.  The global humanity feels tormenting pains and wants to foresee systematic change and development of a new global organization responsible to the global community, not the abstract Nation States. Like the past, once again few Western egoistic leaders have manipulated the time and opportunities to dictate and undermine the interests of the mankind.  The global humanity is the net object of all their deliberations but without any meaningful role in challenging the few global warlords. 

President Trump is in desperate need of rethinking of his role as an effective leader of America. Being a responsible leader, one cannot propel willful and meditated plan of foolish animosities and human destruction.  Once America was enriched with intellectual foresights to safeguard the rest of the mankind. But its contemporary leaders and major institutions seem to defy the logic of co-existing with the rest of the global community. For sure, American leaders lack even the essence of Thomas Paine's historic "Common Sense" to change, but historical change will replace America's global leadership image with others, more understanding and relevant to the mankind. American politicians are used to ignore the imperatives of global peaceful co-existence.

Egoistic Politicians Pursue the War Economy But US Soldiers are against the War Culture

America appears to be at threshold of an unavoidable moral and intellectual transition of reasoning but it is not following through the rational process of change and future-making.  The Washington-based war culture has incapacitated the US policy makers to think rationally and act responsibly in global affairs. Strange as is, President Trump and John Bolton cannot explain cannot explain why every day 18-25 US war veterans commit suicides? ("Why Do Soldiers Commit Suicide and Global Warlords." Uncommon Thought Journal, USA). Moral and intellectual darkness is renewed under the current leadership of the Commander in-Chief of the US armed forces. Do the leaders care to protect the precious human life? Most contemporary politicians are not responsible leaders but stage actors pretending to be representing the national interests. They learn to excite the emotions of the electorates to win elections but fail to act as responsible leaders. They view the humanity just in numbers, not an object of precious life and value in the larger universal context. Most often, these people are disconnected with the annals of normal human thinking and affairs, suspicious and paranoid and they see success to be achieved at the cost of ruthlessness, hatred, degeneration and viciousness - all part of their inborn value system, making politics as a dreadful game of egomaniac mind, deceptions and strategic priorities. This requires intelligent commitment to principles of international peace and security for all, non-aggression in the working of global systems, protection of life and a balanced ecological culture of co-existence within the encompassed Universe -Man and the Humanity. America, a leading industrialized power is indifferent to these pertinent factors of life.

We, The People - The Humanity are Capable to Challenge the Dreadful Calamity of War

The aim of human happiness and solidarity is not violence, wars and aggression. All wars perpetuate violence, fear and vindictiveness against mankind and are aimed at destruction of civilizations and dehumanization of succeeding generations. Bruce Gambrill Foster ("The Scourge Of War: The Shameless Marketing of Violence" Information Clearing House), observes: "The connection between combating the violence of organized crime, for example, and war is easily bridged. In both, blood is spilled.... If even our simplest joys are couched in terms of conflict, death and domination, what hope is there to distinguish and abhor and eventually end the true villainy of armed conflict, the scourge of war?"

The global mankind is the net victim of the catastrophic madness of the few warlords. Did President Trump learn anything from the past to change anything because of the knowledge, history and facts of life to know his weaknesses and strengths of vision and to change and reform his mind and behavior when facts warrant a change, be it in policy making or global interactive behavior? After all listening and learning are critical factors for the changing role of the 21st century political leadership and so is the flexibility mechanism to be built-in for effective leadership. But there are no intelligent and proactive leaders with a vision of the future to see the imperative of One Humanity except naïve and self-geared egomaniac full of the sensation of power using triviality and viciousness to torture and kill the mankind and destroy ecological habitats. But contrary to the brutal perceptions and actions of the US-former Europeans imperialists, the international community is informed, mature, and enjoys the moral and intellectual capacity to know and understand the facts of life and to challenge the politically imperiled insensitivity to universal accord and Unity of the mankind against brutality of the Terrorism of Wars that unites them with a common fate more than divides them by any token of adversity and separate national identities.

Progressively evolving is a new information-age plausible global culture of Thinking of One Humanity and a new proactive civilization of strong bonds and affinity of people to people cultural communications - global citizenry participation in social, economic and political Thinking and Globalization - man in one part of the world feels, thinks and acts-reacts to what happens to any man in another remote corners of the globe. Mankind is neither blind, nor inept, it defines its own purpose, meaning and identity for peace and harmony that the established institutions of governance - be it in America, the Middle East or Europe or elsewhere miserably failed to recognize or value their importance in global political affairs. Paul Craig Roberts (The Next War on Washington's Agenda."), had a rational thought to ask the right question:

We, as Americans, need to ask ourselves what all this is about? Why is our government so provocative toward Islam, Russia, China, Iran?  What purpose, whose purpose is being served? Certainly not ours............Where do we go from here? If not to nuclear destruction, Americans must wake up. Football games, porn, and shopping malls are one thing. Survival of human life is another. Washington, that is, "representative government," consists only of a few powerful vested interests. These private interests, not the American people, control the US government. That is why nothing that the US government does benefits the American people. 

 

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution and international affairs with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution: Approaches to Understand the Current Issues and Future-Making. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany, October 2017.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

The controversial and amazing liberation of Italian citizen in Syria

By Giovanne Giacalone

Syria seems to have become the land of miracles, the only place in the world where terrorists can suddenly become life saviors, or at least that's how it is being depicted.

Charles Lister, of the Washington DC based "Middle East Institute", tweeted the following news on Wednesday afternoon:

"In a press conference, the #HTS-linked Salvation Government in #Idlib, #Syria has announced it has rescued/freed a hostage from #Italy, Allesandro Sandrini, from a criminal gang".

Quite amazing. The al-Qaeda*-linked terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* (HTS) rescued the Italian citizen from a gang of criminals who held him captive for three years without managing to obtain a cent. Additionally, during the press conference, the HTS spokesperson claimed that 34-year-old Sandrini was being held by a gang "specialized in kidnappings and robberies", which raises the question on how they did not manage to earn anything from Sandrini's captivity in all that time.

According to information released by the Italian newspaper Repubblica it seems that in order to secure Sandrini, the police negotiated his liberation through some intermediaries and they then proceeded to contact the Italian government to plan the liberation.

The fact has been confirmed by Italian PM Giuseppe Conte, as reported by Ansa news agency:

"The compatriot Alessandro Sandrini was freed at the end of an articulated activity conducted, in foreign territory, in a coordinated and synergistic manner by the Italian intelligence, the judicial police and the MFA crisis unit".

The first logical question that arises is: "Was a ransom paid for his release? And if yes, who paid for it?"

If no ransom was paid, then why would a group of professional and "specialized" criminals decide to release the Italian citizen without receiving anything in exchange?

The timeline of Sandrini's story, as reconstructed by the Italian media, is particularly interesting as on October 3^rd 2016 he boarded a plane from Bergamo to Istanbul and then on to Adana where he disappeared a few days later.

One year later, in October 2017, he called home for the first time saying that he had been kidnapped. The phone call was followed by three more where Sandrini said that the criminals wanted money and that the Italian government wasn't doing anything for his liberation.

On July 19^th 2018 Sandrini appeared in a video, wearing an orange jail-suit, kneeling in front of two armed and masked individuals, but without any type of banner behind. In such occasion he again asked for assistance.

Then total silence, until today's press conference organized by the jihadist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* in Bab al-Hawa, where the terrorists claimed credit for his release.

What an amazing timing, as the United States have just accused (so far without any evidence) the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against the so-called "rebels" in Idlib. An interesting coincidence as the Idlib area is the last anti-Assad stronghold left and it is interesting to notice how this stronghold is in the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham*.

It is legitimate to think that the terrorist group HTS* has full interest in legitimizing itself on an international level as it is now a matter of survival and it would not be a surprise if some foreign powers would be willing to work with the terrorist group on such initiative with the objective of confronting the Syrian government and its Russian ally.

As to Alessandro Sandrini, once back in Italy he will be interrogated by the Attorney's office and in addition he will also have to face judicial actions because, as reported by Ansa news agency, he is wanted by the Italian authorities for robbery and sale of stolen goods.

*terrorist groups, banned in Russia

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...