In response to a letter from James Yerian, Ohio, USA,(18:14 2002-02-26 THE WORLD ISN'T FOCUSING ON RUSSIA ANYMORE, AND THE ANTI-AMERICANISM THAT IS OUT THERE IS SOMEWHAT UNJUSTIFIED) in your English Forum, I would like to reply with the following. And, by the way, Mr. Yerian, you will see that it was not the Russians that caused the "mess" in Afghanistan, but the Americans. A recent headline in one of the Russian Newsproviders read: "News headline in RJ : Feb 02,2002 CHIMBULAK - Leaders of the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States started their meeting on Friday as U.S. influence grows among them, Russia is losing friends and rows between states are becoming commonplace." Well, well. Surprise, surprise. "Rows between (post-Soviet Union) states" are becoming commonplace. The US/Nato/Capitalism/Corporate master plan seems to be grinding slowly on to its success. And Russia, and its former Union states, seem to be oblivious to these plans of the US military/industrial complex for her and her former Union. They seem to be blinded and seduced by the promise that NATO and the US hold out for eventual inclusion in the "big game" - i.e. participation in the world economy (so-called global economy), and membership in NATO, WTO, FTA and other such carrots that are dangled in front of the donkey. Quarrelling and rows between the former Soviet Union States is exactly what the US wants and has been working for over the last 50 years. Now that the natural evolution of the Soviet Union has been interrupted by the US literally bankrupting the Soviet Union into oblivion in the "arms race" of the cold war and Afghanistan, it wants to make sure that rows and quarrels escalate to the point where the self-anointed "police" can have an excuse for further US military presence in the former Soviet Union. Are the politicians and military leaders of the former Soviet Union and its states so blind that they don't see this enormous threat to their existence? Why does the US want to be in Georgia? I hope that the Russian generals have the guts to put their army into Georgia and tell the US to take a hike. Let's look at the US "master game" in all this hysteria initiating from the September 11th attacks. Initially, a mix of countries was threatened as so-called 'states supporting terrorism', "who are not with us and therefore MUST be against us": Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Although differing in most respects, especially in political ideology, they are alike in three ways: They have all borne decades of U.S. government hostility, abuse and corruption; they all have secular governments; they all have no connection to Osama bin Laden. [By the way - what unmitigated arrogance of Bush in saying to the world, "you are either with us, or against us." It just reflects the lack of intelligence that is typical of US presidents – a country which elects the like of film star Ronald Reagan as a president ends up being the laughing stock of other world countries. You may as well elect Ronald MacDonald - he would probably show more intelligence. This poorly veiled blackmail (challenge) on the world reflects the "born again" so-called religious TV evangelism in the US. Their stance is, "you either believe in Jesus and take the Bible as the absolute truth, or you are a sinner, a heathen, an evil in this world and against us." What absolute tripe and rubbish. I know of churches here in Canada and the US who are telling their congregations today that Muslims and the Muslim world are "evil" and the "root of all evil" and must be eradicated. If this isn't racialism and racial profiling in the worst way, I don't know what is. A country, that boasts to have the most murders and homicides and rapes and drug-related crimes in the whole world every year - year after year, who dares to "preach" their perverted religious and political ideologies is a joke – nevertheless, a very dangerous joke.] In, "Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia Inquirer') David Perlmutter warns that if these states do not do Washington's bidding (Oh my! The great Uncle Sam has spoken "do our BIDDING- or else" ...us poor souls of the world must now genuflect and quiver! I think the civilized and cultured people of Europe, Asia, the Far East, Central Asia, and Australia, have more dignity and common sense to not bow down!), they must: "Prepare for the systematic destruction of every power plant, every oil refinery, every pipeline, every military base, every government office in the entire country...the complete collapse of their economy and government for a generation." (Of course, Geneva conventions on allowable actions in war or conflict never have mattered to the US - look at their kidnapping of so-called Al Quaida people to Cuba and their subsequent treatment - God and the American Government only know what monstrous and new experimental truth drugs and torture these people are being subjected to! Is the American Government up in a UN War crimes tribunal for their treatment of Afghanistan? Of course not... the UN = the US. Need more be said.) This is exactly what the US and British did in the Gulf War...against all UN and Geneva conventions, the US and British destroyed the civilian infrastructure of Iraq, knowing full well that subsequent US (=UN) sanctions would not allow the Iraq Government to rebuild civilian water, sewage, power generating and other civilian infrastructures. As a result, thousands of Iraqi children, women and men die every month from disease and malnutrition and lack of basic life amenities. And what did the Madame Albright say about the massive civilian casualties in the war? Something like, "they are acceptable if the aim of the war is completed." Sounds like that famous French bitch who is purported to have said, "let them eat cake", about the starving thousands of Paris. Is the Madame up in a UN War Tribunal? Is Kissinger? Of course not, don't be silly...she and he are part of the good ole' US of A, who refuse to sign UN conventions that would allow the US to be taken to court over their many war crimes over the last 5 decades. And this is exactly what was done to Yugoslavia by the US and Britain. Yugoslavia's civilian infrastructure has been destroyed by US and NATO bombing, completely against all Geneva conventions. And is the US and Nato up against charges in some UN War Crimes Tribunal? Of course, not...don't be silly...the US is now the world police (albeit self-anointed - how unmitigatingly arrogant and crass!), and police always get away with what they want to do. So the scapegoat - in an attempt to divert world attention from US and Nato war crimes in Yugoslavia - Mr. Milosevic is kidnaped and hauled in front of the world for trying to save his country from the US-backed and viciously criminal KLA. By the way, this so-called UN War Crimes Tribunal has no authority and no jurisdiction at all...- the UN Charter does not grant (anywhere in the Charter) the UN to form such trumped-up tribunals. The US should be very wary of this so-called trial....Milosevic is a lawyer and will make a laughing stock of both this arrogant so-called judge and the US. He will also most likely expose the US for the hideous and perverted crimes it commited in Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, the countries which collaborated to create the Taliban, training and financing the forces of Osama bin Laden, and which have never stopped pouring money into the Taliban – namely Pakistan, close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the United States itself - have NOT been placed on the "we've got to get them" list (Surprise, surprise!). Instead these states are touted as core allies in the New World War against terrorism. What hypocrisy! I guess money and the US dollar talks more that world peace and justice. "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who has to be one of the most evil men in this world) said the US would engage in a 'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist organizations and up to 60 countries believed to be supporting them. Mr. Rumsfeld – have you the guts and intelligence to ask yourself why so many people hate the USA in this world, and why that hate led to September 11th? No...I thought not. Your answer to a challenge to US world domination is typical of the school-yard bully...bring out more terror and more guns..that'll show them. Were you bullied in School, Mr. Rumsfeld? Or were you the bully? I strongly suggest you attend a good psychiatrist...your megalomaniac thirst for power and revenge is not normal. "The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV, "had no choice" other than to pursue terrorists and countries giving them refuge." (Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King, weeks before he was assassinated by an American bullet, said, "The greatest purveyor of evil in this world is my country.") The threats to bomb up to a third of the world's countries has worried many people and many Governments, worldwide. But this is probably the intention. It serves two functions. First, it means that if Washington limits its aggressive action mainly to attacking Afghanistan, the world will breathe a sigh of relief. After all, the American propaganda machine and its news services has done a thorough job of "demonising" Muslims, Afghanis, the Taliban and Bin Laden....the US populace, on the whole is so gullible it isn't funny. And we think Washington will mainly attack Afghanistan - at first. Other immediate violations of sovereignty, such as the forced use of Pakistan, is backup action to support the attack on Afghanistan. There may also be some state terror, such as increased, unprovoked bombing of Iraq, as a diversion. But the main immediate focus is Afghanistan. Second, this scare tactic is meant to divert attention from Washington's real strategy, far, far more dangerous than the threat to bomb many states. Washington wants to take over Afghanistan in order to speed up the fulfilment of its strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics in the same way Washington has been pulverizing the former Yugoslavia. This poses the gravest risks to mankind. WHAT DOES WASHINGTON REALLY WANT WITH IMPOVERISHED AFGHANISTAN? (Pay attention to this part, Mr. Putin, all you Russian Generals, and leaders of the former Soviet Union States.) To answer this question, look at any map of Europe and Asia. Consider the immense spread of the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia. European Russia is 1,747,112 square miles. That's between a third and half the landmass of all Europe. Add the Asian part of Russia and you get 6,592,800 sq. m. That's equal to most of the US and China combined. More than half of Africa. Russia borders Finland in the far West. It borders Turkey and the Balkans in the south. It extends to the edge of Asia in the Far East. It is the rooftop of Mongolia and China. Not only is Russia spectacularly large, with incalculable wealth, mostly untapped, but it is the only world-class nuclear power besides the U.S. Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's military might has not been destroyed; indeed, it is arguably stronger, in relation to the US, than during the early period of the Cold War. For one, it has the most sophisticated submarine technology in the world. If the U.S. can break-up Russia and the other former Soviet Republics into weak territories, dominated by NATO, Washington would have a free hand to exploit Russia's great wealth and do whatever it wanted elsewhere without fear of Russian power. The great American dollar and military/industrial complex and Corporate power will rape Russia and its former states. Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working together, and despite the great harm that has been done to Russia by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this remains the thrust of US policy. Afghanistan is strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, Pakistan, and even, for a small stretch, China but, most important, sharing borders and a common religion with the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These in turn border Kazakhstan, which borders Russia. Central Asia is strategic not only for its vast deposits of oil, as we are often told, but more important for its strategic position. Were Washington to take control of these Republics, NATO would have military bases in the following key areas: the Baltic region; the Balkans and Turkey; and these Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's neck. Add to that Washington's effective domination of the former Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south, and the US would be positioned to launch externally instigated 'rebellions' all over Russia. Just watch and wait and see...this will happen. The US - now that it has broken Russia, now that is has an ineffective leader in Russia - wants to subjugate Russia. The dollar will talk powerful words. NATO, whose current doctrine allows it to intervene in states bordering NATO members, could then initiate "low intensity wars" including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, also officially endorsed by current NATO doctrine, in 'response' to myriad trumped-up 'human rights abuses.' Like they did in Yugoslavia. It is ironic that Washington claims it must return to Afghanistan to fight Islamist terrorism, because it was precisely in its effort to destroy Russian power that WASHINGTON FIRST CREATED the Islamist terrorist apparatus in Afghanistan, during the '80s. The US is the most clever and bald-faced liar on this earth. I would suggest readers of this post do a little research and find out which giant American Petroleum Corporation has the rights to 70% of the oil fields in Afghanistan. Now there is a good excuse for invading Afghanistan! A capital excuse, one may say! This was not, as some say, a matter of aiding rebels against Russian expansionism. Whatever one thinks about the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, it was in fact conceived as a defensive action to preserve, not alter, the world balance of power. It was the United States which took covert action to 'encourage' Russian intervention, with the goal of turning the conservative rural Afghan tribesmen into a force to drain the Soviet Union and bankrupt it. This is admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the key National Security chief at the time. Consider the following excerpts from two newspaper reports. > First, from the 'N.Y. Times': "The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia with nearly $6 billion worth of weapons. And the territory targeted last week [this was published after the August, 1998 U.S. missile attack on Afghanistan], a set of six encampments around Khost, where the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has financed a kind of 'terrorist university,' in the words of a senior United States intelligence official, is well known to the Central Intelligence Agency. "... some of the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s help are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden's banner.... ('NY Times,' 24 August 1998 pages A1 & A7 ) And this from the London 'Independent': "The Afghan Civil War was under way, and America was in it from the start - or even before the start, if [former National Security Adviser, and currently top foreign policy strategist Zbigniew] Brzezinski himself is to be believed. '"We didn't push the Russians to intervene,' he told an interviewer in 1998, 'but we consciously increased the probability that they would do so. This secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret that?' [said Brzezinski] "The long-term effect of the American intervention from cold-warrior Brzezinski's perspective was 10 years later to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. But there were other effects, too. "To keep the war going, the CIA, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's military intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate), funnelled millions and millions of dollars to the Mujahedeen. It was the remotest and the safest form of warfare: the US (and Saudi Arabia) provided funds, and America also a very limited amount of training. They also provided the Stinger missiles that ultimately changed the face of the war. "Pakistan's ISI did everything else: training, equipping, motivating, and advising. And they did the job with panache: Pakistan's military ruler at the time, General Zia ul Haq, who himself held strong fundamentalist leanings, threw himself into the task with a passion." ('The Independent' (London) 17 September 2001. Our emphasis.) Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has been perhaps the key force in financing the Taliban. But the U.S. itself has provided direct support despite the Taliban's monstrous record of humanitarian abuse: "The Bush administration has not been deterred. Last week it pledged another $43 million in assistance to Afghanistan, raising total aid this year to $124 million and making the United States the largest humanitarian donor to the country." ('The Washington Post,' 25 May 2001) Why have the US and its allies continued - up to now - to fund the Taliban? And why nevertheless is the US now moving to attack its monstrous creation? The answer is, of course, that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fund the Taliban so the Taliban could do a job: consolidate control over Afghanistan and from there move to destabilize the former Soviet Central Asian Republics on its borders. But the Taliban has failed. It has not defeated the Russian-backed Northern Alliance. Instead of subverting Central Asia in businesslike fashion, it has indulged in blowing up statues of Buddha and terrorizing people (mostly women) who deviate from the Taliban's super-repressive interpretation of Islam. At the same time, Russia has also been moving in the 'wrong' direction, from Washington's perspective. The completely controllable Yeltsin has been replaced with President Putin, who partially resists the U.S. - for example, putting down the CIA-backed takeover of Chechnya by Islamist terrorists linked to Afghanistan. Further, China and Russia have signed a mutual defense pact. And despite immense European/U.S. pressure, Russian President Putin refused to condemn Belarussian President Lukashenko who, like the jailed but unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic, calls for standing up to NATO. It is this unfavourable series of developments that has caused Washington to increase its reliance on its all-time favourite tactic: extreme brinkmanship. An early sign of this brinkmanship appeared recently, just before the Presidential elections in the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. Belarus borders Lithuania, that is, the Baltic region. Washington and the European Union loathe Belarussian President Lukashenko because he has refused to turn his small country over to the International Monetary Fund and dismantle all the social guarantees of the Soviet era. Moreover he called for defending Yugoslavia from NATO attack. He even wants Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to reunite. This desire to have former Soviet Republics get back together puts him square in the path of Washington's policy, which is to break these Republics up into even smaller pieces. So, former Soviet Union States - go on having rows...you are just playing into the hands of the great American game. For months, Washington and the Europeans have been meddling in the Belarussian elections. Washington admits to funding some 300 'Non-Governmental Organizations' in Belarus. This in a country of some 10 million souls. As if this wasn't sufficient, just before the elections, U.S. Ambassador to Belarus Michael Kozak issued a truly startling statement: "[Ambassador Kozak wrote to a British newspaper that] America's 'objective and to some degree methodology are the same' in Belarus as in Nicaragua, where the US backed the Contras against the left-wing Sandinista Government in a war that claimed at least 30,000 lives." ("The Times" (UK), 3 September 2001.) As you may recall, the Contras was a terrorist outfit that Washington financed during the 1980s to destroy the Left-wing Nationalist Sandinista government (a duly elected Government, by the wya) in Nicaragua. the Contras specialized in raiding farming villages where they slaughtered the inhabitants; that when they were not smuggling drugs. This all came out during the Iran-Contra scandal. Now Washington has cynically used the incident at the World Trade Center and the lesser attack on the Pentagon to rally its NATO forces, invoking Article Five of NATO's charter, under which all members of NATO must respond to an attack on any one. This has achieved the goal of a) putting together and deploying a "peacekeeping force" for Afghanistan (what a laugh! America now has its much sought-after bases in central Asia, and its Corporate giants are just behind, biting at the bit to get to the oil!), b) launching air and ground attacks, (the UN Geneva Conventions have again been thrown out of the window by the US), c) eliminating the obstinate and incompetent leadership of the Taliban, and d) taking direct control through the creation of a U.S.-dominated NATO military occupation right on the doorstep of Russia. Some argued that the US/NATO would be crazy to try to pacify Afghanistan. They say the British failed to do it in the 1800's, and the Russians failed in the 1980's. But Washington does not need or intend to pacify Afghanistan. It needs a military presence sufficient to organize and direct indigenous forces to penetrate the Central Asian republics and instigate armed conflict. Rather than trying to defeat the Taliban, Washington will make the Taliban an offer they cannot refuse: work with the U.S.; get plenty of money and guns plus a free hand to direct the drug trade, just as the U.S. has permitted the KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the Balkans. Wait and see..this will happen....it won't be in the media..especially the US propaganda media, but it will happen. Or oppose the U.S., and die. In this way, Washington hopes to duplicate what it did in Kosovo where NATO took drug-dealing gangsters and violently anti-Serbian secessionists and out of that raw material fashioned the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army. And when Milosevic tries to save Yugoslavia from this most heinous evil, he is hauled up in this so-called Tribunal. When Martin Luther King said, "My country is the greatest purveyor of evil in this world", he was so right, so true. In Afghanistan's case the raw material would mainly be members of the Taliban. Reorganized and under strict direction, reborn as Liberation Fighters, they will be directed against the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. This would duplicate what NATO has done in the Balkans. There it has sent the KLA, beefed up by Islamist reinforcements and 'advised' by U.S. specialists (what a joke - again, US corrupt meddling in the world), against neighbouring Macedonia. As the Central Asian Republics battle the intruders, NATO could offer them military assistance, thus penetrating the region on both sides by means of a conflict instigated by Washington. This tactic of simultaneously attacking and defending Central Asia - has been employed to great effect against Macedonia. The goal is to produce decimated, NATO-dominated territories. No more Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Then on to Kazakhstan, and then Russia. No, this isn't hyperbole,,this is the aim of the US. The great game. Break and then subjugate Russia. When will the world, and when will the Russian Generals wake up to the presence of this evil in the world, now at their doorstep?...an evil that far surpasses Hitler and his Third Reich. America is unarguably the richest country in the world, and has been since the end of the 2nd World War. Has America used its riches, its power, its influence, its knowledge and skills to better this world? to help the poorer people and Nations of this world? No, I am sorry to say, that > all of America's wealth and power and knowledge has been used by ruthles and evil politicians (and their agencies) and business leaders to corrupt and subjugate the world. If the American Government had stood back from the September 11th crisis and asked itself seriously, - very, very seriously, "Why would a group of people hate us enough to do this?" They would have come to some nasty conclusions about their foreign policy (that's a joke in itself more like foreign corruption and meddling) and their actions around the world over the last 50 years. This strategy. I believe - in the end - cannot be sold to the American people. However much NBC, CNN and other US Government propaganda machines pour out their supportive US government propaganda, rather than try to get to the TRUTH about America and its disturbing policies around the world, it will not work. People wake up...eventually. It is for that reason that the Bush administration is using the tragic occurrence in New York (which itself occurred under circumstances suggesting the complicity of Washington's covert forces) to create international hysteria sufficient to drag NATO into the strategic occupation of Afghanistan and an intensified assault on the former Soviet Union. Before anyone sighs with relief, thinking, "Thank God this is all that's happening," consider that apart from the violation of national sovereignty, apart from breaking just about every Geneva Convention, and many other very negative aspects of Washington's plans, the attack on Afghanistan brings the US to Russia's Central Asian doorstep. This is the strategic escalation of conflict, moving us all much closer - nobody knows how much closer and nobody knows how fast things will escalate – to worldwide nuclear war. Will Washington get away with it? Washington - and the giant corrupt, power-hungry and greedy capitalists who control it - obviously think Russia will let itself be destroyed. But then, as the Greeks say, "Pride is followed by self-destruction." The Russians have always struck me as being an unknown quantity. They try to avoid a fight. But as Mr. Hitler discovered, when they are pushed to the wall, they fight with the ferocity of lions. And they have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on the ground, on the seas, and in space. Thus Washington is playing with the possibility of a war which would make the horror that occurred at the World Trade Center, or even the much larger-scale horror of the U.S. terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like previews of hell. When will the world see this? When will the world realize that we have an evil far, far worse that Hitler in the presence and policies of the US? Putin, Russian Generals, former Soviet States, People of Russia and its former satellite States...stop having "rows"...stop quarrelling...do not be dazzled by the American carrots being dangled in front of your noses. America is evil. It's aims and policies are evil. It's greed is evil, unlimited and insatiable. America wants the former Russian States and Russia itself to rape them of their resources. America is the worst evil this world has seen and will see for a long time. Stand up...get together work together to stop this evil at your very doorstep. Show us your power and wealth. Show us your immense culture and knowledge. Show us your political strength. Show us your great history and culture. Sincerely,
Charlie States, Richmond, BC, Canada.
After the incident with the shootdown of the Ilyushin Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Russia will supply an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria
Indeed, how dare they run US-independent policy? They should have followed the example of the European Union that turned independent states of the Old World into US-ditto entities