Noord-Koreaans 'bedrog met nucleaire deal' is fake news o.a. gebracht door de New York Times

In een artikel op The Nation bericht Tim Shorrock over een artikel in de New York Times, geschreven door David Sanger, éen 'journalist die in het verleden vaak als bron fungeerde voor lekken over het VS buitenlandbeleid t.a.v. Noord-Korea (ofwel men lekte officiële documenten naar Sanger).

Deze Sanger bracht dat artikel in de NYT en daarin wordt gesteld dat Pyongyang zich niet aan de afspraken houdt die met Trump zijn gemaakt en waarin voorts wordt gesteld dat Noord-Korea nog steeds raketten ontwikkeld. Een en ander n.a.v. een door de rechtse denktank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) opgesteld rapport

Uitvoerig legt Shorrock uit dat het rapport van een enorm 'fake news' (nepnieuws) niveau is. Zo zijn de getoonde foto's van de sites in Noord-Korea, van 2 maanden voor de gesprekken tussen Trump en Kim Yung-un.........

Bovendien zo stelt Shorrock, zijn er geen verdragen getekend over het raketprogramma van Noord-Korea en zoals het in de dagelijkse praktijk gaat: totdat er zaken zijn getekend gaat men door waar men mee bezig was, of het nu om de strijd over het bezit van een gebied gaat, of zoals in dit geval het werken aan middellange- en langeafstandsraketten.......

Lees het volgende verhaal en intussen een cliché op deze plek: geeft het ajb door, laat je niet langer besodemieteren door instituten als CSIS of het Haagse Centrum voor Strategische Studies (HCSS) met hun oorlogshitserij op basis van leugens en halve en verdraaide waarheden...... Instituten die fungeren als grootlobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, de NAVO en het uiterst gewelddadige, terroristische buitenlandbeleid van de VS in het groot..... (waar de NAVO onder opperbevel staat van de VS.....)

NUCLEAR ARMS AND PROLIFERATION NORTH KOREA MEDIA BIAS

How ‘The New York Times’ Deceived the Public on North Korea

Stretching the findings of a think-tank report on Pyongyang’s missile bases is a reminder of the paper’s role in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

By Tim Shorrock

NOVEMBER 16, 2018

(Photo by Haxorjoe at en.wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0)

The New York Times may still have a Judith Miller problem—only now it’s a David Sanger problem.

Miller, of course, is the former Times reporter who helped build the case for the 2003 US invasion of Iraqwith a series of reports based on highly questionable sources bent on regime change. The newspaper eventually admitted its errors but didn’t specifically blame Miller, who left the paper soon after the mea culpa and is now a commentator on Fox News.

Now, Sanger, who over the years has been the recipient of dozens of leaks from US intelligence on North Korea’s weapons program and the US attempts to stop it, has come out with his own doozy of a story that raises serious questions about his style of deep-state journalism.

The article may not involve the employment of sleazy sources with an ax to grind, but it does stretch the findings of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank that is deeply integrated with the military-industrial complex and plays an instrumental role in US media coverage on Korea.

“Controversy is raging,” South Korea’s progressive Hankyoreh newspaper declared on Wednesday about the Times report, which it called “riddled with holes and errors.”

Sanger’s story, which appeared on Monday underneath the ominous headline “In North Korea, Missile Bases Suggest a Great Deception,” focused on a new study from CSIS’s “Beyond Parallel” projectabout the Sakkanmol Missile Operating Base, one of 13 North Korean missile sites, out of a total of 20, that it has identified and analyzed from overhead imagery provided by Digital Globe, a private satellite contractor.

None of the 20 sites has been officially acknowledged by Pyongyang, but the network is “long known to American intelligence agencies,” wrote Sanger.

Sakkanmol, according to CSIS, “is an undeclared operational missile base for short-range ballistic missiles” a little over 50 miles (85 kilometers) north of the border and therefore “one of the closest to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and Seoul.” Pyongyang’s highly publicized decommissioning last summer of the Sohae satellite launch facility “obscures the military threat to U.S. forces and South Korea from this and other undeclared ballistic missile bases.”

Its authors added a huge caveat at the end: “Some of the information used in the preparation of this study may eventually prove to be incomplete or incorrect.”

But the Times ignored the warning and took the report several steps further. According to Sanger, that analysis of the missile base shows that North Korea is “moving ahead with its ballistic missile program” despite pledges made by Kim Jong-Un to President Trump at their Singapore summit on June 12 to eliminate his nuclear and missile programs if the United States ends its “hostile policy” and agrees to forge a new relationship with North Korea.

The “new commercial satellite images” of the undeclared missile sites, Sanger concluded darkly, suggest that North Korea “has been engaged in a great deception.”

While North Korea has offered to dismantle a major launching site, he asserted, it continues “to make improvements at more than a dozen others that would bolster launches of conventional and nuclear warheads.” That finding “contradicts Mr. Trump’s assertion that his landmark diplomacy is leading to the elimination” of the North’s nuclear weapons and missiles, Sanger concluded.

The implication was that North Korea, by continuing to build missiles after the Singapore summit, is lying to the United States and is therefore untrustworthy as a negotiating partner—and that Trump, by proclaiming that he has neutralized Kim’s threats, has been deceived. The Times-CSIS report was immediately picked up by major media outlets and repeated almost verbatim on NBC Nightly News and NPR, with little additional reporting.

A leading Democrat, Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts, seized on the report to argue that President Trump is “getting played” by North Korea. “We cannot have another summit with North Korea—not with President Trump, not with the Secretary of State—unless and until the Kim regime takes concrete, tangible actions to halt and roll back its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs,” he said in the statement.

But even a cursory analysis of the imagery should have raised questions. On Monday night, a Korean news outlet pointed out that all the photos analyzed in the CSIS report are dated March 29, 2018—almost two and a half months before Trump and Kim met in Singapore on June 12.

The dates make Sanger’s claim that North Korea is “moving ahead” on missile production after its pledges to Trump laughable; indeed, they make his story look like a serious attempt to deceive the American public about the real progress that has been made in ending the standoff.

In fact, as discussion swirled on Twitter, it became clear that Sanger was exaggerating the report. Arms-control experts immediately questioned his assertions, arguing that he had ignored the fact that North Korea and the United States have yet to sign any agreement under which the North would give up its nuclear weapons and missiles. And in the absence of an agreement, it’s status quo for both North Korea and the United States.

North Korea’s missile program “is NOT deception,” Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, posted soon after the story was published. Narang, who writes occasionally for the Times editorial pageon North Korea, pointed out that Kim Jong-un has never offered to stop producing ballistic missiles and in fact had ordered more to be produced in January 2018.

“Unless and until there is a deal” with Trump, he wrote, “Kim would be a fool to eliminate and stop improving [them].… So the characterization of ‘deception’ is highly misleading. There’s no deal to violate.” (Like other US analysts, Narang did not question the CSIS report itself, calling it “excellent.”)

The CSIS report was denounced by the government of South Korean President Moon Jae-in as “nothing new,” and Kim Eui-kyeom, its chief spokesperson, took particular exception to the Times’ use of the term “deception.” To his credit, Sanger acknowledged the criticism and quoted the statement in full.

“North Korea has never promised to dismantle its missile bases, nor has it ever joined any treaty that obligates it to dismantle them,” said Kim. “So calling this a ‘deception’ is not appropriate. If anything, the existence of these missile bases highlights the need for negotiation and dialogue, including those between the North and the United States, to eliminate the North Korean threat.”

Hankyoreh, in its analysis, objected to Sanger’s claim that Sakkanmol and other missile bases are “hidden.” It reported that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff had identified the base as the source for a short-range missile launched by North Korea on March 10, 2016.

“South Korean and overseas news outlets at the time dedicated significant coverage to the launch, noting the presence of an underground Scud missile base in the Sakkanmol area.”

Leon Sigal, the author of a book about North Korea and a former member of the New York Times editorial board, sharply disagreed with Sanger’s assertion that North Korea is now “moving ahead with its ballistic missile program.” Writing Tuesday in 38 North, Sigal said the CSIS report notes that “only minor infrastructure changes were observed” at the missile site since Kim came to power in December 2011. That’s hardly progress.

Sigal also noted the absence of a US–North Korea agreement inhibiting the “deployment of missiles by Pyongyang, never mind requiring their dismantlement. Nor has Washington yet offered the necessary reciprocal steps that might make such a deal possible.”

In a biting comment on his former employer, he added that “substituting tendentious hyperbole for sound reporting may convince editors to feature a story on page one, but it is a disservice to readers.”

Taking note of the response from the Moon government and arms-control experts, Christine Ahn, the founder of Women Cross DMZ and a strong advocate for engagement with the North, called on the newspaper to correct the story. “The @nytimes should write a retraction,” she said. “They just made real Trump’s allegations of #fakenews.”

On Tuesday, as she predicted, Trump used the story to launch another attack on the media. “The story in the New York Times concerning North Korea developing missile bases is inaccurate,” he tweeted. “We fully know about the sites being discussed, nothing new—and nothing happening out of the normal. Just more Fake News. I will be the first to let you know if things go bad!”

Less than two hours later, the Times communications office put a short statement out on Twitter defending Sanger’s reporting. “The New York Times stands by our story, which is based on satellite imagery analyzed by experts,” it stated in a post that linked to Trump’s earlier blast.

Sanger, who is interviewed frequently for national security conferences and documentaries on North Korea, did not respond to e-mails asking for comment on his story.

Like many of his North Korea stories over the years, Sanger’s account of what he basically described as a betrayal by Kim Jong-un seemed perfectly timed to interject public skepticism of the North at a crucial moment for the US negotiations with both Koreas to resolve the nuclear standoff and pave the way for a final peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula.

Over the past month, while the two Koreas have made spectacular leaps in reducing military tensions along their border, the US dialogue with North Korea has stalled. The primary issues dividing them are Trump’s insistence on keeping his pressure campaign of economic sanctions in place until the North denuclearizes, and the North’s demand that Trump join the two Koreas in publicly declaring an end to the Korean War.

South Korea has also pushed for such a declaration, saying that it would assure the North that it can eventually disarm without fear of attack or invasion from the United States (its position on the end-of-war declaration has been harshly criticized in Washington, including by CSIS analysts).

The differences came into stark relief last week, when North Korea abruptly canceled a planned meeting in New York between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean Workers’ Party Vice Chairman Kim Yong-chol. In a bid to get them back on track, President Moon this week sent his unification minister, Cho Myoung-gyon, to Washington, where he is meeting with Pompeo, congressional leaders, and, according to Yonhap News, top officials at CSIS.

South Korean officials are confident the US–North Korea talks will resume, and point to the steps Pyongyang has taken since the Singapore summit. They include North Korea’s decommissioning of a major satellite launch facility; its destruction of the tunnels where its nuclear weapons were tested; its return of American dead from the Korean War; and its unprecedented cooperation with South Korea and the US-controlled UN Command to remove guard posts and firearms in the DMZ.

On Tuesday, John Bolton, Trump’s hawkish national-security adviser, toldreporters in Asia that Trump “is prepared to have a second summit” with Kim in early 2019. And on Thursday, in a brief meeting in Singapore with President Moon, Vice President Mike Pence asked that South Korea “communicate and talk more closely with North Korea” to help bring this about, Moon’s spokesman told reporters.

The most glaring problem with the Times story was Sanger’s characterization of CSIS as a neutral organization (“a major think tank”) and his failure to disclose that it receives enormous funding from the US government as well major military contractors. Nor did he mention that CSIS and its key analysts provide a kind of anchor to the Times’ coverage of Korea; they often appear near the lead of a story to explain its political significance. That is particularly true of Victor Cha, one of the authors of the report.

Cha, the director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council in the George W. Bush White House, was briefly considered last year by President Trump for US ambassador to Seoul (apparently his hawkish views weren’t enough to get him the job).

In his interview with Sanger for the Times article, Cha seemed to be pushing for a more aggressive stance against North Korea. “It’s not like these bases have been frozen,” he said. “Work is continuing. What everybody is worried about is that Trump is going to accept a bad deal—they give us a single test site and dismantle a few other things, and in return they get a peace agreement” that formally ends the Korean War.

Cha continued to defend the report as the criticism intensified, and took special umbrage at South Korea’s response. “How can [South Korea] defend NK’s undisclosed operational missile bases?” he asked in a heated exchange on Twitter that caught the attention of Charles Knight, an analyst with the Project on Defense Alternatives. “Seriously, how contorted can these rationalizations for NK weapons possession get??”

Knight, in an e-mail, said he had concluded that Cha has been “enabled” by Sanger and the editors of the Times to “be the agent of the opening salvo of an offensive by the most reactionary elements of the US national security and foreign policy establishment against the Korean diplomacy of both the Trump administration and South Korea.”

Here’s where the contractor money that pours into CSIS comes in: Providing the justification for a tougher policy of sanctions and military threats would be very much in tune with the defense and intelligence companies that support the think tank.

According to the CSIS page for “corporation and trade association donors,”they include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, L-3, Rockwell, General Atomics, and Booz Allen Hamilton. CSIS is also funded by several Asian defense giants, including Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and Korea Aerospace Industries.

All of these companies have a stake in US military options focused on North Korea, including monitoring its military activities, building missile-defense systems and providing weapons, ships, drones, and aircraft for offensive military operations when they become necessary.

As I reported in 2017 for Newstapa/The Korea Center for Investigative Journalism, “As the South Korean and US militaries have become more integrated in the face of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, CSIS has become an important forum where military collaboration—especially on the industrial side—is thrashed out and decided.”

In 2016, for example, CSIS sponsored a conference on “U.S.-Korea Defense Acquisition Policy and the International Security Environment” that drew high-ranking officials from the South Korean government and its military industry. In opening the conference, CSIS’s CEO John Hamre, a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, declared, “We’ve been military partners for 70 years but we are now going to be business partners in a very new way.”

Digital Globe, the satellite company that supplied the imagery for the CSIS report, is not a donor to the think tank. But it has a special relationship with US intelligence as an important contractor for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, one of the primary collection agencies for the US government. According to CSIS report, Joseph Bermudez Jr., its primary author, is a former “senior all-source analyst for DigitalGlobe’s Analysis Center.”

The Moon government, while a donor to CSIS, did not seem impressed with the Digital Globe imagery. In his critique of the Times story, Moon’s spokesperson Kim Eui-kyeom pointed out that the source for the CSIS analysis is a “commercial satellite” vendor. “The intelligence authorities of South Korea and the U.S. have far more detailed information from military satellites and are closely monitoring [it],” he said.

In the end, the Sanger story was widely derided in the circle of people who closely follow North Korea. Once these doubts were voiced, both The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post avoided the Times’ claim of deception and played down its dire conclusions that North Korea is cheating on the agreement it reached with Trump last June.

That’s a good development, indicating that Sanger’s questionable scoop probably won’t mushroom out of control and add fuel to a conflict, as Judith Miller’s phony reporting did at the advent of the Iraq War. And Sanger’s role as a leading expert on North Korea and US intelligence may take a hit.

“In an age of baseless allegations of fake news devaluing the work of journalists worldwide, it’s extremely lamentable that the New York Times—which is meant to be a nuanced and quality outlet—spun the CSIS story in the egregious way it did,” Chad O’Carroll, the CEO of Korea Risk Group, a Seoul-based organization that analyzes North Korea, tweeted on Tuesday.

Correction: The passage discussing a Twitter exchange involving Victor Cha and Charles Knight was garbled in the editing process; it has now been corrected.

Tim Shorrock TWITTER Tim Shorrock is a Washington, DC–based journalist and the author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.

==========================================
Zie ook:
'Haags Centrum voor Strategische Studies (HCSS): stelt dat Noord-Korea nog steeds raketten bouwt'

VS zet definitief in op oorlog met Rusland en VS ambassadeur Hoekstra wil dat Nederland Rusland hard aanpakt v.w. MH17

Waarschijnlijk om het volk te laten zien dat hij niets met Rusland heeft en zelfs geneigd is Rusland aan te vallen, heeft psychopaat Trump, samen met zijn militaire adviseurs (die hij bijna continu rond zich heeft) besloten een raketsysteem in Duitsland te stationeren, zodat de VS niet alleen raketten heeft in Roemenië en Polen.......

De raketten die in Roemenië en Polen staan maken zogenaamd onderdeel uit van een raketschild tegen Iran, echter deze raketten staan zo dicht op de Russische grens, dat Rusland moeite zal hebben ze te onderscheppen, mocht de VS ze op Rusland afschieten....... 

Je dacht waarschijnlijk dat het hier alleen gaat om antiraketsystemen, echter dat is maar ten dele waar, deze raketten kunnen in een mum van tijd van (nucleaire) kernkoppen worden voorzien en dan (uiteraard) als aanvalsraketten worden ingezet....... Het zou me verbazen als de raketten in Polen en Roemenië al niet zijn uitgerust met kernkoppen....

Mensen, dat was het nog niet, generaal Scaparrotti heeft ook weer van zich laten horen en hij stelt dat er veel meer troepen naar Europa moeten, zelfs troepen die (zogenaamd) terreur bestrijden in het Midden-Oosten, zouden in Europa moeten worden gestationeerd, aldus de oorlogshitser en grootlobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex.....

Ach ja, de VS heeft 'slechts' 60.000 militairen in Europa, althans als dat er intussen al niet veel meer zijn, immers het Pentagon heeft carte blanche gekregen van Trump voor het naar eigen inzicht opvoeren van troepensterkte...... Daarnaast heeft de VS meer dan 300 militaire bases rond een groot deel van Rusland en China......

Oplichter Scaparrotti stelt dat die troepen nodig zijn om de Russen het hoofd te bieden, echter van Russische agressie in Europa is geen sprake, althans als je de leugens van de NAVO, de meeste EU politici en de reguliere media niet meerekent, geteisem dat de leugens volhoudt dat De Krim is geannexeerd en dat de Russen in Oost-Oekraïne zitten.......

De werkelijke agressor is de VS, dat de NAVO tegen de grens van Rusland heeft gedrukt, dit is tegen de begin 90er jaren gemaakte afspraken met Sovjet-president Gorbatsjov....... De opstand die in Kiev startte was voorbereid en werd geregisseerd door de VS, die daarna de Porosjenko junta installeerde...... Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, is hier één op één verantwoordelijk voor, de hele 'grap' (een enorme oorlogsmisdaad!) heeft de VS maar liefst 4 miljard dollar gekost.....

Het is dan ook overduidelijk dat de VS van zins is Rusland aan te vallen, dan wel de spanningen dermate hoog op te schroeven dat het militair-industrieel complex op volle toeren kan gaan draaien...... Tja er kan altijd nog een ferme schep bovenop, nietwaar?

Daarover gesproken, de VS 'ambassadeur' in ons land, Pete Hoekstra liet bij BNR weten (o.a. in het nieuws van 7.30 u. vanmorgen) dat Nederland zich agressiever moet opstellen tegenover Rusland, dit n.a.v. het neerhalen van vlucht MH17..... Nederland moet zich in de EU harder opstellen en pleiten voor zwaardere sancties tegen Rusland, daarbij verwacht Hoekstra dat de VS Nederland zal steunen..... Nog een uitspraak van Hoekstra, daar komt 'ie: Nederland moet zorgen dat het North Stream (NS2) project, een pijpleiding vanuit Rusland naar Duitsland (en Nederland) wordt afgeblazen...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Met dat laatste komt de aap uit de mouw: zodat de EU zich afhankelijk maakt van het zwaar gesubsidieerde en voor ons peperdure (LNG) gas uit de VS, gas dat veelal is verkregen uit schaliegaswinning, ofwel gas dat middels enorme milieuschade is gewonnen en middels smerige tankertransporten over de Atlantische Oceaan naar de EU wordt vervoerd........ Wat een vuile oplichter die Hoekstra!! 

Het eerste artikel hieronder is van Tyler Durden en werd o.a. gepubliceerd op Anti-Media en Zero Hedge. Het tweede artikel is een korte inleiding op een video van het Ron Paul Liberty Rapport (zien mensen!):

US Military Set to Deploy Powerful Anti-Missile Shield in Germany

June 3, 2018 at 10:11 am

Written by Tyler Durden

(ZHE) — The United States is looking to establish a powerful missile shield in Germany in a potential move that would further inflame tensions with both Moscow and Tehran.

Though NATO has long insisted that its missile defense systems are not directed at Russia, the Kremlin has repeatedly condemned what it sees as NATO encroachment in Eastern Europe, especially after countries like Romania — which is not engaged in any ongoing conflict with Russia — have recently installed their own US-supplied ballistic missile systems, with renewed multi-billion dollar Patriot missile expansions to follow.

Screenshot from a U.S.-Germany Anti-Air Missile Live-Fire Exercise In Greece, November 2017

And former Warsaw Pact turned NATO member Poland in late 2017 struck a $10.5 billion missile defense deal with the US. Also supposedly neutral non-NATO Sweden, which lies close to Russia’s western and northern borders, last year inked a $1 billion deal with the US for the advanced Patriot surface-to-air missile defense system.

So what are now reported as preliminary US military and German discussions about boosting European defenses with the proposed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Germany will no doubt be interpreted as more of the same unnecessary expansive NATO spending and encroachment on Russia’s borders.

The talks further come as Europe and the US are at odds over the fate of the Iran nuclear agreement, with Washington threatening severe economic punishment for those countries trying to stick it out through opening trade and energy ties with Iran.

Close US Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, for example, shocked the world when news emerged last week that it has ceased awarding government contracts to German companies over anger at both Germany staying by the Obama-brokered JCPOA and recent criticism of Saudi meddling in Lebanese politics by German officials.

The Pentagon has denied plans to install the advanced THAAD system in Germany; however, Reuters reports that US European Command is pushing it in the wake of the White House pullout from the Iran nuclear deal:

U.S. European Command has been pushing for a THAAD system in Europe for years, but the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord has added urgency to the issue, said Riki Ellison, head of the non-profit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

A senior German military official cited the need to add more radars across Europe to better track and monitor potential threats, and cue interceptors if needed.

For Pentagon planners, it is Iran’s Shahab 3 ballistic missiles that are of most concern in terms of European threat assessment, as they currently have a range of 2,000 kilometers, enough to reach southern Europe.

Iran has considered increasing the range which it is said to be technologically capable of, but reportedly saw no strategic need in the wake of the 2015 nuclear agreement, which is now hanging by a thread.

Iran’s Shahab 3 might possibly reach southern Europe. Via the AFP.

It appears German military leaders may be capitalizing on current US fear-mongering related to the “Iran threat” pushed by the White House: “Deploying another U.S. defensive system to Europe could reassure NATO allies in southern Europe already within striking range of Iran’s missiles, said one military official from that region,” according to Reuters, which further quoted a second source as saying “German officials were open to the move as a way to better protect civilian populations.”

As Reuters reports further, the proposed German THAAD system is set for Pentagon review, so we could get news of what would be another multi-billion dollar defense deal for the heart of Europe by the end of summer:

The issue may be raised in a new Pentagon missile defense review expected in early June. The review may draw a closer connection between missile defense and a need to deter Russia that was highlighted in the new U.S. national defense strategy, said Tom Karako, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

One proposed site for the THAAD system is Ramstein Air Force Base, home to the headquarters for the U.S. Air Force in Europe and NATO Allied Air Command.

Meanwhile, the THAAD system is built by… who else?… you guessed it… “Lockheed Martin Corp with a powerful Raytheon Co AN/TPY-2 radar, to shootdown short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles” — and both  companies are looking to catch the multi-billion dollar windfall.

By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo

US Commander in Europe: We Need More Troops to Fight The Russians

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams May 30, 2018

US Commander of the Europe Command, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, has called for thousands more US troops to “deter Russian aggression” in Europe.

He has even suggested that the US troops should be pulled off of counter-terrorism duty and sent to Europe. Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced a massive shipment of military equipment to Europe, including tanks and other tracked vehicles. Do US military officials really believe that Russia is about to invade western Europe? Are we back in the 1940s?

Or is Washington’s military-industrial complex looking for new ways to justify an ever-expanding military budget? Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

=============================
Zie ook: 'Stop militaire transporten van de VS en NAVO richting Russische grens >> niet nog een wereldoorlog!'

Voor berichten over MH17, klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

Is Putin corrupt? De waarheid over 'handel en wandel' van de Russische president (en een nieuwe gifgasaanval in Syrië.....)

Over Putin worden de meest vreemde dingen verteld, zo zou hij o.a. corrupt zijn en zich zo verrijken middels zijn functie als president van Rusland.

Niet dat men met bewijzen komt waarmee e.e.a. wordt aangetoond, maar dat maakt niet uit, immers Putin is de kwaaie pier en barbertje moet hangen, daarvoor houdt men met grote graagte leugens in de lucht, of die leugens nu van de media, politiek of de geheime diensten komen (leugens die men uiteraard  van elkaar overneemt en steunt door deze te herhalen...)....

Voorlopig heeft Putin voorkomen dat in Syrie de boel niet veel verder escaleerde, neem de belachelijke beschieting van het vliegveld van Homs, na de zoveelste vermeende gifgasaanval van het Syrische leger, die ook in dit geval niet bleek te kloppen...... Vandaag wordt het Syrische leger weer beschuldigd van het aanvallen van doelen in de provincie Idlib met chlorine (chloorgas).....

BBC World Service meldde rond 11.35 u. (CET) vanmorgen dat het Syrische leger gifgas zou hebben gebruikt bij een aanval in de provincie Idlib. Het bewijs daarvoor? Een woordvoerder van de White Helmets had e.e.a. van horen zeggen, voorts heeft de BBC correspondent Martin Patience ook van alles gehoord, terwijl hij in Beiroet (Libanon) zit........

De woordvoerder van de White Helmets voerde de haat tegen Syrië verder op, door te stellen dat het in Idlib om veel vluchtelingen gaat die uit Aleppo zijn gevlucht en wel een kwart miljoen mensen....... Het grootste deel van de bewoners van Aleppo is al lang terug, blij dat de fundamentalistische terreurgroepen ('gematigde rebellen') niets meer te vertellen hebben in hun stad..... De bedoelde vluchtelingen zijn dan ook voornamelijk families van de terreurgroepen die in Aleppo op basis van de sharia wetgeving, een ware terreur uitoefenden, voordat het Syrische leger de stad weer innam.........

De presentator van het BBC programma had het lef te durven zeggen dat (de bewering dat Syrië gifgas heeft gebruikt): "This is proven (to be true....)"

Door naar een 'wat eerlijker' verhaal over Putin:

Is Putin Profoundly Corrupt or “Incorruptible?”

Sharon Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about Vladimir Putin

By Sharon Tennison

Sharon Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about Vladimir Putin. first published in 2014 and first appearing on this site in April 2017, we are re-airing this alternative analysis in the year of the Russian presidential election as being of continuing relevance in the struggle to separate truth from #fakenews. Tennison presents a view of VVP as essentially “incorruptible”. To those who get their information from the mainstream media, and even from many alternative news sites this will seem a slightly incredible idea. Yet Tennison’s opinion is not unsourced or unconsidered. And the numerous claims of Putin’s massive personal wealth and “gangster” mentality remain entirely uncorroborated. Where does the truth lie?

February 04, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:


Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.


He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.


I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.

Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.


I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.

I’ve been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders.

As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).

I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.

If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992

It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.

For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.

My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.

He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.

I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.

This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.

Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”

I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

1994

U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help.

I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.

I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before––but Jack overruled).

Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.

On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYTarticle included a photo.

Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”

Further, I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.

It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer:

What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.

This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.

After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:

They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.

This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!”

She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).

He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said:

Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.

My next question was:

What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?

Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:

If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will be in prison in a couple of years.

I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked:

So what do you think of your new president?

None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.

Next question:

So, how much did it cost you?

To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:

We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’

Late 2000

Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests––his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful.

When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.

She did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.

Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:

When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??

Without hesitating the answer came back:

The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”

I questioned WHY? The answer:

I could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”

I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was

That would have made no difference, he was our guy.

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:

No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.

No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.

Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia:

In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China).

Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.

We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations look like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared.

It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

This article was originally published by "Off Guardian" -