Russia votes down Syria ‘regime change’ resolution [video]
Russia Today
February 16, 2012
The majority of the UN General Assembly has adopted a non-binding resolution, that piles more pressure on the Syrian President to step down. Russia was among those who voted against the motion. Moscow maintains the conflict should be solved through a gradual political transition, led by the Syrian people.
RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
‘Regime change path to bloodshed’ – Churkin to RT [video]
Russia Today
February 7, 2012
In the light of recent UN Security Council fallouts, RT spoke to Russia’s ambassador to the body, Vitaly Churkin.
He says that piling pressure only on the Assad regime gives unilateral advantages to the rebels, who are also to blame for inciting violence in Syria.
And while Russia made mediation efforts in Syria, some nations sought to further isolate the Arab country, by withdrawing their ambassadors en masse.
President of the Arab Lawyers’ Association, Sabah al-Mukhtar, they are just careless about the bloodshed.
RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
‘Hysteria’ over Russia veto after West jumps the gun at UN [video]
Russia Today
February 7, 2012
Russia and China are facing a barrage of criticism from some Western and Arab states for their decision to block the latest UN resolution on Syria. Moscow has already dubbed the reaction ‘hysterical’, saying the resolution took a biased approach to resolving the civil conflict. RT’s Sara Firth was in Syria when the diplomatic showdown began.
RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Report: Russia to deliver combat jets to Syria
Business daily Kommersant cites source close to Russia’s Rosoboronexport state arms trader, that $550-million deal envisages delivery of 36 Yak-130 aircraft.
Haaretz.com
January 23, 2012
Russia has signed a contract to sell combat jets to Syria in a show of support for President Bashar Assad’s regime, a newspaper reported Monday.
The business daily Kommersant said, citing a source close to Russia’s Rosoboronexport state arms trader, that the $550-million deal envisages the delivery of 36 Yak-130 aircraft. A spokesman for Rosoboronexport refused to comment on the report.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE…
[hat tip: Pakalert Press]
Canada Intensifies New Cold War With Russia In Arctic
Global Research
January 22, 2012
Postmedia News
Canada in ‘Cold War lite’ with Russia: experts
By Jeff Davis
-Former Canadian ambassador to Russia Christopher Westdal said the Harper government took office with deep “Russo-phobic” instincts, similar to American neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.
-After taking power, the Harper government also advocated very aggressively for the acceptance of former Eastern Bloc countries in NATO. Framing this as a quest to finally free central European countries from Russian influence, Canada was among the biggest cheerleaders for countries like Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia to join the Western security alliance. Russia expressed deep displeasure at this push by NATO into its traditional sphere of influence.
-Beyond diaspora politics, the Tories have used the perceived Russian military threat to justify expensive purchases of military aircraft.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay loudly accused the Russians of provocation on the eve of President Barack Obama’s 2009 visit to Ottawa, telling the public a Russian bomber approached Canadian airspace.
“Back off and stay out of our airspace,” MacKay said at the time, sparking a media firestorm.
Canada and Russia are waging a “Cold War lite” two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, experts say, following news that a Canadian naval officer was slapped with espionage charges and accused of selling top-secret information to a foreign entity.
Professor Piotr Dutkiewicz, director of the Institute of European and Russian Studies at Carleton University, said the Harper government’s thinking toward Russia is outmoded.
“The Canadian government is stuck in a Cold-War mentality,” he said. “We now have a Cold War lite.”
Although official diplomatic relations have proceeded steadily under the Harper government, there is a layer of frost on the relationship that is hampering closer ties and more trade, observers say.
This, they say, is in large part due to confrontational and inflammatory political messages from the Harper government, rooted in a deep, emotional distrust of Russia.
Former Canadian ambassador to Russia Christopher Westdal said the Harper government took office with deep “Russo-phobic” instincts, similar to American neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.
Relations between Canada and Russia have suffered as a result, he said.
“Harper came with that baggage of deep suspicion of Russia,” Westdal said. “It has been discouraging for anyone hoping for better Canada-Russia relations for some years.”
Dutkiewicz said although Russian and Canadian ministers and officials meet regularly, very little comes of it all.
“At the ministerial level there are meetings, but there is no follow-up,” he said. “It seems to me there is no vigour in this relationship.”
There has not been a significant improvement in bilateral relations since the 1990s, Dutkiewicz said. Trade volumes have stalled out at about $2 billion per year, which he said is a smaller volume of trade than Canada conducts with some small countries in Latin America.
While Canadian firms are eager to do business in Russia, Westdal said, they receive very little political support from the government. The government sponsors trade missions to many countries, he said, but those looking to trade with Russia “don’t get much help, or the royal blessing.”
Dutkiewicz said the Cold War was really about an acute lack of trust, and that in this sense, very little has changed for Canada.
“Formally, the Cold war is over, but this Cold War lite is alive in hearts and minds of bureaucrats,” he said. “We simply do not trust them.”
There exists only a “very thin layer of relations” between Canada and Russia, Dutkiewicz said. He said Canada has no apparent policy direction on Russia, and that Canadian actions have been haphazard and reactive as a result.
“We have had, for the last couple of years, no coherent strategy towards Russia,” he said. “Something is happening and we are reacting, and in most cases overreacting.”
A clear thread running through Canada’s relations with Russia, Westdal said, are actions calculated to score political points with new Canadians hailing from former Eastern Bloc countries. Since taking power, he said, the Harper government has taken many actions on the world stage seem calculated to please Canadians from Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkans, many of whom harbour a deep resentment toward Russia.
“Those diaspora constituencies have been assiduously cultivated by (Immigration Minister) Jason Kenney and others in the government,” he said. “There is nothing new or secret on that.”
Kenney has made a number of high-profile symbolic overtures to these countries. For example, the Canadian government recognized the Holodomor — the “killing by hunger” inflicted on Ukraine while it was a Soviet republic in the 1930s — as a genocide. Much to the satisfaction of Ukraine and its diaspora, Canada in effect recognized Moscow’s policies at the time as culpable for the deaths of millions.
After taking power, the Harper government also advocated very aggressively for the acceptance of former Eastern Bloc countries in NATO. Framing this as a quest to finally free central European countries from Russian influence, Canada was among the biggest cheerleaders for countries like Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia to join the Western security alliance. Russia expressed deep displeasure at this push by NATO into its traditional sphere of influence.
All of these moves, Westdal said, appear to have been calculated to build electoral support among diaspora voters, such as the large number of Ukrainian-Canadians in Manitoba who traditionally have voted NDP.
Beyond diaspora politics, the Tories have used the perceived Russian military threat to justify expensive purchases of military aircraft.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay loudly accused the Russians of provocation on the eve of President Barack Obama’s 2009 visit to Ottawa, telling the public a Russian bomber approached Canadian airspace.
“Back off and stay out of our airspace,” MacKay said at the time, sparking a media firestorm.
NORAD officials, unlike MacKay, were quick to say Russian pilots were “professional” in their conduct, and underscored the fact there was no violation of Canadian airspace.
Former Office of the Prime Minister spokesman Dimitri Soudas played this card again in August 2010, saying the Russian threat justifies Canada’s purchase of F-35 stealth interceptors.
“It is the best plane our government could provide our Forces, and when you are a pilot staring down Russian long-range bombers, that’s an important fact to remember,” Soudas said.
Loud protests were also made by the Canadian government after a Russian submarine planted a Russian flag on the Arctic sea floor in 2007.
Retired Colonel Alain Pellerin, executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the Russian military threat is on the wane.
Large parts of the once-mighty Soviet military machine have rusted out, he said, with whole fleets of submarines and aircraft having degraded beyond repair.
“As a military threat, I don’t see it,” he said. “Their military equipment has deteriorated a lot in the last 20 years, mainly due to poor maintenance.”
Nevertheless, he said, diplomatic attempts to smooth relations between Russia and the West — such as the NATO-Russia Council — have borne little fruit.
Pellerin said Russia has not lived up to the high hopes for democratization following the fall of the Soviet Union, to the profound disappointment of many in Canada and throughout the West.
The mounting need for co-ordination and co-operation in the High Arctic, Pellerin said, is the place he’s looking for a breakthrough in chilled bilateral relations.
William Engdahl on NATO’s Encirclement of Russia
Why Moscow Doesn’t Believe Washington on Missile Defense… or on Just Almost Nuthin’…
by William Engdahl
Geopolitics-Geoeconomics
December 28, 2011
Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war. No, it’s not at all about Iran and Israel. It’s about the decision of Washington and the Pentagon to push Moscow up against the wall with what is euphemistically called Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).
On November 23, a normally low-keyed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the world in clear terms that Russia was prepared to deploy its missiles on the border to the EU between Poland and Lithuania, and possibly in the south near Georgia and NATO member Turkey to counter the advanced construction process of the US ballistic missile defense shield: “The Russian Federation will deploy in the west and the south of the country modern weapons systems that could be used to destroy the European component of the US missile defense,” he announced on Russian television. “One of these steps could be the deployment of the Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad.” Those would be theatre ballistic missile systems. The latest version of Iskander, the Iskander-K, whose details remain top secret, reportedly has a range up to 2000 km and carries cruise missiles and a target accuracy to 7 meters or less.
Medvedev declared he has ordered the Russian defense ministry to “immediately” put radar systems in Kaliningrad that warn of incoming missile attacks on a state of combat readiness. He called for extending the targeting range of Russia’s strategic nuclear missile forces and re-equipping Russia’s nuclear arsenal with new warheads capable of piercing the US/NATO defense shield due to become operational in six years, by 2018. Medvedev also threatened to pull Russia out of the New START missile reduction treaty if the United States moves as announced.

Image: NATO’s creeping encirclement of Russia. Engdahl concludes, “in any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.”
Medvedev then correctly pointed to the inevitable link between “defensive” missiles and “offensive” missiles: “Given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New Start treaty could also arise,” he said.
The Russian President didn’t mince words: “I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and control systems” of the US shield, Medvedev said. “These measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.” Russia has repeatedly warned that the US BMD global shield is designed to destabilize the nuclear balance and risks provoking a new arms race. The Russian President said that rather than take the Russian concerns seriously, Washington has instead been “accelerating” its BMD development.
Read the rest of Engdahl’s report here, in .pdf format. For more of Engdahl’s work, please visit his website, Geopolitics-Geoeconomics here.
Media Lies and the Onset of War (video)
Global Research TV
January 1, 2012
SOURCES AND TRANSCRIPT: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3588
As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington’s interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension. Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation. But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.
Learn more about the media manipulations behind the beginning of war in this week’s GRTV backgrounder.
