Lauren Johnson Wrote:Chuck Hagel fired as SecDef. Connected? He was supposedly not on message with the White House.

Quote:

Does Obama still have a military policy?

by Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan, who was the first to predict Chuck Hagel's possible appointment as Defense Secretary, speculates over the reasons behind his dismissal. They are not to be found in Hagel's conduct, but in the President's policy changes. Moreover, he observes, Washington no longer has a specific policy and the Obama administration is carrying out dangerously contradictory actions.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 1 DECEMBER 2014 FRANÇAIS ESPAÑOL TÜRKÇE عربي PORTUGUÊS DEUTSCH ITALIANO РУССКИЙ فارسى POLSKI

Chuck Hagel, who had been appointed to implement the policy of Barack Obama, refused to follow him when he veered off course, preffering to resign.It is undeniable that the Obama administration has lost its compass in terms of defining its national security policy. In May 2013, the White House scuttled the President's Intelligence Advisory Board without renewing it and, this week, it ditched its loyal Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Most importantly, it keeps on delaying the release of the new national security doctrine, which should have been submitted to Congress by law already 7 months ago.Whereas there are clear guidelines for long-term goals (thwarting the economic development of Russia and China) and the means to achieve them (shifting troops from Europe and the Gulf to the Far East), no one knows what the goals are in the face of the Arab world today.It would seem that in 2010 the "Arab Spring" - long time in the State Department pipeline to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power everywhere in the region took President Obama by surprise, at least partially. The same applies to the regime change orchestrated in Ukraine, in 2013.Today, one part of the US state apparatus is combating the Islamic State, while another part is supporting its efforts to fight the Syrian Arab Republic.Chuck Hagel, who had sought clarification in writing from the President's National Security Advisor, not only did not get a response, but was fired without being given an explanation.Indeed, the man failed to win over the staff in his department, but his judgment or the support he enjoyed from his senior officers were never in doubt. He opposed George W. Bush's war in Iraq and was bent on repositioning US forces around national goals instead of private ones.His two main potential successors, Senator Jack Reed and Michele Flournoy, immediately threw in the towel, realizing that Chuck Hagel was not removed from office for misconduct, but precisely for having applied the policy handed down to him by President Obama. Hence, all eyes are now on second fiddles Bob Work and Ash Carter. Moreover, it is not enough to be nominated; the candidate will also have to be confirmed by the Republican majority controlling the Senate, which is sure to lead to complications.The specialized press draws a strange portrait of the outgoing secretary. It acknowledges his honesty - a very rare quality in Washington only to accuse him of being an underachiever. Now his role, as defined at the time of his appointment, was precisely not spark new wars, but to reform the Pentagon, which he was in the process of doing. In the first place, he dismantled many bridges between US forces and those of the Israel, the IDF. Then he proceeded to implement colossal budget cuts, except in the nuclear field. During his tenure, he was incessantly attacked by pro-Israelis, neo-cons and gay organizations (funded by all the above).The confusion surrounding the entire US policy in the Arab world dates from mid-2012. At the time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CIA director David Petraeus had seized on the US presidential election campaign to promote a second war against Syria, this time via France and Qatar. After his re-election and the ousting of his two "associates", Obama nominated new cabinet members with the task of building peace in Syria. But after a few months, it became clear that the policy of the Clinton-Petraeus duo was continuing without the knowledge of the White House and against the Pentagon.Clearly, President Obama is no more his own master than was George W. Bush, and there is every reason to believe that he has gradually rallied behind the secret policies of his own administration. Thus, the man who had proclaimed the end of nuclear deterrence, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pledged to abandon the war on terror, is in actual fact taking the opposite course: he is poised to modernize and expand nuclear weapons, to send soldiers back to Afghanistan and Iraq, and to rekindle the threadbare concept of the war on terrorism.Chuck Hagel's dismissal should not be understood as a sanction against his performance, but as the reflection of the change undergone by President Barack Obama.There is still a need to identify the forces propping up Mrs. Clinton and General Petraeus, who are now on top. The "deep state" or economic agents? Clearly, the US press is completely out of its depth, incapable of explaining or analyzing the situation, and even less in a position to provide an answer to the question.Ultimately, the embassies around the world are waiting for new information before arriving at any conclusions. Meanwhile, on the ground, the Pentagon has been bombing the Islamic State while other American agents provide weapons and funding.In the United States and France, presidents follow one another without having any influence on the outcome of events. It makes no difference whether it's Republican President Bush or the Democratic Obama, the UMP's Sarkozy or the Social Democratic Holland, the machine inexorably continues its course without anyone knowing who is behind the wheel.

Quote:Conclusions:

Everyone came to realize that efforts to deepen Ukraine's ties with the EU had failed.

But no one at the time was fully aware of the consequences the failure would have: that it would lead to one of the world's biggest crises since the end of the Cold War; that it would result in the redrawing of European borders; and that it would bring the Continent to the brink of war.

It was the moment Europe lost Russia.
For Ukraine, the failure in Vilnius resulted in disaster. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has strived to orient itself towards the EU while at the same time taking pains to ensure that those actions don't damage its relations with Moscow.

The choice between West and East, which both Brussels and Moscow have forced Kiev to make, has had devastating consequences for the fragile country. But the impact of that fateful evening in Vilnius goes far beyond Ukraine's borders.

Some 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and almost 70 years after the end of World War II, Europe is once again divided.

The estrangement between the Russians and the Europeans is growing with Moscow and the West more inimical toward each other today than during the final phase of the Cold War. It's a reality that many in Europe have long sought to ignore.

...

When the German delegation, under Merkel's leadership, met with Yanukovych the next morning for one final meeting, everything had already been decided. They exchanged their well-known positions one last time, but the meeting was nothing more than a farce.

In one of the most important questions facing European foreign policy, Germany had failed.

...

More than anything, though, the Europeans underestimated Moscow and its determination to prevent a clear bond between Ukraine and the West.

They either failed to take Russian concerns and Ukrainian warnings seriously or they ignored them altogether because they didn't fit into their own worldview.

Berlin pursued a principles-driven foreign policy that made it a virtual taboo to speak with Russia about Ukraine. "Our ambitious and consensual policy of the eastern partnership has not been followed with ambitious and consensual policy on Russia," Füle says. "We were unable to find and agree on an appropriate engagement policy towards Russia."

Bumblers:

Yanukovych had just spoken.

In meandering sentences, he tried to explain why the European Union's Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius was more useful than it might have appeared at that moment, why it made sense to continue negotiating and how he would remain engaged in efforts towards a common future, just as he had previously been.

"We need several billion euros in aid very quickly," Yanukovych said. Then the chancellor wanted to have her say.

Merkel peered into the circle of the 28 leaders of EU member states who had gathered in Vilnius that evening. What followed was a sentence dripping with disapproval and cool sarcasm aimed directly at the Ukrainian president. "I feel like I'm at a wedding where the groom has suddenly issued new, last minute stipulations."

...

Haber in particular demonstrated little enthusiasm for a compromise. When the ambassador sought to explain the Ukrainian position, Haber interrupted him saying: "Your Excellency, we are familiar with all of your arguments,"

...

"Stefan, if we sign, will you help us?" Yanukovych asked.

Füle was speechless. "Sorry, we aren't the IMF.

Where do these numbers come from?" he finally demanded. "I am hearing them for the first time." They are secret numbers, Yanukovych replied.

"Can you imagine what would happen if our people were to learn of these numbers, were they to find out what convergence with the EU would cost our country?"

...

"It was an unavoidable decision. Please understand me. I simply can't sign it now," Yanukovych said.

"I had to urgently turn towards Moscow, but I want to keep the doors to Europe open.

Please don't see this as a rejection of Europe."

...

"Today, we are going to make a bold chess move," one of Füle's people said, refusing to elaborate.

Were the Europeans going to offer Ukraine financial assistance after all?

... And then came the "bold chess move" that had previously been hinted at. Barroso said that Brussels would be willing to abandon its demand that Tymoshenko be released.

Yanukovych was dumbfounded. Didn't Brussels understand that other issues had long since become more important?

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Supposedly, Putin said negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon: It walks on the board knocking all the pieces over, then it craps all over them, and the struts around claiming victory.

How The Ukrainian Government Is Giving Away Citizenships So Foreigners Can Run The Country

Ukraine's Made-in-USA Finance Minister

December 5, 2014

Quote:21st Century Cold War Has Began; US House Of Reps Passes Resolution 758 Even As US Tells Russia To Stop Self-isolation

By Esther Tanquintic-Misa | December 5, 2014 12:46 PM EST
The United States has effectively pushed the button of the 21st century Cold War era. On Thursday, its House of Representatives passed Resolution 758, a decree telling the U.S., Europe and its' allies to "aggressively keep the pressure" on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin until such measures "change his behaviour."



View Full Image
REUTERS/Gary Cameron
The U.S. Capitol dome is seen through skylights in the Vistor's Center in Washington January 2, 2013. The new 113th U.S. Congress convenes tomorrow on January 3, set to take a fresh crack at a number of issues, such as gun control, immigration, tax reform and the record U.S. debt. REUTERS/Gary Cameron



On Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama claimed Mr Putin is "isolating Russia completely internationally" and knows the Russian leader is not going to "suddenly change his mind-set ... which is part of the reason why we're going to continue to maintain that pressure." As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged Russia not to isolate itself during a meeting of the 57 members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in the northern Swiss city of Basel, Resolution 758 had called for the reinforcement of NATO and the sale of U.S. natural gas to Europe, alluding away from Russian energy exports.

The resolution has likewise effectively given the government of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko the go signal to launch military actions against the "separatists" in Eastern Ukraine. Resolution 758 has called on the U.S. President to "provide the Government of Ukraine with defense articles, services and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty."
"It is not only a declaration of a U.S. Cold War against Russia but it is a declaration of war for Kiev against Donetsk and Lugansk," Daniel McAdams, executive director at the Ron Paul Institute, told RT News. Resolution 758, described as a decree that strongly condemns Moscow's aggressive actions against its neighbours, was a document that had opened Pandora's box of global military conflicts.
McAdams said he finds the resolution comical in the sense that as it accused Russia of holding fraudulent elections in Ukraine, it greenlighted an all-out war urging the U.S. and NATO forces when, it fact, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. He added the bill mentions chapter five of the NATO Treaty several times, but he is unsure if Congress understands what it means. Under the guise of Resolution 758, the House of Representatives urged Mr Obama to check and review the readiness of the U.S. and NATO armed forces under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty.
On Thursday, Mr Putin said Resolution 758, which he described as a "deterrence policy" against Russia by other states, was just formally instituted. But he believes the deterrence policy has always been in place towards Russia "for decades, if not centuries," and would be turned on immediately if other states feel Russia is becoming too powerful and independent.
He blasted the U.S. for manipulating the relations of Russia's neighbours. "Sometimes you don't even know to whom it is better to talk to: the governments of certain countries or directly with their American patrons." U.S. House Resolution 758 was passed with an overwhelming 411-10 votes by the 113th Congress.