To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

15th Aviation Brigade (Slovenian Armed Forces)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 15th Aviation Brigade was a brigade in the Air Force Unit of the Slovenian Armed Forces. The unit operated from 1992 to 2008.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    87 269
  • ✪ ''The War On Putin'' Documentary [full]

Transcription

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! --Isaiah 5:20 In order to contain Russia, a full selection of methods are being used; from attempts at political isolation, and economic pressure, to a wide-scale information war and special services methods. As it has been recently, directly and openly said: They are going to twist the arms of those who don't agree, but such tricks do not work with Russia, have never worked before, and will not work in the future. Russia is responsible for the violence in Eastern Ukraine. The violence is encouraged by Russia, the separatists are trained by Russia, they are armed by Russia, they are funded by Russia. The only way the United States can have any effect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians. Killing Russians by ah, killing so many Russians that even Putin's media can't hide the fact that Russians are returning to the motherland in body bags. The United States is imposing new sanctions in key sectors of the Russian economy: Energy, arms and finance. Well the questions I'd be asking is number one: Who could have shot it down? Who had the equipment? It's obviously an anti-aircraft missile. Who could have had the expertise to do that? Putin's ambitions are blindingly obvious my friends: He wants to prop up Assad, by kingmaker in any transition, undermine U.S. policy and operations, and ultimately expand Russian power in the Middle East. NATO's supreme commander says the West must do more to counter Russia by employing a rapid reaction approach to internet communications that counteracts Russia's false narratives spread on social media. Phillip Breedlove said Sunday that Vladimir Putin's Russia has been waging information warfare as part of its actions against Ukraine. Breedlove said: "We need as a Western group of nations, or as an alliance to engage in this informational warfare. The way to attack the false narrative is to drag the false narrative into the light and expose it!" British media though reporting the heir to the thrown, made a rather unguarded comment it would appear, comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. A fifth of the world's economy, almost a half of Earth's population. The BRICS nations are said to counter the Western domination, and they're banking on a new global order. Can the new BRICS bank balance the Western hold on international finance? Will the member states be able to cement their block with closer ties? And how will their rising strength reshape the world in years to come? As illustrated by Time Magazine in a recent report: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, otherwise known as the 'BRICS', don't like a U.S. dollar-dominated world reserve currency. They've been kneecapped by it for far too long, not to mention sponsored wars, and bankrupted nations around the world. So naturally they are planning a breakaway, a fresh start from the U.S. and European-inspired money laundering debt monster that makes up these institutions, and are planning a new one all on their own. According to insiders in Washington D.C. and on Wall Street, this is a real game-changer for the West. With the announcement of a new development bank headquartered in Shanghai to be operational in 2016, the BRICS nations are threatening the very existence and the monopoly on international finance and indentured servitude Western banks have enjoyed arguably for far too long. It thus makes perfect sense why the Obama administration; a representative not of the people, but of 'too big to fail' banks and giant multinational corporations is actively campaigning to demonize Putin and all things Russian. Ironically the American people have Russia and Putin to be thankful for more in recent years than they do Obama or the United States government. Putin's asylum of American patriot and truth-teller Edward Snowden just one notable example. Snowden's leak of a vast illegal and anti-constitutional wiretapping and surveillance program here in the United States is arguably the biggest story and the largest example of Washington's corruption and overreach this century. It highlights the anti-constitutional sewer pit that makes up Washington D.C. today. But remember, Putin is the enemy here... Not only is the West demonizing Putin, but they are also actively campaigning for the demonization of rising China and its allies. They're 'communist' remember? They 'oppress' their people... Like bank bailouts, quantitative easing, Obamacare, and spying on American citizens is anything representative of a capitalist or free society. The new development bank set to launch in two years time will also have a twin, just like the World Bank. This twin, the equivalent of the Western-inspired International Monetary Fund (IMF), will provide short-term emergency loans to participating countries, really just long-term and perpetual debt obligations of its member states. Like the World Bank and IMF today, this will provide tremendous power to the BRICS. It will strengthen the Ruble, the Renminbi and any BRICS-backed currency or digital equivalent, and likely collapse the U.S. dollar. But of course, this has been the point since the very beginning; global engineering of a global currency and a New World Order. Engineered bank bailouts, financial stimulus, and giant wealth transfers from the Middle Class - the poor to the rich, has only helped the collapse along the way, and now it's coming to fruition, a new baby is being born, and it's not the United States. To one of our top stories now. Too much devotion to the dollar is widely regarded as one of the causes of the global financial crisis in 2008, afterwards, after shocks still being felt in Europe today of course. Their countries that they'd thought had found a savior in the form of the IMF loans have now been criticized for ah, criticizing the lender for holding them captive because of it - the terms and conditions of it. According to the IMF bailout terms; a borrowing country has got to slash jobs, pensions, wages and even change laws in accordance with the lender's whim. Spain for example, forced to run a million people out of work, more than a half of the nation's young people are still unemployed. More stats, Portugal still dealing with a banking crisis and shrinking GDP. Mustn't forget Greece either, after six years of recession, still got the worst unemployment rate in the EU. Let's talk about the developments here then, regarding BRICS, regarding that, regarding the IMF - Pepe Escobar is with us live on the line, ''Hi Pepe''. So um, talking about BRICS now forming their own bank, one of our big stories this morning. How big of a rival is it going to be really though to the IMF or the World Bank at the end of the day? Real stuff or wishful thinking? No, look! It's a long and winding road and it starts now. Look, the first BRICS Summit was in Yekaterinburg in Russia six years ago. Now we have facts on the ground, on the airwaves, and all over the world. This is a, I would say that this is the beginning of the implosion of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. This is a development bank, by emerging powers; it's based on the Brazilian development bank. Many of these beautiful stadiums that you see during the world cup, they were financed by the Brazilian development bank. So it's financing of infrastructure, by the BRICS themselves, among themselves, in 5 countries, then they can start lending to other countries as well, they can help to industrialize Africa in the long run, and without all of these conditions imposed by loans by the IMF and the World Bank. It sounds like 'bad business!' The IMF just announced that if Ukraine defaults on its debts to creditors, it will still loan it money. Would you loan money to a deadbeat? That's how the IMF works; it loans billions to countries who it knows can't pay back. It's a Jewish scam to foreclose on a country's assets. You see the IMF's major share holder is the U.S. treasury with sole veto rights. Current and former heads of the treasury: Jacob Lew, Larry Summers. and Robert Rubin are all Goldman Sachs boys. Sounds like a guest list for a 'Bar Mitzvah' doesn't it? Goys too, Paulson and Geithner, both shills for the Bar Mitzvah bunch at Goldman Sachs. Lagarde is just 'gentile winter dressing.' Connect the dots: The U.S. treasury that runs the IMF is bankrolled at interest by the FED, a consortium of Jewish banks orbited around the Rothchild dynasty. The IMF is a Jewish bankster operation whose loans are not to boost a country's economy, but to pay off creditors that it already owes, many of whom are part of the kleptocracy. Yats says so himself! You are well aware that the government launched a four year EFF (Extended Fund Facility) program with the IMF, together with the IMF we expect to get up to 25 billion dollars in the forthcoming four years, but the gap is much bigger, much bigger... As you are well aware, this money goes directly to our creditors... And with a 'one,' 'two' punch the IMF is screwing Ukraine. Punch one is to shrink the economy via ''austerity'' - This is done by IMF ''conditionalities'' which demands raising taxes, and cutting government benefits; and Yats takes the bait! Despite the fact that the government has frozen all social expenditures, we shut down the number of entitlement programs, we did everything we can to fix the budget gap, we still need an enormous - an additional enormous amount of financial support... It's a bottomless pit.. Cutting government programs and raising taxes only widens the budget deficit by reducing the purchasing power of the citizens. With no buyers the GDP shrivels up! And with Ukraine ditching its lucrative Russian market, and with Europe spurning Ukrainian-made goods, Ukraine is now a failed state! The IMF likes it like that! Now comes punch 'two:' With compound interest climbing and the debt unserviceable, the IMF demands that Ukraine sell off its assets to ''cool'' the creditors. Even with privatization the debt will never be paid off, and Ukraine becomes an eternal vassal to Jewish banksters. And with Yats and U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker now planning a Ukrainian fire sale, the IMF and its client Monsanto are licking their chops over Ukraine's farmland too. Not for nothing did they install Saakashvili, as the new governor of Odessa, a vital part of Ukraine's red basket and maritime shipping. He just admitted that things were much better under Yanukovych, who Nudelman of the U.S. state department toppled. Now Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe. If the collapse of the economy Suddenly stops and Ukraine develops by four percent annually, we will reach the level of 2013 in 20 years. Only in 20 years will we return to the figures of Yanukovych's Ukraine. Ain't gonna to happen! Once the IMF fleeces the assets, Yanukovych's Ukraine will be a Jewish-owned state, and that's how the IMF works. My dear Ukrainians, you can kiss your country goodbye! To begin as President Obama becomes the first President in U.S. history to make two visits to India. That's where the President and First Lady has just wrapped up their three day visit. Obama also became the first U.S. President to be the chief guest at India's Republic Day parade, which took place on Monday. But it is what China is saying to India about that visit that's grabbing attention. The Chinese telling India to avoid a quote: ''zero-sum trap'' being set by Washington and its allies. The Chinese seem to believe that the U.S. is singling out, even pressuring India to become a key ally in order to slow China's rise. That Republic Day parade became an opportunity for China's President to express China's willingness to quote: ''make concerted efforts with India to lift their strategic cooperative partnership oriented to peace and prosperity to a higher level'' end quote. So what does this back and forth over India really mean? For insight I was joined earlier by Journalist, Professor, and former Assistant Secretary of the treasury for economic policy under Ronald Reagan: Paul Craig Roberts, and I begin by asking him if in fact the United States is working to drive a wedge between Beijing and New Deli. Washington is very disturbed about the formation of BRICS, they're disturbed about the recent trade deal made between Putin and India, and they certainly don't want India pulled in to that Chinese/Russian alliance. So yes this is an effort to disturb the relationships between India, China, and Russia. It's fairly interesting you know President Nixon as you know was the first U.S. President to visit the People's Republic of China. Nixon and Kissinger did not like India at all. Now listen you brought this up a minute ago, we've heard very little about India until recently, but we see the U.S. kind of fighting this uphill battle because India is part of that BRICS alliance: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. How significant is BRICS right now in terms of a threat to, kind of, the U.S. place on the world scene? Well, the populations and the land mass of those areas are enormous, and certainly China has taken over the lead of economic development from all other countries, and India has had a good bit of development, and professional tradable skills, and so it does have the potential of abandoning the use of the (U.S.) dollar, of leaving the Western financial mechanisms and clearing mechanisms, and this then is a direct threat to the exchange value of the dollar. So I think it is a... It does have the potential of forming a kind of trade relationship that undermines the ability of the United States to control all the outcomes. You know, Washington is very control-orientated, and it has a lot of control because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, because of the tendency of the European countries to follow Washington's lead, and so it sees the BRICS as a real challenge to Washington's ability to control outcomes. And so it will do whatever it can to break it up. The word 'control' that you're using there is an interesting word I think it's a very accurate word. Simply because for so many decades the United States kind of strong-armed a lot of these other nations, and that includes through a variety of means including: Trade, including our willingness to import goods, or to, allow cheaper goods to be sold here. As well as when we talk about, you know, some of these issues specific to emerging nations like India, and like China, um, this idea of controlling foreign aid that goes out - BRICS is in direct contrast to that, creating its own system of trade as you talked about, and financial system for helping smaller developing nations so that they're not reliant on the United States. Are we watching U.S. control of a lot of these issues kind of falling through our fingers at this point? Well, that's the potential, it's beginning to happen because Washington is picking on Russia, is picking on China, and this is a mistake because they're very large and powerful countries. And so it does show that Washington is worried that it is going to see the world develop into, more, than a ''unipolar'' place. Moving on now, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against attempts by certain countries to dominate the world. In the past decades basic principles of international cooperation have been increasingly ignored. Principles won in pain by mankind after the hardship of war. We have seen attempts to create a unipolar world. We see a military-bloc mentality expanding, all this undermines the stability of global development. Putin made the remarks in his address commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany. U.S. President Barrack Obama has boycotted the festivities, as have the leaders of Britain and France - Russia's other key allies during the second World War. Ties between Washington and Moscow have reached an all time low over the crises in Ukraine. Well, to discuss this more, let's got to Leesburg and talk to Mike Billington with the Asia desk at the Executive Intelligence Review welcome sir. Mr. Billington, I think the Russian President was alluding to the United States when he denounced any attempts for a unipolar world. Do you think that the era of a unipolar world has come to an end? Or are there signs that it has come back? There's no question that the Anglo/New York axis is functioning as the unipolar world, as sort of like the Gods of Olympus sitting on top of Olympus throwing their thunder bolts out, while in fact the mountain is crumbling out from under them. Ah, besides what Mr. Putin said in Moscow today, the reality is that not only did the Russian army, all services, parade through Beautiful Square (which is called 'Red Square' but it's actually Beautiful Square)... Um, but also the whole Chinese military was there. Ah, and on the podium was Mr. Shi Jinping sitting next to Mr. Putin, along with Mr. Nazarbayev from Kazakhstan, pretty much next to them. This is a New World Order, ah, we are watching the BRICS nations lead largely by China, and Russia, and India, in a situation where they have begun to put together an entirely New World Order. And the demonstration today of the Chi... For the first time ever, the Chinese military marched through Beautiful Square (Red Square). This was a very clear demonstration, that the attempt by Obama and his British-backer, Mr. Cameron, who unfortunately apparently used vote fraud to get back in for five years, are, who are planning on continuing their policy of wagging war wherever they want when ever they want, and using Ukraine and the Middle East as excuses for provoking a war with Russia. Willing to go to war with Russia, precisely because they see that Russia, China, and India through heading up new world financial systems, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS New Development Bank, and demonstrating that they are not going to back down to the military threats, represents a threat to the collapsing Western financial system. They know that it's collapsing, they know that the European and American financial system is 'kaput' - it's going under. Mr. LaRouche today was interviewed by Sputnik news (the old Ria Novosti), congratulating Russia on, and the Chinese on celebrating Victory Day, and making the same point really that Putin did. Which is that they are not only standing up for the defense against fascism in the 1940s (30s and 40s), but the reason that the Western nations have boycotted Victory Day in Moscow, is that they are supporting the revival of fascism in Europe, in Ukraine. That the Svoboda Party, and the Azov Battalion carrying the swastikas opening praising Stepan Bandera (the Hitler collaborator in Ukraine), represents the revival of fascism, openly supported by the Obama Administration, through Victoria Nuland, and others. And not only in Ukraine. but in other parts of Eastern and Western Europe. This is a threat to civilization, it's not just a threat to Ukraine or to Russia - it's a threat to civilization. A threat of thermonuclear war. which is not far off if we do not reverse the process immediately, in the United States, and in Europe, and restore, the, what was once well known as the American system. Have Europe and the United States join with the BRICS on great development projects, rather than confronting them with threats of war.. And so... Do you think that the United States will give in to this 'New World Order?' To a multipolar world order? I think that's up to us here in the United States. The LaRouche movement is wagging a fight, Mrs LaRouche is now touring Europe, ah, demanding that they give up this insane confrontation with Russia, and with China, and join with the BRICS, this is the other paradigm that exists for mankind today. Even, and many in Europe are now recognizing this, you might know that Mrs Merkel, even though that she was arm-twisted not to go to Victory Day, is going to be there tomorrow. And Steinmeier, the foreign minister from Germany was there for the parade and very clearly said: We have to restore relations with Russia, this confrontation between NATO and Russia has no reason, no basis, it's insane, and it's leading us to war. Mr Berlusconi (the former president of Italy) said today that the empty seats in Moscow, the seats where the entire West, other than Mr. Tsipras from Greece who is there, and of course the Greeks are very close to joining with the BRICS, they probably will be the first European nation to join with the BRICS. But the empty seats from the U.S., from Britain, from Russia, from France and so forth, represents a failure of the West, not a boycott of Russia, but a demonstration of the collapse and the failure of the West, financially, economically, strategically, and threatening a war - we have to turn that around, and that's what our policy here is in the LaRouche movement is, to turn this around, to get this lunatic out of the White House, quickly, not in the next election, now, before World War 3 breaks out, and before the collapse, far greater than the 2007-2008 collapse hits. This is wide responsibility, it's a responsibility to the human race. There are two paradigms in the world, and we have to make sure that America restores it's historic role as a nation builder, and not as a British-style imperial warlord. Alright, we'll leave it there for the timing. Many thanks there to Mike Billington with the Asia Desk of the Executive Intelligence Review from Leesburg, thanks for your thoughts there sir! So what are the facts? Just a few months ago the rightful President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by molotov cocktail wielding terrorist, wearing gas masks, backed by the United States and Western interests. This would be the equivalent of Vladimir Putin arming Occupy Wall Street with grenade launchers and machine guns to overthrow the Obama Administration here in the U.S. This new puppet government has since taken over, and is not the rightful or legal government of the Ukraine, and Putin has not invaded this part of the world in any way. Simply, he has responded to an attack by the United States. This point is extremely important. Russia hasn't invaded anything, they haven't invaded the Ukraine, nor has Putin's military build-up on the border been an invasion. It's Russia that is under attack, the people of Ukraine, and those who have been ousted by a violent coup, that are the real victims. We know based on intelligence leaks provided by Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton for instance, that the snipers behind the attacks in Ukraine during the recent terrorist attack, were not snipers of the Yanukovych government as the U.S. mainstream media want you to believe. But instead, the Western-backed insurgents that have recently overthrown the Ukrainian government. Not only have they been killing innocents, but the insurgents have been shooting at both sides of the conflict. Breaking news, a leaked phone call reveals the same snipers were shooting at both protesters and police in Kiev. RT's Marina Kosareva joins us now live with more on this. Who was behind those snipers? Absolutely, well all this information is in fact becoming public after a phone conversation was leaked and is now accessible to everyone who wants to listen in, and it is on Youtube, and that conversation in fact is between the EU foreign Chief Catherine Aston, and also we have the Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister. And Catherine Ashton in that phone conversation is in fact asking him about his impressions of Ukraine where he just returned from, and he said that the picture is looking sad, and more importantly, and it's quite an eye opener, this one, is that fact that snipers were as you said Marina were shooting both at protesters and officials, both sides really. So let's listen in to what he had to say: Paet: ..that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides. Aston: Well, that’s … yeah. Paet: So that, then she also showed me some photos. She said that as [a] medical doctor she can, you know, say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened. So that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind [the] snipers, they were … it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition. This is damming information, and it contradicts the Western narrative that the Ukrainian people have been supportive of a Western coup. Not only does this conflict with reports from Western media outlets like CNN, but it delegitimizes an already illegitimate puppet government. It also means that the Ukrainian people are no safer under Western control than they were under the previous administration. And what is the health of the Ukrainian people at this given moment? You know, not only has there been bloodshed, but civilians are being murdered at an ever increasing rate, and the region is engaged in a violent civil war. Is this the peace and democracy Secretary of State John Kerry and others in Washington D.C. have been talking about? And What about democracy? The people of Crimea, a largely Russian speaking population, just voted with over a 95% popular vote, in referendum to join Russia. Why doesn't the United States respect the will of the people? Reports from the Jerusalem Post indicate that the Odessa Jewish community is contemplating an emergency evacuation from the region should the violence in the Western Ukrainian city get significantly worse. But once again, the mainstream media is playing the Jew card, note the publisher, in order to paint Putin as the next Hitler and alienate him from the international community. This of course is bullshit, and it's a lie. Putin hasn't invaded Ukraine, the U.S. and EU have through their proxy the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. 1953: US. Overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. [Declassified] The CIA bombs a cleric's home and frames Mossadeq to turn Muslims against him. U.S installs Shah as dictator. [Declassified] Chief CIA analyst states that the CIA teaches Nazi torture techniques to the Iranian secret police (SAVAK). Guatemala 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. [Declassified] The U.S. diplomatically blocks Vietnamese elections because "80% would vote for Communist, Ho Chi Minh." 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia. The other 9/11: Chile: 1973 [Classified] September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a coup in Chile. Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. Afghanistan 1980's: U.S. trains Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion [Declassified] Mujahedin leaders use CIA-supplied trucks to transport opium to the Pakistan border. CIA gives them $3 billion. Nicaragua 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras." 30,000 Nicaraguans die. Iraq 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Iran 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis. [Declassified] U.S. documents report that Israel is selling "chemical products" to both Iran and Iraq. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties. What I believe is absolutely inadmissible is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through 'colour revolutions', through coup d'état, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych. You believe that the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, and he had to flee to Russia? I know that for sure. I know those people who live in the Ukraine, we have thousands of contacts with them. We know where, and when, and who met with someone, and who worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything! And our American partners don't try to conceal that anyway, they said: Yes well we did, we did train them, and we spent that much money, and it's now, it amounts to $5 billion dollars, so there's no secret about it. Yeah but I mean you're suggesting that this.. Nobody is even arguing against that. Do you respect the sovereignty of Ukraine? Sure, but we want other countries to respect the sovereignty of other countries and Ukraine in particular. Respect for sovereignty means to not allow unconstitutional action and coup d'état - the removal of legitimate power. How will the renewal of legitimate power take place in your judgement? How will that come about? And what role will Russia play? Russia has not taken part and is not going to take part in any actions aimed at removing the legitimate government. What I'm saying is that if somebody does that, the result is very difficult to deal with. In Libya we've seen the disintegration of the state, in Iraq we've seen the territories been filled with terrorists, in Syria the situation is unfolding in the same way, in Afghanistan you very well know what the situation looks like. What happened in Ukraine? The coup d'état led to a civil war. Many citizens of Ukraine did not have trust in Yanukovych that's true, but they should have gone to the elections and elected a new leader, not commit the removal of power. But after the coup d'état, somebody supported that, somebody liked it, but somebody did not. And those who did not like it were treated from the position of force. About ten days after 911 I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in and he said: ''Sir you gotta come in and talk to me for a second.'' I said 'well you're too busy!' He said: ''No, no!'' He says: ''We've made the decision, we're going to war with Iraq!'' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said: 'We're going to war with Iraq? Why?' He said: ''I don't know!'' He said: ''I guess that they don't know what else to do!'' So, I said: 'Did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?' He said: ''No no!' He says: ''There's nothing new that way, they've just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.'' He said: ''I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.'' And um he said: ''I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.'' So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan, I said: 'Are we still going to war with Iraq?' And he said: ''Oh, it's worse than that!' He said, (he reached over his desk he picked up a piece of paper), he said: ''I just got this down from upstairs (meaning the Secretary of Defense's office today) and he said: ''This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in 5 years. Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.'' (The Truth about the Middle East) The truth is about the Middle East is: Had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa, the problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it, and there's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not I can't tell you, but, but there was definitely, there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region. So you're in a little bit of a dilemma on that, we need to leave that kind of fuzzy on this, but we need the authorization to follow the leads, put the troops in, and play this. Look, ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies because as people will tell you in the region. If you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don't put out a recruiting poster and say, you know: 'sign up for us and we're going to make a better world!' You go after zealous, and you go after these religious fundamentalist, that's who fights Hezbollah.. But General I'm hearing you on.. It's like a Frankenstein! I'm hearing you on keeping Syria fuzzy but, I mean they've been very clear in wanting to destroy and dismantle ISIS, so that's not fuzzy to me at all, that the question would be, if they wipe out ISIS in Syria, which is the goal, then what? With Bashar-Al Assad? There has to be a plan for that phase. Well, some things you can't exactly plan that clearly because you're dealing in the realm of politics. So part of it is: Can you get the Russians to withdraw their support from Bashar-Al Assad? How would you do that? Well, you're dealing with the Russians in Ukraine right now, and they're not being helpful, in fact from Putin's prospective, he probably sees it as a, the opposite play, he says: that because the Americans need us to help on Iran, because they don't have a ground force in Syria, they're actually relying on us, therefore, we can push Ukraine further and the Americans won't stop us because they're afraid that they'll lose our cooperation elsewhere in the world. ISIS, created by the U.S. and her allies according to General Wesley Clark. I mean this is amazing, this is a very well respected General. He was the commander and head of all NATO forces, not just American but, NATO forces. Saying that ISIS was created by her allies. You know countries like Saudi Arabia, that are in cahoots with the United States right now, not just to put pressure on U.S. fracking corporations, but to drive oil prices to zero, to put pressure on Vladimir Putin, and Russia, and to bring Iran to the nuclear dealing table so that we can negotiate with them. Those same allies... Those same people, responsible for creating these groups to fight allegedly Hezbollah, to fight the other radical elements. You see the United States does this time and time again, it's how we throw countries, it's how we overthrow places like Egypt, it's like, how we murder people like Muammar, leader, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Who gave coalition forces in Libya the right to eliminate Gaddafi? Well that's the question Vladimir Putin has been asking during an official visit to Denmark. The Russian premier also said NATO's effectively joined one of the warring sides in the conflict and more responsible action should be taken instead. RT's Daniel Bushell joins us now live for this in Brussels. Ah, Daniel so um, the Russian Prime Minister has effectively lashed out at the operation there in Libya? Yes, he's made a speech in Denmark, and he was very angry, he says that: Gaddafi is not the best person in the world, sure, he's made many mistakes, done many bad things, but that does not give the coalition the right to bomb indiscriminately, his words were that: 'They are bombing Gaddafi's palaces in Tripoli every night!' Now the coalition said that their plan was not to get rid of Gaddafi, so his question was, Mr. Putin's question was: Why are the coalition forces obviously making this effort to go after Colonel Gaddafi himself? Now we also heard that the experts here in Brussels have confirmed that there is bombing going on by the coalition forces, which is not being covered by the media, here in the European Union. Mr. Putin added that oil was a key interest for the Western powers, for the European powers, who have gone into Libya, that they want to get rid of Gaddafi, and install people who are more favourable to the European Union, so the European companies can control the oil reserves. Let's have a listen to exactly what Mr. Putin had to say. The coalition said destroying Gaddafi was not their goal, then why bomb his palaces? Now some officials have claimed that eliminating him was in fact their goal. Who gave them that right? Did he have a fair trial? Returning to the no-fly zone, the bombings are destroying the country's entire infrastructure. When that the so-called civilized world uses all its military power against a small country destroying what's been created by generations, I don't know if that's good... Mr. Putin said that they have to give the Libyan people time to sort out their own problems, and there's really double standards here he added. There are several other parts of the region in the Middle East and North Africa which is facing pretty much civil war situations, but which the West is either ignoring, or not really paying the same amount of attention to. Well Daniel, there have been reports about an EU plan to send army convoys to assist humanitarian aid there in Libya, of course, there will be those who say: Well this is really the start of a military ground operation, something of course that allies were adamant wouldn't happen. Yeah, absolutely, I heard these rumors for the first time a few weeks ago, that the EU plans to send up to a thousand troops, under the guise of so-called 'humanitarian aid.' Russia fears that this will be used to plan an invasion and to carry out an invasion of Libya on the pretext of supporting humanitarian aid to the Libyan people. The draft plan is called: EUFOR Libya. It's supported by the 27 member states of the European Union, prepared by them and it provides for them ground troops in fact to be deployed by the Western coalition. In the port city of Misurata which is currently under siege by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Here in Brussels Micheal Mann the chief spokesman to the European Union high representative, Catherine Ashton said that they would only send up to a thousand troops and the troops would only be used if they came under attack, otherwise, they would only defend aid. Now Russia has said that it will only support another UN resolution if it explicitly says that it will not continue the violence, that if it ends the violence and starts negotiations then that is the only condition under which they would support that. Now I've been speaking to military analysts here in Brussels, and they confirm that ground troops are already in operation in Libya, this is not being covered by the media, in the European Union. But troops are already in operation, and they are pushing forward in Libya, with Colonel Gaddafi as the target. Daniel thanks very much indeed for that. That's Daniel Bushall live there in Brussels. Well more speculation has been has been raised on the reasons for NATO's intervention in Libya, and as RT's Laura Emmett reports; the organization may have been trying to prevent Gaddafi from burying the American buck. According to some it's about protecting civilians. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. Others say it's about oil. The only reason they're interested with Libya is about the oil. You think we'd be in Iraq if the major export was there was broccoli? But some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about currency, specifically Gaddafi's plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold; a true sharing of the wealth. It's one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret. Because as soon as you say you're going to change over from the dollar to the: Something else, you're going to be targeted. There were two conferences on this; one in 1996, and another one in the year 2000 called the World Mathaba Conference organized by Gaddafi, and everybody was interested, and I think that most countries in Africa were keen. Gaddafi didn't give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency, that would rival the dollar and Euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world, only for gold dinars. It's an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. Countries' wealth would depend on how much gold they have, not how many dollars they trade. And Libya has 144 tonnes of gold. The U.K. has double that but ten times the population. If Gaddafi had an intent to try to reprice his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global markets and accept something else as a currency, or maybe launch a golden currency... Any move such as that would certainly not be welcome by the power elite today who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks. So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal, and the need for other reasons to be brought forth for removing him from power. It's happened before. In 2000 Saddam Hussein announced that Iraqi oil would be traded in Euros, not dollars. Sanctions and an invasion followed. Some say because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the Euro. The U.K.'s gold is kept here in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries there's not enough to go around. But that's not the case in places like Libya and many of the Gulf states. A gold dinar would have given oil rich Africa and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy hungry customers and say: 'Sorry the price has gone up! And we want gold!' Some say the U.S. and its NATO allies, literally couldn't afford to let that happen. Laura Emmett, RT, London. Last week when I ordered our armed forces to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Muammar Gaddafi, I pledged to keep the American people fully informed. Since then I have spoken about the limited scope, and specific purpose of this mission. Today, I can report that thanks to the brave men and women in uniform, we've made important progress. As Commander-in-Chief, I face no greater decision than sending our military men and women into harm's way. The United States should not, and cannot intervene every time that there is a crises somewhere in the world. But I firmly believe, that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Gaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region. And when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives; then it's in our national interests to act; and it's our responsibility. This is one of those times. Our military mission in Libya is clear and focused. Along with our allies and partners, we're enforcing the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We're protecting the Libyan people from Gaddafi's forces; and we've put in place a no fly zone and other measures to prevent further atrocities. We're succeeding in our mission. We've taken out Libya's air defenses; Gaddafi's forces are no longer advancing across Libya. In places like Benghazi - a city of some seven hundred thousand, that Gaddafi threatened to show no mercy, his forces have been pushed back. So make no mistake; because we acted quickly a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided, and the lives of countless civilians, innocent men, women, and children have been saved. It's been described as the final chapter for Gaddafi but whilst the end to the war in Libya seems sooner, the realization now setting in that there still remains a long, tough battle ahead. We're joined now by Yvonne da Vito who's just come back from Libya where, you were compiling an independent dossier on what was happening on the ground there. So thank you very much for joining us. Now you've been saying that it's because, certainly here in Italy, the news reports about what was happening in Libya, were very confusing, a lot of conflicting information, so can you tell us what you saw, and what you found whilst you were there. We went to Libya on the 28th of July, and we came back on the 7th of August, and we found a totally different situation, because NATO was bombarding civilians. The bombings were not only carried out on military targets, but they also hit houses, hospitals, schools, television centres, and this was totally against the humanitarian reasons they said that they were there for. I believe that were doing this to bring panic in the city. That's why they were bombing the things that people use daily; like places with food, and essential utilities like hospitals. This was also a difficult period for Muslims because of Ramadan, and that is why that in the day time they are in their houses. We went to Tripoli, and to Zliten and we saw huge protests with thousands of pro Gaddafi supporters turning out against NATO, and all these demonstrations were not shown in Italy. We also visited Tajura and Janzour and found a lot of women that we screaming at us, asking why you Italians are bombing us, what did we do to you? Why are you killing our children? That was the main question. We went to Zliten the same day they bombed a house, and in this house two children were killed. We tried to show the pictures of these children that were dead, but apart from us, no one use did the same. Except the things that we saw with our own eyes visiting these places that were bombed. We have so much material that Press Officers and Journalists from Libya gave to us as testimony to all the dead from the NATO bombings. We've frozen tens of billions of dollars of Gaddafi's assets that can help meet the needs and aspirations of the Libyan people. And every day the pressure on Gaddafi and his regime is increasing. Our message is clear and unwavering: Gaddafi's attacks against civilians must stop. His forces must pull back, humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach those in need. Those responsible for violence must be held accountable. Muammar Gaddafi has lost the confidence of his people, and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized. After all the things that we saw, we have one question: Is this a humanitarian war? Are they really helping the civilians? Because I believe that all this is because of economic reasons, or at least there are other reasons why this war happened; petroleum or other things. Western powers have frozen the assets of Muammar Gaddafi and other senior figures in the Libyan government. They say the aim is to help bring down the government refusing the will of its people, but as RT's Lauren Lyster reports, history suggests Libya may never see its money again after the international wealth grab. As violence continues in Libya, the U.S. sends warships and more troops in that direction, fueling speculation of a military intervention. Meanwhile western countries may have already launched a war against Colonel Muammar Al-Gaddafi's North African regime. Most countries consider the freezing of their assets as an act of economic warfare. The weapons here: The foreign assets of either Libya the country, or Gaddafi and his family, that some estimate to be almost $100 billion dollars. It's believed to be spread across the globe; oil money invested through the country's sovereign wealth fund. Everything from a stake in the company that owns the Financial Times newspaper, to land near the Spanish resort town of Marbella being developed into homes and a gulf course. To the oil company Vironex, and billions of dollars of cash in banks throughout Europe and the U.S. The question now is what happens to all of this money? Especially the $30 billion dollars the United States has frozen, the most ever in the history of this country, in this type of situation. It essentially cuts Libya off from the entire U.S. banking system. For now it stays put while the situation is still uncertain, but what is certain; the President of the United States is now in control of this money, which gives him a powerful tool. Look, maybe we will make a deal, about this money or some of this money. Um, but it means that you have to do the following; and whatever the U.S. at that point is trying to accomplish, presumably that he leaves. It's all about control, and profit, and domination. This is the center of an empire, and it's an empire where the greatest profits come from the military contracts, and the oil contracts. So, they will work overtime to aid those corporations and their interests. To enact these sanctions the U.S. President declared the situation in Libya quote: 'An unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security, and foreign policy.' That's not typical considering there's not a clear aggressive action Libya has taken against the U.S. As for Libya's financial interests, analysts say that you could look to the history of countries such as Iran; Their assets were frozen in the wake of the 1979 hostage crisis. Their money, that was seized from Iran back in 1979 has still, you know, not been returned to the Iranians, So it's basically time for a plunder play, you know; if we can take it away from them, we will. The money is used most often to pay for the settlements of lawsuits against a leader or a government, or to recoup loses. Gaddafi can likely kiss the money goodbye. We took their nuclear capacity away, made promises, didn't live up to them, claimed that was a great victory for peace, and now we're in the situation where it's clear that oil is at stake. The future of the massive sums of money reaped from Libyan oil, is now as uncertain as the divided country it came from. Lauren Lyster, RT, New York. Now international bankers have reportedly wasted billions of dollars invested by Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. The Financial Times says giants like Goldman Sachs were dealing with the dictator's investments when it needed to 'plug a hole' during the crises. Most of the money has been lost, but with what's going on in Libya any repayments seems unlikely, RT's Daniel Bushall has more from Berlin. It has emerged that Western banks have been happy to invest and work with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and picking up huge sums in the process. As you say France's Société Générale was advising it to make a billion dollar bet on its own shares, it told Gaddafi to make a billion dollar bet on its own shares, which then lost practically all their value by last year, Société Générale pocketed huge sums, huge fees in the process. American lender Goldman Sachs, made a billion dollar investment for Libya, which then lost over 98% of its value, and many other Western lenders have made disastrous investments for Libya's national investment fund. Now the interesting thing is that; these banks are claiming they won't have to pay any of that money back, because the West's current war with Libya means that Gaddafi is an illegitimate ruler. This is how the international community should work: More nations, not just the United States, bearing the responsibility and cost of upholding peace and security. This military effort is part of our larger strategy to support the Libyan people, and hold the Gaddafi regime accountable. Okay now you have personally met Gaddafi yourself on a number of occasions, what do you think post war, and post Gaddafi Libya is going to look like? Even if all television stations are showing people fighting and demonstrating against Gaddafi, I personally saw many people demonstrating for Gaddafi. I don't know why so many Journalists are not showing this, because they are manipulating the situation. Independent media show these videos on the internet because there is more freedom. From what we saw personally when we were in Libya, and from the documents we brought, we saw the rebels as disorganized groups. Are there fears amongst the people that the rebels coming to power will prove an ongoing continuation of the volatile situation there? I believe that the rebels will not be able to do a good job after Gaddafi. Amoungst them there are many extremist groups, Islamists, Tunisian people. I don't know why they're there; Al Qaeda, rebels from Libya that just wanted a change. But there is too much disorganization to make a good job. The people who were interviewed were very afraid to imagine that rebels could take power. Because they think that they are not able to govern the country, or to take control in the proper way. The chiefs of these groups of rebels are ex-politicians, former politicians, that before were with Gaddafi, and then they completely changed their face; they went with the wind as they say in Italy. In recent days we've heard the voices of Libyans expressing their gratitude for this mission. "You saved our lives!'' Said one Libyan, said another: ''Today there is hope.'' "Let those dogs strike us. They are bombing our country, they are destroying out country. Muammar is their father... Why are they cursing him and bombing him? Allah and Libya and Muammar only.. Those dogs, those rats... What did we do to them? What did we do to them to make them bomb us those dogs? They airstrike us all day and night, people are all asleep in dawn and they bomb them with their planes.. ...That's cruel what did we do to them?... They say they are protecting civilians, but no they are bombing them! When did they protect them???" When we talk of the NATO mission for humanitarian reasons, do you think that justification for the war in Libya stands up to scrutiny now? I believe it's not a valid justification, because most of the targets were civilian ones, and many people say the people were targeted on purpose to create panic on the ground. How much of a discrepancy did you see on the ground between what NATO was saying, and what you were seeing? Many many discrepancies every day, The first day NATO bombed a civilian target, I apologized to people saying it was a mistake. But the day after they kept bombing civilian targets, and when the Libyan government was asking: Why are you bombing civilians? NATO were denying it, saying it was Gaddafi propaganda, that wasn't true, we saw it. This is the first time that a country was attacked, even though they asked for a commission to go into the country and to investigate and find facts, that didn't happen; they just attacked. This was started with false pictures sent by Al Jazeera through the media. Other media took these pictures, and confirmed them as true, and the war was on. The most important thing is that the government said that it was open to negotiations, but NATO didn't want that. Later at a Town Hall style gathering, the Secretary spoke of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi, still a fugitive, in decidedly non-diplomatic terms. ''We hope that he can be captured or killed soon'' She said ''To prevent him from disrupting the new Libya.'' We came, we saw, he died... Did it have anything to do with your visit? No, I'm sure it didn't.. Ah, but the people at the top of this so-called Islamic revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and Al Qaeda; they're all hard core socialist, and they're international socialist. They're working also for the New World Order. So everything that you see is an illusion. Ah, and that's why you have this President, over there, pouring money into the Muslim Brotherhood - secretly giving missiles, surface-to-air missiles to the Al Qaeda group like in Mogadishu, or Benghazi. You know this is what the whole attack there was about [at] Benghazi, was the Navy seals in the CIA were trying to find out where all of these missiles, that came from the United States, who they were going to, and they had discovered it, and so they had to destroy all of the records. So they had this raid; burned all of the records, killed the Ambassador, killed the Navy seals, and destroyed all of the records in the CIA office. In fact it came out during an investigation: Well why was the CIA next door to the Ambassador's office? What is this about? And why were navy seals assigned to it? But then when it came time to defend that CIA office and the intelligence... Obama and Hillary Clinton ordered them not to defend them, so they were slaughtered... Interestingly, Gaddafi almost ten years before, had warned, the reporter Arnaud de Borchgrave and told him that in fact that Benghazi was the headquarters of Al Qaeda, and he needed help from the United States to stop them. He was terrified of them. So for ten years he was trying to get the United States, he wanted to work with the CIA, what he didn't know, what they he was being set up to be assassinated. And um, what happened is: He decided that he was going to separate from the World Bank, he was going to create his own currency, he was going to back it with gold, and he told the World Bank and the International bankers that he wanted nothing to do with them, and he wanted them out of his country. And of course, very quickly they killed him. So he knew too much, and he was separating from the World Bank, which is not allowed, and the international banking cartel, said: "That's not allowed, and you'll be overthrown!" That's what happened to Gaddafi.. And that's what's happening in Syria, and that's what's happening in Egypt.. Three major changes in the American monetary system have occurred, in the last one hundred years. The first change was the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913; the second change was going off the personal gold standard in 1933; the third change was going off the national gold standard in 1971, and onto the Petrodollar; an extortion racket concocted by Kissinger forcing Saudi Arabia to sell oil for dollars. We'd give the oil producing countries military protection if they obeyed, but kill them if they didn't. Does Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi ring a bell? The goal of the Petrodollar was to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency. The power that has the reserve currency gets to print money in exchange for real goods. That's why our stores are filled with cheap goods, even though we don't produce anything in exchange. And that's why prices would shoot up if the Petrodollar was replaced. We're now at a point where the monetary system is going to change again, but this time, the Jews aren't in control. The game-changer was launched last month by the BRICS, by creating a rival to the IMF and World Bank - Jewish apparatuses of global financial, and political control. The new game in town is the BRICS New Development Bank, and it will change the way the world works. Putin told reporters, quote: ''The international monetary system depends on the U.S. dollar, to be precise, on the monetary policy of U.S. authorities; BRICS wants to change this!'' Unquote. These are fighting words, for the Yuan, the Rupee, and the Ruble will start replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency. Countries won't need dollars to buy oil any more, and developing countries like Ukraine won't need to borrow money from the FED and the IMF -- they can borrow it from the New Development Bank, and at much better terms. The IMF is a death trap, it only lends for speculation, takeovers, and control. But the BRICS: To develop infrastructure, and cooperation between nations. That's their stated goal. How does this affect the average American? This transition from one currency, the dollar, to multiple currencies, will turn Wall Mart into a Neiman Marcus. Prices will soar, and what remains of American productivity, especially agricultural, will export goods chasing the stable currencies. This will cause fewer goods produced here available to Americans, and scarcity will skyrocket. And do you think that sanctions against Russia, are really the cause of ''Russian aggression?'' Not a chance, the sanctions are a desperate response to the threat posed by the New Development Bank to the dollar reserve currency. No sooner was the bank announced, the stooge regime in Kiev shot down the plane. The demonizing of Putin went into a high gear, and sanctions were ramped up. Explain how the sanctions, particularly, the American sanctions, you know, that are really sanctions that do not allow these companies, Russian companies, to in some way participate in the American financial system. Why do you think, they're so effective? Well, they're very effective because the dollar is the dominant currency, in which all international trade occurs. And when we impose a sanction on a company, that means that they cannot have access to U.S. financial institutions, to U.S. businesses, or really to trade in the dollar.. Yet businesses in America and Germany oppose the sanctions. If the New World Order is just a corporatocracy, then the businessmen would have prevailed. But the quick marshaling of American and European sanctions, even though against their business interests, shows the existence of a supranational global governance, that supercedes corporatocracy. And it shows that the character of that global governance is more political than it is commercial, it's about who controls the world. Who do we know that fits this description? And can enforce a sudden global reversal of policy? The international Jewish money power, that's who.. And Jacob Lew, and David Cohen of the U.S. treasury act in behalf of that power. Washington is not stupid, as Paul Craig Roberts says: It's sinister; it's a total of international Jewry, whose current monetary system is faded to hit the skids. The BRICS New Development Bank has fired the first shot. Thank you for your questions [to U.S. journalist] You mentioned that Russia played its part in the development of tensions that we are seeing in the world. Russia did play its part, in the understanding that it is standing up for its national interests, more firmly in so far as the situation calls for it. We are not attacking anyone, in the political sense of that word. We are not invading anyone. The disdain of our Western friends comes from the fact that we are doing just that: Standing up for our national interests. It does not come from us initiating something that instigates these tensions in the world. Let me explain. You mentioned our aviation. Geo-strategic aviation, that is. Is it known to you that, Russia, in the 90's Halted completely (as did the USSR) any strategic aviation in the 'further afield regions of patrol' i.e. not in the closer abroad. We halted such activity completely. U.S. geo-strategic aviation however, With nuclear weapons on board! They continued to encircle us. What for? Who are you concerned about? Or why are you threatening us? We continued with the non-patrol, year after year It's only since about 3 years ago that we restarted aviation patrol further abroad. Which party is the provocateur here? Is it us? We have only 2 military bases abroad. They are in areas of known terrorism dangers. One in Kyrgyzstan, and only after rebels from Afghanistan started operating in that territory. We were asked to be there by the Kyrgyz authorities, Akayev was President then. The second one is in Tajikistan, also on the border with Afghanistan. It is even in your [American] interests to know that everything is calm there. U.S. bases on the other hand are all over the world. And you are telling me that I am the aggressor? Have you any common sense? What are the U.S. forces doing in Europe? Including nuclear weaponry?! What business have they got there? Listen to me... Our military budget, while increased slightly from last year, in the dollar equivalent is about $50 billion. The military budget of the Pentagon is almost 10 times that amount. $575 billion, I think congress signed off on. And you're telling me that I'm the aggressor here? Have you no common sense at all? Is it us putting our forces on the border of the U.S? Or other states? Is it NATO, or who, that is moving their bases closer to us? Military infrastructure! It's not us Does anyone even listen to us? Or try to have some kind of dialogue with us? The repeated answer we get is: 'Mind your own business', and 'each country can choose its own security measures.' Very well, so will we. Why is the same forbidden to us? And finally... On the anti-ballistic missile-defense system... Who was it that exited from the treaty that was vital to the entire system of international security? Was it us? No. It was the States. In a one-sided way. They simply withdrew from the treaty. Now they are threatening us. Turning their missiles towards us. Not only from Alaska, but from Europe too. In Romania, in Poland... We are right next door! And I am the aggressor here? Do we want a fairer relationship? Yes we do, with our national interests taken into account. Both in matters of security, and in economics. We held talks with the WTO for 19 years. We agreed to many compromises. We proceeded on the understanding that WTO conditions are set in stone upon joining. And then... I won't get into the Ukrainian question today, of course I consider my position to be the just position, while our Western friends are in the wrong, but we will leave that for the purposes of this discussion. So we joined the WTO. There are rules. In contravention to them, and in contravention to international law. Sanctions have been imposed on the Russian economy. This is illegal. Is it us that's in the wrong again? We want to develop normal relations in the sphere of security, in the fight against terrorism, in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We want to work together with you on threats such as drug-trafficking, organized crime, the spread of infectious diseases, including Ebola. We want to work together with you. As well as in the economic sphere. So long as you want that too. Today, and building on the measures we announced two weeks ago; the United States is imposing new sanctions in key sectors of the Russian economy: Energy, arms, and finance. We're blocking the exports of specific goods and technologies to the Russian energy sector, we're expanding our sanctions to more Russian banks and defense companies, and we're formally suspending credit that encourages exports to Russia, and financing for economic development projects in Russia. At the same time the European Union is joining us, in imposing major sanctions on Russia.. Europe's new sanctions against Russia over its alleged role in the Ukraine crisis have come into force. That's despite a week old ceasefire deal which appears fragile, but is largely holding. The measures affect ordinary Russians. Imposing sanctions other countries is very good he said. We need to develop industries of our own here. Alisa said: What really worries me is not the measures imposed from Europe, but the ones that were announced in return from our side; because they affect individual people. ..Its most significant and wide-ranging sanctions to date. In the financial sector, the EU is cutting off certain financing to state-owned banks in Russia. In the energy sector, the EU will stop exporting specific goods and technologies to Russia, which will make it more difficult for Russia to develop its oil resources over the long term. In the defense sector, the EU is prohibiting new arms imports and exports and is halting the exports of sensitive technology to Russia's military users. And because we're closely coordinating our actions with Europe, the sanctions we're announcing today will have an even bigger bite. Now Russia's actions in Ukraine and the sanctions that we've already imposed have made a weak Russian economy even weaker. Foreign investors already are increasingly staying away, even before our actions today nearly $100 billion dollars in capital was expected to flee Russia. Russia's energy, financial, and defense sectors are feeling the pain. Projections for Russian economic growth, are down to near zero. The major sanctions we're announcing today will continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia including the cronies and companies that are supporting Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine. In other words today, Russia is once again isolating itself from the international community, setting back decades of genuine progress. And it doesn't have to come to this, it didn't have to come to this. It does not have to be this way. This is a choice that Russia, and President Putin in particular, has made. The new sanctions target five state banks and curb EU business deals with energy and defense firms. Russian President Vladimir Putin said: The new sanctions look ''strange.'' Given his support for peace efforts in enbattled Eastern Ukraine. Using these mechanisms seems somewhat ''strange'' even against the whole strange background he said. I don't even understand what these new sanctions are related to, maybe somebody doesn't like that we've started to follow a peace process. Russia's Foreign Ministry said: It would hit back quickly against what it described as another hostile step. Many in the EU are anxious about that revenge from Russia, the block's biggest energy supplier. What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, one state and, of course, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? This is Syrian Girl. I want to talk to you about why the New World Order hates Syria, and why they are attacking the country now. The New World Order is a plan to bring all nations under the control of one power. People might argue about who the real power is behind this agenda, but those who are observant will notice that this New World Order, or NWO, is the endgame. Syria has always resisted, and is the front lines against the New World Order. One of the ways that Syria resists is that Syria does not have a Rothchild central bank. A Rothchild central bank is a bank that has been bought by the Rothchild family; one of the richest, and most powerful families in the world. It is a bank which is under the control of: ''The Bank of International Settlements'' which decides how much money is worth in a nation, and how much debt a nation has. In Libya one of the first things that happened after NATO took over that country, is that their central bank was turned into a Rothchild central bank. Another way in which Syria resists the New world Order, is that it has no loans to the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. Syria before the crisis began was a totally debt-free country. If it has ever taken out loans, it was not to the IMF, but to a trusted ally, like Russia. The first thing that Egypt's new President Morsi did when he came to power, was sign Egypt with 4 billion dollars worth of IMF debt. Even though he claims to be a Muslim, and Islam is against debt and interest. Because Syria owes no money to world powers, and her bank is free from foreign control, she is able to choose her own foreign policy. This is why Syria can impose imperialism, like in Palestine, Libya, and Iraq, and ban genetically modified foods. Syria has never had genetically modified food, and has recently formalized this into law. Companies like Monsanto, are among the war profiteers, or ''dogs of war.'' When Iraq was invaded, one of the first things that the U.S.s Bremer changed in the Iraqi constitution was to make it illegal for farmers to store their own seeds and force them to buy genetically modified seeds from Monsanto. Genetically modified seeds are very sensitive and carry a promise of being better than natural seeds. Many Indian farmers who bought the seeds and had their crops fail that year committed suicide because they had no money to buy new seeds from Monsanto, and couldn't have saved their own seeds because they had entered a contractual agreement to purchase seeds from Monsanto. Famine reigned as a result. Controlling food supply, is yet another constraint the New World Order uses to keep countries in check, and bring them under the control of the One World Government. Syria resists these steps to control her. Syrian state media doesn't shy away from discussions of secret societies. In Syria talk of secret societies is not seen as a fringe conspiracy, but mainstream. Those that tell you it is not significant that two U.S. Presidential candidates: Bush and Kerry, were both members of the same tiny secret society: The Skull and Bones, are willingly blind. Oil and energy flow is yet another way in which the world powers bring nations to their knees. And yet another reason why Syria is a target. Syria recently discovered gas off its coast, and she was working on a new pipeline going through Iran, Iraq and Syria to Europe that would rival the BTC pipeline currently going through Israel. Forcing oil to pass through Israel through the BTC pipeline is the way in which the New World Order uses Israel as their hub of control of the oil flow between Europe, Asia and Africa. They can turn off the tap whenever they want, and that brings nations under their umbrella. Syria's attempts to give the world an alternative route for oil and gas could have been a way to free the world and put a wrench in the plans of the global dominators. And I have spoken about this at length - that Syria is one of the last countries left that does not recognize the apartheid state of Israel and resists the Zionist agenda, which is a large part of the New World Order. It is one of the main reasons the New World Order sees Syria as an obstacle to its plans, and this point requires an individual video. Another reason why the New World Order hates Syria, is that it is a secular country in the Middle East. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and much of North Africa were secular nations - but after the Iraq war, Iraq was given a more geocratic Shiite government. After the Arab Spring, and NATO bombardment of Libya, it was given a Wahhabi extremist government. And recently, Egypt became a Muslim Brotherhood nation, another theocracy. And with Israel being an extremist Jewish theocracy in this region; Syria is really the last secular country left in the Middle East. In Syria asking someone what their religion is, is insulting. And if an outsider asks you what it is: you can't help but feel a little bit defensive, and the common answer is: ''I am Syrian..'' All the prime religions have lived there in peace for hundreds of years, and with freedom to practice. Divide and conquer is a strategy which the world powers use to control nations, and Syria's unity has been a way to resist that. Syria has a very strong national and cultural identity. If you have ever traveled the world, you will notice that you can find the same shops and the same culture being spread everywhere. You can find the same clothing items in a shop in Dubai as you can find in a shop in France. This is not the case in Syria, Syria holds on to its uniqueness, and its own productions. Coca Cola and other foreign companies used to be banned in Syria, but years ago the current President unbanned them, which, I believe was a huge mistake. Syria has its own Cola production companies, that were even more delicious, that had to close down as a result of Coca Cola being unbanned. But these reforms only really went so far to open up Syria's economy, and Syria still resisted entry of foreign companies. And I think that this is one of the other reasons that Syria is hated by the New World Order. Syria is one of the last countries that remain distinct from everywhere else, and I believe that there is a clear New World Order agenda to make everywhere look pretty much the same and thereby create no more nations, and one world government - what a boring world that would be. The New World Order hates Syria because Syria is free.. So Orwellian it is that they shout ''free Syria'' when they really try to enslave her. If Syria falls, it will be a tipping point that ends up in victory for the New World Order, like, Stalingrad was the tipping point between Germany and Russia in World War Two. Syria resists in spite of all the massive power of the nations against her. She resists not just for herself, but for every free person. As I said earlier Syria is the front line against the New World Order, so fight along side us, until the end. I guess my question is: How many times do we have to prove that these people are blowing up people, now, never mind if they get a nuclear weapon. When do we send them an airmail message to Tehran? You know that, that old Beach Boys song ''Bomb Iran?'' Haha Bomb bomb bomb, bomb, ah anyway.. In May of earlier of this year senator John McCain republican of Arizona went on a secret trip to Syria to meet with rebel leaders of the Free Syrian Army, fighting in opposition to Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government. Once McCain returned home, photos surfaced of his trip claiming that he had met with known terrorist, members of the rebel group Northern Storm Brigade; some say an adjunct of the Free Syrian Army itself, and responsible for kidnapping eleven Lebanese Shiite pilgrims in Syria. Lebanon's Al Jadeed TV station, which is usually sympathetic to Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group fighting for Assad in Syria broke the original story. Nine of the eleven Shiites kidnapped are still being held, but one of the released captives identified Mohammad Nour, chief spokesman and photographer, and Ammar al Dadikhi as part of the Northern Storm's leadership and again as the two men standing beside John McCain in this picture. The story made headlines in the United States and tough questions awaited. Senator McCain, you were recently in Syria, and as a result of that trip there were several reports, that claim that you had a photograph taken with a notorious kidnapper named Mohammad Nour, your spokesman says if that was the case it was regrettable, but, senator Rand Paul picked up on that and essentially said: If you don't know who you are having your photo taken with, how do you know who you're giving weapons to? Well I know, I know who I met with, and I, in fact I met with a group of Syrians, ah.. ah... yesterday.. Obviously the question wasn't answered. So on Friday of last week, September 6, Christopher Greene and I went to Prescott Arizona for a Town Hall event and followed up with the senator from Arizona. I've been in Syria, have you been in Syria? I have not... No ya have not! I have been. It's also clear that the American people overwhelmingly do not support a war in Syria. A research poll said 91% of Americans, do not support it... Sir your statement was false, so I, don't have any response to a false statement. Senator McCain, ah, what do you say about your judgement on how to pick, the good and evil in Syria, when you yourself were photographed... How do we trust your judgement? Picking the good and the evil in Syria.. ...that I was photographed with someone because it appeared in an Al-Qaeda newspaper in Lebanon? You obviously know what I'm talking about.. How are we supposed to trust your judgement if you're photographed with known terrorists?.. I don't... I... I have never had anything to do with known terrorists and I am offended by your question.. Senator some people believe that... The allegation came for an Al-Qaeda newspaper in Lebanon? While Al Jadeed TV might been known has sympathetic, the story was also contributed to by the Daily Star, a Lebanese newspaper, who is from 2000-2009 a representative of the New York Times in the Gulf region; hardly an Al-Qaeda affiliate. But more importantly Al-Qaeda was founded by, one time CIA asset Osama Bin Laden: A Sunni Muslim of Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda, is a radical Sunni Muslim movement, and still heavily funded and trained by the Sunni Gulf states and Saudi Arabia to this day. McCain obviously confuses the two. Now whether it was intentional using Al-Qaeda as an umbrella term which many unfortunately do in America for all terrorists organizations, including Hezbollah, or a flippant reminder McCain as no idea what he is talking about, is unclear. Nonetheless he has conflated the two. Sunni Wahhabist and Shia militants, as if they are one in the same, they are not, and are in fact in bloody opposition, in the war over Syria. What McCain is doing is tantamount to confusing Protestants and Catholics in 17th century religious wars in Europe. This either speaks volumes of his ignorance, or indifference to the fact that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria are doing most of the fighting, are strategically aligned with Assad's enemies, including the West, and stand the most benefit from a U.S.-led strike against Assad.. Not the Free Syrian Army who John McCain met with clandestinely just a few months ago. The Daily Star thankfully cleared the air on one name Ammar al Dadikhi or a Abu Ibrahim, the Former leader of the Northern Storm Brigade, was actually wounded and allegedly died in Turkey months before the photo was taken. And Mouaz Moustafa executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (an American non-profit) that helped organize the McCain trip said nobody self-identified as Nour, and none of the guys who were standing outside were in the meeting with John McCain. The only problem is while Abu Ibrahim, the old leader of Northern Storm was missing and presumed dead as The Daily Star reported, it's new leader Samir Alwan whose organization still holds the nine Shia Muslims was in the meeting with Senator McCain. And as far as Mohammad Nour and his lack of self-identification are concerned, it's hard to envision a scenario in which he would be toting around his: ''I am a known terrorist'' badge. This is of course not the first time John McCain has been caught, literally palling around with terrorist as the Daily Show's host John Stuart put it comically. For years as Global Research notes, McCain has advocated, as he is in Syria for groups either directly affiliated with, or tacitly connected to Al-Qaeda franchises, and arguably in blatant violation of international law, as well as in breach of U.S. terrorism legislation. In April 2011, on a visit to Benghazi, Libya, John McCain claimed that the brave fighters he met there, were not Al-Qaeda, to the contrary, they were Libyan patriots who wanted to liberate their nation. In an MPR interview that same month McCain said: ''They are my heros!'' AFP reported not a year later after Gaddafi was overthrown and Libya was in shambles, that Senator McCain, and Lindsey Graham meet with Abdelhakim Belhadj one of the rebellion's leading figures and then head of the Tripoli Military Council. Belhadj, prior to and during the revolution in Libya, lead the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a confirmed affiliate of Al-Qaeda and responsible for the deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq during the U.S. occupation. According to an authoritative 2007 U.S. Military Academy Report. LFIG is a terrorist organization on both the UN Security Council, and the U.S. State Department list. And as Tony Carlucci points out: McCain was not only rhetorically supporting illicit terrorist, but calling for material support, including weapons, funds, training and air support; in direct violation of USC sub paragraph 2339A & 2339B: Providing material support, or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Now this material support McCain has sought for Libyan rebels, most of whom were from Benghazi, a hotbed of Islamic militancy, of which claimed the lives of three Americans and a U.S. Ambassador, a little over a year, after John McCain gushed about his new found friends. In the end claiming ignorance is no excuse. But it is a clear example of the prevailing wisdom, or lack thereof in Washington. And why American foreign policy is in perpetual failure. But John McCain's trip also reveals a larger more interested-powers behind the effort to oust the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The NGOs involved in Libya and Syria, are just the tip of the iceberg. First point I never said that I view the U.S. as a threat to our national security. President Obama, as you said, views Russia as a threat, but I don't feel the same way about the U.S. What I do feel is that, the politics of those in the circle of power, if I may use those terms... The politics of those in power in the U.S. is erroneous. It not only contradicts our national interests, it undermines any trust that we had in the United States, and in that way it actually harms the United States as well. Undermined trust, with the understanding that they are one of the global leaders, in politics and in matters of the economy. I can stay silent on may things... But, as I always say, and Dominic here has just mentioned it. One-sided actions, in the continuous search for the next "alliance" and coalitions, which are predetermined... This is not a method that seeks to discuss and agree on mutual grounds of understanding. These are one-sided actions. They are carried out all the time. They lead to crises. I've said this before. Another threat that President Obama mentioned was ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? Who armed the Syrians that were fighting with Assad? Who created the necessary political/informational climate that facilitated this situation? Who pushed for the delivery of arms to the area? Do you really not understand as to who is fighting in Syria? They are mercenaries, mostly. Do you understand they are paid money? Mercenaries fight for whichever side pays more. So they arm them, and pay them a certain amount. I even know what these amounts are. So they fight, they have the arms, you can't get them to return the weapons of course, at the end... Then they discover elsewhere pays a little more... So they go fight there. Then they occupy the oil fields. Wherever; in Iraq, in Syria. They start extracting the oil - and this oil is purchased by somebody. Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil? Do you believe the U.S. does not know who is buying it? Is it not their allies that are buying oil from ISIS? Do you think the U.S. has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they indeed do not wish to influence them? Then why bomb ISIS? In areas where they started extracting oil and paying mercenaries more... In those areas, the rebels from 'civilized' Syrian opposition forces immediately joined ISIS, because they are paid more. I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. It is not grounded on facts, in the real world. We must support civilized, democratic opposition in Syria. So you support, arm them, and then tomorrow they join ISIS. Can they not think a step ahead? We don't stand for this kind of politics of the U.S. We consider it to be wrong. It harms all parties, including you [USA]. When it comes to the consideration of our national interests, I would really like it if people like you [U.S. journalist] who posed the questions, would one day head your government. Maybe then we can somehow reverse the situation. If that doesn't happen, I will at least ask you to deliver my messages to your government. To the President of the United States, the Vice-President, and all other relevant people. Tell them that we do not want, or look for, any confrontation whatsoever. When you start to consider our national interests in your actions; any other disagreements we may have - they will self-regulate. This needs to be done, not just talked about. You must consider the interests of others, and you must respect other people. You cannot "squeeze" others, having considered only the benefits that you require from whatever... In economics, in your military activities, in everything. Look at Iraq, the situation is terrible. Look at Libya, and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered. Was it us that did this? You even had a Security Council decision for this. To establish a no fly zone. What for? It was so that Gaddafi's Air Force couldn't fly over and bomb the rebels. This wasn't the smartest decision. But okay... What did you proceed to do yourselves? You started bombing the territory. This is in clear contravention of the Security Council Resolution. It is even outright aggression over a state. Was it us that did this? You did this with your bare hands. And it ended with the murder of your Ambassador. Whose fault is it? It is your fault. Is it a good result that your Ambassador was murdered? It is actually a terrible catastrophe. But do not look around for somebody to blame, when it is you making these mistakes. You must do the opposite: Rise above the endless desire to dominate. You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions. Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people; like there can be no other way but imperialistic politics. We will never forget our relationship when we supported the U.S. in the War of Independence. We will never forget that we collaborated in both World Wars as allies. I personally believe that the geo-strategic interests of Russia and the U.S. are essentially the same. We must focus on this interrelationship. The lies are flying out of Washington, spinning the take down of Malaysia flight MH-17 over Ukraine. And the Liar In Chief launched: Russia's to blame right from the start. The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile, it was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine. Moreover, we know that these separatists have received a steady flow of support from Russia. This includes: arms, and training - It includes heavy weapons, and it includes anti-aircraft weapons. Hold on! Russia says that it would have been impossible to transport a huge mobile anti-aircraft missile system across Ukraine's Eastern border secretly. It would have been like driving a tank through TSA. But Hillary says that it's obvious who had such a system. The Ukrainian government has been quick to blame it on terrorists which is, you know, their name for the Russian insurgents, and there does seems to be some growing awareness that it probably had to be Russian insurgents. The equipment had to have come from Russia.. Let's rewind, and see what is obvious, even to a 5th grader. Number one, who could have shot it down? Kiev! Who had the, equipment? Kiev! It's obviously an anti-aircraft missile... Yep! Who could have had the expertise? Kiev! It's a 5th grade homework assignment. Look Hillary, Kiev lied that it couldn't have fired a missile at the plane because it had no Buk missile launchers deployed in the region. That's a lie that you, Obama, and the Jewish-owned mainstream media are pushing. Here's a Kiev Buk battalion moving into the region of Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine, filmed during the Crimea crisis. During last week's take-down the Russian defense ministry recorded evidence of Kiev's Buk-M1 system operating within the zone of operation of the Ukrainian forces. But it's Putin's missile! Says Murdoch's tabloid; and he'll have hell to pay! Says insane McCain. If it is, the result of either separatists or Russian actions, I think that there's going to be hell to pay and there should be. Here's what happened: The flight path of the plane was moved over the war zone by Ukraine's Air Traffic Control. Ukraine's missile battery was in place waiting for its prey.. Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky who Yats the yid appointed as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region in Eastern Ukraine has is own hired militia, which most likely manned the battery, and launched the missile that shot the plane down. You see, once the plane passed out of Kiev's airspace it was handed to Dnipropetrovsk's air traffic control. Remember Kolomoisky is a dual citizen of Ukraine and Israel. With Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur recently charging Israel with war crimes, this would have been Kolomoisky's chance for revenge. The whole thing is a 911-style false flag operation to get NATO military support for Ukraine forces who are losing the ground war against the pro-Russian separatists. It's a mock-up emergency so that a quick emotional decision can be made. Just like Pearl Harbor, just like the Gulf of Tonkin, just like 911. Who benefits? The Jewish neocons for sure, headed by Nuland and gang, who has been thirsting for escalations since they engineered the overthrow of the legitimate government of Ukraine. Christian Russia wants peace, and that's the biggest threat to the Jewish neocons who want war. It's Putin's missile! It's Putin's inferno! It's Putin the evil Czar! Plastered all over the Jewish-owned press. But Russia's a bear whose cubs will fearlessly defend the territory and honor of the motherland. We'll all have hell to pay, if warmongering Jews have their way. Shot in the back four times, just before midnight Moscow time. Boris Nemtsov was walking with a woman on a bridge close to the Kremlin. A witness says a car stopped and several people shot him. Nemtsov, 55, was a prominent opposition leader. In politics more than 20 years, rising to Deputy Premier in Boris Yeltsin's government, and considered a possible successor. More recently Nemtsov had founded The People's Freedom Party, and was mounting a large opposition rally this Sunday in Moscow. Tonight President Putin condemned the killing, but many will believe this was the work of assassins close to the government. Nemtsov was a sharp thorn in Putin's side, telling CBC in 2013 that corruption in the Olympics was rife. The Sochi Olympic games is the biggest fraud in Putin's time - the biggest. His fight with President Putin covered a decade. Travelling abroad, including to Canada, to voice opposition. In 2011, shut out of running in the elections, he said that Putin stole: ''Putin stole about 13 million votes.'' Just a week ago, at a rally supporting the Kremlin a picture of Nemtsov was held high saying that he helped organize Ukraine's uprising. Nemtsov himself told a Russian Journalist: He feared that Putin would kill him because he opposed the war in Ukraine. In one of his last interviews he said: ''Three years ago we were an opposition, now we're just dissidents, we have to rebuild..'' Hey everybody I'm Christopher Greene, you're tuning to to AMTV: Alternative Media Television, it's March 2nd, 2015. And welcome! To the revolution. Allegedly a Putin critic was shot dead on a bridge, he was gunned down by Putin, ''allegedly'' according to the mainstream bullshit media; that by the way has been trying to oust Putin over the past several years. Has even gone to the lengths of moving in cahoots with Saudi Arabia to drive down oil prices to put pressure on the Kremlin. To crash, and collapse the Ruble, to send the economy into chaos. Now question this for a minute: Why would Putin shoot openly a well-known opposition leader, only to embolden, and create a martyr for his own opposition. Again, the same thing happened with Bashar al-Assad in Syria when they tried to position the Ghouta chemical attack, but failed - it came out later from the United Nations' Carla Del Ponte saying and accusing that it was actually the rebels armed and backed by the West on the ground not the Bashar al-Assad government. Just like Bashar al-Assad wouldn't wish his own demise, nor would Putin. Allegedly an opposition leader was kill by Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia. Which we know is total and utter bullshit. Again there's no motive to do it; the mainstream media says that it's because: ''Putin wants to instill fear in his people.'' Well I've got a newsflash for you, he doesn't need to instill fear in his people, his people actually, I think are fearful of him, and already do respect his leadership. In fact he has overwhelming support in Russia, not just from the oligarchs he represents, kind of like here in the United States of America, but also his people, that by the way hate the United States of America. So, again, get your detectors out, your bullshit meters, total and utter bullshit. In fact this hurts Putin, it's exactly why the West has positioned this. Ah, for example! Let me give you an example! Specific one, the President of the United States Barack Obama here in the good old USSA, has been openly assassinating and murdering Iranian nuclear scientists for some time now. It happened recently; a lot of these people just go missing or they wind up dead, because the United States goes and kills them. While at the same time the President of the United States is negotiating with Iran so that they can get a nuke. So that they can get a bomb within ten years... As long as they're good! Yeah! That's right! As long as they're good! Obama's gonna give them a nuke. While at the same time he's openly murdering their scientists, again, all these just plan and utter facts. Kinda like Frank Underwood, you know they released a, the ah, what's the show on Netflix? 'House Of Cards'' - over the weekend here last Friday, he asked a question before drone strikes: ''Are there any kids in that vehicle?'' And his, you know, Defense Minister says: "Yes there are..'' 'Okay then pull the trigger!' And he just wacks all of them, murders all of them! It's a total double standard how we try to paint Putin into a corner here, the Western bullshit media as some kind of Satan devil worshiper, while at the same time the President here in the United States is openly murdering scientists in Iran. Drone striking children, bombing schools as result of these drone strikes in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and newly found Syria. So again total bullshit, this would only hurt Putin, there's no motive for Putin to kill openly an opposition leader, to gun him down in the broad daylight while he's walking with his model girlfriend on a bridge; because it only builds support for the opposition, and Putin is smarter than that. And again, the people already respect, and fear him; so there would be no reason to do this... I... I don't think Putin is a complicated man; he is a KGB thug.. In his view the greatest geopolitical disaster of modern times, is the dissolution of the Soviet Union.. Hey Cruz, before you start calling a man a hundred times better than you a 'thug', try dealing with facts: Putin's distress about the dissolution of the Soviet Union is the economic disaster and crushing hardship the Russian people endured in the 90s. And he's alarmed over the West's intrusion into former Soviet Republics like Ukraine. As for Putin being a KGB thug, it's just another anti-Putin buzzword. Putin served in East Germany, not as a thug, but as some historians say: To recruit new blood, who would pledge to Gobachev's reforms of Perestroika and Glasnost - look it up! Putin was considered an outsider by the KGB old guard. We all know that you're sucking up to the Jews Cruz so you can be next President. You pretend to be a Christian, but if you really were, you would applaud Putin for promoting the Orthodox Church in Russia, and Christian values among the youth. Putin's a peacemaker, just as Christ commanded. Instead, Jewish neocons like your friend Kristol, promote continual wars and political unrest. Whose side are you on Mr. Cruz? It's time we all pick up sides! Will we side with warmongering Jews pushing us into a nuclear war with Russia? Or will we side with peacemakers around the world, who've had enough of Jewish murders and genocide. You also have said: That the worst thing happened the last century was the collapse of the Soviet empire. There are those who look at Ukraine, especially Ukraine, and Georgia, and they believe that you do not want to recreate the Soviet empire, but you do want to recreate a sphere of influence which you think Russia deserves because of the relationship that has existed... Why are you smiling? Why? You're making me happy because we're always suspected of some ambitions, and they always try to distort something, or hint at something... I indeed said that I believe that the collapse of the USSR was a huge tragedy of the 20th Century... You know why? Because first of all in a single instant 25 million Russian people found themselves beyond the borders of the Russian Federation. Here they had been living within the borders of a unified state, and always traditionally the Soviet Union had been called Russia: Soviet Russia. Well, this was greater Russia, then all of a sudden the USSR collapsed, just overnight in fact, right? And it turned out that in former Soviet republics there were people, Russian people, numbering 25 million. They had been living in a single country, and all of a sudden they turned out to be abroad. You can imagine how many problems arose: First of all there were everyday problems; economic problems; social problems; the separation of families; you can't list them all... Do you think that it's normal that 25 million people, Russian people, wound up abroad all of a sudden? Russians turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world today... Is that not a problem? Well, not for you, but it's a problem for me... But do you have to use and show military force to accomplish that objective? No of course not! You have a military presence of the border of Ukraine and some even argue that there have been Russian troops in Ukraine. Well, you have military presence in Europe. The tactical nuclear weapons of the United States are in Europe, let's not forget that. What does that mean? Does it mean that you've occupied Germany? Or that you renounced the occupation of Germany after World War 2, and then you have only transformed the occupation forces into NATO forces? One could put it that way... But we're not putting it that way... And if we have our military forces on our border, on our territory, on the border with some state, you believe this is a crime? It's been called Frankenstein food, while the science behind it is accused of dangerously toying with nature, and in Russia it could be branded 'terrorists', genetically modified food and its potential negative health affects, are making Russia take steps. RT's Egor Piskunov explains what's behind the harsh measures to criminalize produces. Pictures like these are becoming common in different parts of the globe. In the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Germany and China, GM foods are beginning to dominate entire sections of the market. For instance up to 85% of corn, and around 90% of soy beans, are genetically modified in the States alone. After entering the World Trade Organization Russia was also planning to widen its GM foods market, but now the country is making a U-turn on the policy. ''We have to protect our citizens from GMO products, and we can do it without violating our obligations to the WTO...'' According to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev Moscow isn't going to allow planting genetically modified seeds this summer like it was planned before. Parliament has also weighed in on the issue. The legislators are currently looking at increasing the punishment for breaking GMO-related laws, including hiding or distorting information on GM products which could cause physical damage. Their idea is to equal such an offence to terrorism with maximum jail time of 20 years. GM products are still available in Russian stores, but perhaps what we're witnessing now are the first steps for their complete ban altogether. Egor Piskunov, RT, Moscow. I must question the government of America: Are you committing the killing of American people, by signing into law, making Monsanto exempt from prosecution? Written by Monsanto Senator Blunt for the use of genetically modified organisms. Well, evidently, we are not your own people. And maybe the poor are not your own people. Russian President Putin angrily refused to see Secretary of State John Kerry, and kept him waiting about 3 hours, and when he did see him , it was reported that President Putin was so enraged that he sent a message to President Obama condemning his obvious support of genetically modified organisms, and the giants who produce them: Syngenta, Du Pont, Monsanto, and Dow. Putin and other leaders believe firmly that these genetically modified organisms, and a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids is what is killing the bee population. Putin said: ''This mean war, because killing the bee population ultimately produces famine, and soon we will not be able to produce the food to feed the people..'' According to the EU Times Report: The European Union following the lead from Russia; Switzerland, France, Italy, Slovenia, and Ukraine have passed a law to ban the use of neonicotinoids in Europe. But in spite of all the pesticide-caused bee deaths, the U.S. refuses to do so. So he warned President Obama through Kerry: That this could trigger a global war; World War 3. And so America has refused to stop introducing these neonicotinoids into the American scene. And so America, you are killing your own people... He used to think that for gay and lesbian couples, civil unions would suffice. But now President Obama has concluded that's not enough. In an ABC news interview, he became the first President ever to support gay marriage. For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm, that, I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. The religion of Vladimir Putin is based on the idea of Orthodox Christian civilization. Christ is present, and pleased when men seek to build the kingdom of God on Earth. This is according to the Orthodox tradition of 'symphony of Church and State.' Where the Church is the soul, and the State is the body. The Church prepares men for heaven, while the State preserves the culture as transformed by the Church. It's a partnership building a strong Russian nation! It is also important that at the new level the relations between Church and State are developing. We are true partners with joining our efforts in resolving relevant internal and global tasks. We are implementing joint endeavors for the benefit of our homeland and people. For many years Russia has become stronger. As head of the nation's body, Putin is known by his people as a key member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Only a born again type would say: ''A man inside a Church doesn't make him a Christian anymore than a man inside a garage makes him a car..'' But Orthodoxy teaches that if one is not a member inside the Church, then he is not connected to the Church's Head - The Lord Jesus Christ. After a phone call with Putin on the Ukraine crisis, the Jewish press reported that Merkel said that Putin was: ''In another world!" "Out of touch with reality!'' That's not what she said. What she said was: ''Putin has a completely different view of the world...'' Indeed he does... These days the Russian Orthodox Church and the whole Orthodox world are commemorating the 1,025th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. The Christianization of Russia predetermined the destiny and civilizational choice of Russia. Orthodoxy has become a Spiritual pillar. It bound, by close ties of kinship, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The West though has lost its vigor. It's now the haunt of Jewry which has devastated its culture with depravity. It's at the end of history - a ghost of old forms bereft of the soul it once possessed. It's swept clean, and 7 demons have entered in its place. This is not the case with Russia. After 70 years of Jewish Bolshevik oppression, Russia is pulsing in the womb of rebirth and renewal... Where Orthodox Churches with its golden domes and sky-blue cupolas, Christian schools, and Holy Monasteries are sprouting throughout its cities and dotting its countrysides. ''God and the devil are at war,'' said Dostoevsky ''And the battlefield is the heart of man..'' Putin has drawn the battle lines. He rebuked the West for its deviant sexual mores and sick spirituality. Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognize everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views, and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil. But Obama with Jewish children at his side selling sodomy extols homosexuals for charting a course for a sick new world. Third we ask the President for his support of gay marriage... We're almost done.. Because we have two moms, and they are just as good as other parents. Welcome all of you to the White House for Pride Month. We got some outstanding members of Congress including a record number from the Congressional Equality Caucus. Major General Patricia Rose and her wife retired lieutenant Julie Roth are here; we've got Fred Hochberg, and Elaine Kaplan, two outstanding members of my team, who are here. I want to congratulate Nitza Quinones Alejandro, who just a few hours ago was confirmed by the Senate, making her the first openly gay Hispanic Federal Judge in our country's history... You know, I can't answer the part of your question about whether homosexuals are born, or made, that is beyond my professional interest, I am just not qualified to respond. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in Russia, unlike in one third of the world's countries, being gay is not a crime. In 70 countries there is criminal liability for homosexuality, and in 7 of those countries they have the death penalty for homosexuality. We have recently passed a law prohibiting propaganda, and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, child sexual abuse. But this is nothing to do with persecuting individuals for their sexual orientation. There is a world of difference between these two things, so there is no danger for individuals of this non-traditional sexual orientation who are planning to come to the games as visitors or participants. What about the Russian Church people who have called for the return of criminal law against homosexual people? Do you support that? Are you horrified by it? What's your attitude? In law the Church is separate from the State and has the right to its own point of view. I would also like to point out that almost all traditional world religions agree on this topic. Is the position of the policy different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church? Does Islam treat individuals with non-traditional sexually orientation differently? Actually, it's even tougher. Read our law carefully, and pay attention to its name, it's called: ''Ban on the Propaganda of Pedophilia and Homosexuality. Ban on the Propaganda of Pedophilia and Homosexuality.'' There are countries including in Europe where they are debating the possibility of legalizing pedophilia - publicly discussing this in Parliament, they can do what they want, but the people of Russia have their own cultural court, their own traditions. It seems to me that the law that we have adapted doesn't harm anybody. What's more people, homosexual people, can't feel inferior here, because there is no professional career or social discrimination against them. When they achieve great success, for example: Elton John is an extraordinary person - a distinguished musician, and millions of our people sincerely love him, regardless of his sexual orientation. While everyone was obsessing over Caitlyn Jenner, Cecil the lion and Donald Trump; the United States was accelerating its plan to provoke a color revolution in Russia, that could lead to a toppling of Putin's government, and a complete reordering of the international power structure. As I first highlighted last month, Russian parliament member Yevgeny Fyodorov, went public to reveal a plot on behalf of the U.S. state department to contrive a staged Kiev-style revolution that would force Putin to step down, and lead to the collapse of the Russian Federation within two years. They are conducting a negotiation process with the Russian elites for the extradition of Putin. The same negotiation process was conducted, for example, in Ukraine for Yanukovych. Fyodorov asserts that Russian oligarchs have been paid off to facilitate this coup, which will involve hundreds of thousands of people flooding the streets of Moscow to start a violent rebellion against Putin after a further collapse in the Russian economy causes food prices to soar. After August, through the winter, I think, by the drop of living standards, they will manage to bring out several hundred thousand people onto the streets, as in Armenia. Simply because, with the help of the government, they will severely crash people's living standards. This will be especially felt after the winter, In order to start a rebellion is simply need 100,000-200,000 hungry people, as in Armenia, of whom 90% could be blindly exploited, while at the same time organized. They are not told they're acting for the benefit of the Americans, They are simply told: "You're hungry? Then come out against the government." That's all. Fyodorov's revelations were confirmed by the fact that Moscow is now banning organizations from Russia that were involved in the Ukrainian coup d'etat, including the Nation Endowment For Democracy, and Freedom House. As F. William Engdahl notes, the NED along with Freedom House has been at the center of all U.S. state department-financed color revolutions in the world since 2000 when it was used to topple Milosevic in Serbia. This action was taken after Putin signed into law a measure which effectively criminalizes the activity of non-governmental organizations that threaten to undermine Russia's constitutional stability. China also recently passed a new law which restricts the activities of foreign NGOs. The two superpowers are finally waking up to the fact that regime-change plots in the modern age are achieved not via bombs and tanks, but via mass subversion. Expect to see an intensification of the propaganda campaign against Russia over the next few months, starting with the blame-game being laid at Moscow's door for the downing of flight MH17. Some will be sceptical as to how a President with an approval rating in the high 80s could possibly be overthrown, but the very fact that NATO and the White House are even considering this illustrates their staggering disconnect with reality, which, blinded by neo-colonial imperatives threatens to place the world in the most dangerous jeopardy since the height of the Cold War. Can you tell us what you meant by calling it 'revisionist' Russia? Revisionist Russia? Yeah, what does that mean? Well, the Secretary? Yeah, Secretary Hagel I think that what he is referring to there is that there appears to be in their intentions, and their motives, um, a calling back to the glory days of the Soviet Union. He also used the term ''It's army'' Meaning "'Russia's Army'' on NATO's doorstep. Um, why is that? Is it not logical to look at this, and say that the reason that the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep is because NATO has expanded, rather than the Russians expanding? In other words: NATO has moved closer to Russia, rather than Russia moving closer to NATO... Is that not an accurate way to look at this? I think that's the way President Putin probably looks at it, it's certainly not the way that we look at it.. You don't think that NATO has expanded Eastward towards Russia? NATO has expanded, and the expansion has been a good thing for... So the reason that the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep is not the fault of the Russian army, it's not the Russian army that's done it, it's NATO who has moved closer to the East. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't NATO who was ordering upwards of 15 battalion tactical groups to within 10 kilometers of the border with Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure that it wasn't NATO who put little green men inside Ukraine to destabilize Eastern cities. Well, I'm pretty sure that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. So unless that has changed, It's not changed, but I'm pretty sure that the movement by Russia is Russia's decision... If NATO is moved East, the reason that the Russian army is closer or on NATO's doorstep is because NATO moved not... NATO is not an anti-Russia alliance. NATO is a security alliance... For 50 years, it was an anti-Soviet alliance. So do you not understand that... Do you not understand how or can you not even see how the Russians will perceive it as a threat. And the fact that it keeps getting closer to their border, while their troops... I mean the places where their troops or you say their troops are, and may have been in Ukraine and Georgia are not NATO members... I'm not going to pretend to know what goes on in President Putin's mind or Russian military commander's.. I mean I barely got a history degree at the University of South Florida... What I can tell you is that NATO is a defensive alliance, and it remains a defensive alliance.. Fair enough! But it has moved East, correct? I mean that's just a fact. It has expanded, absolutely! Right exactly! But there's no reason for anybody to think that the expansion is a hostile, or threatening move. And we've been saying that throughout the last 15 years man... You're moving closer to Russia, and you're blaming the Russians for being close to NATO... No, we're blaming the Russians for violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine and destabilizing the security situation inside Europe.. Which is not a NATO member... Which is not a NATO member... I, I... I see to you on that point... Other countries feel threatened that are NATO members... All the puppet governments, led by Israel's bitch America - are lining up to wage yet another war on for the Jews, this time in Syria. It began last week when Netanyahu, citing Assad's 'reported' use of chemical weapons, incited America to launch stage one of World War 3 in a bombing operation on Syria. The reported use of chemical weapons against civilians is Syria, is terribly disturbing. And these events prove yet again that we simply cannot allow the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the world's most dangerous weapons... And all the players, from Jerusalem, England, France, all the way to Tel Aviv's colony in D.C., are acting out the Jewish script: Destroy Assad, and let Al-Qaeda takeover. Kind of strange...The bad guys in Afghanistan become the good guys in Syria. But when the Jewish tail wags the American dog, a ready submission to Zionist warmongers enters center stage. Brushing aside Assad's denials the administration's goal is to punish him and to stop him from ordering another chemical attack... There's no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime.. The White House says that it will release solid evidence that the Syrian government ordered a mass chemical weapons attack on its own people last week... And here's the 'evidence' we've all been waiting for from Obama himself, whose not quite sure if what he 'concludes' is really at that conclusive. Nobody disputes, or hardly anybody disputes that chemical weapons were used on a large scale in Syria against civilian populations. We have looked at all of the evidence, and we do not believe that the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort. We do not believe that given the delivery systems using rockets that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried out these out... And if that's so.. At the Jewish-run state department, Kerry said just what Tel Aviv wanted to hear: ''Syria's the culprit'' no evidence provided. Our understanding of what has already happened in Syria, is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common-sense. We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets... And despite the excuses and equivocations that some has manufactured, it is undeniable... No way! Russia says the rebels orchestrated a provocation (with their own stash of nerve gas) in order to force Israel's bitch the USA into launching an attack on Assad... Whose secular government protects all minorities including Christians, Kurds and Druze. Russia has warned the West against military intervention in Syria without the approval of the UN Security Council. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the West is currently moving towards a quote: 'Very dangerous path' adding that any unilateral attack on Syrian soil could violate international law. Lavrov says Western countries have no proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against insurgents. The Russian Foreign Minister described Western claims of chemical weapons as hysteria.. In concert with Lavrov's protestations Carla Del Ponte, member of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV on Tuesday: ''There's strong concrete suspicions that the rebels, not Assad, unleashed the deadly nerve gas...'' Assad dismisses the accusations as "nonsense," that Syria would never release chemical weapons in an area where government troops were concentrated. But it's ''nonsense'' that Jewmerica wants the world to swallow... In order to give the Jews a Balkanized state on its east, with competing jihadis vying for power under the all-seeing eye of the US military... Not quite what the Koran envisions for 'holy war.' Intensifying the terrorist network across the Middle East serves to further Jewry's aim to see Christianity destroyed in the Arab world and spread a terrorist web into Russia's underbelly and China's Muslim frontier in Xinjiang as a means of destabilizing those two anti-Zionist countries. It's a Jewish cause for which every American will die for. Split the axis opposing Zionist aggression down the middle, from Lebanon's Hezbollah in Israel's north through Syria in the center to Iran in the east, and a pathway for the imperialist anti-Christ Jewish state to run roughshod over the entire Middle East is set. Assad has ordered his forces to 'defend the homeland' with the Russian-made Yakhont missiles to be fired upon US ships stationed on Syria's coast in the Mediterranean. To be sure, he is 'defending his country' against Jewish aggression, for which the US military is just a pawn. For it's the same Jewish warmongers who pushed our military into Iraq, who are calling for the bombing of Syria... Signing their names to an open letter to Obama: Feith, Lieberman, Cohen, Abrams, Kristol, Kagan... (Sounds like a guest list to a fatal Bar Mitzvah)... They even got their artsy Jewish poster boy from France Bernard-Henri Levy... to affix his 'signature.' But thank God we're beginning to see a 'fall out.' The Arab League is against military intervention; Egypt rejects it; NATO-member Poland wants no part of it; Italy insists that the UN must decide; Britain's parliament is opposing Cameron; and Jordan won't let America use their territory as a ''launching pad'' for its bombings. We've got our own problems to deal with at home instead of sending our youth to die in wars for the Jews half-way across the world. And why should the US 'punish' a nation for alleged war crimes that itself is far more guilty of? What if countries wanted to 'punish' America for its own war crimes? They could come up with a hundred reasons to justify it. The empire has no clothes. Pax America is dying. Pax Judaica rises in its place. Fighting wars for the Jews abroad leaves a sick and dying empire licking its wounds at home. Well, tell me: Do you think those who support and armed opposition and mainly the terrorist organizations only in order to oust Assad are acting correctly; without concern about what will happen from the outside after all the government institutions have been totally demolished in that country? We've already been through that, I've already mentioned Libya. Just now it was quite recently the United States actively helped to destroy the state institutions, whether they were good or bad, that's a separate issue, but now they're destroyed, and now the United States has suffered great loses - the death of their ambassador for instance... You see what it all leads us to.. That's why we support the legitimate state structures. But I want to repeat this once again in the hope that the needed political reforms will be taken, and introduced in Syria. You've said repeatedly that Assad is fighting against his own people, but look at those who control 60% of the territory in Syria. Where is the civilized opposition? 60% of the territory is controlled either by ISIS or by others, such as Al-Nusra, and other terrorist organizations. They're recognized as terrorist organizations by the United States, by other states, and by the United Nations. It's they and no one else who controls 60% of the Syrian territories. But you believe that the way to do it is what? What's the strategy that you are recommending, other than simply supporting the Assad regime? Well yes, I've already said this... We need to help Assad's army because besides his army no one is fighting ISIS in Syria. I want you and your audience to finally realize that no one except for Assad's army is fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups now in Syria... No one is fighting them in Syria... And these insignificant attacks from the air, including the bombings by the U.S. don't bring any tangible solution to the issue - there must be work on the ground after the bombing; it must be coordinated. We need to understand which attacks, and where they must be launched, and who will come after these strikes are made on the territory. In Syria there is no other force beside the army of Bashar al-Assad. What else is going to be required? Um.. Because I come back to the problem that many people look at, and they believe that Assad helps ISIS, that his reprehensible conduct against the Syrian people using barrel bombs and worse... is a recruiting tool for ISIS.. and that he was removed, transitioned at some point, it would be better than the fight against ISIS, al-Nusra, and others. Well speaking in the professional language of intelligence services, I can tell you that this kind of assessment is clearly an active measure by enemies of Assad - that is anti-Syrian propaganda... There's nothing in common between Assad and ISIL - they have nothing in common - they're fighting each other.. And let me repeat: Assad and his army is the only force which is indeed fighting ISIL. During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collected some witness testimony that made to 'appear' that some chemical weapons were used, in particular nerve gas... and what was... what appeared to our investigation that, that was used by the opponents, by the rebels. And we have no indication at all that the government, Syrian... the authorities of the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Of course now the special commission that the Secretary General put in place will investigate and tell us what it is exactly. But, I was a little bit stupefied that ah, the first indication we got they were about the use of nerve gas by the 'opponents.' Just look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Indeed, political and social problems had been brewing there for quite some time, and the people there had naturally wished for changes. But how did things actually end up turning out? Rather than bring about reform, aggressive foreign intervention has instead unceremoniously lead to the destruction of state institutions and the very way of life. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress; there is violence, poverty, and social disaster, and a disregard for human rights; including the right to life. One cannot help but ask those who created such a situation: Do you now realize what you have done? But I'm afraid that no one is going to answer that; as politics based on self-conceit, impunity, and beliefs in exceptionalism are not easily abandoned. It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries in the Middle East and North Africa has led to the emergence of areas of anarchy which immediately have begun to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are now already fighting under the banner of the so-called "Islamic State." Among them include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out onto the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of the gross violations of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. And now the ranks of the radicals have been joined by the so-called "moderate" Syrian opposition supported by Western countries. First they are armed, and trained, and then they defect to the so-called "Islamic State" side. The "Islamic State" itself did not just appear from nowhere. It was also initially created as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the "Islamic State" is now actively expanding into other regions and is seeking dominance in the Islamic world; and not only there, its plans go even further than that... This situation is extremely dangerous. Under these circumstances it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism, and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels of funding and support for terrorists, including the proceeds from drug-trafficking, and the illicit trading of arms and oil. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremists groups, and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political objectives, in the hope of later "dealing" with them, or in other words: "eliminating" them. To those who carry our such acts, I would like to say: That you are no doubt dealing with violent and cruel people, but they are by no means primitive nor stupid - they are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating who for their own purposes. The recent data of arms transfers to the most "moderate" opposition to terrorists, is the best evidence of that. We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, especially arming them, is short-sighted and extremely hazardous. This may result in dramatically increasing the global terrorism threat, and engulfing new regions around the world, especially given the fact that Islamic State-run camps train militants from many different countries, including European countries. Unfortunately, I must admit dear colleagues that Russia is no exception. We cannot allow these criminals who have already tasted blood, to return back home where they will continue their evil deeds. We do not want this to happen, and neither does anyone else. Russia has always consistently fought against terrorism in all of its forms. Today we provide military and technical assistance to both Iraq and Syria, and many other countries in the region who are fighting against terrorist groups. We believe that it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the legitimate Syrian government and its armed forces, and with those who are courageously fighting terrorism face-to-face. We should also acknowledge that no one but President Assad's army, and Kurdish militias. are truly fighting Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria. We understand all of the problems and contradictions in the region, but we must proceed in accordance with reality. Dear colleagues, I must note that in recent years our honest and direct approach has been used as a pretext to accuse Russia of growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions of their own. However, dear colleagues, it's not about Russia's ambitions, but recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. The Russian Air Force has begun airstrikes against ISIL positions in Syria, after Russia's upper house of parliament voted to authorize military operations in the Arab state. Russia's defense ministry confirmed that the attacks are being conducted at the request of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. Syrian officials say that the airstrikes are necessary to safeguard the Middle East and Russia in the face of further terror. The airstrikes launched on Wednesday September 30th targeted ammunition vehicles, communication centers, and military equipment. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday during a government meeting that his country would not get caught up in the Syrian conflict. American officials said Russia gave the U.S. advance notice of the strike. This is significant! Getting reports minutes ago that Russia has launched airstrikes in Syria, demanding the U.S. planes get out of Syrian airspace. These fast moving developments further complicated relations between President Obama and Vladimir Putin with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the middle. According to Russia's defense ministry its warplanes have already destroyed ISIL weapon depots, communication centers, and military vehicles. Russia's military operations in Syria could give government forces the edge they need to end the stalemate and push ISIL out of the country. This next headline, I can't believe that I'm actually going to read it, but it's no shock, the neocons in the United States government are dead-set on getting everybody in America killed, driving us deeper and deeper into war with Russia, and headlong into World War 3 John McCain has said: ''We must arm the Syrian rebels to shoot down the Russian planes just like we did in Afghanistan.'' This is no joke... Senator if you were President, in the middle of all of this, and you know or you're charging as you did just now, (and I assume that you know more than I do).. That the Russian fighters are targeting the very groups we are trying to help, would you shoot down those Russian planes? No, but I would certainly make it clear, ah well, I would do a whole lot of things: General David Petraeus testified before the Armed Services Committee two weeks ago, he laid out what we need to do: We need to stop the barrel bombing; we need to have a no fly zone; we need to have a buffer zone for refugees; we need to provide certain kinds of help... No, I know that Senator, but if they're attacking the very guys who we want to see topple Assad, you would let American planes just continue to pass them and let them do that? No, but I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes, that equipment is available... Who would be shooting em down? The Free Syrian Army... Just like the Afghans shot down the Russian.. No, just like the Afghans shot down the Russian planes after Russia invaded Afghanistan... The U.S. President has slammed Russian airstrikes against ISIL in Syria, going as far as saying Moscow's campaign is: ''Only making the terror group stronger.'' Let's go live right now to RT's Marina Portnaya. Hi Marina, so, Barrack Obama has said that anti-ISIL strikes are ''good for ISIL'' - tell us more... That's right! In his first public comments since Russia launched anti-ISIL airstrikes into Syria, U.S. President Barrack Obama was harsh and very critical. He insisted that Moscow's military operation is counterproductive. He said that President Vladimir Putin is not distinguishing between ISIL and the 'moderate' opposition. Obama accused the Russian Air Force of specifically targeting Syrian rebels and he insisted that from Russia's perspective everyone opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist. Moderate opposition in Syria is one that, if we're ever going to have a political transition - we need... And the Russian policy is driving those folks underground, or creating a situation in which they're decapacitated and it's only strengthening ISIL. America's leader said the U.S. will continue going after ISIL and working with the Syrian opposition. However, Obama did say, that he will be the first to admit that his training and equipment program for the Syrian opposition has not worked the way it was supposed to. Now when President Putin spoke to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week he proposed the creation of one unified broad coalition to defeat ISIS, a suggestion that the U.S. President appears to be playing down. The problem here is Assad, and the brutality that he has inflicted on the Syrian people... and that it has to stop. Now however when it comes to getting more involved in Syria such as putting boots on the ground Obama says that America does need to learn from the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq and not commit to starting something that it cannot finish. Iran and Assad make up Mr. Putin's coalition at the moment... The rest of the world makes up ours... Now, Obama said that it is in the U.S.s best interest for Russia to be successful in Syria and to be an active partner on the international stage. He said that Syria will not be turned into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, he said that would not be in anyone's best interest. But as you can hear from his comments, very harsh comments, he is not in support of these anti-ISIL operations that Russia launched earlier this week. Ah listen Syria just next door to where you are, you're talking to people on the ground there in Syria, as far as the question and Christiane pointed out the inaccuracy in what we just heard. Russia says that it's targeting Isis and obviously that's not the case. It's not according to a number of activists that we have been speaking to, in fact a lot of these areas especially those that were targeted in north of Homs right along the north-south, very strategic highway where areas that the Assad regime itself in the last month has been pounding fairly intensely as well. And you know, Russia's involvement in all of this at this stage does really shift the dynamics, Christiane was pointing it out as well. And it also in the sense could possibly push more people towards ISIS; but what is also going to be very critical right now is how the U.S. is going to react to these moves by Russia if they are in fact able to 100% determine/ascertain that Russia was not bombing ISIS... We hear U.S. officials say that Russia is not targeting ISIL. The state department's spoke person sounded quite certain about this. He said quote: ''We have no indication that they're actually hitting ISIL targets.'' But how does he know this? We have a list of the cities that Russia has targeted, it includes Raqqa which is known to be the de facto capital of the Islamic State; Idlib which the U.S. itself targeted in July this year; Homs where in August more than 200 civilians were kidnapped by ISIL, and that the State Department issued a statement condemning this. Can the State Department say for certain that there was no ISIL to target in those places? I asked... One of the cities that Russia has targeted is Raqqa. Would you say that Raqqa is ISIL free? Ah, no, and in fact I said, I think that I said that the preponderance of targets that they've hit... Okay, let's look at other cities.. I heard that.. What about Idlib? It is lSIL free? That's another city that Russia has targeted. Okay, get your breath... Um, so, what we've seen in the initial airstrikes that Russia carried out, beginning last week, were primarily targeting places where ISIL wasn't ensconced, didn't exist, didn't have a presence, and frankly it was where 'moderate' Syrian opposition forces are generally located. So the U.S. claims that Russia is targeting moderate elements in the Syrian opposition. Just a little while ago we heard U.S. officials say how difficult it is to identify those moderate opposition forces. We're trying to recruit and identify people that, as you put it, can be counted on... It turns out to be very hard to identify. A month ago the U.S. couldn't find enough adequate moderate opposition forces to train and equip. And after the Russian airstrikes. 'all of a sudden' we hear that there are so many of them. That we hear about the Free Syrian Army, we haven't heard the words 'Free Syrian Army' for months and ''all of a sudden!'' They're back! Why couldn't you find them before? That's a mischaracterisation, so we're talking about, rather, two separate entities.. The Free Syrian Army is a group of 'moderate' Syrian opposition forces in combat with the Syrian regime, with Assad's army, with Assad's military... Ah, what we were trying to our train and equip program in northern Syria where ISIL is ensconced, was to try to find 'moderate' elements in that area, and train them up... Do you know where exactly those 'moderate' Syrian opposition forces are? Ah, without revealing intelligence sources, we have a pretty good sense of it yeah.. Can you share that information with Russia? No! Oh!.. Not with us.... Video published online purports to shows scenes of destruction in the Islamic State-held city of Raqqa in northern Syria on Tuesday, following what is said to be Russian airstrikes. In the video large plumes of smoke were seen rising from tall buildings and bridges where huge craters and burn-out vehicles blocked the passageway. The video also showed what was said to be a damaged hospital, where chairs and wooden boards remained scattered along its corridors. This morning RT interviewed the Director of Operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dominik Stillhart, and we asked him about allegations that Russia bombed hospitals in Syria, and he said that Red Cross personnel on the ground in Syria have not reported any such incidence. Do you have any evidence that Russia bombed hospitals in Syria? We have seen some press reporting to that end. We have seen, um.. some Syrian civil society groups say that... um.. and I would tell you that we have other operational information that lead us to believe that Russian targeting has not only not been focused on ISIL, but has in fact, caused, collateral damage, and some civilian casualties.. Um, to include some civil infrastructure... And... So yes we've seen some information that would lead us to believe that Russia... Russian military aircraft did hit a hospital. Can you share evidence of that? Those are very serious allegations, reports are not enough are they? There's.. Can you offer something more solid than reports? I think I just did! I said that we have operational reporting that would lead us to believe that that's the case... Can you share that? No! I'm not going to talk about it!.. I'm not going to share intelligence and operational information here from this podium.. You asked me a very direct question, I have you a direct answer... We have reason to believe that that happened... Can you really offer no details on the hospital that the U.S. accuses Russia of hitting? We're gonna stand by Mr. Kirby's words. You're not even going to say where it is? That hospital that you are saying that Russia hit? What we're saying is, that we have seen information that Russia is targeting civilian infrastructure.. And we would point you to the Syrian NGOs on the ground as well as open-sourced reporting on that... He spoke about a specific hospital in Syria.. Where exactly is it? What details can you offer about that hospital? Again, I'm not going to get into the sort of detail of operational assessment for this, maybe you should speak to the Russians on their targeting. Well, actually they have... Clearly, either she or her colleagues have spoken to the Russians about it, and they say that you're wrong! Okay? Isn't it incumbent on you to come up with some, I mean even a location? It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult or violate any kind of intelligence thing.. Intelligence sources and methods to say where exactly it is that you're talking about when you make the accusation; that's the first thing.. And then the second thing is that you've just expanded it quite broadly to say not just hospitals, you said that: ''The Russians are actually targeting civilian infrastructure..'' The Russians.. Thank you Matt, actually the Russians have hit... I'm.. Thank you for the verification... No, they've hit... Okay, so they're not targeting civilian infrastructure? No, and thank you for that! Ah ma'am ah.. Well details are especially relevant this morning the Russian Defense Ministry has released images and video of the hospital in Sarmin, which was allegedly hit by Russia. And these images, they show the building of the hospital which doesn't look like it was recently bombed... I printed them out just in case you haven't seen them I.. I can show them... Can you see why it's important for the U.S. to show its evidence of the alleged destruction of a hospital by Russia? How about this: I'll take your question, if there's information that we can share we'll get back to you, okay?.. The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights monitoring group said on Tuesday that Russian warplanes carried out airstrikes in Hama province, while unidentified jets bombarded the outskirts of Raqqa. Well since Russia's air campaign began in Syria, many Western media outlets such as CNN and Al Jazeera have been heavily relying on information from 'The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights.' The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights says that 30 people including child soldiers have been killed... One human rights group says that Russian airstrikes killed 28 people... Syrian Observatory For Human Rights said 36 people were killed... Well the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights was founded in May 2006, and it's run by one man: Rami Abdul Rahman - a Syrian immigrant based in his home in Coventry, in England. RT first traveled to the Midlands to see his headquarters and speak with the founder. I'm asking you.. I called you in the morning and I'm going... I'm not staying here for long... I'm not published the address... I know, I know, I have nothing in my home. I told you, I have my daughter and my wife. How can you locate, and you make a mistake. I apologize, I'm not going to bother them... So they're trying to kill you okay... I'll tell you one thing. I am in Kazakhstan, you know Kazakhstan? I think that's the man... So now we definitely know that the head of The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights is here, we're going to ask him a couple of questions. Hello sir! Ah do you have.. sorry.. do you have a couple of minutes? No! No! Don't take photo! We are under attack simply because we tell the truth about what's going on in Syria, apparently nobody wants to hear the truth. Do you know these people working in Syria, hundreds you say personally?.. You mentioned money just now, political standing naturally plays a certain role too. People may have totally different interests, can you really trust all of them? I know all of the activists working for The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights. You keep saying that you know all these people personally. When was the last time you went to Syria? The last time I was in Syria was in 2000, but I know some of The Observatory activists through common friends. This organization only takes in new members following a six month trial period, and the candidate has to be familiar to someone within the organization, or to a reliable outside contact. An organization with noble intentions that takes care of its image. I wanted to delve deeper into its work and came across one of the most sensational updates from The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights: ''Russian warplanes kill 30 civilians in Homs...'' Published on October the 1st. The targets mentioned are: Talbisa, Rastan, and al-Za'farana. Meanwhile on the Arabic version of the website, the same date, the same locations, but no mention whatsoever of Russian airstrikes. We only see the words: 'Assad regime.' The contradicting reports can still be found on the webpage. Rami Abdul Rahman's organization has been used as a primary source of information when it comes to Syrian civil war atrocities for years. We've been wondering what makes their activists' reports so credible, and widely trusted? Well, after talking to the director, I get it: It's because: "He" trust them. We're following breaking news in the air war against ISIS. NATO member Turkey says it shot down a Russian warplane, flying from Syria, that violated Turkey's airspace. Video shows the fighter-jet on fire before it crashed into mountains, smoke rises over the ridge. Revenge can be an ugly thing, especially if waged in the unfriendly skies of Syria. For with the Russian-Syrian drive to ''drain the swamp'' in northern Syria, and loyalist forces prevailing over Latakia, Turkish revenge will seep to the surface. The Syrian Army and The National Defense Forces, the NDF, and Hezbollah have seized back the areas of al-Markashilah and Jab al-Ahmar in the northern parts of Latakia province on Saturday. The Syrian forces pushed back the militant groups and restored full security to al-Rahmalia and al-Kidr hills. Looks like Turkey's ambush of Russia's plane was 'planned payback' due to Russia's devastating strikes on Edogan's Syrian Turkmen rebels and allied Chechen jihadists in north Latakia. It's 'Turkey-Chechen' solidarity ever since the Chechen wars with the terrorists 'Chechen Government in Exile' vowing to fight for Erdogan - ''the leader of the Muslim people'' against Russia. And saying that you're sorry, is not what the 'Sultan' is all about. Was it a mistake? And will you apologize? Well, I think that if there's a party that needs to apologize it's not us. Those who violated our airspace are the ones who need to apologize.. Liar! It's your F-16 that violated Syria's airspace when shooting down Russia's plane. And the U.S. and NATO know this. At minimum they would have the heat signatures of the aircraft involved. Putin has accused you of effectively 'stabbing him in the back!' I think is the line he used. And, as being, Turkey as being an 'accomplice of terror', this is pretty fiery stuff isn't it? If Mr. Putin is saying that we are cooperating with Daesh, that we are accomplices, I think that would be a huge mistake. And Russia is not engaged in a fight against Daesh in Syria, on the contrary, they are actually targeting 'moderate' opposition. It's those ''moderates'' who celebrated their war crime when machine-gunning the Russia pilot as he parachuted from the ambushed plane. How is it that these Turkmen brigades - their leader, a Turkish 'Grey Wolf' terrorist - knew the exact time of the shoot down? How it is that their cameras, video venues, and script, were ready to go? Looks like coordinated and premeditated revenge. "There has been an airstrike, reinforced by Russian forces, to thwart a military offensive we started in a mountainous area, al Najiyah. But the Russian war plane was immediately hit by Turkish jets when they violated Turkish airspace. This is a piece of the parachute...The other pieces are afield.'' Our comrades opened fire into the air. We all did. They (the pilots) died in the air.'' And when Putin called Turkey an ''accomplice of terrorists'' - he knew the place and the players. I want to comment on what we are hearing about certain tribes close to Turkey, the Turkmens and so on. First of all, a question arises: What are representatives of Turkish terrorist organizations, who show themselves on camera and post themselves all over the internet, doing in these territories? Second, what are nationals of the Russian Federation whom we are seeking because of their crimes and who are clearly classified as international terrorists, doing in that territory? Erdogan lets them through! He's been harboring these Chechen criminals for years. And he's not happy seeing his stolen Syrian oil empire, going up in smoke. As for the oil question and the assertion that the oil is destroyed on Turkish territory, at the G20 Summit, which took place in Turkey as it happens, in Antalya, I showed a photograph (I had already spoken publicly about this) A picture taken at a height of 5,000 meters vehicles transporting oil made a long line that vanished over the horizon. It looks like a living oil pipeline. These are industrial-scale oil supplies coming in from parts of Syria now in the terrorists' hands. This oil comes from these regions, not from other places. we see from the air where these vehicles are heading. They are heading for Turkey day and night. If the Turkish authorities are destroying this oil, why do we not see smoke from the fires? But we're seeing lots of smoke from Russian jets blowing up ISIS oil trucks near Raqqa. For if you jettison the income ISIS makes from stolen oil, you take the jihadists down. That's exactly what Putin's doing. Russia's in charge, even if Jewish neocons try to get their boots on the ground. We had Colonel Jack Jacobs on yesterday and he said that the only way to solve this problem is to put boots on the ground. Yes There's no other way to stabilize the situation. Yeah, so I am a big fan of Colonel Jacobs, but there are several military leaders who believe (as Colonel Jacobs does) that if you actually want to rebuilt and sort of, recreate Syrian society, it will require true commitment on the scale that Colonel Jacobs is recommending... He's going to 'recreate' Syrian society with his fellow Jewish neocons? Just like they did in Iraq and Libya? Not this time! The Syrians will decide their own fate, not Jewish neocons. The cat's out of the bag: Turkey has been enabling ISIS terror; but their revenge against Russia backfired. Russia's now determined more than ever to finish the job. Putin just bombed Erdogan's latest weapons shipment into northern Syria... Close to the border. It's a whole new ballgame, and Putin's hitting the home runs! Russian Mission In Syria: March 2016. Over 9000 sorties conducted. 400 populated areas freed from terrorist 209 ISIS oil production structures destroyed Main roads delivering ISIL fuel to Turkey blocked Main routes for weapons supply for terrorists blocked Anti-Terror Strikes in Syria: U.S.-Led Coaltion: 3,600 in 600 days - Russia: 9,000 in 160 days Now, about the missile defense system... Listen to me, we are all adults at this table.. And experienced [professionals] at that But I am not even going to hope that you are going to relay everything, exactly how I said it, in your publications. Neither will you attempt to influence your media outlets. I just want to tell you this, on a personal level. I must remind you, though you already know this, that major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to the geo-strategic balance of power, which used to exist. The two super-nuclear powers essentially agreed to stop producing both offensive weaponry. as well as defensive weaponry. It's simple how it works: Where one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first to be able to use such power. This is the absolute linchpin to international security. The anti-missile defense system [as previously prohibited in international law], and all of the surrounding agreements that used to exist. It's not in my nature to scold someone - but when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the AMB Treaty 1972 they delivered a colossal blow to the entire system of international security. That was the first blow, when it comes to assessing the strategic balance of power in the world. At that time [2002] I said that we will not be developing such systems also, because: A) It is very expensive, and B) We aren't yet sure how they will work [for the Americans] ''We're not going to burn our money.'' We're going to take a different option, and develop offensive weaponry, in order to retain said geo-strategic balance. That was all. Not to threaten someone else. They said: ''Fine, our defense system is not against you, and we assume that your weaponry is not against us.'' " Do what you like!'' As I already mentioned, this conversation took place in the early 2000s. Russia was in a very difficult state at that time. Economic collapse, civil war, and the fight against terrorism in our Caucasus region, complete destruction of our military-Industrial complex... They wouldn't have been able to imagine that Russia could ever again be a military power. My guess is they assumed that even that which was left over from the Soviet Union would eventually deteriorate. So they said: ''Sure, do what you like!" But we told them about the reactionary measures we were going to take. And that is what we did. And I assure you - that today, we have had every success in that area. I'm not going to list everything, all that matters is we have modernized our military-industrial complex. And we continue to develop new generation warfare. I'm not even going to mention systems against the missile-defense system! No matter what we said to our American partners [to curb the production of weaponry] they refused to cooperate with us, they rejected our offers, and continue to do their own thing. Some things I cannot tell you right now publicly, I think that would be rude of me. And whether or not you believe me, we offered real solutions to stop this [arms race]. They rejected everything we had to offer. So here we are today - and they've placed their missile-defense system in Romania. Always saying: "We must protect ourselves from the Iranian nuclear threat!" Where's the threat? There is no 'Iranian nuclear threat..." You even have an agreement with them - and the U.S. was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped. We supported it... But if not for the U.S. then this agreement would not exist - which I consider Obama's achievement. I agree with the agreement, because it eased tensions in the area. So President Obama can put this on his list of achievements. So the 'Iranian threat' does not exist... But missile-defense systems are continuing to be positioned... That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us. Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the "Iranian nuclear threat." Once again, they lied to us. So they build this system and now they are being loaded with missiles. You, as journalists, should know that these missiles are put into capsules, which are utilized from sea-based, mid-range Tomahawk rocket launchers. These are being loaded with "anti-missiles" that can penetrate distances of up to 500km. But we know that technologies advance... We even know in which year the Americans will accomplish a new missile, which will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, and then even further... And from that moment on they will be able to directly threaten Russia's nuclear potential. We know year by year what's going to happen - and they know that we know! It's only you that they tell tall-tales to, and you spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what worries me... How can you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? That's the problem. Meanwhile, they pretend that nothing's going on... I don't know how to get through to you anymore... And they justify this as a "defense" system, not weaponry that is used for the purposes of an offense. Systems that "prevent aggression." This is absolutely not true. A missile-defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential. It works as part of a whole that includes offensive missile launchers. One complex blocks; the other launches a high precision weapon; the third blocks a potential nuclear strike; and the forth sends out its own nuclear weapon in response. This is all designed to be part of one system. This is how it works in current, non-nuclear, but high precision missile-defense systems. Well okay, let's put aside the actual missile 'defense' issue. But those capsules into which 'anti-missiles' are inserted as I've mentioned, they are sea-based... On warships which can carry the Tomahawk subsonic cruise missile system. One could deploy it to position in a matter of hours, and then what kind of ''anti-missile'' system is that? How do we know what kind of missile is in there? All you have to do is change the programme! (non-nuclear to nuclear). That's all it would take! This would happen very quickly, and even the Romanian government itself won't know what's going on. Do you think they let the Romanians call the shots? Nobody is going to know what is being done - not the Romanians, and the Polish won't either. Do you think I'm not familiar with their strategies? Ha! From what I can see, we are in grave danger... We had a conversation once with our American partners - where they said they'd like to develop ballistic missiles, but with without a nuclear warhead. And we said: "Do you actually understand what that might entail?" So you're going to have missiles launching from submarines, or ground territories - this is a ballistic missile, how do we know whether or not it has a nuclear warhead?! Can you even imagine what kind of scenario you can create? But as far as I am aware, they did not go through with developing these weapons - they have paused for now. But the other one they continue to implement. I don't know how this is all going to end... What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves. And I even know how they will package this: "Russian aggression" again! But this is simple our response to your actions. Is it not obvious that I must guarantee the safety of our people? And not only that, but we must attempt to retain the necessary strategic balance of power, which is the point that I began with. Let me return to it, in order to finish my response. It was precisely this balance of power that guaranteed the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years. It was a blessing rooted in a "mutual threat" but this mutual threat is what guaranteed mutual peace, on a global scale. How they could so easily tear it down, I simple don't know. I think this is gravely dangerous. I not only think that, I am assured of it. Sure, "the United States are not developing weapons for the purposes of an offensive operation..." At least not that which is in the public eye, although we know for certain that this is occurring. I'm not about to get into asking that right now - we're perfectly aware that it is happening. I'm going to pretend for a minute that I don't know about it. "Okay, you're not developing it!" But the facts are: There is an anti-missile defense system being developed in the United States. Sure, today it is not in working order and we're not yet sure if it will ever be implemented... However, theoretically, it is created in order to be implemented. Again, hypothetically - we understand that there will be a moment in time where our nuclear potential will be completely neutralized. Our current nuclear capability I mean, can be completely neutralized by this anti-missile defense system. If this is the case then that means the balance of power in the world will be completely upset. This means that one of the powers will feel a complete sense of security. Which, in turn, means it can do whatever it likes, not only in regional conflicts - but, now, we are talking about its unmatched might in global conflict. This is only food for thought, don't let me come off like I am accusing you of something. But international relations is much like mathematics - there is nothing personal about it. Therefore we will respond accordingly - but how? We can match you in your actions and build an equally great multi-million dollar anti-missile defense system... Or, taking into account our economic and financial capability in the current day - we can respond asymmetrically... So that it is clear to all that: "Yes there is an anti-missile defense system [in Europe] - but as it relates to Russia, it is entirely pointless..." Because we have a weapon that can simply nullify it. This is the path that we are going to take. It works out cheaper for us. But in no way is this "aggression against the United States." I fully mirror your behavior when you say that your anti-missile defense system "is not targeted against us!" - Then our new weapon is "not targeted against you" either! The NATO Summit has gone underway in Warsaw, aiming to show resolve amid a perceived threat from Russia. It's expected to agree formally to send 4 battalions with 3-4 thousand troops to the Baltic states in eastern Poland. Britain is sending 650. The aim: To reassure countries that NATO is ready to defend them, while trying to avoid antagonizing Moscow. "Stability of the Euro-Atlantic region depends on security beyond our borders. While we should stand by our defense commitment, we must enhance cooperation with all partners - both in the eastern and southern neighborhood. We are not surrounded by enemies, we are surrounded by challenges." Ukraine is not a member of NATO but President Poroshenko has been invited, and will meet allied leaders on Saturday. President Obama has called for sanctions on Moscow to be maintained until it fully complies with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, and to help Kiev defend its sovereignty. The Baltic states and Poland fear Russia will seek to destabilize their governments. The Kremlin argues that talk of a threat from Russia is absurd, and says that it hopes commonsense will prevail. The NATO block is moving its forces to Russia's border. These posters are absolutely everywhere here in Warsaw! The defense against "Russian aggression" is the linchpin of the Summit. Why do they need these new battalions, missile-defense placements and aerodromes? The historic NATO Summit concluded this Saturday, at which this military alliance completely changed its strategy towards Russia. Russia is no longer a partner on the international arena - Russia is now the target. In theory, it is sold as "the strengthening of defense capabilities in Eastern Europe." But in practice, it is the building of new bases, missile positioning, and command centers, along our borders. There is absolutely no denying that the NATO block is preparing for war against us. NATO in its entire history has yet to ''defend'' someone - instead, it is covered in shame. Whether this was the aggression over a sovereign states of Yugoslavia or Libya; they are now building up their forces directly against us; in the Baltics, and in Poland. This is also where their troops will be stationed. For now they are talking about battalions, but the strategy of these ad hoc groups is the ability to form a large presence of troops at our borders, at short notice. Obviously: Russia will respond. But how not to cross the line? We have the technology with just the right amount of capability. Many in the world were already surprised by our air operation in Syria... But don't be surprised to learn that we also have that which we have not revealed to anybody, we even avoid mentioning it directly. Take a look at this defense and security meeting, a fragment of which aired last Friday. Russia continues to develop its defense technologies, always increasing the spectrum on which we can operate. This goes for on-land technologies, as well as Air Force and Navy capabilities. These technologies possess the ability to change the course of events in absolutely any military environment. A new development at this NATO Summit was the invitation for Mr. Poroshenko. [The authorities of] Ukraine for NATO is the anti-Russian battering ram they require. Poroshenko [born Waltzman] has completely sold his country, emptying it to the very bottom - it is now the poorest country in Europe, yet he is still pushing it towards war. Surveys, not even including those of Eastern Ukraine, show that everyday Ukrainians do not want to be part of NATO. For Poroshenko, this is simply a ritual NATO photo-session - a showcase - an absolutely groundless smile... While he's figuring out his best photo angle, Eastern Ukraine is under constant fire of the [U.S.-funded] Ukrainian army. UN figures published last Saturday show record civilian deaths since August 2015. 12 dead - 57 wounded. The Ukrainian Army is firing from artillery systems and rocket-launchers - which is most definitely prohibited by the Minsk agreements. The Donbass [Eastern Ukraine] of course returns the fire against its attackers - however, the conflict in its totality is masked as the perfect excuse for Poroshenko not to change the constitution, not to hold local elections to secede. He simply does nothing to prevent further bloodshed among two brotherly nations. And NATO in turn, simply turns a blind eye. We have Olga Skabeeva reporting from Warsaw. In these scenes you can see a Ukrainian security guard demonstratively obscuring our view of Petro Poroshenko. This whole time, Ukrainian journalists were filming the way we were obstructed from filming! This video later ended up on the internet, with the guard being praised. [Speaks Ukrainian] At an almost empty briefing, Poroshenko revisited which of the leaders he had the chance to meet with at the Summit. Petr Alexeevich, when can the Donbass hold an election? As soon as we have security. As soon as Russians stop killing Ukrainians. When Russia withdraws its occupying forces. Having finished a standard response, he pushed our microphone away. This is the official Kiev standpoint: Ukraine must be immediately saved from "the aggressor." So, 'if they won't let us in the EU, then at least let's join NATO!' Regardless of the warm embraces, Stoltenberg stated that Ukraine was invited not as a NATO member, but as a guest. The question of membership is not currently on the agenda - we need to first focus on how to ensure that Ukraine meets NATO standards in the future. It's at least 10 years away - and that's a quote from Stoltenberg. One of the main criteria for joining NATO is the absence of internal conflict in any one country. Ukraine brought their very best with them to the Summit: Rada Deputy Savchenko, who appeared in questionable see-through attire. Having announced many a hunger strike in the past, the Deputy seemed to have a special kind of appetite here today. Nadejda, could you please tell me what is your function here at the NATO Summit? [Speaks Ukrainian: "You won't understand what I answer you!''] "Go and learn Ukrainian!" Savchenko sped away to an interview; at least today she didn't come barefoot, but was make-up free and clutched firmly at her bag the whole time. The Deputy has stated many times that she's ready to be the Defense Minister or the next President of Ukraine. She vows to start a dialogue with the Donbass. [Speaks Ukrainian: "You won't understand what I answer you! I understand you, but you don't understand me!"] I do understand you actually... [In Ukrainian: Go and learn Ukrainian, and then I will talk to you!] I note that your position on the Donbass differs to the position of Poroshenko - have you been able to influence him in any way? Please respond in Ukrainian if you so prefer! [In Ukrainian: Now I don't know what you're saying - I don't really understand Russian that well.] But you speak Russian perfectly... [In Ukrainian: I don't understand what you're saying.] [In Ukrainian: I don't understand what you're saying.] I think I got a sense of the 'future leader:' Sloppy, easily angered, but apparently happy to help. The whole time our operator had to walk backwards and accidentally fell. [Yells in Ukrainian] Having informed us all of "Russian aggression", Savchenko leaves the Summit. "Russia: An exporter of instability" with a picture of President Putin. This magazine was handed out to all visitors at the entry to the stadium. Warsaw is completely covered in posters of "Russian aggression." Polish Minister of Defense, Macierewicz in my view, took the cake for unprecedented anti-Russian sentiment. Prior to the start of the Summit, he said: "Russia must be immediately disbanded by force." "Russia is the main threat in the world today." "For as long as Russia carries out its war against the independent Ukraine, we will continue to view Russia as the main threat to Poland that exists in the world." "How does that sound! Feel free to pass on my message in its entirety! And I'm saying this because Russia is the only country in Europe, that because of its militarism, undermines European law and order." "Russian forces are killing people in the Ukraine, we can't continue in this way, and it must be stopped." Yesterday, we heard a very aggressive stance, in relation to Russia may attack Poland in some way... You heard this from Moscow? No, I heard it here. You will never hear of any kind of aggression from Poland, the only aggression toward Europe and the world, is coming from Moscow. NATO is a defense alliance, we don't plan on attacking, we only intend to defend ourselves. [THE END] "We see that many euro-atlantic States have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots, which form the basis of Western civilization. There, politics treats a family with many children as equal to a homosexual partnership; faith in God is equal to Satan. Christian Holidays and celebrations are abolished or "neutrally" renamed, as if one were ashamed of those Christian holidays. Without the moral values rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed and been developed over a millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. And we think it is right and natural to defend and preserve these moral values." --Vladimir Putin [Russia to get 'tallest statue of Jesus Christ in the world']

Aircraft Inventory

Aircraft Origin Type Versions In service 1992 In service 2008 Notes
Bell 206  United States utility helicopter 206B-3 JetRanger III 2 4 2 in 1992, 1 bought in 1993 and 1 in 2007
Bell 412  United States utility helicopter 3 8
UTVA-75  Yugoslavia basic trainer V-53 14 0 Retired in 2005
Agusta AW109  Italy VIP transport 1 0 Retired in 1998 and transferred to the Slovenian Police
SOKO SA 341 Gazelle  France/ Yugoslavia transport V-53 1 0 defected from YPA in 1991 Crashed in 1994 and Retired 1996
Eurocopter AS 532AL Cougar  European Union utility helicopter AS 532 UL/AL 0 4 Bought in 2004
Pilatus PC-6 Porter   Switzerland Paratroop training aircraft 0 2 Bought in 1995
Let L-410 Turbolet  Czech Republic transport aircraft 0 1 Bought in 1994
Zlin Z 242  Czech Republic basic trainer Z 242L Aerobatic 0 8 Bought in 2004
Pilatus PC-9   Switzerland turboprop trainer PC-9A 0 2 Originally 3 bought in 1995, later 1 crashed in 2004
Pilatus PC-9M Hudournik   Switzerland
 Israel
turboprop trainer/attack fighter PC-9M 0 9 bought in 1998, and upgraded with weapons in 1999
Zlin Z-143  Czech Republic basic trainer 0 2 Bought in 2004
This page was last edited on 20 March 2019, at 14:26
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.