NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development

[Ars Moriendi]

NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development

by Thierry Meyssan

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185257.html


The glitzy NATO summit in Newport has not publicly announced major decisions but it is likely that they were taken in secret. To prevent Russia and China - but also India - from continuing their development, NATO can count on Terrorism from the Islamic Emirate which it pretends to condemn and fight.

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/5-25-a84ba-3-001cf.jpg

The Newport (Wales) Summit is NATO’s largest since the 2002 Prague edition. At the time, it meant to include new central and eastern European states within the Alliance. This time it’s about planning a long-term strategy to contain the development of Russia and China so as to prevent their competing with the United States [1].

Anything related to NATO is a matter of debate. Indeed, it has continued, since its inception in 1949, to manipulate the facts to present itself as a defensive alliance against Soviet expansionism, whereas it is the Warsaw Pact, created six years later in 1955, which aimed to defend the socialist states in the face of Anglo-Saxon (and not vice versa) imperialism.

Moreover, contrary to its name, NATO is not an alliance of equals, but a subjugation of partner armies by the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, all member armies of this supposed "alliance" are under the command of a single US officer who is also commander of American forces in Europe-while the secret service of NATO, the "Gladio", under the joint authority of Washington and London, ensures that the anti-imperialists never come to power in the other Member States [2]. To do this, NATO has not skimped on political killings, nor even coups (in France [3], Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey).

This subservience contravenes the principles of the UN Charter, as Member States lose their independence of foreign policy and defense. It was called into question by the Soviet Union and then by President Charles De Gaulle, who, after facing forty NATO funded assassination attempts by the OAS, gave it the boot, announcing the immediate withdrawal of France from integrated command and the expulsion of 64,000 NATO soldiers and administrative staff from French territory.

This page of French independence ceased with the election of Jacques Chirac under whom, a few months after his arrival at the Elysee, France rejoined the Council of Ministers and the Military Committee of the Alliance. This finally ended with the return of the French army under US command as decided by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009.

Finally, the subjugation of Member States continued with the creation of many civil institutions, the main and most effective of which is the European Union. Contrary to popular belief, the present Union has not much to do with the ideal of European unity, but to bind the NATO members out of Soviet influence and Russian aims, in accordance with the secret clauses of the Marshall Plan. The idea is therefore to divide Europe into two blocs. It is no coincidence that the offices of NATO and those of the EU executive in Brussels are primarily situated in Brussels and secondarily in Luxembourg. It is to allow control of the Union by the Anglo-Saxons that it has acquired a strange Commission whose main activity is to introduce economic or political "proposals", all predefined by NATO. It is often ignored that the Alliance is not just a military pact, but it intervenes in the economy. First NATO is the #1 customer of the defense industry in Europe and determines standards for its bidding, that is to say, for all that concerns the daily lives of its soldiers. It is these standards that are proposed by the Commission and adopted by the European Parliament.

Actually three quarters of the budget of NATO is funded by the United States alone.

The future of the Anglo-American imperialist project

Since the coup of 2001 [4], the United States is planning a confrontation with China. With this in mind, President Barack Obama announced the repositioning of US forces in the Far East. However, this agenda has been disrupted by economic, political and military recovery in Russia, which has been able in 2008 to defend South Ossetia under attack by Georgia and, in 2014, Crimea threatened by the Kiev coup.

Furthermore, the project of "missile defense" has been dropped. Presented as a system of protection against Iranian missiles, this "shield" was actually an offensive system deployed around Russia to paralyze it. A simple glance at a global map shows that Iranian missiles, if they were to be launched at the United States, would not pass over central Europe, but via the shortest path: the north pole. After over a decade undermining relations between Washington and Moscow, the project has been abandoned because it is technically impossible to destroy the latest generation of Russian intercontinental missiles while in flight. So it’s the very principle of "nuclear deterrence" that is abandoned concerning Russia, although it remains relevant for other states.

While performing its "pivot to Asia", Washington has exacerbated tensions between China and its neighbors, especially Japan. NATO, which historically vassallizes Europe to North America, has thereby opened itself to Asian and Oceanian partners, notably Australia and Japan, through association contracts. It has, in passing, broadened its field of action to the whole world. [5]

In this time of budgetary restrictions, the Alliance, which is not experiencing the crisis, is building a new headquarters in Brussels for the staggering sum of € 1 billion. It should be ready in early 2017. [6]

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/2-76-e7aac-2-2e0a0.jpg

The issue of the Islamic Emirate

This summer, to the preoccupation with preventing China and Russia from controlling enough raw materials to develop the ability to compete with the United States was added the issue of the Islamic Emirate.

An intense media campaign has demonized the jihadist organization whose crimes are not new, but who just attacked the Iraqi people. We have repeatedly explained that the IE is a Western creation and that, despite appearances, its action in Iraq is entirely consistent with US plans to divide the country into three separate states. [7] For a project which constitutes a crime against humanity because it assumes ethnic cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could be condemned publicly while being supported covertly.

The United States would have taken the measure of the Islamist threat after the IE murdered two of their nationals, journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, a careful examination of the videos [8] suggests that they are not authentic. The problem had already arisen with the IE when it was supposed to have murdered Nick Berg in 2004 [9].

We have also often stressed that the IE was different from previous jihadist groups both by its communication services and its civilian administrators able to manage the conquered territories. So this is a group which is meant to last. As Alfredo Jalife-Rahme showed, the Caliphate, even if it is currently active mainly in Syria and Iraq, was designed to bear arms against Russia, India and China in the long-term [10] .

The issue of the Islamic Emirate did not therefore have to be added to the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda. It was already part of it. Moreover, not wanting to risk that a Member State might express doubts about this masquerade, Washington shifted the debate to the sidelines of the summit. President Obama met eight other states plus Australia (which is not a NATO member, but only an associate) to develop its war plan. It was later decided to add Jordan to this device.

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-4809-d9a37-2-01d2d.jpg

Summit conclusions

The summit held a hurried morning session to expedite the question of its long presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO will withdraw its combat troops as planned by year’s end, but it will retain control of the Afghan army and national security. The summit even allowed itself the luxury of calling on the two candidates for the Afghan presidency to commit to signing without delay the criminal immunity requirements of the United States, while this election is organized and the ballots counted by American forces. Therefore, the candidate who does not agree should not be surprised if he is not considered elected.

As one waves a red cape to excite a bull, the summit decided to extend NATO control over the eastern part of Europe (including Ukraine), just to see what would be the Russian reaction. But it has not gone further. The NATO-Russia Founding Act has not been revoked and Ukraine has not been incorporated into the Alliance. Everyone preferred to discuss a possible cease-fire between Kiev and Donbass.

In addition, the summit equipped the Alliance with two new tools: a cyber warfare service to counter Chinese military hackers, and a rapid response force of 4000 men from 7 countries placed under British command. Finally, the summit paved the accession process of Montenegro and, of course, requires member states to develop their military spending.

Some remarks

Despite accusations from the Ukrainian government - according to which Russia would have invaded the country ... but with only 1,000 men that no one has seen, as noted by Giulietto Chiesa [11] -, the summit did not decide to go to war against Moscow and merely posed a symbolic gesture. We do not understand therefore why such ostentation was put on display in Newport.

Unless the important things have been decided behind closed doors at the meeting of the Heads of State Friday, Sept. 5, it does not seem that secret wars were discussed at the summit, but only on the sidelines of the summit with certain allies only. Already in 2011, NATO had violated its own rules by not assembling the Atlantic Council before bombing Tripoli. It seemed effectively impossible that all would agree to such a slaughter. The United States and the United Kingdom therefore met secretly with France, Italy and Turkey in Naples to plan an attack that caused at least 40,000 civilian deaths in one week.

The final release is a rare hypocrisy [12]: the Ukrainian crisis is treated as a Russian aggression, without ever mentioning the coup of Maidan Square, or the installation of a government including Nazis. The Syrian crisis is presented as a conflict between “ a moderate opposition which protects minorities” and at the same time the “tyranny of the regime of Bashar al-Assad”, and “extremist groups”, without ever mentioning that the Syrian regime is a republic while the moderate opposition is paid by the dictatorships of the Gulf, nor that the crisis was triggered by a secret Franco-British war in accordance with the Annexes to the Treaty of Lancaster House, nor that President Assad has just been re-elected by 63% of the electorate, and that the Syrian Arab Republic is the only one to have protected not only minorities, but all its citizens, including the Sunni majority. Cynically, the statement claims that the Alliance has protected the Libyan people, in accordance with resolutions 1970 and 1973, when in fact it used these resolutions to change the regime in Lybia by killing 160,000 Libyans and plunging the country into chaos.

However, ultimately, in recent years NATO has achieved its goals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and North East Syria, that is to say, solely and exclusively in countries or regions organized into tribal societies. It does not seem able to come into direct conflict with Russia and China.


---------------------------------------------------
Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “NATO, the curtain of war open on two fronts”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation John Catalinotto, Il Manifesto (Italy), Voltaire Network, 4 September 2014.
[2] Read the secret armies of NATO, by Professor Daniele Ganser, available on Réseau Voltaire. episode.
[3] On the state in 1958 and 1961 coups, refer to (1) “Quand le stay-behind portait De Gaulle au pouvoir” (When the stay-behind De Gaulle was in power) and (2) « Quand le stay-behind voulait remplacer De Gaulle » (When the stay-behind De Gaulle wanted to replace) by Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 27 August and 10 September 2001.
[4] We recall that September 11, 2001, while the world was mesmerized by the attacks in New York and Washington, President George W. Bush was illegally removed from office under the program of "continuity of government." It found that by the end of the day, after his country had radically changed its foreign policy and defense. On this day, all members of Congress and their staff were placed by the military authority under house arrest in complex Greenbrier (West Virginia) and Mount Weather (Virginia).
[5] “NATO’s Global Offensive”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation John Catalinotto, Il Manifesto (Italy), Voltaire Network, 30 July 2014.
[6] « 1 milliard d’euros pour le nouveau siège de l’Otan » (€ 1 billion for the new headquarters of NATO), Réseau Voltaire, 29 janvier 2014.
[7] See (1) ""Kurdistan" Israeli Style"; (2) "John McCain, Conductor of the" Arab Spring ", and the Caliph ’; (3) "The Grand Saudi Reversal", by Thierry Meyssan, translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, July 1, August 18 and September 1, 2014
[8] "Foley video with Briton was staged, experts say," Deborah Haynes, The Times, 24 August 2014; "Foley murder video ’may have been staged’,’" Bill Gardner, The Daily Telegraph, 25 August 2014 and the identity of Sotloff, see: «Le journaliste décapité était un Israélien formé dans une antenne du Mossad» (The journalist was beheaded an Israeli formed in a branch of Mossad) by Hicham Hamza, Panamza, 3 September 2014.
[9] “The Case of Nicholas Berg”, Voltaire Network, 18 May 2004.
[10] « Un djihad mondial contre les BRICS ? » (A global jihad against the BRICS?), by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, Translation Arnaud Bréart, La Jornada (Mexico), Réseau Voltaire, 18 July 2014.
[11] « En Ukraine, les menteurs paniquent » (In Ukraine, liars panic), by Giulietto Chiesa, Megachip (Italy), Réseau Voltaire, September 3, 2014.
[12] “Nato Wales Summit Declaration”, Voltaire Network, 5 September 2014.

[Immortal Technique]

Fuck them,nuke them Vladimir...first you do better is

[Immortal Technique]

china and russia are the unique possibility to save the world from corrupted pigs and worms

[RandoBloom]

Russia intends to inhibit and prohibit independent Ukrainian development and policy - Putin is a hero
Same happens to Russia -OMG Western pigs, nuke them :laugh:

[Peikko]

Persian terrorist propaganda.

[Ars Moriendi]

You can complement your information on the expansion of the military alliance, with some other threads that are already posted in this "NATO" subforum. Other posters have added complete essays or short articles about it.
Point is, the development of "Asian Pivot", the rise of AFRICOM, the role given to Poland as stating point for the British-led "Reaction Force", and the chaos and deterioration in the Middle East are all phenomenons that can be traced back to the similar goals and almost the same actors.

[Immortal Technique]

Piece of shits,evil motherfuckers,pigs,hypocrites jew motherfuckers bastards their poison eat them inside

[RandoBloom]

You can complement your information on the expansion of the military alliance, with some other threads that are already posted in this "NATO" subforum. Other posters have added complete essays or short articles about it.
Point is, the development of "Asian Pivot", the rise of AFRICOM, the role given to Poland as stating point for the British-led "Reaction Force", and the chaos and deterioration in the Middle East are all phenomenons that can be traced back to the similar goals and almost the same actors.

Because expanding defensive alliances and strenghtening the army in NATO is not a result of Russian agression and anexation of another country's teritory, that is just evil plan to beat on innocent Russia.
What do defences bother Russia unless they plan to attack them?

Everything is a result of western pigs imperialism. They just give some money and shit starts.
It could never be a complicated issue?
Simple minds seek simple solutions.
And slavs of Russia are perfect examples of scaremongering and simple solutions.

[Ars Moriendi]

Persian terrorist propaganda.

Meyssan is based in Damascus, Voltairenet is a French site, and not a single of the sources of the essay refer to Iranian news outlets.
On the contrary, Western media, such as the Times is considered. ([8] source)

Propaganda is characterized by simplicity and graphic messages. Written analysis will never be able to be distributed to the mass public seeing as they will not care to read it, nor will be able to fully understand the dynamics at play, that counterintelligence agencies have purposedly kept hidden for decades.

[TheGoldenSon]

It's a smart containment strategy, come to think about it my grandfather once told me that there can't be an European Russia, only Russian Europe. This is a game of attrition and time, what will come faster a Russian economic and demographic collapse or a massive North American political implosion (effectively second civil war).

[Sir_Kat]

The Confederacy should have won and prevented all of this....

[Ars Moriendi]

Because expanding defensive alliances and strenghtening the army in NATO is not a result of Russian agression and anexation of another country's teritory, that is just evil plan to beat on innocent Russia.
What do defences bother Russia unless they plan to attack them?

Everything is a result of western pigs imperialism. They just give some money and shit starts.
It could never be a complicated issue?
Simple minds seek simple solutions.
And slavs of Russia are perfect examples of scaremongering and simple solutions.

NATO has never been a defensive alliance, and the Russian/Ukrainian dossier is only a part of the analysis made by the essay. In comparative terms, the resources allocated to Asia, and even to Africa, are more important than those NATO kas kept in Eastern Europe.

Meyssan has a point when he states that the events in Georgia 2008, and Ukraine 2014, have highlighted the problem that Russia is for the American and British power structure. That's why they still have to organize symbolic meetings in Estonia (like Obama did last week), or deploy moderate-sized brigades in Poland. Still, does't change the fact that the core of the naval and air power of NATO has been relocated to the Indian and Pacific Ocean. Mostly in two blocs, from the Horn of Africa (Somalia) till the Persian Gulf. And from Vietnam till Hawai, including presence in Taiwan and Okinawa.

[RandoBloom]

NATO has never been a defensive alliance, and the Russian/Ukrainian dossier is only a part of the analysis made by the essay. In comparative terms, the resources allocated to Asia, and even to Africa, are more important than those NATO kas kept in Eastern Europe.

Meyssan has a point when he states that the events in Georgia 2008, and Ukraine 2014, have highlighted the problem that Russia is for the American and British power structure. That's why they still have to organize symbolic meetings in Estonia (like Obama did last week), or deploy moderate-sized brigades in Poland. Still, does't change the fact that the core of the naval and air power of NATO has been relocated to the Indian and Pacific Ocean. Mostly in two blocs, from the Horn of Africa (Somalia) till the Persian Gulf. And from Vietnam till Hawai, including presence in Taiwan and Okinawa.

And that is why they nuked Russia to the ashes.
Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, all acts of Russian agression.
Which should have been punished with total embargo of all Russian goods and produce, as well as with deployment of peacekeeper troops in Russian teritory

[Rudel]

Because expanding defensive alliances and strenghtening the army in NATO is not a result of Russian agression and anexation of another country's teritory, that is just evil plan to beat on innocent Russia.
What do defences bother Russia unless they plan to attack them.
People simply don't like having "defensive" systems pointed at them. It's fairly easy to see the US has been trying to cockblock Russia every step of the way since WW2 as to where the European peninsula is concerned.
Shit, I myself don't feel safe at all being surrounded by American "defences" planted among our neighbours. Especially since they have the ability to use atomic weapons locally stocked at their own discretion if the US gives its say-so.

[RandoBloom]

People simply don't like having "defensive" systems pointed at them. It's fairly easy to see the US has been trying to cockblock Russia every step of the way since WW2 as to where the European peninsula is concerned.
Shit, I myself don't feel safe at all being surrounded by American "defences" planted among our neighbours. Especially since they have the ability to use atomic weapons locally stocked at their own discretion if the US gives its say-so.

Walls and towers never hurt anyone except those attacking them.
Simple as that.
As much as Russia hates encountering defenses in the areas they would anex, so do people Russia wants to anex hate being invaded.

[Ars Moriendi]

And that is why they nuked Russia to the ashes.
Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, all acts of Russian agression.
Which should have been punished with total embargo of all Russian goods and produce, as well as with deployment of peacekeeper troops in Russian teritory

I don't know what you're talking about. Russia was never attacked with nuclear weapons.
Georgia and Ukraine were countries that had a reduced intervention following an anti-Russian event (Saakashvili's threat to join NATO and host bases right next to the Russian border, and the Euromaidan coup that brought forth an anti-Russian pro-EU/pro-NATO junta).
Russia has already been sanctioned, last week Brussels increased the blockade against Russia.
Russia has no civil war or internal strife going on in its territory, which is a pre-requisite to the deployment of blue helmets anywhere in the world.

[RandoBloom]

I don't know what you're talking about. Russia was never attacked with nuclear weapons.
Georgia and Ukraine were countries that had a reduced intervention following an anti-Russian event (Saakashvili's threat to join NATO and host bases right next to the Russian border, and the Euromaidan coup that brought forth an anti-Russian pro-EU/pro-NATO junta).
Russia has already been sanctioned, last week Brussels increased the blockade against Russia.
Russia has no civil war or internal strife going on in its territory, which is a pre-requisite to the deployment of blue helmets anywhere in the world.

Your NATO Agressive alliance had a 10 year advantage in possession of Nuclear weapons over Russia.
And opposite to what agressors do, not only did they not attack Russia conventionaly, but inconventionaly too.

So every time a country that Russia thinks should Serve Russia, decides not to do so they get invaded?
And NATO is the agressor?
Only Russia has a right to its own foreign policy. Everyone else obeys Russia.
Tzar - Tzardom - Orthodoxy logic of 19th century in action 2 centuries later

[StormBringer]

Only Russia has a right to its own foreign policy.
Yes, now go cry about the fact Bosnia is not an Austrian protectorate and your name is not Hans.

[Ars Moriendi]

Your NATO Agressive alliance had a 10 year advantage in possession of Nuclear weapons over Russia.
And opposite to what agressors do, not only did they not attack Russia conventionaly, but inconventionaly too.

The US acquired the atomic bomb in 1945. The USSR did the same thing in 1949. NATO had only a couple years of existence by then, and the whole Western arsenal was very reduced to say the least, considering how neither the UK nor France had yet acquired nuclear material.

Attacking the USSR with nuclear bombs before 1949 was completely implausible for the US seeing as they would have been unable to establish any sort of stability in Eurasia (The agreement in Yalta was made prior to the end of the War even). That is of course skipping the technical problems they had during the 40s, when the US barely managed to collect enough Uranium 235 and Plutonium for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs respectively.


So every time a country that Russia thinks should Serve Russia, decides not to do so they get invaded?
And NATO is the agressor?
Only Russia has a right to its own foreign policy. Everyone else obeys Russia.
Tzar - Tzardom - Orthodoxy logic of 19th century in action 2 centuries later

People don't like aggresive and hostile neighbours. Sometimes even an economic rivalry is enough. The Brits declared war on their perpetual lapdogs, the Dutch, several times for purely commercial reasons, even though they had no real political or ideological problems.

The fact most European nations no longer have an independent foreign policy, doesn't give them the moral high ground to criticise countries that still do. If anything, it's somehow pitiful.

[RandoBloom]

Yes, now go cry about the fact Bosnia is not an Austrian protectorate and your name is not Hans.

You are the one desiring that, since you consider superpowers should have power to make protectorates.
Nothing suprising from a Serb.
Why are you so butthurt over people wanting every country to make its own politics, rather than invade others'

[Tacitus]

Your NATO Agressive alliance had a 10 year advantage in possession of Nuclear weapons over Russia.
And opposite to what agressors do, not only did they not attack Russia conventionaly, but inconventionaly too.

So every time a country that Russia thinks should Serve Russia, decides not to do so they get invaded?
And NATO is the agressor?
Only Russia has a right to its own foreign policy. Everyone else obeys Russia.
Tzar - Tzardom - Orthodoxy logic of 19th century in action 2 centuries later

Not an aggressor in the traditional sense of invasion, but an aggressor in the sense of needling and provoking through passive-aggressive means (pushing NATO up to Russia's borders in areas that should be neutral, war exercises near Russia territory, economic sanctions etc.).

It would be one thing Eastern European countries on their own decided to build up their defenses, but it's another when the decisions are being made in Brussels, London, and Washington. Ukraine is nether of strategic significance nor is it key to American security so the US leading the way on "punishing" Russia is totally needless since Russia can actually be of help to the US over issues like Syria and Iran, where they were key in the breakthrough nuclear agreement regarding the latter.

[RandoBloom]

The US acquired the atomic bomb in 1945. The USSR did the same thing in 1949. NATO had only a couple years of existence by then, and the whole Western arsenal was very reduced to say the least, considering how neither the UK nor France had yet acquired nuclear material.

Attacking the USSR with nuclear bombs before 1949 was completely implausible for the US seeing as they would have been unable to establish any sort of stability in Eurasia (The agreement in Yalta was made prior to the end of the War even). That is of course skipping the technical problems they had during the 40s, when the US barely managed to collect enough Uranium 235 and Plutonium for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs respectively.



People don't like aggresive and hostile neighbours. Sometimes even an economic rivalry is enough. The Brits declared war on their perpetual lapdogs, the Dutch, several times for purely commercial reasons, even though they had no real political or ideological problems.

The fact most European nations no longer have an independent foreign policy, doesn't give them the moral high ground to criticise countries that still do. If anything, it's somehow pitiful.

Nuclear bomb numbers in Russia werent even close to threatening to US and its allies in 1949.
Only 10 years later did that happen.

So people should get invaded just for wanting to be free and not lapdogs?
Two faces everywhere.

[RandoBloom]

Not an aggressor in the traditional sense of invasion, but an aggressor in the sense of needling and provoking through passive-aggressive means (pushing NATO up to Russia's borders in areas that should be neutral, war exercises near Russia territory, economic sanctions etc.).

It would be one thing Eastern European countries on their own decided to build up their defenses, but it's another when the decisions are being made in Brussels, London, and Washington. Ukraine is nether of strategic significance nor is it key to American security so the US leading the way on "punishing" Russia is totally needless since Russia can actually be of help to the US over issues like Syria and Iran, where they were key in the breakthrough nuclear agreement regarding the latter.

Why doesnt Russia do the same? Its not forbidden.
NATO pushed the borders diplomaticaly.
Russia wants to force others into pacts, and when refused they invade.

Yes, because Poland, Belarus, Finland, Moldavia, Romania can form their own defence to stop Russia?

Russia can be of help? Every time there has been a crisis Russia has always took the opposing stance to US. Regarless what is happening.

[Ars Moriendi]

Nuclear bomb numbers in Russia werent even close to threatening to US and its allies in 1949.
Only 10 years later did that happen.

You misread my post completely. I said that the US (sole country with nuclear weapons) till 1949, had neither the interest nor arguably the means to pummel down the USSR completely (Russia didn't exist in this time period) using nuclear weapons in the period 1945-1949.

The CIA reports from 1946 and 1947 argued that the USSR wouldn't be able to develop nuclear till the mid 50s. When Fast Lightning happened in 1949, all the calculations made by the West had to be reassessed. After all, if they had failed in their calculation in more than half of decade to predict the development of Soviet atomic capacities, how could they be sure that a hypothetic nuclear attack against the USSR (again, completely counterproductive during this time) would not result in a reaction against them?


So people should get invaded just for wanting to be free and not lapdogs?
Two faces everywhere.

Foreign policy isn't morally normative. Good intentions are almost non-existant.
What exists is the struggle between blocs and great powers. Georgia and Ukraine were never close to being independent. They were just close to becoming effective staging points for the Anglo-American powerbase to surround Russia. Instead of allowing that to happen, the Kremlin conducted reduced intervention campaigns (even more reduced in Ukraine than in Georgia) to prevent that inconvenient change from happening.

[Empecinado]

People simply don't like having "defensive" systems pointed at them. It's fairly easy to see the US has been trying to cockblock Russia every step of the way since WW2 as to where the European peninsula is concerned.
Shit, I myself don't feel safe at all being surrounded by American "defences" planted among our neighbours. Especially since they have the ability to use atomic weapons locally stocked at their own discretion if the US gives its say-so.

I feel threatened by American bases because they would be inmediately nuked in case of a big scale war and feel occupied because no foreign army should be in my land. Even they have nukes in our territory.

[Bloodnigger]

I feel threatened by American bases because they would be inmediately nuked in case of a big scale war and feel occupied because no foreign army should be in my land. Even they have nukes in our territory.

This. American bases in eastern europe are a trojan horse just waiting to happen.

Considering the state america is today, another war, no matter how small the scale, could just be the thing that tips them over the balance.

EDIT: Though I bet if you asked Jim Crow and Melonhead they'd be voting for war if only to take advantage of the chaos and throw all the blacks out of the border, lol.

[Empecinado]

This. American bases in eastern europe are a trojan horse just waiting to happen.

Considering the state america is today, another war, no matter how small the scale, could just be the thing that tips them over the balance.

Especially given the precedents. It would be not the first time they take part or instigate a war to solve their economic problems.

[Ars Moriendi]

Fars released something yesterday that is quite relevant to contrast with Meyssan's essay regarding NATO's build-up:

Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions
Iran Starts New Cooperation Plans with Russians, Chinese to Fight Back Sanctions

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930617001468

http://media.farsnews.com/media/Uploaded/Files/Images/1392/09/25/13920925000120_PhotoI.jpg
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for Planning Mansour Moazzemi announced that the country has started a new set of cooperation with Russia and China to confront the sanctions imposed by the western states.

"We have started a serious job with the Chinese and Russians (in the energy sector) in such a strong way that the oil minister has now been appointed as the head of Iran-Russia joint economic commission instead of the foreign minister and we have started a good job to make use of the common capacities and capabilities," Moazzemi said in a press conference at the venue of the oil ministry on Monday.

"Russia is Iran's strategic partner and we will cooperate with them in any area we can, including oil," he added.

"We have also started a serious job with the Chinese which will be revealed to the public in the future," Moazzemi said.

He underlined that Iran's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is aimed at confronting the western sanctions against Iran, and said, "It is natural for Iran to be willing to bypass the sanctions, and don't want to be stopped behind the dam of the sanctions and make use of every method to break it."

Iran and Russia are expected to sign an agreement to strengthen economic cooperation, another deputy oil minister said today.

Ali Majedi said the agreement is to be signed by Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak on Tuesday.

A Russian delegation is in Tehran to attend the 11th meeting of Iran-Russia Trade Council.

Majedi said the council is to discuss energy, transportation, banking, industry and mining, agriculture and insurance fields on Monday.

Zanganeh said recently that Tehran-Moscow economic cooperation faced no restrictions.

“There are no restrictions for Iran in cooperating with Russia in different economic sectors,” he said.

Also, Iran is currently China's third largest supplier of crude, providing Beijing with roughly 12 percent of its total annual oil consumption.

A senior energy official announced in August that Iran was cooperating with renowned Chinese and German energy firms in its shale gas and oil projects.

"We are negotiating with Germany to use their advanced technology for the hi-tech section of Lorestan shale projects," Hormuz Qalavand, the exploration director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), told FNA.

Qalavand noted that Iran was also cooperating with a Chinese company on the hi-tech parts of its gas hydrate project in the Sea of Oman.

Iran has vast shale oil and gas reserves in the West and the South. While some market analysts believe that shale oil and gas reserves might endanger market prices for conventional oil and gas, Iran's oil minister said he does not see the situation this way.

In January, Zanganeh said he did not perceive shale or tight oil as a threat to OPEC.

Oil shale, also known as kerogen shale, is an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock containing kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which liquid hydrocarbons called shale oil (not to be confused with tight oil—crude oil occurring naturally in shales) can be produced.

Shale oil is a substitute for conventional crude oil; however, extracting shale oil from oil shale is more costly than the production of conventional crude oil both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.

Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States. Estimates of global deposits range from 4.8 to 5 trillion barrels of oil in place.

[Tacitus]

Why doesnt Russia do the same? Its not forbidden.
NATO pushed the borders diplomaticaly.
Russia wants to force others into pacts, and when refused they invade.

Yes, because Poland, Belarus, Finland, Moldavia, Romania can form their own defence to stop Russia?

Russia can be of help? Every time there has been a crisis Russia has always took the opposing stance to US. Regarless what is happening.

NATO may have expanded through diplomatic means, but the devil's in the details: if the Cold War is over, why continue to push east? Why press Georgia into joining, why plant missile pads in Poland close to the Russian border? Not calling Russia an angel, but it isn't like NATO isn't being provocative either.

Lavrov helped push the deal over Assad handing over and destroying his chemical weapons cache, and Russian diplomacy had an impact on Iran and the West coming to terms over the nuclear deal last year. So, yes, Russia can be a diplomatic partner for the US in certain cases.

[RandoBloom]

You misread my post completely. I said that the US (sole country with nuclear weapons) till 1949, had neither the interest nor arguably the means to pummel down the USSR completely (Russia didn't exist in this time period) using nuclear weapons in the period 1945-1949.

The CIA reports from 1946 and 1947 argued that the USSR wouldn't be able to develop nuclear till the mid 50s. When Fast Lightning happened in 1949, all the calculations made by the West had to be reassessed. After all, if they had failed in their calculation in more than half of decade to predict the development of Soviet atomic capacities, how could they be sure that a hypothetic nuclear attack against the USSR (again, completely counterproductive during this time) would not result in a reaction against them?



Foreign policy isn't morally normative. Good intentions are almost non-existant.
What exists is the struggle between blocs and great powers. Georgia and Ukraine were never close to being independent. They were just close to becoming effective staging points for the Anglo-American powerbase to surround Russia. Instead of allowing that to happen, the Kremlin conducted reduced intervention campaigns (even more reduced in Ukraine than in Georgia) to prevent that inconvenient change from happening.

It had more than enough means to pummel Russians in any way they wanted.
They outproduced soviets greatly.
They had nuclear weapons, thus all they needed to do is win air battles.
Which looking at Soviet airfoce would have been easy.
Why would they care? You said they are an agressive aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it.
Any such agressive nation would use the advantages.

And that inconvenient change will happen. The countries not aligned to nato are afraid of Russia and will do anything they can to join NATO.
And looking at Russian actions NATO will allow them that.

Ukraine has no interest in doing anything together with Russia after all that bad blood, and ocupation of Crimea.


NATO may have expanded through diplomatic means, but the devil's in the details: if the Cold War is over, why continue to push east? Why press Georgia into joining, why plant missile pads in Poland close to the Russian border? Not calling Russia an angel, but it isn't like NATO isn't being provocative either.

Lavrov helped push the deal over Assad handing over and destroying his chemical weapons cache, and Russian diplomacy had an impact on Iran and the West coming to terms over the nuclear deal last year. So, yes, Russia can be a diplomatic partner for the US in certain cases.

Who pressed Georgia into joining? If that was their goal they could have signed the deal in a day at the most.

And Russia also escalated Syrian war with its veto's, which led to rise of ISIS in the area, and hundreds of thousands of dead people.

[Tacitus]

Especially given the precedents. It would be not the first time they take part or instigate a war to solve their economic problems.

The only ones that would benefit from such a war (in the US) would be the defense contractors, think tanks, investment banks, and anyone else associated with Washington or Wall Street, not the average person.

[Bloodnigger]

snip


Pretty obvious how europe has so much to gain if they actually deal with Russia. Also pretty telling how germany dealing with Iran would lead to more than just economic benefits.

The elephant in the room is as always though America and the Saudis. Given the mixed feelings between weapon exports and public dissent against the saudis and american surveillance, whatever it comes down to it won't be pretty.

[Tacitus]

It had more than enough means to pummel Russians in any way they wanted.
They outproduced soviets greatly.
They had nuclear weapons, thus all they needed to do is win air battles.
Which looking at Soviet airfoce would have been easy.
Why would they care? You said they are an agressive aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it.
Any such agressive nation would use the advantages.

And that inconvenient change will happen. The countries not aligned to nato are afraid of Russia and will do anything they can to join NATO.
And looking at Russian actions NATO will allow them that.

Ukraine has no interest in doing anything together with Russia after all that bad blood, and ocupation of Crimea.



Who pressed Georgia into joining? If that was their goal they could have signed the deal in a day at the most.

And Russia also escalated Syrian war with its veto's, which led to rise of ISIS in the area, and hundreds of thousands of dead people.

Georgia isn't a member of NATO, but the US did want them to join the alliance, especially during the early days of the Saakashvili presidency (he had close ties to the US via his schooling and work experience).

Russia and China used their vetoes in the UNSC because they saw how things went in Libya in 2011. Of course, they had an economic stake in that China was set up for a huge oil deal with the Qaddafi government at the time. Both Russia and China had economic and strategic partnerships with the Assad government with Russia having rights to the port at Taurus, and if Assad were deposed, the resulting power vacuum was too much a risk for their interests.

And the roots of ISIS can be traced all the way back to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the resulting insurgency that followed.

[Empecinado]

The only ones that would benefit from such a war (in the US) would be the defense contractors, think tanks, investment banks, and anyone else associated with Washington or Wall Street, not the average person.

When I say US I mean these lobbies, not average people.

[Ars Moriendi]

It had more than enough means to pummel Russians in any way they wanted.

Source?

They outproduced soviets greatly.

In what specifically?


They had nuclear weapons, thus all they needed to do is win air battles.

Do you even understand why the Yalta agreement was made to begin with? Feels like talking to a wall here.


Which looking at Soviet airfoce would have been easy.

The only fighting air force in Europe that could have fought the Soviet Union was the RAF. With a broken economy and plummeting industrial output, why would the British want to continue fighting?


Why would they care? You said they are an agressive aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it.

Find me a post where I said something like this: " aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it"
I don't speak using such a clumsy syntax and exaggerated claims. Moreover, you completely disregarded one of my previous posts when I referred to the naval and aeral asset allocation of NATO countries. Re-read it.


Any such agressive nation would use the advantages.

There is an abyssmal difference between being aggressive and being stupid/incoherent.


And that inconvenient change will happen. The countries not aligned to nato are afraid of Russia and will do anything they can to join NATO.
And looking at Russian actions NATO will allow them that.

Substantiate this claim please?
Tbilisi today is much less Russophobic than during the days of Saakhashvili, it has stopped trying to join NATO.
Poroshenko yielded to Merkel's pressure to engage the Novorussians in peace talks last week. Any possible agreement stemming from this will most likely entail Ukraine staying out of NATO.

Linear rivalries have no place in foreign affairs.


Ukraine has no interest in doing anything together with Russia after all that bad blood, and ocupation of Crimea.

Georgia today has much more economic and diplomatic contacts with Russia, even if the Abkhazian and South Ossetian dossiers remain unresolved. Ukraine won't be categorically exceptional, seeing as Kiev depends economically on Russia.

Two different things.



Who pressed Georgia into joining? If that was their goal they could have signed the deal in a day at the most.

There's a reason why Georgians greatly dislike Saakashvili today. Politicians only represent national interests occasionally.


And Russia also escalated Syrian war with its veto's, which led to rise of ISIS in the area, and hundreds of thousands of dead people.

This reeks of typical American-prism disingenuity.
An intervention in Syria would have transformed the country into a worse version of Lybia, it wouldn't have haltered anyhow the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS changed name two months ago, get informed), and would have only subsumed the region in further anarchy.

There are no "moderate" rebels now, nor there have ever been. Unless you considered heart-eating mercenaries like the kind of the now marginal Free Syrian Army to be somehow "moderate".


-------

You never ever once give a single source for one to look into what you claim, and your prism is so off the reality in the terrain, that you actually think NATO's main activity today, is opposing Russia.

Oh well.

[RandoBloom]

Georgia isn't a member of NATO, but the US did want them to join the alliance, especially during the early days of the Saakashvili presidency (he had close ties to the US via his schooling and work experience).

Russia and China used their vetoes in the UNSC because they saw how things went in Libya in 2011. Of course, they had an economic stake in that China was set up for a huge oil deal with the Qaddafi government at the time. Both Russia and China had economic and strategic partnerships with the Assad government with Russia having rights to the port at Taurus, and if Assad were deposed, the resulting power vacuum was too much a risk for their interests.

And the roots of ISIS can be traced all the way back to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the resulting insurgency that followed.

And they could have signed agreement with Georgia within a day. What is Russia going to do then, attack a NATO member?
So its obvious they didnt. Georgians could have wanted, but that is their own right.

And how exactly did things go in Libya? Major war was prevented, it lasted a few weeks and no great casualties were sustained.
Is Syria how Libya should have turned out to be?

Roots? Maybe. But without a war that last years and anger that is acumulated ISIS couldnt have gotten any type of support from anyone.




Source?

Sure
http://i.imgur.com/S7fDY80.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LeQnmCh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jDp0ZYy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Z4Ia5xL.jpg

4 to 1 in fighter aircraft.
5 to 1 in bombers
15 to 1 in training aircraft for US.
That means not only will they be able to defeat enemies in the air, they will also be able to easily make up their loses and train pilots up.

Equal in terms of tanks, but 11 times more transports, making logistics far more easier for US than for USSR.

Navy is not even a contest, Soviet numbers dont reach a hunded. US numbers are in thousands

And Vital resources are nowhere near competition.
4X the Coal that the USSR posesses.
5.5X the Iron that the USSR posesess.
8X the oil

I am sorry, but its no competition.
US can not only outproduce, but out-train USSR.
And that is US alone. Where are the other US Allies?




In what specifically?

Explained above pretty clearly


Do you even understand why the Yalta agreement was made to begin with? Feels like talking to a wall here.

And do you understand how stupid it is claiming that NATO is an agressive alliance?


The only fighting air force in Europe that could have fought the Soviet Union was the RAF. With a broken economy and plummeting industrial output, why would the British want to continue fighting?
Nope, not true. 4-1 and 5-1 odds against USSR in air conflict.
As writen above. RAF is 3X smaller than USAF. You greatly under-estimate them


Find me a post where I said something like this: " aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it"
I don't speak using such a clumsy syntax and exaggerated claims. Moreover, you completely disregarded one of my previous posts when I referred to the naval and aeral asset allocation of NATO countries. Re-read it.

You made a claim that NATO alliance expanding diplomaticaly, to countries willing to become members, is an agressive action. While at the same time, claiming that invading a country in order to make it obedient and serve as live shield is normal everyday ocurence, and in no way agressive.


There is an abyssmal difference between being aggressive and being stupid/incoherent.

Hitler was agressive. Odds were against him but he attacked. Thats how agressive countries and people work.
They dont calculate or wait. They use any advantage they can imidiately.


Substantiate this claim please?
Tbilisi today is much less Russophobic than during the days of Saakhashvili, it has stopped trying to join NATO.
Poroshenko yielded to Merkel's pressure to engage the Novorussians in peace talks last week. Any possible agreement stemming from this will most likely entail Ukraine staying out of NATO.

The deployment of rapid response force to eastern NATO members.
I doubt that. What is Russia going to do when Ukraine signs it? Invade it again? It is clear to Ukrainians and Ukrainian leadership that they are not safe outside of NATO.

Political rhetoric might have changed in Georgia. People still think the same.


Georgia today has much more economic and diplomatic contacts with Russia, even if the Abkhazian and South Ossetian dossiers remain unresolved. Ukraine won't be categorically exceptional, seeing as Kiev depends economically on Russia.


Which it will actively seek to change. Just stay and watch.

Two different things.


There's a reason why Georgians greatly dislike Saakashvili today. Politicians only represent national interests occasionally.

And he wanted to join NATO because..... NATO would pay him money?
Substantiate.


This reeks of typical American-prism disingenuity.
An intervention in Syria would have transformed the country into a worse version of Lybia, it wouldn't have haltered anyhow the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS changed name two months ago, get informed), and would have only subsumed the region in further anarchy.


How? Only Reason ISIS gained support is because Syrians feel abbandoned by the world, and thus turn to those who actualy are willing to do something.
Intervention in Syria would have ended the war in 3 weeks with FSA on the front.
Now the FSA is dead, there is no moderates thank to Russia, and any choice is between 2 equal evils.


There are no "moderate" rebels now, nor there have ever been. Unless you considered heart-eating mercenaries like the kind of the now marginal Free Syrian Army to be somehow "moderate".


One such event. Compared to widespread rape and persecution, coupled with indiscriminate bombing of cities by Assad is nothing.
-------


You never ever once give a single source for one to look into what you claim, and your prism is so off the reality in the terrain, that you actually think NATO's main activity today, is opposing Russia.


You never asked.
Now you asked and I gave it to you.
Did you offer any?

[Tacitus]

And they could have signed agreement with Georgia within a day. What is Russia going to do then, attack a NATO member?
So its obvious they didnt. Georgians could have wanted, but that is their own right.

And how exactly did things go in Libya? Major war was prevented, it lasted a few weeks and no great casualties were sustained.
Is Syria how Libya should have turned out to be?

Roots? Maybe. But without a war that last years and anger that is acumulated ISIS couldnt have gotten any type of support from anyone.

Just because Libya is out of the news cycle doesn't mean it's still not a poor state:

http://original.antiwar.com/jesse_franzblau/2014/06/09/libya-a-cautionary-tale/

http://theweek.com/article/index/267003/how-hillary-clintons-smart-power-turned-libya-into-a-dumpster-fire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/libyan-parliament-refuge-greek-car-ferry

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2014/09/10/Battle-for-Benghazi-could-break-up-Libya/

And before the NATO's intervention in Libya, Qaddafi was within 48 hours of entering Benghazi and crushing the rebellion. A drawn-out civil war wasn't about to happen.

One of the reasons the Syria conflict has dragged out because of tacit US support of the "moderate" rebels via training in neighboring countries as well as arms shipments.

[RandoBloom]

Just because Libya is out of the news cycle doesn't mean it's still not a poor state:

http://original.antiwar.com/jesse_franzblau/2014/06/09/libya-a-cautionary-tale/

http://theweek.com/article/index/267003/how-hillary-clintons-smart-power-turned-libya-into-a-dumpster-fire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/libyan-parliament-refuge-greek-car-ferry

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2014/09/10/Battle-for-Benghazi-could-break-up-Libya/

And before the NATO's intervention in Libya, Qaddafi was within 48 hours of entering Benghazi and crushing the rebellion. A drawn-out civil war wasn't about to happen.

One of the reasons the Syria conflict has dragged out because of tacit US support of the "moderate" rebels via training in neighboring countries as well as arms shipments.

And executing large numbers of people.
Just like Assad will do if he wins.

Its not their duty to make Libya rich, just to stop bloodshed, and they managed to do that nicely.

[Tacitus]

And executing large numbers of people.
Just like Assad will do if he wins.

Its not their duty to make Libya rich, just to stop bloodshed, and they managed to do that nicely.

That's not the point at all. There's still bloodshed, there's still instability and uncertainty. If another civil war happens (with different actors), then what?

OK I get what you mean, I made a typo: I meant to say "in a poor state" not that it's financially poor, like a "poor state."

[Empecinado]

And executing large numbers of people.
Just like Assad will do if he wins.

Its not their duty to make Libya rich, just to stop bloodshed, and they managed to do that nicely.

They managed to turn Lybia into a Mediterranean Afghanistan in continuos war with different armed bands killing each other. What a success.

[RandoBloom]

That's not the point at all. There's still bloodshed, there's still instability and uncertainty. If another civil war happens (with different actors), then what?

Its the point of everything. Low intensity fighting is not the same as war.
If war continued Islamists would come to Libya and fight Ghadafi

[ALSh]

Meanwhile Russia..

Russian strategic bombers reportedly practice nuclear missile strike against US
http://rt.com/usa/186084-russian-bombers-labrador-gertz/

[Tacitus]

Its the point of everything. Low intensity fighting is not the same as war.
If war continued Islamists would come to Libya and fight Ghadafi

There are Islamists in Libya fighting the current government. It's low scale right now, but has the potential to blow, which is what the articles I listed before implied.


Meanwhile Russia..

Russian strategic bombers reportedly practice nuclear missile strike against US
http://rt.com/usa/186084-russian-bombers-labrador-gertz/

Only days after the US announced military exercises with Ukraine for later in the month. :coffee:

http://www.army.mil/article/133063/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/us-ukraine-crisis-exercises-idUSKBN0GX23Q20140902

[RandoBloom]

There are Islamists in Libya fighting the current government. It's low scale right now, but has the potential to blow, which is what the articles I listed before implied.



Only days after the US announced military exercises with Ukraine for later in the month. :coffee:

http://www.army.mil/article/133063/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/us-ukraine-crisis-exercises-idUSKBN0GX23Q20140902

And how strong and what support do they have among Libyan people?
Close to none, they are a fringe group.
Thanks to the intervention
There are islamists in US and France, their existance doesnt prove anything.
Only the popular support for them does.

[mikhail]

I think NATO would be a much better organisation if they kicked out the USA (until the USA stops working against other societies of European heritage) and Turkey...

[Tacitus]

And how strong and what support do they have among Libyan people?
Close to none, they are a fringe group.
Thanks to the intervention
There are islamists in US and France, their existance doesnt prove anything.
Only the popular support for them does.

The Islamists in France and the US aren't actively trying to overthrow their government through force, these guys are. That's the difference.

I don't know whether they have much popular support or not, but their actions are not only alarming their neighbors, but the US as well.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/libyas-islamist-militias-claim-control-of-tripoli-1408955207

[Ars Moriendi]

I think NATO would be a much better organisation if they kicked out the USA (until the USA stops working against other societies of European heritage) and Turkey...

In that hypothetic case, it would quite likely become centered in London (Current setting is led by the US and the UK as Meyssan states). Specially since after the Treaty of Lancaster in 2012, the French military which is the most important in Continental Europe, has agreed to a joint command center and operational directives with the British. The Italian, German and Spanish Forces, although well-trained for immediate needs, have no power currently to project continental hegemony, like the post-2012 Franco-British Entente can.

[mikhail]

In that hypothetic case, it would quite likely become centered in London (Current setting is led by the US and the UK as Meyssan states). Specially since after the Treaty of Lancaster in 2012, the French military which is the most important in Continental Europe, has agreed to a joint command center and operational directives with the British. The Italian, German and Spanish Forces, although well-trained for immediate needs, have no power currently to project continental hegemony, like the post-2012 Franco-British Entente can.

In that case, I suppose the best thing that can happen is the disbandment of NATO. The UK and USA are the only states in NATO which posses their own nuclear weapons, and without either of them, NATO would be a rather defenceless organisation, but they are both in themselves nuisances of countries, and do not belong anywhere near this much international power, and therefore, the best option would be to disband NATO, arm Germany with nuclear weapons, and create a military alliance centred around Germany. At least, that is my opinion.

[Empecinado]

In that case, I suppose the best thing that can happen is the disbandment of NATO. The UK and USA are the only states in NATO which posses their own nuclear weapons, and without either of them, NATO would be a rather defenceless organisation, but they are both in themselves nuisances of countries, and do not belong anywhere near this much international power, and therefore, the best option would be to disband NATO, arm Germany with nuclear weapons, and create a military alliance centred around Germany. At least, that is my opinion.

France also has nuclear weapons and Spain has capacity to create them within several weeks.

[Ars Moriendi]

In that case, I suppose the best thing that can happen is the disbandment of NATO. The UK and USA are the only states in NATO which posses their own nuclear weapons, and without either of them, NATO would be a rather defenceless organisation, but they are both in themselves nuisances of countries, and do not belong anywhere near this much international power, and therefore, the best option would be to disband NATO, arm Germany with nuclear weapons, and create a military alliance centred around Germany. At least, that is my opinion.

The problem of creating any extra-Anglo military bloc centered in Germany, is that the country is filled with American military bases , and its own national defence forces are not in shape for large deployments (the post-war Germany was constrained, just like Japan was, to abandon any sizable military force).

In reality, a continental bloc would naturally tilt towards France, which is the 5th nuclear power of the world, and whose Navy and special forces (in spite of being weakened year after year), are still the most efficient in the Mediterranean. De Gaulle's plan was actually to subvert the post-Treaty of Rome European construct, from the very beginning led by American agents like Robert Schumann and Jean Monet, and attempt to transform it in a French-centered non-aligned (Cold war context) entity, built by sovereign states (communauté de patries in his words), not a federal union like the EU attempts to be.

Of course, as you know, De Gaulle was sacked in 1970, and every single President of France since then has been coopted by the Anglo-American hegemony, with the last 2 guys not even trying to hide the nature of what they're doing. At least Mitterrand tried to have some dignity...

[ALSh]

France also has nuclear weapons and Spain has capacity to create them within several weeks.

Do u have capacity to create the delivery system for them?

[mikhail]

France also has nuclear weapons and Spain has capacity to create them within several weeks.

Neither France nor Spain have been traditionally good "leader" countries.

[Ars Moriendi]

Neither France nor Spain have been traditionally good "leader" countries.

I don't really think so.
Spain's hegemony over Europe, from the ascension of Charles V in the 1510s to the throne till the Battle of Rocroi in the 1650s (specific year escapes me), was on overall a pretty good period for Europe. It was the age of the Renaissance, the age when military warfare was made professional (Spain being a primer innovator), and an era were Protestantism was kept at bay, albeit not completely squashed and restricted to Northern Europe.

The French main era, which was broadly speaking, the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV (1653 to 1774 if memory serves me right) were also a time of grand cultural development in art and science ( I think the first river to ocen canal dates from this era). Granted, France always struggled to create a coherent geopolitical bloc to counter the problem of post-1688 Britain (which was something Spain did better having an unified front in West Europe in Iberia and Flanders, and in Eastern Europe in Austria), and plenty of wars started during this era, I think most notably about the Devolution War or the War of Polish succession, were really clumsy moves in foreign policy. Still, it wasn't bad for the continent anyhow and the traditional society thrived just fine, even if increasingly challenged by the Enlightenment.

The British dominion, following Waterloo in 1815, and culminating more or less in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis was actually the era of strife for Europe. Revolutions became commonplace every few decades. The banking sector boomed and acquired more power than anyone, and the rise of Clausewitzian total kampf along with Republican corruption led to intrigue and ultimately catastrophy in 1914.


Yet, nobody today has a problem when people state that "Britain can be a leader", but do see a big problem when France or Spain are considered. Yes, the French and Spanish situation is far from ideal, and they won't be a credible source of non-alignment unless structural changes and long term strategies are applied, but there is no reason to slash them off right of the bat, as if they were incompetent naturally. After all, their respective eras of dominance were longer than the combined British and American days we still live in.

[Bloodnigger]

They managed to turn Lybia into a Mediterranean Afghanistan in continuos war with different armed bands killing each other. What a success.

Don't get me started on Qaddafi. If anything, the Libya debacle shows that the western world has lost it's ability to tell right from wrong completely.

[Empecinado]

Do u have capacity to create the delivery system for them?

We already have missiles especially built to carry nuclear warheads, self-propelled howitzers capable of carrying nuclear warheads and planes that with certain modifications could became vectors. Also capacity to build massively small atomic bombs, the so called tactical bombs (that can be thrown from fighter planes or cruise missiles).

And the material would not be a problem either, we are the second European power on uranium mines (and one of the countries with highest reserves of uranium in the world), we have 8 nuclear power stations and a plant of uranium enrichment . Spain possesses, in addition, a factory of nuclear fuel, a reserve of plutonium obtained from the different nuclear reactors that are working in the country and a center of storage of radioactive residues of half and a low activity.

Besided that, at present Spain possesses a bomb with a destructive power similar to the nuclear ones. It is launched in parachute and destroys everything within 1 km around. It is made here and was invented by a Spanish aeronautical engineer, only USA and some another country have it. This bomb works from a deflagration of a fuel similar to the kerosene, it comes from a chemical conventional combustion but at higher temperatures.

[Ars Moriendi]

Don't get me started on Qaddafi. If anything, the Libya debacle shows that the western world has lost it's ability to tell right from wrong completely.

To be honest, I don't think this was short-sightedness or clumsiness as much as it was sheer cruelty and will to crush an opponent who was approaching a dangerously healthy instrument: A pan-African currency based strictly on gold.

When you look at the lobbyists that plague Washington, London and Brussels, you really can't be surprised by what the US and proxies are doing. Just sheer vilany, along with a significant input from a certain ethnic community that must no be named, and from a certain network of interests that have ravaging Europe since the days of the French Revolution. Of course, you can try to signal them and be ridiculed as a conspiracionist.

[Bloodnigger]

Revolutions became commonplace every few decades. The banking sector boomed and acquired more power than anyone, and

In the end, this is what it comes down too and why I am so opposed to protestantism/the stripping down of religious morality and ethics to the bare materialistic level. And this is also why russia today is seen with more sympathy by some disaffected europeans (and increasing number of americans) since the more traditional southern part of europe is currently in crisis and unable to mount any sort of opposition.

Clausewitzian barbarism is not the cause but the end effect of this. Russia, although backwards (or probably exactly because of that) largely escaped this phenomenon. Perhaps we should turn back and look at what we have caused instead of biting off our noses to spite the face.


To be honest, I don't think this was short-sightedness or clumsiness as much as it was sheer cruelty and will to crush an opponent who was approaching a dangerously healthy instrument: A pan-African currency based strictly on gold.

When you look at the lobbyists that plague Washington, London and Brussels, you really can't be surprised by what the US and proxies are doing. Just sheer vilany, along with a significant input from a certain ethnic community that must no be named, and from a certain network of interests that have ravaging Europe since the days of the French Revolution. Of course, you can try to signal them and be ridiculed as a conspiracionist.

I was talking about the way the world received the news. I was still at school at the time but the propaganda was pretty obvious. At least Iraq had the 9/11 craze feeding it on.

What the hell did Libya have to do with anything?

[Empecinado]

The problem of creating any extra-Anglo military bloc centered in Germany, is that the country is filled with American military bases , and its own national defence forces are not in shape for large deployments (the post-war Germany was constrained, just like Japan was, to abandon any sizable military force).

In reality, a continental bloc would naturally tilt towards France, which is the 5th nuclear power of the world, and whose Navy and special forces (in spite of being weakened year after year), are still the most efficient in the Mediterranean. De Gaulle's plan was actually to subvert the post-Treaty of Rome European construct, from the very beginning led by American agents like Robert Schumann and Jean Monet, and attempt to transform it in a French-centered non-aligned (Cold war context) entity, built by sovereign states (communauté de patries in his words), not a federal union like the EU attempts to be.

Of course, as you know, De Gaulle was sacked in 1970, and every single President of France since then has been coopted by the Anglo-American hegemony, with the last 2 guys not even trying to hide the nature of what they're doing. At least Mitterrand tried to have some dignity...

True, and very few people know that. Back then France and Spain tried to create an alliance to counter USA influence in Europe, and the biggest supporter of this plain (besides De Gaulle) was the general Muñoz Grandes, a veteran of the WW2 (and the only foreigner rewarded with the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the highest award made by Nazi Germany). He told textually to Franco (quoted from Pilar Urbano's book):


If we create an alliance with France, we could be defensively independent from the NATO and having a deterrent weapons own that allows us to be someone internationally relevant and respected, without resigning ourselves to the outcasts' paper to which the UNO condemns us. We have the second deposits of uranium in Europe. We have our Project I. In 1972 we will have the nuclear reactor of Vandellós ready to transform the uranium into plutonium. We have the French participation in technology and the capital . We have the coverage of safeguards that offers us Of Gaulle; and besides, we would be free of the controls of the International Atomic Energy Agency ".

This was supported also by Carrero Blanco, the succesor of Franco. But seems the CIA did not like that, and the day after he met with Kissinger when was near the USA ambassy he suffered a terrorist attack that killed him :rolleyes:

[Petalpusher]

Subtle yet effective propaganda


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DbX-pOA0bA

Poutine stopped precisely to avoid this kind of presentation.

[LightHouse89]

Why did Hitler lose ww2? Does God hate white people?

[LightHouse89]

NATO is a sick joke. What will America do with its transvestite Army now? play dress up in Germany, Italy and every other place they are stationed? I wouldnt take anything Liberal Elite JewSA says seriously.

[Ars Moriendi]

Subtle yet effective propaganda



Poutine stopped precisely to avoid this kind of presentation.

This Dutch media. Seems to be on the same level of the French mainstream now.

[Ars Moriendi]

Why did Hitler lose ww2? Does God hate white people?

What does this have to do with the essay?
And you should probably realize by now that God doesn't really play a part in human conflicts. It's our doing.

[StormBringer]

Why did Hitler lose ww2? Does God hate white people?

"Hitler never played Risk as a kid"

[Norman]

He had no Führer-Schein :laugh:

[Ars Moriendi]

If anyone needed confirmation of what's truly obvious, Poroshenko's desperation provides a curious testimony regarding who is really interested in the repression campaign in the Donbass:

--------------------------------------


Poroshenko: Ukraine's Battle with Russia Is 'America's War Too'

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/poroshenko-ukraines-battle-with-russia-is-americas-war-too/380434/

http://cdn.thewire.com/media/img/upload/wire/2014/09/18/RTR46RGQ/lead_large.jpg

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to sustain their solidarity with his war-torn nation, telling a rare joint meeting of Congress that Ukraine's conflict with Russia was "America's war, too."

At times emotional and at times defiant, Poroshenko delivered a 40-minute address that painted the Ukraine-Russia war in stark terms and as part of "the global battle for democracy."

Poroshenko brought Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to tears with his first words as he thanked the Congress for its support against the aggression led by Vladimir Putin's Russia.


It's impossible to imagine how I am feeling right now – how symbolic is the unity of the United States Congress and solidarity with Ukraine.

This is exactly what Ukraine needs most right now – unity and solidarity, not only with the United States, the United States Congress, but with the whole world."

Boehner's decision to invite Poroshenko to become just the second Ukrainian president to speak in the House chamber was meant as a sharp rebuke of Putin.

But soon after thanking lawmakers, Poroshenko made clear that his country needed more.

Ukraine, he said, had been "brought to the brink of survival."

Without mentioning Putin by name, Poroshenko said Ukraine had been "stabbed in the back" and that Russia's annexation of Crimea earlier this year "was one of the most cynical acts of treachery in modern history."


I urge you not to let Ukraine stand alone in the face of this aggression."

Poroshenko recited a long list of European countries threatened by Russia and asked, "Who is the next?"

Arguing the world was "on the eve of a new Cold War," he said that the war that the young men of Ukraine were fighting against Russian-backed separatists was "not only Ukraine's war."


It is Europe's war, and it is America's war, too. It is a war for the free world. For the free world."

Lawmakers repeatedly interrupted Poroshenko with standing ovations, much as they do during presidential State of the Union addresses.

Poroshenko asked Congress to set up a special fund to support U.S. business investment in Ukraine and for other help to reform Ukraine's economy and justice systems.

While thanking the U.S. for the aid it had already sent, he said it was far from sufficient.


Blankets and night goggles are important, but one cannot win the war with a blanket. Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket."

Lastly, Poroshenko said Ukraine was ready to "extend the hand of peace to Russia" but that it would never accept the annexation of Crimea or any "dismemberment" of Ukraine.

"The free world must stand its ground," he said. "With America's help, it will."

Poroshenko may not have mentioned Putin's name, but Boehner directed his statement responding to his speech straight at the Russian leader. He also signaled support for granting Poroshenko's request for aid.


Today, Vladimir Putin and the world saw Republicans and Democrats stand in unity with President Poroshenko and his people’s aspirations for freedom, democracy, and economic opportunity. Now we must answer his call for America’s leadership, not only in sentiment, but in action. We can start by imposing tougher sanctions, providing military and intelligence assistance, and breaking Russia’s energy stranglehold on Europe."

Poroshenko heads to the White House later Thursday for a meeting with President Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------

He made me smirk when he referred to the "free world" twice in a row. Sad man.

[Ars Moriendi]

Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions
Iran Starts New Cooperation Plans with Russians, Chinese to Fight Back Sanctions


More news on the growing agreement between China, Russia and Iran. The Chinese Navy has begun arriving to the Persian Gulf. Considering the largest part of NATO's naval and aereal assets has been moved to the Pacific and Indian Ocean, this is a development of paramount importance, and I do recommend you take a look here:

-------------------------

The PetroYuan Cometh: China Docks Navy Destroyer In Iran’s Strait Of Hormuz Port

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-21/petroyuan-cometh-china-docks-navy-destroyer-irans-strait-hormuz-port

http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Syria-Russia-China-and-Iran-e1410232385686.jpg

Since China fired its first ‘official’ shot across the Petrodollar bow a year ago (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-21/china-fires-shot-across-petrodollar-bow-shanghai-futures-exchange-may-price-crude-oi), there has been an increasing groundswell of de-dollarization across the world’s energy trade (despite Washington’s exclamations of ‘isolated’ non-dollar transactors).

The rise of the PetroYuan has not been far from our headlines in the last year, with China increasingly leveraging its rise as an economic power and as the most important incremental market for hydrocarbon exporters, in the Persian Gulf and the former Soviet Union, to circumscribe dollar dominance in global energy – with potentially profound ramifications for America’s strategic position.

And now, as AP reports, for the first time in history, China has docked a Navy Destroyer in the Southern Iranian port of Bandar-Abbas – right across the Straits of Hormuz from ‘US stronghold-for-now’ Bahrain and UAE.

The rise of the PetroYuan has not been far from our headlines in the last year:


China Fires Shot Across Petrodollar Bow: Shanghai Futures Exchange May Price Crude Oil Futures In Yuan (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-21/china-fires-shot-across-petrodollar-bow-shanghai-futures-exchange-may-price-crude-oi)

Guest Post: From PetroDollar To PetroYuan – The Coming Proxy Wars (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-31/guest-post-petrodollar-petroyuan-%E2%80%93-coming-proxy-wars)

The Rise Of The Petroyuan And The Slow Erosion Of Dollar Hegemony (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-05/rise-petroyuan-and-slow-erosion-dollar-hegemony)

And now, as AP reports (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chinese-destroyer-docks-iran-visit-25654474), for the first time in history, China has docked a Navy Destroyer in a Southern Iranian port of Bandar-Abbas – right across the Straits of Hormuz from ‘US stronghold-for-now’ Bahrain and UAE.

Adm. Hossein Azad, naval base chief in the southern port of Bandar Abbas, said the four-day visit that began Saturday saw the two navies sharing expertise in the field of marine rescue.

“On the last day of their visit while leaving Iran, the Chinese warships will stage a joint drill in line with mutual collaboration, and exchange of marine and technical information particularly in the field of aid and rescue,” said Azad.

The report said the destroyer was accompanied by a logistics ship, and that both were on their way to the Gulf of Aden as a part of an international mission to combat piracy.

…

Last year a Russian naval group docked in the same port on its way back from a Pacific Ocean mission:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09-overflow/20140921_china1_0.jpg


The move is also seen part of off efforts by Iran to strike a balance among foreign navies present in the area near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the passageway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped.

U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is based in nearby Bahrain, on the southern coast of the Gulf.

* * *

Here’s why it matters…


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09-overflow/20140921_china_0.jpg


* * *

As we concluded previously, (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-05/rise-petroyuan-and-slow-erosion-dollar-hegemony)


History and logic caution that current practices are not set in stone. With the rise of the “petroyuan,” movement towards a less dollar-centric currency regime in international energy markets—with potentially serious implications for the dollar’s broader standing—is already underway.

As China has emerged as a major player on the global energy scene, it has also embarked on an extended campaign to internationalise (http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Economics/0912bp_subacchi_huang.pdf) its currency (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/2/renminbi%20monetary%20system%20prasad/02_renminbi_monetary_system_prasad.pdf). A rising share of China’s external trade is being denominated and settled in renminbi; issuance of renminbi-denominated financial instruments is growing. China is pursuing a protracted process of capital account liberalisation essential to full renminbi internationalisation, and is allowing more exchange rate flexibility for the yuan. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) now has swap arrangements with over thirty other central banks—meaning that renminbi already effectively functions as a reserve currency.

Chinese policymakers appreciate the “advantages of incumbency” the dollar enjoys; their aim is not for renminbi to replace dollars, but to position the yuan alongside the greenback as a transactional and reserve currency. Besides economic benefits (e.g., lowering Chinese businesses’ foreign exchange costs), Beijing wants—for strategic reasons—to slow further growth of its enormous dollar reserves. China has watched America’s increasing propensity to cut off countries from the U.S. financial system as a foreign policy tool, and worries about Washington trying to leverage it this way; renminbi internationalisation can mitigate such vulnerability. More broadly, Beijing understands the importance of dollar dominance to American power; by chipping away at it, China can contain excessive U.S. unilateralism.

China has long incorporated financial instruments into its efforts to access foreign hydrocarbons. Now Beijing wants major energy producers to accept renminbi as a transactional currency—including to settle Chinese hydrocarbon purchases—and incorporate renminbi in their central bank reserves. Producers have reason to be receptive. China is, for the vastly foreseeable future, the main incremental market for hydrocarbon producers in the Persian Gulf and former Soviet Union. Widespread expectations of long-term yuan appreciation make accumulating renminbi reserves a “no brainer” in terms of portfolio diversification. And, as America is increasingly viewed as a hegemon in relative decline, China is seen as the preeminent rising power. Even for Gulf Arab states long reliant on Washington as their ultimate security guarantor, this makes closer ties to Beijing an imperative strategic hedge. For Russia, deteriorating relations with the United States impel deeper cooperation with China, against what both Moscow and Beijing consider a declining, yet still dangerously flailing and over-reactive, America. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/63132838-732d-11e1-9014-00144feab49a.html#axzz371LBrDQH)

For several years (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/63132838-732d-11e1-9014-00144feab49a.html#axzz371LBrDQH), China has paid for some of its oil imports from Iran with renminbi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17988142); in 2012, the PBOC and the UAE Central Bank set up a $5.5 billion currency swap, setting the stage for settling Chinese oil imports from Abu Dhabi (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2012/01/19/china-tiptoes-into-petrodollar-recycling/) in renminbi—an important expansion of petroyuan use in the Persian Gulf. The $400 billion Sino-Russian gas deal that was concluded this year apparently provides for settling Chinese purchases of Russian gas in renminbi; if fully realised, this would mean an appreciable role forrenminbi in transnational gas transactions.

Looking ahead, use of renminbi to settle international hydrocarbon sales will surely increase, accelerating the decline of American influence in key energy-producing regions. It will also make it marginally harder for Washington to finance what China and other rising powers consider overly interventionist foreign policies—a prospect America’s political class has hardly begun to ponder.

[portusaus]

Russia and China should not be allowed to develop. Both states should be splintered into pieces that can be administrated by foreign governments, notably Germany and Japan.

[Ars Moriendi]

Russia and China should not be allowed to develop. Both states should be splintered into pieces that can be administrated by foreign governments, notably Germany and Japan.

So they should be turned into occupied States administered by other occupied States? Because that's basically what both Germany and Japan are.
Would be funny, double-occupied countries. Won't happen anyway, but still humourous.

[portusaus]

So they should be turned into occupied States administered by other occupied States? Because that's basically what both Germany and Japan are.
Would be funny, double-occupied countries. Won't happen anyway, but still humourous.

In this scenario they (G+J) would no longer be occupied states.

[Ars Moriendi]

In this scenario they (G+J) would no longer be occupied states.

Not likely to happen this decade, nor the next at least.

Specially for Japan, I doubt there is enough critical mass for a national rebirth, and the country will only get weaker and weaker over time, thanks to the deadly cocktail of fiat currency, low birth rates and complete consumerism so proudly provided by the US and the West.

Only the complete downfall of the West, specially of the United States and the United Kingdom (+maybe also requiring the weakening of Commonwealth States) will allow Europe and Japan any chance to become independent poles of development.

Yet, that's all too vaporous and abstract, I prefer to stick to today and now. And the question today and now, is if NATO will be able to crush the countries resisting its rule, or if it will be repelled.

[Ars Moriendi]

While the Western sanctions remain place, following a statement from Angela Merkel that they're likely to remain in place for a while; the Russian government has announced that the contractor for the planner bridge that will connect Crimea (now belonging to Russia), with Krasnodar will be selected shortly.

The bridge's construction would take about 3 years and be open to traffic by 2018.

Contractor for Crimea bridge construction to be chosen within month
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/751874

http://videocdn.itar-tass.com/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20140929/1063352.jpg
ASTRAKHAN, September 29. /ITAR-TASS/. The Russian government will decide within a month on a contractor company to build a bridge across the Kerch Strait, Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov said.

“The Russian government is considering the issue. A decision will be taken within a month,” Sokolov told reporters.
The chief of the Russian federal road agency Rosavtodor, Roman Starovoit, said on Monday that talks are held with seven leading companies, including foreign ones, competing to be a contractor.

“For the present, Stroitransgaz more than others pays attention to the participation in the project,” Starovoit said.

There is no government decision yet, he said, adding that a document may be ready within a month.
Feasibility study of the project is not completed yet, but preparation of the territory is underway, as sappers examine the area, and engineering study goes on, the agency chief said.

The maximum cost of the project till 2019, including design and study work, totals 228.3 billion rubles (around $6 billion).
The length of the crossing will total 19 km. It will consist of sections - a six-km bridge across the channel, 6.5 km of sections across the Tuzla land area, the dike and 6.5 km across the strait. The project also includes construction of railway and highway infrastructure on the side of the Krasnodar Territory and on the Crimean peninsula.

The bridge is planned to be built before 2018

Rosavtodor is in charge of the project implementation.

[Ars Moriendi]

Iran and Russia continue deepening their ties:

--------------------

Iran, Russia Finalizing Contract to Construct 2 New N. Power Plants
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930728000798

http://media.farsnews.com/media/Uploaded/Files/Images/1393/06/05/13930605000495_PhotoI.jpg

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi announced on Monday that Tehran and Moscow are taking the final steps in preparing a deal on the construction of two more nuclear power plants in the Southern Iranian port city of Bushehr.

"The capacity of each of the two power plants whose construction is under negotiation by Iran and Russia now will be 1,000-megawatt," Salehi said on Monday.

The Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) further added that one of the power plants will be built in the current Iranian year (ends March 20, 2015) and the construction of the second one will start after two years.

Salehi has on different occasions announced that Iran is ready to continue its mutual cooperation with Russia in peaceful nuclear energy.

Salehi had first announced on February 3 that Iran is in talks with Russia on the construction of new nuclear power plants to produce 4,000 megawatts of electricity.

On January 16, Zarif said he had exchanged views with senior Russian officials on the construction of new nuclear power plants in Iran during his visit to Moscow.

In March, Russia's Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation and the AEOI reached an agreement to construct at least two more nuclear power plants in Bushehr.

Under the agreement, the new facilities will be built next to the first unit of the Bushehr nuclear power plant and each will have the capacity to produce at least 1,000 megawatts of electricity.

The Islamic Republic signed the Bushehr contract with Russia in 1995 and the nuclear power plant reached its full capacity by August 2012. It is located about 18 kilometers South of the provincial capital.

Last month, AEOI Spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi announced that Iran will start building two new nuclear power plants in Bushehr this year.

"We reached agreements in our (recent) talks with the Rosatom (the Russian contractor) Chief on the construction of two power plants with a minimum capacity of 1,000-megawatt and equipped with water sweetening systems beside Bushehr's first nuclear power plant," Kamalvandi said.