Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Bilderberg split between Europe and US Bilderberg members ? ( June 12 , 2014 ) Is this why everything seems to be going stark raving mad at the same time ? Huge Bilderberg Split, Nuclear War – Greg Hunter With Daniel Estulin – The True Story Of Bilderberg 2014 ...... Also , tying things together - an examination of connections between President Petro Poroshenko and the CIA ..... OBAMA’S ATTEMPT AT INTIMIDATING RUSSIA: DISPATCHING B-2 STEALTH BOMBERS TO EUROPE

FWIW...... From Info Wars....

Bilderberg expert Daniel Estulin joins Greg Hunter to give us the true story of the Bilderberg 2014 meeting including bombshell news that a huge split exists between US Bilderbergers and European Bilderbergers due to the European’s support of Russia. Estulin warns that Russia has drawn an imaginary red line in the Ukraine, one that if NATO or the US crosses, all out nuclear war could be the result as Russia’s very survival is at stake.


Poroshenko met with American delegation headed by Director of the National Service of Covert Operations
Is Ukraine's President Poroshenko Taking Orders from the CIA?
Image Credits: Michał Józefaciuk via Wikimedia Commons

While the death toll among civilians is growing in Ukraine the United States continues its policy aimed at escalation of the conflict. It offers all kinds of support to Kiev including military aid. Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said the cooperation is going to get a new impetus with instructors sent to beef up the modernization efforts of Ukraine’s armed forces. 
The US Congress is to pass a bill to provide $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine. The bill authorizes an additional $100 million to bolster security cooperation among the United States, European Union and countries in Central and Eastern Europe and further authorizes the President to provide defense help and additional security assistance to Ukraine and other countries in the region. According to Igor Dolgov, Ukraine’s Ambassador to NATO, the alliance is to provide logistics and gratuitously train Ukrainian personnel. It will also intensify intelligence collecting efforts against Russia including AWACS aircraft. Anders Fogh Rasmussen says no military actions against Russia are planned, but the facts tell otherwise.
Having won the presidential election on May 25, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko secretly met with strange American delegation headed by the Director of the National Service of Covert Operations (the CIA’s National Clandestine Service) Frank Archibald, which also included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current – Raymond Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA agent in the Polish intelligence Agency and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who is working as senior Vice President of the insurance company Brower. Poroshenko and Archibald signed a paper entitled an “Agreement on Military Cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine”…
The composition of the U.S. delegation, which is rather mysterious at first glance, is explained by the fact that the professional diplomats would not understand at all what it was about, and by the fact that the U.S. Congress would not authorize the usual military cooperation agreement which involves sending military trainers and direct participation of American troops in the armed conflict in Ukraine.
However, the National Service of Covert Operations can bypass the lawmakers through channels such as private insurance company Brower, belonging to the CIA. It can provide large-scale military aid to other countries using its operatives and employees of private military contractors. Aside from the military cooperation with the United States,   the Ukrainian government signed an agreement to revive the concept of LITPOLUKRBRIG (the Lithuanian – Polish – Ukrainian Brigade) to make it reach operational status. The brigade is a planned multinational formation  consisting of units from the Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian army units. An agreement on its creation was signed on November 16, 2009.
In his remarks on “anti-terrorist operation” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Russia Today that he felt U.S. officials were quick to blame his nation for everything going awry in Ukraine and to insist Moscow can unilaterally solve it all. Lavrov said that while those in Ukraine’s east and south who defiantly oppose the Kiev-based government are “not puppets” of the Kremlin, such a characterization would describe the relationship between Ukraine’s leadership in Kiev and the United States. “Americans have, I think, overwhelming influence,” he said. “They act in a much more open way, without any scruples; compared to the Europeans … You cannot avoid the impression that they are running the show very much, very much.” It’s worth to note that Lugansk was shelled the very same day US Assistant Secretary of Defense Derek Chollet visited Kiev. According to the sources coming from Ukrainian special services, the US official was immediately involved in the planning of the punitive operation.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the process of the alliance expansion to the East will continue.
NATO is using the Ukrainian crisis as a smoke screen for a war plan and the US has already decided to permanently station troops in Eastern Europe”, says Harvard-educated professor Francis Boyle, a US-based expert on Russia.
NATO leaders are poised to meet in September to debate the initiative to permanently base additional forces in Eastern Europe. “This is just a trial balloon, but in reality it is a war plan unfolding here,” Boyle told RIA Novosti on May 8. “The Ukrainian crisis had been planned as well as the war. There was a war plan, there was a war game. Then it was revised and implemented.” “We are seeing steps now being taken that were planned in advance,” Boyle said, adding, “This is all being used as a pretext to bring NATO military forces, as Rasmussen said, by air, sea, and land right up to the borders of the Russian Federation. They are clearly going ahead with this.”
Boyle extolled Russia for trying to exhaust all diplomatic means possible to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and accused the United States and NATO of deliberate escalation.
So, that the US won’t be provided with any more pretexts for hostile provocative maneuvers that they are going to take in any event,” Boyle asserted. The professor emphasized that Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a very difficult and dangerous situation and needs to be very careful. “The US has already resumed the Cold War with the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine that the United States sponsored, controlled, and directed,” he said.
In his inauguration speech on June 7 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko promised to use his diplomatic experience to accomplish the goal of reaching an international security agreement,
I will use all my diplomatic experience to ensure the signing of an international treaty that would replace the Budapest memorandum. Such a treaty should provide reliable guarantees of peace and security, up to military support in case of a threat to [Ukraine's] territorial integrity. Any aggressor at the Ukrainian border must remember this biblical adage: he who comes with a sword will be defeated by a sword.”
If the stated goal comes true than the need for formal membership of Ukraine in NATO will lose relevance – the country will host NATO forces without formal accession to the alliance.
Rasmussen used the Ukrainian crisis as a pretext for calling on NATO members to increase military expenditure. Pursuing the goal of convincing the NATO member-states to hike military spending, Washington sides with Poland and the Baltic States who raise alarm over the alleged Russian threat.  Obama rushed to reassure them. On his tour of Eastern Europe he made his message to the NATO countries in the region clear:
“As allies we have a solemn duty, a binding treaty obligation to defend your territorial integrity and we will. We stand together now and forever, for your freedom is ours. Poland will never stand alone. But not just Poland, Estonia will never stand alone, Latvia will never stand alone, Lithuania will never stand alone, Romania will never stand alone. These are not just words, they are unbreakable commitments.”
The President has also pledged a billion dollars’ worth of extra military aid for Eastern Europe’s NATO members. And he’s agreed to expand non-lethal aid to Ukraine’s new government, so it now includes items like night-vision equipment and body armor. And he was clear too that Ukraine could also reply on American moral support:
“I met with President-elect Poroshenko this morning and I told him that just as free nations offered support and assistance to Poland in your transition to democracy, we stand with Ukrainians now, Ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself and by itself.”
On March 4 NATO decided to step up its military activities.  The U.S. sent 12 F-16 fighter jets to Poland on the Polish government’s request. The U.S. also agreed to send four F-15 jets to Lithuania. There is a U.S. Air Force presence in the Baltic States because of NATO air-patrol responsibilities, which rotate in four-month intervals between member countries. US warships moved to the Baltic and Black seas. In June the defense chiefs from Germany, Denmark and Poland, which work together in NATO’s Multinational Corps Northeast, told NATO counterparts they had agreed to upgrade the readiness of the corps’ headquarters in Szczecin, Poland, a NATO official said. The headquarters is likely to get more staff and equipment so it could take command of exercises and potentially any reinforcement effort needed in Eastern Europe. However, Poland, which wants large numbers of NATO troops stationed permanently on its soil, said beefing up the headquarters was not enough. “We don’t want the strengthening of the command center to be seen as the only aspect of bolstering NATO presence in the east. We expect much more and we are talking about this,” Polish Defence Minister Tomasz Siemoniak told reporters in Brussels.
Deputy NATO Secretary Alexander Vershbow called for NATO strategy to be reviewed.
The US President wants Congress to give him $5 billion blank check to fund contingencies aboard. The new fund would be established for the purpose. The sum is to be added to the administration’s Pentagon budget request for the upcoming fiscal year inside what’s known as the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund. The money is to be spent of foreign wars and not be included into the Defense Department’s core budget.
Talking to West Point graduates Obama said the United States will lead the world for another one hundred years.  It looks more like mantra against the background of inflated public debt and rapid emergence of multipolar world. The Russia-China gas deal and the both countries’ planned switch to national currencies settlements, prospective payments in Russian national currency for European gas supplies and the tangible trend of BRICS moving to financial independence – all told it becomes evident the dollar’ status of global reserve currency is jeopardized.  Japan, the US loyal ally, has already expressed its wish to join the dollar boycott threatening the very system of US-led military alliances and shaking the very foundation of US global leadership.
Sheer inertia makes the United States continue to act like if it were the only global leader. For instance, Obama says the United States armed forces are unmatched in the world,
In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise – who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.
The issue of Ukraine was on the agenda of the highly secretive Bilderberg group holding its 62nd annual conference in Denmark from May 29 to June 1 in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year they talked about the concerted actions of the United States and the European Union in case Russian troops enter Ukraine and the readiness of the West for a world war.


    June 10, 2014
    Share It | Print This


    “This deployment of strategic bombers provides an invaluable opportunity to strengthen and improve interoperability with our allies and partners.”
    – Admiral Cecil Haney, commander, US Strategic Command on the deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to Europe.
    “Against stupidity, no amount of planning will prevail.”
    - Carl von Clausewitz
    Less than 24 hours after Ukraine’s new president Petro Poroshenko announced his determination to retake Crimea from Russia, US Admiral Cecil Haney confirmed that the US Air Force had deployed two B-2 stealth bombers to Europe to conduct military exercises. The addition of the multipurpose B-2, which is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, is intended to send a message to Moscow that the United States is prepared to provide backup for Ukraine’s fledgling government and to protect its interests in Central Asia. News of the deployment was reported in the Russian media, but was excluded by all the western news outlets.
    The B-2 announcement was preceded by an inflammatory speech by Poroshenko at the presidential “swearing in” ceremony in Kiev. In what some analysts have called a “declaration of war”, Poroshenko promised to wrest control of Crimea from Russia which annexed the region just months earlier following a public referendum that showed 90 percent support for the measure. Here’s part of what Poroshenko said:
    “The issue of territorial integrity of Ukraine is not subject to discussion…I have just sworn ‘with all my deeds to protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine,’ and I will always be faithful to this sacred promise…
    “Russia occupied Crimea, which was, is and will be Ukrainian soil…Yesterday, in the course of the meeting in Normandy, I told this to President Putin: Crimea is Ukraine soil. Period. There can be no compromise on the issues of Crimea, European choice and state structure…” (New York Times)
    On Thursday, the day before Poroshenko was sworn in, “President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron set a deadline for Russia to comply with its demands or face harsher economic sanctions that would be imposed by members of the G-7. Once again, the threat of new sanctions was largely ignored by the western media but was reported in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
    “To avoid even harsher sanctions.. Putin must meet three conditions: Recognize Petro Poroshenko’s election as the new leader in Kiev; stop arms from crossing the border; and cease support for pro-Russian separatist groups concentrated in eastern Ukraine.
    “If these things don’t happen, then sectoral sanctions will follow…”
    Obama said the G-7 leaders unanimously agree with the steps Cameron outlined.” (Haaretz)
    The United States is ratcheting up the pressure in order to widen the conflict and force Russian president Vladimir Putin to meet their demands. It’s clear that the threat of sanctions, Poroshenko’s belligerent rhetoric, and the steady buildup of military assets and troops in the region, that Obama and Co. still think they can draw Putin into the conflict and make him look like a dangerous aggressor who can’t be trusted by his EU partners. Fortunately, Putin has not fallen into the trap. He’s resisted the temptation to send in the tanks to put an end to the violence in Donetsk, Lugansk and Slavyansk. This has undermined Washington’s plan to deploy NATO to Russia’s western border, assert control over the “bridgehead” between Europe and Asia, and stop the further economic integration between Russia and the EU. So far, Putin has out-witted his adversaries at every turn, but there are still big challenges ahead, particularly the new threats from Poroshenko.
    If Poroshenko is determined to take Crimea back from Moscow, then there’s going to be a war. But there are indications that he is more pragmatic than his speeches would suggest. In a private meeting with Putin at the D-Day ceremonies in France, the Ukrainian president said he had a plan to “immediately stop the bloodshed”
    Here’s how Putin summarized his meeting with Poroshenko:
    “Poroshenko has a plan in this respect; it is up to him to say what kind of plan it is… I cannot say for sure how these plans will be implemented, but I liked the general attitude, it seemed right to me, so, if it happens this way, there will be conditions to develop our relations, in other areas, including economy.
    “It’s important to stop the punitive actions in the southeast without a delay. That’s the only way to create conditions for the start of a real process of negotiations with the supporters of federalization. No one has yet said anything concrete to the people (living in the southeast of Ukraine) and nothing practical has been offered to them. People there simply don’t understand how they’ll live in the future and what the parameters of the new Constitution will look like.” (Poroshenko tells Putin of plan to immediately stop bloodshed in Ukraine, Itar-Tass)
    If the report is accurate, then there’s reason to hope that Poroshenko is moving in Russia’s direction on most of the key issues which are; greater autonomy for the people in East Ukraine, Constitutional provisions that will protect them from future abuse by Kiev, and an immediate end to the violence. Putin has sought assurances on these issues from the very beginning of the crisis. Now it looks like he might get his way. Of course, it is impossible to know, since Poroshenko is sending mixed messages.
    So why is Poroshenko sounding so conciliatory in his private meetings with Putin, but so belligerent in public?
    It could be any number of things, but it probably has a lot to do with Monday’s scheduled tripartite meetings of representatives from the European Union, Ukraine and Russia. These meetings will have incalculable impact of Ukriane’s economic future. They will resolve the issues of price for future gas purchases as well as a plan for settling all previous claims. (Russia says that Ukraine owes $3.5 billion in back payments for natural gas.)
    On April 1, Gazprom cancelled Ukraine’s discount and raised the price of gas to 485.5 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters nearly doubling the rate of payment. (It had been $268.5 per 1,000 cubic meters) It is impossible to overstate the impact this will have Ukraine’s economy. Even Ukrainian hardline Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was candid in his dire assessment of the situation. He said, “I could have made a populist statement but it is not true. We cannot refrain from using Russian gas.”
    If Poroshenko sounds conciliatory, this is why.
    Putin refused to discuss the gas issue with the media, but implied that political developments in Ukraine would factor heavily into any decision by Gazprom.
    “Russia will be compelled to enact economic protection measures to defend its market if Ukraine signs the association agreement with the EU. “As soon as that accord is signed, we’ll start taking measures to defend our economy,” Putin said. (Itar-Tass)
    In other words, if Ukraine doesn’t play ball, it’s going to have to go-it-alone. Kiev cannot expect “most favored trade partner-status”, gas discounts, or other perks if they’re going to stab Moscow in the back and jump into bed with the EU. That’s just not the way things work. Putin is merely warning Poroshenko to think about what he’s about to do before taking the plunge. ( “Average gas prices for Ukrainian households began rising by more than 50 percent in May, and heating prices are expected to climb by about 40 percent, starting in July.” World Socialist Web Site)
    This is a much more important issue that most analysts seem to grasp. Many seem to think that IMF, EU and US loans and other assistance can buoy Ukraine’s sinking economy and restore it to health. But that’s a pipedream. In a “must read” report by the Brookings Institute, authors Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes spell it out in black and white, that is, that “Ukraine is a prize that neither Russia nor the West can afford to win.” Here’s a clip from the text:
    “It is clear to most observers that the West would not be able to defend Ukraine economically from a hostile Russia…The simple fact is that Russia today supports the Ukrainian economy to the tune of at least $5 billion, perhaps as much as $10 billion, each year…
    When we talk about subsidies, we usually think of Russia’s ability to offer Ukraine cheap gas — which it does when it wants to. But there are many more ways Russia supports Ukraine, only they are hidden. The main support comes in form of Russian orders to Ukrainian heavy manufacturing enterprises. This part of Ukrainian industry depends almost entirely on demand from Russia. They wouldn’t be able to sell to anyone else…
    If the West were somehow able to wrest full control of Ukraine from Russia, could the United States, the other NATO nations, and the EU replace Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine? The IMF, of course, would never countenance supporting these dinosaurs the way the Russians have. So the support would have to come in the way of cash transfers to compensate for lost jobs. How much are we talking about? The only known parallel for the amount of transfer needed is the case of German reunification. The transfer amounted to 2 trillion euros, or $2.76 trillion, over 20 years. If Ukraine has per capita income equal to one-tenth of Germany’s, then a minimum estimate is $276 billion to buy off the east. (In fact, since the population size of eastern Ukraine is larger than East Germany’s, this is an underestimate.) It is unthinkable that the West would pay this amount.” (Ukraine: A Prize Neither Russia Nor the West Can Afford to Win, Brookings)
    The authors go on to show that “a NATO-affiliated Ukraine — is simply impossible under any real-world conditions” because it assumes that Russia will either “become an enthusiastic EU and NATO member itself” (or) “will it return to being the bankrupt, dependent, and compliant Russia of the 1990s.” In other words, the Obama administration’s strategic objectives in Ukraine do not jibe with economic reality. The US cannot afford to win in Ukraine, that’s the bottom line. Even so, we are convinced the aggression will persist regardless of the presumed outcome. The train has already left the station.
    At the D-Day ceremonies, Putin and Poroshenko also met briefly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande although the content of their discussions was not revealed. Public support for the two leaders’ Ukraine policy is gradually withering as the fighting continues in the East without any end in sight. An article in the popular German newspaper Die Zeit indicates that elite opinion in Europe is gradually shifting and no longer sees Washington’s Ukraine policy as being in its interests.
    Here’s a brief summary from the WSWS: “It goes on to argue that Washington’s aggression is laying the foundations for a Chinese-Russian-Iranian axis that “would force the West to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy to secure its access to important but dwindling raw materials such as oil.” In opposition to this, the commentary insists that Germany’s independent interests lie “with preserving and deepening Europe’s relations with Russia,” while pursuing similar ties with Iran.” (D-Day anniversary: Commemorating the Second World War and preparing the Third, World Socialist Web Site)
    This is an important point and one that could put a swift end to US aggression in Ukraine. Washington’s objectives are at cross-purposes with those of the EU. The EU needs a reliable source of energy and one, like Russia, that will set its prices competitively without resorting to coercion or blackmail. Washington, on the other hand, intends to situate itself in this century’s most prosperous region, Eurasia, in order to control the flow of oil from East to West. This is not in Europe’s interests, but promises to be a source of conflict for the foreseeable future. Case in point: Just last week Bulgaria’s prime minister, Plamen Oresharski, “ordered a halt to work on Russia’s South Stream pipeline, on the recommendation of the EU. The decision was announced after his talks with US senators.”
    According to RT News, Oresharski stopped construction after meeting with John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday.
    McCain, commenting on the situation, said that “Bulgaria should solve the South Stream problems in collaboration with European colleagues,” adding that in the current situation they would want “less Russian involvement” in the project.
    “America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody it doesn’t like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing with the South Stream is that it doesn’t fit with the politics of the situation,” Ben Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT.” (Bulgaria halts Russia’s South Stream gas pipeline project, RT)
    Once again, we can see how US meddling is damaging to Europe’s interests.
    Western elites want to control the flow of gas and oil from East to West. This is why they’ve installed their puppet in Kiev, threatened to levy more sanctions on Moscow, and moved B-2 stealth bombers into the European theater. They are determined to succeed in their plan even if it triggers a Third World War.


    June 11, 2014
    Share It | Print This


    Ukraine’s volatility exacerbates the risk for the country’s 15 Soviet-style nuclear reactors, warn German experts. They demand more attention for the country where the world’s worst nuclear accident took place.

    Khmelnitskiy Atomkraftwerk Ukraine
    The recent news of a water shortage due to a broken pipeline affecting thousands in strife ravaged Eastern Ukraine spells trouble for the safety of the country's nuclear power plants.
    That's because the security and reliability of a country's critical infrastructure like its electrical power and water grid is essential to safely run nuclear reactors.
    "Once you have decided to operate a nuclear power plant or like in this case a nuclear reactor park, you must guarantee you don't have unstable social situations and you definitely can't have a war," Michael Sailer, chairman of the German Nuclear Waste Management Commission and member of the German Reactor Safety Commission, told DW.
    Potential for human error
    "We are talking about nuclear power plants that have a high risk even when they are constructed well and properly maintained," Sailer who also heads Freiburg-based environmental think tank Öko-Institut added. "And in the Ukraine we are talking about the additional problem that there is an increased potential for human error due to less motivated nuclear operators than elsewhere and the fact that the security features of these reactors are a lot weaker than those of modern reactors."