b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 1 Ex-NSA Director, US Intelligence Veterans Write Open Letter To Merkel To
Avoid All-Out Ukraine War
Warning Merkel on Russian ‘Invasion’ Intel
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/01/warning-merkel-on-russian-
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir
Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the
Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can "shock and awe."
In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing
eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need
to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best
available "proof" of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a
major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to
approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor
is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add
that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even
Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling. | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 2 MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the
unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an
opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September
4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian "invasion
" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather,
the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind
used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no
credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no
credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on
Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be
appropriately suspicions of charges made by the US State Department and
NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own
senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent
activity in the Ukraine, as "a continuation of what’s been taking place for
months now … it’s not really a shift."
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his
administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war
, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish
State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr
. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on "
intelligence" that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on,
intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of
hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased
significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that
this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious
skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that
Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was
abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as
Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: "Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know."
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have
considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of
satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence.
Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a
very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly,
they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN
on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts
were "increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence" and
told him flatly, "Powell’s presentation does not come close" to justifying
war. We urged Mr. Bush to "widen the discussion … beyond the circle of
those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason
and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic."
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir
Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the
Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can "shock and awe."
In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing
eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need
to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best
available "proof" of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a
major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to
approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor
is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add
that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even
Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in
Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine
would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a
February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in
Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns
was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s
strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of "fears that the issue could potentially split the
country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which
would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." Burns gave his cable the
unusual title, "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES," and
sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at
their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that "
Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO."
Just yesterday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook
page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested,
the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s
favorite pick to become prime minister after the February 22 coup d’etat
in Kiev. "Yats is the guy," said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation
with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is
the same conversation in which Nuland said, "Fuck the EU."
Timing of the Russian "Invasion"
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that
Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in
southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation.
But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official
government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the
ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the
government’s portrayal.
According to the "press service of the President of Ukraine" on August 18,
Poroshenko called for a "regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in
the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do
the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued
army offensives," said Poroshenko, adding, "we need to consider a new
military operation in the new circumstances."
If the "new circumstances" meant successful advances by Ukrainian government
forces, why would it be necessary to "regroup," to "rearrange" the forces?
At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of
successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces.
According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to
take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and
poor leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made
excuse for this was to be found in the "Russian invasion." That is precisely
when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York
Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that "the Russians
are coming." (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists
promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local
support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major
population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been
pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield
intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and
artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better
led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists
need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a
ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done
at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-
out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no
intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support
of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the
same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst
(ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (
ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned) | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 3 傻逼奴才又被卖了
In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-
out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no
intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support
of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the
same thing. | A*****a
发帖数: 52743 | 4 ragtag army, hehe
support
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: 傻逼奴才又被卖了
: In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-
: out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no
: intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support
: of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the
: same thing.
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 5 “The US and the EU want what they thought they had, and still might get.
They want low-level guerrilla war through proxies. They don't want open,
full-on war. They want this to take as long for Russia as Afghanistan is
taking for us, and for that matter,as it did for the Russians 30 years ago.
That way maximum damage can be done to potential rivals Russia and the EU.
The EU hasn't yet figured out that the US is their enemy too, strategically.
Or if they have, they haven't figured out how to act accordingly.” | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 6 乌合之众
【在 A*****a 的大作中提到】
: ragtag army, hehe
:
: support
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 7 Vladimir Putin talks nuclear power as he tells the West to back off over
Ukraine
http://www.news.com.au/world/vladimir-putin-talks-nuclear-power
President Vladmir Putin has put the nightmare firmly back on the agenda in a
thinly veiled threat to the west to “back off” over Ukraine.
This morning, Prime Minister Tony Abbott labelled Russia’s escalating and
“open” invasion into Ukraine as “war”.
But he was not only person using fighting words. At a youth forum on Friday,
Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threat was simple.
“I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear
nations. This is a reality, not just words.”
It’s the first time in more than 25 years that Moscow has raised the
spectre of nuclear war. The difference this time is that its tanks are
already pouring over its western borders.
“A great war arrived at our doorstep, the likes of which Europe has not
seen since World War II,” Ukraine’s Defence Minister Valeriy Geletey wrote
on Facebook overnight, warning of “tens of thousands of deaths”.
Putin appears to agree.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica reports Putin has told the outgoing European
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: “If I want, I take Kiev in two
weeks.”
NATO is taking the war of words seriously: This week it will discuss the
creation of a “rapid response” military force tasked with being ready to
instantly respond to any invasion of any member state. | l*****7
发帖数: 8463 | 8 These guys are very cautious about NATO direct involvement, which could lead
to an all-out, full-scale war that will have no end in sight till the
complete distruction of the whole world. | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 9 西方没蛋全面开战，只想让苏联 Exsanguination or bleeding to death
lead
【在 l*****7 的大作中提到】
: These guys are very cautious about NATO direct involvement, which could lead
: to an all-out, full-scale war that will have no end in sight till the
: complete distruction of the whole world.
| b******a
发帖数: 1337 | 10 和老俄子打全面战争，即使是美国也要考虑自己这个国家以后是否还存在的可能。
所以战后历届美国总统都不愿和老毛子直接对打。连 Mccain 这样的好战分子都不敢
叫嚣出兵。 |
|
