Connect with us

Latest

News

Putin warns US against delivering lethal arms to Ukraine

Lethal weapons to Ukraine will serve to worsen the situation.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

2,960 Views

For all the outrage over nazi groups marching in Charlottesville, Virginia or the recent triggered movement to remove all Confederate statues across America, the US government has no problem providing arms to nazi’s in Ukraine.

Assange exposed the US ‘hate nazi’s at home, love nazis abroad’ hypocrisy on twitter…

In the above Tweet, Assange has juxtaposed a neo-Nazi torch march in Kiev with the far-right torch march in  Charlottesville. Apart from the torches, it is clear that the Ukrainian fascists were far more equipped for violence as they were wearing bullet-proof combat gear and facial coverings.

Apart from this, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis got scant political coverage in the western media in spite of the fact that their actions included overthrowing a legitimate government as recognised by the United Nations and the installation of a fascist regime which continues to wage a war of aggression on the peoples of Donbass. This war  has included the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a press conference on the results of the BRICS summit that possible deliveries of US lethal weapons to Ukraine will not change the situation, but this may lead to an increase in the number of victims, provoke the use of military force in other territories.

“This [the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine] is the sovereign decision of the United States as to whom they sell arms or supply them to for free, and of the country that is the recipient of this aid. We cannot influence this process in any way. But there are general international rules and approaches – the supply of weapons to the conflict zone does not favor the pacification, but only aggravates the situation.” 

Putin said that, “there is one more thing to pay attention to — who is encouraging such ideas”.

“This is because the self-proclaimed republics have enough weapons, including those seized from the opposing side, from nationalist battalions. And if American weapons enter the conflict zone, it is difficult to say how the proclaimed republics will react — maybe they will send the weapons they have to other zones of conflict that are sensitive to those who create problems for them.”

Sputnik News reports…

On Thursday, during his visit to Kiev in honor of Ukraine’s Independence Day US Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that the US was “actively reviewing” the supply of “defensive lethal weapons” to Ukraine.

In recent weeks, US officials have floated Javelin anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft weapons among the kinds of “defensive” weapons that the US may send Kiev. At his press conference, Mattis confirmed that the US has already agreed to supply the country with an additional $175 million worth of non-lethal equipment and supplies, for a total of $750 million over the last three years.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also said that he would order the Foreign Ministry to submit a resolution on security of the OSCE mission in Ukraine to the UN Security Council (UNSC) if certain conditions are met.

“If to fulfill all the conditions, then, I think, it would contribute to the settlement of the problem in Ukraine’s southeast. The [Foreign] Minister [Sergey Lavrov] is currently here, so it is the order to the foreign ministry to introduce the relevant resolution to the UNSC,” Putin told reporters.

According to the Russian leader, the list of conditions include the ensuring of the OSCE staff’s security, the presence of the staff only at the disengagement line, pullout of heavy military equipment and involvement of the leadership of the self-proclaimed republics of Donbass to the process.

Putin added he supported the idea of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine in order to ensure the security of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission in the crisis-torn region of Donbass.

“I do not see anything bad in it. I have repeatedly stated that I also support the idea of arming the OSCE mission. However the OSCE itself refuses to provide its staff with arms, because it does not have both relevant staff and experience for such activities. In this context I consider the presence of UN peacekeepers, even not peacekeepers, but people who would ensure security of the OSCE mission, quite appropriate. I do not see anything bad in such developments. I consider that it would contribute to the settlement of the problem in Ukraine’s southeast,” Putin said.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
charlie
Guest
charlie

Take down that zionazi junta and its sponsors and funders…Soon Come..

7.62x54r
Guest
7.62x54r

No armed OSCE operatives, no UN ( NATO-lite ) should be in Ukraine. The issue will only be settled with the expulsion or likely destruction of the Ukrainian mercenary nazi battalions.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Am I missing something here? Normally I’m completely in agreement with Putin, but I fail to understand how having a pack of armed NATO thugs, and spies (OSCE) running around the Donbass contact line will in any way promote a peaceful outcome. Bought, and paid for by the US “Peace Enforcers” provided by the UN will also be a disaster. What’s going on?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

Yes since you think they have cold hands or an itch…it is useless to explain Ukraine to you. Take the Blue pill and wake up in the FAKE REALITY called THE MATRIX or take the Red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

No matter which pill I take or which hole I go down I’m certain to run into you. As for explaining Ukraine: You’re correct. I seriously doubt that anyone can explain Ukraine, but blaming it on The Masons, of all people, just doesn’t work for a rational mind.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater
bluewater
Guest
bluewater

comment image

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

I know, and I agree so what are we arguing about?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

I am not arguing my friend…Cheers

bluewater
Guest
bluewater
Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

Try the medicament known as “Block user” It works for me when you have timewasters.

BogSik
Guest
BogSik

try khazarian mafia preparing ground for homecoming (neo-zion) and it all looks clear😆
Apart from hamerica (anglo-zion) and germans, Israel is a major player in training and support of ukro-naziz. How odd?!
These formations participated in German genocide of khazarians! 😈
But to them, Ukraine with south eastern Poland is the REAL HOMELAND of the khazarian tribe and it’s from there that zion came out, now a failed project. So they are coming home to the graves of their geatest tzadyks and chasidic forefathers.But first, they need to prepare the ground for safe landing😈😈😈

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Considering that the Khazarian position in Israel is becoming untenable they may well be planning on coming “Home”. God help the people of Ukraine is this turns out to be true.

Mike Hering
Guest
Mike Hering

Ukraine was my red pill

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

PORKY The President of Ukraine is a DUAL ISRAELI CITIZEN,married to a Ukrainian woman and a PUPPET OF WASHINGTON and NETANYAHU

comment image

Joe Hueglin
Guest
Joe Hueglin

The same ought to be said to the Government of Canada – most Canadians are unaware there are Canadian Forces training Nazionalist troops in Ukraine

Wayne Blow
Guest
Wayne Blow

I totally agree with you, Trudeau needs to wake up!!!

cap960
Guest
cap960

Most Canadians can’t wake up…They are under a spell called “American News”.

Deborahftemme
Guest
Deborahftemme

my co worker’s step aunt makes $85 per hour from home, she has been without a job for 8 months but last month her pay check was $16987 only working from home for three hours per day. check out this site
http://www.GoogleFinancial351CashJobsOfficeWish/Home/Wage….

Doug Edmond
Guest
Doug Edmond

Likewise in Australia. The Australian government follows the US neocon line. And the Kiev regime gets a complete whitewash.

Tyler Brown
Guest
Tyler Brown

Ok, so what are you going to do about it, Mr. President? Will you finally – after more than three years of genocidal terrorism against the Donbass by the Kiev junta – provide the anti-fascist resistance with the modern weapons they need to properly defend themselves?

usc440
Guest
usc440

they are no nazi in ukraine………not in america either…..

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

Putin knows that this regime will implode due to an unmaintainable debt burden. Ukraine must pay out $20 bn between this year and 2020 to service its current debt. 2017 ($2.6 billion) 2018 ($3.9 billion) 2019 ($7.5 billion) 2020 ($6.0 billion)…… Data from recent S&P estimates The year 2019 is when Turkish Stream comes into operation along with Power of Siberia gas exports to China, and possibly Nordstream 2. It will also be the year of completion of both road and rail link via Kerch bridge to Crimea which will be a godsend for DPR/LPR trade (two sanctioned regions helping… Read more »

sagbotgamot
Guest
sagbotgamot

After what happened in Der-Ezzor today? Trump will have to think twice sending those lethal weapons to Ukraine.

Matt Hol
Guest
Matt Hol

Putin is saying clearly, that Russia will take more territory if the US sends military aid

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

The Kiev neo-nazis and their US backers will categorically reject a proposal of this nature because it would create a defacto UN-supported border between (what’s left of) Ukraine and the self-proclaimed republics. And in rejecting the proposal the US would once again show it’s hypocrisy and lack of desire for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine problem (that they caused).

Eddy
Guest
Eddy

Donbass and the other state, refusing to bend the knee to Kiev, do not have an airforce, so why would the U.S. supply them with Anti Aircraft weaponry ??????????????????

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

For when Donbass do have one, and in case Russia intervenes with one.

Eddy
Guest
Eddy

C’mon Colin, your not making sense here. Have you any idea of what it involves for breakaway states to develop their own Air Force ?? I don’t think you do. Ask yourself too, from where would these states obtain the funding in the first instance ??? The FACTS, are, neither of these states has an air force, therefore anti aircraft weapons are an over kill, unless of course the Ukies are going to shoot down another civilian airliner. You mention the Russians again. Seriously weird. This is not about Russia, though they do have a legitimate concern as they share… Read more »

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

I think it was obvious I was being cynical, but if not … I was being cynical.

Ian Shears
Guest
Ian Shears

The US has nowhere to go as Finian Cunningham and others have pointed out. The best approach is a Federal Ukraine with good relations with its neighbours. To this end its neighbours should alter their mostly ridiculous behaviour. Poland especially is behaving like a lunatic. Its’ ties to the US are bizarre – what relationship has a Pole to an American? None actually. Donald Tusk is responsible or irresponsible for this nexus. Poles live the heart of Europe including to the Urals. These folk ought to be focussed on Warsaw as a capital city of a Eurasian Union. Maybe there… Read more »

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending