U.S. Department of State

State Dept. Fails to Differentiate Syria, Yemen Bombings
▻http://news.antiwar.com/2016/10/12/state-dept-fails-to-differentiate-syria-yemen-bombings

#Lichtenstein

On en revient aux fondamentaux

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJ4ojtHJ4M

Ultimately, he concluded that Saudi Arabia has a “pressing requirement for self-defense” in attacking neighboring Yemen, and that the Syrian government had no such requirement in kicking al-Qaeda out of the eastern half of one of their largest cities. He also insisted Saudi promises of investigations and Russian promises of investigations as different because he doesn’t think the Russians mean it.

ahah

C’est juste #énorme de bêtise.

Huhu j’allais citer les chasseurs aussi.

Pour le State Department les White Helmet sont formidables, d’ailleurs l’USAID les a financé à hauteur de 23 millions de $, mais il vaut mieux que leur leader ne vienne pas sur le territoire américain pour raison de sécurité...

Point presse de Mark Toner, porte-parole du state Department le 27 avril 2016.
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=792ODrhwKkk

Un journaliste (Matthew Lee d’AP) demande à Toner comment le State Department peut dire soutenir les White Helmets, et en même temps avoir révoqué le visa de son leader (Raed Saleh) pour raison de sécurité.
De fait Raed Saleh venait aux USA recevoir un prix décerné par InterAction, un appendice de l’USAID (voir article NYT : ▻http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/world/middleeast/leader-of-syria-rescue-group-arriving-in-us-for-award-is-refused-entry.html ).
Toner explique qu’il faut distinguer entre le leader, dont il ne peut pas parler, et du groupe que les USA soutiennent.
Un autre journaliste insiste et finalement obtient la même réponse mais avec l’aveu implicite que Raed Saleh serait en relation avec des groupes extrémistes :
Voir vidéo de 3’20 à 3’54

QUESTION: How can you separate the leader of the group from the group?
MR TONER: Well, he’s one individual in the group.
QUESTION: But the leader of the group.
MR TONER: And any individual – again, I’m broadening my language here for specific reasons, but any individual in any group suspected of ties or relations with extremist groups or that we had believed to be a security threat to the United States, we would act accordingly. But that does not, by extension, mean we condemn or would cut off ties to the group for which that individual works for.

La discussion continue et Mark Toner balance que ce groupe a reçu pour 23 millions d’aides de l’USAID et redit à quel point les USA les soutiennent. M. Lee repose alors la question sur l’incongruité alors de révoquer le visa de son leader pour raison de sécurité.
Vidéo de 4’15 à 5’40

MR TONER: Well, I can tell you that we provide, through USAID, about $23 million in assistance to them.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: I can say that they’ve saved over 40,000 lives, as I just mentioned at the – in the topper by acting as first responders. They go into combat zones, they save people after attacks. We’ve seen no action on the part of this group writ large that indicates in any way that they’re nothing but an impartial group that – like any humanitarian organization – works across lines of control and is in contact with a range of groups to facilitate their life-saving efforts. And that’s – again, we’ve talked about this the last couple days. Aleppo is —
QUESTION: I understand that.
MR TONER: — a very complex situation. We understand that. And for these groups to operate, they have to be able to operate within the milieu on which they’re working.
QUESTION: Mark, but can you ask for some – I mean, this just seems bizarre to me. You’re giving this guy and his group $23 million. Yes, they do good work, they save lives, but you’ve revoked his visa for some reason and you won’t say why and it just doesn’t make any sense. Why is the U.S. taxpayer supporting a group whose leader you have banned from coming to the States?

Cette vidéo là, de 2015, à Jisr al-Choughour, a aussi pas mal été commentée avec un white helmet qui explique qu’ils jettent le cadavre des « shabihas » aux ordures :
▻http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76f_1445681508

Assad vient quant à lui d’annoncer la tenue d’élections législatives pour le 13 avril :
▻https://www.rt.com/news/333290-syria-assad-general-election

Et juste en passant, al-Nousra est présent massivement à Idlib, Jisr al-Choughour et a renforcé récemment sa présence à Alep-est ; entre autres...

We Asked an Expert What the ’Ceasefire’ Between the US and Russia in Syria Really Means | VICE | United States
▻http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-an-expert-what-the-russsian-american-ceasefire-in-syria-really-means

... is this deal like Christmas for Assad and Russia? Are they getting everything they wanted?

They have been pushing for other rebel groups like Jaysh al Islam and Ahrar al-Sham to be considered as terrorist factions. That doesn’t seem to have happened here. The biggest issue is that they have the military advantage on the ground, and by agreeing to a ceasefire they essentially give the rebels breathing room.

A voir aussi ce doc intéressant de 2014

▻http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245163.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-162,792

Voting Practices in the United Nations 2014 (document publier par l’administration américaine avec ces tableaux intéressants, à la fin, où les États-Unis ont ressenti le besoin de faire apparaître les pays qui votent comme eux, et de se désoler qu’ils soient systématiquement dans la « minorité » (moi ça me fait hurler de rire cette manière de faire). ça parle du conseil de sécurité et de l’assemblée générale.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/s9rekcdup2jh49v/un%20vote%20tabelau%20comparaison%201.png?dl=0

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/ymz9ok70ud6gyxr/un%20vote%20tabelau%20comparaison%202.png?dl=0

votes à l’ONU 2014
Diagramme ternaire des votes exprimés
(relativement au vote é.-u.)

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/l7bk753txmo2wlu/UN2014_Votes.jpg

Diagramme quaternaire…
projection en 2D du 3-simplexe
same + opposite + abstain + absent = 1

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/j6akp92516g5nza/UN2014_Votes3D.jpg

J’utilise une feuille Excel avec un nuage de points à 3 dimension (3D scatter plot) dans laquelle des ascenseurs permettent de faire tourner selon les 3 axes.
▻http://www.doka.ch/Excel3Dscatterplot.htm

@simplicissimus super merci comme ’hab, encore une autre visions éclairante. Il faut bien sur mettre ce post et ls commentaire en relation directe et très étroite avec

Aux Nations unies, qui vote avec qui ?
►http://visionscarto.net/nations-unies-qui-vote-avec-qui

par Philippe Rivière

Je vois des visualisation encore plus contrastée et radicales, mais sans doute « moins » scientifique que celles de @simplicissimus ou celles de @fil

En fait, après avoir fait tourner le tétraèdre, je pense qu’il est possible d’agréger abstention et absence. D’où ce diagramme triangulaire

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/0z3p31fooovy1k9/UN2014_Votes1.jpg

(éventuellement, modifier la taille (ou la couleur) du point en fonction de la proportion absence/abstention pour donner de la profondeur à l’arête concernée, vue dans l’axe)

On peut ajouter « Why a Climate Deal Is the Best Hope for Peace », de Naomi Klein et Jason Bow
▻http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-a-climate-deal-is-the-best-hope-for-peace

We are finally starting to recognize that climate change leads to wars and economic ruin.

...le Prince Charles :

And, in fact, there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land.

▻http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/12010746/Prince-Charles-Climate-change-failure-is-a-factor-behind-Syrian-crisis.

... ou encore John Kerry et ses « Remarks on Climate Change and National Security »
▻http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249393.htm

Today I am pleased to announce that I will be convening a task force of senior government officials to determine how best to integrate climate and security analysis into overall foreign policy planning and priorities. For example, the strategic plans our embassies use should account for expected climate impacts so that our diplomats can work with host countries to focus on prevention – to proactively address climate-driven stresses on people’s livelihoods, health, and security and to do it before it evolves into deep grievances that fuel conflicts.

#réductionnisme_climatique

Puisque l’article du Monde parle de l’article de Francesca de Chatel pour justifier les propos de Bernie Sanders le lendemain des attentats, citons-en un extrait :

In the case of Syria, where there are so many other evident causes of the current conflict, it seems unproductive to focus on the possible role of climate change in the uprising, or indeed in possible future conflict. Climate change may cause more frequent and harsher drought in Syria, but the ongoing failure to rationalize water use and enforce environmental and water use laws certainly constitutes a much greater threat to the country’s natural resources. Rather than seeing the 2006–10 drought in north-eastern Syria as a harbinger of catastrophic climate change and conflict scenarios, it should be considered on the backdrop of years of mismanagement, unsustainable policy making and rising rural poverty, which fuelled pre-existing discontent and sparked the first protests.While the 2007/8 season registered as the worst regional drought in 40 years, the overall impact of the 2006–10 drought in north-eastern Syria was undoubtedly exacerbated by a long legacy of resource mismanagement.

▻http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2013.850076?journalCode=fmes20

On peut aussi citer « Over-grazing and desertification in the Syrian steppe are the root causes of war »
▻http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2871076/overgrazing_and_desertification_in_the_syrian_steppe_are_the_root_caus

http://www.theecologist.org/siteimage/scale/800/600/393957.png

The picture [taken in March 2008] portrayed a fence separating a steppe terrain in two parts: the area on the left was open to sheep grazing; the area on the right had been instead protected for at least 10 years. The image revealed a lunar rocky landscape on the left, and a blossoming pasture on the right.

The image simply evidences, without need for any words, that the Syrian steppe ecosystem is perfectly adapted to cope with droughts - yes, even with extreme droughts exacerbated by climate change. However, this landscape can succumb easily to human irrationality and indifference.

merci @lyco !

Jaysh al-Islam déclare la guerre aux Russes qui combattent en Syrie - Dania Akkad -
24 septembre 2015
▻http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/reportages/jaysh-al-islam-d-clare-la-guerre-aux-russes-qui-combattent-en-syrie-1

Jaysh al-Islam, l’un des plus importants groupes rebelles en Syrie, a déclaré la guerre aux soldats russes qui combattent aux côtés des forces pro-gouvernementales syriennes dans la guerre civile, a déclaré un porte-parole du groupe à Middle East Eye mercredi.

La confirmation du porte-parole survient alors que la Russie renforce activement son soutien militaire en Syrie, notamment par l’envoi de 28 avions opérationnels dans le pays, selon des responsables américains.

De nouvelles images satellites publiées mardi semblent indiquer que la Russie développe deux nouvelles bases aériennes près de la ville portuaire clé de Lattaquié, un bastion du président syrien Bachar al-Assad.

Jaysh al-Islam, qui serait financé par l’Arabie saoudite, a posté une vidéo vendredi dernier montrant des combattants du groupe attaquant l’aéroport international de Bassel, à environ 20 km de Lattaquié.

Dans la vidéo, les combattants déclarent que l’aéroport est devenu une base pour l’armée russe, puis ils tirent plusieurs roquettes soi-disant en direction d’un avion-cargo russe, bien qu’il n’y en ait aucune preuve dans la vidéo.

Dans une conversation sur Skype avec MEE, le porte-parole de Jaysh al-Islam a bien insisté sur le fait que le groupe avait déclaré la guerre aux soldats russes, « non à la Russie en tant que pays ».

La dernière semaine, des combattants rebelles ont déclaré à Reuters avoir rencontré une résistance plus forte de la part des forces pro-gouvernementales, en particulier dans les zones côtières de Syrie, et qu’une intervention russe prolongera la guerre et encouragera les bailleurs étrangers des rebelles à accroître leur assistance militaire.(...)

#Jaysh_al-Islam #Syrie #Russie

Europe nudges US, Russia to walk the talk on Syria
By M K Bhadrakumar – September 21, 2015
▻http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/21/europe-nudges-us-russia-to-walk-the-talk-on-syria

Without doubt, this is a defining moment. Notwithstanding the immense pressure from detractors and critics within the US (and abroad in Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al) to shift gear to a hyperactive interventionist role in Syria, President Obama has preferred the diplomatic track.

This primarily emanates out of the ground reality that the decade-old US strategy to force a regime change in Syria has reached a dead end. Besides, the regional scenario has also changed phenomenally. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the two countries that did all they could to destabilize Syria, are marooned in their own existential problems — and Qatar too has rolled back its regional ambitions built around the Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the Arab Spring. In a dramatic shift, Egypt has actually swung to the Russian side and would see Assad as a bulwark against radical Islamist groups.

Above all, the US’ European allies have lost faith, caught up in a protracted struggle to cope with the refugee flow and agonizing over the spectre of the IS. The melancholy, long, withdrawing roar of their retreat from the US’ regime change agenda in Syria should be audible in Washington. The debris of the conflict has reached Europe and although the US remains safe and untouched, it cannot wash off its hands off the political and moral responsibility for the horrific tragedy that is unfolding.

Meanwhile, the Syrian conflict itself has transformed. The Islamic State is today the real beneficiary of the regime change agenda pursued by the US and its regional allies. The ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition has become the butt of jokes. Which means that what is shaping up is a confrontation between the Syrian government forces and the IS. With air strikes against the IS not having much effect, Washington should show the practical wisdom to utilize whatever capabilities available on the ground.

What lies ahead? Kerry’s weekend visits to London and Berlin to consult key allies have prepared the ground for some intense discussions involving the various protagonists — Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, in particular — that can be expected to take place through the coming week in New York where the world leaders are gathering for the UN General Assembly session.

The manner in which the West has swiftly welcomed Russia’s military intervention in Syria underscores that a new chapter is beginning in their mutual relationship. This augurs well for conflict resolution in Syria. The bottom line is that the US’ trans-Atlantic leadership demands a quick solution to the Syrian conflict, which is threatening European security. In an extraordinary remark, Steinmeir actually urged all concerned — including the US — to “put aside national interests for the time being” and to rise to the occasion. (Transcript is here : ▻http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/09/247077.htm .)

C’est pas si difficile, mais presque deux ans après les faits, ils sont encore en train en ce moment même de réunir les éléments du dossier…

Pour Molodyi Shakhtar (littéralement le Jeune Mineur (de charbon)), situé à 20 km au SSO de Debaltseve, il y a en effet peu de doute que des lance-roquettes multiples ont tiré en direction de Debaltseve.

Pour le reste, j’imagine que c’est en lisant les marques des pneus imprimés dans la terre qu’ils ont pu déterminer qu’ils étaient russes…

It’s not coming from Senator Inhofe’s office I hope.

 :-D

Il va devenir la référence du genre !

Inhofe est l’un des parlementaires les plus conservateurs du Congrès, plus choqué par les photos des abus à la prison d’Abu Ghraib en Irak que par les tortures elles-mêmes commises par des soldats américains.

Il est également connu pour être l’un des plus inconditionnels partisans de l’État d’Israël. En mars 2002, il prononce un discours au Sénat américain dans lequel il n’hésite pas à qualifier les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 comme une punition divine contre l’Amérique pour ne pas suffisamment soutenir Israël "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."

Il est également connu pour son opposition à la ratification du protocole de Kyoto par les États-Unis, au nom de l’idée que le réchauffement climatique n’a pas de cause humaine. Citation connue : "Se pourrait-il bien que l’hypothèse d’une cause humaine du réchauffement climatique soit une des pires blagues perpétrées à l’encontre du peuple américain ? Il semble bien que oui." - Sénat américain juillet 2003.

▻https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe

1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.

Russian FM slams US report on Putin’s remarks on Ukraine as ‘double standards’
▻http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/722469

“We will not relegate ourselves to polemics with petty propaganda. We will only say that once again we have to deal with unacceptable arrogance and claims of ultimate truth. The U.S. has no and cannot have moral right to lecture others on how to comply with international rules and respect the sovereignty of other countries. What about the bombings of former Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq on falsified pretexts?” the statement said.

“If we turn to more distant historical events, we can find many examples of American military interventions far away from the national borders in the absence of real threat to the security of the United States. The war in Vietnam claimed the lives of two million peaceful citizens, let alone the completely devastated country and the contaminated environment. Under the pretext of protecting their citizens, who had simply happened to be in conflict zones, the U.S. invaded Lebanon in 1958 and the Dominican Republic in 1965, attacked tiny Grenada in 1983, bombed Libya in 1986, and three years later occupied Panama. Nevertheless, they dare accuse Russia of ‘armed aggression’, when it steps in to defend its compatriots who make up the majority of Crimea’s population in order to prevent ultranationalist forces from organizing yet another Maidan bloodbath,” the ministry said.

From Washington to Moscow, everyone is lying about what’s happening in Ukraine
▻http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.578397?v=46E241E032D2DB4C06BC1E868F8C9CB3

Putin’s statement about the crisis was full of distortions and manipulations. But in an unusual paper meant to expose them, the U.S. State Department offered its own share of inaccuracies and half-truths.

In Paragraph 3 the Americans seem to be choosing a very specific interpretation of the situation as it developed in Kiev late last month. “Mr. Putin says: ‘The opposition did not implement the February 21 agreement with former President Viktor Yanukovych.’ The facts: ‘The agreement presents a plan according to which the parliament must reinstate the 2004 constitution, as well as returning the country to a system that strengthens the legislative branch. Yanukovych was supposed to sign the legislation within 24 hours and to bring the crisis to an end peacefully. He refused to meet his commitment, and instead packed up the contents of his home and fled, and left behind evidence of extensive corruption,’” said the document.

In effect, there was chaos in the Ukrainian capital, and a substantial percentage of the anti-Russian opposition demonstrators rejected the agreement formulated by the warring parties with the mediation of the European Union. The developments from the moment of the signing until Yanukovych’s flight and his ouster from parliament is not entirely clear, nor is it clear why mention of his ostensible corruption is relevant to the question of the legitimacy of removing him by force.

In addition, the protest leaders still recognized him as president on February 25, and only said that he “is not actively leading the country as of now.”

In Paragraph 4 the Americans deal with the legitimacy of the new government, and with Putin’s claim that Yanukovych is still Ukraine’s legitimate leader. The document of the State Department in Washington notes that on March 4 Putin himself said that the ousted president “has no political future,” and that his party, the Party of Regions, voted in favor of removing him and installing the new government, and that the parliament in Kiev confirmed the swearing in of the government by a huge majority of 82 percent.

But the Obama administration ignored Paragraph 111 in the Ukrainian constitution, which states that parliament can oust the president only if he committed a crime. The initiation of an impeachment process must be approved by two-thirds of the legislators, with 75 percent of MPs voting in favor of the ousting itself. Those votes were not held, and therefore ratification of the new government, even with 82 percent support, was passed in contradiction of the constitution.

In Paragraph 8 the State Department wrote: “Mr. Putin says: ‘There were mass attacks against churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.’ The facts: ‘The religious leaders in the country and activists who favor freedom of religion said that there were no attacks against churches. All the leaders of the Church in Ukraine support the new political leadership and called for national unity. Jewish organizations in southern and eastern Ukraine reported that there was no increase in anti-Semitic incidents.”

We found no evidence of attacks against churches in Ukraine, but in Haaretz we have already reported on a fear in the Jewish communities of an increase in anti-Semitism, as well as several incidents in which extreme right-wing gangs intensified their activity against synagogues and Jewish institutions. Our correspondent in Crimea, Anshel Pfeffer, reported that Jews were beaten in Kiev and a synagogue was destroyed there, and similar incidents occurred in the city of Zaporozhye in southeast Ukraine and in the Crimean capital of Simferopol.

Despite that, many pointed to the fact that Russia is trying to defame the new government in Kiev by portraying it as extremely rightist, anti-Semitic and Nazi in its entirety, and some people even wondered whether those incidents weren’t Russian provocations, in order to arouse opposition to the new government. Whatever the case, it can’t really be said that there were no anti-Semitic incidents at all in southeast Ukraine.

In the last paragraph, Paragraph 10, the United States claimed that Putin is lying about the fact that the Ukrainian parliament is influenced by extremists and terrorists. The Americans claim that the Rada (parliament) is the institution most representative of the Ukrainian public, and that extreme-right organizations that were involved in the clashes in Independence Square are not represented in it.

But the actual situation differs significantly from the picture Washington is trying to paint. It’s true that legislators from the pro-Russian parties voted in favor of the new government, but we cannot ignore the fact that many of their members fled from Kiev, so that it is hard to claim that the parliament provides optimal representation for the pro-Russian east. In addition, the far-right party Svoboda (Liberty) received 38 seats in the legislature in the most recent elections, and its members espouse extreme anti-Semitic and nationalist views.

In addition, the party received five portfolios in the new government, including justice minister and deputy prime minister. “The Right Sector, a small organization, armed and more extreme, which espouses a pro-Nazi ideology and is opposed to joining the EU, is not represented in parliament, but its leader Demytro Yarosh declared recently that his organization and Svoboda share many views and values," the paper stated. Incidentally, Yarosh was appointed in late February as the deputy head of the National Council for Defense and Security.

In Paragraph 6 the Americans tried to contradict the words of the Russian president to the effect that ethnic Russians in Ukraine live in fear of the new government in Kiev, and stated that there are no reliable reports on that. They also presented the fact that the interim president of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov, refused to approve a law limiting the use of the Russian language in the country, but forgot to mention that prior to that parliament had approved the law.

From Washington to Moscow and Kiev, everyone is lying about what’s happening in Ukraine

Je trouve le mot « mensonge » exagéré pour la matière qui nous intéresse, ie la géopolitique. Les points de vue diffèrent, certes. Mais parler de mensonge fait plus penser à une volonté de clore tout débat, à la façon dont on évoque le point Godwin à tous propos.

Et... les occidentaux sont, amtha, particulièrement minables dans l’affaire. Car la narrative du peuple victorieux a sérieusement du plomb dans l’aile, avec toute la documentation sur les nouveaux membres du gouvernement Ukrainien, sur les partis qui les soutiennent, et sur les mensonges au sujet des massacres lors de ce qu’il est difficile de ne pas nommer coup d’état. Et donc, je trouve les occidentaux très silencieux sur ce sujet. Limites merdeux. Ce nouveau précédent dans le « 2 poids 2 mesures » sera-t-il celui qui mettra un terme à la relative impunité de l’occident ces 20 dernières années (et plus) ?

De plus en plus se dessine un monde « à la XIXème siècle », où les élites du monde entier font et défont les alliances, se font la guerre ici ou là, pour un bout de terre gorgé de ressources, et en entraînant les peuples derrière eux.

Les Nations unies ne sont jamais plus efficaces que lorsque règne la crainte du nucléaire. C’est malheureux. Et j’ai cru lire que les américains envoyaient leurs bateaux vers la Crimée. Pour y faire quoi à part faire augmenter la pression ?

Pour les navires, ils n’étaient sans doute pas loin, puisque les É.-U. avaient envoyé deux unités pour « assister » les Russes dans la protection des JO…

Et pas n’importe quoi,
• le USS Taylor, frégate lance-missile (qui s’y est d’ailleurs échouée, le 12/02, en entrant dans le port turc de Samsun (l’ancienne Amisos)
• et surtout le USS Mount Whitney, « navire de commandement », mais surtout navire espion, comme on peut le constater en comptant ses oreilles…

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.265745.1391615171!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

Il est d’ailleurs un habitué de ces eaux, puisqu’il était déjà là pour les événements de Géorgie en 2008…

Et la réponse de la présidence (ainsi qu’au communiqué de l’OSCE (cf. ▻http://seenthis.net/messages/184543 ). (14/10/2013)

Azerbaijani people expressed their will in election : Top official - AzerNews
▻http://www.azernews.az/azerbaijan/60608.html

Position of the U.S. Department of State on the presidential election held in Azerbaijan on October 9 is in contrast with justice and doesn`t reflect the reality.
Deputy Head of Azerbaijan`s Presidential Administration, head of the foreign relations department Novruz Mammadov made the remark when commenting on statements by OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the U.S. Department of State concerning the presidential election in the country.
“It shows that the ODIHR along with the U.S. consider democracy and issues of human rights as their monopoly, using it according in their own interests,” he said. But now its clear that making democracy and the issues of human rights a tool of pressure doesnt produce good results. There are tens of instances on the international scene.
Mammadov said that the Azerbaijani presidential election does not fall behind elections in other countries, and is even better in terms of many parameters.
"Given that the USA and OSCE ODIHR have made subjective judgments of the elections in several other countries, which were marred by serious violations and irregularities, their biased position causes surprise. Those who consider democracy an important value must themselves set an example to others by acting in line with democratic principles.
“Interestingly about 1,500 observers from 98 countries and 48 international organizations, including the PACE, European Parliament, the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), TurkPA election observation mission, as well as the majority of independent foreign observers made positive remarks on the election. But for some reason this issue is not featured in the statement of the U.S. Department of State, whose unequivocal critical statement stands in total contrast to views of ordinary people-elected U.S. congressmen, senators and representatives of other elective bodies, who hailed the election process in Azerbaijan as fair and transparent,” he said.

#jargonaphasie #novlangue