Monthly Archives: July 2016

LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed (reblog)

Posted on by

With the highly-politices Rio Olympics approaching, it is imperative to know what is happening around it, how it is used as a weapon against Russia and Blazil (BRICS). All this is covered in Lada Ray’s excellent extensive report

LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed

Below is the beginning of it:

Bad things happen when good people are silent – or indifferent!

Why should you pay close attention to what is happening in global sports and Olympics, even if you are indifferent to them? Because just like anywhere else, if you look the other way, they’ll sneak in NWO before you know it!

The modern Olympics movement was started in the end of 19th century by the French Pierre de Coubertin. Russia is presently rebalancing the severely tilted to the West world, which has become utterly imbalanced, with an unfair advantage assigned to the West, at the expense of the rest of the globe. It is fitting that an era of the West will end in the disbanding or slow dying of the Western initiative of the modern Olympics.

This FREE LADA RAY’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

includes some damning evidence, Lada’s bold predictions & recommendations:

-A summary of facts in the anti-Russia hybrid war in sports
– NTV bomb from the horse’s mouth: proof of US/EU/WADA/USADA/IAAF collusion
– Lada’s complete geopolitical Earth Shift analysis: real reasons for the Russian Rio ban
– Lada’s recommendation: what steps Russia should take to reformat the corrupt global sport & Olympics

Russian team ban from Rio Olympics

Russia lost it’s Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) appeal on Thursday, 7/21, against an Olympic ban on its track-and-field athletes. Russians were holding their breath for the decision, still hoping for some justice from the ‘democratic’ European court. The court located in Switzerland, had some wishy-washy closing words to say: on one hand the appeal cannot be granted because the IAAF (Intl Athletic Federation) ruling is within its rules; on the other hand – how strange that IAAF and WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) waited till June to come out with allegations and issue the ban, thus leaving no time for ‘clean’ athletes to appeal before the start of Rio Olympics on August 5, 2016. The ban was upheld, nevertheless.

But it gets worse: Russia faces a potential blanket Rio 2016 ban after losing appeal against IAAF ruling on track-and-field athletes. The total number of the Russian athletes who were supposed to participate in Rio was 400 before the ban.

The entire Russian track-and-field team, except 1 – about 68 athletes in total – were banned from Rio Olympics participation, including many who never failed a drug test in their life. Why did they single out one random athlete to allow her participation in Rio? Because this one single person is chosen to put a rift within the team and underscore further just ‘how corrupt the entire team is.’

WADA/IAAF/US also tried to seduce some of the athletes to participate in Rio not under the Russian flag, but under a neutral IOC banner, basically denouncing their country. This was a clear provocation designed to create suspicion and rift within Russian society and sports community. There were no takers among track-and-field team. I guarantee if there were any takers, such athletes would have been immediately allowed to compete in Rio.

It has to be mentioned that for most athletes being at the games is a once in a lifetime opportunity and the psychological trauma of being denied that chance can break one’s life. Therefore, giving them a choice to participate at the expense of betraying their country constitutes an especially exquisite torture.

This ban includes 2-time Olympic and 7-time world champion, multiple-time world-record holder Yelena Isinbayeva. Isinbayeva, named more than once World Athlete of the Year and widely known to never take any drugs, recently came back from maternity leave in order to train hard for participation in her last Olympics. Isinbayeva is one of the best known names in the contemporary sport and she was the spokesperson for the Russian team during the CAS appeal.

Yelena Isinbayeva has been very outspoken about the injustice of the IAAF/WADA decision, and the attack on Russian athletes based on political motives. It is interesting that most world’s national athletic federations have been silent about the decision, while the retired athletes and sports bureaucrats internationally spoke out against it.

Meanwhile, it has been announced that ten countries demanded Russian blanket ban, among these: USA, Canada, UK, Switzerland and Germany. A British competitor of Yelena Isinbayeva said that she (Isinbayeva) ‘doesn’t deserve justice because she is a heterosexual (aka, not gay!), and Putin supporter(!).’ Just imagine how much her competitors have hated her coming back after childbirth and how much they are afraid of her!

…..

I strongly urge everyone, who is indefferent to the direction our world is heading to read the full report here: LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed

Germany Preparing for War Against Russia (reblog)

Posted on by

This is a reblog of http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

According to a report issued on June 6th in German Economic News (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or DWN), the German government is preparing to go to war against Russia, and has in draft-form a Bundeswehr report declaring Russia to be an enemy nation. DWN says: “The Russian secret services have apparently thoroughly studied the paper. In advance of the paper’s publication, a harsh note of protest has been sent to Berlin: The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, Alexei Puschkow, has posted the Twitter message: ‘The decision of the German government declaring Russia to be an enemy shows Merkel’s subservience to the Obama administration.’”

Back on February 17th, DWN had reported that German Chancellor Merkel “will develop a new military doctrine” declaring, “The ‘annexation’ of Crimea by Russia is the basis for military action against Moscow.” Apparently, that prior report will soon be fulfilled.

Not mentioned in the DWN articles — nor anywhere in Western ‘news’ media — is a crucial fact, that the head of America’s ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor acknowledged only when addressing a Russian-speaking audience: that (in English) the overthrow of Ukraine’s President in Russia’s neighboring nation of Ukraine during February 2014 was “the most blatant coup in history.” Extensive video documentation exists demonstrating that it was a coup, and even demonstrating that the Obama Administration had selected Ukraine’s post-coup leader 22 days prior to his being formally appointed by the Ukrainian parliament. Furthermore, the only detailed scholarly study of the evidence that has been performed came to the same conclusion — that it was a U.S. coup. The last month before the coup was incredibly violent, with Obama’s hired fascists attacking the government’s security forces brutally: Here is some of the bloodshed from the prior month, on January 21st, then January 22nd, then January 25th. Moreover, immediately after the overthrow, when the EU sent its own investigator into Kiev to report back on how the overthrow had taken place, he too reported that it had been a coup. Subsequently revealed was that the Obama Administration had started preparing the coup inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013 — almost a year prior to the coup. Also, the even earlier preparation for the coup, extending through decades, on the part of CIA-affiliated ‘nonprofit’ or NGO organizations (funded by Western aristocrats and their corporations), laying the groundwork for this coup, has been brilliantly documented at some online sites. None of this information has been widely published — it’s virtually not at all published in the West. Though the potential audience for it might be vast (especially since Western publics pay much of the tab for this operation and yet receive none of the benefits from the resultant looting of Ukraine, which goes all to aristocrats in the U.S. and allied aristocracies), the market in the West for reporting it, is virtually nil, because the market is the West’s news media, and they’ve all (except for a few small ones like this) been taken over by the aristocracy, and serve the aristocracy — not the public (their audiences, whom they’re in business to deceive). The aristocracy’s companies advertise in, and thereby fund, most of those ‘news’ media, and the aristocracy’s governments fund the rest — and the public pays for that, too, not just by being manipulated to vote for the aristocracy’s politicians, but by being taxed to pay what the NGOs and their aristocrats don’t (so the public are buying the weapons etc.). It’s a vast money-funnel from the many, to the few.

Though the transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia is treated by Western ‘news’ media as having been a ‘conquest’ by Russia, and as being Russia’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea, and Russia’s ‘stealing’ Crimea, nothing of the sort is true (and Crimeans had good reason to be terrified of the Obama-coup regime that had just been installed, from which Russia saved Crimeans), but the lie needs to be promulgated in order for the aristocracy’s invasion of Russia to be able to organized and carried out.

Unfortunately, the reason why this U.S coup in Ukraine has still not been reported in the West, is that to make it public to Westerners would jeopardize not only the Western economic sanctions against Russia after Russia accepted the overwhelming decision by Crimeans to separate from the post-coup Ukrainian government, but would also jeopardize the preparations by all of NATO to go to war against Russia: both the sanctions and the invasion would have no basis and no support among Western publics. All of that (the sanctions, and now the pouring of troops and weapons onto and near Russia’s borders for a possible invasion of Russia) would no longer be at all palatable by Western publics, if this history — that it all began by a violent U.S. coup in Ukraine — were to become known before the U.S. and NATO invasion occurs. So it all remains, instead, suppressed in the ‘democratic’ West.

So: please email this article’s URL address (which is immediately above this article), to friends, so as to spread to them the word, that NATO is preparing an invasion of Russia. There’s no way that the ‘news’ media they see are likely to tell them (until it’s already too late).

Read also Paul Craig Roberts latest article Armageddon Approaches.

Why does NATO scare Moscow with “paper tigers”?

Posted on by

This is a speed translation of an analytical article by Rostislav Ishchenko from the 7th of July 2016, published at his channel on Kont.

The NATO summit will begin in Warsaw on Friday. For two days (8 and 9 July), senior officials and generals will discuss a lot of technical and political issues. We are, however, interested in only one item on the agenda of the event. In Poland, the Alliance is going to once again discuss relief measures to the “Russian threat”.

As is the custom in the recent years, the “threat” is felt particularly acutely by the Balts and Poles, who demand the deployment on their territories of additional contingents of Western European and American allies.

Washington and London pretend to be impressed by the fears of the limitrophes, and agitate for meeting requests for strengthening NATO forces on the Russian border. We are talking about dislocation of four battalions.

In terms of the real military strengthening of the block’s abilities on the north-western borders of Russia, this gain is negligible. The American military analysts argue that even a dislocation in the region of four additional full brigades will not allow NATO to hold out much longer in the case of a real military conflict.

In fact, we are only talking about whether it will take the Russian troops one or two weeks to reach the Oder line. Or more precisely, how many US troops will need to be hastily evacuated from Poland and the Baltic states, if suddenly something goes wrong and, contrary to common sense, a military conflict in this area happens.


A US soldier during the 2016 Saber Strike exercises in Estonia.

Protection Poles and the Baltic states as a diversionary tactics

So, the United States believes that the Russian group on the Baltic borders now has absolute superiority, which it is impossible to stop by unfolding of either four or sixteen battalions. At the same time, as a result of NATO’s war hysteria of NATO, Russia decided to deploy in the western direction three new high-grade divisions, and another army corps in Kaliningrad.

One must say that Moscow has the potential to deploy new divisions faster than NATO would be able to collect and deliver their battalions to the area of the limitrophe’s. That is, theoretically, by provoking a military confrontation, the US and NATO impair their strategic position in the region.


Poland today: “If the Russians start pushing too hard, call us.”

A question: Why do they scare Moscow with “paper tigers”, if they know that as a result they will be worse off?

And, yes, they know it. Not least because Washington, which was initially swearing to deliver all four of the desired battalions by themselves, insisted on the separation of the burden in half – two battalions from the US and two from Western European allies. The Germans and the French (and who else would allocate the battalions, if not them) are not enthusiastic. And quite a lot of time will pass between the principal decision and the actual appearance of the troops.

Not only in Moscow, but also in European capitals they are well aware that in case of war, a battalion or two would not make a difference. European politicians, though sometimes pretending to be naive, are well aware that millions of Germans and French, who would be happily trying on helmets and flak jackets and rushing off to the eastern front to protect “European values” in the face of Latvians and Poles, is the story of fantasy. And yet the US successfully force through the NATO program of “protection” of small but very proud Eastern European allies, who regularly pull the tiger’s whiskers, feeling drunken from their own boldness.


Joint parachuting of American, British and Polish troops during Anakonda-2016 on Polish territory.

The answer to the question – why is it necessary – could be obtained based on the area of ​​concentration of the main Russian group. Except for the Kaliningrad exclave, which is under threat simply by virtue of its isolation, more than half of the newly formed units are concentrated in the south-west of Russia, near the Ukrainian border, on which Kiev has already thrown some tantrums.

On the eve of the NATO summit, a confirmation that Moscow considers the south-western direction as the most explosive is, was given in a statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Sergey Lavrov.

He warned our western friends and partners that, according to the available information, in the near future Kiev can organise a large-scale provocation that could lead to the resumption of full-scale hostilities in the area of ​​the civil conflict in the Donbass.

Who needs new territories

Let us put two and two together, and add to this the undisguised (for the past two and a half years) desire of the USA to tie the hands of Russia by drawing it into a full-scale conflict in Ukraine. Let us not forget that it was the Balts and the Poles, who repeatedly promised to provide military support to Kiev in case of a “Russian aggression”.


Polish soldiers during international exercises Rapid Trident-2016 in Lvov region, Ukraine.

Recall also that a number of border states – the Eastern European members of NATO – are having problems with the Ukrainian territories inhabited by their respective minorities and formerly being part of the these countries. In addition to traditional Poland, Hungary and Romania, even the Bulgarian government has expressed concerns about the protection of the rights of compatriots and supported the idea of ​​creation in Ukraine of a Bulgarian autonomy.

What do we get? The high risk of a sharp intensification of the Ukrainian conflict together with its simultaneous internationalization, with the participation of the Eastern European members of NATO. Of these, it is Poland and the Baltic States (exactly the countries that were promised the new battalions) are the most militantly set.

And now let us turn to history. In 1939, the courage of Warsaw, which rejected all German demands and literally longing for war, was backed by the British and French guarantees. Polish army was numerically comparable with the German. They did not yet know in Poland about the real overwhelming technical superiority of the Reich, and the absolute intellectual superiority of its general staff.

The military leaders of the country believed that they would be easily able to hold out for a few weeks or even a couple of months. Then the French would start an offensive: French army at the time was considered to be strongest in the world (wrongly, but no one knew about it), and with them would come the British. And after that the Poles were going to share the spoils of war, and to acquire new territories. By the way, the very same East Prussia, a third of which now comprises the Kaliningrad region.

Is a blockade of the Kaliningrad region possible

In general, to encourage Eastern European cannon fodder for the war, it was necessary to create an illusion of security and proximity to an easy victory.

In the first half of the twentieth century, this illusion was provided by the Anglo-French guarantee. Now simple NATO guarantees are not enough. Even limitrophe’s became smarter and doubt that Americans (and Europeans) will risk of full-scale war with a nuclear power because of the ambitions of Riga and Warsaw. Now contingents of US and Western Europe in their respective territories should become such a guarantee.

Limitrophes believe that in the event of hostilities, these forces will inevitably fall under attack. That is, in actuality the bigger partners would enter a war automatically – through the fact of death of their soldiers.

And the passage of the internal procedures, required for each individual NATO country would become involved in the conflict as part of the block, would be fast tracked in the event of an attack by the “insidious Russia” on the “peaceful American soldiers”.

This, in turn, means that the limitrophes, who had already long since gone over the brink in their Russophobia, will now completely lose their head from courageousness.

Very simple. In the event of a start of full-scale hostilities in Ukraine, it won’t be a problem to once again accuse Russia of aggression. And then, in accordance to giving assistance to the “young democracy” they would not even need to cross the border. It is sufficient to organize a blockade of the Kaliningrad region.

Not only a blockade is a hostile act, which is equated by the international law with military aggression. Moscow will in any case have to break through it. The region, Navy and the Army can not exist without communications with Big Land. And they can fully try to sink the ships and shoot down planes, which try to break the blockade, all the while crying that it was Russia attacking.


Soldiers of the Polish and American armies during the Anakonda-2016 exercises on the territory of Poland.

And then the limitrophes (just like the Poles in 1939) believe that in the face of the inevitable (in their opinion) American intervention, Russia would retreat.

By moving the Baltic pawn in the form of the four battalions (half of which is not theirs), the US is trying to solve a problem that they still didn’t man resolved – creating an outbreak of the Russian-European military confrontation. While they themselves are going to remain outside the conflict.

Firstly, no one knows when more battalions will arrive. Secondly, it is a lot easier to promptly evacuate a couple of battalions, than it was for the British to evacuate nearly 340 thousand of their own, French and Belgian soldiers from Dunkirk in 1940.

So that the risk of conflict comes not from the battalions incapable of anything, but from the minds of inadequate politicians that learn nothing from history.