ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

PETROFILM.COM

Institute for Empathic Dialogue Creation and Conflict Resolution

Harald Dahle-Sladek

Founder and Editor-in-chief

Основатель и главный редактор

بنیانگذار و مدیرمسئول

創始人兼主編

THE WAR IN UKRAINE ВОЙНА В УКРАИНЕ  

 Беспрецедентный ажиотаж западных СМИ 

Unparalleled Western Media Hype!

In the light of the ongoing Western media hype regarding the current War in Ukraine it is pertinent to look at the historic conditions and facts that led up to the conflict. Not since Chief NAZI propagandist Paul Joseph Goebbels has Europe witnessed such shameful and distasteful rhetoric solely blaming the Russian Federation for everything. The Nation which lost 27 million in WW2 and stood by the Allies to root out Fascism.

В свете продолжающейся шумихи в западных СМИ по поводу нынешней войны на Украине уместно взглянуть на исторические условия и факты, которые привели к конфликту. Со времен главного нацистского пропагандиста Пауля Йозефа Геббельса Европа не видела такой постыдной и неприятной риторики, обвиняющей во всем исключительно Российскую Федерацию. Нация, которая потеряла 27 миллионов человек во Второй мировой войне и поддержала союзников, чтобы искоренить фашизм. 

鑑於西方媒體對當前烏克蘭戰爭的持續炒作，有必要研究導致衝突的歷史條件和事實。自從納粹首席宣傳員保羅·約瑟夫·戈培爾 (Paul Joseph Goebbels) 以來，歐洲還沒有目睹過如此可恥和令人反感的言論，僅僅將一切歸咎於俄羅斯聯邦。這個國家在二戰中損失了 2700 萬，並支持同盟國根除法西斯主義。



 КАК ЗАПАД НАРУШИЛ ОБЕЩАНИЕ МОСКВЕ 

HOW THE WEST

BROKE IT'S PROMISE TO MOSCOW

During negotiations over German reunification in 1990, did the United States promise the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand into eastern Europe? The answer remains subject to heated debate. Today, Moscow defends its invasion of Ukraine by claiming that NATO regened on a promise to stay  out of Russia's backyard. Sceptics, meanwhile, counter that Russian claims are a pretexts for aggression; in their view, Washington and its allies never formally committed to forego NATO expansion.

CLICK PICTURE PLAY VIDEO

Dramatic footage from hight of the October 1961 US-Soviet Berlin standoff, Friedrichstrasse.The skeptics are correct that the two sides never codified a deal on NATO’s future presence in the east. But they misinterpret the precise implications of negotiations that took place throughout 1990. After all, scholars and practitioners have long recognized that informal commitments count in world politics. This was particularly true during the Cold War: as the historian Marc Trachtenberg has shown, the Cold War settlement itself emerged from European, Soviet, and U.S. diplomatic initiatives in the late 1950s and 1960s that were not formalized until nearly a decade later.

No one in Russia can vent his anger over NATO's eastward expansion quite as vehemently as Viktor Baranez. The popular columnist with the tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda ("Komsomol Truth"), which has a readership of millions, is fond of railing against the "insidious and reckless" Western military alliance. Russia, Baranez writes, must finally stop treating NATO as a partner.

Baranez, a retired colonel who was the Defense Ministry's spokesman under former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asks why Russia should even consider joint maneuvers after being deceived by the West. NATO, he writes, "has pushed its way right up to our national borders with its guns." He also argues that, in doing so, NATO has broken all the promises it made during the process of German reunification.

There is widespread agreement among all political parties in Moscow, from the Patriots of Russia to the Communists to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, that the West broke its word and short-changed Russia when it was weak.

In an interview with SPIEGEL  at his residence outside Moscow in early November, President Dmitry Medvedev complained that when the Berlin Wall came down, it had "not been possible to redefine Russia's place in Europe." What did Russia get? "None of the things that we were assured, namely that NATO would not expand endlessly eastwards and our interests would be continuously taken into consideration," Medvedev said.

Different Versions

The question of what Moscow was in fact promised in 1990 has sparked a historical dispute with far-reaching consequences for Russia's future relationship with the West. But what exactly is the truth?

The various players involved have different versions of events. Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.

For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."

Not a Word

The year 1990 was one of major negotiations. Washington, Moscow, London, Bonn, Paris, Warsaw, East Berlin and many others were at odds over German unity, comprehensive European disarmament and a new charter of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Soviets insisted that everything be documented in writing, even when all that was at issue was the fate of Soviet military cemeteries in East Germany. However, the numerous agreements and treaties of the day contained not a single word about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.

For this reason, the West argues, Moscow has no cause for complaint today. After all, the West did not sign anything regarding NATO expansion to the east. But is that tough stance fair?

At the beginning of 1990, the Soviet Union was still a world power with troops stationed at the Elbe River, and Hans Modrow, the former Dresden district chairman of the East German Communist Party, the SED, was in charge in East Berlin. But the collapse of the East German state was foreseeable.

Bonn's allies in Paris, London and Washington were concerned about the question of whether a unified Germany could be a member of NATO or, as had already happened in the past, would pursue a seesaw policy between east and west.

Genscher wanted to put an end to this uncertainty, and he said as much in a major speech to the West on Jan. 31, 1990 in Tutzing, a town in Bavaria. This was the reason, he said, why a unified Germany should be a member of NATO.

Moving with Caution

But how could the Soviet leadership be persuaded to support this solution? "I wanted to help them over the hurdle," Genscher told SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in Tutzing, that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union." East Germany was not to be brought into the military structures of NATO, and the door into the alliance was to remain closed to the countries of Eastern Europe.

Genscher remembered what had happened during the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Some of the insurgents had announced their intention to join the Western alliance, giving Moscow the excuse to intervene militarily. In 1990, Genscher was trying to send a signal to Gorbachev that he need not fear such a development in the Soviet bloc. The West, Genscher indicated, intended to cooperate with the Soviet Union in bringing about change, not act as its adversary.

The plan that was proclaimed in Tutzing had not been coordinated with the chancellor or West German allies, and Genscher spent the next few days vying for their support.

As Genscher's chief of staff Frank Elbe later wrote, the German foreign minister had "moved with the caution of a giant insect that uses its many feelers to investigate its surroundings, prepared to recoil when it encounters resistance."

US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently "warmed to the proposal immediately," says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker's study in Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed world events. They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion to the East. "It was completely clear," Elbe comments.

Calming Russian Fears.

A short time later, then-British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd joined the German-American consensus. As a previously unknown document from the German Foreign Ministry shows, Genscher was uncharacteristically open with his relatively pro-German British counterpart when they met in Bonn on Feb. 6, 1990. Hungary was about to hold its first free elections, and Genscher declared that the Soviet Union needed "the certainty that Hungary will not become part of the Western alliance if there is a change of government." The Kremlin, Genscher said, would have to be given assurances to that effect. Hurd agreed.

But were such assurances intended to be valid indefinitely? Apparently not. When the two colleagues discussed Poland, Genscher said, according to the British records, that if Poland ever left the Warsaw Pact, Moscow would need the certainty that Warsaw would "not join NATO the next day." However, Genscher did not seem to rule out accession at a later date.

It stood to reason that Genscher would present his ideas in Moscow next. He was the longest-serving Western foreign minister, his relationship with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze was unusually strong, and it was his initiative. But Baker wanted to address the issue himself during his next trip to Moscow.

'One Cannot Depend on American Politicians'

What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

Now, 20 years later, Gorbachev is still outraged when he is asked about this episode. "One cannot depend on American politicians," he told SPIEGEL. Baker, for his part, now offers a different interpretation of what he said in 1990, arguing that he was merely referring to East Germany, which was to be given a special status in the alliance -- nothing more.

But Genscher, in a conversation with Shevardnadze just one day later, had expressly referred to Eastern Europe. In fact, talking about Eastern Europe, and not just East Germany, was consistent with the logic of the West's position.

If East Germany was to be granted a special status within NATO, so as not to provoke the Soviet leadership, the promise not to expand the alliance to the east certainly had to include countries like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which directly bordered the Soviet Union.

When the Western politicians met once again a few weeks later, their conversation was more to the point, as a German Foreign Ministry document that has now been released indicates. According to the document, Baker said that it appeared "as if Central European countries wanted to join NATO." That, Genscher replied, was an issue "we shouldn't touch at this point." Baker agreed.

Positive Light

The political leaders of the day are now elderly gentlemen who don't necessarily always find it easy to remember exactly what happened back then. Besides, they are all eager to be portrayed in a positive light in the history books. Gorbachev doesn't want to be the one who failed to tightly close the door to the eastward expansion of NATO. Genscher and Baker don't want to be accused of having made deals with Moscow over the heads of the Poles, the Hungarians or the Czechs. And Shevardnadze came to the conclusion long ago that there is "nothing horrible" about NATO expansion -- not surprisingly, given that his native Georgia now wants to join NATO.

Their interests were different back in 1990. Bonn and Washington wanted to expedite German reunification. A few days after the talks at the Kremlin, Genscher, Baker and Shevardnadze met again, this time all together and with all of the foreign ministers of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries present, at a disarmament conference in a converted former train station in the Canadian capital Ottawa.

At the conference, the two German foreign ministers (the East German foreign minister at the time was Oskar Fischer, who had been close to the former East German leader Erich Honecker) came together in the corridors and conference rooms, met with the foreign ministers of the four victorious powers in World War II and, in various configurations, discussed the future course of Germany. By the end of the conference, it had been decided that the external aspects of German unity, such as the alliance issue and the size of the German military, were to be resolved in the so-called "two-plus-four" talks.

Sounding Out the Soviets

Genscher says today that all the key issues should have been addressed in this forum, and that during the talks there was never any mention of excluding the Eastern Europeans from NATO membership, which the participants all confirm.

But what about Genscher's comments to Shevardnadze on Feb. 10, 1990?

Genscher says today that he was merely "sounding out" Shevardnadze prior to the actual negotiations to determine Moscow's position on the alliance issue and to see whether there was any leeway.

This is the official position. But there are also other versions of the events.

A diplomat with the German Foreign Ministry says that there was, of course, a consensus between the two sides. Indeed, the Soviets would hardly have agreed to take part in the two-plus-four talks if they had known that NATO would later accept Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries as members.

The negotiations with Gorbachev were already difficult enough, with Western politicians repeatedly insisting that they were not going to derive -- in the words of then-US President George H. W. Bush -- any "unilateral advantage" from the situation, and that there would be "no shift in the balance of power" between the East and the West, as Genscher put it. Russia today is certainly somewhat justified in citing, at the very least, the spirit of the 1990 agreements.

Absurd Notion

In late May 1990, Gorbachev finally agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO. But why didn't Gorbachev and Shevardnadze get the West's commitments in writing at a time when they still held all the cards? "The Warsaw Pact still existed at the beginning of 1990," Gorbachev says today. "Merely the notion that NATO might expand to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time."

Some leading Western politicians were under the impression that the Kremlin leader and his foreign minister were ignoring reality and, as Baker said, were "in denial" about the demise of the Soviet Union as a major power.

On the other hand, the Baltic countries were still part of the Soviet Union, and NATO membership seemed light years away. And in some parts of Eastern Europe, peace-oriented dissidents were now in power, men like then-Czech President Vaclav Havel who, if he had had his way, would not only have dissolved the Warsaw Pact, but NATO along with it.

No Eastern European government was striving to join NATO in that early phase, and the Western alliance had absolutely no interest in taking on new members. It was too expensive, an unnecessary provocation of Moscow and, if worse came to worst, did the Western governments truly expect French, Italian or German soldiers to risk their lives for Poland and Hungary?

Then, in 1991, came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the war in Bosnia, with its hundred thousand dead, raised fears of a Balkanization of Eastern Europe. And in the United States President Bill Clinton, following his inauguration in 1993, was searching for a new mission for the Western alliance.

Suddenly everyone wanted to join NATO, and soon NATO wanted to accept everyone.



Operation Kayla Mueller: The Baghdadi Raid | October 2019 



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ISIS ‘Beatle’ El Shafee Elsheikh  Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Hostage-Taking Scheme that Resulted in the Deaths of American, British, and Japanese Citizens.

The highest-ranking fighter for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a foreign terrorist organization, to have ever faced a jury trial in the United States was sentenced today to life imprisonment for his participation in a brutal hostage-taking scheme that resulted in the deaths of four American citizens, as well as the deaths of British and Japanese nationals, in Syria. 

Aid worker Kayla Mueller: Unforgettable.

“Today, the men and women of the Department of Justice and our criminal justice system delivered justice,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco. “Today, we remember the four Americans for whom it was delivered: James Foley, Kayla Mueller, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig. My thoughts are with their families, whose strength and resolve inspired the men and women of the Justice Department as they investigated and prosecuted this case with skill and determination.”

“ISIS committed horrific acts against hostages held in Syria and nothing can make up for their suffering and loss,” said FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate. “We will always remember the victims who perished and our thoughts today are especially with the Foley, Mueller, Sotloff, and Kassig families. Today’s sentencing demonstrates that those who kill or injure our citizens cannot hide forever. The FBI and our partners throughout the U.S. government will work relentlessly to bring them to justice. I am grateful for the dedication of the men and women of the FBI, and that of our partners both in the United States and internationally, who stand with us.”

“I want to express my gratitude for the tireless work of the trial team, including all our partners, in bringing about today’s sentence,” said U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Their efforts over many years of investigating and prosecuting the ISIS Beatles are emblematic of the best of the Department of Justice, and truly our country, has to offer in pursuing justice in the face of terrorism. I am also deeply appreciative of the efforts of the victims’ families in this case. Without their commitment, this case never would have made it to our courthouse and we would not have the result we have today.”

“Today, El Shafee Elsheikh was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the heinous hostage-taking and appalling deaths of American, British, and Japanese citizens,” said Assistant Director in Charge Steven M. D’Antuono of the FBI Washington Field Office. “This case has always been about the victims, and while this sentence does not take away any pain felt by their families, we hope that it brings some justice.

The families of James Foley, Kayla Mueller, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig have shown remarkable resilience and strength through the ordeal of their loved ones’ abduction and murder and the ensuing years it took for this investigation and trial to conclude. The scope of this investigation was immense, and involved a myriad of individuals at the FBI, other U.S. agencies, and international partners working together to obtain this significant sentence. Today’s sentence demonstrates the commitment of the FBI and our partners to continue to investigate crimes against Americans and pursue justice on behalf of the families of these victims, no matter how long it takes or where in the world it takes us.”

According to court documents, from November 2012 through Feb. 7, 2015, former British citizen El Shafee Elsheikh, 34, served as a leader in a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the captivity of 26 hostages in Syria. Elsheikh personally participated in the detention of and hostage negotiations for four American citizens – James Wright Foley, Kayla Jean Mueller, Steven Joel Sotloff, and Peter Edward Kassig – each of whom died as hostages in ISIS custody. In addition, Elsheikh personally participated in the detention of and hostage negotiations for British, French, Italian, Danish, German, Spanish, Swedish, Belgian, Swiss, and New Zealand nationals.

According to court documents and evidence presented during trial, Elsheikh and two other ISIS members supervised the terrorist organization’s jails and detention facilities at which the hostages were held. Elsheikh and his co-conspirators engaged in a prolonged pattern of physical and psychological violence against hostages that was meant as an effort to subdue the hostages. These actions were also intended to compel the victims’ family members and their governments to pay large monetary ransoms for their release, in addition to compelling the U.S. government and other governments to agree to other terms and conditions for the victims’ return.

According to evidence presented during trial, in addition to physically and psychologically abusing the hostages, Elsheikh and his co-conspirators participated in forcibly exposing the hostages to the murder of other hostages held by ISIS, including a Russian hostage who was killed in or about February 2014 and a Syrian prisoner who was executed in or about April 2014. After a group of European hostages were forced to witness the execution of the Syrian prisoner, Elsheikh and his co-conspirators returned the hostages to the prison where they were being held with American and British hostages.

From August 2014 through October 2014, ISIS released videos depicting the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and British citizens David Haines and Alan Henning. In November 2014, ISIS released a video depicting the decapitated head of Peter Kassig. In January 2015, ISIS released videos depicting the decapitated body of Japanese citizen Haruna Yukawa and the beheading of Japanese citizen Kenji Goto. On or about Feb. 7, 2015, Kayla Mueller’s family received an email from ISIS confirming Mueller’s death in Syria.

According to evidence presented during trial, Elsheikh was part of a group of ISIS members who spoke with British accents and were referred to by the hostages as the “Beatles.” He and his convicted co-conspirator, Alexanda Amon Kotey, 38, were captured together in January 2018 by the Syrian Democratic Forces as they attempted to escape Syria for Turkey. Mohammed Emwazi, who conducted the above-referenced videotaped beheadings, was killed in November 2015 in a U.S. military airstrike in Syria.

On Sept. 2, 2021, Kotey pleaded guilty to all of the offenses charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia in the eight-count indictment, consisting of one count of conspiracy to commit hostage taking resulting in death; four counts of hostage taking resulting in the deaths of the four Americans (James Foley, Kayla Mueller, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig); one count of conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens outside of the United States; one count of conspiracy to provide material support or resources to terrorists resulting in the deaths of U.S., British, and Japanese nationals; and one count of conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization resulting in the deaths of U.S., British, and Japanese nationals. Kotey was sentenced to eight concurrent terms of life imprisonment on April 29, 2022.

On April 14, 2022, Elsheikh was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia of all eight of the above-listed offenses. Earlier today, the Court sentenced Elsheikh to eight concurrent terms of life imprisonment.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia expresses its profound appreciation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Counter Terrorism Command of the United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service, the Syrian Democratic Forces, and our many foreign partners for their dedicated commitment to assist the United States in seeking justice for all the victims of these crimes.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Raj Parekh, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dennis M. Fitzpatrick, John T. Gibbs, and Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelson, all of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Counterterrorism Section Trial Attorney Alicia H. Cook of the Justice Department National Security Division prosecuted the case.



NORWAY

Geir Lundestad's book

傑出的歷史學家Geir Lundestad閣下

他在奧斯陸的挪威諾貝爾研究所擔任執行主任長達25年。

Выдающийся историк, Его Превосходительство Гейр Лундестад В течение двадцати пяти лет он занимал должность исполнительного директора Норвежского Нобелевского института в Осло.

Distinguished Historian Geir Lundestad

He served over a period of twenty-five years as the Executive Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo.

Hello friends and readers,

Peace must be more than the absence of war, said German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Oxford University Press has recently published a book which takes us on the history of the Nobel Peace Prize as seen from an insider’s perspective, written by no other than  His Excellency Geir Lundestad, distinguished historian who served for twenty-five years as the executive director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo. If you are going to read only one book about the Nobel Peace Prize, this is the one you should count on. Director Lundestad starts by reweaving the history of the Prize: The Nobel Peace Prize past and present.

He then continues examining the Will of Alfred Nobel and Alfred Nobel. Being the detailed and thorough historian as he is, Lundestad examines the period from 1901 till1914 which he describes as the time of Arbitration. Between 1919 and 1931 the League of Nations made its debut, and between 1945 and 2018 it has continued as the United Nations. He then goes on examining the Norwegian Nobel Committee after 1945, the UN and the Dream of Peace on earth, the Norwegian UN Ideology and the breath of UN's work. Impressively written and easily understood. Historian Lundestad writes about Peace Prize, and Disarmament, the Peace prize and the Environment and winds up by asking a pertinent question, "Why has the USA Received so many Peace Prizes?"

In the chapter called Portraits, Lundestad gives us an insider’s view on recipients of the Prize. Among them Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), Aung San Kyi (1991), Nelson Mandela and Frederik Wilhelm de Klerk (1993), Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin (1994), Kim Dae-Jung (2000), The UN and Kofi Annan (2001), Jimmy Carter (2002), Barack H. Obama (2010), The European Union (2012). Lundestad winds up in a Chapter called Conclusions.

Lundestad: "All in all, I think the Norwegian Nobel Committee has a solid record from the twenty-five years I was committee secretary. I would argue that no obvious mistakes were made during these years, though some distinctions might be questioned. That is how we always will be. No individual or institution only makes perfect decisions, and if there is to be any criticism of any part of the laurates, the committee secretary must of course accept his part of this criticism."

Geir Lundestad gives President Barack Obama some good advice on his way home after receiving the Nobel Peac Prize in 2010

.

蓋爾·隆達斯塔（Geir Lundestad）在獲得2010年諾貝爾獎豌豆獎後，為總統巴拉克·奧巴馬（Barack Obama）回家提供了一些很好的建議。



Гейр Лундестад дает президенту Бараку Обаме несколько хороших советов по дороге домой после получения Нобелевской премии Пика в 2010 году.

Привет друзья и читатели,

Мир должен быть больше, чем отсутствие войны, считает канцлер Германии Гельмут Коль. Издательство Оксфордского университета недавно опубликовало книгу, в которой рассказывается об истории Нобелевской премии мира с точки зрения инсайдера, написанной не кем иным, как Его Превосходительством Гейром Лундестадом, выдающимся историком, который двадцать пять лет занимал должность исполнительного директора Норвежский Нобелевский институт в Осло. Если вы собираетесь прочитать только одну книгу о Нобелевской премии мира, то на это вы должны рассчитывать. Директор Lundestad начинает с пересмотра истории премии: Нобелевская премия мира в прошлом и настоящем.

Затем он продолжает изучать волю Альфреда Нобеля и Альфреда Нобеля. Будучи подробным и тщательным историком, как он, Лундестад рассматривает период с 1901 по 1914 годы, который он описывает как время арбитража. В период с 1919 по 1931 год дебютировала Лига Наций, а в период с 1945 по 2018 год она стала Организацией Объединенных Наций. Затем он продолжает изучать норвежский Нобелевский комитет после 1945 года, ООН и мечту о мире на земле, норвежскую идеологию ООН и дыхание работы ООН. Впечатляюще написано и легко понять. Историк Лундестад пишет о Премии Мира и Разоружении, Премии Мира и Окружающей среде и в итоге задает уместный вопрос: «Почему США получили столько премий Мира?»

В главе под названием «Портреты» Лундестад дает нам взгляд инсайдера на получателей Премии. Среди них Михаил Горбачев (1990 год), Аунг Сан Чжи (1991 год), Нельсон Мандела и Фредерик Вильгельм де Клерк (1993 год), Ясир Арафат, Шимон Перес и Ицхак Рабин (1994 год), Ким Дэ Чжун (2000 год), ООН и Кофи Аннан (2001), Джимми Картер (2002), Барак Х. Обама (2010), Европейский союз (2012). Lundestad заканчивается в главе под названием Выводы.

Лундестад: «В целом, я думаю, что норвежский Нобелевский комитет имеет солидную историю за двадцать пять лет, когда я был секретарем комитета. Я бы сказал, что за эти годы не было допущено никаких очевидных ошибок, хотя некоторые различия могут быть поставлены под сомнение. как мы всегда будем. Ни один человек или учреждение не принимает только совершенные решения, и если есть какая-либо критика какой-либо части laurates, секретарь комитета, конечно, должен принять его часть этой критики ".



            MARY'S MOSAIC               THE CIA CONSPIRACY TO MURDER JOHN F KENNEDY AND MARY P MEYER AND THEIR VISON FOR WORLD PEACE

Hello friends! The book, Mary's Mosaic written by author Peter Janney is an express-ion of two opposite political belief systems locked in bitter and relentless conflict. The United States of today is in many ways in a diametrical opposite situation than were the case after 1865; "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" has been exchanged for control, imprisonment and death.

"That all men are created equal", has been exchanged by razor sharp ideological trenches that divide a whole nation. Author Peter Janney has produced a remarkable and important work. Seldom do we get opportunity to move into the dark tunnels of power in the brilliant way Mr. Janney shows us. Cheers.

Left: Mary Pinchot Meyer, a Washington painter who allegedly had a secret affair with U.S. President John F. Kennedy, is shown in this undated photo; Right: President John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1961, on his first day in office.

There are other reviewers who have written in detail about this book, page by page, and I recommend readers to familiarize themselves with these reviews. I will not repeat what has already been said, but instead contribute with additional comments.

The outcome of the first American civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 decided who should be included in the winners club and steer the new nation into the future. The second American civil war, which is fought in our own time by stealth, is deciding who shall not be included in the winners club. It is against these two contradictory scenarios that many of the violent political deaths that has occurred in the United States speak more clearly to us, stand out in a way we have not realized before and warn us. We have become aware of the violent culture underpinning American politics of today, even though such incidents are usually not acknowledged or reported, but often repressed and denied.

This is in many ways a dangerous book, but a necessary one. It's dangerous, because the story told by Peter Janney is also the story of our own time and lives here and now, and that should give even the most hardened reader goose bumps. It's also a necessary book, much because the execution of President John F Kennedy's long time friend and lover, Mary Pinchot Meyer, is not simply a "murder" as has been repeated over and over like a mantra. No, on the contrary; this is Civil War on a Grand and sophisticated scale, meticulously executed and tirelessly vigilant.

Click and Play

Mary Pinchot Meyer

Author Peter Janney has with his thoroughly, investigative and intelligent book Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and their Vision for World Peace, documented far beyond reasonable doubt, that this is a special kind of stealth war, a war where intelligent people both in and outside of politics, and with the highest ideals for peace and for the survival of humanity, have no place at all and therefore must be surgically and precisely removed. It can't get any darker than this, and readers are hereby warned! Buy the book!

EUROPE-USA

CHINA-RUSSIA RELATIONS

Dear readers. The editor-in-chief sincerely believes that it is better to try to establish a dialogue and understanding with Russia and China on the basis of empathy, respect and dignity than to escalate tension and risk a nuclear confrontation.

For this simple reason, in addition to publishing in English, petrofilm.com is also partially translated into Russian and Chinese. Russia in this context means Russians living on the European side west of the Ural Mountains on the Great European Plain. Thank you for your understanding and have a nice day.

Petrofilm.com in the Bejing Military Museum 北京軍事博物館

РОССИЯ

 Уважаемые читатели.

  Главный редактор искренне считает, что лучше попытаться установить диалог и взаимопонимание с Россией и Китаем на основе сочувствия, уважения и достоинства, чем нагнетать напряженность и рисковать ядерной конфронтацией. По этой простой причине petrofilm.com помимо публикации на английском языке также частично переводится на русский и китайский; Россия в этом контексте означает русских, проживающих на европейской стороне к западу от Уральских гор на Большой европейской равнине. Спасибо за понимание и хорошего дня.

Репортаж главного редактора из Москвы



Постоянный представитель России при НАТО Александр Грушко

Вопрос: Как Россия оценивает намерение США разместить еще одну бронетанковую бригаду в Восточной Европе?

Александр Грушко: Нам нужно посмотреть, как эти намерения реализуются. Тем не менее, мы оцениваем эти планы не только с точки зрения того, что Соединенные Штаты могут дополнительно развернуть на «восточном фланге» НАТО, но и в контексте уже принятых совокупных мер.

Что касается новой схемы размещения сил на «восточной периферии» НАТО, то это предполагает качественное изменение конфигурации этого присутствия и значительное ухудшение ситуации в военной сфере.

В настоящее время силы США постоянно ротации в шести странах Восточной Европы, и постоянно проводятся учения с участием не только американских, но и европейских контингентов. Усилена военно-морская группировка на Балтике. Созданы склады для оборудования, используемого ротационными подразделениями во время совместных учений с национальными контингентами.

Инфраструктура пополнения войск продолжает обновляться. Активизировалась военная активность в воздушном пространстве вдоль наших границ. Резко увеличилось количество разведывательных полетов. Постоянно говорят об увеличении военного присутствия в Черном море.

Все это свидетельствует о том, что политика «сдерживания», которая изначально была провозглашена на словах, теперь сопровождается конкретными решениями военного планирования. Это создает долгосрочную негативную тенденцию не только для региональной безопасности, но и для европейской безопасности в целом.

Другая проблема в том, что никто не знает, как далеко зайдет этот процесс. Решение о развертывании дополнительной бронетанковой бригады объявляется в момент, когда ничего критического с точки зрения интересов НАТО на «восточном фланге» не происходит.

Становится все более очевидным, что эти военные приготовления не имеют под собой реальной основы. Нет прямой угрозы ни Польше, ни странам Балтии, но информационная кампания продолжает набирать обороты.

По-прежнему ходят абсурдные страшилки о том, что Россия напала бы на страны Балтии, если бы НАТО не приняла меры и не разместила свои войска в регионе. Все признаки указывают на серьезное изменение к худшему в военной ситуации.

Вопрос: Есть ли основания говорить, что действия НАТО нарушают договоренности с Россией, в частности Основополагающий акт 1997 года?

Александр Грушко: Дополнительная бронетанковая бригада для усиления «восточного фланга» противоречит духу Основополагающего акта. Между тем НАТО утверждает, что все военные усилия полностью соответствуют Основополагающему акту Россия-НАТО, согласно которому НАТО обязалось не размещать дополнительные значительные боевые силы на постоянной основе.

Мы не раз заявляли, что непрерывная ротация ничем не отличается от постоянного развертывания. Однако должен отметить, что две базы европейского сегмента глобальной системы противоракетной обороны строятся.

База в Румынии сейчас находится в боевой готовности и в мае должна быть передана под командование НАТО. Строительство объекта в Польше продолжается. Базы однозначно подпадают под определение «значимые» и имеют постоянный характер.

Вопрос: Каким образом усиление контингента США повлияет на сотрудничество Россия-НАТО?

Александр Грушко: Ни в коем случае. Нет сотрудничества. В апреле 2014 года страны НАТО приняли решение прекратить всякое сотрудничество с Россией, и все проекты были приостановлены. Сегодня у нас нет позитивной повестки дня с НАТО.

Мы часто слышим, как представители НАТО говорят, что они готовы к диалогу. Диалог через постоянное представительство продолжается. У нас хорошие контакты с руководством альянса, со всеми миссиями в НАТО, но эти контакты не могут заменить сотрудничество Россия-НАТО, которое строилось на протяжении многих лет для обеспечения безопасности всех членов Совета Россия-НАТО в ряде областей.

Мы вместе работали над Афганистаном. Мы проделали большую работу по борьбе с терроризмом не только в плане оценки угроз и обмена опытом, но и в реализации проектов, направленных на исключение трагедий, подобных той, что произошла в Брюсселе.

Вопрос: Каков статус деятельности Совета Россия-НАТО?

Александр Грушко: Формально работа совета не прекращается. По нашей инициативе он был созван на экстренное заседание в июне 2014 года в связи с началом карательной операции киевских властей на юго-востоке Украины. С тех пор никаких встреч не проводилось. Работа над следующей встречей ведется, но решение пока не принято.

Вопрос: Можно ли в нынешней ситуации ссылаться на ДОВСЕ?

Александр Грушко: Наращивание военной мощи США происходит на фоне размывания режима контроля над вооружениями в Европе. Режим ДОВСЕ был краеугольным камнем европейской безопасности. Он устанавливает ограничения для основных категорий систем оружия и обеспечивает эффективный обмен информацией и режим интрузивной проверки.

В начале 1990-х стало ясно, что договор не соответствует новым политическим реалиям, и начались переговоры об адаптации. Эти усилия завершились подписанием адаптированного ДОВСЕ. Это больше соответствовало новым реалиям. В частности, предусматривались конкретные механизмы использования политических инструментов в случае развертывания сил сверх установленных квот.

В 2004 году Россия ратифицировала договор, но страны НАТО затянули с ратификацией под надуманными предлогами. В результате он не вступил в силу. Поскольку ДОВСЕ утратил связь с реальностью, есть основания говорить, что режим контроля над вооружениями в Европе мертв. Это еще больше усугубляет ситуацию с безопасностью. Однако этот выбор сделали сами страны НАТО.



Это «Исследование фактов и вымыслов внешней политики», в котором он анализировал «холодную войну». Фромм отметил, что «обе страны, Соединенные Штаты и Советский Союз, использовали одни и те же прогнозы, чтобы воспринимать друг друга как врага и аргументировать конец этому опасному противостоянию. На фотографии слева изображен Эрих Фромм в 1971 году, работающий над рукописью в своей квартире в Локарно, Швейцария. На рисунке ниже показаны американские и российские танки между бочками на Фридрихштрассе, западный Берлин, Восточная Германия, с 4 по 9 июня 1961 года. Потенциально чрезвычайно опасная ситуация.

Это во многом аналогично сегодняшней ситуации в регионе Персидского залива и продолжающейся эскалации конфронтации между НАТО и Россией из-за Украины.



Президент Рональд Рейган и лидер Советского Союза Михаил С. Горбачев в знаменательный момент в послевоенной истории подписали договор о запрещении ядерных ракет средней дальности и начали переговоры о сокращении количества более опасного стратегического оружия большой дальности. Рейган и Горбачев, лидеры ведущих капиталистических и коммунистических обществ мира, сели рядом, чтобы подписать соглашение под чешскими хрустальными люстрами Восточного зала.



Рациональный бардак в Норвегии

Утверждалось, что в случае усиления напряженности и войны между Россией и НАТО Норвегия получит гарантированную поддержку со стороны Соединенных Штатов и других партнеров НАТО здесь, в Европе. Правительство Норвегии вложило в этот пакт весь свой престиж и силу. Норвежское общество и его способность выжить в военное время зависят от быстрого развертывания иностранных войск и дополнительных военных материалов. По крайней мере, так это выглядит на бумаге!

В действительности, когда российская доктрина превентивного удара будет в полном разгаре, Норвегия внезапно и без предупреждения окажется застигнутой врасплох. Затем последовал столь же быстрый ультиматум, поскольку российский Северный флот уже достиг Медвежьего острова (Бьёрнёйа) и закрыл брешь между сушей и льдом. Северная часть Северного моря, Норвежское море и Баренцево море в настоящее время являются доминирующей территорией России. Норвегия изолирована. Почему этот сценарий верен? За последние сорок лет НАТО спало, ссорилось и из-за американского высокомерия было значительно ослаблено и перетянуто. В пользу России и в ущерб Норвегии. Идея о том, что Норвегия будет спасена иностранными войсками НАТО и Соединенными Штатами Америки, является надуманным беспорядком, который дорого обойдется норвежскому населению.



Дорогие читатели и друзья!

Теперь мы можем ясно видеть; дождь ушел! Джо Байден защитит нашу свободу, поддержит НАТО и наладит трансатлантические связи. После многих лет оскорбительных выражений и угроз отказа от сотрудничества с союзниками Европа с нетерпением ждет Нового курса, позитивного двустороннего торгового взаимодействия и общего направления в оборонной политике. Европа и Соединенные Штаты должны работать в одном направлении, проявляя сочувствие друг к другу, уважая людей и достоинство в рамках закона и порядка. Да благословит Бог Джозефа Робинетта Байдена-младшего, его семью и нового президента Соединенных Штатов Америки. Удачного дня!



Норвежский Нобелевский комитет злоупотребил своей властью и использовал награду в политическом контексте для продвижения повестки дня нор

вежского парламента Стортингета. В 2003 году они начали сотрудничать с Ираном, а семь лет спустя - с Китайской Народной Республикой. Оба этих примера доказывают, что норвежский парламент, норвежский Нобелевский комитет и министерство иностранных дел Осло серьезно не имеют опыта в установлении устойчивого диалога и консенсуса по международным отношениям. В этом случае вклад Норвегии в Совет Безопасности Организации Объединенных Наций на общее благо Организации Объединенных Наций остается для нас загадкой.

Северный поток II должен быть завершен ЕВРОПА НЕ ЯВЛЯЕТСЯ ВАЗАЛЕМ СОЕДИНЕННЫХ ШТАТОВ Друзья навсегда? ТРАНСАТЛАНТИЧЕСКИЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ НА ПЕРЕКРЕСТКЕ - НОВАЯ ЕВРОПЕЙСКАЯ АРМИЯ С 2024 ГОДА - ГЕРМАНИЯ ФРАНЦИЯ БЕЛЬГИЯ ИТАЛИЯ ЧЕРНАЯ ПОЧТА НА ЕГО СЕПАПЕШТЕ!

Nord Stream II - это европейский промышленный проект для Европы с четырьмя национальностями. Для другой страны, такой как США, неслыханно пытаться остановить проект и навязать свою волю европейцам, чтобы смешать политику и промышленные проекты, и продавать свой более дорогой газ Европе. Это самый дешевый и опасный шантаж. Соединенные Штаты манипулируют европейскими странами друг против друга.