by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire NetAfter having shown that the war in Ukraine was prepared by the Straussians and triggered on February 17 by Kiev’s attack on the Donbass, Thierry Meyssan returns to the secret history that links the Anglo-Saxons to the Banderites since the fall of the Third Reich. He sounds the alarm: we have not been able to see the resurgence of Nazi racialism in Ukraine and in the Baltic States for thirty years, nor do we see that many of the Ukrainian civilians we welcome are steeped in Banderites’ ideology. We are waiting for Nazi attacks to begin in Western Europe before we wake up.

Joachim Ribbentrop and Georges Bonnet sign the Franco-German Commitment to peaceful collaboration (1938).

WESTERN SUPPORT FOR NAZISM (1933-1940)

The massive support of the United States and its allies for the Ukrainian Banderites against Russia is comparable to the support of the same side in the early days of Hitler’s Germany against the USSR. Let us remember that absolutely all Western states without exception believed, at one time or another, that the Nazis were the solution to the economic crisis of 1929. Only they seemed to offer a credible alternative to capitalism. Of course, almost all of these people changed their minds when the Nazi danger turned against them.

 As an example, let us recall that the French Foreign Minister, Georges Bonnet, enchanted by the Jewish policy of the Reich, proposed to his German counterpart, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to deport French, Polish and German Jews to a distant colony, Madagascar [1]. On December 6, 1938, the same Georges Bonnet signed the Franco-German Commitment to Peaceful Collaboration with Joachim Ribbentrop, the Reich Foreign Minister.
 British Prime Minister Neuville Chamberlain organized the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, which liquidated Czechoslovakia for the benefit of the Reich [2], while the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, stole 27 tons of Czechoslovakian gold to help strengthen the Nazi armies [3].
 Or Prescot Bush, the father of President George H. Bush and the grandfather of President George W. Bush, invested in 1940 in the factories of the Auschwitz prison camp (which only became an extermination camp in 1942) [4].

After the fall of Nazism, these people were not brought to justice. On the contrary, efforts were made to close ranks and to forget these felonies. Let us be careful not to repeat the same mistakes!

THE ROLE OF THE UKRAINIANS DURING THE COLD WAR

During the Second World War, the theoretician of Nazism Alfred Rosenberg and Minister of the East (Ostminister) entrusted the Latvian Gerhard von Mende to organize the rallying of the peoples of the USSR to the Führer Adolf Hitler. In doing so, he devised a model for the manipulation of minorities that was taken up by the CIA after the fall of the Third Reich. With the help of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, Von Mende created schools for mullahs in Göttingen and Dresden, had a Grand Mufti appointed in the Crimea, and enlisted Eastern SS regiments. He was also the handler of the Ukrainian “nationalist” Stepan Bandera.

In Washington, Presidents Truman and then Eisenhower decided to focus on psychological warfare against the Soviets. The CIA created AmComLib (American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of the USSR), which operated Radio Liberty from Munich. It recycled Gerhard von Mende. It was he who proposed the establishment of a mosque in Munich, which was eventually entrusted to Said Ramadan (the son-in-law of the founder of the Brotherhood Hassan el-Banna) [5]. It was also he who settled Stepan Bandera’s problems and recycled him to MI6 and the CIA [6].

Stepan Bandera’s former deputy and Nazi-imposed Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yaroslav Stetsko, was on the instructions of the Third Reich one of the founders of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) during World War II. He continued the ABN during the Cold War, this time for the United States. As such, he became a pillar of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) formed by the CIA [7].

The headquarters of the ABN was in Munich, from where Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko conducted sabotage operations in the USSR. The chairman of the ABN was the Dane Ole Bjørn Kraft, former chairman of the North Atlantic Council (the civilian authority that commanded the Allied forces).

Several operations were planned in collaboration with the CIA and MI6, i.e. under the supervision of Frank Wisner (Nicolas Sarkozy’s grandfather by marriage) and Kim Philby. But the latter betrayed the Crown and passed on information to the KGB, which failed [8].

One of Yaroslav Stetsko’s collaborators, Lev Dobriansky, became U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, while his daughter Paula Dobriansky served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy (sic) in the George W. Bush administration. It was Mrs. Dobriansky who financed for ten years historical studies aimed at making people forget that the Holodomor, the great famine that hit Ukraine in 1932-33, also devastated Russia and Kazakhstan, and to make them believe that it was decided by Stalin to eliminate the Ukrainian people. This myth is manipulated by the Banderites to make people believe that the Russians have hated the Ukrainians for centuries. The European Parliament endorsed it in 2008 [9]. Afterwards, Paula Dobriansky held high positions at the Reutersagency and now works at the Atlantic Council. She was vice-president of the NED during the Maidan putsch.

This communication campaign of the Ukrainian government is based on the myth of the Holodomor. A goddess tells of the immemorial crimes of the Russians against the Ukrainians to announce that the harvest has arrived. She then beheads a Russian like the jihadists behead the infidels.

President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. Bush welcomed the Banderites, including Yaroslav Stetsko, in 1983 at the White House [10].

Bandera was assassinated by the KGB in 1955. Stetsko died in 1986. Both men are buried in the German cemetery of Walffriedhof.

ANGLO-SAXON SUPPORT FOR THE JIHADISTS

In 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter authorized “Operation Hurricane”. The idea was to send Arab jihadists, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, to Afghanistan to fight against the communist government. It was then that this small terrorist organization became a real army [11]. One thing led to another, from the wars in Afghanistan to those in Yugoslavia and Chechnya, and finally to Daesh in Iraq and Syria [12].

For forty years, all Nato member states have been invited to provide “political asylum” to jihadists “persecuted” by Arab dictatorships. At least 17 allied states participated in “Operation Timber Sycamore”, supplying billions of dollars worth of weapons to the jihadists [13] until they threatened the West. Let’s be careful not to repeat the same mistakes!

WESTERN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN BANDERITES, CROATIAN USTASA AND BALTIC NEO-NAZIS

During the Cold War, former specialists in Nazi repression were integrated by the United States into its anti-Soviet apparatus. One remembers, for example, the “Butcher of Lyon”, Klaus Barbie, who became chief of repression in Bolivia, or Alois Bruner, who became a special adviser to the Syrian president (before the Ba’ath) after having exterminated Jews in Austria, Greece and France. However, this seemed to have stopped with the dissolution of the USSR.

However, Banderite, Ustasha and Nazi militias emerged in the public space with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the independence of the former Soviet states. They obtained the support of the Anglo-Saxons in the name of the collaboration of their parents during the Cold War. As examples we recall:

 In Bulgaria, an annual event in memory of General Hristo Lukov has been held in Sofia for about 15 years [14].
 In Estonia, it started in 2009 with the return of the ashes of SS Colonel Alfons Rebane (the “Estonian Rommel”), followed by the laying of a commemorative plaque [15], each time with the strong support of President Toomas Hendrik Ilves (himself a US official). Defense Minister Urmas Reinsalu visited the island of Saaremaa in 2012 to participate in a ceremony of the “Alliance of Estonian Freedom Fighters” (Nazi collaborators) and congratulate former SS men for “liberating the homeland” [16]
 In Latvia, President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga (1999-2007) claims that the “SS were heroes of the anti-Soviet struggle.” She had school history textbooks changed and authorized events commemorating these “heroes ». Latvia, where a quarter of the population is Russian, has banned the use of Russian in secondary schools. In addition, along with Estonia, it built a wall on its Russian border in 2018 [17]
 In Bolivia, MI6 relied on the Croatian Ustasha community to overthrow President Evo Morales, in 2019 [18]

On November 18, 2020, the 3rd Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” (UN A/C.3/75/L.49). All UN members voted “for”, only the United States and Ukraine voted “against”. All members of Nato and the European Union abstained.

NATO’s stay-behind agent Dmitryo Yarosh.

THE SAME CAUSES PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS

On May 8, 2007, in Ternopol (western Ukraine), Nazi and Islamist groups created an “Anti-Imperialist Front” to fight together against Russia. Organizations from Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and Russia participated, including Islamist separatists from Crimea, Adygea, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Ossetia and Chechnya. Dokka Umarov, the Emir of Chechnya, who is considered by the United Nations to be a member of al-Qaeda, was unable to attend due to international sanctions. The Front is chaired by Dmytro Yarosh, who went to fight in Chechnya. Together with Andriy Biletsky, the “White Führer”, he created the Right Sector, which led the EuroMaidan revolution, and later the Azov Battalion. Since November 2, 2021, he has been an advisor to the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi.

On April 7, 2022, President Zelensky spoke before the Greek Parliament. He played a short video during his speech. A Ukrainian of Greek origin introduced himself as a member of the Azov regiment and praised his faction’s fight against the Russians.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine has revived its old demons. School history textbooks have been changed. For thirty years, children have been taught in school that their country was only independent thanks to the Nazis and that they have no genes in common with the Russians, that inferior race. Every year tens of thousands of children and teenagers attend the “summer camps” of the Banderites, just as the Hitler Youth did. They chant their slogan: “Glory to Ukraine”. These young people, girls and boys, find today asylum in the European Union. Tomorrow, like their Muslim Brotherhood allies, some of them will commit attacks there.

Already, the Bandéristes are recruiting cadets in Canada, France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States and now officers in the military academies of these countries. For this purpose, they have created, in 2019, a secret order, Centuria, which spreads their ideology. This order is opposed to democratic procedures and universal suffrage. Its members recite the “Prayer of the Ukrainian Nationalists”, written by Josef Mashchak during the interwar period. They display the Danish Sun Cross and multiply references to the Thule Order, to which very high Nazi dignitaries belonged. Western armies did not take this threat seriously. This ideology, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, is spreading like wildfire.

The foul beast is already here, among us.

How can we be so blind?

via Eurasia & Multipolarity

https://t.me/russtrat/13529

The bloody staging in Bucha, the terrorist shelling of Kramatorsk attributed to Russia, the anti-Russian bacchanalia in the Western media and social networks… Today, Russia is once again being portrayed as universal evil. And who is the soloist in the current propaganda campaign? All the same.

The pioneers of a systematic approach to military propaganda were the British. They “trained” well during the Anglo-Boer War at the end of the previous century, in which the sympathies of many countries were on the side of the Boers – the first European settlers in Africa. The British press then made up hundreds of stories about their atrocities. And the “attack” on the Red Cross tents with the wounded was even filmed. Later it turned out that it was a staging with the participation of the actor Hampstead Heath.

At the same time, the concept was born, which was later called “atrocity propaganda.”

This “atrocity propaganda” flourished most luxuriantly during the First World War. In Great Britain, the ideological leader of this kind of propaganda was one of the founders of the English press, the “noble” Lord Northcliffe. He brought together the various propaganda organs that had hitherto existed independently and turned them into one of the most important instruments of war. Lloyd George wrote to him after the peace was signed:

“I have a lot of direct evidence of the success of your invaluable work, which contributed a lot to the defeat of the enemy.”

One of the most successful campaigns of English propagandists was the so-called Liege Tragedy. “Eyewitnesses” told the press about the brutality of the Germans they allegedly saw, how the hands of children were cut off, how German officers and soldiers raped 20 Belgian girls in the Liège market square, how German soldiers stabbed a two-year-old child with bayonets and cut off the breasts of a peasant girl in Maine how they tortured Catholic priests by hanging them from bells, how they mocked nuns.

A committee of jurists and historians, headed by Lord Bruce, the former British ambassador to the United States, even drew up a report stating that “murder, lust and plunder reigned in many parts of Belgium on a scale incomparable to any other wars between civilized nations throughout the last three centuries.”

At the same time, an abomination was thrown into the press that the Germans allegedly processed the corpses of soldiers, their own and others, into stearin and pig feed. Only after the end of the war did the truth surface – a special commission did not confirm a single case of atrocity cited in the report.

The Germans, in turn, also did not shun what is now called “fakes”. The “horror propaganda” of the Russian invasion of East Prussia continued in the German press until the very end of the war. The topics are exactly the same – Russian soldiers rape German women, kill children, rob the population.

Stories of atrocities made it possible to present a war against such an adversary as righteous, as upholding the “values of civilization” in the face of barbarism. Isn’t that what we see now if we read the Western and Ukrainian media and social networks?

More about this in the publication of the RUSSTRAT Institute “Blood Lies – the Birthmarks of Western Civilization”

via Sputnik

Over the weekend, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced that the alliance will see a “fundamental transformation”, particularly by beefing up its eastern flanks and addressing the “threat” from Russia and China.

Russia has been repeatedly reiterating that it views NATO’s expansion eastward as a national security threat, highlighting it as one of the nation’s so-called “red lines” in December 2021.

Now, citing a “new normal” for European security, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that the alliance will face a major resetthat envisages enhanced military on its eastern flanks.

With the decision – if there is one – regarding the readdressing of NATO’s strategic concept at a June summit in Madrid, the mere announcement of the alliance’s ambition could pose a series of concerns for Moscow – concerns that the West ignored when they were listed in December.

Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, who helped implement arms control treaties in the former Soviet Union, served in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq, believes that NATO’s “transformation” is a response to the unflattering “truth on the ground in Ukraine today”.

“Right now NATO is waking up to the fact that despite all of the propaganda that NATO and the West, together with Ukraine, have been putting out about a Russian defeat in Ukraine, the military professionals are looking at the map, looking at this position of forces, and realising that Ukraine is about ready to suffer a very major strategic defeat; one that will transform the entire picture, so to speak, including any leverage Ukraine might enjoy at the negotiating table”, Ritter says, concluding that NATO strengthening its eastern flanks is a response to the potential grim scenario for the alliance.

It looks like Russia’s stance on the matter will not be too much of a concern for NATO, just like it wasn’t before the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine. Pointing at how Russia warned that NATO’s expansion eastward would prompt a “military-technical response”, Ritter suggests that the alliance’s actions may trigger exactly that. However, it could be limited to “simply a re-disposition of forces in a manner that’s more forward-leaning”, he notes.

Pondering as to why NATO would continue its provocative actions despite clearly knowing Russia’s stance on its expansion eastward, Ritter pointed to it not being the alliance itself making this decision.

“I think the world is starting to wake up to the fact that NATO is an extension of American foreign policy, that NATO is not an independent entity capable of independent thinking or formulating an independent security policy, especially when it comes to Europe. Despite President Biden’s denials to the contrary, the United States does have a policy of regime change in Russia. It is the expressed desire of the United States that the government of Vladimir Putin be done away with, hopefully by an uprising by the Russian people”, Ritter says.

In order to achieve that goal, he continues, NATO, guided by the United States, will “move forward in a manner which is definitely counter to Europe’s security interests”, using a similar template to that observed in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other nations where Washington was willing to change power.

This template, Ritter says, is “to create a tremendous amount of pressure through economic sanctions”, then combining it with military pressure, a posturing of forces, and the like.

And if it does follow such a scenario, then it could face a military conflict with Russia, with Moscow “showing in the instance of Ukraine” that Russia is “willing to go to war to defend its national security interests, that it deems to be of an existential nature”. Should Moscow deem the alliance’s ambition of beefing up its eastern flanks with more military, then the consequences could be grim for Europe.

“This is suicidal, in my viewpoint and normal, rational minds in Europe would normally caution against this. But again, NATO has been captured by the United States and NATO policy is merely an extension of American national security policy. That’s why I think NATO is doing this, because they’re being directed to, pressured by the United States to maintain pressure on Russia in a manner that, at least from the American perspective, they believe would be conducive to domestic unrest in Russia”, Ritter explains.

What Could NATO’s Permanent Presence in Eastern Europe Mean?

What NATO calls its “tripwire presence” in Eastern Europe could be reinforced primarily in the Baltic countries and Poland.

“That is to expand the current reinforced battalion-size battlegroups that NATO has stationed on the soil of the Baltic republics and Poland with larger, perhaps brigade-size elements; in the case of Poland, maybe divisions, etc. This would be a much larger force”, Ritter says.

His view comes as Lithuania announced on Monday that Vilnius and other countries of NATO’s eastern flank “are seeking NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battalions to be reinforced to the level of brigades”.

When it comes to Poland, Ritter continues, NATO might be contemplating the possibility of reconfiguring the Polish Army so that it could “withstand an invasion by Russia”, especially in light of military misfortunes already faced by the Ukrainian Army. However, given the slight difference between beefing up offensive and defensive combat due to manoeuvre warfare, Russia could view any Polish military buildup – even that carried out for defensive purposes – as a potential threat.

“So again, this reinforcement is counterproductive and counter-intuitive. I think only bad things can come from it”, Ritter concluded.