The US plans to take over Kalinigrad region

Summary

The US plans for war against Russia are voiced more and more. Dr. Richard Hooker, senior researcher at the Jamestown Foundation (USA), recently talked about a plan to invade Kaliningrad, while the American publication Foreign Policy reports that Washington will “protect itself from Russia” by horizontal escalation, that is, by attacking the Russian contingent in Syria […].

Disproof

This is recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation about Western aggression against Kaliningrad.

The origins of this NATO scenario comes from a recent report by the American Jamestown Foundation entitled “How to Defend the Baltic States”, published in October 2019. The report mentions that “three Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—face powerful Russian forces” and therefore this report comes to “lay out the military units and force posture, along with changes to Alliance command and control, that would be needed to prevail in case Russia was to spark hostilities in the Baltic States”, after it was proven that "Russian aggression in Chechnya, Georgia, Donbas, Crimea and Syria have proven that military force can be used successfully without eliciting a forceful response from the West".

As for the publication in Foreign Policy, the article describes the theories of “offshore balancing” or “offshore control”, stating that "in the event Russia seized the Baltic states, the United States could strike at Russian forces in Crimea or Syria"

In addition, during the Warsaw summit in July 2016, NATO has made it clear that "The Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia".

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 174
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23/11/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania
  • Keywords: European Defence Agency, Kaliningrad, EU/NATO enlargement, NATO
  • Outlet: Sputnik.az
see more

Manufacturers of electric cars and local fascists behind Bolivian coup: hunt of Indians, risk of ethnocide

A few years ago colossal deposits of lithium were discovered in Bolivia. Big corporations are in urgent need of access to lithium, a key metal for the production of electric car batteries. Hence it totally can be that the coup was lobbied by the heads of big American manufacturers of electric cars. We also have good reason to believe that the key role in the coup belonged to Bolivian military elite and the heads of intelligence services, who were driven by personal ambitions and racist sentiments towards local Indian population. A military coup in Bolivia was fascist. Interim president Janine Áñez announced hunt of Aymara and Quechua peoples, who make more than a half of Bolivian population. The risk is Bolivian fascist fundamentalists will not only take over deposits of natural resources, but will start ethnocide with the complicity of the US and its satellites.

 

 

Disproof

This publication claims without any proof that the US electric cars manufactures and local fascists staged the coup in Bolivia and that Interim president Janine Áñez announced the hunt of the Aymara and Quechua peoples. It is an example of a recurrent disinformation narrative about US-led regime change operations against left-wing governments in Latin America. Other examples of this narrative include the alleged presence of a US marine in the Venezuelan barricades and the promotion of a Ukraine-style 'colour revolution', the training of Venezuelan exiles in Guyana for military operations inside the country, preparations for a military intervention after forcing Brazil to join NATO, deliberate blackouts in South America caused by the US and the existence of plans for the secession of oil-rich regions in both Venezuela and Mexico.

This narrative also falls within the broader pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative attempting to deny the existence of genuine grass-roots protests, portraying them as foreign-led efforts and fake colour revolutions.

The Greek church recognised Ukrainian autocephaly under pressure

Constantinople, as you know, threatened to take control over some of the dioceses from the Church of Greece if the latter does not recognise the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It is also well-known, and Greek sources confirm, that the US Embassy in Athens also exerted unprecedented pressure on the Archbishop of Athens.

Disproof

conspiracy theory presented without any supporting evidence and recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The process of recognition was initiated by the Orthodox Church of Greece on 8 January 2019, when the Permanent Synod of the Church of Greece decided that the issue of recognition would be dealt with by the Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece.

The West will support anti-Russian Ukraine until Russia takes over Novorossiya

Ancient Rome’s politician Cato the Elder was famous for his regular calls to destroy Carthage. Similarly, today’s regular demand should be: “To destroy Ukrainian Carthage.” Novorossiya is the way to re-unite Russian people and the most effective response to Ukrainian challenge posed to Russia, the Russian World, the Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian people itself. The West will always need Ukraine as an anti-Russian outpost, as a decaying ferment, as a territory under economic control and a source of the slave labour force. Ukraine will play this role until it owns the lands of historical Novorossiya. They are of strategic importance for Russia, given their access to seas, large population, industrial and agricultural potential. The reunification of Novorossiya with Russia will strengthen Russian statehood, its demographic and economic might.

The Minsk agreements which disregard Novorossiya is a way to nowhere. Once Ukraine gets control over the border with Russia, all constitutional amendments will be revoked within an hour, the leaders of autonomy will be arrested, and regional military bodies will be disarmed. Implementing the Minsk agreements will not change Ukraine as an anti-Russian country, but DPR/LPR and the trust of their population will be lost. The return of DPR/LPR under Kyiv’s control would have a negative psychological effect in Donbas and would be taken by Russians as a betrayal of national interests by the Russian ruling elite.

There is no good reason for Russia to allow Ukraine to get DPR/LPR back. The entry of Ukraine into NATO and the EU will not happen in any case: keeping Ukraine under Western political, economic and military control – something that is already the case – is easier and cheaper than giving Ukraine a full-fledged membership. At the same time, larger Ukraine’s involvement in the Eurasian integration will not prevent the development of Russophobia in the country. Russia’s actual strategic goal is the reunification of historic Russian lands and Russian people. The way to achieve it is the same as it happened to Crimea, that is the partition of Ukraine. Russia needs to follow Catherine the Great’s strategy who decided to partition Rzeczpospolita to reunite historic Russian territories.

Disproof

This publication is an illustrative example of anti-Ukrainian propaganda centred around Russian historical revisionism and Novorossiya concept.

Novorossiya is a geographic title for southern and eastern Ukraine, which served as an ideological pretext for Kremlin to destabilise Ukraine in 2014. Oleg Tsarev, a former Ukrainian parliamentarian, left Ukraine for Russia in 2014 and called for the creation of the so-called ‘Federal Republic of Novorossiya’. He then became a self-proclaimed speaker of Novorossiya's parliament and was sanctioned by the European Union for activities threatening Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. In May 2015 DPR/LNP leaders announced that Novorossiya project is shut down.