lewrockwell--2020-02-13--World War III’s Newest Battlefield

World War III’s Newest Battlefield

In early March , an estimated 7,500 American combat troops will travel to Norway to join thousands of soldiers from other NATO countries in a massive mock battle with imagined invading forces from Russia .
In this futuristic simulated engagement — it goes by the name of Exercise Cold Response 2020 — allied forces will “ conduct multinational joint exercises with a high-intensity combat scenario in demanding winter conditions , ” or so claims the Norwegian military anyway .
At first glance , this may look like any other NATO training exercise , but think again .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a start , it ’ s being staged above the Arctic Circle , far from any previous traditional NATO battlefield , and it raises to a new level the possibility of a great-power conflict that might end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation .
Welcome , in other words , to World War III ’ s newest battlefield .
For the soldiers participating in the exercise , the potentially thermonuclear dimensions of Cold Response 2020 may not be obvious .
At its start , Marines from the United States and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along Norway ’ s coastline , much as they do in similar exercises elsewhere in the world .
Once ashore , however , the scenario becomes ever more distinctive .
After collecting tanks and other heavy weaponry “ prepositioned ” in caves in Norway ’ s interior , the Marines will proceed toward the country ’ s far-northern Finnmark region to help Norwegian forces stave off Russian forces supposedly pouring across the border .
From then on , the two sides will engage in — to use current Pentagon terminology — high-intensity combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of warfare not seen on such a scale since World War II ) .
And that ’ s just the beginning .
Unbeknownst to most Americans , the Finnmark region of Norway and adjacent Russian territory have become one of the most likely battlegrounds for the first use of nuclear weapons in any future NATO-Russian conflict .
Because Moscow has concentrated a significant part of its nuclear retaliatory capability on the Kola Peninsula , a remote stretch of land abutting northern Norway — any U.S.-NATO success in actualcombat with Russian forces near that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s nuclear arsenal and so might precipitate the early use of such munitions .
Even a simulated victory — the predictable result of Cold Response 2020 — will undoubtedly set Russia ’ s nuclear controllers on edge .
All Hell Breaking Loos ... Michael T. Klare Best Price : $ 18.77 Buy New $ 17.64 To appreciate just how risky any NATO-Russian clash in Norway ’ s far north would be , consider the region ’ s geography and the strategic factors that have led Russia to concentrate so much military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by the way , will be playing out in the context of another existential danger : climate change .
The melting of the Arctic ice cap and the accelerated exploitation of Arctic resources are lending this area ever greater strategic significance .
Energy Extraction in the Far North Look at any map of Europe and you ’ ll note that Scandinavia widens as it heads southward into the most heavily populated parts of Denmark , Finland , Norway , and Sweden .
As you head north , however , it narrows and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme northern reaches , only a thin band of Norway juts east to touch Russia ’ s Kola Peninsula .
To the north , the Barents Sea , an offshoot of the Arctic Ocean , bounds them both .
This remote region — approximately 800 miles from Oslo and 900 miles from Moscow — has , in recent years , become a vortex of economic and military activity .
Once prized as a source of vital minerals , especially nickel , iron ore , and phosphates , this remote area is now the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraction .
With temperatures rising in the Arctic twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet and sea ice retreating ever farther north every year , offshore fossil-fuel exploration has become increasingly viable .
As a result , large reserves of oil and natural gas — the very fuels whose combustion is responsible for those rising temperatures — have been discovered beneath the Barents Sea and both countries are seeking to exploit those deposits .
Norway has taken the lead , establishing at Hammerfest in Finnmark the world ’ s first plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas .
In a similar fashion , Russia has initiated efforts to exploit the mammoth Shtokman gas field in its sector of the Barents Sea , though it has yet to bring such plans to fruition .
For Russia , even more significant oil and gas prospects lie further east in the Kara and Pechora Seas and on the Yamal Peninsula , a slender extension of Siberia .
Its energy companies have , in fact , already begun producing oil at the Prirazlomnoye field in the Pechora Sea and the Novoportovskoye field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there as well ) .
Such fields hold great promise for Russia , which exhibits all the characteristics of a petro-state , but there ’ s one huge problem : the only practical way to get that output to market is via specially-designed icebreaker-tankers sent through the Barents Sea past northern Norway .
The exploitation of Arctic oil and gas resources and their transport to markets in Europe and Asia has become a major economic priority for Moscow as its hydrocarbon reserves below the Arctic Circle begin to dry up .
Despite calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Vladimir Putin ’ s regime continues to insist on the centrality of hydrocarbon production to the country ’ s economic future .
In that context , production in the Arctic has become an essential national objective , which , in turn , requires assured access to the Atlantic Ocean via the Barents Sea and Norway ’ s offshore waters .
Think of that waterway as vital to Russia ’ s energy economy in the way the Strait of Hormuz , connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean , is to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No less than Russia ’ s giant energy firms , its navy must be able to enter the Atlantic via the Barents Sea and northern Norway .
Aside from its Baltic and Black Sea ports , accessible to the Atlantic only via passageways easily obstructed by NATO , the sole Russian harbor with unfettered access to the Atlantic Ocean is at Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula .
Not surprisingly then , that port is also the headquarters for Russia ’ s Northern Fleet — its most powerful — and the site of numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radar bases along with naval shipyards and nuclear reactors .
In other words , it ’ s among the most sensitive military regions in Russia today .
Given all this , President Putin has substantially rebuilt that very fleet , which fell into disrepair after the collapse of the Soviet Union , equipping it with some of the country ’ s most advanced warships .
In 2018 , according to The Military Balance , a publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies , it already possessed the largest number of modern cruisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian fleet , along with 22 attack submarines and numerous support vessels .
Also in the Murmansk area are dozens of advanced MiG fighter planes and a wide assortment of anti-aircraft defense systems .
Finally , as 2019 ended , Russian military officials indicated for the first time that they had deployed to the Arctic the Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile , a weapon capable of hypersonic velocities ( more than five times the speed of sound ) , again presumably to a base in the Murmansk region just 125 miles from Norway ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming NATO exercise .
More significant yet is the way Moscow has been strengthening its nuclear forces in the region .
Like the United States , Russia maintains a “ triad ” of nuclear delivery systems , including intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs ) , long-range “ heavy ” bombers , and submarine-launched ballistic missiles ( SLBMs ) .
Under the terms of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( New START ) , signed by the two countries in 2010 , the Russians can deploy no more than 700 delivery systems capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( That pact will , however , expire in February 2021 unless the two sides agree to an extension , which appears increasingly unlikely in the age of Trump . )
According to the Arms Control Association , the Russians are currently believed to be deploying the warheads they are allowed under New START on 66 heavy bombers , 286 ICBMs , and 12 submarines with 160 SLBMs .
Eight of those nuclear-armed subs are , in fact , assigned to the Northern Fleet , which means about 110 missiles with as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers remain shrouded in secrecy — are deployed in the Murmansk area .
For Russian nuclear strategists , such nuclear-armed submarines are considered the most “ survivable ” of the country ’ s retaliatory systems .
In the event of a nuclear exchange with the United States , the country ’ s heavy bombers and ICBMs could prove relatively vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes as their locations are known and can be targeted by American bombs and missiles with near-pinpoint accuracy .
Those subs , however , can leave Murmansk and disappear into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any crisis and so presumably remain hidden from U.S. spying eyes .
To do so , however , requires that they pass through the Barents Sea , avoiding the NATO forces lurking nearby .
For Moscow , in other words , the very possibility of deterring a U.S. nuclear strike hinges on its ability to defend its naval stronghold in Murmansk , while maneuvering its submarines past Norway ’ s Finnmark region .
No wonder , then , that this area has assumed enormous strategic importance for Russian military planners — and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove challenging to them .
During the Cold War era , Washington viewed the Arctic as a significant strategic arena and constructed a string of military bases across the region .
Their main aim : to intercept Soviet bombers and missiles crossing the North Pole on their way to targets in North America .
After the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 , Washington abandoned many of those bases .
Now , however , with the Pentagon once again identifying “ great power competition ” with Russia and China as the defining characteristic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those bases are being reoccupied and new ones established .
Once again , the Arctic is being viewed as a potential site of conflict with Russia and , as a result , U.S. forces are being readied for possible combat there .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the first official to explain this new strategic outlook at the Arctic Forum in Finland last May .
In his address , a kind of “ Pompeo Doctrine , ” he indicated that the United States was shifting from benign neglect of the region to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re entering a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic , ” he insisted , “ complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate , and to all of our interests in that region.
” To better protect those interests against Russia ’ s military buildup there , “ we are fortifying America ’ s security and diplomatic presence in the area… hosting military exercises , strengthening our force presence , rebuilding our icebreaker fleet , expanding Coast Guard funding , and creating a new senior military post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military.
” The Pentagon has been unwilling to provide many details , but a close reading of the military press suggests that this activity has been particularly focused on northern Norway and adjacent waters .
To begin with , the Marine Corps has established a permanent presence in that country , the first time foreign forces have been stationed there since German troops occupied it during World War II .
A detachment of about 330 Marines were initially deployed near the port of Trondheim in 2017 , presumably to help guard nearby caves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat vehicles .
Two years later , a similarly sized group was then dispatched to the Troms region above the Arctic Circle and far closer to the Russian border .
From the Russian perspective , even more threatening is the construction of a U.S. radar station on the Norwegian island of Vardø about 40 miles from the Kola Peninsula .
To be operated in conjunction with the Norwegian intelligence service , the focus of the facility will evidently be to snoop on those Russian missile-carrying submarines , assumedly in order to target them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stages of any conflict .
That Moscow fears just such an outcome is evident from the mock attack it staged on the Vardø facility in 2018 , sending 11 Su-24 supersonic bombers on a direct path toward the island .
( They turned aside at the last moment . )
It has also moved a surface-to-surface missile battery to a spot just 40 miles from Vardø .
In addition , in August 2018 , the U.S. Navy decided to reactivate the previously decommissioned Second Fleet in the North Atlantic .
“ A new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond — from the Eastern Seaboard to the Barents Sea , ” said Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson at the time .
As last year ended , that fleet was declared fully operational .
Exercise Cold Response 2020 must be viewed in the context of all these developments .
Few details about the thinking behind the upcoming war games have been made public , but it ’ s not hard to imagine what at least part of the scenario might be like : a U.S.-Russian clash of some sort leading to Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Vardø and Norway ’ s defense headquarters at Bodø on the country ’ s northwestern coast .
The invading troops will be slowed but not stopped by Norwegian forces ( and those U.S. Marines stationed in the area ) , while thousands of reinforcements from NATO bases elsewhere in Europe begin to pour in .
Eventually , of course , the tide will turn and the Russians will be forced back .
No matter what the official scenario is like , however , for Pentagon planners the situation will go far beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norwegian military facilities would presumably be preceded by intense air and missile bombardment and the forward deployment of major naval vessels .
This , in turn , would prompt comparable moves by the U.S. and NATO , probably resulting in violent encounters and the loss of major assets on all sides .
In the process , Russia ’ s key nuclear retaliatory forces would be at risk and quickly placed on high alert with senior officers operating in hair-trigger mode .
Any misstep might then lead to what humanity has feared since August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth .
There is no way to know to what degree such considerations are incorporated into the classified versions of the Cold Response 2020 scenario , but it ’ s unlikely that they ’ re missing .
Indeed , a 2016 version of the exercise involved the participation of three B-52 nuclear bombers from the U.S. Strategic Air Command , indicating that the American military is keenly aware of the escalatory risks of any large-scale U.S.-Russian encounter in the Arctic .
In short , what might otherwise seem like a routine training exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is actually part of an emerging U.S. strategy to overpower Russia in a critical defensive zone , an approach that could easily result in nuclear war .
The Russians are , of course , well aware of this and so will undoubtedly be watching Cold Response 2020 with genuine trepidation .
Their fears are understandable — but we should all be concerned about a strategy that seemingly embodies such a high risk of future escalation .
Ever since the Soviets acquired nuclear weapons of their own in 1949 , strategists have wondered how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World War III — would break out .
At one time , that incendiary scenario was believed most likely to involve a clash over the divided city of Berlin or along the East-West border in Germany .
After the Cold War , however , fears of such a deadly encounter evaporated and few gave much thought to such possibilities .
Looking forward today , however , the prospect of a catastrophic World War III is again becoming all too imaginable and this time , it appears , an incident in the Arctic could @ @ @ @ @ @

In early March, an estimated 7,500 American combat troops will travel to Norway to join thousands of soldiers from other NATO countries in a massive mock battle with imagined invading forces from Russia. In this futuristic simulated engagement — it goes by the name of Exercise Cold Response 2020 — allied forces will “conduct multinational joint exercises with a high-intensity combat scenario in demanding winter conditions,” or so claims the Norwegian military anyway. At first glance, this may look like any other NATO training exercise, but think again. There’s nothing ordinary about Cold Response 2020. As a start, it’s being staged above the Arctic Circle, far from any previous traditional NATO battlefield, and it raises to a new level the possibility of a great-power conflict that might end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation. Welcome, in other words, to World War III’s newest battlefield.
For the soldiers participating in the exercise, the potentially thermonuclear dimensions of Cold Response 2020 may not be obvious. At its start, Marines from the United States and the United Kingdom will practice massive amphibious landings along Norway’s coastline, much as they do in similar exercises elsewhere in the world. Once ashore, however, the scenario becomes ever more distinctive. After collecting tanks and other heavy weaponry “prepositioned” in caves in Norway’s interior, the Marines will proceed toward the country’s far-northern Finnmark region to help Norwegian forces stave off Russian forces supposedly pouring across the border. From then on, the two sides will engage in — to use current Pentagon terminology — high-intensity combat operations under Arctic conditions (a type of warfare not seen on such a scale since World War II).
And that’s just the beginning. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the Finnmark region of Norway and adjacent Russian territory have become one of the most likely battlegrounds for the first use of nuclear weapons in any future NATO-Russian conflict. Because Moscow has concentrated a significant part of its nuclear retaliatory capability on the Kola Peninsula, a remote stretch of land abutting northern Norway — any U.S.-NATO success in actualcombat with Russian forces near that territory would endanger a significant part of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and so might precipitate the early use of such munitions. Even a simulated victory — the predictable result of Cold Response 2020 — will undoubtedly set Russia’s nuclear controllers on edge. All Hell Breaking Loos... Michael T. Klare Best Price: $18.77 Buy New $17.64 (as of 05:40 UTC - Details)
To appreciate just how risky any NATO-Russian clash in Norway’s far north would be, consider the region’s geography and the strategic factors that have led Russia to concentrate so much military power there. And all of this, by the way, will be playing out in the context of another existential danger: climate change. The melting of the Arctic ice cap and the accelerated exploitation of Arctic resources are lending this area ever greater strategic significance.
Energy Extraction in the Far North
Look at any map of Europe and you’ll note that Scandinavia widens as it heads southward into the most heavily populated parts of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. As you head north, however, it narrows and becomes ever less populated. At its extreme northern reaches, only a thin band of Norway juts east to touch Russia’s Kola Peninsula. To the north, the Barents Sea, an offshoot of the Arctic Ocean, bounds them both. This remote region — approximately 800 miles from Oslo and 900 miles from Moscow — has, in recent years, become a vortex of economic and military activity.
Once prized as a source of vital minerals, especially nickel, iron ore, and phosphates, this remote area is now the center of extensive oil and natural gas extraction. With temperatures rising in the Arctic twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet and sea ice retreating ever farther north every year, offshore fossil-fuel exploration has become increasingly viable. As a result, large reserves of oil and natural gas — the very fuels whose combustion is responsible for those rising temperatures — have been discovered beneath the Barents Sea and both countries are seeking to exploit those deposits. Norway has taken the lead, establishing at Hammerfest in Finnmark the world’s first plant above the Arctic Circle to export liquified natural gas. In a similar fashion, Russia has initiated efforts to exploit the mammoth Shtokman gas field in its sector of the Barents Sea, though it has yet to bring such plans to fruition.
For Russia, even more significant oil and gas prospects lie further east in the Kara and Pechora Seas and on the Yamal Peninsula, a slender extension of Siberia. Its energy companies have, in fact, already begun producing oil at the Prirazlomnoye field in the Pechora Sea and the Novoportovskoye field on that peninsula (and natural gas there as well). Such fields hold great promise for Russia, which exhibits all the characteristics of a petro-state, but there’s one huge problem: the only practical way to get that output to market is via specially-designed icebreaker-tankers sent through the Barents Sea past northern Norway.
The exploitation of Arctic oil and gas resources and their transport to markets in Europe and Asia has become a major economic priority for Moscow as its hydrocarbon reserves below the Arctic Circle begin to dry up. Despite calls at home for greater economic diversity, President Vladimir Putin’s regime continues to insist on the centrality of hydrocarbon production to the country’s economic future. In that context, production in the Arctic has become an essential national objective, which, in turn, requires assured access to the Atlantic Ocean via the Barents Sea and Norway’s offshore waters. Think of that waterway as vital to Russia’s energy economy in the way the Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, is to the Saudis and other regional fossil-fuel producers.
The Military Dimension
No less than Russia’s giant energy firms, its navy must be able to enter the Atlantic via the Barents Sea and northern Norway. Aside from its Baltic and Black Sea ports, accessible to the Atlantic only via passageways easily obstructed by NATO, the sole Russian harbor with unfettered access to the Atlantic Ocean is at Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula. Not surprisingly then, that port is also the headquarters for Russia’s Northern Fleet — its most powerful — and the site of numerous air, infantry, missile, and radar bases along with naval shipyards and nuclear reactors. In other words, it’s among the most sensitive military regions in Russia today.
Given all this, President Putin has substantially rebuilt that very fleet, which fell into disrepair after the collapse of the Soviet Union, equipping it with some of the country’s most advanced warships. In 2018, according to The Military Balance, a publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, it already possessed the largest number of modern cruisers and destroyers (10) of any Russian fleet, along with 22 attack submarines and numerous support vessels. Also in the Murmansk area are dozens of advanced MiG fighter planes and a wide assortment of anti-aircraft defense systems. Finally, as 2019 ended, Russian military officials indicated for the first time that they had deployed to the Arctic the Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile, a weapon capable of hypersonic velocities (more than five times the speed of sound), again presumably to a base in the Murmansk region just 125 miles from Norway’s Finnmark, the site of the upcoming NATO exercise.
More significant yet is the way Moscow has been strengthening its nuclear forces in the region. Like the United States, Russia maintains a “triad” of nuclear delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range “heavy” bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Under the terms of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), signed by the two countries in 2010, the Russians can deploy no more than 700 delivery systems capable of carrying no more than 1,550 warheads. (That pact will, however, expire in February 2021 unless the two sides agree to an extension, which appears increasingly unlikely in the age of Trump.) According to the Arms Control Association, the Russians are currently believed to be deploying the warheads they are allowed under New START on 66 heavy bombers, 286 ICBMs, and 12 submarines with 160 SLBMs. Eight of those nuclear-armed subs are, in fact, assigned to the Northern Fleet, which means about 110 missiles with as many as 500 warheads — the exact numbers remain shrouded in secrecy — are deployed in the Murmansk area.
For Russian nuclear strategists, such nuclear-armed submarines are considered the most “survivable” of the country’s retaliatory systems. In the event of a nuclear exchange with the United States, the country’s heavy bombers and ICBMs could prove relatively vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes as their locations are known and can be targeted by American bombs and missiles with near-pinpoint accuracy. Those subs, however, can leave Murmansk and disappear into the wide Atlantic Ocean at the onset of any crisis and so presumably remain hidden from U.S. spying eyes. To do so, however, requires that they pass through the Barents Sea, avoiding the NATO forces lurking nearby. For Moscow, in other words, the very possibility of deterring a U.S. nuclear strike hinges on its ability to defend its naval stronghold in Murmansk, while maneuvering its submarines past Norway’s Finnmark region. No wonder, then, that this area has assumed enormous strategic importance for Russian military planners — and the upcoming Cold Response 2020 is sure to prove challenging to them.
Washington’s Arctic Buildup
During the Cold War era, Washington viewed the Arctic as a significant strategic arena and constructed a string of military bases across the region. Their main aim: to intercept Soviet bombers and missiles crossing the North Pole on their way to targets in North America. After the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, Washington abandoned many of those bases. Now, however, with the Pentagon once again identifying “great power competition” with Russia and China as the defining characteristic of the present strategic environment, many of those bases are being reoccupied and new ones established. Once again, the Arctic is being viewed as a potential site of conflict with Russia and, as a result, U.S. forces are being readied for possible combat there.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the first official to explain this new strategic outlook at the Arctic Forum in Finland last May. In his address, a kind of “Pompeo Doctrine,” he indicated that the United States was shifting from benign neglect of the region to aggressive involvement and militarization. “We’re entering a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic,” he insisted, “complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our interests in that region.” To better protect those interests against Russia’s military buildup there, “we are fortifying America’s security and diplomatic presence in the area… hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet, expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs inside of our own military.”
The Pentagon has been unwilling to provide many details, but a close reading of the military press suggests that this activity has been particularly focused on northern Norway and adjacent waters. To begin with, the Marine Corps has established a permanent presence in that country, the first time foreign forces have been stationed there since German troops occupied it during World War II. A detachment of about 330 Marines were initially deployed near the port of Trondheim in 2017, presumably to help guard nearby caves that contain hundreds of U.S. tanks and combat vehicles. Two years later, a similarly sized group was then dispatched to the Troms region above the Arctic Circle and far closer to the Russian border.
From the Russian perspective, even more threatening is the construction of a U.S. radar station on the Norwegian island of Vardø about 40 miles from the Kola Peninsula. To be operated in conjunction with the Norwegian intelligence service, the focus of the facility will evidently be to snoop on those Russian missile-carrying submarines, assumedly in order to target them and take them out in the earliest stages of any conflict. That Moscow fears just such an outcome is evident from the mock attack it staged on the Vardø facility in 2018, sending 11 Su-24 supersonic bombers on a direct path toward the island. (They turned aside at the last moment.) It has also moved a surface-to-surface missile battery to a spot just 40 miles from Vardø.
In addition, in August 2018, the U.S. Navy decided to reactivate the previously decommissioned Second Fleet in the North Atlantic. “A new Second Fleet increases our strategic flexibility to respond — from the Eastern Seaboard to the Barents Sea,” said Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson at the time. As last year ended, that fleet was declared fully operational.
Deciphering Cold Response 2020
Exercise Cold Response 2020 must be viewed in the context of all these developments. Few details about the thinking behind the upcoming war games have been made public, but it’s not hard to imagine what at least part of the scenario might be like: a U.S.-Russian clash of some sort leading to Russian attacks aimed at seizing that radar station at Vardø and Norway’s defense headquarters at Bodø on the country’s northwestern coast. The invading troops will be slowed but not stopped by Norwegian forces (and those U.S. Marines stationed in the area), while thousands of reinforcements from NATO bases elsewhere in Europe begin to pour in. Eventually, of course, the tide will turn and the Russians will be forced back.
No matter what the official scenario is like, however, for Pentagon planners the situation will go far beyond this. Any Russian assault on critical Norwegian military facilities would presumably be preceded by intense air and missile bombardment and the forward deployment of major naval vessels. This, in turn, would prompt comparable moves by the U.S. and NATO, probably resulting in violent encounters and the loss of major assets on all sides. In the process, Russia’s key nuclear retaliatory forces would be at risk and quickly placed on high alert with senior officers operating in hair-trigger mode. Any misstep might then lead to what humanity has feared since August 1945: a nuclear apocalypse on Planet Earth.
There is no way to know to what degree such considerations are incorporated into the classified versions of the Cold Response 2020 scenario, but it’s unlikely that they’re missing. Indeed, a 2016 version of the exercise involved the participation of three B-52 nuclear bombers from the U.S. Strategic Air Command, indicating that the American military is keenly aware of the escalatory risks of any large-scale U.S.-Russian encounter in the Arctic.
In short, what might otherwise seem like a routine training exercise in a distant part of the world is actually part of an emerging U.S. strategy to overpower Russia in a critical defensive zone, an approach that could easily result in nuclear war. The Russians are, of course, well aware of this and so will undoubtedly be watching Cold Response 2020 with genuine trepidation. Their fears are understandable — but we should all be concerned about a strategy that seemingly embodies such a high risk of future escalation.
Ever since the Soviets acquired nuclear weapons of their own in 1949, strategists have wondered how and where an all-out nuclear war — World War III — would break out. At one time, that incendiary scenario was believed most likely to involve a clash over the divided city of Berlin or along the East-West border in Germany. After the Cold War, however, fears of such a deadly encounter evaporated and few gave much thought to such possibilities. Looking forward today, however, the prospect of a catastrophic World War III is again becoming all too imaginable and this time, it appears, an incident in the Arctic could prove the spark for Armageddon.
Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.


lewrockwell--2020-02-13--US Warms Up Its Own Old Spy Stories

US Warms Up Its Own Old Spy Stories

The Washington Post is warming up an old crypto story : For more than half a century , governments all over the world trusted a single company to keep the communications of their spies , soldiers and diplomats secret.The company , Crypto AG , got its first break with a contract to build code-making machines for U.S. troops during World War II .
Flush with cash , it became a dominant maker of encryption devices for decades , navigating waves of technology from mechanical gears to electronic circuits and , finally , silicon chips and software .
The Swiss firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 120 countries well into the 21st century .
Its clients included Iran , military juntas in Latin America , nuclear rivals India and Pakistan , and even the Vatican .
But what none of its customers ever knew was that Crypto AG was secretly owned by the CIA in a highly classified partnership with West German intelligence .
These spy agencies rigged the company ’ s devices so they could easily break the codes that countries used to send encrypted messages .
The decades-long arrangement , among the most closely guarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid bare in a classified , comprehensive CIA history of the operation obtained by The Washington Post and ZDF , a German public broadcaster , in a joint reporting project .
Left of Bang : How the ... Patrick Van Horne , Jas ... Best Price : $ 12.13 Buy New $ 14.63 That Crypto AG had been a CIA/NSA/BND operation has been known for decades .
One wonders why the CIA history was now leaked to the Washington Post and to the German state TV channel ZDF .
Scott Shane @ ScottShaneNYT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020Back in 1995 at the @ baltimoresun , with @ TBowmanNPR , I wrote a long story on the NSA ’ s covert relationship with Crypto AG , allowing the US to read the secrets of many countries : link .
Now @ gregpmiller got the official CIA history of this decades-long project .
Greg ’ s story is a fascinating read on what we described in 1995 as one of the great intelligence operations of the Cold War filling in details we could only guess at 25 years ago .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story right .
I recall vividly how at the end of my trip to Switzerland in 1995 to find former employees of Crypto AG , one of them managed to find a smoking-gun memo from 1975 that showed an NSA crypto mathematician named Nora Mackebee had attended a Crypto design meeting .
Two years after Scott Shane broke the story Wayne Madsen basically plagiarized it to write a similar story for some conspiracy lovers magazine : The Swiss company Crypto AG became useless for the NSA when people moved to standard computers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send it .
It needed some other companies it could manipulate .
Around that time this writer was the chief technical officer of a large Internet access company .
When we had to select a firewall platform for our internal networks we cynically discussed if it would be preferable to buy Cisco equipment , to then be spied on by the NSA , or to buy from the Israeli company Checkpoint which likely had a Mossad backdoor .
( We bought both and stacked them . )
That such cynicism was wholly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NSA machinations .
Soon thereafter Juniper Networks , a provider of large backbone equipment , was found to have at least two NSA backdoors in its operation system .
Other ‘ western ’ telecommunication equipment companies were similarly manipulated : So why was the allegedly secret CIA history of an already known story leaked right now ?
And why was it also leaked to a German TV station ?
Sanho Tree points to the likely reason : The WaPo story itself also makes that connection : The warmed up Crypto AG story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kapersky .
The U.S. wants to convince European countries to not buy Huawei products for their 5G networks .
It wants to remind them that telecommunication products can be manipulated .
It wants to instill fear that China would use Huawei to spy on foreign countries just like the U.S. used Crypto AG .
This is also the reason for this recent misleading Reuters headline which the story itself debunked : Germany has proof that Huawei worked with Chinese intelligence : Handelsblatt ‘ U.S .
intelligence ’ that is handed over to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof ’ for anything .
The U.S. is pressing its allies on a very high level : Political Class Dismis ... Mr. James Ostrowski Best Price : $ 2.00 Buy New $ 10.00 A week after Pompeo ’ s panic message Trump took to the phone to convince Boris Johnson who was not impressed : Donald Trump ’ s previously close relationship with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks close to collapse , following new revelations that the president slammed down the phone on him.Trump ’ s behaviour during last week ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apoplectic , “ and Johnson has now reportedly shelved plans for an imminent visit to Washington .
… The call , which one source described to the Financial Times as „ very difficult , “ came after Johnson defied Trump and allowed Chinese telecoms company Huawei the rights to develop the UK ’ s 5G network .
Trump ’ s fury was triggered by Johnson backing Huawei despite multiple threats by Trump and his allies that the United States would withdraw security co-operation with the UK if the deal went ahead .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK government , with Johnson frustrated at the president ’ s failure to suggest any alternatives to the deal .
Huawei products are pretty good , relatively cheap and readily available .
They are just as buggy as the products of other equipment providers .
The real reason why the U.S. does not want anyone to buy Huawei products is that it is the one large network company the U.S. can not convince to provide it with backdoors .
European countries do not fear China or even Chinese spying .
They know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much larger scale .
Europeans do not see China as a threat and they do not want to get involved in the escalating U.S.-China spat : “ Whose side should your country take in a conflict between the US and China ?
” To indict foreign military officers for spying when they simply pilfered barely protected servers is seen as offensive .
What will the U.S. do when China does likewise ?
Every nation spies .
It is one of the oldest trades in this world .
That the U.S. is making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it itself is the biggest sinner is unbecoming .
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama .

The Washington Post is warming up an old crypto story:
For more than half a century, governments all over the world trusted a single company to keep the communications of their spies, soldiers and diplomats secret.The company, Crypto AG, got its first break with a contract to build code-making machines for U.S. troops during World War II. Flush with cash, it became a dominant maker of encryption devices for decades, navigating waves of technology from mechanical gears to electronic circuits and, finally, silicon chips and software. The Swiss firm made millions of dollars selling equipment to more than 120 countries well into the 21st century. Its clients included Iran, military juntas in Latin America, nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, and even the Vatican. But what none of its customers ever knew was that Crypto AG was secretly owned by the CIA in a highly classified partnership with West German intelligence. These spy agencies rigged the company’s devices so they could easily break the codes that countries used to send encrypted messages. The decades-long arrangement, among the most closely guarded secrets of the Cold War, is laid bare in a classified, comprehensive CIA history of the operation obtained by The Washington Post and ZDF, a German public broadcaster, in a joint reporting project.
Left of Bang: How the ... Patrick Van Horne, Jas... Best Price: $12.13 Buy New $14.63 (as of 08:15 UTC - Details) That Crypto AG had been a CIA/NSA/BND operation has been known for decades. One wonders why the CIA history was now leaked to the Washington Post and to the German state TV channel ZDF.
Scott Shane @ScottShaneNYT – 14:38 UTC · Feb 11, 2020Back in 1995 at the @baltimoresun, with @TBowmanNPR, I wrote a long story on the NSA’s covert relationship with Crypto AG, allowing the US to read the secrets of many countries: link. Now @gregpmiller got the official CIA history of this decades-long project. Greg’s story is a fascinating read on what we described in 1995 as one of the great intelligence operations of the Cold War filling in details we could only guess at 25 years ago. I’m glad to see we got the story right. I recall vividly how at the end of my trip to Switzerland in 1995 to find former employees of Crypto AG, one of them managed to find a smoking-gun memo from 1975 that showed an NSA crypto mathematician named Nora Mackebee had attended a Crypto design meeting.
Two years after Scott Shane broke the story Wayne Madsen basically plagiarized it to write a similar story for some conspiracy lovers magazine:
Sanho Tree @SanhoTree – 13:48 UTC · Feb 11, 2020For the record, I published the Crypto AG story 23 years ago when I was an editor at Covert Action Quarterly. If you want to understand why the US intelligence community is so freaked out about Huawei, it’s because they’ve been playing the same game for decades. Crypto AG: The NSA’s Trojan Whore?
—
Scott Shane @ScottShaneNYT – 15:05 UTC · Feb 11, 2020Replying to @SanhoTree
And for the record, the CAQ story from 1997 relied mainly on the @baltimoresun story I wrote with @tbowman in 1995: RIGGING THE GAME
The Swiss company Crypto AG became useless for the NSA when people moved to standard computers to encrypt their information and used the Internet to send it. It needed some other companies it could manipulate.
Around that time this writer was the chief technical officer of a large Internet access company. When we had to select a firewall platform for our internal networks we cynically discussed if it would be preferable to buy Cisco equipment, to then be spied on by the NSA, or to buy from the Israeli company Checkpoint which likely had a Mossad backdoor. (We bought both and stacked them.)
That such cynicism was wholly justified became evident when Edward Snowden revealed the NSA machinations. Soon thereafter Juniper Networks, a provider of large backbone equipment, was found to have at least two NSA backdoors in its operation system. Other ‘western’ telecommunication equipment companies were similarly manipulated:
Even neutral countries firms are not off-limits to NSA manipulations. A former Crypto AG employee confirmed that high-level US officials approached neutral European countries and argued that their cooperation was essential to the Cold War struggle against the Soviets. The NSA allegedly received support from cryptographic companies Crypto AG and Gretag AG in Switzerland, Transvertex in Sweden, Nokia in Finland, and even newly-privatized firms in post-Communist Hungary. In 1970, according to a secret German BND intelligence paper, supplied to the author, the Germans planned to “fuse” the operations of three cryptographic firms-Crypto AG, Grattner AG (another Swiss cipher firm), and Ericsson of Sweden.
So why was the allegedly secret CIA history of an already known story leaked right now? And why was it also leaked to a German TV station?
Sanho Tree points to the likely reason:
If you want to understand why the US intelligence community is so freaked out about Huawei, it’s because they’ve been playing the same game for decades.
The WaPo story itself also makes that connection:
There are also echoes of Crypto in the suspicions swirling around modern companies with alleged links to foreign governments, including the Russian anti-virus firm Kaspersky, a texting app tied to the United Arab Emirates and the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.
The warmed up Crypto AG story is a subtle smear piece against Huawei and Kapersky.
The U.S. wants to convince European countries to not buy Huawei products for their 5G networks. It wants to remind them that telecommunication products can be manipulated. It wants to instill fear that China would use Huawei to spy on foreign countries just like the U.S. used Crypto AG.
This is also the reason for this recent misleading Reuters headline which the story itself debunked:
Germany has proof that Huawei worked with Chinese intelligence: Handelsblatt
“At the end of 2019, intelligence was passed to us by the U.S., according to which Huawei is proven to have been cooperating with China’s security authorities,” the newspaper quoted a confidential foreign ministry document as saying.
‘U.S. intelligence’ that is handed over to manipulate someone is of course not ‘proof’ for anything.
The U.S. is pressing its allies on a very high level: Political Class Dismis... Ostrowski, Mr. James Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $9.50 (as of 09:20 UTC - Details)
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared the Chinese Communist Party “the central threat of our times” on Thursday, even as he sought to talk up the prospects of a United States trade deal with Britain, which rebuffed American pressure to ban a Chinese company from future telecommunications infrastructure.The scathing criticism of the Chinese government was the strongest language Mr. Pompeo has used as the Trump administration seeks to convince American allies of the risks posed by using equipment from Huawei, a Chinese technology giant.
A week after Pompeo’s panic message Trump took to the phone to convince Boris Johnson who was not impressed:
Donald Trump’s previously close relationship with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks close to collapse, following new revelations that the president slammed down the phone on him.Trump’s behaviour during last week’s call was described by officials as „apoplectic,“ and Johnson has now reportedly shelved plans for an imminent visit to Washington.
…
The call, which one source described to the Financial Times as „very difficult,“ came after Johnson defied Trump and allowed Chinese telecoms company Huawei the rights to develop the UK’s 5G network. Trump’s fury was triggered by Johnson backing Huawei despite multiple threats by Trump and his allies that the United States would withdraw security co-operation with the UK if the deal went ahead. Trump’s threats reportedly „irritated“ the UK government, with Johnson frustrated at the president’s failure to suggest any alternatives to the deal.
Huawei products are pretty good, relatively cheap and readily available. They are just as buggy as the products of other equipment providers. The real reason why the U.S. does not want anyone to buy Huawei products is that it is the one large network company the U.S. can not convince to provide it with backdoors.
European countries do not fear China or even Chinese spying. They know that the U.S. is doing similar on a much larger scale. Europeans do not see China as a threat and they do not want to get involved in the escalating U.S.-China spat:
“Whose side should your country take in a conflict between the US and China?”
[J]ust five days after Equifax went public with its breach — KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that the administrative account for a separate Equifax dispute resolution portal catering to consumers in Argentina was wide open, protected by perhaps the most easy-to-guess password combination ever: “admin/admin.”
The U.S. just indicted four Chinese military officers for the 2017 hacking of Equifax during which millions of addresses and financial data were stolen. The former CIA Director General Michael Hayden had defended such pilfering as “honorable espionage” and Equifax had made it laughably easy to get into its systems
To indict foreign military officers for spying when they simply pilfered barely protected servers is seen as offensive. What will the U.S. do when China does likewise?
Every nation spies. It is one of the oldest trades in this world. That the U.S. is making such a fuss about putative Chinese spying when it itself is the biggest sinner is unbecoming.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.


The Anti–Larry David

The energetic media tycoon Ezra Klein has a book out titled Why We ’ re Polarized .
Spoiler alert : One reason is because too many people watch Fox News instead of reading Klein ’ s properties like Vox .
Another cause is because somebody imprudently spilled the beans to “ white Christians ” that they are being demographically doomed to defeat while they still have a chance to do something about it .
The 35-year-old Ezra has long been an impressive leader of men .
Way back in 2007 he organized JournoList , a legendary private forum for left-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Eric Alterman , Paul Krugman , Joe Klein , Matthew Yglesias , and Jonathan Chait.
” In his public job as a Washington Post writer , Klein mastered the important but arcane subject of health care finance .
He soon had a staff of eight to keep his Wonkblog up to date .
Like Nate Silver at The New York Times , another journalistic prodigy of the first Obama term , Klein had big plans for his newspaper home , asking for a $ 10 million stake from the Post .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so Ezra went the start-up route , launching Vox in 2014 .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Klein ’ s original idea for Vox of updating old content failed spectacularly .
Instead of writing new articles daily , his plan was that Vox staffers would just update their old material , “ like a wiki page written by one person with a little attitude.
” But entrepreneurs ’ initial plans often turn out to be terrible , and the real test is whether the boss can improvise something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became a conventional leftist webzine .
I suspect that when Ezra launched Vox in early 2014 , he was expecting there to continue to be a strong market for his kind of wonkish didacticism about the Individual Mandate and the Public Option .
Like Silver , Klein peaked during Obama ’ s first term , when the president was trying to focus on non-racialist issues like health care to keep his supporters ’ rising demographic triumphalism under wraps long enough so that he could be reelected .
Not surprisingly , soon after Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the gloves came off and our current era of public antiwhite hate , which Klein ’ s colleague Matthew Yglesias has acidly dubbed “ The Great Awokening , ” was underway .
Vox soon got swept up in the lowbrow tumult of Obama ’ s inglorious second term .

The energetic media tycoon Ezra Klein has a book out titled Why We’re Polarized. Spoiler alert: One reason is because too many people watch Fox News instead of reading Klein’s properties like Vox. Another cause is because somebody imprudently spilled the beans to “white Christians” that they are being demographically doomed to defeat while they still have a chance to do something about it.
The 35-year-old Ezra has long been an impressive leader of men. Way back in 2007 he organized JournoList, a legendary private forum for left-leaning media figures such as “Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.”
In his public job as a Washington Post writer, Klein mastered the important but arcane subject of health care finance. He soon had a staff of eight to keep his Wonkblog up to date.
Like Nate Silver at The New York Times, another journalistic prodigy of the first Obama term, Klein had big plans for his newspaper home, asking for a $10 million stake from the Post. But Jeff Bezos wouldn’t bite, so Ezra went the start-up route, launching Vox in 2014. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Klein’s original idea for Vox of updating old content failed spectacularly. Instead of writing new articles daily, his plan was that Vox staffers would just update their old material, “like a wiki page written by one person with a little attitude.”
I sure had hoped that Ezra’s brainstorm for how us pundits could coast on our laurels would succeed. Not surprisingly, however, it turned out that readers who like the news like their news new.
But entrepreneurs’ initial plans often turn out to be terrible, and the real test is whether the boss can improvise something else on the fly. So Vox successfully became a conventional leftist webzine.
I suspect that when Ezra launched Vox in early 2014, he was expecting there to continue to be a strong market for his kind of wonkish didacticism about the Individual Mandate and the Public Option.
Like Silver, Klein peaked during Obama’s first term, when the president was trying to focus on non-racialist issues like health care to keep his supporters’ rising demographic triumphalism under wraps long enough so that he could be reelected.
Not surprisingly, soon after Obama was safely assured of four more years, the gloves came off and our current era of public antiwhite hate, which Klein’s colleague Matthew Yglesias has acidly dubbed “The Great Awokening,” was underway.
Vox soon got swept up in the lowbrow tumult of Obama’s inglorious second term.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-02-13--New Leaks Shatter OPCW’s Attacks on Douma Whistleblowers

Facing accusations that it issued a doctored report alleging a chemical attack in Syria , the OPCW has released an inquiry attacking two whistleblowers as rogue actors .
Leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal serious distortions in the OPCW inquiry as well as a campaign of intimidation against internal dissenters .
For the past year , the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW ) has been roiled by allegations that it manipulated an investigation to falsely accuse the Syrian government of a chemical weapons attack .
An OPCW report released in March 2019 lent credence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Syrian military killed around 40 civilians with toxic gas in the city of Douma in April 2018 .
The accusation against Damascus led to US-led military strikes on Syrian government sites that same month .
But leaked internal documents published by Wikileaks show that OPCW inspectors who deployed to Douma rejected the official story , and complained that higher-level officials excluded them from the post-mission process , distorted key evidence , and ignored their findings .
After months of virtual silence , the OPCW has responded with an internal inquiry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objections , attacking their credibility and qualifications .
The OPCW ’ s self-described “ independent investigation ” describes the pair as rogue , low-level actors who played minor roles in the Douma mission and lacked access to crucial evidence .
In a briefing to member states , OPCW Director General Fernando Arias dismissed them as disgruntled ex-employees .
The two “ are not whistle-blowers , ” Arias said .
“ They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.
” Presstitutes Embedded ... Dr. Udo Ulfkotte Best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31.52 But a leaked document calls Arias ’ assertions into serious question .
Ian Henderson , one of the two inspectors , recently addressed a special session of the United Nations Security Council with his concerns about the Douma mission .
Henderson submitted a supplemental written account that was distributed among participating UN member states and obtained by The Grayzone .
It offers the most extensive and detailed account of the internal dispute over the OPCW ’ s Douma investigation to date .
The full leaked testimony can be read here ( PDF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bolsters suspicions that the OPCW leadership covered up a staged deception in Douma .
Combined with the available record – which includes other OPCW leaks , as well as Arias ’ and the OPCW ’ s own statements – Henderson ’ s account firmly demonstrates that he and a fellow dissenting colleague occupied veteran leadership roles inside the organization , including during the Douma fact-finding mission .
Henderson also exposes key gaps in the OPCW ’ s inquiry , which fails to specifically address the revelations that critical evidence was kept out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; that key findings were manipulated – and that all of this occurred under sustained US government pressure .
In addition to Henderson ’ s complete testimony , The Grayzone has obtained a chilling email from a third former OPCW official .
The former official , who worked in a senior role , blamed external pressure and potential threats to their family for their failure to speak out about the corruption of the Douma investigation .
This official was not among the pair of dissenting inspectors targeted by the inquiry .
The email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about senior management ’ s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria .

Facing accusations that it issued a doctored report alleging a chemical attack in Syria, the OPCW has released an inquiry attacking two whistleblowers as rogue actors. Leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal serious distortions in the OPCW inquiry as well as a campaign of intimidation against internal dissenters.
For the past year, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been roiled by allegations that it manipulated an investigation to falsely accuse the Syrian government of a chemical weapons attack. An OPCW report released in March 2019 lent credence to claims by Islamist militants and Western governments that the Syrian military killed around 40 civilians with toxic gas in the city of Douma in April 2018. The accusation against Damascus led to US-led military strikes on Syrian government sites that same month.
But leaked internal documents published by Wikileaks show that OPCW inspectors who deployed to Douma rejected the official story, and complained that higher-level officials excluded them from the post-mission process, distorted key evidence, and ignored their findings.
After months of virtual silence, the OPCW has responded with an internal inquiry that lambasts two veteran officials who raised internal objections, attacking their credibility and qualifications. The OPCW’s self-described “independent investigation” describes the pair as rogue, low-level actors who played minor roles in the Douma mission and lacked access to crucial evidence. In a briefing to member states, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias dismissed them as disgruntled ex-employees. The two “are not whistle-blowers,” Arias said. “They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.” Presstitutes Embedded ... Ulfkotte, Dr. Udo Best Price: $38.43 Buy New $34.09 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details)
But a leaked document calls Arias’ assertions into serious question. Ian Henderson, one of the two inspectors, recently addressed a special session of the United Nations Security Council with his concerns about the Douma mission. Henderson submitted a supplemental written account that was distributed among participating UN member states and obtained by The Grayzone. It offers the most extensive and detailed account of the internal dispute over the OPCW’s Douma investigation to date.
The full leaked testimony can be read here (PDF).
Henderson provides a thorough timeline that bolsters suspicions that the OPCW leadership covered up a staged deception in Douma. Combined with the available record – which includes other OPCW leaks, as well as Arias’ and the OPCW’s own statements – Henderson’s account firmly demonstrates that he and a fellow dissenting colleague occupied veteran leadership roles inside the organization, including during the Douma fact-finding mission.
Henderson also exposes key gaps in the OPCW’s inquiry, which fails to specifically address the revelations that critical evidence was kept out of the OPCW’s published reports; that key findings were manipulated – and that all of this occurred under sustained US government pressure.
In addition to Henderson’s complete testimony, The Grayzone has obtained a chilling email from a third former OPCW official. The former official, who worked in a senior role, blamed external pressure and potential threats to their family for their failure to speak out about the corruption of the Douma investigation.
This official was not among the pair of dissenting inspectors targeted by the inquiry. The email corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-02-13--Journalist Abby Martin Sues State of Georgia Over Law Requiring Pledge of Allegiance to Israel

After refusing to sign a pledge of allegiance to the state of Israel , the state of Georgia shut down a media literacy conference featuring journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin at Georgia Southern University .
Martin had recently released a documentary critical of the Israeli government called “ Gaza Fights for Freedom.
” Now she is suing the state , claiming the decision is a violation of the First Amendment .
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR ) and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund ( PCJF ) , today she filed a federal free speech lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin was dismayed by the university ’ s decision : “ This censorship of my talk based on forced compliance to anti-BDS laws in Georgia is just one level of a nationwide campaign to protect Israel from grassroots pressure .
We must stand firmly opposed to these efforts and not cower in fear to these blatant violations of free speech , ” she said .
Twenty-eight states have already mandated loyalty pledges to Israel as a means to outlaw dissent .
But in December , President Trump passed legislation effectively criminalizing the Boycott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that aims to put pressure on the Jewish state through economic action , along the lines of the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa .
The law mandates that any public institution would be subject to losing all funding if the government deems that they are not doing enough to stamp out anti-Semitism , which , it explicitly states , includes any criticism of the Israeli government .
In December , MintPress reported that the British government under Boris Johnson is planning to introduce similar legislation .
Bad News from Venezuel ... Alan Macleod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 44.37 “ The hyperbolic notion that conservatives are the ones being persecuted on college campuses has made blatant censorship campaigns against people for criticism of Israel , or other progressive protests , go completely ignored , ” Martin wrote .
The PCJF likened the BDS movement to the boycotts of the civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century , its Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard described the laws as “ extraordinary , outrageous , illegal and unconstitutional.
” In 1956 Martin Luther King and his movement were criminalized for carrying out boycotts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their behavior , only for it to be later struck down by the Supreme Court .
This is what Martin and the alliance of non-governmental organizations is hoping will happen here too .
Why should I have to “ contractually pledge loyalty to a foreign country ?
” she asked at her press conference today .
In 2016 , Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a law requiring any person or organization entering into a contract with the state worth at least $ 1,000 sign an oath promising that they would not oppose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reason to believe they could overturn the law its Georgia Executive Director , Edward Ahmed Mitchell , called “ blatantly and hilariously unconstitutional.
” In 2018 , Bahia Amawi , a Houston-based children ’ s speech pathologist who worked with autistic , speech-impaired and other developmentally disabled children , lost her job after she refused to sign a similar document .
Amawi had been at her job for nine years previously without a problem .
CAIR took up Amawi ’ s case and managed to overturn every Texas boycott law on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now free to return to work .
They appear confident of a similar victory in Georgia .
Martin began as a citizen journalist covering the Occupy movement in her native California .
From 2012 to 2015 she hosted the show Breaking the Set on RT .
In the famous D.N.I .
report into alleged Russian interference into the 2016 election , the U.S. government accused her of “ promoting radical discontent ” in America , something she appears to wear as a badge of honor .
Her current documentary series , Empire Files @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , due to sanctions against the Venezuelan government , Gaza Fights for Freedom was crowdfunded .
She is also the host of Media Roots Radio .
Correction | An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the state of Georgia shut down a screening of Abby Martin ’ s documentary film “ Gaza Fights for Freedom .
”

After refusing to sign a pledge of allegiance to the state of Israel, the state of Georgia shut down a media literacy conference featuring journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin at Georgia Southern University. Martin had recently released a documentary critical of the Israeli government called “Gaza Fights for Freedom.” Now she is suing the state, claiming the decision is a violation of the First Amendment. Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), today she filed a federal free speech lawsuit against the university system of Georgia.
Martin was dismayed by the university’s decision: “This censorship of my talk based on forced compliance to anti-BDS laws in Georgia is just one level of a nationwide campaign to protect Israel from grassroots pressure. We must stand firmly opposed to these efforts and not cower in fear to these blatant violations of free speech,” she said.
After I was scheduled to give keynote speech at an upcoming @GeorgiaSouthern conference, organizers said I must comply w/ Georgia’s anti-BDS law & sign a contractual pledge to not boycott Israel. I refused & my talk was canceled. The event fell apart after colleagues supported me — Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) January 11, 2020
Twenty-eight states have already mandated loyalty pledges to Israel as a means to outlaw dissent. But in December, President Trump passed legislation effectively criminalizing the Boycott Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) movement that aims to put pressure on the Jewish state through economic action, along the lines of the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa. The law mandates that any public institution would be subject to losing all funding if the government deems that they are not doing enough to stamp out anti-Semitism, which, it explicitly states, includes any criticism of the Israeli government. In December, MintPress reported that the British government under Boris Johnson is planning to introduce similar legislation. Bad News from Venezuel... Alan Macleod Best Price: $31.51 Buy New $44.37 (as of 10:46 UTC - Details)
“The hyperbolic notion that conservatives are the ones being persecuted on college campuses has made blatant censorship campaigns against people for criticism of Israel, or other progressive protests, go completely ignored,” Martin wrote.
CAIR’s Legal Defense Fund Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas said,
There is no place where free speech is more important than on campus. And this attempt to suppress Abby’s views – denying students, academics, and others from hearing her lecture – is as brazen as it is illegal. In adopting this anti-BDS law, Georgia has prioritized the policy preferences of a foreign country over the free speech rights of Americans, like Abby, who speak on this state’s college campuses.”
The PCJF likened the BDS movement to the boycotts of the civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century, its Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard described the laws as “extraordinary, outrageous, illegal and unconstitutional.” In 1956 Martin Luther King and his movement were criminalized for carrying out boycotts, as Southern states passed legislation to penalize their behavior, only for it to be later struck down by the Supreme Court. This is what Martin and the alliance of non-governmental organizations is hoping will happen here too. Why should I have to “contractually pledge loyalty to a foreign country?” she asked at her press conference today.
In 2016, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a law requiring any person or organization entering into a contract with the state worth at least $1,000 sign an oath promising that they would not oppose the Israeli government in any fashion. CAIR has reason to believe they could overturn the law its Georgia Executive Director, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, called “blatantly and hilariously unconstitutional.”
In 2018, Bahia Amawi, a Houston-based children’s speech pathologist who worked with autistic, speech-impaired and other developmentally disabled children, lost her job after she refused to sign a similar document. Amawi had been at her job for nine years previously without a problem. CAIR took up Amawi’s case and managed to overturn every Texas boycott law on the grounds of their unconstitutionality and she is now free to return to work. They appear confident of a similar victory in Georgia.
Martin began as a citizen journalist covering the Occupy movement in her native California. From 2012 to 2015 she hosted the show Breaking the Set on RT. In the famous D.N.I. report into alleged Russian interference into the 2016 election, the U.S. government accused her of “promoting radical discontent” in America, something she appears to wear as a badge of honor. Her current documentary series, Empire Files, is broadcast on TeleSUR English. However, due to sanctions against the Venezuelan government, Gaza Fights for Freedom was crowdfunded. She is also the host of Media Roots Radio.
Correction | An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the state of Georgia shut down a screening of Abby Martin’s documentary film “Gaza Fights for Freedom.”


lewrockwell--2020-02-13--Compulsory Education – The Bane of Learning and Freedom

Approximately 50-million students , bound by state compulsory attendance laws , are trapped in what is essentially a prison of their bodies and minds .
Most Americans never question school compulsory attendance laws itself but instead focus on what occurs inside the classroom .
Public schools , which can also be called government schools , are notorious for a wide array of problems .
From class size to the controversy over testing to disruptive student behavior , the demand that more taxpayer money be used to correct the poor performance is touted as the answer .
This completely disregards two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government education of children is often a losing deal .
( Private schools are frequently smaller , religious affiliated , and in many cases cost less to educate each student than the public counterparts . )
2 .
More important , compulsory education violates the liberty of all citizens – taxpayers and students alike , not only by forcing parents to subject their children to a state education but also with the coercive funding ( i.e.
, taxation ) used to force children ’ s attendance .
My principal objection to compulsory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the individual .
No one should be required to give up personal sovereignty to comply with a state or federal government mandate — not through military conscription and not through compulsory education .
40 Alternatives to Col ... James Altucher Best Price : $ 1.15 Buy New $ 4.95 From its earliest days , our nation functioned well without compulsory education laws , and the minimal involvement of government enabled youth to choose trade/vocational training , religious study , or higher education relevant to the individual ’ s personal choice .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop in society , it became increasingly repressive , decade by decade .
Parochial schools and family home-schooling were replaced by laws forcing attendance for most students at government schools .
Government-run schools and compulsory attendance to any school are the antitheses of freedom , liberty , and learning .
Forced to attend a school , most will go to government schools .
Students are treated as prisoners sentenced to serve 12 years ( or less in some states ) .
Years of children ’ s precious lives and vulnerable minds are spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimless busywork to meet the demands of teachers .
The individual is not valued in many government schools , as all focus is on becoming an upstanding member of the collective .
Leftist indoctrination has become ubiquitous .
Independent thinking is discouraged while group-think pervades nearly every aspect of the politicized curriculum .
All of this in the name of bettering children ’ s lives .
The oppression is accepted by the majority who learn quickly how to gain approval from their masters , with students who rebel sadly turning to personally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept this oppression , the individuals who would be better suited to pursue unique aptitudes suffer .
With rare religious exceptions recognized , the vast majority of American youth must obey by attending such schools or face various penalties and punishments , as well as sometimes the possibility of fines and jail time for parents .
Gone are the days where educational choices were up to the young person and his family .
The result of youth being exposed to years of socialist ideas explains the rampant decline of basic knowledge and generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to do much of anything aside from obeying orders .
All too many high-school graduates display poor writing skills and an inadequate ability to engage in critical thinking on simple matters .
The collective is placed above the individual .
From rewards for just showing up to ribbons for all , disallowing students to give one another a card or a simple gift unless all are given one , to situational ethics role-playing scenarios , students are continuously subjected to an agenda that discourages independent thought .
High achievement is discouraged as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made to feel equal to all .
Critical thinking and actual substantive course work are replaced by leftist revisionism of history , identity politics , and advocacy of politically correct perceptions of life .
Free speech , a fundamental of our nation , is not only not valued , but it is also suppressed .
Subtle and patent discrimination of those not conforming to the frequently liberal agenda pervades government education .
After years of this beginning when very young , the mental and emotional development is stunted , and the socialist mindset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government wants — an easily controlled and manipulated unquestioning populous .
All of this occurs simply because the American people have never questioned the premise of compulsory education .
While conservatives work to offer alternatives such as vouchers/home-schooling/economic methods to provide choice , those who value liberty realize compulsory education is not an area for mere reform , it is a clear violation of the rights of the individual and as such should be eliminated .
The rights of millions of young Americans are violated daily by forcing children to attend schools .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are forced to fund state schools are violated .
Better Than College : H ... Blake Boles Best Price : $ 2.33 Buy New $ 1.99 Education should be a personal responsibility , not a public one .
Like so many other important aspects of life that the government now controls , the education of children should be left entirely up to the parents and the private sector with its charitable and private enterprises , with attendance voluntary .
A fundamental rejection of any government involvement in education , including all laws requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not enough to try and end the government monopoly in education , the link between government and any educational opportunity should be ended .
Just as compulsory attendance began with one state mandating it and the idea spreading nationwide , our country could begin to end this tyranny if one state legislature courageously challenged and eliminated compulsory attendance .
America needs educational freedom – freedom from all government intervention .
Let ’ s begin it with an end to compulsory attendance .
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom @ @

Approximately 50-million students, bound by state compulsory attendance laws, are trapped in what is essentially a prison of their bodies and minds.
Most Americans never question school compulsory attendance laws itself but instead focus on what occurs inside the classroom. Public schools, which can also be called government schools, are notorious for a wide array of problems. From class size to the controversy over testing to disruptive student behavior, the demand that more taxpayer money be used to correct the poor performance is touted as the answer. This completely disregards two points: 1. The benefit-cost ratio of government education of children is often a losing deal. (Private schools are frequently smaller, religious affiliated, and in many cases cost less to educate each student than the public counterparts.) 2. More important, compulsory education violates the liberty of all citizens – taxpayers and students alike, not only by forcing parents to subject their children to a state education but also with the coercive funding (i.e., taxation) used to force children’s attendance.
My principal objection to compulsory education is that it violates the freedom of the individual. No one should be required to give up personal sovereignty to comply with a state or federal government mandate — not through military conscription and not through compulsory education. 40 Alternatives to Col... Altucher, James Best Price: $2.49 Buy New $4.95 (as of 04:15 UTC - Details)
From its earliest days, our nation functioned well without compulsory education laws, and the minimal involvement of government enabled youth to choose trade/vocational training, religious study, or higher education relevant to the individual’s personal choice. As the idea of compulsory attendance began to develop in society, it became increasingly repressive, decade by decade. Parochial schools and family home-schooling were replaced by laws forcing attendance for most students at government schools.
Government-run schools and compulsory attendance to any school are the antitheses of freedom, liberty, and learning. Forced to attend a school, most will go to government schools. Students are treated as prisoners sentenced to serve 12 years (or less in some states). Years of children’s precious lives and vulnerable minds are spent in forced confinement, often subjected to aimless busywork to meet the demands of teachers. The individual is not valued in many government schools, as all focus is on becoming an upstanding member of the collective. Leftist indoctrination has become ubiquitous. Independent thinking is discouraged while group-think pervades nearly every aspect of the politicized curriculum. All of this in the name of bettering children’s lives.
The oppression is accepted by the majority who learn quickly how to gain approval from their masters, with students who rebel sadly turning to personally and socially destructive behaviors. While many passively accept this oppression, the individuals who would be better suited to pursue unique aptitudes suffer.
With rare religious exceptions recognized, the vast majority of American youth must obey by attending such schools or face various penalties and punishments, as well as sometimes the possibility of fines and jail time for parents. Gone are the days where educational choices were up to the young person and his family.
The result of youth being exposed to years of socialist ideas explains the rampant decline of basic knowledge and generation upon generation of graduating seniors with minimal ability to do much of anything aside from obeying orders. All too many high-school graduates display poor writing skills and an inadequate ability to engage in critical thinking on simple matters.
The collective is placed above the individual. From rewards for just showing up to ribbons for all, disallowing students to give one another a card or a simple gift unless all are given one, to situational ethics role-playing scenarios, students are continuously subjected to an agenda that discourages independent thought. High achievement is discouraged as competition is rejected while poor performers are made to feel equal to all. Critical thinking and actual substantive course work are replaced by leftist revisionism of history, identity politics, and advocacy of politically correct perceptions of life.
Free speech, a fundamental of our nation, is not only not valued, but it is also suppressed. Subtle and patent discrimination of those not conforming to the frequently liberal agenda pervades government education. After years of this beginning when very young, the mental and emotional development is stunted, and the socialist mindset is placed — exactly what an all-powerful government wants — an easily controlled and manipulated unquestioning populous.
All of this occurs simply because the American people have never questioned the premise of compulsory education.
While conservatives work to offer alternatives such as vouchers/home-schooling/economic methods to provide choice, those who value liberty realize compulsory education is not an area for mere reform, it is a clear violation of the rights of the individual and as such should be eliminated.
The rights of millions of young Americans are violated daily by forcing children to attend schools. Likewise, the rights of Americans who are forced to fund state schools are violated. Better Than College: H... Boles, Blake Best Price: $4.95 Buy New $1.99 (as of 10:10 UTC - Details)
Education should be a personal responsibility, not a public one. Like so many other important aspects of life that the government now controls, the education of children should be left entirely up to the parents and the private sector with its charitable and private enterprises, with attendance voluntary.
A fundamental rejection of any government involvement in education, including all laws requiring compulsory attendance, must be the focus. It is not enough to try and end the government monopoly in education, the link between government and any educational opportunity should be ended.
Just as compulsory attendance began with one state mandating it and the idea spreading nationwide, our country could begin to end this tyranny if one state legislature courageously challenged and eliminated compulsory attendance.
America needs educational freedom – freedom from all government intervention. Let’s begin it with an end to compulsory attendance.
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.