Ukraine opened a criminal probe after several gold bars at the central bank’s storage in the southern city of Odessa turned to be painted lead.
“The management of the central bank’s branch in Odessa asked us to investigate fraud by their employee,” Volodymyr Shablienko, head of the Odessa police’s press office, said by phone today. “We are conducting a forensic audit now.”
A central bank employee passed lead bars covered with golden paint to the storage unit, registering them as gold, the Vesti newspaper reported today, citing an unidentified person with knowledge of the matter in Odessa’s police department. …
Russia’s State Advisor, Director of The Institute of Problems of Globalization, Doctor of Economics, author Mikhail Delyagin tells Anton Chelyshev on Komsomolskaya Pravda radio that Ukraine is preparing a new large-scale anti-Russian provocation. Below is the excerpt from a 40-minute interview, published on December 11, 2014/
The rest of the Russian text of the interview can be found on Delyagin’s personal website Delyagin.ru.
– Hello, Mikhail Gennadievich. Are we going to discuss President Putin’s adress?
– The address of President Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly is extremely important. And, of course, it would be necessary to discuss it in the first place. Moreover, it gives us some quite certain distinct new perspectives. After Crimea I have great respect for the President. I had different stages of my assessment of the President, but after Crimea I have no doubts. But, unfortunately, as American Secretary of Defense once said -“there are more important things in the world”. Today, I hope you listened to this address and you can always read, listen to the experts. I want to talk about things and information of a unique character, unfortunately. It is of a pretty nasty character and threatens us all very much.
– What kind of information?
– It is connected with geopolitics. Why did Ukrainian crisis happen, what is the fundamental reason? Why did Americans get into it so deep? The Europeans got there because of the assets, as the Germans in 1941 – to take more land, factories, power lines and other existing businesses – ports, mines. The Americans got in because in the world objectively, there are three global players: the US, China and the EU. But the European Union is independent and a player equal to America and China only in case of cooperation with Russia. Not integration, of course, but at least close and tight relationship. The destruction of EU cooperation with Russia eliminates it as an independent participant in global competition, which is what we see now. The Americans did not get into this to get Russia. With all my patriotism, 2.5 percent of global GDP at market prices, up to 3 %, almost 4 percent of global GDP in purchasing power parity, it is not something that plays a global role. The global role is affected when instead of three actors in the global competition, if you tear the European Union and Russia, only two will remain. The EU will be no more. And this was the strategic objective of the Americans, which, unfortunately, neither we nor the Europeans realized. We possibly realized, but we were focused on a local task – how to appease Yanukovych. How could we explain to him that he should take money from us, than give it to the Europeans.
As a result, Americans have achieved outstanding success. We are in a real cold war. Ukraine is in a hot civil war. The talk about some sort of a ceasefire… let’s not bring out the horrible details, but peaceful civilians are killed every day. But the problem isn’t solved. Because despite the fact that the Russian Federation did not invade Ukraine, did not get involved in the war, despite the fact that we turned ourselves into a trash can for spitting, despite the aggressiveness of the European Union, the European Union has very strong sentiments in favor of not quarreling with the Russians. The mood is the following: the Russians may be right or wrong, but they are big, and we need to trade with someone. It is cool to trade with them. If they are wrong, well, we will believe our political bosses, let us trade with them from a distance. Why break up the relationship. But Europe suffers from many ailments. It suffers from our poverty too. Because if only 40% of our tourists now travel to Europe from a year ago, this is a very severe blow to many tourist economies of Europe. And they think it’s a result of their sanctions, and not a result of our stupidity. And there is a very strong mood to restore relations with Russia, whether we’re right or wrong.
Here is what happened in Milan recently. Our delegation of businessmen in suits and ties, after difficult negotiations, not very successful, were looking for an authentic restaurant. Where local Italians eat. Found this restaurant, went inside. There is a sudden moment of silence, because the guys are in suits. Who are they? This is a local neighborhood restaurant. The guys decided to relax, asked if there is any Russian vodka by chance? They were asked: you are probably Russians? Well, Yes, we are Russians. Whispers. Vodka comes out on the house. But that’s not the point. After the whispers subsided in about five minutes the locals stood up and applauded. And chanted: “Putin! Russia!” This lasted for about five minutes. Then everyone went about their business, not to bother the Russians. But this would be unimaginable even a year ago. Or two years ago. People in Europe feel that their rulers have sold them to the Americans. What has never happened before. Well, almost never. In the 1950’s, maybe it did.
Because democracy, albeit perverted, is still preserved, this pressure seeps upward. And the task of the Americans – to finally rip Russia from Europe – is not solved. Europe does not want to switch to the American shale gas – it is more expensive and it is unstable. Europe likes Russian pipeline gas. Europe does not want to abandon Russia as a market for selling cars and wine. It doesn’t want to destroy the relationship. The brilliant affair with the Malaysian Boeing failed. Nothing came of it. Now the British can demonstrate after some time the replaced fragments of the Boeing with fragments of Buk with a factory number stuck in them. But no one will believe this anymore. Because everyone remembers how the anti-Russian hysteria had stopped, as soon as the Russian General staff began to ask questions. It just halted all of a sudden. And this was the answer to who shot down the Boeing in reality.
The sequel is coming. there will be another provocation. And what will the next provocation be? We got some information. Moreover, first the information came from former Novorossia, from Kharkov. And this information I was not very inclined to trust, because Ukraine is embraced in a mass psychosis, and it’s saturated with rumors. But then came an indirect confirmation of this information from the West. I really hope that it’s a fake. I really hope that this is hostile propaganda. But you know, better be safe than sorry. The point is: Ukrainian army goes on the offensive. Yes, it doesn’t have the strength for the offensive and the level of demoralization is monstrous. Therefore it pretends to attack. Valiant soldiers carry out a massive artillery preparation. And all the Western media, not to mention Ukrainian, shout in unison about the liberation of another 300 square meters of Donetsk airport, for example. After that a tactical nuclear warhead explodes in the zone of the offensive of the Ukrainian army. Then everyone shouts that the monstrous Russia used nuclear weapons. Conversations about changing our military doctrine are moving in that direction. The liberal intelligentsia is already hysterically screaming about it. This is that which will be extremely difficult to clean up from. That which our military is not capable of, in principle, even theoretically. And that which is quite normal for the Americans, because both times of the use of nuclear weapons in the history of mankind it was them. To use it the third time is not so difficult. …
People are inclined to latch onto the initial explanation of whatever they see. This is a well known psychological principle which is exploited by propagandists everywhere, including those who managed the public presentation of 9/11. It’s by accident that I happened to learn a few things about physics, then a few things about “secret” US history, several years before I saw the collapse of building 7. It was a strange confluence of information, but I guess it prepared me to to accept the objective evidence of controlled demolition more easily than many people. So I can’t really fault Taibbi (below), he’s trying to cope with evidence which is diametrically opposed to his own psychological need to believe that there are constraints on the powers that reign over him and society at large. I wish I could believe the same, life would be a hell of a lot simpler. But it turns out that belief in such constraints is what negates them.
In any case, I’d like to take exception to the editor’s claim that Griffin is the preeminent spokesperson for the truthers, if there is such a thing. Griffin has certainly been a conduit of truth, but to me, the evidence speaks for itself. The problem is that acceptance of that evidence requires a fundamental change in one’s mental model of how human society works. Such paradigm shifts have always been difficult, but have also been hallmark of human progress.
A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them “believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.” A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission “covered up” the events of 9/11. It’s safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don’t believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.
Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories, mostly critical, of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement.
In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11, about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions. After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I’m pleased to share their written exchange — all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate.