Author: ogden.matthew

On March 12, Great Britain applied to join the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced the decision in a Treasury release, noting that Great Britain is the “first major Western country to apply” to become a member of this new international development bank. A dispatch by Xinhua noted that China’s Finance Ministry welcomed the initiative, which would make Britain a founding member. The Ministry is now seeking the opinions of other founding countries.

At a March 6 press conference, Lou Jiwei, China’s Minister of Finance, said that 27 countries have applied to jointly found the bank. March 31 is the application deadline. Xinhua reports that the bank is to be formally established by the end of 2015. Lou said said that a number of European nations have shown interest to join the bank.

Within hours of today’s announcement of Britain’s application to the AIIB, reports came out of White House disapproval. The Financial Times reported that:

“The Obama administration accused the UK of a ‘constant accommodation’ of China after Britain decided to join a new China-led financial institution that could rival the World Bank…”

The article stated:

“A senior US administration official told the Financial Times that the British decision was taken after ‘virtually no consultation with the US’… We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power…”

The official British Treasury release states:

“As the first major Western country to apply to become a prospective member of the AIIB, the U.K. will join discussions later this month with other founding members to agree with the bank’s prospective Articles of Agreement, setting out the governance and accountability arrangements that underpin the AIIB’s operating practices.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is quoted:

“This government has actively promoted closer political and economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region and forging links between the U.K. and Asian economies to give our companies the best opportunity to work and invest in the world’s fastest growing markets as a key part of our long-term economic plan. Joining the AIIB at the founding stage will create an unrivalled opportunity for the U.K. and Asia to invest and grow together.”

Once fully operational, the AIIB will support access to finance for infrastructure projects across Asia, using a variety of support measures — including loans, equity investments, and guarantees — to boost investment across a range of sectors including transportation, energy, telecommunication, agriculture and urban development.

On March 12, Great Britain applied to join the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced the decision in a Treasury release, noting that Great Britain is the “first major Western country to apply” to become a member of this new international development bank. A dispatch by Xinhua noted that China’s Finance Ministry welcomed the initiative, which would make Britain a founding member. The Ministry is now seeking the opinions of other founding countries.

At a March 6 press conference, Lou Jiwei, China’s Minister of Finance, said that 27 countries have applied to jointly found the bank. March 31 is the application deadline. Xinhua reports that the bank is to be formally established by the end of 2015. Lou said said that a number of European nations have shown interest to join the bank.

Within hours of today’s announcement of Britain’s application to the AIIB, reports came out of White House disapproval. The Financial Times reported that:

“The Obama administration accused the UK of a ‘constant accommodation’ of China after Britain decided to join a new China-led financial institution that could rival the World Bank…”

The article stated:

“A senior US administration official told the Financial Times that the British decision was taken after ‘virtually no consultation with the US’… We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power…”

The official British Treasury release states:

“As the first major Western country to apply to become a prospective member of the AIIB, the U.K. will join discussions later this month with other founding members to agree with the bank’s prospective Articles of Agreement, setting out the governance and accountability arrangements that underpin the AIIB’s operating practices.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is quoted:

“This government has actively promoted closer political and economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region and forging links between the U.K. and Asian economies to give our companies the best opportunity to work and invest in the world’s fastest growing markets as a key part of our long-term economic plan. Joining the AIIB at the founding stage will create an unrivalled opportunity for the U.K. and Asia to invest and grow together.”

Once fully operational, the AIIB will support access to finance for infrastructure projects across Asia, using a variety of support measures — including loans, equity investments, and guarantees — to boost investment across a range of sectors including transportation, energy, telecommunication, agriculture and urban development.

The Berlin-based web journal Telepolis on March 14 had an article describing how the three Baltic states are intensifying economic cooperation deals with China, as well as considering to become the Baltic ends of the New Silk Road infrastructure grid which China is building. In April, Latvia’s capital Riga will host an EU-Asia summit, which is to deal with that, in more detail. During the visit to Latvia of a Chinese government delegation in February, a deal was signed between the Latvian milk-producing firm Food Union and the third-largest Chinese food producer Bright Food, based in Shanghai. The China Harbour Engineering Company last autumn signed a contract with the Latvian Riga Coal Terminal, also for the expansion of capacity. The Chinese Embassy in Riga also has considerably expanded its staff.

Lithuania has been falling behind, due to President Dalia Grybauskaite’s endorsement of the Dalai Lama and the Tibet separatism from China. Osvaldas Ciuksys, the head of the Lithuanian-Chinese Chamber of Commerce however has criticized Grybauskaite for that, blaming her for the lack of profitable deals with China. Only in February, have relations between both countries warmed a bit, so that there is now an option of talks, predominantly on Lithuanian exports of agricultural products to China.

Estonia, which officially received the Dalai Lama in 2011, suffered from a freeze of economic relations with China, which was lifted when the Estonians apologized in 2014, so that at the end of January, the agriculture ministers of both countries signed a cooperation agreement in preparation of Estonian farm products to China. Furthermore, the Estonian port of Tallinn is being modernized and expanded with Chinese input.

Ironically, for the time being, until better and direct railway connections are established, the Baltic states and China use the “Northern Distribution Network,” a set of transport routes which originally were put together by Russia and NATO, to transfer matériel from Europe to the Western forces in Afghanistan.

The Berlin-based web journal Telepolis on March 14 had an article describing how the three Baltic states are intensifying economic cooperation deals with China, as well as considering to become the Baltic ends of the New Silk Road infrastructure grid which China is building. In April, Latvia’s capital Riga will host an EU-Asia summit, which is to deal with that, in more detail. During the visit to Latvia of a Chinese government delegation in February, a deal was signed between the Latvian milk-producing firm Food Union and the third-largest Chinese food producer Bright Food, based in Shanghai. The China Harbour Engineering Company last autumn signed a contract with the Latvian Riga Coal Terminal, also for the expansion of capacity. The Chinese Embassy in Riga also has considerably expanded its staff.

Lithuania has been falling behind, due to President Dalia Grybauskaite’s endorsement of the Dalai Lama and the Tibet separatism from China. Osvaldas Ciuksys, the head of the Lithuanian-Chinese Chamber of Commerce however has criticized Grybauskaite for that, blaming her for the lack of profitable deals with China. Only in February, have relations between both countries warmed a bit, so that there is now an option of talks, predominantly on Lithuanian exports of agricultural products to China.

Estonia, which officially received the Dalai Lama in 2011, suffered from a freeze of economic relations with China, which was lifted when the Estonians apologized in 2014, so that at the end of January, the agriculture ministers of both countries signed a cooperation agreement in preparation of Estonian farm products to China. Furthermore, the Estonian port of Tallinn is being modernized and expanded with Chinese input.

Ironically, for the time being, until better and direct railway connections are established, the Baltic states and China use the “Northern Distribution Network,” a set of transport routes which originally were put together by Russia and NATO, to transfer matériel from Europe to the Western forces in Afghanistan.

The Berlin-based web journal Telepolis on March 14 had an article describing how the three Baltic states are intensifying economic cooperation deals with China, as well as considering to become the Baltic ends of the New Silk Road infrastructure grid which China is building. In April, Latvia’s capital Riga will host an EU-Asia summit, which is to deal with that, in more detail. During the visit to Latvia of a Chinese government delegation in February, a deal was signed between the Latvian milk-producing firm Food Union and the third-largest Chinese food producer Bright Food, based in Shanghai. The China Harbour Engineering Company last autumn signed a contract with the Latvian Riga Coal Terminal, also for the expansion of capacity. The Chinese Embassy in Riga also has considerably expanded its staff.

Lithuania has been falling behind, due to President Dalia Grybauskaite’s endorsement of the Dalai Lama and the Tibet separatism from China. Osvaldas Ciuksys, the head of the Lithuanian-Chinese Chamber of Commerce however has criticized Grybauskaite for that, blaming her for the lack of profitable deals with China. Only in February, have relations between both countries warmed a bit, so that there is now an option of talks, predominantly on Lithuanian exports of agricultural products to China.

Estonia, which officially received the Dalai Lama in 2011, suffered from a freeze of economic relations with China, which was lifted when the Estonians apologized in 2014, so that at the end of January, the agriculture ministers of both countries signed a cooperation agreement in preparation of Estonian farm products to China. Furthermore, the Estonian port of Tallinn is being modernized and expanded with Chinese input.

Ironically, for the time being, until better and direct railway connections are established, the Baltic states and China use the “Northern Distribution Network,” a set of transport routes which originally were put together by Russia and NATO, to transfer matériel from Europe to the Western forces in Afghanistan.

The China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is becoming more and more clearly a central institution for global economic progress and growth in the decades ahead.

Following the British decision March 12 to become the 28th founding nation of the AIIB, other countries which had been forced by Obama Administration threats and pressure to stay out of the development bank, have joined or are rethinking doing so.

The Financial Times late yesterday reported:

“According to European officials, France, Germany, and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank … delivering a blow to Obama Administration efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.”

The newspaper reported that Britain “tried to gain ‘first-mover advantage’ last week by signing up … before other G7 members.”

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said at a press conference March 15 that Australia will decide within weeks whether to join the AIIB. Abbott was quoted as saying in The Australian daily:

“I note that the U.K. has indicated an intention to sign up for the negotiations, the New Zealanders before Christmas signed up for the negotiations, the Singaporeans likewise, the Indians likewise. We’re looking very carefully at this and well make a decision in the next week or so.”

The Korea Times reported yesterday that the South Korean government will decide within days.

Earlier March 16, the Financial Times had carried a lengthy op-ed by Peterson Institute director emeritus C. Fred Bergsten, saying the United States should join, as it has been invited to do by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Peterson Institute has been known for two decades in Washington for forecasting disasters and breakups for the Chinese economy. But now Bergsten’s view is titled, “U.S. Should Work with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,” and subtitled, “Washington Should Sign Up and Bless the Desire of Its Friends To Join.”

Bergsten writes that the AIIB initiative has “become a source of major discord between the US and some of its chief allies, including the UK, which has decided to become a founder member of the new institution.”

The U.K. decision to join AIIB, Bergsten wrote:

“…sparked an angry response in Washington, a sorry development that reflects the huge mistake the U.S. has made in opposing a bank aimed at helping to meet Asia’s need for trillions of dollars of investment in energy, power, transportation, telecommunications and other infrastructure sectors…. The U.S. should reverse course. It should join the bank and persuade Congress to provide the small amounts needed to fund a minority share. It should bless the desire of its friends in Asia and Europe to join.”

Bergsten states that the UK and other US allies “are wise to accept China’s invitation to join” the AIIB, which he states can “play a positive role in the world economy and capitalise on China’s growing willingness to exercise constructive global leadership.”

China itself will release its implementation plan for hundreds of major infrastructure projects along the Silk Road “Belt and Road” at the Boao Forum for Asia March 26-29, Xinhua reports. The annual Boao Forum’s theme this year is “Asia’s New Future: Towards a Community of Common Destiny.”

Xinhua reported:

“Sources told Xinhua that the implementation plan will include a detailed list of major infrastructure projects concerning railways, roads, energy, information technology and industrial parks to be started in the coming years. The number of these major infrastructure projects could reach hundreds and will spread across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and China’s other neighboring countries, said the sources. Xinjiang (China’s western province), located in the center of Asia, is the gateway to the Silk Road, and it will play an integral role in China-Europe exchanges.”

During a press conference on November 12, 2014 at the APEC summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping personally offered President Obama the opportunity for the United States cooperate with China and become a founding member of the AIIB along with other Western countries, an offer which the United States has thus far failed to reciprocate despite all other leading Western countries deciding to join:

The United States Must Now Join the AIIB!

SIGN THE PETITION NOW

The China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is becoming more and more clearly a central institution for global economic progress and growth in the decades ahead.

Following the British decision March 12 to become the 28th founding nation of the AIIB, other countries which had been forced by Obama Administration threats and pressure to stay out of the development bank, have joined or are rethinking doing so.

The Financial Times late yesterday reported:

“According to European officials, France, Germany, and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank … delivering a blow to Obama Administration efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.”

The newspaper reported that Britain “tried to gain ‘first-mover advantage’ last week by signing up … before other G7 members.”

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said at a press conference March 15 that Australia will decide within weeks whether to join the AIIB. Abbott was quoted as saying in The Australian daily:

“I note that the U.K. has indicated an intention to sign up for the negotiations, the New Zealanders before Christmas signed up for the negotiations, the Singaporeans likewise, the Indians likewise. We’re looking very carefully at this and well make a decision in the next week or so.”

The Korea Times reported yesterday that the South Korean government will decide within days.

Earlier March 16, the Financial Times had carried a lengthy op-ed by Peterson Institute director emeritus C. Fred Bergsten, saying the United States should join, as it has been invited to do by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Peterson Institute has been known for two decades in Washington for forecasting disasters and breakups for the Chinese economy. But now Bergsten’s view is titled, “U.S. Should Work with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,” and subtitled, “Washington Should Sign Up and Bless the Desire of Its Friends To Join.”

Bergsten writes that the AIIB initiative has “become a source of major discord between the US and some of its chief allies, including the UK, which has decided to become a founder member of the new institution.”

The U.K. decision to join AIIB, Bergsten wrote:

“…sparked an angry response in Washington, a sorry development that reflects the huge mistake the U.S. has made in opposing a bank aimed at helping to meet Asia’s need for trillions of dollars of investment in energy, power, transportation, telecommunications and other infrastructure sectors…. The U.S. should reverse course. It should join the bank and persuade Congress to provide the small amounts needed to fund a minority share. It should bless the desire of its friends in Asia and Europe to join.”

Bergsten states that the UK and other US allies “are wise to accept China’s invitation to join” the AIIB, which he states can “play a positive role in the world economy and capitalise on China’s growing willingness to exercise constructive global leadership.”

China itself will release its implementation plan for hundreds of major infrastructure projects along the Silk Road “Belt and Road” at the Boao Forum for Asia March 26-29, Xinhua reports. The annual Boao Forum’s theme this year is “Asia’s New Future: Towards a Community of Common Destiny.”

Xinhua reported:

“Sources told Xinhua that the implementation plan will include a detailed list of major infrastructure projects concerning railways, roads, energy, information technology and industrial parks to be started in the coming years. The number of these major infrastructure projects could reach hundreds and will spread across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and China’s other neighboring countries, said the sources. Xinjiang (China’s western province), located in the center of Asia, is the gateway to the Silk Road, and it will play an integral role in China-Europe exchanges.”

During a press conference on November 12, 2014 at the APEC summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping personally offered President Obama the opportunity for the United States cooperate with China and become a founding member of the AIIB along with other Western countries, an offer which the United States has thus far failed to reciprocate despite all other leading Western countries deciding to join:

The United States Must Now Join the AIIB!

SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Senate Republicans are shifting the focus from passing an authorization for the use of force against ISIS, to trying to sabotage a diplomatic agreement with Iran. The New York Times reports:

“With so much attention focused on Iran, it is doubtful that Congress can make much quick progress on the use of force measure, which lawmakers were struggling with even before Iran took center stage.”

Politico also reports that Republicans are planning to fast-track a bill which would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the the P5+1 powers reach with Iran — even at the risk of having Democrats who otherwise support the bill, vote against it. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on March 3 that he is planning to bring anti-Iran legislation directly to the floor without going through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first, an “outraged” Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he’ll vote against his own bill if he has to. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) blasted McConnell’s push as “rushed and partisan.” Politico reports that McConnell’s drive to bring the legislation quickly to the Senate floor “has two of the bill’s Democratic sponsors in full rebellion mode, potentially presaging a Democratic filibuster on the floor if the bill doesn’t go through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first.”

As to Congress’s enthusiasm to follow Netanyahu to war against Iran, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted that:

“It’s a rare thing for Congress to declare war — and rarer still to do it at the request of a foreign leader.”

Another Washington Post columnist, Walter Pincus, who is generally aligned with the military-intelligence establishment, wrote a strong attack yesterday on any Congressional interference with Iran diplomacy, not only taking apart Netanyahu’s arguments, but pointing out that any Iran agreement would be hammered out not just by Obama, but by six great powers—Russia, China, Germany, and France, in addition to the U.S. and Britain—which is something Netanyahu never brings up.

Despite whatever US denials there might be, there is a very high expectation in certain circles that the US will soon be supplying weapons to the Kiev regime. US Ambassador to Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt, Victoria Nuland’s partner-in-crime in fomenting the Nazi coup last year, bragged that Congress has already allocated $120 million for building the Ukrainian military. Pyatt said:

“The U.S. Congress has approved the allocation of $120 million this year for training and purchasing equipment. The only question that is still being discussed is whether it should include defensive lethal weapons.”

He also claimed that the United States already has ample evidence of Russia’s participation to the conflict — photos from satellites and other evidence of the presence of Russian troops and military equipment in Donbas, as well as weapons supplies.

An obvious lie: if it were true, they would be broadcasting this evidence to the world.

For former Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, acting as an advisor to Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, the matter is already “99 percent settled.” He told a Ukrainian TV network:

“The main thing we are trying to achieve in the United States is that Ukraine receives defensive weapons.”

Saakashvili is clearly depending on the “good will” in the US Congress towards Ukraine to make it happen.

“America is a democratic country, so it was very important to hear publicly voices in the Congress and the Senate, and to see a strong call next week regarding provision of defensive weapons for Ukraine. This issue is in the spotlight of all U.S. media. When President Poroshenko raised this issue in the Congress in his triumphal speech in September last year, for many it was a surprise and a lot of people refused even to listen to it. Now, the decision is practically settled 99%. I don’t know when the last and most significant 1% will come — I hope soon, because Ukraine is running short of time.”

The “denial” comes from an anonymous Obama Administration official who told Tass that the US can’t arm the regime through third countries, in an obvious response to Poroshenko’s announcement last week, from Abu Dhabi, that the regime had agreed to an arms deal with the UAE. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has the right to conclude agreements with other countries, the official said.

In a speech in Berlin last night, Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of the U.S. armed forces in Europe, said that Western diplomacy needed a “muscle” to get the right message to Russia:

“If you don’t have something that gives muscle to the diplomacy, to the economic aspect, then it’s not going to be as effective.”

But, while going on to blast and threaten Russia, Hodges also announced, in an exclusive interview with World Bulletin March 3, that the U.S. was putting on hold its training mission to Ukraine—pre-announced to be 600 troops to work with the National Guard—to see if the Minsk accords succeeded.

Hodges said that helping Ukraine with weapons would increase pressure on President Vladimir Putin at home.

“When mothers start seeing sons come home dead, when that price goes up, then that domestic support begins to shrink.”

Hodges did not specify what weapons could be offered, but said that what Ukraine wants “is intelligence, counter-fire capability and something that can stop a Russian tank.” Russia has 12,000 soldiers and heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine, plus another 29,000 in Crimea, and is maintaining another 50,000 close to the border with Ukraine, Hodges asserted.

Senate Republicans are shifting the focus from passing an authorization for the use of force against ISIS, to trying to sabotage a diplomatic agreement with Iran. The New York Times reports:

“With so much attention focused on Iran, it is doubtful that Congress can make much quick progress on the use of force measure, which lawmakers were struggling with even before Iran took center stage.”

Politico also reports that Republicans are planning to fast-track a bill which would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the the P5+1 powers reach with Iran — even at the risk of having Democrats who otherwise support the bill, vote against it. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on March 3 that he is planning to bring anti-Iran legislation directly to the floor without going through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first, an “outraged” Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he’ll vote against his own bill if he has to. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) blasted McConnell’s push as “rushed and partisan.” Politico reports that McConnell’s drive to bring the legislation quickly to the Senate floor “has two of the bill’s Democratic sponsors in full rebellion mode, potentially presaging a Democratic filibuster on the floor if the bill doesn’t go through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first.”

As to Congress’s enthusiasm to follow Netanyahu to war against Iran, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted that:

“It’s a rare thing for Congress to declare war — and rarer still to do it at the request of a foreign leader.”

Another Washington Post columnist, Walter Pincus, who is generally aligned with the military-intelligence establishment, wrote a strong attack yesterday on any Congressional interference with Iran diplomacy, not only taking apart Netanyahu’s arguments, but pointing out that any Iran agreement would be hammered out not just by Obama, but by six great powers—Russia, China, Germany, and France, in addition to the U.S. and Britain—which is something Netanyahu never brings up.

Senate Republicans are shifting the focus from passing an authorization for the use of force against ISIS, to trying to sabotage a diplomatic agreement with Iran. The New York Times reports:

“With so much attention focused on Iran, it is doubtful that Congress can make much quick progress on the use of force measure, which lawmakers were struggling with even before Iran took center stage.”

Politico also reports that Republicans are planning to fast-track a bill which would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the the P5+1 powers reach with Iran — even at the risk of having Democrats who otherwise support the bill, vote against it. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on March 3 that he is planning to bring anti-Iran legislation directly to the floor without going through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first, an “outraged” Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he’ll vote against his own bill if he has to. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) blasted McConnell’s push as “rushed and partisan.” Politico reports that McConnell’s drive to bring the legislation quickly to the Senate floor “has two of the bill’s Democratic sponsors in full rebellion mode, potentially presaging a Democratic filibuster on the floor if the bill doesn’t go through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first.”

As to Congress’s enthusiasm to follow Netanyahu to war against Iran, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted that:

“It’s a rare thing for Congress to declare war — and rarer still to do it at the request of a foreign leader.”

Another Washington Post columnist, Walter Pincus, who is generally aligned with the military-intelligence establishment, wrote a strong attack yesterday on any Congressional interference with Iran diplomacy, not only taking apart Netanyahu’s arguments, but pointing out that any Iran agreement would be hammered out not just by Obama, but by six great powers—Russia, China, Germany, and France, in addition to the U.S. and Britain—which is something Netanyahu never brings up.

Both the House and the Senate today held hearings yesterday beating the drums of war, setting the stage for nuclear war in the near term. Victoria Nuland herself, the personal controller of the neo-nazis in Ukraine, including Prime Minister “Yats,” was the only witness before the House Foreign Affairs Committee (under Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, who are pushing legislation to arm Ukraine), where she lied wildly about the crisis and threatened Russia with new sanctions. Members of Congress, with few exceptions, ranted for arming Ukraine, moving more troops to the borders of Russia, and preparing our military for full-scale war.

Nuland stuck to the Administration line that it has not yet decided to provide arms to the Ukraine regime.

Mikheil Saakashvili and Garry Kasparov appearing with Damon Wilson, Stephen Blank, and Steven Pifer in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Meanwhile, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (now advising Ukraine President Poroshenko) and Russia’s wild-eyed opponent of Putin, Garry Kasparov, ranted that talking to Putin was a horrible mistake, that full US military force must be brought to bear immediately in Ukraine, or Europe will fall to Russian aggression and the post-war order be destroyed. The hearing room had huge photographs of Boris Nemtsov, the bridge with his body, MH17 wreckage, and more, lined up all along the front of the hearing room. Joining their war cries were leading Russia-haters from the Atlantic Council (Damon Wilson), the American Foreign Policy Council (Stephen Blank), and former Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, now at Brookings.

Former President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, being interviewed outside a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Nuland and several members of Congress expressed “outrage” at the murder of Boris Nemtsov, only slightly stopping short of blaming Putin directly. Kasparov didn’t stop short, saying that “Putin and his elites believe that after 15 years of power there is nothing they cannot do, no line they cannot cross,” while accusing Putin of using Nazi ideology! He called for color revolution or worse: “Like a cancer, Putin and his elites must be cut out. He must be isolated and removed.”

Nuland praised the Maidan coup, the “peaceful protest by ordinary Ukrainians fed up with the rotten regime.” She insisted that new sanctions are ready to go, if, in Obama’s view, Russia doesn’t hold to Minsk II. Obama has “not decided” on arming Kiev, she said.

Only two Congressmen had the courage to counter her lies. Rep. Greg Meeks said that real leadership would not be US unilateral military action, but working together with others, pointing to European nations opposing the arming of Ukraine.

More powerfully, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher ripped into the whole imperial process, starting with the EU refusing to help Ukraine under Yanukovych, then helping the Maidan revolt which was precipitate by Yanukovych’s decision to postpone the association agreement with Europe.

“Perhaps an electoral process rather than the use of violence and non-democratic means would have been better,” he said, insisting that our goal should be peace in Ukraine, “not to defeat and humiliate Russia, again and again.” If that is the policy, he said, the killing and suffering in Ukraine will go on and on.

When Nuland “took issue” with Rohrabacher, trying to say Yanukovych should have accepted IMF help, Rohrabacher cut her off, saying the ceasefire appeared to be desired by both sides, so “we should not be trying to wreck it.”

Lyndon LaRouche’s March 3 statement denouncing the frame-up of Putin for Nemtsov’s murder was circulated widely at both of these hearings on Capitol Hill today, as EIR and LaRouchePAC representatives attended hearings intended to galvanize the population for war.

At the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, a gaggle of media were gathered to interview both the Congressmen and the members of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, which were in Washington to lobby for arming Ukraine.

Following the hearing, EIR‘s Stuart Rosenblatt approached Nuland personally, and, in the hearing of many press and others, asked: “Were you behind the assassination of Nemtsov? We know Putin didn’t do it—so was it you?” She responded, “How could you say that?” and was spirited away by staff.