As fighting between the army and Russian-backed rebels rages in eastern Ukraine, preparations are under way near its western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies.
The decision to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 is seen as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine while stopping well short of military intervention in the conflict.
The annual exercise, to take place in the Yavoriv training center near Ukraine's border with Poland, was initially scheduled for July, but was put back because early planning was disrupted by the crisis in the eastern part of the country.
"At the moment, we are still planning for (the exercise) to go ahead," U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, spokesman for the U.S. Army's European Command said on Tuesday.
NATO stepped up military activity in its eastern member states after Russia's annexation of Crimea in March, and is expected to agree at a summit in Wales this week to create a new rapid reaction force of several thousand troops.
In addition to staging air force exercises, the United States is moving tanks and 600 troops to Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for joint maneuvers in October, replacing a more lightly armed force of paratroopers.
But Rapid Trident will entail the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
President Barack Obama will visit Estonia on Wednesday to reassure the former Soviet Baltic states of U.S. support, and Estonia's prime minister on Tuesday called for a more visible NATO presence in eastern Europe.
Washington has promised Ukraine $52 million in non-lethal security aid and has already provided combat rations, body armor, radios and other equipment. Pentagon leaders have met with Ukrainian counterparts to discuss a range of cooperation, but, for now, arms supplies have been ruled out.
Eleven commercial jets have reportedly been stolen in recent weeks in Libya, and Western intelligence agencies have begun warning they could be used in terror attacks on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the devastating Osama bin Laden-orchestrated attacks on New York and Washington that left nearly 3,000 dead.
According to a report in the Free Beacon, the jets were taken by Islamist militias in Libya, and reports distributed within the U.S. government “included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack … on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks …”
One official in the report assembled by the highly respected Bill Gertz said, “There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing. We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”
Gertz now is senior editor of the Free Beacon, but he built his career during 27 years as reporter, editor and columnist with the Washington Times. He’s also authored six books and his online biography reveals the state-run Xinhua news agency in 2006 identified him as the No. 1 “anti-China expert” in the world.
His report about the missing jetliners notes authorities have a high level of concern because of the convergence of the cases of missing airplanes and the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The officials quoted by Gertz said U.S. intelligence agencies now are trying to locate all the airplanes belonging to two Libyan airline companies, and they have not confirmed the aircraft theft, which reportedly happened after the takeover by terrorists of Tripoli International Airport in August.
As awareness grows of the international establishment’s globalist plotting against liberty and national sovereignty, problems on the road toward a “New World Order” are becoming increasingly obvious, and opposition is surging in tandem. Changes in strategy may be forthcoming as a result. Still, as a recent “analysis” by establishment spokesman Henry Kissinger (shown) makes clear, the powerful forces of globalism and totalitarianism have no intention of backing down from their plot to impose their “New World Order” on humanity.
“The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state,” Kissinger complained. “The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.” In other words, globalists are worried that the public backlash — or “political reaction,” as Kissinger put it — to the “international order” created partly by Kissinger and his radical comrades is growing and must be dealt with.
Using opaque language, Kissinger also essentially spelled out the globalist road map going forward: Rather than creating a global government all at once, dividing up the world’s peoples and nations into various “regions” ruled by regional regimes must come first. “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” he explains.
As readers of this magazine know well, the trends are already obvious. In Europe, the EU now totally dominates policymaking. In North America, globalists are openly boasting that, using NAFTA as the foundation, a new regional regime is being empowered that will end U.S. sovereignty and independence. In Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and worldwide, the same phenomenon is taking place in full public view. Consider the African Union and the Union of South American States, for example. Only the end-game remains concealed from full public view — and just barely.
“You really have to read between the lines to understand what Dr. Kissinger is saying,” explained analyst Anthony Wile at the market-oriented Daily Bell, which specializes in reading between the lines and exposing globalist memes. “Dr. Kissinger and his backers want more comprehensive global government. Some of the chaos in the world today is certainly due to THEIR actions and their determination to create or sustain warfare in troubled regions of the world. Kissinger is being disingenuous by not admitting to that. He is also being disingenuous by not being clear about the seeming remedy: Reducing or eliminating parts of the [U.S.] Constitution (formally or not), that don't ‘fit’ with the political systems of other regions.”
The end game, Wile suggests, is summarized in Kissinger’s call for “international rules,” which, of course, would necessarily require international rulers. The other key point is Kissinger’s urging the “United States” to reflect upon its “celebration of universal principles” while paring those “with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security.” Wile believes that is a call to further shred what remains of Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to make an eventual global merger with the rest of the world more seamless.