12 of the hardest places to visit on Earth

Stunning lakes of Afghanistan. Picture: Carl Montgomery Source: Flickr

FROM impassable terrains to unstable political situations to strict visa regulations, there are some places on Earth that are nearly impossible to get into.

Fortunately, these adventurous photographers dared to venture into these territories. Even if you can’t be there yourself, you can still enjoy.

From Bhutan to Syria to Angola — read on and take a closer peek.

Pakistan

Travel to Pakistan is usually discouraged due to the threat of terrorist attack, kidnappings and its generally unpredictable security situation.

Travel guide Lonely Planet says: “No matter the attractions, tourism in Pakistan has always been something of a hard sell. A glance at the map shows the country living in a pretty difficult region: always-unruly Afghanistan to one side, Iran to another, and a border with India running through the 60-year-old fault line of Kashmir. But since the events of 9/11, Western pundits have increasingly been wondering if Pakistan isn’t just living in a tough neighbourhood, it is the tough neighbourhood.”

Despite these troubles, it’s “on the brink of being tourism’s next big thing”.

Rani Kort Fort, Pakistan. Source: ThinkStock

The dramatic mountains of Pakistan. Picture: ZillayAli. Source: Flickr

Bhutan

You must have a tourist visa to enter Bhutan which can only be applied for through a Bhutanese tour operator or one of their international partners.

Tiger’s Nest Monastery, Bhutan. Picture: Goran Hoglund. Source: Flickr

Angola

A high degree of caution is issued against travellers intending to visit Angola because of the risk of civil unrest and criminal violence. All visitors require a visa and if you’re travelling independently, you’ll require a letter of invitation from a person or organisation in Angola.

Lonely Planet advises to always ask permission before taking photos in public areas, always carry a photocopy of your passport and don’t wander off the road in rural areas – the threat of unexploded landmines is still a huge problem.

Spectacular Ruacana Falls, Angola. Source: ThinkStock

Syria

Travellers are advised not to travel to Syria due to its extremely dangerous security situation including military conflict, kidnappings and terrorist attacks.

Airports in Damascus and Aleppo may be closed quickly, with little or no notice, and may be subject to checkpoints, due to nearby battles between Syrian and opposition armed forces.

But it’s home to a lot of amazing historical sites including cities of Damascus, Aleppo and Bosra. Most travellers must have a visa.

Turkish bath and minaret in citadel of Aleppo, Syria Source: ThinkStock

Turkmenistan

Independent travel is not allowed in Turkmenistan. All visitors must acquire a tourist visa and have a hired guide at all times.

Door To Hell, Turkmenistan. Picture: Rapidtravelchai. Source: Flickr

Aerial shot of Turkmenistan. Source: ThinkStock

Russia

Everybody needs a visa to visit Russia and to obtain one you must first receive an invitation (usually through your hotel). Tourists are advised to exercise caution when travelling in Russia because of the risk of terrorist threats and criminal activity.

St. Basil Cathedral, Red Square, Moscow. Source: ThinkStock

Libya

DFAT warns Australians thinking of travelling to Libya that there is a high threat of terrorist attack, and tourist visas are generally not available unless you’re part of an organised group tour.

Sahara Desert, Libya. Picture: DStanley. Source: Flickr

Uzbekistan

Uzbek visa rules change frequently, and land borders between Uzbekistan and neighbouring states are often closed at short notice, according to DFAT.

Beautiful architecture of Uzbekistan. Picture: DanielDuce. Source: ThinkStock

Afghanistan

DFAT warns against travel to Afghanistan due to the high risk of terror attack and dangerous security situation. It’s a hostile area, but is full of treasures, according toLonely Planet.

The travel site says: “By any stretch of the imagination, Afghanistan isn’t the simplest country to travel in. For the visitor, it’s a world away from backpacking in Thailand or island-hopping in Greece. It’s a country recovering from nearly three decades of war, with a host of continuing problems. You’ll need to invest time getting the latest safety information, and news from other travellers or colleagues working in the country.”

Scenic shots from Afghanistan. Source: ThinkStock

Somalia

With landmines and illegal roadblocks common, it’s no wonder that DFAT advises Australians not to travel to Somalia. Also, while the number of attacks has recently declined, the threat of piracy in waters off the Somali coast remains.

Somali Wild Ass mother with foal. Source: ThinkStock

Saudi Arabia

According to the Lonely Planet, Saudi Arabia is; “the world’s last great forbidden kingdom, and an emblem of everything most inexplicable to the West: the Middle East, Islam, oil and terrorism. For centuries the country was considered closed to outsiders, penetrable only to the bravest and the boldest ... who risked life and limb to get there. Today it continues to exist only in the realms of the imagination for most people.”

Diriyah, an old city of Saudi Arabia. Source: Flickr

Equatorial Guinea

The government makes it extremely difficult to get a visa making travellers of any kind rare in this country. You will need both a travel and photography permit and according to Lonely Planet women travellers should be prepared to attract a lot of attention.

Presidential Palace, Equatorial Guinea. Picture: BluepostLab. Source: Flickr

Talking Peace While Waging War

Sham Israeli/Palestinian peace talks continue. They began last July. They're supposed to conclude in April.

Palestine's elected government wasn't invited. It's excluded from talks. Longtime Israeli collaborators represent Palestinians. They do so illegitimately.

Chance to resolve longstanding conflict is ZERO. Kerry's so-called framework agreement is totally one-sided.

It solely favors Israel. It gives Palestinians nothing. It assures continued occupation harshness.

No legitimate Palestinian leader would accept what demands rejection. Reports from Washington, Tel Aviv and Ramallah say talks so far went nowhere.

What happens going forward remains to be seen. Israel deplores peace. It thrives on conflict and instability. Its enemies are ones it invents.

In 2013, Israeli warplanes bombed Syria at least six times. On February 24, they struck Hezbollah targets. They did so along Lebanon's border with Syria.

Lebanon's National News Agency confirmed it. Areas around Bekaa Valley's Nabi Sheet and Janta were targeted.

Obama partners in Israeli aggression. Each country defends the other's lawlessness.

On February 26, Hezbollah confirmed Israeli attacks. It vowed to respond "at the appropriate time" to the "blatant aggression."

Israel lawlessly attacked "its sovereignty and territory," it said. "It will not stand without a(n) (appropriate) response from the Resistance," it added.

"This aggression did not, thank God, cause any deaths or injuries. There was only some material damage."

It's untrue that targets struck were "artillery positions or missiles."

Israel said it takes Hezbollah's retaliatory threats "very seriously." It warned Lebanon's government through UNFIL (the UN force in Lebanon).

The entire country will be attacked if Hezbollah strikes, it says. In 2006, Hezbollah embarrassed IDF forces.

Its strength is much more formidable today. Its missiles can strike targets anywhere in Israel.

In late January, Israeli military intelligence head General Aviv Kochavi said:

"We call this period in time the era of fire in light of the amount of missiles and rockets we face as a constant threat."

"There are about 170,000 rockets and missiles that threaten Israel," he claimed. It's "surrounded 360 degrees with active enemies. The conventional threats have not disappeared."

It bears repeating. Israel's only threats are ones it invents. No others exist. Claims otherwise don't wash.

Kochavi lied like other Israeli officials. Doing so is a convenient pretext for lawless aggression at Israel's discretion. It takes full advantage.

Lebanon's government complained jointly to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council.

It claimed Israel violated its sovereign territory and Security Council Resolution 1701. In August 2006, it unanimously called for Hezbollah to cease "all attacks" immediately.

It asked Israel to stop "all offensive military operations." It left undefined what it meant. It gave Israel the right to respond to whatever it calls an imminent threat.

It left a loophole Israel exploits. It neither confirmed or denied attacking Lebanon. Ambiguity most often is policy.

On February 28, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said:

"It is self-evident that we see Lebanon as responsible for any attack on Israel from the territory of Lebanon."

"It is the duty of the Lebanese government to prevent any terrorist attack - whether a terrorist or missile attack, or any other kind - on the state of Israel."

Israeli analysts think Hezbollah is mostly focused on helping Syria to divert attention to Israel.

At this time, a second front is unlikely.

Amnesty International accused Israel if committing war crimes in the West Bank. It does so repeatedly throughout Occupied Palestine.

AI said Israel displays "a callous disregard for human life." It targets children like adults. It does so with impunity.

AI wants all arms shipments to Israel suspended. Without international community pressure, its crimes against defenseless Palestinians won't end.

Since talks began last July, Netanyahu approved 11,700 new settlement units. He did so on stolen Palestinian land. He violated international law.

He stole other land for "dubious parks" and archeological digs. At the same time, he prevents Palestinians from building on their own land.

He murdered dozens of Palestinian civilians. They included an 85-year-old man and 15-year-old boy shot in the back.

Since July 2013, he lawlessly demolished about 400 Palestinian homes. Hundreds of Palestinians lost everything. They were forcibly displaced.

In January 2014, another 100 Palestinian structures were destroyed.

The UN, AI, Oxfam and other organizations condemn Israeli policy. On January 31, UN Humanitarian Coordinator James Rawley commented on recent Israeli demolitions, saying:

"I am deeply concerned about the ongoing displacement and dispossession of Palestinians in (Israeli controlled) Area C, particularly in the Jordan Valley where the number of structures demolished more than doubled in the last year."

"This activity not only deprives Palestinians of access to shelter and basic services, it also runs counter to international law."

On February 7, Reuters 
headlined "Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes at a five-year high: aid groups."

Twenty-five humanitarian organizations in Occupied Palestine issued a joint statement.

Year-over-year through July 2013, Israeli demolitions increased by almost half. Palestinians displaced increased by nearly three-quarters.

Over 660 Palestinian structures were destroyed during the reported period. It was a five year high. Worse still, 122 were built with international donor aid funding.

In early February, the ICRC said Israeli obstructionism prevents its delivering tents to homeless Palestinians.

The joint humanitarian group statement said:

"International and local aid organizations have faced increasingly severe restrictions in responding to the needs created by the unlawful demolition of civilian property, in violation of Israel's obligation to facilitate the effective delivery of aid."

Netanyahu heads Israel's most extremist ever government. Hardline racists infest it. Coalition extremists call Jews superior to Gentiles.

Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely calls Palestinians "wolves in wolves' clothing. They don't want peace and peace can't be made with them," she claimes.

Other coalition party members voice similar sentiments. Israeli officials notoriously blame Palestinians for their wrongdoing.

They're determined to prevent Palestinian self-determination. Netanyahu makes repeated provocative statements.

At the January 2014 Davos World Economic Forum, he said:

"I do not intend to evacuate any settlements or uproot a single Israeli."

Weeks earlier, he promised coalition partners he "will not stop, even for a moment, building our country and becoming stronger..."

He prioritizes settlement development on stolen Palestinian land. He wants Palestinians denied all rights.

He represents Sharonian evil writ large. He orders frequent land, sea and air attacks on Gaza. Seize conditions violate international law.

On March 1, Israeli forces murdered 57-year-old Aminah Atiyeh in cold blood. She did nothing to provoke their attack.

Ambulances were blocked from reaching her. She died before anything could be done to help.

In mid-February, Israeli soldiers murdered 26-year-old Ibrahim Mansour. He was peacefully protesting. He was shot in the head east of Gaza City.

On February 27, Israeli forces stormed Muataz Washaha's home. He was a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine activist.

They assaulted his family members. They detained his brother and two friends.

Late last year, he was released from lawless imprisonment.

He hid inside his house. He barricaded himself for protection. He refused to surrender voluntarily. He chose to resist. "I will not return to prison," he said.

Israeli soldiers located him. They threatened live fire. He held firm. His mutilated body was found later. It was bullet-ridden.

Israeli forces lied. They claimed he was suspected of terror activity. They murdered him in cold blood.

He's one of countless Israeli state terror victims. So-called peace talks continue despite continued Israeli lawlessness.

Why Palestinian officials do so they'll have to explain. They betray their own people in the process.

They collaborate against them disgracefully. Ethnic cleansing continues. So do other Israeli high crimes.

Edward Said was right saying "no negotiations are better than endless concessions that simply prolong" occupation harshness.

Palestinian collaborators are mindless about how much their people suffer. No end in sight looms.

-###-

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Parliamentarian declared persona non grata after paying illegal visit to Nagorno Karabakh appeals to Azerbaijan

Jürgen Klimke says he recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, regrets that he visited the occupied territories and wants his name to be removed from the list

Baku – APA. Member of German Bundestag Jürgen Klimke, who was declared persona non grata by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry after paying an illegal visit to Azerbaijan’s occupied territories and violating the Law on the State Border, has made a written appeal asking to remove his name from the list, says the statement issued by spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev.

According to Elman Abdullayev, in his appeal Klimke says the visit to the occupied Azerbaijani territories in September, 2013 was not a planned visit, he did not know what consequences it would cause, says he recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, regrets that he visited the occupied territories. Jürgen Klimke asks to remove his name from the persona non grata list, promising that he will refrain from visiting the occupied territories without getting permission of Azerbaijan Republic.
 

Foreign Ministry spokesman said Klimke’s appeal would be considered.

‘Journalists’ follow Obama on Ukraine

 

by Margaret Kimberley

The corporate media are a key component of the U.S. imperial machine. Although styling themselves as watchdogs, they are in fact the dogs of war, whose mission is to hide Washington’s aggressions behind a fog of lies. War crimes are committed with impunity in part because presidents get a helping hand from their corporate media partners.

Prominent journalists in the United States may as well be on the White House payroll. They are consistent cheerleaders for whoever occupies the oval office and the corporate corner office. They make no attempt to hide their allegiance to power and their lack of interest in informing the public.

The rotten state of affairs becomes all too obvious whenever a president threatens action against another country. Reporters act more like press agents and spring into action shielding and protecting the aggressors. They make it clear to those few who gain access that questions, criticisms or anything else that smacks of independent thought will not to be tolerated. The American decision to use Ukraine as a means of attacking Russian influence is the latest effort to prop up the empire, and the corporate media obligingly show their approval.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was so eager to fly the American foreign policy flag that she pointedly took a colleague to task on air when he was guilty of nothing more than doing his job. Wolf Blitzer is a corporate media stalwart himself so he and everyone watching was surprised when Amanpour jumped down his throat when he quoted a Russian official.

" ‘You heard Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the U.N. Security Council, saying earlier today that at fault for all of this are what he called fascists and anti-Semites in Ukraine right now ...’

‘You know, you've got to be really careful by putting that across as a fact,’ Amanpour said.

‘That's what Vitaly Churkin said,’ Blitzer replied.

‘He may have done," Amanpour said. ‘Are you telling me, are you saying that the entire pro-European ...’

‘Of course not,’ Blitzer defended, explaining that he was presenting what Churkin had said.

‘Right, and we have to be very careful,’ Amanpour cautioned.

Blitzer tried to interject, offering to play Churkin's comments again.

‘I heard it,’ Amanpour said. ‘We just as a network have to be really careful not to lump the entire pro-European Ukrainians into, which some may well be, nationalistic and extremist groups.’

‘We're not, I'm not,’ Blitzer insisted.”

“They make no attempt to hide their allegiance to power.”

Amanpour had lots of company at other networks. Gwen Ifill of PBS Newshour also stuck to the White House script with her guest, professor Stephen F. Cohen. Cohen informed viewers that American presidents going back to Bill Clinton have been playing a very dangerous game in their attempt to pry Ukraine from the Russian orbit.

Ifill was contemptuous of Cohen throughout and stuck to the Putin is evil meme. Her questions lacked even a pretense of a thoughtful search for facts. Nonsense such as “What is Putin’s endgame here?” was all she could muster. When Cohen gave a simple and understandable explanation of why western meddling posed a danger to world peace Ifill decided to ignore him. “Why is any of this important to anyone who is not in Russia or Ukraine?” Cohen, who also suffered through the Amanpour/Blitzer contretemps, gave Ifill as much contempt in return. “I told you at the top. I mean, you and I are old enough to have lived through divided Europe in Berlin.”

The so-called journalists who are held up to us as exemplars of success and profession acumen are by and large hacks who toe the party line. Ifill has a long standing reputation of defending presidential policy in her reporting. She is at least consistent. Just as she followed the Bush doctrine she is now in synch with the Obama team.

Amanpour vilifies her colleague on air for cynical reasons and Ifill plays dumb if a guest dares to speak up with real analysis. All their behaviors are an effort to diminish any debates or arguments against the United States government. The only critics on the air are questioning whether Obama is tough enough and if American “prestige ” is on the line if we don’t have as much violence in the world as they would like.

“Ifill, Amanpour and company flourish precisely because they do not tell us the truth.”

Now that the United States government has officially declared war on the rest of the world, Americans are in desperate need of truth telling. But that is not how empires work. Ifill, Amanpour and company flourish precisely because they do not tell us the truth.

It is not too harsh to point out that the propaganda and lies spread by networks and newspapers are part of an enormous crime. America is the evil doer in Iraq and Haiti and Libya and Venezuela and Ukraine. Nations are invaded and economies are ruined because our government is determined to have its way in the world. The crimes are committed with impunity in part because presidents get a helping hand from their corporate media partners.

The only thing making Americans squeamish about military involvement against Russia is war weariness. They don’t oppose it on principle because they don’t know what the principles involved are. Just as we aren’t the richest country in the world, and we don’t have the best health care in the world, we don’t have the best press either. We have a government that is more aggressive by the day and they have a mouth piece which we call the media.

* Margaret Kimberley is editor and senior columnist at Black Agenda Report, where this article was first published.

Democracy Is Not Democracy…Unless Obama Says It Is…

by Eric Draitser

As Crimea prepares to vote on Saturday March 16th in a crucial referendum on its future, the rhetoric coming from the West and its propaganda machine has hit a new and ridiculous low. Not only has US President Barack Obama and his administration done everything to undermine democracy in Ukraine, they have now resorted to the most naked forms of hypocrisy in an attempt to delegitimize the democratic process.

On Thursday March 6th President Obama spoke at the White House on the referendum and the issue of Crimea. In his prepared remarks, Obamastated categorically that the United States would not recognize the results of the Crimean referendum. He argued that the it would violate both the “Ukrainian Constitution and international law.” Obama kept the comedy coming when he noted that, “In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.” As with all statements made by the US government, and the President specifically, this must be contextualized and deconstructed in order to be effectively critiqued.

First and foremost is the question of democracy and, more specifically, how exactly Washington is choosing to define this gravely abused word. In referring to the so-called “interim government” in Kiev, headed by Yatsenyuk and his associates, as “democratic leaders”, Obama demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of the worddemocracy, or as I think is more likely, an utter contempt for democratic principles. By referring to an unelected entity that has seized political power in Kiev by force, and through collaboration with Nazi elements, as “democratic leaders,” Obama exposes himself and his administration to be cynical opportunists whose interests rest not in democracy but in a geopolitical agenda guided solely by strategic interests.

Naturally, the references to the Ukrainian Constitution and international law are also deeply disingenuous. Obama, and the US imperial system more generally, speak of international law purely when it suits their interests, eschewing it completely when it does not. This fact has been illustrated quite clearly with Washington’s wars of aggression throughout that last two decades, including the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, not to mention the habitual violations of international law in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and around the world.

The most significant point here is that the US recognizes democracy and international law only when it suits their interests. Moreover, US hypocrisy regarding democracy becomes self evident if one examines the recent historical precedents of Kosovo and South Sudan. In both these cases, precisely the same individuals who today cry about international law and argue against the democratic right of Crimea to determine its own future, were then eloquently and unabashedly in favor of precisely the same sort “democratic aspirations.”

Kosovo, South Sudan, and Washington’s Amnesia

The fact that President Obama and the US political establishment have come out against the referendum in Crimea should not be surprising. Washington’s interest is not in the right of self-determination of the people of Crimea, nor in their desire to remain free of a neoliberal and fascist controlled government in Kiev. Rather, the US is primarily concerned with delegitimizing the democratic process in Crimea in order to prevent the region from moving closer to, and possibly integrating into, the Russian Federation. How interesting that, in a few short years, the US has gone from being the champion of “democracy” and “self-determination” to being their staunchest enemy.

In 2008, Kosovo, the region formerly part of Serbia held a referendum on the question of independence. Because the United States had, for nearly two decades, worked diligently to carve up the former Yugoslavia, and the states that emerged from it, it was seemingly a given that the US would be a vocal supporter and guarantor of the referendum on Kosovo’s nationhood. In fact, members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, all made statements declaring Kosovo’s independence to be a triumph of democracy.

Then Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, came out in full support of Kosovo’s referendum. In a letter to the National Council of U.S. Albanians, candidate Obama wrote:

I support Kosovo’s independence and her desire to move towards full sovereignty. I believe that the U.S. should help develop a strong democracy in Kosovo that will be guaranteed by the application of laws that safeguard the interests of all people. I support Kosovo’s integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions, and that will best be accomplished by creating a free, tolerant and wealthy society that promotes minority rights and protects religious and cultural monuments.

It would seem that, for Obama, Kosovo’s “sovereignty,” “independence,” and “democracy” were of the utmost importance, despite its being part of Serbia. Somehow, “integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions” trumped whatever sovereignty Serbia had, and whatever international law might have dictated. Of course, the incredible amount of willful self-deception required to make such statements should come as no surprise. The US establishment understood full well that there would be no tolerance or protection of minority rights in Kosovo. On the contrary, the US supported the independence of Kosovo, knowing that it would be purged of Serbian influence and would become the de facto NATO protectorate that it has become.

And so, the principles of international law were of no consequence to Obama in 2008 when, as per his establishment advisors, he came out in full support of the Kosovo referendum. So then, it would be fair to say that Obama supports independence and sovereignty only when it is at the expense of oppositional nations and to the benefit of the US-NATO alliance. It should also be pointed out that those who now accuse Russia of “aggression” in Crimea (despite there being no evidence of any violence perpetrated by Russian forces) and the violation of international law were the same individuals arguing in favor of a vicious bombing campaign against Serbia for “humanitarian reasons.” In 1999, then Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry wrote:

Broader national interests are at stake as well. There is cause enough for American intervention on the basis of security issues, our commitment to NATO, and overwhelming humanitarian needs…the United States and its NATO allies are working to preserve international law and a standard of civilized behavior shared by the vast majority of our neighbors and allies around the globe.

So, just to be clear, the United States and NATO have the mandate to both bomb Serbia and support Kosovo’s secession, and both of these are “preserving international law.” However in Crimea, where there is actually a Russian population, Russian military assets, a long-standing cooperation treaty, and a historic connection to Russia, somehow it is a violation of international law? Such staggering double standards are hard to ignore.

This point is further illustrated by Obama’s unwavering support for South Sudan’s independence. Carved out of the Republic of the Sudan, one of Washington’s only remaining foes in Africa, South Sudan is the world’s youngest country, having declared its independence in a referendum in 2011. The United States and its allies had been leading the charge to split Sudan into two nations, lending their full political, economic, and diplomatic support to the South to move toward full independence.

At a UN summit on Sudan in 2010, President Obama stated that

“the referendum on self-determination…must take place peacefully and on time…and the will of the people of southern Sudan and the region of Abyei must be respected regardless of the outcome.”

Obama unequivocally demonstrated his support for the right self-determination for the people of South Sudan. Naturally, he used the rhetoric of democracy and human rights in order to do so. However, as with all conflicts around the world, Washington’s language regarding democracy and human rights was merely a cover for their geopolitical agenda.

In Sudan, the United States sought to break apart an oil-rich nation that was a critical trading partner for China, a country whose economic interests and investment in Africa had made it a rival of the United States on the continent. In Kosovo, the United States carved up a close ally of Russia for the purposes of expanding NATO hegemony in the Balkans – creating a de facto NATO colony where once there had been a Russian partner. All the talk of democracy was simply window dressing.

In contrast to Kosovo and South Sudan however, US policy on Crimea has been precisely the opposite. Rather than recognizing the rights of the Russian majority in the region and their historical, cultural, political, military and economic ties to Russia, the US cries foul. Obama’s declaration that the referendum is illegal and cannot be recognized is not only an insult to the people of Crimea, it is an insult to all those who have a historical memory and a conscience. Quite frankly, it seems about time that the US learned what democracy truly looks like.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder ofStopImperialism.org and OP-ed collumist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: New Eastern Outlook. Image: © N/A