Global Research

Britain’s Conservative government is to announce next week a law that would ban local councils, student unions and other public bodies form boycotting goods for political reasons. The rules are widely seen as meant to protect goods produced by Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank.

The plan to introduce such legislation was first proposed by the Conservative Party at its annual conference in October 2015. Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock is to formally announce the new regulation during his visit to Israel next week, The Independent reported.

The rules would ban institutions that receive the majority of their funding from the government from participating in procurement political campaigns, choosing not to buy products from companies on political grounds. The only exception would be nationwide boycotts mandated by the government.

London also wants to change the rules for pension investments so that they could not be used for punishing companies for political reasons.

“We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts,” Hancock told The Sunday Times.

“The new guidance on procurement, combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested, will help prevent damaging and counterproductive local foreign policies undermining our national security.”

The new rules are not unlike the restrictions imposed on local councils in 1988 by right-wing Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to prevent them from putting economic pressure on the apartheid regime in South Africa by boycotting its goods. The parallel has not passed unnoticed by the opposition Labour Party, which has accused the Tories of imposing their policies on local councils undemocratically.

“This government’s ban would have outlawed council action against apartheid South Africa. Ministers talk about devolution, but in practice they’re imposing Conservative Party policies on elected local councils across the board,” Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said.

He called the ban an attack on local democracy.

This government is almost at the point of rubbing shoulders with fascism.https://t.co/p5fVpzgA1n #DavidCameron #Tories

— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) February 14, 2016

Amnesty International’s UK economic relations program director Peter Frankental said the move could encourage human rights violations.

“Where’s the incentive for companies to ensure there are no human rights violations such as slavery in their supply chains, when public bodies cannot hold them to account by refusing to award them contracts?” he said.

“Not only would it be a bad reflection on public bodies to contract with rogue companies, but it would also be bad for responsible businesses that are at risk of being undercut by those that have poor practices.”

The movement to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories, the so-called Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, is meant to put pressure on Israel to stop human right abuses against Palestinians. It was first announced in 2005, with Israel vigorously opposing it.

In the UK, Leicester City Council passed a policy to boycott such goods in November 2014. In August 2014, the Scottish government recommended that Scottish local councils joined the boycott, with four of them following the lead.

Featured image: From the poster for the 1962 film ‘Les Quatre Cavaliers de l’Acopalypse’. Photo: CartelesCine via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA)

The world is in the grip of a structural war against people, land, economies and ecosystems, writes Colin Todhunter. It is being waged by a quartet of organised criminal interests bent on monopolizing energy, money, food and violence across the globe. But a deep-rooted resistance against their ‘neoliberal’ doctrine of death and destruction is fighting back.

The US has about 5% of the world’s population but consumes 24% of global energy. On average, one person in the US consumes as much energy as two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians and 370 Ethiopians.

It is able to consume at such a level because the dollar serves as the world reserve currency. This means high demand for it is guaranteed as most international trade (especially oil) is carried out using the dollar. US dominance and wealth accumulation depends on maintaining the currency’s leading role.

The international monetary system that emerged near the end of the Second World War was based on the US being the dominant economic power and the main creditor nation, with institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund eventually being created to serve its interests.

Since coming off the gold standard in the early 1970s, Washington has been able to run up a huge balance of payments deficit by using the (oil-backed) paper dollar as security in itself (rather than outright ownership of gold) and engaging in petro-dollar recycling and treasury-bond super-imperialism.

Like all empires, Washington has developed a system to hitch a ride courtesy of the rest of the world funding its generally high standard of living, militarism, financial bubbles, speculations and corporate takeovers.

With its control and manipulation of the World Bank, IMF and WTO, the US has been able to lever the trade and the financial system to its advantage by various means (for example, see this analysis of how Saudi Arabia’s oil profits enabled Wall Street to entrap African nations into debt).

Based on the US neocons’ objectives for the 21st century war, as outlined by the Project for a New American Century and underpinned by the Wolfowitz doctrine, Washington will not allow its global hegemony and the role of the dollar to be challenged.

Given Russia’s re-emergence on the global stage and China’s rise, we are witnessing a sense of urgency to destabilise and undermine both countries, especially as they are now increasingly bypassing the dollar when doing business.

US strategic objectives and the role of agribusiness

The only real alternative for humanity is to turn away from what Gandhi called a “nine-day wonder” model of development, which strips the environment bare. If we are to avoid ecological meltdown and ultimately what appears to be a possible nuclear conflict, we must reject capitalism and militarism by reorganising economies so that nations live within their environmental means.

Part of this involves a major shift away from the petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture and food production, not only because it leads to bad food, poor health and environmental degradation and is ultimately unsustainable but also because this model has underpinned a destructive US foreign policy agenda for many decades.

Such a shift would however run counter to the aims of the powerful agribusiness cartel, which, despite its propaganda about helping poor farmers and feeding the world’s hungry, regards ordinary people as impediments to commercial gain or as assets to be exploited for profit.

Any talk about ‘helping’ people is a case of the iron fist of capitalism being wrapped up in a velvet glove. We need look no further than Global Justice Now’s recent report on the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Africa to appreciate this.

If this cartel and its compliant politicians and cheerleaders in academia and the media really want to ‘help the poor’, they would be challenging the policies and structures that create hunger and poverty rather than continue to offer the disease as the cure and attack those who are actually spearheading this challenge.

Oil-fuelled monocropping – thanks for that, Rockefellers!

However, the prevailing order exists for the benefit of big agribusiness, which continues to colonise global agriculture and is in effect part of an establishment (for example see this and this) that regards food and agriculture as integral to US strategic objectives.

For instance, the ‘green revolution’ was exported courtesy of the oil-rich Rockefeller family. Poorer nations adopted petrochemical-dependent agriculture that required loans for inputs and infrastructure development. This was underpinned by the propaganda that these countries would earn dollars to prosper (and repay the loans) through adopting mono-crop, export-oriented policies.

It entailed uprooting traditional agriculture and integrating nations into a globalised system of debt bondage, rigged trade relations and the hollowing out and destruction of national and local economies.

Despite the often presented claims that the green revolution saved tens (or hundreds) of millions of lives, speculative assessments must be placed within a suitable context and vehemently contested, not least because of the deleterious impacts on food, health, the environment and farmers’ livelihoods.

But it cannot be denied that some have benefited enormously: oil, financial and agribusiness interests in the West.

GMOs are Green Revolution 2.0

The fraudulent GMO project represents the second coming of the green revolution.

Of course, appropriate frameworks have to be put to uproot indigenous farming and replace it with a corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive industrialised model. We need look no further to see this in action from Mexico to India and beyond, where traditional food production and retail sectors are being hijacked by mainly US corporate interests.

NAFTA set the framework for plunder in Mexico, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture is playing a similar role in India and various bilateral trade agreements such as TTIP and TPP will consolidate the process.

Thanks to the interests and demands of global agribusiness, farmers are leaving agriculture in India because it has been deliberately made financially non viable to continue. This, along with the impact of GM cotton (see this report on the direct link between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in rain-fed areas of India), is the main reason why 300,000 have committed suicide in the last two decades.

In attempting to dismiss or play down the link between Bt cotton and farmer suicides, prominent neoliberal apologists should consider the role of the interests they represent (see ‘The Making of an Agribusiness Apologist‘) in causing hardship, hunger, poverty and devastation, instead of setting out to smear the likes of Vandana Shiva or spending their time trying to sideline the issue by attempting to debunk each and every GM-suicide link that emerges.

Although the globalized hijack of food and agriculture by powerful corporations results in poverty, dependency and food insecurity, we are deceitfully informed that we must have more of the same if we are to feed an increasing global population and eradicate poverty.

We are told that the solutions for feeding a projected world population of nine billion are more technical fixes: more petrochemical-dependent agriculture, more GMOs and more unnecessary shifting of food across the planet.

Another bogus ‘solution’ that benefits only the global monopolists

Such a ‘solution’ is bogus: we already produce enough food to feed the world’s population and did so even at the peak of the world food crisis in 2008, and GM crops that are on the market today are not designed to address hunger.

Four GM crops account for almost 100% of worldwide GM crop acreage, and all four have been developed for large-scale industrial farming systems and are used as cash crops for export, to produce fuel or for processed food and animal feed. Of course, throw in a heavy dose of ‘family planning‘ (depopulation) for the ‘third world’ and we will be just fine.

But even if the world would at some stage require increased agricultural productivity, organic methods could fulfil the need. For example, there are agro-ecological approaches like system of rice intensification, non-pesticidal management of crops, integrated farming systems, which have all been shown to increase yields in sustainable ways.

Moreover, many of these systems have demonstrated their capacity for dealing with climate change issues, not least drought.

The current situation is that the likes of trade policies, land takeovers, commodity speculation and strings-attached loans serve to marginalise small holder farmers in the global south, who comprise the backbone of food production, and lead to food insecurity.

The four horsemen of the Apocalypse

There is a prevailing notion that we can just continue as we are, with an endless supply of oil, endless supplies of meat and the endless assault on soil, human and environmental well-being that intensive petrochemical agriculture entails. Given the figures quoted at the start of this article, this is unsustainable and unrealistic and is a recipe for continued resource-driven conflicts and devastation.

The genuine answer is to adopt more organic and ecological farming systems that are locally based and less reliant on petrochemicals. This would also mean a shift away from an emphasis on producing meat that places a massive burden on the environment and is highly land, water and energy-input intensive.

The current economic system suits the interests of oil barons, Wall Street (including land and commodity speculators), global agribusiness and the major arms companies. These interlocking, self-serving interests constitute the four horsemen of the modern-day capitalist Apocalypse (big pharma probably should probably be included) and through their actions have managed to institute a globalised system of war and structural violence that results in poverty and devastated economies.

Through this elite interests’ influence over powerful think tanks, directorships and board memberships and the horizontal and vertical integration of parent/sister corporate entities and cross-ownership, it ensures the corporate media says what it wants it to say, opposition is side-lined, muzzled or subverted, wars are fought on its behalf and the corporate control of every facet of life is increasingly brought under its influence – and that includes food: what is in it, who grows it and who sells it.

Fail to understand the set up described here and you will fail to grasp that companies like Monsanto are but a tentacle of elite interests.

Monsanto is integral to a system of globalisation that benefits the US-Anglo Western elite, whose neoliberal agenda is backed up by a militarism that ensures these interests are served if other means fail (see John Perkins here discussing his time as an economic hitman).

And the result has often been highly profitable on the back of economic and social devastation. Look no further than Michel Chossudovsky’s analysis of Somalia or Ethiopia to see how agribusiness made a killing from policies that destroyed local economies and farming.

The US and its corporations, facilitated by the IMF and WTO, effectively dismantle agrarian economies and then offer the problem as the cure.

Resisting global food imperialism

Ultimately, food and agrarian issues are not about ‘marching against Monsanto’ – as important as that is – it is about understanding the geopolitics of food and agriculture and challenging an increasingly integrated global cartel of finance, oil, military and agribusiness concerns that seek to gain from war, debt bondage and the control of resources.

Concerns about food security, good health and nutrition, biodiversity, food democracy, farmers’ livelihoods in the global south, etc, must be placed within this wider context if we are to fully understand them.

People want solutions for hunger, poverty and conflict but are too often told there is no alternative to what exists. The solution lies in taking manipulated markets and rigged trade rules out of farming and investing in and supporting indigenous knowledge, agroecology, education and infrastructure, instead of inappropriately diverting funds to underperforming sectors.

This involves rejecting the agenda of big agribusiness, whether in Africa, India, South America or elsewhere, and resisting the strategy of using agriculture as a geopolitical tool.

It involves challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, supporting food sovereignty movements and embracing sustainable agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher, based in the UK and India.

Support Colin’s work here.

This article is a revised and updated (by the author) version of one originally published on Colin’s website.

Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems, whose weapons systems are used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), will train British RAF aircrew, it was recently announced.

Affinity Flying Services Ltd, a joint venture in the UK owned 50-50 by Elbit and US-based Kellog, Brown and Root (KBR), “won a contract from the UK Defence Ministry’s military flight training programme worth about 500 million pounds over 18 years.”

The programme, according to Reuters, “is aimed at delivering aircrew training for the 21st century.” Affinity, a subcontractor, “will provide systems and training infrastructure and maintenance and logistics support services.”

Responding to the news, Elbit Systems CEO Butzi Machlis said: “We are very proud to take part in such an important project for the UK MOD [Ministry of Defence].” According to Machlis, “the United Kingdom is one of Elbit Systems’ primary markets.”

Industry publication ‘Defense News’ described the deal as “a substantial win for KBR and its Israeli partner”, noting that “Elbit already has a footprint in the UK, most notably as Thales UK’s partner in the supply of the Watchkeeper UAV program to the British Army.”

Elbit Systems is a long-standing target of human rights campaigners. According to activists, the company “has profited greatly from supplying the Israeli military with a variety of equipment used to sustain Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people.”

An article published by Vice in 2014, as Israel was bombarding the Gaza Strip, stated that Elbit had “several weapons systems currently being used by the IDF” in its offensive. Others have described Elbit as a “notorious war profiteer”, with its shares rising 6.6% after ‘Operation Protective Edge’.

Emphasis added by Global Research

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleague Mr Valls, distinguished Mr Ischinger, my speech will be of a more general nature, but I hope it will be useful.

The first cold war ended 25 years ago. This is not long in terms of history, but it is a considerable period for individual people and even for generations. And it is certainly sufficient for assessing our common victories and losses, setting new goals and, of course, avoiding a repetition of past mistakes.

The Munich Security Conference has been known as a venue for heated and frank discussion. This is my first time here. Today I’d like to tell you about Russia’s assessment of the current European security situation and possible solutions to our common problems, which have been aggravated by the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West.

Before coming to this conference, I met with President Putin. We talked about his speech at the Munich conference in 2007. He said then that ideological stereotypes, double standards and unilateral actions do not ease but only fan tensions in international relations, reducing the international community’s opportunities for adopting meaningful political decisions.

Did we overstate this? Were our assessments of the situation too pessimistic? Unfortunately, I have to say that the situation is now even worse than we feared. Developments have taken a much more dramatic turn since 2007. The concept of Greater Europe has not materialised. Economic growth has been very weak. Conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa have increased in scale. The migration crisis is pushing Europe towards collapse. Relations between Europe and Russia have soured. A civil war is raging in Ukraine.

In this context, we need to launch an intensive dialogue on the future architecture of Euro-Atlantic security, global stability and regional threats more than ever before. I consider it unacceptable that this dialogue has almost ceased in many spheres. The problem of miscommunication has been widely recognised both in Western Europe and in Russia. The mechanisms that allowed us to promptly settle mutual concerns have been cut off. Moreover, we’ve lost our grasp of the culture of mutual arms control, which we used for a long time as the basis for strengthening mutual trust. Partnership initiatives, which took much time and effort to launch, are expiring one by one. The proposed European security treaty has been put on hold. The idea of a Russia-EU Committee on Foreign Policy and Security, which I discussed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg, has not materialised. We believe that NATO’s policy towards Russia remains unfriendly and generally obdurate.

Speaking bluntly, we are rapidly rolling into a period of a new cold war. Russia has been presented as well-nigh the biggest threat to NATO, or to Europe, America and other countries (and Mr Stoltenberg has just demonstrated that). They show frightening films about Russians starting a nuclear war. I am sometimes confused: is this 2016 or 1962?

But the real threats to this small world are of an absolutely different nature, as I hope you will admit. The term “European security” is now more embracing that it used to be. Forty years ago it concerned above all military and political relations in Europe. But new issues have come to the fore since then, such as sustainable economic development, inequality and poverty, unprecedented migration, new forms of terrorism and regional conflicts, including in Europe. I am referring to Ukraine, the volatile Balkans, and Moldova that is teetering on the brink of a national collapse.

The cross-border threats and challenges, which we for a while believed to have been overcome, have returned with a new strength. The new threats, primarily terrorism and extremism, have lost their abstract form for the majority of people. They have become reality for millions in many countries. As Mr Valls has just mentioned, they have become a daily threat. We can expect an airplane to be blown up or people in a café to be shot every day. These used to be everyday events in the Middle East, but now it’s the same the world over.

We see that economic, social and military challenges have become mutually complementary. But we continue to act randomly, inconsistently, and in many cases exclusively in our own national interests. Or a scapegoat is appointed in an arbitrary manner.

I am offering you five theses on security as such.

First, the economy.

We have approached a change in paradigm in international economic relations. The traditional schemes are no longer effective. Political expediency is taking priority over simple and clear economic reason. The code of conduct is revised ad hoc to suit a specific problem or task or is bluntly ignored. I’ll just point out how the International Monetary Fund adjusted its fundamental rules on lending to countries with overdue sovereign debt when the issue concerned Ukraine’s sovereign debt to Russia.

Talks on creating economic mega-blocs could result in the erosion of the system of global economic rules.

Globalisation, which was a desired objective, has to a certain extent played a cruel joke on us. I personally talked about this with my colleagues at the G8 meetings when everyone needed them. But times change rapidly. Even a minor economic shift in one country now hits whole markets and countries almost immediately. And global regulation mechanisms cannot effectively balance national interests.

The energy market remains extremely unstable. Its volatility has affected both importers and exporters.

We regret that the practice of unilateral economic pressure in the form of sanctions is gaining momentum. Decisions are taken arbitrarily and at times in violation of international law. This is undermining the operating foundations of international economic organisations, including the World Trade Organisation. We have always said, I have always said that sanctions hit not only those against whom they are imposed but also those who use them as an instrument of pressure. How many joint initiatives have been suspended because of sanctions! I have just met with German businessmen and we discussed this issue. Have we properly calculated not only the direct but also the indirect costs for European and Russian business? Are our differences really so deep, or are they not worth it? All of you here in this audience – do you really need this?

This is a road to nowhere. Everyone will suffer, mark my words. It is vitally important that we join forces to strengthen a new global system that can combine the principles of effectiveness and fairness, market openness and social protection.

Second, the crisis of the global economic development model is creating conditions for a variety of conflicts, including regional conflicts.

European politicians thought that the creation of the so-called belt of friendly countries on the outer border of the EU would reliably guarantee security. But what are the results of this policy? What you have is not a belt of friendly countries, but an exclusion zone with local conflicts and economic trouble both on the eastern borders (Ukraine and Moldova) and on the southern borders (the Middle East and North Africa, Libya and Syria).

The result is that these regions have become a common headache for all of us.

The Normandy format has helped us launch negotiations on Ukraine. We believe that there are no better instruments for a peaceful settlement than the Minsk Agreements.

We welcome France’s balanced and constructive stance on Ukraine and on all other acute international issues. I fully agree with Mr Valls that the Russian-French dialogue never stopped, and that it has produced concrete results.

It is true that all sides must comply with the Minsk Agreements. But implementation primarily depends on Kiev. Why them? Not because we are trying to shift responsibility, but because it’s their time.

The situation is very unstable, despite progress made in a number of areas (heavy weaponry withdrawal, the OSCE mission and other issues).

What is Russia’s biggest concern?

First and most important, a comprehensive ceasefire is not being observed in southeastern Ukraine. Shooting is routinely reported at the line of contact, which should not be happening. And we must send a clear signal to all the parties involved, in this regard.

Second, amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution have not been approved to this day, although this should have been done by the end of 2015. And the law on a special status for Donbass has not been implemented.

Instead of coordinating specific decentralisation parameters with the regions, and this is the crucial issue, Ukraine has adopted so-called “transitional provisions,” even though the above requirements were put in black and white in the Minsk Agreements.

Third, Kiev continues to insist that local elections be based on a new Ukrainian law. Furthermore, Kiev has not implemented its commitment on a broad amnesty that should embrace all those who were involved in the developments in Ukraine in 2014-2015. Without being amnestied, these people will be unable to participate in elections, which will make any election results questionable. The OSCE will not endorse this.

As I said, the Minsk Agreements must be implemented in full and this is Russia’s stance on the issue. At the same time, being reasonable people open to discussing various ideas, including a compromise, we, for instance, accepted the initiative of Mr Steinmeier on the temporary application of the law on special status as soon as the election campaign begins. After the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights recognises the election results, this law must be applied permanently. But there’s still no progress here, despite the compromise suggested.

Of course, the humanitarian situation is extremely alarming. The economy of southeastern Ukraine is deteriorating, that part of Ukraine is blockaded, and the German Chancellor’s initiative on the restoration of the banking system in the region there has been rejected. Tens of thousands of people are living on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Oddly, Russia seems to be more concerned about this than Ukraine, why is this so? We have been sending and will have to continue sending humanitarian convoys to southeastern Ukraine.

I must say that Russia has shown and will continue to show reasonable flexibility in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements where this doesn’t contradict their essence. But we can’t do what is not in our competence. That is, we cannot implement the political and legal obligations of the Kiev government. This is under the direct authority of the President, the Government and the Parliament of Ukraine. But unfortunately, it appears that they don’t have the will or a desire to do it. I think this has become obvious to everyone.

As for Syria, we have been working and will continue to work to implement joint peace initiatives. This is a difficult path, but there is no alternative to an interethnic and interreligious dialogue. We must preserve Syria as a union state and prevent its dissolution for denominational reasons. The world will not survive another Libya, Yemen or Afghanistan. The consequences of this scenario will be catastrophic for the Middle East. The work of the International Syria Support Group gives us a certain hope. They gathered here the day before yesterday and coordinated a list of practical measures aimed at implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians and outlining the conditions for a ceasefire, except for terrorist groups, of course. The implementation of these measures is to be led by Russia and the United States. I would like to emphasise that the daily work of the Russian and American militaries is the key here. I’m talking about regular work without the need to seek incidental contacts, day-to-day work, everyday work.

Of course, there should be no preliminary conditions to start the talks on the settlement between the Syrian government and opposition, and there is no need to impend anyone with a land military operation.

Third, we sincerely believe that if we fail to normalise the situation in Syria and other conflict areas, terrorism will become a new form of war that will spread around the world. It will not be just a new form of war but a method of settling ethnic and religious conflict, and a form of quasi-state governance. Imagine a group of countries that are governed by terrorists through terrorism. Is this the 21st century?

It is common knowledge that terrorism is not a problem within individual countries. Russia first raised this alarm two decades ago. We tried to convince our partners that the core causes were not just ethnic or religious differences. Take ISIS, whose ideology is not based on Islamic values but on a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy. Terrorism is civilisation’s problem. It’s either us or them, and it’s time for everyone to realise this. There are no nuances or undertones, no justifications for terrorist actions, no dividing terrorists into ours or theirs, into moderate or extremist.

The destruction of the Russian plane over Sinai, the terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Yemen and other countries, the grisly executions of hostages, thousands of victims, and endless other threats are evidence that international terrorism defies state borders. Terrorists and extremists are trying to spread their influence not only throughout the Middle East and North Africa but also to the whole of Central Asia. Unfortunately, they have so far been successful, mostly because we are unable to set our differences aside and to really join forces against them. Even cooperation at the security services level has been curtailed. And this is ridiculous, like we don’t want to work with you. Daesh should be grateful to my colleagues, the leaders of the Western countries who have suspended this cooperation.

Before coming to this conference, I read much material, including some by Western experts. Even those who don’t think positively about Russia admit that, despite our differences, the “anti-terrorist formula” will not be effective without Russia. On the other hand, they sometimes frame this conclusion in an overall correct, but slightly different way, saying that a weak Russia is even more dangerous than a strong Russia.

Fourth, regional conflicts and terrorism are closely related to the unprecedentedly large issue of uncontrolled migration. This could be described as a great new transmigration of peoples and the culmination of the numerous problems of modern global development. It has affected not only Western Europe but also Russia. The inflow of migrants from Syria to Russia is not very large, but the inflow of migrants from Ukraine has become a serious problem. Over a million Ukrainian refugees have entered Russia over the past 18 months.

Wars and related deprivations, inequality, low standards of living, violence, and fanaticism force people to flee their homes. Unsuccessful attempts to spread Western models of democracy to a social environment that is not suited for this have resulted in the demise of entire states and have turned huge territories into zones of hostility. I remember how my colleagues once rejoiced at the so-called Arab Spring. I literally witnessed it. But has modern democracy taken root in these countries? Looks like it has, but in the form of ISIS.

Human capital is degenerating in the countries the refugees are leaving. And these countries’ development prospects have taken a downward turn. The ongoing migration crisis is rapidly acquiring the features of a humanitarian catastrophe, at least in some parts of Europe. Social problems are growing too, along with mutual intolerance and xenophobia. Not to mention the fact that hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under the guise of being refugees. Other migrants are people of an absolutely different culture who only want to receive monetary benefits without doing anything to earn them. This poses a very real danger to the common economic space. The next targets will be the cultural space and even the European identity. We watch with regret how invaluable mechanisms, which Russia also needs, are being destroyed. I am referring to the actual collapse of the Schengen zone.

For our part, we are willing to do our best to help address the migration issue, including by contributing to efforts to normalise the situation in the conflict regions from which the majority of refugees come, Syria among them.

And fifth, let’s be as honest as possible. The majority of these challenges did not develop yesterday. And they were definitely not invented in Russia. Yet we haven’t learned to react to these challenges properly or even proactively. This is why the bulk of resources go into dealing with the consequences, often without identifying the root cause. Or we invest our energy not in fighting the real evil, but in deterring our neighbours, and this problem has just been voiced here The West continues to actively use this deterrence doctrine against Russia. The fallacy of this approach is that we will still be debating the same issues in 10 and even 20 years. Provided there will be anything to debate about, of course, as discussions are not on the agenda of the Great Caliphate.

Opinions on the prospects for cooperation with Russia differ. Opinions also differ in Russia. But can we unite in order to stand up against the challenges I mentioned above? Yes, I am confident that we can. Yesterday we witnessed a perfect example in the area of religion. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope of the Catholic Church Francis met in Cuba following hundreds of years when the two churches did not communicate. Of course, restoring trust is a challenging task. It’s difficult to say how long it would take. But it is necessary to launch this process. And this must be done without any preliminary conditions. Either all of us need to do this or none of us. In the latter case, there will be no cooperation.

We often differ in our assessments of the events that took place over the past two years. However, I want to emphasise that they don’t differ as much as they did 40 years ago when we signed the Final Helsinki Act and when Europe was literally divided by The Wall. When old phobias prevailed, we were deadlocked. When we managed to join forces, we succeeded. There is much evidence to support this. We managed to agree on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons, which was a breakthrough achievement. We have worked out a compromise solution regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. We have convinced all sides in the Syrian conflict to sit down at the negotiating table in Geneva. We have coordinated actions against pirates. And the Climate Change Conference was held in Paris last year. We should replicate these positive outcomes.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The current architecture of European security, which was built on the ruins of World War II, allowed us to avoid global conflicts for more than 70 years. The reason for this was that this architecture was built on principles that were clear to everyone at that time, primarily the undeniable value of human life. We paid a high price for these values. But our shared tragedy forced us to rise above our political and ideological differences in the name of peace. It’s true that this security system has its issues and that it sometimes malfunctions. But do we need one more, third global tragedy to understand that what we need is cooperation rather than confrontation?

I’d like to quote from John F. Kennedy, who used very simple but the most appropriate words, “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.” In the early 1960s the world stood at the door of a nuclear apocalypse, but the two rivalling powers found the courage to admit that no political confrontation was worth the human lives.

I believe that we have become wiser and more experienced and more responsible. And we are not divided by ideological phantoms and stereotypes. I believe that the challenges we are facing today will not lead to conflict but rather will encourage us to come together in a fair and equal union that will allow us to maintain peace for another 70 years, at least.

Thank you.

Excerpts from replies to questions by journalists

Question: My name is Mingus Campbell, I am from the United Kingdom. My question is addressed to Prime Minister Medvedev. Is it accepted in Russia that increased influence in Syria brings with it responsibility for all of the citizens of Syria? And if that is so, how has that responsibility been exercised in respect of the citizens of Aleppo who are now fleeing in such numbers?

Dmitry Medvedev: Thank you. I will continue answering questions concerning Syria, including the situation in Aleppo, but not limited to that.

I think a large part of the people present here have never been to Syria, whereas I have been there. I made an official visit there when Syria was a quiet, peaceful, secular nation, where life was stable and balanced for everybody: the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Druze, Alawites and Christians.

Almost six years have passed since then. Today we see Syria that is torn by a civil war. Let us ask a question: who is to blame for that? Is it al-Assad alone? It is absolutely evident that without a certain external influence Syria could have gone on with its life. But I remember those talks, those conversations with my partners, both European and American, who kept on telling me the same thing over and over: al-Assad is no good, he should step down, and then peace and prosperity will reign there. And what has came of it? It resulted in a civil war.

This is the reason I cannot but agree with my colleague, Prime Minister Valls, in that we must join efforts to solve this issue, but we must work effectively, not just watch as events unfold there, not just watch one party attack another; not divide the warring parties into those who are on our side and adversaries, but instead sit them all down at the negotiating table, except those who we have agreed to treat as real terrorists. We know who they are.

Russia is not pursuing any special goals there except the ones that have been declared. We are defending our national interests because a large number of militants fighting there came from Russia and neighbouring countries, and they can come back to wage terrorist attacks. They must stay there…

This does not apply to civilians in any way. Unlike most of the countries present in the region, we have been helping civilians. Nobody has any proof that we have been bombing civilian targets there, even though they keep on talking about it, about wrong targets and so forth. They do not share information. I have just said this from the stand – the military must keep in constant contact. They should call each other a dozen times a day. Otherwise there will always be skirmishes and conflicts. And this is our mission. We are ready for such cooperation. I expect that we will see some positive development from the dialogue we had here in terms of both achieving a ceasefire in Syria and the humanitarian issues. It is crucial that we should agree on key points, because otherwise, and I think it is no secret for anyone, Syria will split into separate parts, the way it happened to Libya and the way it is in fact happening with a number of other nations in the region. What does that entail? It poses a threat of the conflict becoming permanent. The civil war will go on, Daesh or its successors will always be there, while we will engage in arguments as we try to figure out which of them is good and which is bad, who should receive our support and who shouldn’t. We have a common enemy, and that it the premise we should start with.

Now I would like to come back to the topic of Ukraine. I cannot assess the past developments in Ukraine; the Russian leadership has already done this a number of times, including myself. I will answer the part of the question regarding the air crash investigation. Obviously, the Russian Federation is no less interested in an unbiased investigation than the countries whose citizens lost their lives in the crash. It is indeed an enormous tragedy. But even the tone of the question implies that the person asking it has already decided who is responsible, who should bear the legal responsibility, no investigation is needed, certain justice committees should be set up instead and certain legal procedures followed. But this is not the way it is done. This should be a regular comprehensive investigation that would cover all the relevant aspects. This is the first point. And second, this is unfortunately not the first case in the world of this kind. Such tragedies have never been dealt with by criminal courts or other similar agencies. These are issues of a different order. And this is what we have to agree on. Russia is ready to provide any information to contribute to a quality investigation.

Featured image: Russia’s PM Dimitri Medvedev

transcript of the PM interview with Euro News. Emphasis by GR

Syria

Isabelle Kumar: Many thanks for being with us on The Global Conversation. The issue of Syria is dominating the international agenda. But we feel we could be reaching the turning point yet it’s unclear which way it is going to go. What do you think?

Dmitri Medvedev: You know, as I was heading to this conference, I had a feeling that the situation in this area is very complex and challenging because we have yet to come to an agreement with our colleagues and partners on key issues, including the creation of a possible coalition and military cooperation.

All interactions in this respect have been episodic so far. That said, I note that here, in Munich, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with Secretary of State John Kerry, and other colleagues acting in various capacities later joined them. They agreed on what should be done in the short run. For this reason, I’m cautiously optimistic about the prospects for cooperation on this issue. Let me emphasise that this cooperation is critical, because unless we come together on this issue, there will be no end to the war in Syria, people will keep dying, the massive influx of refugees to Europe will continue, and Europe will have to deal with major challenges. Most importantly, we will be unable to overcome terrorism, which is a threat to the entire modern civilisation.

Isabelle Kumar: What precise military actions and other, in that case, is Russia prepared to take to help in this de-escalation of the conflict in Syria?

Dmitri Medvedev: Let me remind you the reasons behind Russia’s involvement in Syria. The first reason that compelled Russia to take part in this campaign is the protection of national interests. There are many fighters in Syria who can go to Russia at any time and commit terrorist attacks there. There are thousands of them in Syria.

Second, there is a legal foundation in the form of the request by President al-Assad. We will therefore take these two factors into account in our military decisions and, obviously, the developments in the situation. What matters most at this point is to agree on launching the talks between all the parties to the Syrian conflict. Another important thing is to coordinate a list of terrorist groups, since this issue has been a matter of endless debates on who’s good and who’s bad. This is the first point I wanted to make.

My second point is the following. I learned that Secretary of State John Kerry said that if Russia and Iran do not help, the US will be ready to join other countries in carrying out a ground operation. These are futile words, he should not have said that for a simple reason: if all he wants is a protracted war, he can carry out ground operations and anything else. But don’t try to frighten anyone. Agreements should be reached along the same lines as Mr Kerry’s conversations with Mr Lavrov, instead of saying that if something goes wrong, other Arab countries and the US will carry out a ground operation.

I’ve answered this question only recently. But let me reiterate that no one is interested in a new war, and a ground operation is a full-fledged, long war. We must bear this in mind.

“We want sound, advanced relations both with the United States and the European Union”

Assad’s future

Isabelle Kumar: Clearly, one of the key issues is the future of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Will Russia continue to support him at this crucial moment in time?

Dmitri Medvedev: Russia does not support President al-Assad personally, but maintains friendly relations with Syria as a country. These ties were built not under Bashar al-Assad, but back when his father, Hafez al-Assad, became president. This is my first point in this respect.

Second, we have never said that this is the main issue for us in this process. We simply believe that there is currently no other legitimate authority in Syria apart from Bashar al-Assad. He is the incumbent president, whether anyone likes it or not. Taking him out of this equation would lead to chaos. We have seen that on numerous occasions in the Middle East, when countries simply fell apart, as it happened with Libya, for example.

It is for that reason that he should take part in all the procedures and processes, but it should be up to the Syrian people to decide his destiny.

Syria’s future

Isabelle Kumar: Are you therefore already working on ideas of political transition now in Syria?

Dmitri Medvedev: I don’t think that we should go into too much detail on these issues. I’m talking about Russia, the European Union and the United States. We should focus on facilitating the launch of this process. We must make sure that everyone sits down at the negotiating table, in fact, make them talk to each other. Let’s be honest and recognise that it will be anything but simple given the parties involved. On one side, you have President al-Assad, supported by a part of society and the military, and, on the other side, the other part of society, often representing different confessions, people who don’t like al-Assad but have to sit with him at the same negotiating table. Nevertheless, they need to come to an agreement for the sake of keeping Syria united.

Ukraine crisis

Isabelle Kumar: I’d like now to switch focus and look at the conflict in Ukraine. We talk of the frozen conflict there with, it appears, renewed fighting in the east. What can Russia do to bring about the thaw in that conflict, to bring an end to this conflict?

Dmitri Medvedev: Well, understandably, the answer here is somewhat easier than in Syria’s case. It is not just because this conflict is not as brutal, but because there is a clear understanding of how to move forward – by implementing the Minsk Agreements.

They should be implemented fully and in their entirety by all the parties. In fact, Russia calls on all the parties to do so, both those in power in the southeast, and the Kiev authorities. It is not a matter of Russia having some disagreements with Kiev or mutual dislike.

It would be fair to say that most of the provisions that were the responsibility of southeast Ukraine have been fulfilled. Most importantly, hostilities have ceased almost completely. Unfortunately, some action takes place from time to time, but not often. Finding political and legal solutions in keeping with the Minsk Agreements has now become vital. Whose responsibility is it? Of course, it is Ukraine’s responsibility. If Ukraine regards the southeast as part of its territory, it is within the jurisdiction, competence and authority of the President, Parliament and Government of Ukraine.

Isabelle Kumar: If you meet President Poroshenko here, at the Munich security conference, what will you say to him?

Dmitri Medvedev: I haven’t seen him and, to be honest, I haven’t missed him. President Poroshenko is in contact with President Putin. There is no doubt that the main thing my colleagues should undertake is to do everything it takes to implement the Minsk Agreements. It would benefit them, as well as the Ukrainian state, which, no matter what anyone says, is a close, neighbouring country for Russia.

Crimea

Isabelle Kumar: Obviously, one of the major sticking points in this, for Ukraine, but also for the international community, is Crimea. Is the future of Crimea up for negotiation?

Dmitri Medvedev: No, there is no such issue for Russia. This issue was settled once and for all. Crimea is part of Russia. A referendum was held there, we amended the constitution. The Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are part of the Russian Federation.

Russia’s relations with the world

Isabelle Kumar: So the conflict in Syria, the situation in Ukraine has contributed to a real degradation of relations with Russia, with the EU and the US. Do you think a reset is possible?

Dmitri Medvedev: The question is how and for whose sake. If something is to be reset, it should be done on a fundamentally different basis. What kind of basis? Equitable, fair, solid basis for relations, considering that Russia is not the only nation that needs this – the European Union and the United States need it as well. We want sound, advanced relations both with the United States and the European Union.

The European Union is our most important trade partner, a group of countries located on the same continent as us, so we are bound by our shared European identity, history and values. These continuing tensions aren’t doing us any good. But if we are told that they no longer want us around, of course, the first steps towards reconciliation should be taken by those who initiated the alienation. As for us, we are ready to discuss any issues.

Russia’s economy

Isabelle Kumar: Well, one of the repercussions of the souring of relations has been the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia, which are hitting hard. How much of a priority is it for your government to get those sanctions lifted?

Dmitri Medvedev: They told us we were the bad guys and had to be punished. And then they made some calculations and began to weep: it turns out that for some reason it was hitting their own business.

We had a trade turnover with the European Union at 450 billion euros. It was 450 billion! Now it is down to 217 billion euros. Why don’t they ask the people in the EU who are employed by the various companies that used to make products for Russia – how do they like all of this?

Again, we are not the ones who started this, so it is not up to us to undo it. They have always been trying to intimidate us with some sanctions, which were introduced even in the Soviet period, many times. It never brought them anything but lost profits. What is happening now is no different. They will have to have the courage to say, guys, we’ll just scrap all this from day X, and could you please reciprocate by lifting your response measures as well. That would be the right approach.

Isabelle Kumar: So how are ordinary Russians feeling this economic crisis? Because the sanctions are contributing towards this, the falling oil prices are also contributing to this. What’s it like for ordinary Russians?

Dmitri Medvedev: Indeed, we aren’t in the best economic situation right now, with the dramatic fall in oil prices probably contributing the most to the overall state of the economy, to the decline in revenues. This is something we haven’t seen for 17 years. The current prices are comparable to those in 1998. Unfortunately, our budget remains very dependent on oil prices. Although the structure of revenues has been improving, in terms of the share of oil and other sources, but yes, it remains commodity-dependent to a great extent. This could not but affect the incomes and the general standing of our people with their jobs and their real incomes.

The sanctions have had some effect as well. This is obvious, since some of our companies, for example, lost the financing they used to have from European banks, which means they cannot grow, some of them anyway. Therefore, in this sense, the economic situation is not the easiest. But there is also a positive effect. The economy is healing, it is becoming less dependent on oil, and we have an opportunity to develop our own industry and agriculture.

Perhaps one of the advantages of these sanctions and our response measures is that we started concentrating harder on domestic agriculture, so, to a large extent, we are now satisfying our demand for food, while wheat, for example, is now exported in large quantities. In this sense, the sanctions have helped. But they probably didn’t help farmers in the European Union.

Isabelle Kumar: I was asking about the ordinary Russians and how this was affecting them. And we hear of possible social unrest as their lives become more and more difficult in Russia. Is that something you are concerned about?

Dmitri Medvedev: Of course, the government must first of all think about the social impact of economic changes and the economic situation. Frankly, we have been compelled to cut budget spending in many areas, but we never touched social spending, or the public sector wages and benefits.

Moreover, we even indexed pensions last year, and this year, too, maybe not completely, but we did. We will try to continue doing this in the future. That is, the government’s social spending is large, but it is inviolable. In this sense, we will try to do everything towards Russian citizens’ social wellbeing, to keep them as comfortable as possible under these conditions. It is truly a priority for the government.

Russia’s human rights record

Isabelle Kumar: If we take an international perspective once again, a black mark on Russia’s reputation is the issue of human rights and freedom of speech, which Russia seems to continually backslide on. Why is that?

Dmitri Medvedev: To be frank, we’ve always differed in our views on the situation with the freedom of expression and the media in Russia. We’ve often been criticised and we are still coming under criticism. We have our own position on the issue. Perhaps in Russia, the media are somewhat different, for example, from the European media.

There are historical differences and there are growth issues. I rarely watch TV or read newspapers in print and I receive virtually all of my information from the Internet. And over half of Russia’s population does the same. As you know, on the Internet, there is no regulation in this sense. All points of view are represented there, including, to put it bluntly, even extremist ones. So I believe it’s not serious to think that some people have no access to different kinds of information in today’s global world.

Litvinenko enquiry

Isabelle Kumar: Yes, but also it seems that dissidents are silenced. In Britain, as you know, there has been – the results of the inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which the inquiry said – it pointed the finger at President Vladimir Putin, saying that it was likely that he ordered that murder. Will you be pursuing the British Government on this? There was talk of you suing the British Government over this inquiry.

Dmitri Medvedev: You’ve mentioned some report by some retired judge, in which practically every paragraph and each section opens with the word “probably”. What is there to comment on? What is regrettable about this whole story is that the British Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary comment on a report that abounds in words like “probably”.

This is reminiscent of a witch-hunt. When all is said and done, let it be on the conscience of the commentators. As for any legal action, this is simply ridiculous. We don’t need this and the Russian Federation will never sue any country over some foolish fabrications or funny films.

Highlights

Isabelle Kumar: Finally, Mr Prime Minister, you’ve held the post of prime minister and also held the presidency, so you’ve got an overview, a full perspective of the issues we’ve been talking about, but if I were to ask you about one of the highlights of the your time in power, could you say what that’s been?

Dmitri Medvedev: Well, there’ve been plenty. Both these posts are very serious and challenging. These eight years of my life – and it has been almost eight years – you know, it’s this constant drive. As for events, there have been plenty, both in Russia – very good ones for me personally, notable, major, and sometime tragic events, like the ones we’ve been talking about now, and international events.

After all, we have not only argued and quarrelled. We’ve also accomplished a thing or two. For example, at some point we agreed on a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. That was not bad at all. The document was signed. It is in force. It is being implemented and therefore we can work together and agree on different things. There have been contacts with my colleagues, including here in Germany, as well as in other European countries. We have dealt with a lot of issues. All of this is remarkable and exciting. Maybe one day I’ll talk about this in detail. For the time being I continue working and this work is interesting.

Prime Minister, many thanks for joining us.

Southwestern Ontario is the historic home of Canadian tomato growers. The bulk of the crop goes to processing, and since 1909 the dominant corporation had been H. J. Heinz, a food giant based in Pittsburgh. But in 2013 the Heinz Corporation was bought by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (26%) and 3G Capital (51%), based in Brazil. It was soon announced that they were planning to close their plant in Leamington. The story has been a snapshot of what has happened to the manufacturing industry in Ontario following the free trade agreements with the United States.

In 1988 Canadians were informed that their government, headed by Brian Mulroney, had been negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S. government. The push for this had come from organizations representing big business and finance on both sides of the border. The Action Canada Network was formed, representing many democratic organizations who opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. Along with many Canadian political economists, they warned that given the reality of Canada’s branch-plant economy, any free trade agreement would likely lead to many plants closing and their operations moved back to the United States. But Canada’s political leadership pushed through the “New Economic Constitution of North America,” as U.S. President Ronald Reagan termed it. Over the next 25 years Ontario communities saw factory after factory shut down. The food industry was not immune to this development.

Neoliberalism and the “Free Trade Agenda”

The “free trade agenda” is part of the new political economy commonly known as neoliberalism, a return to the open free market system that existed before the Great Depression and the social democratic governments that dominated the political agenda for thirty years following World War II. The liberal package included the repeal of ‘populist’ national policies which were aimed at promoting domestic manufacturing, the privatization of state owned enterprises, deregulation of the economy, reversing legislation which protected workers’ rights and trade unions, cuts to social programs and the repeal of progressive tax systems designed to promote greater equality.

The goal of the organizations representing the corporate sector was to increase their rate of profit. They wanted the right to produce anywhere in the world, sell their products anywhere, and not be subject to any government controls on the movement of their products or capital. In more recent years, with the world economy characterized by overproduction, excess capacity and limited profitable investment opportunities, the corporate sector has sought to open investment opportunities in all areas of the public sector, including health, education, social services, social housing and government services.

Free Trade Comes to Leamington, Ontario

In 2013 the new owners of Heinz announced that they were going to shut down the plant in Leamington. 3G Capital had a reputation for taking over companies, laying off many workers, and putting top priority on raising the profit ratio. Warren Buffett, the other major partner in the new ownership, said that the Canadian plant was ‘not efficient’: it relied on fresh tomatoes grown in Canada, bypassing cheaper tomato paste that could be imported from producers in Mexico and elsewhere.

Was there an alternative? Sam Diab, the plant manager at the Leamington operation, found several investors in the Toronto area and put forth a plan to keep the plant open and operating. Changes had to be made to continue production under the free trade model.

(1) There would be a major downsizing in the plant’s operation. The regular work force would be initially reduced from 740 to 250. The workers, primarily women, were represented by a trade union, United Food and Commercial Workers. Production workers who kept their jobs would see their hourly wages reduced from $25 to $16. The union accepted the changes as there was no alternative.

(2) The business in its new form survived because of a regulation under the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. This specified that tomato juice sold in Canada must be made from fresh tomatoes and not paste. Heinz had 50% of the Canadian tomato juice market and did not want to give this up. They negotiated a five year contract with the new owners, now known as Highbury Canco. Business interests complained that this type of “trade distorting regulation” was supposed to be eliminated under the terms of the existing free trade agreements. Such regulations will likely be eliminated if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement is ratified.

(3) The number of tomato growers has declined since the plant changed ownership. In 2013 Heinz had contracts with 119 tomato growers; that was down to only 10 in 2015. The tonnage of tomatoes grown in this area of Ontario declined from 555,092 in 2012 to 432,175 in 2015. There remain two other tomato and vegetable processor in the region, ConAgra Foods, a U.S. food giant in Dresden, and Canadian-owned Sun-Brite Foods which is located near Leamington. Vegetables are also processed in Quebec by Bonduelle North America, a French corporation.

(4) Highbury Canco wants to expand the company’s production by introducing a new class of tomatoes, to be called “industrial paste.” They argue that this could add an additional 250,000 tons of tomatoes and 25 – 30 more growers. Farmers who lost their contracts have had to switch to corn-soybean production, with lower returns. Of course, tomatoes in this new fourth class would bring farmers less money, as the industrial paste would be sold bulk to other processors at a discount. Regular tomato paste in 2014 brought farmers $110 per ton. The company argues that the new class would bring farmers at least $95 per ton, the paste price in 2013.

(5) Standing in the way of total free trade in this case would be the Ontario marketing boards. The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission has not approved the introduction of a new fourth class of industrial paste tomatoes. Neither has the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers. They do not have the economic power of the supply management marketing boards (like milk, poultry and eggs), but as marketing agents they do have considerable influence. They are there to provide some power for farmers when negotiating with agribusiness. Corporate interests, and their liberal academic supporters, expect that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will eventually put an end to the influence of farmer-controlled marketing boards.

(6) In order to try to keep businesses in Canada, governments have increasingly offered them subsidies. Leamington granted Highbury Canco subsidized municipal water and re-assessed the value of the plant, cutting their property taxes in half. The city council abolished all development charges for building construction. The provincial government “invested” $2.5-million in Highbury Canco to help it expand production lines. Such practices have become a normal part of business under free trade. Most people are aware of the huge subsidies that are given to automobile corporations.

What is it like to work in a manufacturing corporation operating under the new free trade, free market regime? Of course workers were not happy when their wages were cut as at Leamington. But they lined up to work at the new plant as there were very limited alternatives.

We can get an idea by looking at the comments posted by workers at the Kraft Heinz plant, as reported at www.glassdoor.ca:

• “Previous company was good to work for but not 3G.”
• “Deep cost cutting.”
• “New 3G culture . . . very focused on the bottom line.”
• “Was great place to work . . . until 3G/Heinz merger.”
• “Daily grind, week after week.”
• “Great people and horrible Senior Management.”
• “Go back to Brazil, please.”

Conclusion

The experience of the tomato industry in Southwest Ontario is a case study of manufacturing in Canada under the new free trade regime. As the democratic opposition warned, the free trade regime has resulted in a major loss of manufacturing plants and good jobs in Canada. It is widely expected that the new Trans-Pacific Partnership will only make matters worse.

There is also a new factor on the horizon: climate change. As weather systems become more unstable and destructive, a crisis is expected to develop in the production and distribution of food. There will be greater pressure on Canada to expand our own production of food, especially fruits and vegetables. It is likely that we will need to move to a production system similar to that used during World War II, with significant government intervention. This would be the opposite of the free trade model. A growing crisis will provoke a new political struggle. •

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and author. This article first appeared on his blog johnwwarnock.blogspot.ca.

Peace discussions tend to contain within them the seeds of the next conflict.  Treaties, agreements and pacts to end war are made to reassure combating parties that they will, at some point, have annother crack at each other.  Even as they take place, participating sides look for gains, seek to edge others into corners, and gain merciful advantages.

That was the nature of talks between Russia and the US held on Friday.  Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the sides had “agreed to implement a nationwide cessation of hostilities in a week’s time.”  Not only did Kerry concede this to be “ambitious,” the very fact that ISIS and the Nusra Front played no part in such arrangements rendered such discussions idiosyncratic at best.

The Syrian conflict has become the transforming conflict of Middle Eastern politics, with peace talks a mere pretext for more background fighting between false friends and misaligned enemies. Traditional powers, split by sectarian fault lines and ideological differences, promote the idea that the diplomatic round table is becoming more significant by the day. This charade has become even more colourful, with Kerry doing at the Munich Security Conference what he does best for his country: moralise.

The Russian campaign in Syria, he argues, merely serves to embolden ISIS.  “To date,” claimed Kerry on Saturday, “the vast majority, in our opinion, of Russia’s attacks have been against legitimate opposition groups and to adhere to the agreement it made, we think it is critical that Russia’s targeting change.”  That Kerry is still able to identify legitimate moderation amongst any of Syria’s groups shows the accepted lack of wisdom in the White House.

Furthermore, the Russians are said to be rather unclean about it all. (US smart weapons tend to be, goes the suggestion, more hygienic and discriminating in killing, capable of understanding good militants from bad.) The criticisms, coming from Amnesty International, are one thing. Packaged for the righteousness of Coalition consumption, on the other hand, poses another problem.

Instead of adopting the sanctimonious cant that tends to come out in US State Department briefings, the language of elimination in the Russian military argot is unmistakable. All militants against the Assad regime are to be deemed questionable and fair game, terrorists being terrorists and all that.  They are in for a win, bolstering the Assad regime and securing their base in Syria.

Washington’s allies, who tend to treat the stuffed dummy of humanitarianism with open disdain even as they embrace it, are readying for a broader conflict.  Even as Western governments berate Russia for not taking enough of an interest in pummelling Islamic State, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Turkey demonstrate an even clearer lack of interest in doing so.  Vicious as Islamic State forces are, they are at the very least open about their interests on the religious front, holding the Sunni line against Shia interests.

Saudi deployments in the coalition campaign in Syria have, to date, been minimal, with the bulk of its aerial interests focused against crushing the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen.  Their version of humanitarian strikes has served to ruin a country’s infrastructure in an effort to wipe out the Shia foothold.

Turkey, likewise, has shown ambivalence towards ISIS, preferring to keep its own terrorists in check.  Ankara and Islamic State have been running an oil trade for some time, at least according to the Russian defence ministry.  The suggestion on the part of Russian sources is even more personal: that Turkey’s interest in preserving such a trade are largely due to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s relatives, who have direct trade links to the market.

Some aspects of this business dimension have been acknowledged by US Treasury officials and commentators. “When oil is being bought on the Turkish border,” argued Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “it’s highly unlikely that it will be sold anywhere else but Turkey.”

While Russia is accused of bombing good militants (good for receiving Western and Sunni sponsorship), Ankara sanctions bombing raids on Kurdish fighters, one of the few groups who can genuinely claim to have an existential stake in this conflict.  Ankara considers the PYD and its YPG seamless links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).  This has put the coalition against Islamic State in a curious situation.

The more coordinated effort by Russian and Syrian government forces, bolstered by greater targeting, improved supply, and spates of intense bombing (510 combat sorties between February 4 and 11 alone), have begun to swing the conflict in favour of Assad.

Ankara and Riyadh, officially glaring on the side while Moscow makes inroads, have been mooting the point for some time: a more open deployment of their forces to back their Sunni interests is warranted.  While Riyadh is a less serious contender in this, Turkey has suggested the point.  “If there is a strategy (against the Islamic State jihadist group),” posed Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, “then Turkey and Saudi Arabia could enter into a ground operation.”  Syria, already an animal pen of vicious competitors, risks becoming ever noisier.

As the bloodbath continues its drenching woes, the next phase of the conflict will demonstrate a continuing rule of history: as the diplomats move their ineffectual jaws, the military personnel will continue doing what they do best. Meanwhile, Kerry would best be reminded of his own words. “If people who want to be part of the conversation are being bombed, we’re not going to have much of a process.”

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]

Foreign and Expatriates Ministry voiced the government’s strong condemnation of Turkey’s repeated attacks on the Syrian people and its transgression into the Syrian territory.

“Turkish artillery shelling of Syrian territory constitutes direct support to the armed terrorist organizations,” the Ministry told the UN Secretary General and the Security Council’s Chairman in two letters addressed to both officials.

It was referring to shelling by Turkish artillery based inside Turkish territory of Syrian land targeting Syrian Kurds and Syrian army sites.

The attack was launched on Saturday afternoon and continued on as the Turkish artillery also targeted the civilian populated villages of Maranaz, al-Malkieh, Minnegh, Ein Daqneh and Bazi, according to the letters.

The shelling came in response to the Syrian Arab army’s advance on military fronts in the northern countryside of Aleppo province and in a bid to boost the morale of the armed terrorist organizations, the Ministry clarified.

It went on citing Turkish attacks in more Syrian areas on the same day, saying that 12 pickups with DShK and 14.5 mm machine guns mounted on them had their way from the Turkish land into Syrian territory across Bab al-Salameh border crossing.

The Ministry noted that the pickups were accompanied with 100 gunmen, some of them are believed to be Turkish soldiers and Turkish mercenaries, adding that munitions supply operations into the Syrian Aazaz area continue.

The Turkish attacks, the letters said, were coupled with statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that confirmed Turkey’s blatant intervention in the Syrian affair and the continued Turkish support to Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Jabha al-Shamiya, Ahrar al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations.

These statements, the Ministry said, officially attested to the Turkish regime’s premeditated acts of violating the Security Council’s resolutions related to combating terrorism.

The Ministry referred in its letters to the chiefs of the UN and the Security Council to the “irresponsible” actions of the Turkish regime that caused the recent Geneva intra-Syrian meeting to fail.

The Syrian government expresses strong condemnation of Turkey’s repeated attacks on the Syrian people and its transgression into the Syrian territory, calling these attacks “a gross violation” of the Syrian sovereignty and a flagrant breach of the UN Charter’s objectives and principles, the rules of the international law and the Security Council’s counterterrorism resolutions, the letters said.

Syria, however, stresses that it will maintain its legitimate right to respond to the Turkish crimes and attacks and to claim compensation for the damage caused, the letters added.

The Ministry also conveyed the Syrian government’s call on the Security Council to assume its responsibility to put an end to the Turkish regime’s classified crimes against the Syrian people and its repeated attacks against Syrian territory.

The government also demanded, according to the letters, that the Security Council work to compel the countries backing terrorism, including Turkey, to comply with its relevant resolutions on fighting terrorism and bring them to account for their unlimited support to the terrorist groups.

A senior Iranian air force commander says Iran is prepared to defend Syria’s airspace if Damascus calls for it.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, the commander of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base, made the remarks during an interview with the Tasnim news agency on Sunday.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, the commander of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base

After praising the government and people of the Arab country for their five-year battle against foreign-backed Takfiri terrorism, he stressed that any military presence in Syria without the approval of Damascus would end in nothing but “defeat.”

The remarks were made in the wake of reports that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were preparing to launch joint military operations on Syrian soil.

Instead of contemplating a ground presence in Syria, Esmaili noted, Riyadh should consider stopping atrocities in Yemen where over 8,200 people have been killed and some 16,000 more injured since March 26, 2015.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has confirmed deployment of warplanes to the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, claiming that the move was in line with the so-called fight against Daesh.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has also stated that any decision for the deployment of forces to Syria would follow the will of the US-led coalition.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has also said Ankara and Riyadh could launch a ground operation in Syria “if there is a strategy.”

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are widely believed to be among major sponsors of terrorist groups operating against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The authorities concerned in Sweida, in cooperation with the locals, seized on Sunday a vehicle loaded with large amounts of arms and ammunition in the western countryside of the southern province.

A source at Sweida Governorate told SANA that the vehicle was heading to the terrorist organizations operating in the eastern countryside of the neighboring Daraa province.

The arms and ammunition which were confiscated included 7 Israeli-made anti-tank rocket launchers, 62 shells, 128 RPG shells of different kinds, 43 120 mm mortar rounds, 42 82 mm mortar rounds and 100 23 mm machinegun bullets.

Earlier on Saturday, the authorities, in cooperation with the popular committees, seized hundreds of U.S. and Israeli-made anti-tank mines loaded in a pickup in the western countryside of Sweida. The weapons were bound for the terrorists in eastern al-Badiya (desert).

On January 20th, the authorities in Sweida foiled an operation to smuggle a large quantity of ammunition for medium-sized and heavy weapons from eastern Daraa to terrorist organizations in al-Badiya.

There are three possible scenarios in Syria

Participation of [Saudi] Arab troops  in Syria is not excluded.

A high-ranking officer within the joint operations room in Damascus, which includes Russia, Iran and Syria and Hezbollah said,

“ there are three possible scenarios in Syria:

The first is the [Saudi] Arab ground troops would enter Syria from the Turkish borders, in the area under the so-called “Islamic State” group (ISIS) on the long bordering front from Jarablus to Al-Ra’ee. This can be possible and quickly achievable if a kind of an agreement is reached between Turkey and ISIS. After all, the Jihadist group has to face either the Turkish-Arab forces – that could allow a possible exit – or the Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah forces where there will be no exit”.

The second scenario is through the Jordanian borders East of Syria up to Raqqa. A longer road but would allow Saudi Arabia to bring its logistic and armoured support to push all the way to the ISIS-controlled land. In both scenarios, these troops, Arabs or Turkish-Arabs, would not clash or contact or even walk into the Russia-Damascus and allies military operational stage.

The third scenario is that the Saudi are boosting the moral of the Jihadist by advertising a possible intervention so these don’t surrender easily and hold the ground for as long as possible.

The source said:

“Any scenario is linked to the will of the United States to be engaged in a war in Syria. This is exactly what the Saudi officials said. The U.S. is sending the Awacs aircraft because any U.S direct intervention on the ground is totally excluded. This could be the U.S. contribution, along the diplomatic effort in Geneva. Never the less, we build our military reaction based on the strong possibility that the Arab ground troops are most likely to invade Syria. These forces, under the title of defeating ISIS, won’t reach Raqqa overnight. Logistic support and troops movement from Jordan into Syria require between 3 to 4 months to be completed. These forces, in this case, are expected to advance from Jordan, into al-Badiyah and continue up north toward Raqqa, the northern Syrian city, as a possible scenario. Any potential contact with the Syrian forces could lead to a larger war”.

We do not exclude the fact that Saudi Special Forces could act behind ISIS lines to guide airtrikes or carry small scale attacks. None the less, these forces cannot contribute to defeat ISIS but in directing specific targets. Any attack that could weaken ISIS is considered to our advantage. The U.S. led coalition can bomb ISIS any time but no ground troops would be welcome. Moreover, no jet is allowed to enter the Syrian space without prior coordination with Russia, otherwise it will be considered as a potential target. This is also another fact to consider. Therefore, no one is willing to see a large scale war, mainly President Obama who has avoided to be entangled in the Syrian war for the last two years.

Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev said,

“all parties should sit down at the negotiating table instead of causing an outbreak of a new world war”, rumbling the drum of war in Syria. The Russian warning came after the confirmation of a spokesman for the Saudi Defense minister Ahmad Asiri “the Saudi Kingdom has announced the establishment of the new Islamist alliance to fight terrorism and is ready to carry out air and ground operations within the international coalition led by the United States in Syria.”

The aim of the [Saudi] Arab forces is to divide Syria is two parts: “Gharbistan” (western) and “Sharqistan”(Eastern) similar to what happened in Berlin after World War II.

In the first part, the Syrian army will continue fighting al-Qaeda and its allies with the support of Russia.

While in the second part, the [Saudi] Arabs would establish their forces to impose a political change and could destabilise the regime. In the meantime, the regime forces are at 60km from Raqqa, while, Turkey is at 180 km from ISIS main city. Therefore, if the idea to defeat ISIS is genuine, the U.S led coalition doesn’t need to intervene and walk all this distance from Turkey or Jordan to Raqqa. However, The race to Raqqa is declared, with the possibility or without the possibility of an [Saudi] Arab-Turkish intervention.

According to the source

“the gates of hell will be open in the next 3 months in Syria against al-Qaeda and its allies and also against ISIS. As agreed in Geneva between Russia and the United States, any cease-fire shall not include Jihadists and their allies. If Syrian opposition groups do not disengage from al-Qaeda, they will be considered legitimate targets because they become united as one group and will be dealt with accordingly”.

Al-Qaeda in Syria, known as Jabhat al-Nusra, is part of Jaish al-fateh, a coalition of many Syrian groups operating in northern Syria. Al-Qaeda and Jihadist movements are sending reinforcement to northern Aleppo in the last 48 hours, but used to maintain a strong presence around Nubbl and Zahraa, the two cities that Russia and its allies brock the siege imposed for over three and a half years. Al-Qaeda fighters pulled back toward the north of Aleppo fighting in Tal-Rifaat and others toward the south of Zahraa where they are fighting in Andan and Hay’yan.

According to the source, human and signal intelligence confirmed that

“Saudi Arabia has asked Syrian opposition associated and not-associated with al-Qaeda not to waive any proposition in the Geneva negotiations and not to hand over any city in Syria without fighting. Time is crucial and Saudi Arabia will continue its military support to the opposition, waiting for a new U.S. to be elected. The battle is expected to be more intense where everybody is holding the ground which indicates that the war is still far form being over”

original article in Arabic

http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/special-reports/2016/02/14/657188/nr/syria

Negotiations on Syria’s bloody armed conflict were held in Munich Thursday against the backdrop of a government offensive, supported by Russian airstrikes, to break the grip of Western-backed “rebels” over the largely shattered eastern part of Aleppo.

The talks were convened under the auspices of the 17-member International Syria Support Group, which includes the US and its regional allies—Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar—in the war for regime change in Syria, along with Russia and Iran, which are allied with and actively aiding the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Washington demanded an immediate cease-fire and halt to Russian airstrikes in Syria. The US, together with the reactionary Arab monarchies and the regime in Turkey, fears that without a halt to the fighting, the Islamist militias that they have supported, financed and armed for nearly five years may face irreparable defeat.

Russia, for its part, reportedly proposed a cease-fire that would begin on March 1, thus allowing enough time for the Syrian government to reestablish its control over Aleppo.

Late Thursday night, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that they had reached a tentative deal that would see a ceasefire “within a week” along with expedited humanitarian aid. Kerry allowed that while the agreement looked good “on paper,” it was yet to be tested. All of the underlying conflicts remain unresolved, and both US and Russian military operations are to continue in the name of the struggle against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

On the eve of the Munich talks, Kerry, in an interview with Washington Postcolumnist David Ignatius, delivered an unmistakable threat in connection with the US negotiating strategy in Munich: “What we’re doing is testing [Russian and Iranian] seriousness.” he said. “And if they’re not serious, then there has to be consideration of a Plan B… You can’t just sit there.”

“Plan B” would consist of a sharp escalation of the US military intervention in Syria, carried out under the cover of combating ISIS, but directed at toppling the Assad government.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also reportedly spent the last several days discussing a “Plan B” that would involve their participation in direct military intervention to save the “rebels” that they have supported. The Saudi-owned news group al-Arabiya has quoted officials in Riyadh as confirming the House of Saud’s decision to send troops into Syria in what would constitute a provocatively hostile invasion.

Responding to the ominous implications of such an escalation, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told the German daily Handelsblatt Thursday: “The Americans and our Arab partners must think hard about this—do they want a permanent war? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.”

Medvedev’s choice of words was not mere hyperbole. A military intervention to rescue the “rebels,” which amounts to a war to save Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, the leading force on the ground in Aleppo province, could quickly bring the US and its allies into combat with Russia, an armed confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

US officials have spoken in recent days of creating a “humanitarian corridor” to Aleppo and other rebel areas under siege by government forces. Presumably this “corridor” is meant to replace the main supply route for the “rebels” from Turkey, which has been cut off by the government offensive, disrupting the CIA-orchestrated arming of the “rebels” with stockpiles poured in from Libya, the Gulf oil kingdoms and beyond. Such a corridor would require a military force to protect it and enforcement of a “no-fly zone,” meaning a confrontation not only with Syrian government forces, but with Russian warplanes as well.

Turkey, Washington’s NATO ally, is meanwhile blocking its border to Syrian refugees in order to create the maximum crisis possible so that it can pursue its own strategic aims, which include not only regime change in Damascus, but also the bloody suppression of the Kurdish minority on both sides of the frontier.

The Obama administration has issued no warning to the American people that it is embarking on a policy in Syria that could pit the US against the Russian military and potentially trigger a global catastrophe.

There is no significant popular support for US military intervention in Syria, which has been promoted under the false flag of “humanitarianism,” aided by a whole coterie of pseudo-left organizations that have specialized in portraying a bloody sectarian campaign by CIA-backed Islamist militias as a “Syrian revolution.”

The extent of the catastrophe unleashed upon Syria through this intervention was spelled out in shocking terms with the release of a new study by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, which found that fully 11.5 per cent of the population inside Syria has been either killed or injured as a result of the armed conflict. The death toll from the war—combined with the systematic destruction of the country’s social infrastructure and health care system and a dramatic drop in living standards—has caused life expectancy to plummet from 70.5 years in 2010 to an estimated 55.4 years in 2015.

The study found further that the country’s unemployment rate had soared from 14.9 percent in 2011 to 52.9 percent by the end of 2015, and that the overall poverty rate is estimated at 85.2 percent.

In short, the Obama administration has inflicted upon Syria a war that is every bit as criminal and lethal as the war carried out by the Bush administration against Iraq.

The Syrian people are the victims of a US-orchestrated war that is driven by the global strategy of American imperialism to reverse its economic decline through the use or threat of military force. Washington sought regime change in Syria as a means to an end: the weakening of the two principal allies of Damascus, Russia and Iran, and the reassertion of a Western stranglehold on the vast energy resources of the Middle East.

The threat of world war is posed not merely by the prospect of US and Russian warplanes facing off in the skies over Syria, but by the entire logic of the Syrian war for regime change and the broader strategic aims that it serves. This finds expression in NATO’s escalation of the military encirclement of Russia and the increasingly provocative anti-Chinese policy being pursued by the Pentagon in the South China Sea.

The US drive for global hegemony was articulated in the strategic maxim enunciated by the Pentagon nearly a quarter of a century ago that Washington must prevent the emergence of any power capable of challenging the dominance of American capitalism on a global or even regional scale. This “grand strategy” has led to unceasing US wars of aggression since and now poses the real threat of a third, nuclear, world war.

Against this barbaric strategy of the US ruling establishment, the American and international working class must advance its own independent strategy, fighting for the withdrawal of US and all foreign military forces from Syria, Iraq and the entire Middle East and for the unity of the working class across all national, religious and ethnic boundaries in a common struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of militarism and war.

This is a look at the larger picture of forces developing around Syria. Several foreign armies are aggregating at the Syrian borders with the intent to invade Syria and to occupy its eastern part. But before we dive into that, a short look at the curious situation developing in the north-west.

Near Azaz the U.S. ally Turkey is currently shelling (video) the U.S. ally YPG which is fighting the CIA supported FSA. 

The Syrian-Kurdish YPG troops were heavily supported by the U.S. in their fight against the Islamic State in north-eastern Syria. Under U.S. tutelage they united with Arab anti-IS fighters under the label Syrian Democratic Forces.

map by AFP(?) – bigger

In north-west Syria the SDF has used the recent success of the Syrian army against Jihadis in the area to take northern parts of the Azaz corridor which once connected Aleppo to Turkey. That corridor is held by a mixture of al-Qaeda Jihadist from Jabhat al-Nusra, “Turkmen” Islamists from various Turk speaking countries and local Islamist gangs supported by the CIA under the label Free Syrian Army. All three get money and weapons from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian army is moving north and south from the red strip in the map. The SDF is moving east from the Kurdish enclave around Afrin. During the last days the SDF, supported by the Russian airforce, captured the Minnagh airbase which was held by al-Qaeda aligned forces. The SDF then proceeded north to take Azaz, the last major town the Turkish supported Islamist are holding in the area.

Turkey today used 155mm artillery to fire from Turkey against SDF positions on Minnagh airbase and around Azaz. There will be Turkish special forces observers in Syria to direct the fire.

The NATO member Turkey is shelling the YPG, which is backed by Russia and the U.S., and the SDF which is backed by the U.S. for attacking the FSA and Islamists who are backed by the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

A nice little clusterfuck the smart (not) girls and boys around Obama created.

But as described here two days ago in The Race To Raqqa Is On, a much bigger clusterfuck is currently in the making in and all around Syria.

The Russian and Syrian airforce will likely respond to the Turkish attack with an intensified bombing of positions held by Turkish proxy forces in Syria. Those forces just received new artillery ammunition and new TOW anti-tank missiles.

There is yet unconfirmed news that this situation will escalate very fast:

The Int’l Spectator @intlspectator
BREAKING: Turkish official says there will be a ‘massive escalation’ in Syria over next 24 hours.

The Turkish Foreign Minister said today that the fight against ISIS must include (Turkish) ground operations.

The Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian allies are determined to liberate the whole country from the foreign supported terrorists and the Islamic State. The want to keep the country united.

The aim of outside forces, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, the U.S., Britain, France is to occupy east Syria to gain political concession from the Syrian government and its allies. They will demand the reconfiguration of the independent, secular Syrian state under President Assad into a dependent Sunni Islamist entity. Should that demand not be fulfilled they will form a new “Sunnistan” Islamist protectorate from the currently ISIS held carcasses of east Syria and west-Iraq.

Turkey today threatened further and wider attacks on Kurdish held areas in Syria. The Turkish 2nd Army is positioned to attack Syria from the north. It could come through the ISIS held corridor between Azaz in the west and Jarablus in the east and move south towards the Islamic State held Raqqa while other forces, see below, would reach Raqqa from the south and south east. Syria would be thus split into a government held western half and an ISIS and U.S. allies held eastern half.

Russian advisers have trained one Syrian brigade specifically for the purpose of holding off a Turkish invasion. But that brigade is probably not a big enough deterrence for the large Turkish forces and could soon be overwhelmed.

The Saudis today claimed again that Assad must be overthrown to defeat the Islamic State. That is of course nonsense but the Saudi family dictatorship has a personal grudge against Assad. The Syrian President once called the Saudis “only half men”. (IMHO He was too generous.)

Twenty Saudi F-15 jets arrived today in Incirlik airbase in Turkey to, allegedly, join the U.S. coalition force against the Islamic State. The Saudis also promised to send ground forces if those would fight under some allied command “against ISIS”. The United Arab Emirates promised to send special forces for the same purpose. Some Saudi ground forces have already been observed making their way through Jordan.

At least 1,600 British troops with heavy weapons and equipment are currently arriving in Jordan. The Brits claim that this is just for some normal training maneuver but we can expect the British government to paid off enough by the Gulf Arabs to take part in the fight. The British units would likely lead a Saudi/UAE/(maybe also Egyptian?) combined force from east Jordan up through the Syrian desert towards Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. These forces are currentlyexplained as “trainers” who will enter Syria to instigate Syrian Arab tribes to fight ISIS. If there were enough forces in such tribes at all, these could be trained in Jordan. There is currently no Syrian or Russian force in the desert that could prevent such a move.

An additional brigade from the U.S. 101st Airborne is deploying to Iraq without much public announcement. Its task is an invasion of Syria from the south-east along the Euphrates to first capture Deir Ezzor and to then move on to Raqqa.

The Syrian army is on its way to ISIS held Raqqa to prevent any foreign force reaching there first. It will have to hurry up. The race to Raqqa is intensifying.

The Russians have alarmed several airborne brigades and air transport units of their Southern command to be ready for a fast intervention should such troops be needed in Syria. The Russians could airdrop an airborne brigade into the government held, ISIS besieged parts of Deir Ezzor (vid) to prevent that city from being attacked or taken over by Saudi and/or U.S. forces. Two additional Russian missile ships are on their way to the Syrian coast. They carry long distance Kalibr cruise missiles which can be used against other ships as well as against land targets.

Iran is ready to send as many men from its Revolutionary Guard and Quds brigades to Syria as are needed to sustain the governments fight. These folks salivate over the prospect of having some regular Saudi forces for breakfast.

There are active attempts to draw all NATO nations into the phony “fight against ISIS”. When the war over Syria gets hotter NATO will likely try to create diversions elsewhere to keep Russia distracted from reacting properly in Syria. The U.S. will tell its Ukrainian puppet government to reengage in massive attacks on Russian supported Ukrainian rebels in east Ukraine.

The war against Syria, waged by the U.S., Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, was so far carried out by proxy forces and foreign mercenaries within Syria’s borders. When the Syrian government was on the verge of losing the successful Russian intervention turned the war around. German intelligence no asserts (in German) that the Syrian government is winning the war against the foreign supported forces.

As the war by proxy against Syria has now failed, the anti-Syrian powers have decided to join the action on the ground with their own forces. The “fight against ISIS” (which the Syrians and Russian are fighting more than anybody else) is now the pretext to capture eastern Syria, to split the country in half and to destroy the Syrian government and state.

The “civil war” in Syria is now developing into an large international conflagration over the future of Syria and the whole Middle East.

Meanwhile the Islamic State, confused by this U.S. created clusterfuck in Iraq and Syria, decides to relocate its headquarters from Iraq and Syria to Libya, the other failed state and Charly Foxtrot the U.S. (F, UK) recently created. There it will find rich oil fields, lots of new weapons and no capable enemies.

The situation in Syria has reached a watershed moment and a dramatic escalation of the war appears imminent. Let’s look again at how we reached this point.

During the first phase of the operation, the Syrian armed forces were unable to achieve an immediate strategic success. This is rather unsurprising. It is important to remember here that during the first weeks of the operation the Russian did not provide close air support to the Syrians. Instead, they chose to systematically degrade the entire Daesh (Note: I refer to *all* terrorist in Syria as “Daesh”) infrastructure including command posts, communication nodes, oil dumps, ammo dumps, supply routes, etc. This was important work, but it did not have an immediate impact upon the Syrian military. Then the Russians turned to two important tasks: to push back Daesh in the Latakia province and to hit the illegal oil trade between Daesh and Turkey. The first goal was needed for the protection of the Russian task force and the second one hit the Daesh finances. Then the Russians seriously turned to providing close air support. Not only that, but the Russians got directly involved with the ground operation.

The second phase was introduced gradually, without much fanfare, but it made a big difference on the ground: the Russians and Syrians began to closely work together and they soon honed their collaboration to a quantitatively new level which allowed the Syrian commanders to use Russian firepower with great effectiveness. Furthermore, the Russians began providing modern equipment to the Syrians, including T-90 tanks, modern artillery systems, counter-battery radars, night vision gear, etc. Finally, according to various Russian reports, Russian special operations teams (mostly Chechens) were also engaged in key locations, including deep in the rear of Daesh. As a result, the Syrian military for the first time went from achieving tactical successes to operational victories: for the first time the Syrian began to liberate key towns of strategic importance.

Finally, the Russians unleashed a fantastically intense firepower on Daesh along crucial sectors of the front. In northern Homs, the Russians bombed a sector for 36 hours in a row. According to the latest briefing of the Russian Defense Ministry, just between February 4th and February 11th, the Russian aviation group in the Syrian Arab Republic performed 510 combat sorties and engaged 1,888 terrorists targets. That kind of ferocious pounding did produce the expected effect and the Syrian military began slowly moving along the Turkish-Syrian border while, at the same time, threatening the Daesh forces still deployed inside the northern part of Aleppo. In doing so, the Russians and Syrian threatened to cut off the vital resupply route linking Daesh to Turkey. According to Russian sources, Daesh forces were so demoralized that they forced the local people to flee towards the Turkish border and attempted to hide inside this movement of internally displaced civilians.

This strategic Russian and Syrian victory meant that all the nations supporting Daesh, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA were facing a complete collapse of their efforts to overthrow Assad and to break-up Syria and turn part of it into a “Jihadistan”. The Americans could not admit this, of course; as for the Saudis, their threats to invade Syria were rather laughable. Which left the main role to Erdogan who was more than happy to provide the West with yet another maniacal ally willing to act in a completely irresponsible way just to deny the “other side” anything looking like a victory.

Erdogan seems to be contemplating two options. The first one is a ground operation into Syria aimed at restoring the supply lines of Daesh and at preventing the Syrian military from controlling the border. Here is a good illustration (taken from a SouthFront video) of what this would look like:

Credit: SouthFront

According to various reports, Erdogan has 18,000 soldiers supported by aircraft, armor and artillery poised along the border to execute such an invasion.

The second plan is even simpler, at least in theory: to create a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Erdogan personally mentioned this option several times, the latest one on Thursday the 11th.

Needless to say, both plans are absolutely illegal under international law and would constitute an act of aggression, the “supreme international crime”according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Not that this would deter a megalomaniac like Erdogan.

Erdogan, and his backers in the West, will, of course, claim that a humanitarian disaster, or even a genocide, is taking place in Aleppo, that there is a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and that no UNSC is needed to take such clearly “humanitarian” action. It would be “Sarajevo v2” or “Kosovo v2” all over again. The western media is now actively busy demonizing Putin, and just recently has offered the following topics to ponder to those poor souls who still listen to it:

1. Putin ‘probably’ ordered the murder of Litvinenko.
2. Putin ordered the murder of Litvinenko because Litvinenko was about to reveal that Putin was a pedophile (seriously, I kid you not – check for yourself!).
3. WWIII could start by Russia invading Latvia.
4. According to the US Treasury, Putin is a corrupt man.
5. According to George Soros, Putin wants the “disintegration of the EU” and Russia is a bigger threat than the Jihadis.
6. Russia is so scary that the Pentagon wants to quadruple the money for the defense of Europe.
7. The Putin is strengthening ISIS in Syria and causing a wave of refugees.

There is no need to continue the list – you get the idea. It is really Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya all over again, with the exact same “humanitarian crocodile tears” and the exact same rational for an illegal aggression. And instead of Sarajavo “martyr city besieged by Serbian butchers” we would now have Aleppo “martyr city besieged by Syrian butchers”. I even expect a series of false flags inside Aleppo next “proving” that “the world” “must act” to “prevent a genocide”.

The big difference, of course, is that Yugoslavia, Serbia, Iraq and Libya were all almost defenseless against the AngloZionist Empire. Not so Russia.

In purely military terms, Russia has taken a number of crucial steps: she declared a large scale “verification” of the “combat readiness” of the Southern and Central military districts. In practical terms, this means that all the Russian forces are on high alert, especially the AeroSpace forces, the Airborne Forces, the Military Transportation Aviation forces and, of course, all the Russian forces in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet. The first practical effect of such “exercises” is not only to make a lot of forces immediately available, but it is also to make them very difficult to track. This not only protects the mobilized forces, but also makes it very hard for the enemy to figure out what exactly they are doing. There are also report that Russian Airborne Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft – A-50M – are now regularly flying over Syria. In other words, Russia has taken the preparations needed to go to war with Turkey.

Needless to say, the Turks and the Saudis have also announced joint military exercises. They have even announced that Saudi aircraft will conduct airstrikes from the Incirlik air base in support of an invasion of Syria.

At the same time, the Russians have also launched a peace initiative centered around a general ceasefire starting on March 1st or even, according to the latest leaks, on February 15th. The goal is is transparent: to break the Turkish momentum towards an invasion of Syria. It is obvious that Russian diplomats are doing everything they can to avert a war with Turkey.

Here again I have to repeat what I have said already a million times in the past: the small Russian contingent in Syria is in a very precarious position: far away from Russia and very close (45km) to Turkey. Not only that, but the Turks have over 200 combat aircraft ready to attack, whereas the Russians probably has less than 20 SU-30/35/34s in total. Yes, these are very advanced aircraft, of the 4++ generation, and they will be supported by S-400 systems, but the force ratio remains a terrible 1:10.

Russia does, however, have one big advantage over Turkey: Russia has plenty of long-range bombers, armed with gravity bombs and cruise missiles, capable of striking the Turks anywhere, in Syria and in Turkey proper. In fact, Russia even has the capability to strike at Turkish airfields, something which the Turks cannot prevent and something which they cannot retaliate in kind for. The big risk for Russia, at this point, would be that NATO would interpret this as a Russian “aggression” against a member-state, especially if the (in)famous Incirlik air base is hit.

Erdogan also has to consider another real risk: that, while undoubtedly proficient, the Turkish forces might not be a match for the battle-hardened Kurds and Syrians, especially if the latter are supported by Iranian and Hezbollah forces. The Turks have a checkered record against the Kurds whom they typically do overwhelm with firepower and numbers, but whom they never succeeded in neutralizing, subduing or eliminating. Finally, there is the possibility that Russians might have to use their ground forces, especially if the task force in Khmeimim is really threatened.

In this regard, let me immediately say that the projection of, say, an airborne force so far from the Russian border to protect a small contingent like the one in Khmeimim is not something the Airborne Forces are designed for, at least not “by the book”. Still, in theory, if faced with a possible attack on the Russian personnel in Khmeimin, the Russians could decide to land a regimental-size airborne force, around 1,200 men, fully mechanized, with armor and artillery. This force could be supplemented by a Naval Infantry battalion with up to another 600 men. This might not seem like much in comparison to the alleged 18,000 men Erdogan has massed at the border, but keep in mind that only a part of these 18,000 would be available for any ground attack on Khmeimin and that the Russian Airborne forces can turn even a much larger force into hamburger meat (for a look at modern Russian Airborne forces please see here). Frankly, I don’t see the Turks trying to overrun Khmeimin, but any substantial Turkish ground operation will make such a scenario at least possible and Russian commanders will not have the luxury of assuming that Erdogan is sane, not after the shooting down of the SU-24. After that the Russians simply have to assume the worst.

What is clear is that in any war between Russia and Turkey NATO will have to make a key decision: is the alliance prepared to go to war with a nuclear power like Russia to protect a lunatic like Erdogan? It is hard to imagine the US/NATO doing something so crazy but, unfortunately, wars always have the potential to very rapidly get out of control. Modern military theory has developed many excellent models of escalation but, unfortunately, no good model of how de-escalation could happen (at least not that I am aware of). How does one de-escalate without appearing to be surrendering or at least admitting to being the weaker side?

The current situation is full of dangerous and unstable asymmetries: the Russian task force in Syria is small and isolated and it cannot protect Syria from NATO or even from Turkey, but in the case of a full-scale war between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has no chance of winning, none at all. In a conventional war opposing NATO and Russia I personally don’t see either side losing (whatever ‘losing’ and ‘winning’ mean in this context) without engaging nuclear weapons first. This suggests to me that the US cannot allow Erdogan to attack the Russian task force in Syria, not during a ground invasion and, even less so, during an attempt to establish a no-fly zone.

The problem for the USA is that it has no good option to achieve its overriding goal in Syria: to “prevent Russia from winning”. In the delusional minds of the AngloZionist rulers, Russia is just a “regional power” which cannot be allowed to defy the “indispensable nation”. And yet, Russia is doing exactly that both in Syria and in the Ukraine and Obama’s entire Russia policy is in shambles. Can he afford to appear so weak in an election year? Can the US “deep state” let the Empire be humiliated and its weakness exposed?

The latest news strongly suggests to me that the White House has taken the decision to let Turkey and Saudi Arabia invade Syria. Turkish officials are openly saying that an invasion is imminent and that the goal of such an invasion would be toreverse the Syrian army gains along the boder and near Aleppo. The latest reports are also suggesting that the Turks have begun shelling Aleppo. None of that could be happening without the full support of CENTCOM and the White House.

The Empire has apparently concluded that Daesh is not strong enough to overthrow Assad, at least not when the Russian AeroSpace forces are supporting him, so it will now unleash the Turks and the Saudis in the hope of changing the outcome of this war or, if that is not possible, to carve up Syria into ‘zones of responsibility” – all under the pretext of fighting Daesh, of course.

The Russian task force in Syria is about to be very seriously challenged and I don’t see how it could deal with this new threat by itself. I very much hope that I am wrong here, but I have do admit that a *real* Russian intervention in Syria might happen after all, with MiG-31s and all. In fact, in the next few days, we are probably going to witness a dramatic escalation of the conflict in Syria.

It’s a joke. We couldn’t wish [for] more than that. If they can do it, then let them do it — but talking militarily, this is not easy for a country already facing defeat in another war, in Yemen, where after almost one year they have failed in achieving any real victory.

That’s what one source in the Iranian military had to say about reports that Saudi Arabia is preparing to send ground troops into Syria.

If you frequent these pages you know why Riyadh (and Ankara for that matter) is considering the ground option. The effort to oust Bashar al-Assad and the Alawite government was going reasonably well right up until September. Sure, the conflict was dragging into its fifth year, but Assad’s army was on the ropes and absent a miracle, it seemed likely that his government would fall.

As it turns out, Assad did indeed get a miracle from above although instead of divine intervention it was Russian airstrikes which commenced from Latakia starting on September 30. Contrary to The White House’s prediction that Putin would find himself in a “quagmire,” Russia and Hezbollah have rolled up the opposition and are preparing to recapture Aleppo, the country’s largest city and a major commercial hub. If that happens, the rebellion is over.

That would be a disaster to the rebels’ Sunni benefactors as it would mean Iran will preserve the Shiite crescent and its supply lines to Hezbollah. It would also give Tehran bragging rights in the bitter ideological war with Riyadh. Simply put, that’s unacceptable for the Saudis and so, it’s time to call upon the ground troops.

But this isn’t Yemen where the Iranians are fighting via proxies. If the Saudis start shooting at the IRGC or at Hezbollah in Syria it’s just as likely as not that the two countries will go to war and just like that, you’d have the beginning of World War III.

Don’t believe us? Just ask Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev.

“If Arab forces entered the Syrian war they could spark a new world war,” Medvedev warned on Thursday. “Ground offensives usually lead to wars becoming permanent”. Here’s what else he told Handelsblatt:

The Americans and our Arabic partners must think hard about this: do they want a permanent war?

Do they really think they would win such a war very quickly? That’s impossible, especially in the Arabic world. There everyone is fighting against everyone… everything is far more complicated. It could take years or decades.

Why is that necessary? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.

Yes, “all sides must come to the negotiating table.” Of course that’s easy for Medvedev to say. After all, it’s a lot easier to sit at the table when you’ve already won and are negotiating from a position of strength.

That is, there won’t be anything left to negotiate in a couple of weeks if things keep going like they’re going. What Moscow pretty clearly wants to do is crush the opposition in Aleppo and then discuss how to proceed with some kind of political “agreement” that will prevent whatever remains of the rebels from launching a prolonged war of attrition involving periodic attacks on government forces.

In any event, don’t say Russia didn’t warn everyone when the Saudis and the Turks end up setting the world on the road to a global conflict. Below, find excerpts from an interview The Atlantic conducted with Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Kathy Gilsinan: I wanted to start with what the significance of Aleppo has been to the Syrian uprising up to this point.

Andrew Tabler: Aleppo is Syria’s largest city. It’s the commercial hub. It is extremely important, particularly to the opposition, because Aleppo, along with the other northwestern cities, have been some of the strongest opponents to the Assad regime historically. I think the decision in 2012 to take [the city] was one of the first real major offensives of the armed opposition in Syria. And they hoped that by denying the regime Aleppo, it would set up an alternative capital and allow for a process where the Assad regime’s power was whittled away. Since that time, it has instead been one of the most bombed, barrel-bombed, and decimated parts of Syria, and now is much more like Dresden than anything else.

Gilsinan: If Aleppo falls, walk me through what happens next. First, how would it change the balance of power, within the civil war, between the rebels and the regime?

Tabler: I think it would cement the regime’s hold on “essential Syria”—western Syria, perhaps with the exception of Idlib province [to] the south [of Aleppo]. But basically you would have the regime presence from Aleppo the whole way down to Hama, Homs, and Damascus, and that’s the spine of the country, and that’s what concerns the regime and the Iranians in particular. It would then allow them to free up forces, potentially, to go on the offensive elsewhere, directly into Idlib province, most likely, and then eventually into the south. Then after that they could turn their attention finally to ISIS.

Gilsinan: And then what happens to the regional balance of power within that war?

Tabler: It would be a tremendous loss for the U.S. and its traditional allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan. It’s already been extremely costly for most of those allies, but it would be a defeat [in the face of] the Russian-Iranian intervention in Syria. This would also be a huge loss for the United States vis-à-vis Russia in its Middle East policy, certainly. And because of the flow of refugees as a result of this, if they go northward to Europe, then you would see a migrant crisis in Europe that could lead to far-right governments coming to power which are much more friendly to Russia than they are to the United States. I think that is likely to happen.

Gilsinan: So it changes the entire orientation, not just of the Middle East, but of Europe as well.

Tabler: It will soften up American power in Europe, yeah. And put into jeopardy a lot of the advances in the NATO-accession countries, which are adjacent to Russia, as well.

While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.

Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.

The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.

With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.

With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”

Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.

Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.

Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.

Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..

Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.

The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.

In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.
The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.

Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.

The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.

Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html

Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Preparing the British public for collective suicide?

Or a voice of reason in a world gone mad under US-Russian confrontation?

Is the BBC preparing the British public for collective suicide? Or is its film a voice of reason in a world gone mad under U.S.-Russian confrontation? The Russians and all of ‘progressive humanity’ have been jumping up and down about this pseudo-documentary film. The sound bite from one War Room participant that “I wouldn’t mind killing tens of thousands of Russians” has been trumpeted as a major provocation. Baltics politicians on both sides of the issue are furious. However, seeing the film through to its unexpected ending, one is left with big questions about the intentions of its producers and of its high level participants that so far no one has addressed.

The pseudo-documentary film aired on BBC on February 3, World War Three: Inside the War Room, (here on BBC Two, for UK only) was described in advance by the BBC as a ‘war game’ detailing the minute by minute deliberations of the country’s highest former defense and security officials facing an evolving crisis involving Russia. What gave unusual realism and relevance to their participation is that they were speaking their own thoughts, producing their own argumentation, not reading out lines handed to them by television script writers.

The mock crisis to which they were reacting occurs in Latvia as the Kremlin’s intervention on behalf of Russian speakers in the south of this Baltic country develops along lines of events in the Donbas as from the summer of 2014. When the provincial capital of Daugavpils and more than twenty towns in the surrounding region bordering Russia are taken by pro-Russian separatists, the United States calls upon its NATO allies to deliver an ultimatum to the Russians to pull back their troops within 72 hours or be pushed out by force. This coalition of the willing only attracts the British. After the deadline passes, the Russians ‘accidentally’ launch a tactical nuclear strike against British and American vessels in the Baltic Sea, destroying two ships with the loss of 1200 Marines and crew on the British side. Washington then calls for like-for-like nuclear attack on a military installation in Russia, which, as we understand, leads to full nuclear war.

The show was aired on February 3, 2016 by BBC Two, meaning it was directed at a domestic audience, not the wider world. However, in the days since its broadcast, it has attracted a great deal of attention outside the United Kingdom, more, in fact, than within Britain itself. The Russians, in particular, adopted a posture of indignation, calling the film a provocation. In his widely watched weekend wrap-up of world news, Russia’s senior television journalist Dimitri Kiselev devoted close to ten minutes denouncing the BBC production. He cited one participant (former UK Ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton) expressing pleasure at the idea of ‘killing tens of thousands of Russians’. This segment was later repeated on Vesti hourly news programs during the past week. Kiselev asked rhetorically how the British would react if Moscow produced a mirror image show from its War Room.

For its part, the world broadcaster Russia Today (RT) issued a harsh review which castigates the British broadcaster for presenting Russia as “Dr. Evil Incarnate, the villain that regularly plays opposite peace-loving NATO nations.” It saw the motivation of the producers as related to ‘the military-industrial shopping season’. RT alleges the BBC was trying to drum up popular support for the modernization of Britain’s nuclear Trident submarines at a cost to taxpayers of some 100 billion pounds ($100 billion).

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said it was “low grade” (the words translated by some as “trash”) and that he didn’t bother to watch it. If so, that is a pity for the reasons I will set out below.

The program also generated a great deal of emotion in Latvia, on both sides of the fundamental issue. The country’s Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics tweeted that he found parts of the program to be “rubbish” while other parts had lessons to be studied. Public Broadcasting of Latvia was concerned over the scant support the country appears to enjoy in Britain and other NATO member states, judging by the deliberations in the War Room. For their part, members of the Russian speaking community were deeply upset by the way the program provides grist to the mill of those who view them as a fifth column ready to be used by the Kremlin for its aggressive purposes.

Examination of the British print media’s reaction to World War Three results in a very different impression of the film.

Reviews in the British press mostly directed attention to the program’s entertainment value. The Telegraph called the film “gripping and terrifying”. The Independent reviewer tells us:

It started out as quite a dull discussion but as the hypothetical situation escalated – and boy did it escalate quickly – it fast became compelling, if not terrifying, viewing….It was a little clichéd – the Russians were the bad guys, the UK set lots of deadlines but ultimately wouldn’t commit to any action and the US went in all guns (or nuclear weapons) blazing – but then clichés are always clichés for a reason.

In a reversal of roles, the tabloid Daily Mail ended up doing the heavy lifting for the British press with thoughtful in-depth reporting. The newspaper expressed deep surprise at the way World War Three: Inside the War Room ends, with the war room team voting overwhelmingly to order Trident submarine commanders not to fire even as Russian nuclear ICBMs have been launched and are on their way to targets in the West, including England. The paper noted, correctly I might add, that this puts in question the value of the Trident deterrent, which the Cameron government is planning to renew. The newspaper sent out its reporters to follow up on this stunning aspect of the BBC film.

The Daily Mail especially wanted elucidation of two remarks at the very end of the film, just prior to the final vote. One was by Sir Tony Brenton, UK Ambassador to Russia 2004-2008, who says in the film: “Do we pointlessly kill millions of Russians or not? To me it’s a no-brainer – we do not.” This quote deserves special attention because it was made by Brenton right after his widely cited and seemingly scandalous statement which has been taken out of context, namely that he wouldn’t mind killing tens of thousands of Russians in response to the destruction of the British vessel in the Baltic by Russia at the cost of 1200 British lives.

The second remark from the end of the film cited by The Daily Mail which they in fact follow-up was more surprising still, coming as it did from a top military official, General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, 2011-2014. Shirreff declared on camera: “I say do not fire.”

When asked about it, Shirreff gave the newspaper a still better sound bite that bears repeating in full:

At this point it was clear deterrence had failed. My feeling was it had become a moral issue – that the use of force can only be justified to prevent a greater evil…if the UK is going to be obliterated, what is going to be achieved if we obliterate half of Russia as well? It was going to create an even worse evil.

It is a great pity that the Kremlin has chosen to vilify the BBC’s producers and overlook these extraordinary open text signals from the very top of the British political and defense elites.

If nothing else, The Daily Mail reporting knocks out the easy answers and compels us to ask anew what did the British broadcaster have in mind when it produced the pseudo-documentary World War Three? Moreover, why did top former British diplomats, military officials and politicians agree to participate in this film?

In one sense, this film is a collective selfie. It might be just another expression of our contemporary narcissism, when former top government officials publish their memoirs soon after leaving office and tell all. But several of the participants are not even former office holders. They continue to be active and visible. Here, one can name the Liberal Democrat Baroness Falkner, spokesperson for foreign policy. Here, too, is Dr. Ian Kearns who remains very much in the news as the director of the European Leadership Network, partner to the leadership of the Munich Security Conference and a member of teams that are invited to Moscow from time to time to talk international security issues with the Russians. Surely these VIP participants in the film had no intension of cutting off contacts by antagonizing the Kremlin. So there is something else going on.

What that something else might be can be teased out if we pay close attention to their deliberations on screen. I believe they earnestly sought to share with the British public the burden of moral and security decision-making, to present themselves as reasonable people operating to the best of their knowledge and with all due respect for contrary opinions to reach the best possible recommendations for action in the national interest.

In the war room, we are presented with two very confident hard liners, General Richard Shirreff, mentioned above, and Admiral Lord West, former Chief of Naval Staff; and with two very confident soft liners, Baronness Falkner, the Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman, and Sir Tony Brenton, also identified above. The others seated at the table do not have firm views and are open to persuasion.

It is noteworthy that argumentation is concise and apart from the occasional facial expression showing exasperation with opponents, there is a high level of purely intellectual debate throughout. Though one of the reviewers in the British press calls Falkner a “peacenik” in what is not meant as a compliment, no such compartmentalizing of thinking appears in the video. And the counter arguments are set out in some detail.

The voting at turning points in the developing scenario of confrontation with Russia is open. When the participants consider Britain joining the United States led coalition of the willing ready to use force to eject the Russians from Latvia, they insist they will not be passive in the relationship, will not be Washington’s ‘poodle’. This is in clear reference to criticism of the Blair government’s joining the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Baroness Falkner is allowed to question the very logic of NATO. She calls the early decisions taken by the majority of her colleagues “sleepwalking”, an allusion to the group think that brought all of Europe into the suicidal First World War. With further reference to WWI, she says that the British government must look after the security of its people and not blindly submit to the wishes of an Alliance when that spells doom, such as happened in 1914.

At each turn of the voting on what to do next, until the very last, the hard liners win out. But positions can and ultimately do flip-flop. In the end the overwhelming majority around the table decides not to press the button.

However, if the participants want to show themselves as open-minded and sincere, that does mean that the facts they work from are objective and equally well vetted? Here we come to a crucial problem of the documentary: Narration of the pre-history to the crisis over the Baltics, namely the archival footage on the Russian-Georgian War of 2008, the Russian ‘annexation’ of Crimea and the Russian ‘intervention’ in Donbass , is an unqualified presentation of the narrative from Washington’s and London’s viewpoint, with Russia as aggressor. The narration of the crisis events as they unfold is also the unqualified, unchallenged view from the British Foreign Office.

The pseudo-reporting on the ground in Daugavpils, Latvia, which is the epicenter of the crisis, gives viewers part of the reason for the fictional Russian intervention, but only a small part. One Russian speaker tells the reporter that she is participating a street protest because Russian-speakers have been deprived of citizenship since the independence of Latvia and this cannot continue. But we are not told what the former diplomats in the War Room surely know: that Britain was complicit in this situation. In fact, the British knew perfectly well from before the vote on accession of the Baltic states to the EU in 2004 that Latvia and Estonia were in violation of the rules of European conventions concerning minorities. However, in the back-room negotiations which led to the final determination of the list of new EU member states, the British chose to ignore the Latvian violations, which should have held up admission, for the sake of getting support from other member states for extending EU membership to Cyprus.

The unfolding scenario of Russian actions and Western reactions does not attempt to penetrate Russian thinking in any depth. We are given the usual generalizations about the personality of Vladimir Putin. The most profound observation we are offered is that Russian elites only understand strength and would not allow Putin to back down, so he must be offered face-saving gestures even as his aggression is foiled.

The objectives of Russian moves on the geopolitical chessboard are not debated. The question of how the Baltics and Ukraine are similar or different for Russian national interest is hardly explored. Simply put, as the British press reviews understood, the Russians are ‘bad guys’.

Moreover, the authors of this war game assume that the past is a good guide to the future, which in warfare of all kinds is very often a fallacious and dangerous assumption. There is no reason to believe that the Russian hybrid warfare [sic] used in Crimea and Donbass would be applied to the Baltics, or that escalation would be gradual. Given the much smaller scale of the Baltic states, each with two million or fewer inhabitants, and the short logistical lines, it might be more reasonable to consider the Russians moving in and occupying the capitals in one fell swoop if they had reason to do so.

At present, they do not. But if the build-up of NATO troops and materiel along the Western frontiers of Russia and in the Baltic Sea continues as projected in President Obama’s latest appropriations for that purpose, reason for Russian action might well appear. In this case, the confrontation might proceed straight to red alert on strategic nuclear forces without any intermediary pinpricks that this film details, much as happened back in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The British, as well as other NATO countries would then be totally sidelined as talks went on directly between Moscow and Washington.

The tragedy of our times of information warfare is that well-educated and sincere citizens are blind-sighted. We have an old maxim that when you cannot persuade, confuse. The fatal flaw is when you believe your own propaganda. If nothing else, the BBC documentary demonstrates that for Western elites this is what has happened. The reaction to the film from the Kremlin, suggests the same has happened to Eastern elites.

Gilbert Doctorow PhD is the European Coordinator of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? (August 2015), is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites. For donations to support the European activities of ACEWA, write to[email protected]. – Gilbert Doctorow, PhD, blog Une parole franche, Feb 10, 2016

Amidst a hand-wringing defence of the indefensible, The New Statesman propagated a common myth thus: “The European Union has indeed brought peace and prosperity to the people of Europe, . . .”

Indeed, it never did. The institution that arguably brought peace and truly brought prosperity to Europe was the E.E.C. Colloquially, ‘it was a different type of animal,’ say, the cow in the barn as opposed to the wolf at the door (now which institution might symbolize?).

And talking about animals, we never had a single ‘PIGS’ during the E.E.C.’s years, did we? Neither were there so many ailing and failing economies nor were such degrading epithets flung around. In fact, the defamed nations are not ‘PIGS;’ they are Old Testament ‘scapegoats.’ Greece is but the latest one.

So much for the animal metaphors.

The realist may say that the E.E.C.’s very success is the reason that it had to be done away with but in all likelihood it was only a decoy and bridge to the Frankenstein’s Monster that is the EU. Haven’t we seen it elsewhere? Recall what fair and balanced council preceded the extra-jurisdictional W.T.O. That was now-defunct GATT.

So there we are.The EU is an encore performance!And it is an open secret that there is to be a final sequel, the supra-national entity ‘Europa.’

The E.E.C., from a pre-Thatcherite socialist cum nationalist era, was steered in the main by anonymous technocrats and economists who have long since been shunted aside.In contrast, predatory bankers and unelected commissioners pull the EU’s strings, just as they pull the strings of the various mercenary viceroys posing as heads of state.

As for that fading feel-good factor surrounding the European Coercion, oops!, we mean the ‘European Union,’ it is probably a residual effect from the old E.E.C. That is, E.E.C. goodwill has been spilling over into the EU (where most of it evaporates).

If this tract sounds anti-EU, it is meant to be.However, this Eurosceptic is a Europhile: for to hate the EU means to love ‘Beautiful Europe,’ as the song calls it.Those who love now-endangered Beautiful Europe should beware of a new three-way Axis that threatens The Continent: Berlin-Brussels-Strasbourg.

(Turn over this counterfeit EU-Axis trinket and on the back edge you’ll read ‘Made in Maastricht’ in small letters.Too bad it doesn’t also have a ‘Made disclosure.)

Eurosceptics know that it will be The Grapes of Wrath, European varietals.Already Greece’s baby Joads are dying while but of course the reptilian Merkelians feast on caviar.

Time to read a new (all-too obvious) meaning into a certain play. We mean that, ah, ‘Greek Tragedy,’ Medea. Now playing in Athens with a fresh twist: the role of the eponymous princess-sorceress is taken by a male, the chameleonic thespian Alexis Tsipras.

You know how that play ends.

P.S. This just in:Duchess-Viceroy Angela Merkel has retorted to a courtier, “Then let them eat caviar!”

You know how play ends too.

Presstitute Media, such as the UK Telegraph, spend a lot of energy debunking exposés of government conspiracies. For example, the thousands of highrise architects, structural engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, demolition experts, first responders, military and civilian pilots, and former government officials who have provided vast evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a made-up fairy tale at odds with all evidence and the laws of physics are dismissed by presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists.”

Similarly, those, such as James W. Douglass, who have proven beyond all doubt that President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Oswald but by his own paranoid anti-communist military-security complex, are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the Warren Commission Report were cover-ups. VP Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives he sponsored needed a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to begin their military assaults on the Middle Eastern countries that had independent foreign policies instead of being US/Israeli vassals. 9/11 was their orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor,” and this fact had to be covered up when 9/11 families persisted in their demands for an investigation and could not be bought off for large sums of money.

Similarly, the Warren Commission had no choice but to cover up that a popular American president, John F. Kennedy, had been murdered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the Secret Service, because he was believed by paranoid anti-communists to be “soft on communism” and thereby a threat to the security of the United States. The cold war was on, and the Warren Commission could not hold those responsible accountable without destroying the public’s confidence in the American military and security services.

Nevertheless everyone aware of the forged case against Oswald knew what had happened. One of these people was Attorney General Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother.

Bobby Kennedy understood the situation. He knew that as a member of a cover-up administration he could do nothing about it. However, he knew that if he won the presidency, he could hold accountable those security elements responsible. His brother had told him that after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” When the Vietnam war destroyed President Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy emerged as the next president of the US.

Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the evening that he won the California Democratic primary. Sirhan Sirhan was blamed. He was standing in front of Kennedy. He had an eight shot low caliber pistol, which he fired. He did hit Paul Shrade, who was standing next to Kennedy. But he did not hit Kennedy. Kennedy, according to the medical evidence and eye witnesses was killed from shots to his back and to the back of his head.

This was confirmed to me years ago by a distinguished journalist and documentary film maker who was standing just behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot. He told me that he felt the bullet that hit Kennedy go by his ear and saw its impact. He wrote a full report for the FBI and despite his credentials was never contacted by the investigation.

Now, last Wednesday, 48 years later, Paul Shrade has presented ironclad evidence at the parole hearing of the now 71 year old Sirhan Sirhan that Robert Kennedy was shot by someone else from the rear, not from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was standing.

You can read Paul Shrade’s statement here:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44184.htm 

Of course, the presstitute media will say that Paul Shrade, who was himself shot when Kennedy was assassinated, is a “conspiracy theorist.” Remember: a conspiracy theorist is anyone who on the basis of hard evidence challenges a government that blames its crime on an innocent third party.

At the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA was conducing mind control experiments. Experts think that Sirhan Sirhan was one of those under the CIA’s control. This would explain why Sirhan Sirhan has no memory of the event.

President John F. Kennedy had experienced in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer a high level of insubordination. Lemnitzer showed in White House meetings contempt for the president. When Lemnitzer brought Kennedy the Northwoods Project to shoot down American citizens in the streets of America and to blow American airliners out of the sky in order to place the blame on Castro so that the US could invade and achieve “regime change,” a popular term of the George W. Bush regime, in Cuba, President Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as chairman and sent him to Europe as head of NATO.

Kennedy did not know about Operation Gladio, an assassination program in Europe run by NATO and the CIA. Communists were blamed for Operation Gladio’s bombings of civilians in train stations in order to erode communist political influence, especially in Italy. Thus, Kennedy’s way of getting rid of Lemnitzer put Lemnitzer in charge of this program and gave Lemnitzer a way to get rid of John Kennedy.

Anyone who thinks that democratic governments would not kill their own citizens is uninformed beyond belief. If, dear reader, you are one of these gullible people, please go to the Internet and become familiar, for example, with Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

US Senator Sanders is a straight­-talking politician of immense experience and integrity, unmatched by his competitors on both sides of congress. Furthermore, and most importantly, he is NOT FOR SALE to any lobby, never mind a lobby acting for a foreign government.

And that is an essential factor why so many Americans are confident he will be elected the 45^thPresident of the United States of America to succeed Barack Obama.

Senator Sanders served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was re-elected with 71% of the popular vote. During the 2016 presidential primaries, Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and first Jewish American to win a presidential primary of a major party, namely the New Hampshire primary.

Now, read about the political machinations of his increasingly desperate competitor, the Clinton family:

Public records show that Bill Clinton earned a total of $549,999 in four speeches to the Jewish National Fund, JNF. The disclosures do not mention the JNF’s most generous fee. JNF provoked an outcry within pro-­Israel circles when it transferred half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation through the Peres Academic Center to pay for a single speech by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton later said he donated his large fee back to the Peres Academic Center, but there are lingering questions about where all the money went, including funds from the JNF.

Formed in 1901, JNF has spent over a century driving Palestinians off their land, including through the creation of the paramilitary force euphemistically named the Green Patrol. Former JNF director Yosef Weitz outlined detailed plans for the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, demanding that their villages be destroyed and they “be harassed continually” to prevent them from returning. 

A torrent of familiar propaganda has flooded the airwaves as the imminent collapse of Washington and its regional allies’ proxy terrorist forces in Syria approaches. Predicated on “humanitarian concerns,” global audiences are reminded of the torrent of lies, fabrications, and deceit that preceded NATO’s military intervention in Libya – a military intervention that has since left the North African nation utterly destroyed, perpetually divided, and large swaths of its territory under the control of Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

Virtually all headlines across the West now feature dramatic images of refugees, and children in particular, used for propaganda purposes to suggest the urgent need for Western military intervention. CNN’s article, “Aleppo siege marks dramatic upheaval on Syrian battlefield,” leads with the sentence:

The images from Aleppo, Idlib and Syria’s border with Turkey can be described in one word: despair.

The Guardian’s article, “Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees remain stranded at Turkish border,” claims:

Tens of thousands of Syrians fleeing a Russian-backed government advance on Aleppo have remained stranded near the Turkish border over the weekend, with no sign that the authorities in Ankara will respond to mounting international pressure to allow in more refugees uprooted by the escalating war.

The New York Post’s overly dramatic headline, “Obama caves on Syria, does nothing to help innocent civilians,” is followed by:

Just weeks after Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about a “new initiative” on Syria, details are emerging about what that really means: Handing over the Middle East to the United States’ adversaries.

Far from informing audiences, the flood of propaganda goes from absurd to surreal, aimed at provoking emotions, at persuasion, and at establishing a pretext for already long-ago, predetermined interventionism, the results of which are already on tragically stark display in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently Libya.

Despite the obvious truth behind interventions elsewhere – that they were intentionally designed to divide and destroy, not lift up or aid the people interventionism was used upon – the West remains committed to once again foisting this ploy upon the world, convinced it is still a viable strategy.

NATO’s Proposal for Syria Already On Display in Libya 

The flood of propaganda emanating from the West has one purpose –  to justify a US-backed, Turkish-led offensive into Syrian territory to carve out long-sought after “safe zones” within which the West would protect the battered remnants of their terrorist proxy forces. The West is claiming “refugees” languish on the border, that Turkey cannot accept any further refugees, and that the only solution is invasion.

The lies, one part predicated upon “humanitarianism,” one part upon allegedly fighting “ISIS,” have in reality long ago been laid to rest and well understood by an increasingly astute global audience. This is in part thanks to NATO’s own handiwork, on constant display in the North African nation of Libya, still smoldering in the wake of NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” there.

Despite NATO intervention, Libya remains a veritable firestorm of chaos – not only constituting a continued humanitarian disaster – feeding directly into Europe’s mounting migrant crisis – but also has become a safe haven and base of operations for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. In fact, in hindsight, it is clear that NATO intentionally armed and funded these very groups in their bid to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi.

The US State Department would even find itself in the long-established extremists hotbed of Benghazi, helping traffic weapons and fighters onward to Syria before the US consulate was attacked and US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens killed – the terrorists biting the hand that fed.

Syria – should NATO-member Turkey intervene – will result in a much larger conflagration than Libya, resulting in many more refugees in reality flowing into Turkey and then onward to Europe, than the numbers the West is claiming in fiction now.

ISIS is Based in Turkey – Fight Them in Turkey  

Syrian ground forces, bolstered by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian advisers, and backed by highly effective Russian airpower, have cut off terrorist supply lines leading from NATO-member Turkey’s territory. This not only includes so-called “moderate” terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and its regional affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, but also ISIS itself.

The same CNN claiming Syria and Russia are responsible for the current crisis, admitted in their article, “You thought Syria couldn’t get much worse. Think again,” that (emphasis added):

To the east of Aleppo, Kurdish forces are, with American support, eyeing the remaining ISIS strongholds along the Turkish border — Jarablus and Manbij. The U.S. wants ISIS out, to remove its access to resupply of materiel and fighters from Turkey.

The question all of CNN’s readers should ask, and one any real journalist were there any at the media organization would have answered, is: “why if the US is stationed in Turkey, doesn’t it and its Turkish allies, NATO members since the 1950s, interdict and stop ISIS’ access to ‘resupply of materiel and fighters’ on the Turkish side of the border?”

The answer is as disturbing as it is obvious – the US and Turkey created ISIS, are arming and funding it to this very day, and are using the existence and atrocities of their own proxy forces as a pretext to further compound the misery, division, destruction, and humanitarian crisis in Syria, including the subsequent refugee crisis that has in turn affected surrounding nations and even as far as Europe and North America.

Indeed, the US, Turkey, and America’s allies among the un-elected, despotic Persian Gulf absolute monarchies, intentionally created ISIS and even admitted as much. It was not Russian media or Syrian state proclamations that pointed this out, but rather the United State’s own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in a 2012 report that revealed ongoing plans by this geopolitical axis to create what it at the time called a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State).

In the DIA’s leaked 2012 report (.pdf) it stated (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Image: Professor Tim Anderson

How a war is lost is a serious and dangerous business. After Henry Kissinger helped sabotage the 1968 Paris peace talks, for domestic political reasons, the War in Vietnam raged for another seven years. In the end Washington’s loss was more humiliating, and millions more lives were destroyed.

The Geneva process over Syria is in many respects different, because it is a charade. The NATO and Gulf monarchy sponsors pretend to support Syrian ‘opposition’ groups and pretend to fight the same extremist groups they created.

Yet the dangers are very real because the Saudis and Turkey might react unpredictably, faced with the failure of their five year project to carve up Syria. Both countries have threatened to invade Syria, to defend their ‘assets’ from inevitable defeat from the powerful alliance Syria has forged with Russia, Iran, Iraq and the better party of Lebanon.

It should be clear by now that every single anti-government armed group in Syria has been created by Washington and its allies. Several senior US officials have admitted the fact. Regime change has always been the goal. Nevertheless, the charade of a ‘War on ISIS’ goes on, with a compliant western media unwilling to point out that ‘the emperor has no clothes’.

Click image to order Prof. Tim Anderson’s book on Syria

Geneva 3 has actually brought some results. First, none of the NATO-backed ‘opposition’ groups managed to show a credible face. Second, and more importantly, the US and Russia kept talking and actually developed another de-escalation plan. It is not conclusive but it is encouraging.

The ‘moderate rebel’ masks are down, we now know who they are: the internationally proscribed terrorist group Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and its long term Salafist allies Jaysh al Islam (the Army of Islam) and Ahrar as Sham. The latter two are the remnants of the Syrian Salafist groups. In northern Syria they are also welded together by Turkey and the Saudis into the very non-moderate-sounding Jaysh al Fatah (the Army of Conquest).

These extremist groups represent very few in Syria, as MINT Press journalist Mnar Muhawesh pointed out in her editorial piece ‘The Syrian Opposition’s NATO Sponsored Apocalyptic Vision For Syria’: In ideology they are no different to ISIS.

(See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvq0JmzqR_8).

It may be stating the obvious to say that al Qaeda groups have poor negotiating skills. In any event, they proved it in Geneva. Losing on the battlefield they demanded capitulation in Geneva, then stormed out.

Foreign backed terrorists aside, who are the real Syrian opposition?

Firstly, they are the groups that created the 2005 Damascus Declaration but who sided with the state and the army in early 2011, when the Salafist insurrection hijacked the reform demonstrations.

Some of them like Haytham Manna and former minister Qadri Jamil appeared in Geneva. Others like the powerful Syrian Social National Party (SSNP) backed Bashar al Assad’s government, back in 2011.

Still others sat on the sidelines, frustrated at the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent hijacking of the reform movement. Sharmine Narwani’s piece at RT ‘Will Geneva talks lead right back to Assad’s 2011 reforms?’ illustrates this very well. As the Damascus Declaration made plain, most of the Syrian opposition rejected both foreign sponsorship and violent attacks on the state.

Second are the Syrian Kurds, who were open to foreign assistance but rejected attacks on the Syrian Army and state. They have received most of their arms from Damascus. Prefering to side with the Syrian Army than the Salafists, their presence in Geneva was not tolerated by Erdogan or his clients.

That left Russia and the USA to discuss their supposed common goals (destroying terrorists) while Erdogan and the Saudis seethed. The aims of the two big powers are worlds apart. Hat difference is seen in the loss of Washington’s proxies in Syria in face of the rise of the 4+1 (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah).

That shift, in turn, threatens to derail the Bush plan for a ‘New Middle East’. The US wanted to control the entire region, now it faces losing it all.

Russia for its part has pursued its own interests in the region, backing its allies in accordance with international law. Its use of air power in Syria followed the Syria-Iran-Iraq-Hezbollah accord on ground power forces. That is the force currently prevailing on Syrian soil.

The good news is that, despite these widely differing aims, Washington and Moscow have kept talking and managed a provisional agreement at Geneva, with three heads.

The first agreement is over humanitarian aid, which faces serious obstacles due to the series of sieges taking place. Some of these are al Qaeda groups’ sieges, such as that on Foua and Kafraya in the north; but increasingly they are becoming Syrian Army sieges on al Qaeda fighters who hole up in towns and cities, such as Madaya and Eastern Aleppo. Most ground aid is going in through the Government-supervised Syria Arab Red Crescent, but air drops are being organised for Deir eZorr, and some other places.

Second, there is a political process which (it has been agreed) must be exclusively between Syrians, unconditional and inclusive. Contrary to many outside reports, there is not yet any framework for this, nor plans for early elections. The Syrian position, backed by Russia, is that the Syrian constitution (and the legally mandated schedule of elections) prevails until the Syrian people vote to change it.

Finally the agreement on ‘cessation of hostilities’, due almost immediately, has a task force to oversee the details. This ceasefire does not apply to any group identified by the UN Security Council as a terrorist group. That immediately rules out ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra. The major obstacle here is that Russia wants Jaysh al Islam and Ahrar as Sham (which have both collaborated with al Nusra for many years) added to the UNSC list. If Washington agrees to this, they will virtually abandon their ‘moderate rebel’ option. There is no other force of substance on the ground. The Saudis and Erdogan would be furious.

How will the US manage these tensions? The Obama administration has always approached the Syrian conflict in an arms-length way, reminiscent of the CIA’s ‘plausible deniability’ over its death squads in Latin America. But credibility problems have grown and Washington does seem more concerned at finding a way out rather than risking a new desperate gambit. That would certainly lead to serious escalation, and without any guarantee of success.

Would Washington allow Erdogan and the Saudis to initiate a major escalation, without US approval? I think not. Obama resisted Saudi and Israeli provocations, when the Iran deal was imminent. Even Bush could not be provoked into a confrontation with Russia, when invited by Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili.

For its part, Russia is well prepared for a provocation across the Turkish border. Logic suggests that the losers must lose. But this is a dangerous time.

The past fifteen years has seen the United States and its allies engage in numerous military invasions and interventions in the Middle East. All of these operations have utilized strike aircraft, special operations forces and armed and unarmed UAVs as force multipliers. Warships that can provide a platform to transport and support small, combined arms units of strike aircraft, helicopter assault or amphibious assault infantry or marines, special operations units, and reconnaissance and attack UAVs are seen as an essential tool in prosecuting the low intensity conflicts of the future. Almost every nation with a maritime border and a viable navy on the globe has taken notice of these developments.

These Multi-role Naval Platforms or MRNPs, come in a number of different designs. Some of these designs optimize flexibility and provide a balance of command and control, strike aircraft, air and amphibious assault, or cargo space while others are designed to maximize the effect of only one or two of these capabilities. The LHD is the most balanced, and thus flexible of all of the MRNP designs. The LHD is the largest design, requiring the dimensions and space to accommodate a large number of aircraft, troops, light and heavy vehicles, cargo and amphibious assault craft.

The LPD is a well-balanced multirole vessel; however, on a smaller scale than the LHD. It has comparable flexibility, but at a much smaller scale it lacks the power projection capability of the LHD. Although their smaller size limits the scope of their operations, they gain the benefit of being able to operate more easily in littoral waters and are less costly to build and maintain.

The DDH is a relatively new adaptation of the MRNP. The DDH abandons all amphibious capabilities in favor of aircraft assault and aerial strike capability. The only two nations to build and operate DDHs are the United States and Japan. The JMSDF operates three DDHs currently, with a fourth vessel to enter operation in 2016.

It is obvious to see the benefits of these multirole vessels with their inherent flexibility, humanitarian support and power projection capabilities. The benefits are obvious, but why are so many vessels now being built in such a short span of time? These naval building programs are being driven by geo-political developments in two main regions of the globe, the Mediterranean and the Asia-Pacific. This is in direct relation to the wars of regime-change and disruption in the Middle East and the U.S. “Pivot to Asia” and the disputes over contested areas in the East and South China Seas.

Although Russia was denied the two Mistral Class vessels, Vladivostok and Sevastopol when France reneged on the deal in 2014, Russia immediately made it clear that it will acquire indigenously designed and built vessels of similar pattern. These vessels would have proven of decisive value in supporting the Russian intervention in Syria. The two vessels were instead sold to Egypt. It is yet unclear how Egypt will employ these vessels in the future, but may aim to use them in bolstering the Saudi led military intervention in Yemen. Turkey entered into a contract with DCNS to build an LPD based on the Juan Carlos I LHD pattern in the summer of 2015.

The accelerating acquisition of MRNPs in the East and South East Asia regions is the most alarming. With China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia and the United States all rapidly building and commissioning these vessels in high numbers over the past ten years, it could reasonably be said that there is a naval arms race occurring in proportion to developments related to the South China Sea Crisis.

China has built four Type 071 LPDs of a total of six planned vessels, and has designed LHDs that have a displacement of 40,000 tons. Other claimants to disputed islands and waters in the South China Sea have been encouraged and supported by the United States in their efforts to acquire LPDs to back up their territorial claims with naval power. As the United States accuses China of engaging in a massive military build-up, it must be noted that the United States operates more of these multi-role vessels than all of the major world navies combined.

As the crises in the Middle East and East China and South China Seas continue to escalate, it is increasingly probable that those nations involved will decide to use these newly acquired vessels for the purposes of power projection, deterrence or in response to military provocation. Considering the increasing brinkmanship and saber-rattling between the United States and China, the irresponsible and destabilizing military actions of Turkey against its neighbors, and the recklessness of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, the odds that these powerful new naval tools will be used increases with each passing day.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

The French state television France 2 has shown a news report criticizing Moscow’s anti-terror campaign in Syria, but used images of Russian airstrikes not to talk about Moscow’s efforts, but to illustrate achievements of the US-led coalition instead.

According to RT in French, the report showing the videos released by Russian Defense Ministry, while the French reporter was talking about US airstrikes, was aired on February 4.

Posted by Allt om Irak & kriget mot ISIS – Iraq news & the war against ISIS on Sunday, February 7, 2016

The French report on anti-terrorist operations in Syria and its Aleppo province first featured a short story strongly criticizing airstrikes carried out by the Russian Air Force in the region. The journalist then proceeded to tell the audience about the objectives of the “minimum civilian casualties” western operation, led by the United States.

“The planes of the US coalition have a hard time finding targets to destroy,” the reporter was saying, while images of the Russian airstrikes were broadcast.

Having just praised the accuracy of US airstrikes, the reporter pointed to the video on screen, which showed the footage of Moscow’s anti-terror op, released by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Commenting how “targets are very difficult to find” and telling the audience how the US and its allies have been destroying terrorist training camps, command centers, ammunition depots and oil facilities, the French channel kept showing Russian footage of its efforts in Syria.

This is not the first time videos from Russia’s anti-terror campaign in the Middle East have been used by western media to depict airstrikes by the US-led coalition. The Defense Ministry has repeatedly pointed out such cases, saying they were partly due to the coalition’s reluctance to share more information about its actions.

Unlike the Russian anti-terror operation command in Syria, the US-led coalition has not organized coverage for journalists in the region, ministry spokesman has said, giving the example of Euronews TV channel having used Russian Air Force footage while airing a comment by a representative of US Central Command on the coalition successes.

Earlier, American public television used Russian objective control videos – which showed Sukhoi bombers targeting Islamic State oil facilities – with a voiceover praising US attacks, the Defense Ministry said.

This week’s Global Research News Hour is a fund-raiser for host radio station CKUW 95.9FM.

It was broadcast live on Friday February 12.. 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:15)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The program featured plentiful appeals for listener donations.

Host Michael Welch was assisted in these appeals by Iraq War Resister and author Joshua Key, political activist and writer Roger Annis, and local media personality Dave Mcleod. The program also included clips of interviews with journalist Lesley Hughes and FBI Whistle-blower and author Sibel Edmonds.

The program also featured music by Phil Ochs (Cops of the World), Talking Heads (Crosseyed and Painless), and Chumbawumba (Bella Ciao!)

With Fundrive 2016 now officially ended, anyone wishing to contribute to CKUW may do so through the website fundrive.ckuw.ca (you can find Global Research News Hour in the drop down menu under ‘Pledge Options.’ Please note, tax receipts are only honoured for Canadian residents. Out of town residents must include instructions for delivery of incentives by mail.)

Donations are also acceptable through the GLOBAL RESEARCH website.

Listeners of the Global Research News Hour are encouraged to support CKUW as well as partner community radio stations which air the Global Research News Hour.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:15)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer.

Adding to controversy over what top officials knew and when regarding Flint’s water crisis and resulting health epidemic, emails obtained by the Flint Journal suggest that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told state officials to suppress lead testing results, both from local health officials and the community, while they figured out how to present the information to the public.

The emails, which are from October and November 2015 and were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include correspondence by Jim Henry, Genesee County’s environmental health supervisor, to county Health Officer Mark Valacak, and correspondence between Henry and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Laboratory Director George Krisztian.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who, according to emails obtained by the Flint Journal, ordered MDEQ to hold on to lead testing results until they figured out how to present the information to the public. (Photo: Michigan Municipal League/flickr/cc)

They “show growing frustration on the county’s part as it attempted to obtain information from the DEQ,” the Journal reports.

Testing on buildings within the Flint School District began on Oct. 2, and Snyder gave a press conference Oct. 8 admitting that lead levels exceeded federal limits. At one school, Freeman Elementary School, levels were six times higher than federal limits.

From the Journal:

“MDEQ explained that the Governor prohibited releasing all Genesee County lead results until after the press conference,” wrote Jim Henry,Genesee County’s environmental health supervisor.

Henry, in an interview Wednesday, said county officials didn’t learn of the test results until they were distributed following a press conference.

“They should have alerted the schools and they didn’t,” Henry said.

Henry and DEQ officials held a meeting Oct. 16, and

[a]ccording to an Oct. 18 email Henry wrote to county Health Officer Mark Valacak summarizing the meeting, DEQ apologized for not releasing school lead results in a timely manner and claimed they were ordered by Snyder to delay the release.

And on Nov. 3 Henry sent an email to Krisztian requesting all testing results for water at Freeman, as further testing had been done there during the end of October, but that request was denied. Krisztian said that the samples from Oct. 24 presented an “incomplete picture of the plumbing system” and that samples taken Oct. 31 would not be available until Nov. 4.

“I am hoping to either have a conference call or a meeting in Flint with all the partners to review the results and discuss how we will present the information to the public,” Krisztian wrote in the email.

If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer.
—Lonnie Scott, Progress MichiganThe governor’s office responded to the reporting by stating that it “unequivocally denies [the] allegations” that it withheld information.

The statement adds: “On Friday, Oct. 2, the day after learning about elevated lead levels in in the city, Snyder responded aggressively with an action plan that included testing the water in the schools and distributing filters.”

However, redacted emails released last month by the governor indicate that his administration was informed of problems with Flint’s water many months before, as early as Feb. 2015, while those distributed filters may not be effective enough to bring down lead levels to the safety threshold for some homes.

“If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Lansing-based watchdog group Progress Michigan, in response to the new reporting.

“Damage from lead poisoning is irreversible,” Scott added. “Delaying the decision to alert the community to high levels of lead in their water for even a day is too long. The decision to delay the release of critical lead test information is a decision that children and families in Flint will have to live with for the rest of their lives.”

For the first time in a long time I feel concerned and worried about the prospect of war.  The reaction of Saudi Arabia to the Russian intervention in Syria has always been the wild card in the shifting geopolitical power base in the Middle East.  Turkey and Israel, along with Saudi Arabia are the three countries with the most to lose because of a strong alliance between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

As government goes to court over the Omar al-Bashir incident, detractors ask why Africans are targeted when Tony Blair ran with an illegal war, writes Janet Smith.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) didn’t get a date with Big Daddy. Idi Amin was already dying by the time the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the court, was ratified by 60 countries.

When the former Ugandan dictator fell into a coma after multiple organ failure in hospital in exile in Saudi Arabia in July 2003, he was in his seventies. He was still a formidable figure edging on 2m, having once weighed up to 150kg.

SA’s failure to arrest President Omar al-Bashir demonstrates the lack of trust the court has among African leaders. says the writer. File picture: Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/Reuters

Human rights groups and Ugandan government officials were disappointed that Amin would never go on trial at home, at The Hague – the seat of the ICC – or anywhere else for his crimes. It is believed that around 400 000 people were murdered under his supervision. Activists would have especially liked him to be cross-examined about his penchant for the decapitation of enemies, by legend required to wear white to make the blood look more red on live TV.

But had the ICC been around in 1979 when Tanzanian troops and Ugandan exiles finally counter-attacked Amin, who had repeatedly sent his troops over the border, there’s still a chance he would have managed to slip into exile. He first fled to Libya, then Iraq, then Saudi Arabia.

None of the three countries that offered Amin harbour are signatories today to the Rome Statute, but many other countries have signed, bringing the number of States Party to 122.

Of these, the highest number – 34 – are from Africa.

Since the groundwork was laid in 1998, the court has grown as much as it has been subject to criticism, and it has indeed drawn many detractors, especially – and increasingly – on the African continent. Arrest warrants for war crimes against Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and head of Libyan Intelligence Abdullah al-Senussi by the ICC’s then-chief prose-cutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, for example, attracted anger from the ANC Youth League under Julius Malema in 2011.

The youth league said it instead demanded charges against US President Barack Obama, then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron for launching the foreign military intervention in Libya that led to the death of innocent civilians.

Others in favour of the court, would however say that antagonism towards it over its actions against heinous individuals like Gaddafi show little more than a pampering of ignorance.

It’s a difficult one, if a good example of the divide over the court.

In Gaddafi’s case, there were indeed many, including Westerners, horrified by the escalating conflict Nato perpetuated against the Libyan people, and contrary to the responsibility to protect civilian life as defined by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which demanded an immediate ceasefire.

Certainly, there have also been persistent calls for fiendish Western leaders, including George W Bush, his vice-president Dick Cheney and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to also be charged for war crimes at The Hague. And this is an enormous frustration with the ICC.

Nearly 40 people have been indicted, almost all black Africans, while Blair took Britain into an illegal war with a sovereign state on spurious grounds, which, in turn, led to the deaths of around a million people.

That almost makes Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir look like a quiet diplomat.

Yet, in order to have an opinion on the court, it’s important to understand its workings.

It can, but generally does not, lodge its own charges, but any state party to the Rome Statute can request the prosecutor to carry out an investigation. A state not party to the statute can also accept the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to crimes committed in its territory or by one of its nationals, and request the prosecutor to carry out an investigation.

The UN Security Council may also refer a situation to the Court, as it did with Bashir and the Gaddafis.

Bashir’s name will be all over the news on Friday as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) hears the government’s petition for leave to appeal against an order that it was obliged to arrest him while he was here in June last year.

A full Bench, including Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, had issued an interim urgent order that the Sudanese head of state – who was attending the AU summit in Sandton – was to be immediately arrested and handed over to the ICC. But that, of course, did not happen.

Bashir is charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and, in terms of the interim order, he was not to leave South Africa until the ICC matter was finalised. But by the time the parties were back in court, arguing the matter further, the suspect – who may not have enjoyed immunity from arrest, despite protestations to the contrary – was on his way back to Khartoum.

The government – which was on Friday expected to say customary international law supports the personal immunity of a serving head of state – was then refused leave to appeal against the court’s findings and is now turning to the SCA for relief.

Those who’ve used the dominant number of arrest warrants on Africans to fuel the belief that the court only targets Africans are gaining traction on our continent. But the ICC mostly takes referrals, and many of these have come from African state parties themselves.

That said, Bashir’s warrant hasn’t been enforced even though Sudan is regarded as an international capital for crimes against humanity.

While people died savagely in his country, he signed agreements on oil exploration and agricultural programmes, including with China as, at one time, Sudan supplied up to 7 percent of its oil. China has, however, said it has “serious reservations” about Khartoum’s atrocities, but as China is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, it has had no obligation to arrest Bashir.

Other Central Asian nations which are signatories have instead refused to have him cross their airspace.

At least five cases at the ICC were referred to the court by Democratic Republic of Congo leader Joseph Kabila. Another was referred by the Central African Republic. The cases against Joseph Kony, the notorious commander-in-chief of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, and another four LRA leaders, were referred by Uganda itself. A request also came from Ivory Coast, after post-election violence there left more than 3 000 dead.

It’s not a simple process to have an individual indicted. ICC prosecutors have to justify at length their basis for a conclusion in a written submission which has to be presented to a panel of judges at a hearing.

At the same time, they may well be acting as activists on behalf of ordinary people. Although the African bloc is substantially divided, ordinary Africans may indeed see the ICC as an effective, if not the only, instrument in holding dangerous leaders to account.

There are those who, for instance, ask why, when Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has seen the deaths, torture, disappearances, displacement and starvation of hundreds of thousands of his citizens, neither the ICC nor the UN have turned their attention to him.

But this is where South Africa allegedly comes in. Analysts say we’ve effectively blocked Mugabe from being referred to the UN Security Council since Thabo Mbeki’s days. And it’s notable that, at the time of Mbeki’s recall by the ANC in 2008, South Africa was already looking at blocking the Security Council’s endorsement of the ICC’s indictment of Bashir.

Referring an individual has to first be on the Security Council’s agenda before it can even be considered for referral to the ICC. But if there isn’t a belief that, say, Mugabe poses a threat to international peace and security, those charges are unlikely to ever be laid against him, just as that is the case with Bush, Cheney and Blair – examples of why the ICC can become an archly political device.

The US does not recognise the ICC. Yet it was quite happy to vote and allow the Security Council to refer Gaddafi’s crimes to the court. But that has never been South Africa’s dilemma.

At the time of publication, we still acknowledged the ICC – despite Zuma’s warnings late last month that we could pull out – and this has presented him with one of the most challenging foreign policy issues of his administration.

Acting against Bashir could have been used as a tool, broadly-speaking, by the domestic left. Malema certainly used Libya in 2011 to attack Zuma and the ANC, from whom he was growing increasingly estranged at the time.

But there’s also the righteous issue with who, or which entity, is the more important power-broker when it comes to recalcitrant and violent African leaders. Is it the ICC or the AU, which certainly engages in its own processes for peace? The AU, for instance, had a high-levelad hoc committee on Libya before the ICC warrants were issued.

Friday’s hearing at the SCA promises to be far-reaching.

The continuation of NATO, after its counterpart the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is an insanity that’s driving the world inexorably toward World War III.

The trigger for that war is now being set by NATO member Turkey, which wants to invade neighboring Syria, and which has the support of the Gulf Cooperation Council (including the world’s biggest buyer of US weapons, Saudi Arabia) who are massing troops and weapons on Syria’s northern border, in preparation for an invasion southward into Syria.

Once they invade Syria from Turkish territory, it won’t be enough for the Syrian army and its Russian ally to wage war against them inside Syria, because the invaders will then need to be counter-attacked in order to be defeated, and so there will be an invasion of NATO-member Turkey – a counter-invasion, in defense against Syria’s invaders – a counter-invasion which, however morally necessary it will be, will trigger nuclear war, for this reason:

The NATO Treaty in its Article Five, «Collective Defense», asserts (as summarized by NATO): «Collective defense means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies». In other words, when Syria and Russia respond to Turkey’s aggression by counter-invading Turkey, the entire NATO alliance are automatically Treaty-obligated to ‘defend’ Turkey from that justified invasion of Turkey by Syria and by Syria’s Russian ally.

Either Russia would instead abandon its ally there, which would mean for Russia to capitulate to NATO’s invasion of its ally, or else Russia would do its moral duty to its ally, and there would then be World War III, between Russia and all NATO nations, which would be an all-out nuclear war, which will end civilization and make all continued life on this planet intolerable.

This is the – after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 – entirely unnecessary danger, and the blatant evil (to be quite frank about it), of NATO’s having been continued beyond the time when it should have terminated (when and as the Warsaw Pact did in 1991).

America’s President at that time in 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush, said privately to other NATO members, contradicting the message and assurances that he and his agents had verbally given to Mikhail Gorbachev saying that the Cold War was now at an end, «To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t». Bush was secretly committed to a military ‘victory’ over Russia, even though communism, which was the alleged cause of the Cold War, had ended. Bush wanted conquest; all subsequent US Presidents have followed along with that evil intent.

Every moment of NATO’s existence after that moment has been a continuation of Bush’s lie. It has become a fatal lie now, because every subsequent US President has not only continued NATO, but increased its membership, has expanded NATO all the way to Russia’s borders, and President Obama wants the next US President to culminate this, when he made clear (via his ‘Defense’ Secretary Ash Carter) recently, that the US will quadruple American weaponry and troops on Russia’s border in a process that’s to be completed by 2017.

Turkey can’t wait. The insanity and evil that have reigned in the West since 1991 are now set on a Turkish hair-trigger. That gun – NATO – is pointed actually against everyone on this planet, even if a Turkish madman doesn’t pull its trigger immediately.

End NATO Now. Before it’s too late.

The United States has condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s pledge to regain control of the entire country, saying there is no military solution to the years-long conflict.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said on Friday that the Syrian president does not have “any legitimacy, but others do.”

“He [Assad] is not a legitimate leader for his people… He is deluded if he thinks there’s a military solution to the conflict in Syria,” he stated.

Toner was responding to an interview Assad gave to AFP published earlier on Friday in which the Syrian president said he intended to liberate the whole country from control of the terrorists.

“Regardless of whether we can do that or not, this is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation,” President Assad said. “It makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part.”

President Assad gestures during an exclusive interview with AFP in the capital Damascus on February 11, 2016.
(AFP photo)

Toner’s rebuke came a day after US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, led a meeting of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) in the German city of Munich, where the working group of 17 countries began a new round of Syria peace talks.

The talks are aimed at galvanizing efforts to implement a nationwide ceasefire and “accelerate and expand the delivery of humanitarian aid” in Syria, Kerry said. 

Lavrov (L) speaks next to Kerry during a news conference after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich on February 12, 2016. (AFP photo)

In his interview, Assad warned that the involvement of regional countries in the conflict meant that the process to liberate Syria would take a long time.

He said it would be possible to end the war “in less than a year” if militant supply routes from neighboring countries were cut.

The Syrian leader also warned of the possibility of direct intervention by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two regional players that have longed backed the militants fighting the Assad government.

The Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said on Friday that Assad’s removal was vital to defeat the Daesh terrorist group. “We will achieve it,” he told the Munich conference.

Saudi Arabia has expressed readiness to deploy special forces in Syria if the US-led coalition decides to deploy ground troops.

Since September 2014, the US and some of its allies have been conducting airstrikes purportedly against Daesh inside Syria without any approval from the Syrian government or a UN mandate.

The foreign-sponsored conflict in Syria, which flared up in March 2011, has reportedly killed some 470,000 people, according to the Syrian Center for Policy Research.

During the video production, Southfront: Analysis & Intelligence also recieved information that at least one Saudi motorized brigade equipped with about 90 armoured vehicles were moved to Iraqi border.  

This force could become a core of a joint force which could be used by the Saudi-led coalition to support Turkish military intervention to Syria.

The military balance in Northern Syria is shifting rapidly. The Syrian Army and local militias supported by the Russian Air Force have cut terrorists from major supply lines from Turkey and almost encircled the militant forces in the Aleppo city. This has become possible due to the actions of the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces which have been destroying the terrorists’ sources of funding since 2015. Thus, we could observe a breakdown on the battlefield which leads to a full collapse of the terrorists forces in Syria step by step. This also dished schemes of the foreign players interested in overthrowing of the Assad government.

In the contemporary situation the Erdogan’s regime acts as a main sponsor and creator of a terrorist threat in the Middle East. Turkey is a crucial part of terrorist logistics network which allows terrorist groups in Syria to receive arms supplies and reinforcements. The Turkish elites have a strong business ties predominantly oil smuggling with ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. The Erdogan’s imperial ambitions in the Middle East also plays an important role in the conflict. Erdogan believes that a breakdown of Syria will allow him to set a protectorate or even occupy the northern part of the Arab country.

The successes of anti-terrorist forces in Syria have destroyed a hope to realize these plans easily. Considering this, the Erdogan’s regime launched preparations for a direct intervention to the country without any legal mandate. A high-level of concentration of the Turkish military are already observed in the Syrian-Turkish border by civil and military sources. Furthermore, there are irresistible videos proofs that Turkey has been conducting a series of cross-border artillery shelling violating the Syrian sovereignty.

Experts suggest Turkey is ready to deploy some 18,000 troops with substantial artillery and air support to occupy a 30-kilometer deep territory across the border running from the city of Jarabulus westward to the city of Azaz. The operation would cover an area under ISIS control, and it would provide a direct military assistance to terrorists and facilitate establishing of a buffer zone for the vestiges of their forces in Northern Syria. It would drastically escalate the tensions with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). However, the Turkish military is fully capable of completing the first move aimed to push the SAA and the SDF from the aforementioned area and occupy a significant part of Northern Syria.

This step will likely face a hard answer of the Russian military grouping located in the country. The Russian land and navy air-defense systems and fighter jets are fully capable to neutralize the Turkish air force which will allow the Syrian government to counter-attack the Turkish intervention forces. Thus, the anti-terrorist forces will get a chance to exercise a counter-attack which will be likely supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces.

This situation leads to 2 main scenarios:

1. If the SAA with support by militia forces, Iran, and Russia isn’t able to push the Turkish military from Syria, the Erdogan’s regime will strengthen presence in the occupied territories and use gained time to receive at least air and intelligence support by NATO. In this case, the conflict could easily lead to a global war.
2. If the SAA supported by local militias, Iran, and Russia knock out the Turkish intervention forces from Syria, NATO will face the fact that Syria is de-facto liberated and the terrorists are cut from their main supplier. It could prevent a global escalation. However, the NATO countries would strengthen their presence in Iraq and use it as a foothold to launch further destructive actions against Syria. The situation will also become especially acute in Ukraine and in Central Asia because a destabilization in these regions could be easily used against Syria’s main allies: Russia and Iran.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

“Data was streaming, and then ‘bam’.” David Reitze, director of LIGO Laboratory, New York Times, Feb 11, 2015

“I was freaking out,” claimed an excited Janna Levin from Barnard College.  This freaking was occasioned by what has already been termed the “discovery of the decade”. These are always problematic assumptions, and often suggest how researchers and scientific obsessives see their chosen topic as a matter of universal destiny and importance.

For all that, there is little doubt that the Thursday announcement by physicists that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity had been given a push and shove of even greater credibility had to be taken seriously. The collision of two black holes billion light-years away had been recorded.

The findings of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), were published in Physical Review Letters, and concluded that, “This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a black hole merger.”

The descriptions verged on the fantastic, with the team claiming to be able to hear the rippling phenomena in the cosmos, an affirmation of that orbital dance and mingling between space and time that Einstein envisaged – not that he was very sure about them to begin with.

The person credited with the discovery of the black hole phenomenon, Karl Schwarzschild, heard Einstein’s own scepticism on the subject.  As if replicating his own theory in practice, Einstein himself bended, waved and rippled, unsure about its implications.

Whatever the doubts, the hunt for identifying such gravitational waves had been ushered in.  Physicist Joseph Weber attempted to capture them with a six-foot aluminium cylinder in 1969. His individual claim to success was one thing – capturing them would prove to be another.

Attempting to nab the elusive cosmic phenomenon would lead to various terrestrial feats, demonstrating again how minute hopes spur enormous efforts.  LIGO, which opened in 2002, features two facilities, one in Washington State, the other in Louisiana, both indispensable to the mechanism of picking up gravitational waves.  Each interferometer arm, at a lengthy 4km, with the arm beam bounced 100 times between mirrors at either arm’s end, would isolate any discrepancy.  On September 14, the magic arrived.

The long held fascination with black hole phenomena has also been a facet of the process. Scientific adventure seems, at that point, to turn ever so slightly into the psychedelic spur of science fiction. The reason for such interest, while complex, is clear enough.

The General Theory of Relativity, as it does for so much in matter, lays the way for an appreciation of how a gravitational field is determined.  The greater the density, the greater the gravitational force.

Then comes the haze of disbelief, in so far as black holes can involve notions of zero volume and infinite density, a singularity if you will. “In a black hole,” writes Stuart Clark, “there is nothing known that can resist the overwhelming gravity, and we are forced to believe that the matter is simply crushed into existence” (The Guardian, Feb 2). All is sucked and consumed in the dark, yet furiously busy void – even light itself.

The event recorded by the LIGO group seemingly involved two black holes of about 100km across, with one being 36 times the mass of the sun, the other 29.  The celestial, violent rupture is the meeting of their event horizons, their respective points of no return.  Such violence is the allegorical basis of celestial creation, a cosmic birthing that is preceded by destructive creation. The result is the generation of energy through gravitational waves, and the compression and stretching of space.

Not even Einstein could stomach that notion, contending in a 1939 paper for theAnnals of Mathematics that black holes were a technical impossibility. His “On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses” became the basis for its own refutation.

A few months later, J. Robert Oppenheimer, of paternal atom bomb fame, would argue with his student Hartland S. Snyder in “On Continued Gravitational Contraction” that black holes were perfectly feasible, if not logical outcomes of Einstein’s own theory of relativity.  During the 1950s and 1960s, John Wheeler pressed matters further by suggesting that stars could suffer collapse.

The study of black holes has made mountains of careers.  It certainly did so for Stephen Hawking, so much so he finds himself returning to the subject with unerring conviction. The BBC Reith Lectures has become the latest forum to witness this return, the high priest of such theorising coming back to familiar terrain.

The question to explain their functioning remains a matter of brilliant conjecture, whether they involve theories of quantum gravity or notions of string theory.  This is where things get tinglingly fascinating, given that quantum mechanics jars with the theory of relativity.  At the extremities, Einstein’s theory finds its weaknesses.  “The Einstein equations,” contends Hawking, “can be defined at a singularity.  This means at this point of infinite density, one can’t predict the future.”

Finding a workable project here would not only be an effort to unravel the basis of such a singularity – it would go deeper into understanding another, mind boggling idea: the Big Bang itself.  Along the way, scientists might even attempt to dethrone that greatest of theories itself, a feat that would be as ironic as spectacular.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]

Notes

[1] http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2016/02/11/science/space/ligo-chirp/LIGOChirp.mp3

[2] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

[3] http://www.scienceandsociety.org/web/Library_files/The_Reluctant_Father_of_Black_Holes.pdf

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35354313

Amid Turkish preparations for a military intervention in Syria, mainstream media and think tanks prefer to provide political speculations and local rumors instead of facts and analysis. SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence stands on another ground and provides an exclusive paper studying the Turkish military grouping which will be likely used in this operation.

We also recommend that you view an exclusive video ‘Foreign Policy Diary – Turkey’s military intervention to Syria‘, which covers the possible results of this act of aggression.

Recent public comments by the Turkish government have hinted at a possible invasion into Syrian territory to “stabilize” the situation and secure Turkey’s national security. Significant clashes between Turkish army and security forces with elements of the YPG and PKK, which have exacted a costly toll on the Kurdish civilian population have been raging in southern Turkey and northern Syria in recent months. Russian satellite surveillance and human intelligence employed by both Russian and Syria in the region have confirmed the build-up of troops and material on the border.

It is reasonable to believe that Turkey is preparing to salvage its failed policy of supporting Islamic fundamentalist mercenaries and terrorist groups in Syria by invading and establishing a safe area for these groups along its southern border with Syria, while at the same time dealing a crushing blow to the Kurdish forces that have been successful in fighting them. Turkey is not only trying to topple the Assad government in Syrian, but is also trying to liquidate the Kurdish movement  both in Iraq and Syria, as well as within its own borders.

Turkey’s membership in NATO complicates its plans of invasion. Unless Turkey is itself attacked, the NATO alliance is not obligated to defend it. Turkey will have to engineer a provocation that frames it as the target of an aggression either by Kurdish forces from beyond its borders or by Syrian or Russian forces combating its terrorist allies in Syria. Such a false flag provocation is not outside of the realm of possibility.

When a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24, claims that the bomber had strayed into Turkish airspace for a number of minutes and ignored radio warnings from the Turkish aircraft were proven to be patently false. A year earlier in 2014, an audio recording of Turkish officials, including the head of the Security Service (MIT), Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Foreign Minister and the Undersecretary to the Foreign Minister discussing staging an attack on the Tomb of Suleiman Shah (a sovereign piece of Turkish territory) in Syria and using it as a pretext to intervene in Syria were leaked anonymously on YouTube. The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan responded by banning YouTube in Turkey, in affect giving support to the recordings authenticity. Now that the Syrian government has the upper hand militarily, gaining back territory and destroying, surrounding or pushing back various Turkish-backed terrorist forces, Turkey may be ready to engineer a new excuse to invade.

Possible Invasion Task Force 

It is most likely that elements of the Turkish Second Army are positioned along the southern border with Syria, and will form the nucleus of any invasion force. The 2nd Army is responsible for defending Southwestern Turkey. Its headquarters is based in Malatya, with approximately 100,000 troops under its command. The army is comprised of three corps, the 4th, 6th and 7th which are composed of the following units:

• 3rd Tactical Infantry Division
• 28th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
• 58th Artillery Brigade
• 1st Commando Brigade
• 2nd Commando Brigade
• 5th Armored Brigade
• 39th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
• 106th Artillery Regiment
• 34th Border Brigade
• 16th Mechanized Brigade (Diyarbakır)
• 20th Armored Brigade
• 70th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
• 172nd Armored Brigade
• 2nd Motorized Infantry Brigade
• 6th Motorized Infantry Brigade
• 3rd Commando Brigade
• 107th Artillery Regiment

It is not known how many elements of the 2nd Army have been committed to the build-up of forces on the border, nor how many elements of other Armies of the Turkish Armed Forces have been temporarily attached to this possible invasion force. Additional commando or mechanized units could be pooled from other military districts and added to the core of mechanized infantry, armor and artillery forces of the 2nd Army. It is surmised that most of the 2nd Army has been committed to a possible invasion or a limited offensive operation against the forces of the YPG all along the border. The map below shows the position of these units:

Military Equipment 

Photographic evidence shows that the mechanized and armored forces being used in the internal operations against the Kurds within Turkey and Syria and also the incursion into northern Iraq, are composed of relatively modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). Reports have recently been made public that over 1,000 pieces of military equipment, likely consisting of MBTs, IFVs, self-propelled and towed artillery and their prime movers, as well as trucks and light vehicles have been massing in staging areas just north of the border. Turkish military spokesmen have stressed that they have positioned approximately 30 percent of the Turkish land forces along the border with Syria.

The troops belonging to these units are highly trained and motivated. They have been engaged in fighting in the border regions for many years and know the territory well. They have also been engaged in fighting the irregular forces of the PKK in urban areas for decades. The forces assembled are equipped with modern, effective combat arms and equipment that has been proven in battle.

From video and photographic evidence, Turkey has deployed at least the following types of equipment:

MBTs:

• M-60T (Turkish version of the Israeli Sabra Mk.II).Turkey has 170 M-60-Ts in service. This modernized and up-gunner version of the M-60, is an Israeli design. It boasts better armor protection than the M-60A3, as well as a more powerful 120mm main gun and better fire-control and imaging systems.

A modernized M-60T (Sabra Mk. II) on maneuvers.

• M-60 ATT and A3. Turkey has 762 of these U.S. designed tanks in service. This is a sound tank design, but is not on par with later generation MBTs. Armored units, possibly of the 5th, 20th or 172nd Armored Brigades utilizing large numbers of these tanks have been seen deploying to the southern border in the previous weeks. They were used during incursions into Syria and Iraq in earlier operations to combat Kurdish forces in both nations.

M-60 ATT/A3s deployed in northern Iraq in 2015, most likely of the 172nd Armored Brigade.

• Leopard 2A4. Turkey has 354 of these highly capable German manufactured tanks. It does not appear that these MBTs are in use by any of the armored units currently deployed in operations against the Kurds in the south of the country, nor incursions into Syria or Iraq. It is most likely that these more capable MBTs are with units tasked with guarding Turkey’s border with Russia and the Caucasus, where they would have to fight against a much more capable adversary, utilizing more modern and capable MBTS and Anti-Tank (AT) weapons.

IFVs:

• FNSS ACV-15. Based on the Turkish Army’s experience with the U.S. M113, the ACV-15 is an indigenous design that has many variants including APCs, Mortar Carriers, Ambulances, and ARVs. The IFV is equipped with a 25mm cannon.

A recent photograph of a mechanized unit equipped with ACV-15s assembled in the Turkish town of Suruc, approximately 100 miles north of the Syrian city and stronghold of ISIS, Raqqa.

MRAPs:

• Kirpi (Hedgehog). Turkey acquired MRAPs after the U.S. invasion of Iraq exhibited the weakness of most light vehicles when confronted with IEDs and urban ambush. Turkey has between 200 and 600 MRAPs of this indigenous design.

Turkish Army Kirpi MRAP on duty somewhere in southern Turkey.

• Approximately 1200 of these small MRAPs exist in the Turkish Land Forces inventory. These are small utility vehicles much like the Russian Tiger or U.S. HUMMV; however they have increased survivability against mines and IEDs, as they were purpose built to deal with these threats. They are widely used by all Turkish land forces, including border and internal security forces.

Cobras being utilized by a Turkish Army Border Brigade in southern Turkey.

Self- Propelled Artillery:

• T-155 Firtina self-propelled howitzer. The T-155 was the product of a joint venture with South Korea to develop a more modern self-propelled howitzer. The South Korean variant is known as the K9. The Turkish Firtina makes use of the chassis and 155mm/L52 gun of the South Korean K-9, but uses an indigenous turret design, and navigation, communications and fire-control systems. There are at least 280 units in service with the Turkish Army.

T-155 self-propelled howitzers on the firing line.

• M-52T self-propelled howitzer. A major modernization program was conducted in the 1990s to modernize a weapons system that was developed in the 1950s by the United States. The vehicle was up-gunned from a 105mm howitzer to a German produced 155mm L39 gun. Turret design was modernized and electronics systems were brought up to modern standards including communications and fire-control. There are at least 360 units in service.

M-52Ts being moved into forward positions via prime movers in recent weeks. This is faster, more efficient and aids in overall maintenance when moving military hardware over long distances.

Air-Defense Artillery:

• Atilgan and Zipkin short range AA missile system. These pedestal mounted air defense systems (PMAD) have been mounted on various vehicles, including the ubiquitous ACV-15 and M-113. They can fire Igla or Stinger short range anti-aircraft missiles. They are deployed with mechanized and armored units to give them their own short range defense against both low flying fixed wing and rotary wing attack aircraft.

This Atilgan unit appears to be based on an M-113 chassis. It is forward deployed with a tank platoon equipped with M-60 ATT/A3s. This picture was taken in 2015 in northern Iraq.

Possible Strategic Aims of a Turkish Invasion

The most obvious strategic aim of a Turkish invasion into Syrian territory would be to secure a sizable “safe zone” for Turkish-backed insurgents and terrorist forces in northern Syria. Not only would this salvage the Turkish proxies for future use, possibly in guerilla style attacks and acts of terrorism against Syria, but would more importantly drive a wedge between the Kurdish YPG forces in Northwestern Syria (north of Idlib Province) and those located in the Northeastern Syria (east of Jarabulus).

Zone of the expected Turkish military invasion

The Turkish government is determined to make sure that the YPG does not gain control of the Kurdish dominated regions in an unbroken area all along the border. The YPG has recently been successful in attacks against Turkish-backed terrorists in small offensives in this “wedge” between YPG areas of control. These offensives have been backed by Russian air operations and with airdrops of weapons and ammunition in recent weeks. It is most likely the prospect of greater territorial gains by the Kurds that the Turkish Army will be deployed to prevent. How the Turkish military command plans to carry out such an operation successfully, and how the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russia will respond will determine the course of the conflict and undoubtedly the odds of a wider war.

Possible Tactical Employment of Forces 

An initial observation of the forward deployment of Turkish Army units along the border with Syria gives hints as to their tactical employment in a possible invasion. Two armored brigades and two mechanized brigades are positioned just north of the border, adjacent to the area that is currently controlled by various terrorist groups and militias under the umbrella of support of the Turkish regime, and that lies in between the YPG dominated areas. Their axis of advance would cover, approximately the area between Azaz and Jarabulus, and would probably not extend beyond the depth of 20 to 25 miles (30 to 40 km).

Two armored and two mechanized brigades, representing approximately 15,000 to 20,000 men would be able to mount a fast assault. These units are highly mobile, flexible, and self-sufficient and pack a great deal of offensive power. They would most likely be aided by elements of at least one commando brigade. They could cover the 20-25 mile distance quickly and consolidate the area rapidly, and would be maintaining short lines of communication and supply. Fixed wing and rotary wing attack aircraft would be assigned to provide air cover to the ground operation. The initial assault would most certainly be followed up by the advance of infantry and border patrol units to establish and provide internal security for the long haul.

Click to see the full-size map

The unknown variable for the Turkish military planners is the reaction of the Russian forces deployed within Syria, at the request of the only legitimate government of that country. Will the Russian air forces deployed in Syria react to thwart the incursion of a hostile force that aims to directly undermine the sovereignty of Syria? Will Russian air defense forces based at Khmeimim airbase or naval vessels positioned offshore fire upon Turkish aircraft that violate the sovereign airspace of Syria engaged in providing air cover for Turkish ground forces, and that could possibly threaten the Russian position in Latakia? There are a number of unknown variables that present immense uncertainties in the Turkish strategic calculus when planning such an undertaking.

The recent Russian snap drills by forces in the Southern Military District, which included the participation of airborne and air transport units, was a clear message to Turkey that Russia was prepared to defend her borders and her national interests in Syria. This is only the latest in a series of clear messages by the Russian leadership that it will not tolerate a Turkish sabotage of its campaign in Syria to restore order and to stabilize the situation in the country. The question remains, does the Erdogan regime believe that the potential benefits of setting up a de-facto safe haven for its proxies in Syria outweigh the potential of direct military conflict with Russia?

Conclusions 

The determination of the Erdogan regime to undermine the sovereignty of Syria by supporting, both logistically, materially and monetarily various factions of Islamic fundamentalist mercenaries and terrorist groups, has only harmed the security of Turkey and strengthened the position of their long time enemy the Kurds. The past five years have enriched the bank accounts of the Erdogan family and their cronies through the illegal oil trade, human trafficking of refuges, and the smuggling of arms; however, the Turkish people have suffered from a bloody crack-down on the Kurdish minority in the south of the country, terrorist bombings, an assault on civil rights, press censorship and the erosion of Turkish-Russian relations to a level not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War.

This policy of intervention in the affairs of both Syria and Iraq, the support of a multitude of Islamic terrorist groups, and the undermining of neighboring countries to the benefit of a ruling elite in Turkey has been disastrous. It may turn out in the end that Turkey itself has been the most negatively affected by Erdogan’s misguided policies. NATO and Europe as a whole have been undermined, and it remains to be seen how much longer even they will tolerate the situation. Is NATO ready to be dragged into a war with Russia as a result of Turkey’s aggressive and misguided foreign policy? A pretext for invasion that casts Turkey as the victim will have to be engineered by the Erdogan regime prior to any incursion south in order to maintain NATO support.

By bringing to light, in embarrassing detail, the Erdogan regime’s illegal activities in direct support of internationally recognized terrorist groups and the illegal plunder of the oil resources of Syria and Iraq and the establishment and operation of the logistics network that facilitates the sale of the oil at great profit to the Erdogan family itself, Russia has laid the truth bear to the world. In so doing, they have also allowed Erdogan a way to back off the stage, so to speak, and abandon his misguided aspirations in Syria. Continued support by NATO and the United States in light of the ugly realities of Turkey’s actions in the conflict, will only undermine both parties’ legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

Turkey most definitely has the military power in place to successfully carry out a limited invasion to establish a terrorist safe zone and to prohibit the consolidation of the entire northern border under the control of the Kurds; however the costs if this invasion is contested by Russia and Syria nullify any potential benefits. In short, further efforts to salvage a disastrous foreign policy on the part of the Erdogan regime through force of arms will only hasten their political isolation and destruction. The Turkish people deserve better, and as political opposition continues to grow in the government and on the street, a disastrous invasion just may push the current regime out of power. This would be a positive development; however, the very real possibility of a Turkish incursion developing into a wider war would prove disastrous to the entire world.

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence. Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.

Nuclear power is a uniquely hazardous technology that can destroy entire nations, Japan’s prime minister Naoto Kan at the time of the Fukushima nuclear disaster has warned British MPs. The lessons of from such catastrophes must be heeded in other countries that believe that nuclear fission can be harnessed safely, writes Linda Pentz Gunter – or they, and the world, will reap the whirlwind.

It’s widely agreed here in the rapidly Disuniting States of America that the most notorious of the Republican presidential candidates have not only abandoned, but torn up the rulebook of acceptable behavior. Lies, taunts, profanities all have become the norm.

Naoto Kan, as prime minister of Japan, responding to the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe on live television, 14th August 2013. Image: NNK World TC via Youtube.

But what if one of those candidates promised, if elected, to risk the death or permanent exile of a quarter of the country’s population? That would surely evoke the well-used slur of the Right: ‘unpatriotic!’

And insane, you say. Except that being certifiably unhinged doesn’t seem to be a disqualifying factor in US presidential campaigns these days. Still: purposely putting your electorate at risk when other choices are open to you certainly smacks of treachery.

In the normal scheme of things, leaders of nations don’t set out to deliberately wreck their countries, although arguably some have made political choices that have done precisely that.

It’s therefore no coincidence that the leaders at the time of the two countries that have experienced the world’s most catastrophic nuclear disasters, are fervent campaigners against any further use of nuclear energy.

They see the choice to continue with nuclear power, knowing the risk to the nation they swear an oath to protect, as tantamount to declaring war on your own country.

Former leaders during nuclear meltdowns, now oppose nuclear power

Former Soviet Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, who led the then USSR during the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion in Ukraine; and Naoto Kan who was prime minister of Japan when the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster began, both now travel the speakers’ circuit extolling the need to abolish nuclear power.

Kan, now 69, who resigned the premiership in August 2011, has become a ubiquitous and compelling voice for the global anti-nuclear movement. Gorbachev is equally on board but, due to age and infirmity (he turns 85 on March 2nd) is less often in evidence.

Kan made his case in January during a presentation at the UK’s House of Commons co-organized by Nuclear Free Local Authorities, Green Cross International (the group Gorbachev founded) and Nuclear Consulting Group. Gorbachev was scheduled but had to cancel.

Kan compared the potential worst-case devastation that could be caused by a nuclear power plant meltdown as tantamount only to “a great world war. Nothing else has the same impact.”

Japan escaped such a dire fate during the Fukushima disaster, said Kan only “due to luck”. But he is clearly haunted by the map his advisors showed him in the early days of the still unfolding triple meltdowns, one he screened for his London audience:

I was shown this map with a 250km radius around Fukushima. An area home to 50 million people. One quarter of the country’s population would have had to flee if all the fuel had escaped at Fukushima. We came that close. If 50 million people had had to evacuate Japan, as a state our very survival would have been questioned.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Even so, Kan had to make some steely-nerved decisions that necessitated putting all emotion aside. In a now famous phone call from Tepco, when the company asked to pull all their personnel from the out-of-control Fukushima site for their own safety, Kan told them no. The workforce must stay. The few would need to make the sacrifice to save the many.

Kan knew that abandoning the Fukushima Daiichi site would cause radiation levels in the surrounding environment to soar, in turn forcing the evacuation of the neighbouring, and still functioning, Fukushima-Daiini nuclear site.

With all 10 Fukushima reactors and 11 spent fuel pools untended, there would be multiple meltdowns and the likely ignition of nuclear waste in onsite storage ponds, cascading into an unending radiological disaster. Kan would be ordering that most dreaded 250km evacuation, including the city of Tokyo.

His insistence that the Tepco workforce remain at Fukushima was perhaps one of the most unsung moments of heroism in the whole sorry saga.

It was then, said Kan, who trained as a physicist, that his whole energy perspective was forever altered. “It was a moment when my view on nuclear power changed 180 degrees.” Sticking with the nuclear energy path meant that “the country would go down in ruin.” He could no longer in all conscience “make the decision to go with nuclear power and risk the survival of a nation.”

Looking then at the sprinkling of MPs who had bothered to attend the presentation in person, Kan reminded them that their current refugee problem would pale compared to the kind of nuclear evacuation they could confront in the UK. Where, he asked them, would all those millions of people go?

87 US Senators blithely voted for more spending on nuclear energy

Renouncing nuclear, then, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Love of country (or “cournty”as the typo-loving Ted Cruz campaign would say) should mean making decisions that protect it, not letting it turn into a radioactive wasteland.

Which makes it so hard to understand why any US political leader on the Left or Right  – but especially those Freedom Fries-loving, jingoistic wall-building, Make-America-Great-Again saber rattlers – would continue to support, promote and secure funds for an industry that could kill tens of thousands of people and exile even more.

The argument that it can’t or won’t happen in the US was undermined by Chernobyl, then obliterated by Fukushima.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a true independent currently running for president on the Democratic ticket, was on top of that reality early.  In a March 2012 Senate hearing on Fukushima he reminded us that, “with nuclear power, 99.9% safe is not good enough.”Sanders had reason to be alarmed as the then still functioning but now closed Vermont Yankee reactor in his state is the same design as those at Fukushima.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party, and a shamefully large swath of Democrats as well, voted lockstep in the Senate on January 28 for the Nuclear Innovation Capabilities Act, an amendment shoe-horned into the massive Senate Energy Policy Modernization Act still under discussion.

With very little fanfare, 87 senators were happy to endorse the squandering of likely billions more taxpayer dollars on yet another nuclear snipe hunt, dreaming of fusion and fast reactors, when solar and wind would do very nicely instead.

So much money, so much risk

As Sanders noted in the 2012 hearing, “the future of nuclear power will one hundred percent be determined by whether or not the taxpayers of this country continue to provide huge, huge financial support to the nuclear power industry for the indefinite future.”

Ditto the current regime in Japan, led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is intent on restarting the country’s still operable reactors (three down 40 to go) including the latest at Takahama which uses plutonium fuel.  He is also an ardent exporter of nuclear reactor technology, apparently as eager to destroy other countries as his own.

One willing client is the UK which is looking to build a Japanese Hitachi reactor at its Wylfa site in Wales. Never mind that the country’s flagship two-reactor EDF project at Hinkley Chas turned into the worst kind of French farce with costs currently estimated at $36 billion and rising.

As Dr. Paul Dorfman of the Nuclear Consulting Group told the House of Commons audience in January: “It’s deeply difficult to see why one could wish to spend so much money to take so many risks.”

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a Takoma Park, MD environmental advocacy group.

Bill Clinton said he “would grab a rifle” and fight for Israel during paid speech.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are under increasing scrutiny from the mainstream press over paid speeches they have given to big banks in exchange for millions of dollars. According to CNN, the couple has earned a total of $153 million in lecture fees from companies and organizations affiliated with the financial industry.

But the media has been conspicuously silent about the large sums the Clintons have raked in from paid addresses to pro-Israel organizations, including the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which directly participates in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Bedouin citizens of Israel. An evaluation of Hillary Clinton’spublic disclosures from 2001 to 2015 shows that she and Bill, and their daughter, Chelsea, have earned roughly $4 million in speaking fees from pro-Israel organizations, including JNF and organizations allied with the right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The vast majority of these documented payments—$3,599,999—have gone toward the Clintons’ personal income, and up to $450,000 has been funneled into the Clinton Foundation.

Ramah Kudaimi, membership outreach coordinator for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, told AlterNet, “It is the right of voters to know what every single candidate earns in speaking fees, whether from banks or pro-Israel groups that engage in oppressive policies against Palestinians. It is the voters’ right to know if we have candidates running to be president who plan to continue horrific U.S. policies that make us all complicit in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights.”

The Wages of Blaming Palestinians

Bill Clinton’s presidency ended with the collapse of the U.S.-led peace process at Camp David in 2000. After leaving office, Clinton publicly blamed Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat for the failure of negotiations, explicitly violating a promise he made to Arafat at the start of the Camp David process. The former president thus reinforced then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s infamous talking point that there was “no Palestinian partner” for peace.

Bill Clinton declared in the summer of 2002, at the Toronto chapter of the pro-Israel group Hadassah-WIZO, “If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die,” reportedly earning wild applause from attendees of the $1000-a-plate dinner. According to a New York Post reporter in attendance, Clinton again blamed Palestinians for his failure at Camp David, “accusing Arafat of making a ‘disastrous mistake’ by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.” Clinton earned $125,000 for the speech.

Payments From Obama’s Opponents

Bill Clinton received $425,000 for two speeches to Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a right-wing group that generally supports the Likud-run government of Benjamin Netanyahu and is hostile to Democrats. Simon Wiesenthal Center president Marvin Hier, who addressed the 2000 Republican National Convention, has compared President Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain and described the Iran nuclear deal as “another Munich.” In 2011, three years before Bill Clinton’s second paid speech before the organization, Hier accused then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of “a sell out” to anti-Semitism for opening diplomatic discussions with Egypt’s democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood.

While unmentioned in public disclosures, the Clinton Foundation website notesthat the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main arm of America’s pro-Israel lobby, contributed between $10,001 and $25,000 to the organization for at least one speech delivered by Bill Clinton, with the exact date or amount paid unspecified. S. Daniel Abraham, the Slim Fast diet mogul who serves on the board of AIPAC, has given as much as $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Through a series of front groups, ad campaigns and Israel propaganda tours for freshman members of Congress, AIPAC spent upward of $40 million last year in a failed attempt to derail the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal.

Among the Clintons’ pro-Israel speaking fees, only one was received from an organization that could be classified as part of Israel’s peace camp. The Abraham Fund, which says its aim is to “promote coexistence and equality among Israel’s Jewish and Arab-Palestinian citizens,” paid Bill Clinton $125,000 for a single speech in 2002.

Chelsea Clinton raked in as much as $325,000 in speaking fees from the United Jewish Appeal and its affiliate, the Jewish Federations, a pro-Israel umbrella group of Jewish American establishment organizations that actively combats the Palestinian-led BDS (boycott, bivestment and sanctions) movement. She remits 100 percent of her speaking fees to the Clinton Foundation, where she is a board member and helps decide how the foundation spends its $180 million annual budget.

Bill Clinton took in six-figure lecture fees from pro-Israel synagogues around thecountry. Our calculations include only Jewish instutions whose pro-Israel programming could be identified; we excluded hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees paid to the Clintons by Jewish instutions whose online materials do not explicitly promote Israel.

In addition, Bill Clinton received $250,000 for a speech to Univision Management Company, the media corporation co-owned by pro-Israel billionaire Haim Saban. As AlterNet’s Grayzone Project recently reported, Saban and his wife Cheryl contributed $5 million to the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, this February. Saban has also contributed between $5 and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel,” Saban said in 2004.

Whopping Fees From Ethnic Cleansers

Public records show that Bill Clinton earned a total of $549,999 in four speeches to the JNF. The disclosures do not mention the JNF’s most generous fee. JNF provoked an outcry within pro-Israel circles when it transferred half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation through the Peres Academic Center to pay for a single speech by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton later said he donated his large fee back to the Peres Academic Center, but there are lingering questions about where all the money went, including funds from the JNF.

Formed in 1901, JNF has spent over a century driving Palestinians off their land, including through the creation of the paramilitary force euphemistically namedthe Green Patrol. Former JNF director Yosef Weitz outlined detailed plans for the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, demanding that their villages be destroyed and they “be harassed continually” to prevent them from returning.

In recent years, JNF has teamed up with the Israeli military, police and Christian Zionist donors to violently expel the residents of unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel’s Negev Desert. Among them is Al Arakib, which as of October 2015, has been razed to the ground a staggering 90 times.

Video below by Max Blumenthal, a co-author of this article, shows the destruction of Al Arakib by Israeli bulldozers in 2010 — the third time it was demolished — in order to make way for a JNF-funded “forest” and Jews-only town. The JNF is widely opposed in Palestinian civil society and controversial even within Israel, where it owns roughly 13 percent of state land and vows to lease it to exclusively Jewish tenants.

Will Hillary Honor Her Commitments?

Hillary Clinton has made her unflinching support for Israel a centerpiece of her foreign policy agenda. In November 2015, she promised to “reaffirm” the “unbreakable bond with Israel, and Benjamin Netanyahu,” suggesting she would adopt a friendlier posture to Israel’s right-wing leader than Obama had.

In a July 2015 letter to mega-donor Haim Saban, which her campaign distributed to the press, Clinton declared “we need to make countering BDS a priority.” It was the first time in American history that a presidential candidate mentioned by name the grassroots movement to boycott Israel.

As the challenge to her primary candidacy from Senator Bernie Sanders grows, Hillary Clinton is tacking left. During her concession speech in New Hampshire, Clinton insisted to local supporters, “I believe so strongly that we have to keep up with every fiber of our being the argument for, the campaign for human rights.”

Whether a Clinton presidency would alter the U.S.-Israeli special relationship remains to be seen. But as long as she honors the wishes of her family’s top contributors, as she has pledged to do, her argument for human rights must exclude Palestinians.

The following list shows Bill and Hillary Clinton’s personal income from speaking fees to pro-Israel groups between 2001 and 2015, based on public disclosures.

Click to enlarge.

The following list shows the Clintons’ speaking events to pro-Israel groups, which were compensated by payments to the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation’s website does not provide information about the exact date of the engagements or the amount given.

Click to enlarge.

Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for Common Dreams, Sarah co-edited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at@MaxBlumenthal.

Under the feudal mode of production, peasants were often allowed to cultivate plots of land for themselves on a rental basis. However, those tenant farmers rarely succeeded in becoming landowners in their own rights because a major share of what they harvested was taken away by landlords as rent, often leaving them with a bare subsistence amount of what they produced. When the harvest was poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves.

Today, under conditions of market dominance by parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship can be detected between the powerful financial oligarchs (as feudal lords of our time), on the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), on the other. In the same manner as the landed aristocracy of times past extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, so today the financial oligarchy extracts interest and other financial charges by virtue of having concentrated the major bulk of national resources in their hands in the form of finance capital.

The Marxist term wage-slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor power to sell to make a living. This describes the vast majority of people in today’s capitalist societies whose sole means of subsistence is the sale of their capacity to work. “Just as the feudal-era serf had no choice but to enslave himself and his family to the manor-house lord, the modern-day serf must indenture himself to banks to own a car or home or buy a college education” [1].

In the latest edition of her book, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows that today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like [2]. Obviously, this means that, as Ellen Brown points out: “By taking banking back . . . governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector” [3].

Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and Inequality

Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to the financial sector, the nearly 40 percent of consumer spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly richer at the expense of the poor—not just because of greed or the blind forces of the market mechanism but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary/economic policies, which have steadily come under effective control of the financial oligarchy. Indeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monetary policy itself exacerbates inequality.

Although obfuscated and/or mystified, the planned or premeditated mechanism by which redistribution of economic resources from the bottom to the top takes place is fairly straightforward. The insidious mechanism of redistribution in favor of the financial oligarchy is expertly sanitized and benignly called monetary policy. Private central banks (such as the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.) are usually the main institutional vehicles that carry out the monetary policy of redistribution. Central banks’ polices of cheap or easy money benefits, first and foremost, the big banks and other major financial players that can outbid small borrowers who must borrow at much higher rates than the near-zero rates guaranteed to the big borrowers.

By thus gaining privileged access to nearly interest-free money, the financial elites can enrich themselves in a number of ways. For one thing, they can snap-up income-producing assets at the expense of small borrowers who lack access to cheap money. For another, they can boost the value of their wealth by creating an artificial demand (such as stock buybacks) for those ill-begotten assets with the cheaply borrowed money. In addition, they can skim vast wealth by loaning out the cheap they obtain from central banks to everyone below the top of the wealth/income pyramid—at near four percent (mortgages), at seven or eight percent (auto, student and other loans), and above 15 percent (credit cards). Obviously, this would funnel much of the national income stream to those who can borrow cheap and lend at much higher rate [4].

Instead of regulating or containing the disruptive speculative activities of the financial sector, economic policy makers, spearheaded by central banks, have in recent years been actively promoting asset-price bubbles—in effect, further exacerbating inequality.

Proxies of the financial oligarchy at the helm of monetary/economic policy making apparatus seem to believe that they have discovered an insurance policy for bubbles that burst by blowing new ones:

Both the Washington regulators and Wall Street evidently believed that together they could manage bursts. This meant that there was no need to prevent such bubbles from occurring: on the contrary, it is patently obvious that both regulators and operators actively generated them, no doubt believing that one of the ways of managing bursts was to blow another dynamic bubble in another sector: after dot-com, the housing bubble; after that, an energy-price or emerging market bubble, and so on [5].

It is obvious that this policy of effectively insuring financial bubbles would make financial speculation a win-win proposition, a proposition that is aptly called “moral hazard,” as it encourages risk-taking at the expense of others—in this case of the 99%, since the costs of bailing out the “too-big-to-fail” gamblers are paid through austerity cuts. Knowing that the central bank/monetary policy would bail them out after any bust, they go from one excess to another.

This shows how the proxies of the financial oligarchy, ensconced at the helm of central banks and their shareholders (commercial banks), serve as agents of subtlely funneling economic resources from the public to the financial oligarchy—just as did the rent/tax collectors and bailiffs of feudal lords collected and transferred economic surplus from the peasants/serfs to the landed aristocracy.

Contractionary or Anti-developmental Nature of Parasitic Finance Capital

As mentioned earlier, today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector. Not only does this redistribute resources in favor of the financial oligarchy, it also drains the real sector of the economy of the necessary resources for productive investment and economic development.

Experience shows that, contrary to the extractive or parasitic private banking, public banking has proven quite beneficial to the developmental objectives of their communities and/or nations. Nineteenth century neighborhood savings banks, Credit Unions, and Savings and Loan associations in the United States, Jusen companies in Japan, Trustee Savings banks in the UK, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia all served the housing and other credit needs of their communities well.

Perhaps a most interesting and instructive example is the case of the Bank of North Dakota, which continues to be owned by the state for nearly a century, and which is widely credited for the state’s relatively healthy budget and its robust economy in the midst of budgetary problems and economic stagnation in many other states. The bank was established by the state legislature in 1919, specifically to free farmers and small business owners from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad barons. The bank’s mission continues to be to deliver sensible financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota [6].

Explaining how the Bank of North Dakota utilizes people’s savings for productive credit and/or investment, Eric Hardmeyer, president of the bank, points out, “Really what separates us [from private banks] is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type activities.” The bank president further indicates that in the course of the last dozen years or so “we’ve turned back a third of a billion dollars just to the general fund to offset taxes or to aid in funding public sector types of needs” [7].

Contrary to the case of North Dakota, most other states, burned by interest payments and other financial obligations to private banks, are forced to cut investment on public capital formation, to slash jobs and liquidate state-owned properties or state-sponsored services—often at fire-sale prices. Consider California, for example. At the end of 2010, it owed private banks and other bondholders $70 billion in interest only—44% of its total financial obligations of $158 billion. “If the state had incurred that debt to its own bank,” writes Ellen Brown, “California could be $70 billion richer today. Instead of slashing services, selling off public assets, and laying off employees, it could be adding services and repairing its decaying infrastructure” [8].

At the national level, the U.S. federal government paid in 2011 a sum of $454 billion in interest on its debt—the third highest budget item after the military and Social Security outlays. This figure amounted to nearly one-third of the total personal income taxes ($1, 100 billion) collected that year. This means that if the Federal Reserve Bank was publicly owned, and the government borrowed directly from it interest-free, personal income taxes could have been cut by a third [9]. Alternatively, the savings could be invested in social infrastructure, both human and physical, thereby drastically augmenting the productive capacity of the nation and elevating the standard of living for all.

It can reasonably be argued that the ravages wrought on today’s economies/societies by parasitic finance capital’s extraction of economic resources are even more destructive than was the extraction of feudal rent to the social fabric under feudalism. There are at least two major reasons for this judgment.

For one thing, the landed aristocracies’ appropriation of the major bulk of economic surplus, or rent, required production and, therefore, employment of the farming labor force. This meant that although the farming workforce was, of course, exploited, it nonetheless benefitted from production—albeit at poverty or subsistence levels of remuneration. In the age of finance capital, however, profit making or surplus extraction by the parasitic financial oligarchy is largely divorced from real production and employment, as it comes largely through parasitic appropriation from the rest of the economy. As such, it employs no or a very small percentage of labor force, which means that, today, the financial sector generates income/profits without sharing it with the overwhelming majority of the public.

For another, whereas periodic cancellation of unsustainable peasants’ debts by landed aristocracies were considered as restorative measures for maintaining the feudal mode of production and social structure, under today’s rule of finance capital such healing measures are ruled out as omens of economic catastrophe. Historical records show that debt cancellation in the Bronze Age Mesopotamia took place on a fairly regular basis from 2400 to 1400 BC. Ancient documents decoded from cuneiform inscriptions have led many historians to believe that the Bronze Age tradition of debt cancellation in the Near/Middle East may have served as the setting or model for the Biblical pronouncements of debt relief.

Careful studies of those records indicate that, contrary to today’s perceptions (shaped largely by the influential financial interests) that debt cancellation may lead to economic disorder, as epitomized by the too-big-to-fail refrain, those earlier practices of debt relief were carried out precisely for the opposite reasons: to restore economic revival and social harmony by undoing the ravages of debt wrought on the economy and the overwhelming majority of the population. Freedom in those days meant real, economic freedom—freedom from debt bondage—not the abstract or hollow concept of freedom promoted today.

The type of economic freedom being referred to was the royal act of cancelling back taxes and other personal debts, restoring traditional family landholding rights and freeing citizens who had been enslaved for debt. These royal interventions ensured rather than encroached on general economic freedom [10].

What is to be Done?

Many critics of parasitic finance capital have called for a robust regime of regulation of the financial sector. Experience shows, however, that as long as the dynamics and structures of the accumulation of capital are left intact, regulation cannot provide an effective long-term solution to the recurring crises of financial bubble and bursts.

For one thing, due to the political influence of powerful financial interests, financial regulations would not be implemented in a meaningful way, as evinced, for example, by policy responses to the 2008 financial implosion and the ensuing Great Recession.

For another, even if regulations are somehow implemented, they would provide only a temporary relief. For, as long as there is no community or real democratic control, regulations would be undermined by the influential financial interests that elect and control policy-makers. The dramatic reversal of the extensive regulations of the 1930s and 1940s that were put in place in response to the Great Depression and World War II to today’s equally dramatic deregulations serves as a robust validation of this judgment. This means that the need to end the recurring crises of the capitalist system requires more than financial regulation; it calls for changing the system itself.

Other critics of parasitic finance capital have called for public banking. The idea of bringing the banking industry, national savings and credit allocation under public control or supervision is neither complicated nor necessarily socialistic or ideological. In the same manner that many infrastructural facilities such as public roads, school systems and health facilities are provided and operated as essential public services, so can the supply of credit and financial services be provided on a basic public utility model for both day-to-day business transactions and long-term industrial projects.

As pointed out earlier, provision of financial services and/or credit facilities after the model of public utilities would lower financial costs to both consumers and producers by about 35 to 40 percent. By thus freeing consumers and producers from what can properly be called the financial overhead, or rent, similar to land rent under feudalism, the public option credit and/or banking system can revive many stagnant economies that are depressed under the crushing burden of never-ending debt-servicing obligations.

Even in the core capitalist countries public banking has occasionally been used to save capitalism from its own systemic crises. For example, in the face of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and following the Hoover administration’s unsuccessful policy of trying to bailout the insolvent banks, the F.D.R. administration was compelled to declare a “bank holiday” in 1933, pull the plug on the terminally-ill banks and take control of the entire financial system. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, introduced by President Roosevelt (four days after he declared a nationwide bank holiday on March 5, 1933) and passed by Congress on March 9^th, guaranteed full payment of depositors’ money, thereby effectively created 100 percent deposit insurance. Not surprisingly, when the banks reopened for business on March 13, 1933, “depositors stood in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks” [11].

Similarly, in the face of the collapse of its banking system in the early 1992, the Swedish state assumed ownership and control of all the insolvent banks in an effort to revive its financial system and prevent it from bringing down its entire economy. While this wiped out the existing shareholders, it turned out to be a good deal for taxpayers: not only did it avoid costly redistributive bailouts in favor of the insolvent banks, it also brought taxpayers some benefits once banks returned to profitability.

Both in Sweden and the United States once profitability was returned to insolvent banks their ownership was returned to private hands! It is perhaps this kind of capitalist governments’ commitment to powerful financial–corporate interests that has prompted a number of critics to argue that one definition of capitalism is that it is a system of socializing losses and privatizing profits.

In the absence of incestuous business–political relationship between Wall Street and the government apparatus, nationalization of banks and other financial intermediaries is not as complicated or difficult as it may sound; since banking laws already empower regulators to impose extraordinary controls and close supervision over these institutions. It is certainly easier than public ownership and management of manufacturing enterprises that require much more than record keeping and following regulatory or legal guidelines.

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial implosion, the U.S. and British governments became de facto owners of the failed financial giants such as Citibank, A.I.G, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Anglo-Irish Bank. Through the provision of enormous amounts of public funds, these governments effectively became the main investors in the collapsed institutions. Were it not because of political and/or ideological reasons, they could have easily made their de facto ownership legal ownership [12].

The fraudulent compensation of Wall Street’s gambling losses at the expense of everyone else is testament, once again, to the demagogical pretentions of the champions of austerity and neoliberalism that the government should stay out of the market’s affairs.

While public banking could certainly mitigate or do away with market turbulences that are due to financial bubbles and bursts, it will not preclude other systemic crises of capitalism. These include profitability crises that could result from very high levels of capitalization, from insufficient demand or under-consumption, from overcapacity or overproduction, or from disproportionality between various sectors of a market economy. To do away with the systemic crises of capitalism, therefore, requires more than nationalization of banks; it requires changing the capitalist system itself.

References

[1] Charles Hugh Smith, Central Banks Have Pushed the Middle Class Down into Neofeudal Serfdom.

[2]. Margrit Kennedy, Occupy Money: Creating an Economy Where Everybody Wins, Gabriola Island, BC (Canada): New Society Publishers 2012.

[3] Ellen Brown, Exploring the Public Bank Option.

[4] For a concise and clear exposition of this insidious redistribution from the bottom up see, for example, Charles Hugh Smith, If We Don’t Change the Way Money Is Created and Distributed, We Change Nothing.

[5] Peter Gowan, “The Crisis in the Heartland,” in M. Konings (ed.) The Great Credit Crash, London and New York, Verso 2010: 52.

[6] For more on the unique experience of the Bank of North Dakota see, for example, Ellen Brown, Cutting Wall Street Out.

[7] Interview, as quoted by Public Banking Institute, http://publicbankinginstitute.org/.

[8]. Ellen Brown, It’s the Interest, Stupid! Why Bankers Rule the World.

[9]. Ibid.

[10] Michael Hudson, The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations.

[11] William L. Silber, Why did FDR’s Bank Holiday Succeed?

[12] For a relatively thorough discussion of this issue see, for example, Michael Hudson, Scenarios for Recovery: How to Write Down the Debts and Restructure the Financial System.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989).

Anthony A. Gabb is Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University in New York City. 

The United States would have the world believe that it is in mortal danger should nations like Iran or North Korea obtain operationally effective nuclear weapons. We are told that there is a grave risk of these weapons being used against another nation and that the US (with the support of the “international community”) must confront these government, and if possible undermine and overthrow them. Why?

Since a nation has already used nuclear weapons against another state, ironically enough that nation being the United States itself, we already know the devastating effects of nuclear weapons. Besides the immense, indiscriminate initial blast, nuclear weapons also produce a persistent radioactive threat amid the fallout afterwards.

The fallout and the catastrophic effects it has on human health for years afterward make nuclear weapons particularly horrifying and abhorrent. The United States didn’t drop only one nuclear bomb on another nation, Japan, it dropped two. The data collected in the aftermath of these attacks have helped form our collective fear of these weapons.

Ironically the US is using the fear its own nuclear warfare has created as leverage to wage still more war.

Depleted Uranium – All the Fallout, None of the Bang 

But what if the catastrophic human health effects of fallout could be achieved without the immense, city-flattening initial explosion? What if you could use a weapon to induce long-term spikes in cancer and birth defects without the political ramifications of dropping a nuclear bomb on a population? Some readers may be tempted to cite “dirty bombs,” and they would be partially correct. But there is another correct answer. Depleted uranium or DU ammunition.

Depleted uranium is one of the densest materials munitions can be made out of. Because of their density, they are able to penetrate armor other rounds cannot. DU was initially conceived as an additional deterrence, a weapon of last resort in the event of a full-scale Soviet invasion of Western Europe during the Cold War.

Because of the overwhelming number of tanks the Soviet Union possessed, it was believed extraordinary measures would be needed to even the odds, even at the cost of radioactive contamination of the battlefield.

The catastrophic effects of littering the battlefield with contaminated ammunition possessing a half-life of several billion years was a risk NATO was willing to take to ensure the survival of Western Europe. How then, did this weapon of last resort become a weapon commonly used?

The first Gulf War in 1990, Operation Desert Storm, included the heavy use of this doomsday contingency. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) in their recent piece titled, ““The most toxic war in history” – 25 years later,” would note:

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the start of Operation Desert Storm, the combat phase of the Gulf War. Precipitated by Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990, the conflict was the first to see the widespread use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. US and UK forces subsequently acknowledged firing a combined 286,000kg of DU – the vast majority of which was fired by US Abrams and M60 tanks, and A10 and Harrier aircraft.

ICBUW would also note that the use of DU has impacted both soldiers who used the weapons as well as civilians trapped on or near battlefields they were used on.

Latinos Health included in one of their recent articles the following caption:

The Czech military is testing all of its soldiers that served in the Balkans for possible signs of Balkan Syndrome, an unexplained condition that is thought to be caused by depleted uranium used in NATO ammunition. Recent media reports claim that scientists have found evidence of Uranium 236 in blood samples from soldiers who served in the Gulf War, where depleted uranium ammunition was also used.

It should strike people as disturbing that the United States poses as the greatest advocate against weapons of mass destruction and a champion for preserving the lives and wellbeing of innocent people affected by war, all while using weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly, at the expense of innocent lives affected by their various wars.

DU has turned up in both Iraq wars, NATO’s intervention in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Courts around the world have ruled in favor on several cases regarding the effects of DU, including a British Gulf War veteran who became ill because of the radioactive weapons.

The BBC would report in their story, “Gulf soldier wins pension fight,” that:

A former soldier is believed to be the first veteran to win a war pension appeal after suffering depleted uranium poisoning during the first Gulf War.

A tribunal in Edinburgh found in favour of Kenny Duncan from Clackmannanshire who became ill after his service in the Middle East.

He had helped move tanks destroyed by shells containing depleted uranium.

One can only wonder how many nameless, faceless and voiceless civilians living on or near former battlefields have also been affected like Mr. Duncan from Clackmannanshire, who will never receive the assistance needed to recover from what America’s indiscriminate and unnecessary use of radiological weapons has done to them and their communities.

While it is hopeful seeing mounting awareness and subsequent pressure being applied to the United States and other governments around the world who might also consider using this weapon and others like it, we are still faced with the problem that the US, essentially the worst violator when it comes to nuclear and radiological weapons, poses as the primary advocate policing the world against them.

Not only is the US guilty of immense hypocrisy, it has managed to hijack what are supposed to be “international institutions” to help perpetrate this hypocrisy. This is yet another example of just how important it is to establish a true balance of global power through a multipolar system of sovereign nations, in place of the “international order” that currently exists, which sidesteps nation sovereignty and empowers global criminality rather than stopping it.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Meeting in Munich on February 11 & 12, 2016, as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States decided that humanitarian access will commence this week to besieged areas, and an ISSG task force will within one week elaborate modalities for a nationwide cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG members unanimously committed to immediately facilitate the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously December 18, 2015. The ISSG reaffirmed their readiness to carry out all commitments set forth in the resolution, including to: ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety; press for the end of any indiscriminate use of weapons; support and accelerate the agreement and implementation of a nationwide ceasefire; facilitate immediate humanitarian access to besieged and hard-to-reach areas and the release of any arbitrarily detained persons; and fight terrorism.

Ensuring Humanitarian Access

In order to accelerate the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid, sustained delivery of assistance shall begin this week by air to Deir Ez Zour and simultaneously to Fouah, Kafrayah, the besieged areas of Rural Damascus, Madaya, Mouadhimiyeh, and Kafr Batna by land, and continue as long as humanitarian needs persist. Humanitarian access to these most urgent areas will be a first step toward full, sustained, and unimpeded access throughout the country.

The members of the ISSG will use their influence with all parties on the ground to work together, in coordination with the United Nations, to ensure that all parties allow immediate and sustained humanitarian access to reach all people in need, throughout Syria, particularly in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas, as called for in UNSCR 2254. To this end, the UN will submit a plan to an ISSG humanitarian task force, which shall convene on February 12 and next week. This group will comprise the ISSG co-chairs, relevant UN entities and members of the ISSG with influence on the parties in a position to ensure humanitarian access.

The ISSG reaffirmed that humanitarian access should not benefit any particular group over any other, but shall be granted by all sides to all people in need, in full compliance with UNSCR 2254 and international humanitarian law. The ISSG asks the UN to report weekly, on behalf of the task force, on progress on the implementation of the plan referenced above, so that in any cases where access lags or approvals are lacking, relevant ISSG members will use their influence to press the requested party/parties to provide that approval. There will be a process for resolving any problems so that relief can flow expeditiously. Any questions about access or delivery will be resolved through the task force.

All ISSG members commit to immediately work together with the Syrian parties to ensure no delay in the granting of approval and completion of all pending UN requests for access in accordance with UNSCR 2254, paragraph 12.

ISSG co-chairs and members will ensure that aid convoys are used solely for humanitarian purposes. International humanitarian organizations, in particular the United Nations, will play the central role, as they engage the Syrian government, the opposition and local populations, in arranging the monitoring and sustained and uninterrupted distribution of aid.

Achieving a Nationwide Cessation of Hostilities

The ISSG members agreed that a nationwide cessation of hostilities must be urgently implemented, and should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra, or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council. The ISSG members commit to exercise influence for an immediate and significant reduction in violence leading to the nationwide cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG members decided to take immediate steps to secure the full support of all parties to the conflict for a cessation of hostilities, and in furtherance of that have established an ISSG ceasefire task force, under the auspices of the UN, co-chaired by Russia and the United States, and including political and military officials, with the participation of ISSG members with influence on the armed opposition groups or forces fighting in support of the Syrian government. The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force.

The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.  During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to: a) delineate the territory held by Daesh, ANF and other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behavior by any of the parties to ISSG Ministers, or those designated by the Ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them.

Although a cessation of hostilities can facilitate humanitarian access, it cannot be a precondition for such access anywhere in Syria.

The ISSG decided that all members will undertake their best efforts, in good faith, to sustain the cessation of hostilities and delivery of humanitarian assistance, and take measures to stop any activities prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2170, 2178, 2199, 2249, 2253, and 2254. The ISSG again expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.

Advancing a Political Transition

The members of the ISSG reaffirmed the imperative of all sides engaging in negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, in strict compliance with United Nations Security Council 2254. They reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria. The members of the ISSG pledge to do all they can to facilitate rapid progress in these negotiations, including the reaching of agreement within six months on a political transition plan that establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate.

Full implementation of these objectives will require the ISSG co-chairs and members, the UN and others, to work closely on political, humanitarian, and military dimensions.

The race to Raqqa is on. Syria and its allies are competing with the U.S. and its allies to snatch east Syria from the Islamic State.

Raqqa in eastern Syria is held by the Islamic State as are the other cities along the Euphrates towards Iraq. To defeat the Islamic State in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and other eastern Syrian towns and to liberate them is the aim of all purported enemies of the Islamic State. But this question has to be seen in a larger context.

Could the U.S. and its allies capture Raqqa or Deir Ezzor and with it parts of eastern Syria it could use them as a bargaining chip to gain some negotiation power with Syria and its allies over the future of Syria. Alternatively it create a Sunni state in east-Syria and west-Iraq. Mosul would be part of such a Sunni state and it would probably be put under the tutelage of Turkey. There have been U.S. plans for such a “Sunnistan” and a revision of the Sykes-Picot borders for some time.

For Syria and its allies the upholding of the unity of Syria is a major objective. To leave Raqqa and the eastern oil fields to the U.S. would be a devastating loss. Syria and its allies have therefore to beat the U.S. and its allies in the race to Raqqa and the larger east Syria.

According to Southfront Syria just made the first major move. A brigade of the Syrian Arab Army attacked the positions of the Islamic State along the Ithriyah to Raqqa road. The town Tal Abu Zayhn has been taken on the way to the first objective, the Tabaqah military airport. Additional supporting forces from various allied groups are assembling in Ithriyah to later support the attack.

map via Southfront – bigger

The U.S. move towards east-Syria is still in preparation. The first U.S. plan was to use the Syrian-Kurdish YPG forces of north-east Syria. These were labeled Syrian Democratic Forces after attaching a few fighters from Arab tribes. These forces would have attacked Raqqa from the north. But the Kurds did not want to invade the Arab lands they would not be able to hold. Their aim is to connect to the Kurdish enclave in north-west Syria along the Turkish border.

The U.S. is coming up with a new plan. There are only sketches visible so far and the following is just somewhat informed speculation.

The U.S. has extended the runway of the agricultural Rumeilan/Abu Hajar airfield (map) in the Kurdish held area in north east Syria to be able to supply larger operations in the wider area:

This location has been chosen because it’s just 100 miles (160 kilometers) from ISIS frontline positions and some of its lucrative oil fields, but well within territory held by Kurdish fighters known as the YPG. The runway is being nearly doubled in length from about 2,300 feet to 4,330 feet (700 to 1,320 meters) — long enough, say, to receive C130 transport planes. A small apron is also being paved.

Some U.S. special operation forces are said to already operate from there. This is the vanguard on a reconnaissance mission.

It was publicly disclosed that one brigade if the U.S. 101st Airborne Division would go to Iraq to train, advise and assist the Iraqi forces for an attack on Mosul.

Some 1,800 soldiers from the 101st’s Headquarters and its 2nd Brigade Combat Team will deploy soon on regular rotations to Baghdad and Irbil to train and advise Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga forces who are expected in the coming months to move toward Mosul, the Islamic State group’s de facto headquarters in Iraq.

But Col. Pat Lang was told that two brigades of the 101st would deploy:

I was told today that two brigades of the 101st Airborne Division are going to Iraq, not just one. This probably is related to the Saudi Juggernaut. pl

The Saudi “juggernaut” was the recent announcement that the Saudis would be willing to send troops to Syria. Nobody was, at first, taking that serious but it now starts to make some sense. The Saudis today confirmed their intent:

Saudi’s decision to send troops to Syria in an attempt to bolster and toughen efforts against militants is “final” and “irreversible,” the Saudi military spokesman announced on Thursday.Brig. Gen. Ahmed Al-Assiri, said that Riyadh is “ready” and will fight with its U.S.-led coalition alliesto defeat ISIS militants in Syria, however, he said Washington is more suitable to answer questions on further details about any future ground operations.
…
The statement comes as Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman visited NATO headquarters in Brussels to discuss the Syrian civil war.

The Saudis would fight under the control of the one brigade of the 101st airborne that was not announced to go for Mosul. The Saudis would deploy from Saudi Arabia likely via a U.S. controlled airstrip in west Iraq towards Syria while the brigade from the 101st would probably deploy from the Kurdish area in north Iraq through the Kurdish areas in north-east Syria towards Raqqa. Raqqa would thereby be attacked from a north-eastern and a south-eastern. The airport of Rumeilan/Abu Hajar would be one of the major supply bases.

Such a move of forces would be quite large and over relative long distances. But most of the area is desert and modern motorized military equipment could easily cover those distances in a day or two. This would put Saudi troops into Syria. If they would take Raqqa or Deir Ezzor and the eastern Syrian oilfields they would NEVER let go of it unless Syria would bend to the Saudi demand of introducing an Islamist led government.

The plan is workable but it would also instigate a large mobilization of Shia forces and could lead to a bigger conflict. The Russian Prime Minister Medvedev warned today that new Arab forces entering the Syrian war could spark a much wider war.

The Saudi operation was said today to start within two months. The Syrian government forces and their allies will now have to rush to the east to protect the unity of the country. The U.S. for its part may want to hinder the Syrian advantage by whatever means it has, including – possibly – some “erroneous” bombing.

The race for Raqqa, and Syria’s future, is on.

There is no “peace” wing in either the Democratic or Republican parties. “Not only has Obama declared unending war against the rest of the world, but so has the rest of the two party duopoly.” When the warmongers scream “Jump,” the only question leaders of either party ask is, “How high?” It’s a matter of tone, not substance. “The Republicans openly brag about aggressions while Democrats dissemble and use weasel words to pretend they won’t do the same thing.”

“How can Bernie Sanders bring social democracy to the United States if he won’t cut the military budget or foreswear interventions?”

America’s grand fantasy of a Project for a New American Century has experienced a serious setback. Yet this country still isn’t dissuaded from pursuing the imperial effort. For five years Syrian president Bashar al-Assad stood his ground and ignored Barack Obama’s refrain that he “must go.” Fortunately Assad didn’t leave or give up the fight. Russian president Vladimir Putin finally stood beside him in deed and not just in words. The alliance is a textbook case of how nations ought to behave within the parameters of international law.

Russian air strikes bolstered the Syrian army and in just four months ISIS and the rest of its jihadists allies are on the run. The Syrian peace conference in Geneva is now under a “temporary pause” (*link pause) for the simple reason that there is no longer any need for it. The issue is settled. Assad isn’t going anywhere.

For nearly five years the Syrian people have suffered as a direct result of American aggression. More than 250,000 people are dead and 9 million are refugees in their country and abroad. The humanitarian disaster is a direct result of America’s intervention and blame for the bloodshed should be placed at Barack Obama’s feet. Now that America’s jihadists allies are losing, there is suddenly concern expressed for the Syrian people who wouldn’t be suffering at all absent the regime change plot.

“Blame for the bloodshed should be placed at Barack Obama’s feet.”

While Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, including “socialist” Bernie Sanders, express unending support for imperialism and brutality in Syria, the project is falling apart. The failure is a good thing for humanity. The United States should not be allowed to act like the schoolyard bully who steals lunch money for fun.

The Russian success should have taught America a lesson but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The United States has pursued another brand of warfare against that country for the past two years. First by overthrowing the president of neighboring Ukraine and then by exacting sanctions which have damaged the Russian economy. The corporate media has played its part by fanning the flames with anti-Russian propaganda. One day they claim that Russia threatens European nations, then they claim Russian submarines will cut underwater cables. Any Russian who was ever murdered is now said to have died at Putin’s hands.

The United States is determined to try and snatch some victory from the jaws of defeat. While the Syria project is heading south, the cold war appears to be getting warm. The defense department announced that it will take the unprecedented action of  installing weapons and personnel in the Baltic states bordering Russia. (*link weapons) The most hawkish American presidents respected the old Soviet spheres of influence and didn’t dare provoke so openly. Now it is clear that there will be no respite from imperialism even as it fails.

“Any Russian who was ever murdered is now said to have died at Putin’s hands.”

Barack Obama will be president for less than one year but his successor won’t be any better for the rest of humanity. The Democratic and Republican candidates sound alike as they eagerly proclaim their loathing for Putin and their determination to continue war by other means. Not one of them has dared to call the Syria intervention the unlawful aggression that it obviously is and none has expressed an intention to change foreign policy. Even liberal darling Bernie Sanders spouts nonsense about “Saudi skin in the game” in Syria when the Saudis have been an integral part of the regime change effort. Not only has Obama declared unending war against the rest of the world, but so has the rest of the two party duopoly.

The lack of debate among the establishment and the slavish devotion of the corporate media make America a very dangerous country. If candidates like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are slick enough they can market themselves as peacemakers when in fact they will create as much chaos and suffering as any of the Republicans.

How can Bernie Sanders bring social democracy to the United States if he won’t cut the military budget or foreswear interventions? He learned a lot from Barack Obama’s 2008 comment that he was only opposed to “dumb wars.” The Republicans openly brag about aggressions while Democrats dissemble and use weasel words to pretend they won’t do the same thing.

Every global conflict from the small, like Haiti, to the largest, like Iraq and Syria, is the result of American interventions. But presidential candidates and major newspapers won’t acknowledge American responsibility for the suffering of millions of people. It is yet another reason to reject the Democrats and Republicans and their tag team politics of pretense. No one can say for certain who will be president of the United States one year from now. We do know that he or she will continue to bring disaster all over the world.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Emphasis added by Global Research

Damascus, SANA-President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to AFP News Agency on the developments in Syria and the region:

Journalist: Mr. President, we would like to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions in these crucial moments in the history of Syria and the region.

Question 1: How do you feel when you see tens of thousands of your citizens starving, running away from hunger, from their areas, which are being shelled by your Russian allies, and trying to cross the borders to Turkey? And how do you feel when you see the pictures of them drowning in their attempt to cross the seas?

President Assad: If we talk about emotions, I belong to this people; and it is self-evident that I have the same feelings my people have. Any scene of suffering is painful to all of us as Syrians. But as an official, the question for me is less about emotions than about what I, as an official, should do, being responsible before my people.

However, when the cause of this suffering is the terrorists, not the Russian shelling, as claimed by Western media, and when one cause for migration is the almost five-year-old embargo against the Syrian people, naturally my, and every Syrian official’s first task is to fight terrorism essentially using Syrian capabilities, but also using our friends’ support in the fight against terrorism. That’s why I say the problem of Syrian refugees abroad, as well as the problem of hunger inside Syria, as you referred to it, is a problem caused by terrorism, Western policies, and the embargo imposed on the Syrian people.

Question 2: Mr. President, since you are talking about actions rather than emotions, can we talk, or at least think, about the possibility of putting an end to shelling civilian populations in order to alleviate the suffering of these civilians, and also lifting the blockade imposed on certain areas?

President Assad: The conflict has been, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, about who wins the support of the people in Syria. Consequently, it doesn’t make sense for us to shell civilians if we want to win them to our side. This is in theory. Practically, while moving around in Syria, you will find that in any area under the control of the state, all sections of Syrian society, including the families of the militants, are being cared for by the state. What is more is that in a city like Raqqa, which is under the full control of Daesh (ISIS), the state continues to pay the salaries of employees and send vaccines for children. So, it doesn’t make sense for the state to shell civilians while doing all the above, unless we are talking about mistakes which happen in every battle. The general rule is that there are innocent victims in every war. This is a rule of thumb in wars, but this is definitely not the Syrian state’s policy.

Question 3: Mr. President, what do you say to those emigrating to Europe? Do you ask them to come back?

President Assad: I would like to ask every person who left Syria to come back. That’s natural but not enough. Emotions are not enough. They would ask: “why should I come back? Has terrorism stopped? Have the basic requirements for life been restored?” Many of those who have emigrated are neither against the Syrian state or with the terrorists, but sometimes there are circumstances which force people to emigrate. So, my answer to this question is: when terrorism recedes, and things are better, they will return of their own volition without any invitation. So, instead of asking these people to return, I’ll call on the European governments, which have been a direct cause for the emigration of these people, by giving cover to terrorists in the beginning, and through the sanctions imposed on Syria, to help in making the Syrians return to their country.

Question 4: Mr. President, will the Syrian state regain control over Aleppo in the next few days? If so, what is next? Is it extending full control to Lattakia, Aleppo, and Idleb?

President Assad: The battle in Aleppo now is not about regaining control over Aleppo, because the Syrian state is there; but the main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey; for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists. The battle is going on now on more than ten fronts at the same time, from north, to south, to the east, to the far east too, and to the west in Lattakia. It was going on in Homs, and now it’s over. So, all these stages are moving in parallel.

Question 5: Do you think, Mr. President, that you can regain control over all Syrian territory? And what is the timeframe you have for that now?

President Assad: Regardless of whether we can do that or not, this is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation. It makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part. The timeframe is dependent on two scenarios. Suppose that the problem is purely Syrian, i.e. that Syria is isolated from its surroundings, we can put an end to this problem in less than a year by moving on two fronts: fighting terrorism and political action. The second scenario – which is the case now – taking the shape of continuing supplies to terrorists through Turkey, Jordan, and partly from Iraq – because Daesh (ISIS) exists in Iraq with Saudi, Turkish, and Qatari support – naturally means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price. So, it is difficult to give a precise answer about the timeframe.

Question 6: Can’t you say precisely how many years you need to restore peace to Syria?

President Assad: The question is: for how many years will Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorism. That is the question. And when will the West put pressure on these countries to stop supporting terrorism.

Question 7: Mr. President, can we know who is your main enemy? Is it the so-called moderate opposition and the Islamists, or is it Daesh (ISIS)? I’m asking because everybody can see that you are targeting, with your shelling and blockade, the areas under the control of this opposition and these Islamists. Who are your real enemies?

President Assad: I don’t think that the term “opposition” can be used, in France or anywhere else in the world, to describe somebody carrying a weapon. Opposition is a political act. Suppose that you mean to say “moderate terrorists,” this is a different term. Saying that, you mean that they do not belong to Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, or to these extremist groups. Obama said that the moderate opposition is a fantasy. Biden said the same thing. But what’s more important is reality which says that such an opposition is non-existent. Most of the militants belong to extremist groups, such as Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Cham, and others. So, my answer is that every terrorist is an enemy. We respect every political opposition; and we do have political opposition inside Syria. They adopt tough positions against the state, and we are not attacking them.

Question 8: I would like to get this straight. As far as you are concerned, there’s no difference between these armed groups, on the one hand, and Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, and others, on the other?

President Assad: Legally speaking, there is no difference. The state will confront all those who carry weapons. It will not ask them about their ideology. But the difference is that the extremist groups refuse to have any dialogue with the state. They believe that they will fight, die, and go to heaven. This is their doctrine. The other groups are not ideological. Most of them have been misled. They got involved in dialogue with the state later. Some of them have laid down their weapons, and some are actually fighting with the Syrian Army today. We grant them amnesty in return for laying down their weapons.

Question 9: Mr. President, what do you think of Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Cham? They did negotiate with you, and went to Geneva.

President Assad: They went as part of the opposition formed by Saudi Arabia, because it is Saudi Arabia which supports terrorism worldwide. So, it is only natural for the representatives of Saudi Arabia to be terrorists, not politicians.

Question 10: So, you will not negotiate with those.

President Assad: In principle, direct negotiations were not supposed to take place in Geneva 3. They were supposed to take place through de Mistura. And here we should be precise: we are not negotiating with Syrians, but with representatives of Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and others. So, if you mean Syrian-Syrian dialogue, the answer is naturally no. Dialogue with these people is not a Syrian-Syrian dialogue at all. A Syrian dialogue is that conducted with Syrian groups which have grassroots in Syria, like the political opposition in Syria, for instance. Any persons calling themselves opposition but belong to foreign states or foreign intelligence services do not represent Syrians in the dialogue, and simply we do not consider them Syrian.

Question 11: You said that you were going to negotiate. All those who went to Geneva were based outside Syria. Can you explain?

President Assad: No, some of them are based inside Syria, and some live outside Syria but they are involved in politics and have supporters in Syria. I’m not talking only about terrorists, I’m talking about people who have been formed in a foreign state and act on behalf of a foreign state.

Question 12: Mr. President, you talked about a Syrian opposition inside Syria. My question is: don’t you think that had you been more tolerant in dealing with this opposition in the past, you would have avoided this conflict? Don’t you bear part of the responsibility?

President Assad: We do not claim that we did not make mistakes in Syria. This is natural in any state. And we do not claim that we, in the Middle East, have reached a stage of significant political openness. We were moving in that direction, not very quickly, and maybe slowly. Back to your question, the more radical segments of the opposition inside Syria, which attack the state, have not been imprisoned or prosecuted by the state, neither before or after the crisis. So, I don’t know what is meant by tolerance in this case.

Question 13: Maybe it was difficult for the opposition inside Syria to assemble and to organize itself, before the crisis, and to raise the voice as opposition. Maybe they did not have a margin for movement.

President Assad: You are talking about a general condition in the Middle East. This is partly true, particularly in the Arab world. But the question in this case is not that of tolerance. The question has to do with individuals rather than institutions. The question is: what is the institutional action that we should take in order to move forward. This has legal, social, or cultural aspects, because democracy is more of a culture than a law. You cannot proceed with laws while remaining culturally in your place.

Question 14: Mr. President, do you think that there might be a Turkish intervention in Syria now? And do you think the Saudi threats are serious?

President Assad: Logically, intervention is not possible, but sometimes reality is at odds with logic, particularly when there are irrational people leading a certain state. That’s why I don’t rule that out for a simple reason: Erdogan is a fanatical person with Muslim Brotherhood inclinations. He is living the Ottoman dream. For him, the collapse which took place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria is something personal. This threatens his political future, on the one hand, and his fanatical Islamist ambitions, on the other. He believes that he has an Islamist mission in our region. The same applies to Saudi Arabia. The collapse of the terrorists in Syria is a collapse of their policies. I tell you that this process is surely not going to be easy for them, and we will certainly confront it.

Question 15: Mr. President, are you prepared to give northern Syria to the Kurds as a self-rule area after the crisis?

President Assad: This question is directly related to the Syrian constitution; and as you know, the constitution is not given by the government, all sections of Syrian society have a say in it, and it is put to public referendum. That’s why this should be a national question, not a question put to any Syrian official, whether it has to do with self-rule, federalism, decentralization, or any similar thing. All these things are part of the political dialogue in the future; but I would like to stress that the Kurds are a Syrian national group.

Question 16: Is it true, Mr. President, that the Russians persuaded, or tried to persuade you, to step down? Don’t you fear a Russian-American deal on this issue?

President Assad: If we look at Russian policies and Russian officials in the same way we look at unprincipled Western officials and policies, this is a possibility. But the fact is the exact opposite, for a simple reason: the Russians treat us with great respect. They do not treat us as a superpower dealing with a minor state, but as a sovereign state dealing with a sovereign state. That’s why this issue has not been raised at all in any shape or form.

Question 17: Mr. President, are you prepared to give Russia and Iran permanent bases on your territory? And in this case, do you fear that Syria will become a satellite to these powers?

President Assad: Having military bases for any country in Syria does not mean that Syria will become a satellite state to these countries. They do not interfere in issues related to the law, the constitution, nor to politics. In any case, the Russian base exists already, while the Iranians have not asked to have one. But in principle, we do not have a problem.

Question 18: So, if the Iranians raise this possibility, will you accept?

President Assad: The issue hasn’t been raised, and consequently this is hypothetical. But as I said, when we accept it in the case of Russia, it means the principle is acceptable. But this also depends on the capabilities of every state and their role on the regional and international arena.

Question 19: Has Russia asked your permission to build new bases on your territory?

President Assad: No.

Question 20: Mr. President, the American elections are still at the primaries stage. Are you, personally, with candidate Trump or Clinton? Do you see a third person who might be useful and in the interest of the region?

President Assad: We have never placed our bets on any American president. We always bet on policies; and these policies are not controlled only by the president, but by the establishment in general, and by the lobbies operating in the United States. If you look at the competition between many candidates, now or in the past, you will find that it revolves around who is more inclined to start wars, and this doesn’t bode well.

Intervention: Who is more aggressive, or more inclined to war, Trump or Clinton?

President Assad: The problem with American politicians is that they say something and do the exact opposite, before and after the elections.

Intervention: So, the promises made by Trump do not frighten you?

President Assad: No. As I said, since I don’t build on what the American candidates say, I see no reason why I should comment on any of them, i.e. they are all alike to me.

Question 21: Mr. President, do you intend to be a president for life, as was your father? And if you don’t intend to do that, are you in the process of grooming a successor; and would this successor be one of your sons?

President Assad: First, the presidency is not a hobby that we enjoy. It is a responsibility, particularly in these circumstances. As to my selecting a successor, this country is neither a farm nor a company. If I want to remain president, that should be dependent on two factors: first, my desire to be president, and second, the desire of the people. When the next elections come and I feel that the people don’t want me, I shall not stand. That’s why it’s too early to talk about this. We still have years before the next elections.

Question 22: Mr. President, you know that there have been many accusations to your government and to you personally, most recently by the UN investigation committee, which accused you of genocide, which is a crime against humanity.

Last month, the UN Human Rights High Commissioner spoke about blockading a number of your cities, like the town of Madaya, and accused your government of committing war crimes, and also about crimes he says you commit by throwing barrel bombs on civilians. Aren’t you concerned that you will one day face an international court?

President Assad: First, you know that UN institutions express balance among the superpowers and the conflict among them.

And these organizations are now basically controlled by Western powers. That’s why most of their reports are politicized and serve a political agenda. The evidence is that these organizations haven’t said anything about clear massacres perpetrated by terrorist groups against innocent civilians in Syria. What refutes the reports of these organizations is that, first, they do not provide any evidence, and this is the case in general. Second, there is a logic for things: if Western states and rich Gulf states are against an individual; and this individual is killing his people, how would he withstand for five years in these circumstances? That’s why I’m not concerned about these threats or these allegations.

Question 23: You said that these reports and institutions do not provide any evidence. But don’t you believe that these reports are correct, particularly the latest report by the UN committee about the death of thousands of prisoners in your prisons? There are eyewitnesses in this case.

President Assad: No, there is a difference between individual crimes having been committed and having a state policy of systematic killing. I said that innocent people die in the war. That is true, but war crimes are committed when orders are given to follow a policy of committing massacres for certain purposes. Had this been true, people would have fled from state-controlled areas to the areas controlled by armed groups. What is happening is the exact opposite: everybody moves to the state-controlled areas.

Question 24: Mr. President, how do you think you will figure in history, as a man who saved Syria or a man who destroyed it?

President Assad: This depends on who will write the history. If it is the West, it will give me all the bad attributes. What’s important is how I think. Certainly, and self-evidently, I will seek, and that is what I’m doing now, to protect Syria, not to protect the chair I’m sitting on.

Question 25: Mr. President, do you still really intend to negotiate with the militants, or are you thinking of crushing them militarily?

President Assad: We have fully believed in negotiations and in political action since the beginning of the crisis; however, if we negotiate, it does not mean that we stop fighting terrorism. The two tracks are inevitable in Syria: first, through negotiations, and second through fighting terrorism. And the two tracks are separate from each other.

Question 26: Mr. President, what is your comment on the resignation of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius? And do you believe that this will change French policy in any way? And would you make any initiative in the war against terrorism towards France in order to make communication possible with it and make it change its policy towards you?

President Assad: Changing personnel is not that significant. What’s important is the change of policies. The French administration changed almost completely between Sarkozy and Hollande, but for us the policies have not changed. They have been destructive policies extending direct support to terrorism. That’s why we should not assume that the foreign minister makes the policies. They are made by the whole state, headed by the president. As to what we can do in Syria, I don’t think that Syria has to do anything towards France. It is France which should do something towards fighting terrorism. So far, it supports terrorists, albeit politically, and in some cases it supported them militarily. It is France’s duty to reverse or change its policies in order to fight terrorism, particularly after hundreds of French citizens paid with their lives for their wrong policies.

Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

President Assad: Thank you.

The BBC’s latest production is as absurd as it is transparent and abhorrent.

Upon reading the increasingly desperate headlines pumped out by the Western media as Western-backed terrorist forces begin to fold under an effective joint Syrian-Russian offensive to take the country back, readers will notice that though the term “moderate rebels” or “moderate opposition” is used often, the Western media is seemingly incapable of naming a single faction or leader among them.

The reason for this is because there are no moderates and there never were. Since 2007, the US has conspired to arm and fund extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda to overthrow the government of Syria and destabilize Iranian influence across the entire Middle East.

Exposed in Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” it stated explicitly that:

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

The “catastrophe” the Western media constantly cites in its increasingly hysterical headlines is the predictable manifestation of not Syrian and Russian security operations ongoing in Syria today, but of the conspiracy described by Hersh in 2007 that has indisputably been put into play, starting in 2011 under the guise of the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Image: If Major Yaser Abdulrahim looks like he’s never wore his FSA uniform out into the field, that’s because he hasn’t. He is not a member of the FSA at all, and is instead a commander of the Fatah Halab, an umbrella group for Al Qaeda affiliates armed and funded by both the US and Saudi Arabia.

When the West does attempt to give names and faces to these so-called “moderates,” it is a simple matter to trace them directly back to Al Qaeda.

The BBC’s “Rebel Commander” Plays Dress-Up 

In a recent video report published by the BBC titled, “Syria conflict: Rebels ‘feel abandoned’ by Britain and US,” BBC’s Quentin Sommerville claims he “secretly” contacted US-backed rebels from Turkey. The alleged “remote” interview was covered in both locations by professional camera crews, despite Sommerville claiming the situation was so bad, the rebels could not be reached. The “senior rebel commander inside Aleppo” interviewed by the BBC was none other than Yaser Abdulrahim,

Image: Faylaq Al-Sham’s flag is clearly seen in the video of the BBC’s fake FSA commander when out in the field. Yaser Abdulrahim is seen out among other terrorists, missing his crisp, brand new FSA uniform and devoid of any FSA insignia.

Despite appearing in a brand new, crisp “Free Syrian Army” uniform never worn once into the field, and sitting beside an equally pristine “Free Syrian Army” French colonial flag, Yaser Abdulrahim has absolutely no affiliations with the otherwise nonexistent “Free Syrian Army.”

Instead, he is a commander of Faylaq Al-Sham, composed of Al Qaeda terrorists and Muslim Brotherhood extremists. Faylaq Al-Sham and its commander Yaser Abdulrahim, according to Sommerville himself, are part of the larger  Fatah Halab umbrella group which also includes Al Qaeda affiliates Ahrar ash-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam – the latter of which literally placed civilians in metal cages on rooftops to use as human shields against Syrian-Russian airstrikes.

Human Right Watch, in their report titled, “Syria: Armed Groups Use Caged Hostages to Deter Attacks,” would reveal that:

In the course of fighting between armed groups and government forces in the nearby `Adra al-`Omalia in December 2013, Jabhat al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam abducted hundreds of civilians, mostly Alawites, according to the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Syria. The hostages, many of them women and children, are being held in unidentified locations in Eastern Ghouta. The concern is that they are among those in these cages.

The Human Right Watch report is also very alarming, considering it implicates Jaysh al-Islam, a member of Yaser Abdulrahim’s Fatah Halab, as collaborating and fighting alongside US State Department listed terrorist group, Jabhat al-Nusra.

The US State Department’s official statement listing al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, titled, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq,” states:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes.

It appears, ironically enough, that through the deception of the Western media, al Nusra has been amply assisted in fully hijacking “the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes.”

Image: BBC’s “US-backed rebel commander” heads a faction that includes the terrorist Jaysh al-Islam faction who caged civilians and used them as human shields outside of Damascus. The US insists that Syria and Russia must negotiate with such organizations and that such organizations should play a role in Syria’s future.

The BBC’s abhorrent dressing-up of literal members of Al Qaeda and their affiliates in their recent interview fits into a larger pattern of deceit aimed at salvaging the conspiracy described by Hersh in 2007, but upended when in late last year, the Russian Federation upon the invitation of the Syrian government, intervened in the conflict.

With Aleppo teetering at the edge of liberation from what are clearly terrorist forces – the BBC’s propaganda and propaganda like it being propagated by the West represents a cynical attempt to perpetuate – not end – the suffering of the Syrian people.

What is worse still, is that the BBC claims their Fatah Halab-Al Qaeda umbrella group commander dressed as a member of the “Free Syrian Army,” is “US-backed.”

This is either an attempt by the BBC to further deceive their audiences as to who the man they interviewed really was, or an inadvertent admission that the United States is in fact funding the very terrorist groups and their associates, populating their own US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Whatever the case, the fact that even a carefully staged production like the one published by the BBC is easily exposed as a deliberate attempt to cover up the terroristic identity of what’s left of the West’s “rebels,” adds further imperative to the Syrian government and their Russian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Iranian allies to end the war and fully restore order to the entirety of Syria’s territory. To negotiate with “rebels” who are clearly terrorists dressed in literal costumes, is an absurdity the West would never accept foisted upon them – thus, no other nation on Earth should accept the West foisting such terms upon them.

Reading Dennis Ross and David Ignatius is a good reminder that the neocons live in a different world than the rest of us. They do not conform their analysis to reality, but rather they conform reality to their view of the world. Where most people would be encouraged to read that Aleppo in Syria was about to be liberated from its 3.5 year occupation by al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the neocons see a disaster. 

On the brink of al-Qaeda’s defeat in Aleppo, the Washington Post’s Ignatius is furious that, “President Obama won’t approve military tactics that could actually shift the balance.” Yes, he wants to shift the balance toward al-Qaeda because like the other neocons he is so invested in the idea of regime change in Syria that he would even prefer turning the country into another Libya than to see government forces defeat his jihadist insurgents. Failing to “shift the balance” toward al-Qaeda fighters in Aleppo only brings “greater misery for the Syrian people,” in the world of Ignatius.

Ignatius’s Washington Post, which has never seen a potential war it did not want to see turned into an actual war, thinks it a tragedy that the Syrian army’s advance on al-Qaeda occupied Aleppo has “cut off all vital routes of supply from Turkey to the rebel-held areas of the city.” Those would beTurkish supplies in support of al-Qaeda and ISIS rebels, but the Post is too deceptive to mention that fact.

It is as dishonest an inversion of reality as anything printed in Pravda of old.

In the same vein as Ignatius, former Bush/Clinton/Obama Administration Middle East “expert” Dennis Ross writes to tell us, “what Putin is really up to in Syria.” In the above-linked article, The Los Angeles Times does not reveal that Ross is hardly an objective observer of the situation. As one of the founders of AIPAC‘s Washington Institute for Near East Policy — and a current counselor to that organization — Ross strongly supports AIPAC’s position in favor of regime change in Syria and Israel’s active role in assisting jihadist rebels from al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in their efforts to overthrow the Assad government.

So what does regime change neocon Dennis Ross want us to believe is happening in Syria? The Russians, he asserts, are playing a dirty game by stepping up their bombing campaign against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and affiliated rebels instead of pushing for a ceasefire. How funny that when the US/Turk/Saudi/Israeli-back jihadists were on the verge of taking over all of Syria not that long ago there was no talk from neocon quarters about a ceasefire or a negotiated political solution. Only now that al-Qaeda’s stronghold in Aleppo is on the verge of liberation by government forces are the neocons screaming that diplomacy should be given a chance.

Russian operations are “designed to strengthen the Assad regime and weaken the non-Islamic State Sunni opposition in different parts of the country,” writes Ross. He doesn’t mention that particularly when it comes to Aleppo, the “non-Islamic State Sunni opposition” means al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and affiliated forces.

By relentlessly bombing Islamic State and other jihadist groups seeking to introduce Sharia law into secular Syria, “Putin is…undercutting our aim of isolating Islamic State and having Sunnis lead the fight against it.” Read that again. By attacking ISIS he is preventing the US from isolating ISIS. Doublespeak.

What is Putin really up to in the world of Dennis Ross? He is not sincere about defeating Islamist extremism in Syria or even helping Assad’s forces win the war. No, Putin “aims to demonstrate that Russia, and not America, is the main power broker in the region and increasingly elsewhere.” Ah yes, the old argument about Russian expansionism. Baltic invasion, restoration of the USSR. All the neocon tripe.

Ah but here is where Ross plants his seed, whispers in the Administration’s neocon power brokers’ ears:

“Certainly, were Russia’s costs to increase, Putin might look for a way out.”

Hmm, now we see what he’s getting at:

…it is time we make it clear to the Russians that unless they impose a cease-fire on Assad and Hezbollah and insist that humanitarian corridors are open, we will have no choice but to act with our partners to create a haven in Syria — for refugees and for the organization of the Syrian opposition.

In other words, tell Russia if you do not stop fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria we will face-off in a WWIII-threatening stance to establish a “jihadistan” in part of Syria from where the hundredth or so version of a rebel fighting force can be re-assembled.

Ross’s plan is not for the weak of heart. “[W]e cannot threaten to create a haven without following through if Putin refused to alter his course,” he writes. Meaning of course that we must be willing to actually go through with WWIII if Putin does not blink, back down, and pull out of Syria just as Russia’s intervention is meeting its objective. Surrender when on the verge of victory in Syria or face a nuclear war with the United States.

No one ever accused the neocons of thinking small. But with much of the Middle East a smoldering ruin due to the disastrous interventions they lied us into, no one should count out even their most insane-sounding plan being seriously considered somewhere in Washington.

Image left Michel Chossudovsky

Washington’s strategy consists in spearheading a broader regional war by inciting Turkey, Saudi Arabia as well as Israel to do the “dirty work for us”.

Until recently, Syrian Government Forces together with their allies (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah) have been confronting so-called “opposition rebels” largely composed of “moderate” terrorists and mercenaries, with US-NATO intelligence and special forces forces operating covertly within their ranks.

The Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists and the Islamic State (ISIS) forces are supported by US-NATO-Israel and their Persian Gulf GCC allies. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in close liaison with Washington have played a central role in the recruitment, training and financing of the terrorists.

Sofar, this proxy war has unfolded without a direct confrontation between US-NATO allied forces and Syrian government forces, which are supported militarily by Russia and Iran.

A major transition is now occurring in the conduct of the war on Syria. The terrorists are being defeated by Syrian government forces with the support of Russia. The proxy war (under the formal banner of the “war on terrorism”) has reached its climax.

New Phase: The Role of Turkey and Saudi Arabia

Turkish forces are now directly involved in combat operations within Syrian territory.

In turn, Saudi Arabia, which is a State sponsor of terrorism has announced that it will be dispatching troops to Syria, allegedly with a view to combating the ISIS terrorists, which just so happen to be supported by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s Brigadier. General Ahmed Al-Assiri, stated on behalf of Riyadh that Saudi Forces:

“will fight with its U.S.-led coalition allies to defeat ISIS militants in Syria, however, he said Washington is more suitable to answer questions on further details about any future ground operations.” Al Arabyia

What is the significance of this statement?

The proxy war against ISIS is over?

A new proxy war with Turkey and Saudi Arabia directly involved in ground operations is unfolding with US-NATO pulling the strings in the background. Riyadh has confirmed that a joint Turkish-Saudi military coordination body has also been set up.

Saudi Arabia is now planning to invade Syria on the orders of Washington:

“The kingdom is ready to participate in any ground operations that the coalition (against Islamic State) may agree to carry out in Syria,” …

Asseri said Saudi Arabia had been an active member of the U.S.-led coalition that had been fighting Islamic State in Syria since 2014, and had carried out more than 190 aerial missions.

…

“If there was a consensus from the leadership of the coalition, the kingdom is willing to participate in these efforts because we believe that aerial operations are not the ideal solution and there must be a twin mix of aerial and ground operations,” Asseri said. (Reuters, February 4, 2016)

The shift would be from air to ground operations implying the deployment of Saudi troops inside Syria.

“Talking Peace”, Planning the Next Phase of the War on Syria

In recent developments, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman was in Brussels at NATO headquarters “to discuss the Syrian civil war”. This meeting was an initiative of the Pentagon rather than NATO. It was intended to plan the next phase of  the war on Syria.

Of significance, Crown Prince bin Salman met behind closed doors with US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter.

Meanwhile in Munich, John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov were discussing the implementation of a nationwide “cessation of hostilities” in Syria.

Under the Pentagon’s diabolical scenario, confrontation on the ground in the war theater will be between Saudi Arabia and Syria government forces, which are respectively supported by US-NATO and Russia-Iran.

Reports confirm that the US-NATO sponsored terrorists supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, et al have in large part been defeated. Are they be replaced by conventional Saudi, Turkish forces, coupled with more US-NATO special forces which are already on the ground inside Syria?

Under this evolving scenario, there is also the danger that Turkey and Saudi Arabia forces acting on behalf of US-NATO could be involved in military confrontations with both Russia and Iran, opening up a dangerous pandora’s box, a door towards military escalation.

Saudi Arabia Brig. Gen. Ahmed Al-Assiri also sent a veiled threat to Iran  “saying that if Tehran is serious in fighting ISIS, then it must stop supporting “terrorism” in Syria or Yemen”. (Al Arabyia)

Washington’s strategy in this regard consists in spearheading a broader regional war by inciting Turkey, Saudi Arabia as well as Israel to do the “dirty work for us”.

This US sponsored war is ultimately directed against Russia and Iran.

In December 2015, Urasoe City pledged to conduct a survey of former base employees to ascertain the extent of contamination at Camp Kinser, a 2.7 square kilometer US Marine Corps supply base located in the city.1 Urasoe’s director of planning, Shimoji Setsuo, announced that the municipality would work with prefectural authorities to carry out the investigation and he would also request funding from the national government. This is believed to be the first time that such a large-scale survey of former base workers has been launched in Japan.

Triggering Urasoe’s decision were Pentagon documents released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealing serious contamination at Camp Kinser.2 According to the reports, military supplies returned during the Vietnam War leaked substances including dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and insecticides within the base, killing marine life. Subsequent clean-up attempts were so ineffective that U.S. authorities worried that civilian workers may have been poisoned in the 1980s and, as late as 1990, they expressed concern that toxic hotspots remained within the installation.

Following the FOIA release, United States Forces Japan (USFJ) attempted to allay worries about ongoing contamination at Camp Kinser. Spokesperson Tiffany Carter told The Japan Times that “levels of contamination pose no immediate health hazard,” but she refused to provide up-to-date environmental data to support her assurances. Asked whether USFJ would cooperate with Urasoe’s survey, Carter replied that they had not been contacted by city authorities. She also ruled out health checks for past and present Camp Kinser military personnel.3

Last year, suspicions that Camp Kinser remains contaminated were heightened when wildlife captured by Japanese scientists near the base was found to contain high levels of PCBs and the banned insecticide DDT.4

Japanese officials are blocked from directly investigating pollution in U.S. bases because the Japan-U.S. Status Of Forces Agreement does not authorize them access. Although an amendment to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) last September gave Japanese authorities the right to request inspections following a toxic spill or imminent return of land, permission remains at the discretion of the U.S.5 Consequently, until now research has been limited to land already returned to civilian usage. These checks suggest that the problem of U.S. military contamination on Okinawa is chronic. In recent years, a range of toxins exceeding safe levels have been discovered on the island such as mercury, lead and cadmium.6

Three generations of suffering: Former South Vietnamese Army soldier Le Van Dan (left) blames the U.S. military for the health problems afflicting himself and his family. He suffers from skin and heart diseases, his daughter struggles to breathe, one grandchild has cerebral palsy, and another is bedridden.

In November, the Okinawa Defense Bureau revealed that a housing area in Kamisedo, Chatan Town, was contaminated with dioxin at levels 1.8 times environmental standards. The problem came to light after residents complained of offensive smells emanating from the land which used to be a U.S. military garbage dump prior to return in 1996.7 Meanwhile, in December, Japanese officials released test results on three more barrels unearthed from the Pentagon’s defoliant dumpsite in Okinawa City. The barrels, the latest of 108 found beneath a children’s soccer pitch, measured dioxin levels between 83 and 630 times environmental standards.8

The World Health Organization categorizes dioxin as “highly toxic” and links it to cancer, damage to the immune system and reproductive and developmental problems.9

On Okinawa, awareness of the dangers of dioxin is low. Last year in Okinawa City, for example, laborers at the former soccer pitch were photographed working without safety equipment, and storm water was pumped into a local conduit without any tests for contamination.10

Now expert advice is coming from a country with tragic experience of Pentagon dioxin poisoning: Vietnam.

“On Okinawa, people still don’t know about the risks. The problem is very new for them but they need to take action as soon as possible,” Phan Thanh Tien, Vice President of the Da Nang Association for Victims of Agent Orange / Dioxin (DAVA), said last month.

Created in 2005, DAVA has been raising Vietnamese people’s awareness of the dangers of dioxin left in the environment from the Pentagon’s usage of defoliants in the Vietnam War. Between 1962 and 1971, during Operation Ranch Hand, the U.S. military sprayed 76 million liters of herbicides in southeast Asia. Named after the colored stripes around the barrels, many of these herbicides such as Agents Pink, Purple and – by far the most common – Orange, were heavily contaminated by dioxin during the production process.11

During the Vietnam War, U.S. forces stored approximately 18 million litres of defoliants at Da Nang Airbase and sprayed them over nearby countryside to kill food crops and strip supply routes of jungle cover. The Pentagon particularly targeted rice, sweet potato and cassava crops.

According to U.S. veterans, these defoliants were shipped via Okinawa, America’s most important staging post for the Vietnam War.12 Former service members contend that defoliants were stockpiled at numerous bases – including Camp Kinser, then known as Machinato Service Area – and sprayed to keep runways and perimeter fences clear. Veterans also claim that surplus and damaged barrels of defoliants were buried within Okinawa’s bases.

These burials allegedly took place at Kadena Air Base, Camp Schwab, MCAS Futenma and Hamby Yard, in Chatan Town. At the time, the burial of surplus chemicals – including Agent Orange – was official U.S. military policy. For example, the FOIA documents detailing contamination at Camp Kinser also describe the burial of 12.5 tons of ferric chloride on the installation and the disposal of pesticides at Camp Hansen, Kin Town.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs records show more than 200 retired service members are sick with illnesses they believe are caused by exposure to Agent Orange on Okinawa. A number of military documents corroborate their claims. These include a U.S. army report citing the presence of 25,000 barrels of the defoliant on the island prior to 1972 and the latest FOIA release which describes the discovery of “dioxin (agent orange component)” at Camp Kinser.13

“America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietname was a war crime; it was chemical warfare.  Today, we are starting to see the fourth generation of victims, so you can even call it a form of biological warfare”, says Pha Hanh Tien, vice-president of the Da Nang Association For Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin.

Despite this evidence, the Department of Defense continues to deny that Agent Orange was ever on the island. In 2013, it published a report which concluded that there were no “records to validate that Herbicide Orange was shipped to or through, unloaded, used or buried on Okinawa.” The report caused anger among U.S. veterans claiming dioxin exposure on Okinawa since none of them was interviewed for the report, nor were any environmental tests of Okinawa bases conducted.14 The same Pentagon-funded scientist who wrote the report later attributed the discovery of dioxin beneath Okinawa City’s soccer pitch to the disposal of kitchen or medical waste.15

Such denials do not surprise DAVA vice president Phan. For decades, he explained, the U.S. government has been trying to mislead people about the impact of dioxin in Vietnam, too. For example, during the war, it assured people that defoliants would only harm trees.

“They lied. They knew about the human impact but they said nothing,” said Phan.

According to DAVA, today there are approximately 5,000 dioxin victims in Da Nang, which has a total population of 1 million. Nationwide, the Vietnamese Red Cross calculates 3 million are sick; DAVA estimates the number as closer to 4 million.16 DAVA – and the national organization Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange / Dioxin – helps these survivors with vocational training, rehabilitative therapy and business start-up loans.

Le Van Dan is one of those helped by DAVA – and he knows firsthand the truth that contradicts the Pentagon’s lies.

During the war, he fought on America’s side in the South Vietnamese Army and he witnessed U.S. planes spraying the mountain ridges near Da Nang; later he saw the dead trees left in their wake. The U.S. military had assured the Vietnamese public that the spray was harmless so he and his fellow soldiers drank the local water and ate the fruit and vegetables. Today, the 66-year old suffers from skin and heart diseases, his daughter struggles to breath, one grandchild has cerebral palsy and another is bedridden.

Vietnam’s Ministry of Health categorizes 17 illnesses as related to dioxin – including cancers of the prostate and lung, type 2 diabetes and spina bifida. The U.S. government recognizes a similar list of dioxin-linked diseases – and it compensates sick American veterans who served in Vietnam. But it does nothing to help dioxin-poisoned Vietnamese people.17

The U.S. government’s refusal to acknowledge the human impact of Operation Ranch Hand angers Phan: “America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was a war crime; it was chemical warfare. Today, we are starting to see the fourth generation of dioxin victims so you can even call it a form of biological warfare. And the problem still isn’t over.”

A number of dioxin hotspots remain on former U.S. military land in Vietnam; one of them is at Da Nang Air Base, today the site of the city’s international civilian airport. Although the U.S. government refuses to recognize the human impact of its dioxin in Vietnam, at Da Nang Airport it has engaged in environmental clean-up work since 2012. The estimated date of completion is later this year.18

Many have praised the cleanup as a positive first step – albeit one that is long overdue. The U.S. has also promised to help to remediate dioxin hotspots in other former bases in Vietnam.

This stands in stark contrast to Japan, including Okinawa, where SOFA places the financial burden of cleaning up U.S. military contamination entirely on Japanese taxpayers – and Tokyo has made no attempts to make the U.S. more responsible.

In November 2014, Phan visited Okinawa to attend the island’s first international symposium about military contamination and the inadequacies of SOFA.19 When he inspected the dioxin dumpsite in Okinawa City, he noted that it carried the same distinct odor as Da Nang Airport’s hot-spot. Given Japan’s reputation for technological expertise, Phan was surprised by the low safety standards at the site such as the lack of warning signs and tarpaulins to prevent the spread of contaminated dust.

Now Phan worries about what Urasoe’s base workers’ survey might uncover.

“When Da Nang airport was enlarged before 2007, the workers didn’t wear protective gear so they were exposed to dioxin. Prior to working at the site, these men had children born in perfect health. But afterwards, a number of them had children born with cerebral palsy and mental deficiencies,” he said.

Phan’s message for Okinawan authorities is clear.

One-hundred-and-eight barrels and counting: Work continues in December to remove dioxin from the U.S. military’s defoliant dump site in Okinawa City, which until recently had been used as a children’s soccer pitch.

“First they need to prevent the spread of dioxin from the dumpsite to outside. Stop pumping waste water into the river. Then they need to inform the public of the problem. Finally there needs to be research to check the health of residents in the area – particularly the children.”

Phan believes Urasoe’s survey is a move in the right direction. But to fully address the issues, action must originate from the national level.

“The Japanese government needs to research and push America to reveal the truth. But the Japanese government doesn’t want to damage its relationship with America. This is why they stay silent – even when Okinawa’s land is poisoned by dioxin.”

In May 2015, Welsh journalist, Jon Mitchell, was awarded the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan Freedom of the Press Award for Lifetime Achievement for his reporting about human rights issues – including military contamination – on Okinawa. He is the author of Tsuiseki: Okinawa no Karehazai(Chasing Agent Orange on Okinawa) (Kobunken 2014) and a visiting researcher at the International Peace Research Institute of Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo. Mitchell is an Asia-Pacific Journal contributing editor. This is a revised and expanded version of an article that appeared in The Japan Times.

In December 2015, Urasoe City pledged to conduct a survey of former base employees to ascertain the extent of contamination at Camp Kinser, a 2.7 square kilometer US Marine Corps supply base located in the city.1 Urasoe’s director of planning, Shimoji Setsuo, announced that the municipality would work with prefectural authorities to carry out the investigation and he would also request funding from the national government. This is believed to be the first time that such a large-scale survey of former base workers has been launched in Japan.

Triggering Urasoe’s decision were Pentagon documents released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealing serious contamination at Camp Kinser.2 According to the reports, military supplies returned during the Vietnam War leaked substances including dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and insecticides within the base, killing marine life. Subsequent clean-up attempts were so ineffective that U.S. authorities worried that civilian workers may have been poisoned in the 1980s and, as late as 1990, they expressed concern that toxic hotspots remained within the installation.

Following the FOIA release, United States Forces Japan (USFJ) attempted to allay worries about ongoing contamination at Camp Kinser. Spokesperson Tiffany Carter told The Japan Times that “levels of contamination pose no immediate health hazard,” but she refused to provide up-to-date environmental data to support her assurances. Asked whether USFJ would cooperate with Urasoe’s survey, Carter replied that they had not been contacted by city authorities. She also ruled out health checks for past and present Camp Kinser military personnel.3

Last year, suspicions that Camp Kinser remains contaminated were heightened when wildlife captured by Japanese scientists near the base was found to contain high levels of PCBs and the banned insecticide DDT.4

Japanese officials are blocked from directly investigating pollution in U.S. bases because the Japan-U.S. Status Of Forces Agreement does not authorize them access. Although an amendment to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) last September gave Japanese authorities the right to request inspections following a toxic spill or imminent return of land, permission remains at the discretion of the U.S.5 Consequently, until now research has been limited to land already returned to civilian usage. These checks suggest that the problem of U.S. military contamination on Okinawa is chronic. In recent years, a range of toxins exceeding safe levels have been discovered on the island such as mercury, lead and cadmium.6

Three generations of suffering: Former South Vietnamese Army soldier Le Van Dan (left) blames the U.S. military for the health problems afflicting himself and his family. He suffers from skin and heart diseases, his daughter struggles to breathe, one grandchild has cerebral palsy, and another is bedridden.

In November, the Okinawa Defense Bureau revealed that a housing area in Kamisedo, Chatan Town, was contaminated with dioxin at levels 1.8 times environmental standards. The problem came to light after residents complained of offensive smells emanating from the land which used to be a U.S. military garbage dump prior to return in 1996.7 Meanwhile, in December, Japanese officials released test results on three more barrels unearthed from the Pentagon’s defoliant dumpsite in Okinawa City. The barrels, the latest of 108 found beneath a children’s soccer pitch, measured dioxin levels between 83 and 630 times environmental standards.8

The World Health Organization categorizes dioxin as “highly toxic” and links it to cancer, damage to the immune system and reproductive and developmental problems.9

On Okinawa, awareness of the dangers of dioxin is low. Last year in Okinawa City, for example, laborers at the former soccer pitch were photographed working without safety equipment, and storm water was pumped into a local conduit without any tests for contamination.10

Now expert advice is coming from a country with tragic experience of Pentagon dioxin poisoning: Vietnam.

“On Okinawa, people still don’t know about the risks. The problem is very new for them but they need to take action as soon as possible,” Phan Thanh Tien, Vice President of the Da Nang Association for Victims of Agent Orange / Dioxin (DAVA), said last month.

Created in 2005, DAVA has been raising Vietnamese people’s awareness of the dangers of dioxin left in the environment from the Pentagon’s usage of defoliants in the Vietnam War. Between 1962 and 1971, during Operation Ranch Hand, the U.S. military sprayed 76 million liters of herbicides in southeast Asia. Named after the colored stripes around the barrels, many of these herbicides such as Agents Pink, Purple and – by far the most common – Orange, were heavily contaminated by dioxin during the production process.11

During the Vietnam War, U.S. forces stored approximately 18 million litres of defoliants at Da Nang Airbase and sprayed them over nearby countryside to kill food crops and strip supply routes of jungle cover. The Pentagon particularly targeted rice, sweet potato and cassava crops.

According to U.S. veterans, these defoliants were shipped via Okinawa, America’s most important staging post for the Vietnam War.12 Former service members contend that defoliants were stockpiled at numerous bases – including Camp Kinser, then known as Machinato Service Area – and sprayed to keep runways and perimeter fences clear. Veterans also claim that surplus and damaged barrels of defoliants were buried within Okinawa’s bases.

These burials allegedly took place at Kadena Air Base, Camp Schwab, MCAS Futenma and Hamby Yard, in Chatan Town. At the time, the burial of surplus chemicals – including Agent Orange – was official U.S. military policy. For example, the FOIA documents detailing contamination at Camp Kinser also describe the burial of 12.5 tons of ferric chloride on the installation and the disposal of pesticides at Camp Hansen, Kin Town.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs records show more than 200 retired service members are sick with illnesses they believe are caused by exposure to Agent Orange on Okinawa. A number of military documents corroborate their claims. These include a U.S. army report citing the presence of 25,000 barrels of the defoliant on the island prior to 1972 and the latest FOIA release which describes the discovery of “dioxin (agent orange component)” at Camp Kinser.13

“America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietname was a war crime; it was chemical warfare.  Today, we are starting to see the fourth generation of victims, so you can even call it a form of biological warfare”, says Pha Hanh Tien, vice-president of the Da Nang Association For Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin.

Despite this evidence, the Department of Defense continues to deny that Agent Orange was ever on the island. In 2013, it published a report which concluded that there were no “records to validate that Herbicide Orange was shipped to or through, unloaded, used or buried on Okinawa.” The report caused anger among U.S. veterans claiming dioxin exposure on Okinawa since none of them was interviewed for the report, nor were any environmental tests of Okinawa bases conducted.14 The same Pentagon-funded scientist who wrote the report later attributed the discovery of dioxin beneath Okinawa City’s soccer pitch to the disposal of kitchen or medical waste.15

Such denials do not surprise DAVA vice president Phan. For decades, he explained, the U.S. government has been trying to mislead people about the impact of dioxin in Vietnam, too. For example, during the war, it assured people that defoliants would only harm trees.

“They lied. They knew about the human impact but they said nothing,” said Phan.

According to DAVA, today there are approximately 5,000 dioxin victims in Da Nang, which has a total population of 1 million. Nationwide, the Vietnamese Red Cross calculates 3 million are sick; DAVA estimates the number as closer to 4 million.16 DAVA – and the national organization Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange / Dioxin – helps these survivors with vocational training, rehabilitative therapy and business start-up loans.

Le Van Dan is one of those helped by DAVA – and he knows firsthand the truth that contradicts the Pentagon’s lies.

During the war, he fought on America’s side in the South Vietnamese Army and he witnessed U.S. planes spraying the mountain ridges near Da Nang; later he saw the dead trees left in their wake. The U.S. military had assured the Vietnamese public that the spray was harmless so he and his fellow soldiers drank the local water and ate the fruit and vegetables. Today, the 66-year old suffers from skin and heart diseases, his daughter struggles to breath, one grandchild has cerebral palsy and another is bedridden.

Vietnam’s Ministry of Health categorizes 17 illnesses as related to dioxin – including cancers of the prostate and lung, type 2 diabetes and spina bifida. The U.S. government recognizes a similar list of dioxin-linked diseases – and it compensates sick American veterans who served in Vietnam. But it does nothing to help dioxin-poisoned Vietnamese people.17

The U.S. government’s refusal to acknowledge the human impact of Operation Ranch Hand angers Phan: “America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was a war crime; it was chemical warfare. Today, we are starting to see the fourth generation of dioxin victims so you can even call it a form of biological warfare. And the problem still isn’t over.”

A number of dioxin hotspots remain on former U.S. military land in Vietnam; one of them is at Da Nang Air Base, today the site of the city’s international civilian airport. Although the U.S. government refuses to recognize the human impact of its dioxin in Vietnam, at Da Nang Airport it has engaged in environmental clean-up work since 2012. The estimated date of completion is later this year.18

Many have praised the cleanup as a positive first step – albeit one that is long overdue. The U.S. has also promised to help to remediate dioxin hotspots in other former bases in Vietnam.

This stands in stark contrast to Japan, including Okinawa, where SOFA places the financial burden of cleaning up U.S. military contamination entirely on Japanese taxpayers – and Tokyo has made no attempts to make the U.S. more responsible.

In November 2014, Phan visited Okinawa to attend the island’s first international symposium about military contamination and the inadequacies of SOFA.19 When he inspected the dioxin dumpsite in Okinawa City, he noted that it carried the same distinct odor as Da Nang Airport’s hot-spot. Given Japan’s reputation for technological expertise, Phan was surprised by the low safety standards at the site such as the lack of warning signs and tarpaulins to prevent the spread of contaminated dust.

Now Phan worries about what Urasoe’s base workers’ survey might uncover.

“When Da Nang airport was enlarged before 2007, the workers didn’t wear protective gear so they were exposed to dioxin. Prior to working at the site, these men had children born in perfect health. But afterwards, a number of them had children born with cerebral palsy and mental deficiencies,” he said.

Phan’s message for Okinawan authorities is clear.

One-hundred-and-eight barrels and counting: Work continues in December to remove dioxin from the U.S. military’s defoliant dump site in Okinawa City, which until recently had been used as a children’s soccer pitch.

“First they need to prevent the spread of dioxin from the dumpsite to outside. Stop pumping waste water into the river. Then they need to inform the public of the problem. Finally there needs to be research to check the health of residents in the area – particularly the children.”

Phan believes Urasoe’s survey is a move in the right direction. But to fully address the issues, action must originate from the national level.

“The Japanese government needs to research and push America to reveal the truth. But the Japanese government doesn’t want to damage its relationship with America. This is why they stay silent – even when Okinawa’s land is poisoned by dioxin.”

In May 2015, Welsh journalist, Jon Mitchell, was awarded the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan Freedom of the Press Award for Lifetime Achievement for his reporting about human rights issues – including military contamination – on Okinawa. He is the author of Tsuiseki: Okinawa no Karehazai(Chasing Agent Orange on Okinawa) (Kobunken 2014) and a visiting researcher at the International Peace Research Institute of Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo. Mitchell is an Asia-Pacific Journal contributing editor. This is a revised and expanded version of an article that appeared in The Japan Times.

Uma das aberrações jurídicas mais épicas de nossa era está sendo desmascarada. O Grupo de Trabalho sobre Detenções Arbitrárias da ONU – o tribunal internacional que analisa e decide se os governos cumprem ou não suas obrigações em matéria de direitos humanos – julgou que Julian Assange está sendo detido ilegalmente pelo Reino Unido e a Suécia.

Após cinco anos lutando contra difamação impiedosa, Assange está mais próximo de obter justiça – e, quem sabe, liberdade – do que jamais esteve, desde que foi aprisionado em Londres sob um Mandado Europeu para Extradição, agora já desacreditado pelo próprio Parlamento britânico.

O Grupo de Trabalho da ONU baseia suas decisões na Convenção Europeia sobre Direitos Humanos e em três outros tratados de cumprimento obrigatório por seus signatários. Tanto o Reino Unido quanto a Suécia, participaram da investigação oficial da ONU, que durou 16 meses.Apresentando evidências e defendendo suas posições perante o tribunal. Será um tapa na cara do direito internacional se estes países não acatarem a decisão e permitirem que Assange deixe o refúgio oferecido pelo governo equatoriano em sua embaixada de Londres.

Em casos anteriores que o Grupo de Trabalho julgou, e foram festejados internacionalmente, ambos os países ofereceram apoiaram as decisões do tribunal sobre prisioneiros detidos ilegalmente. Foi o caso de Aung Sang Suu Kyi, em Myanmar; do líder oposicionista Anwar Ibrahim, na Malásia; e do jornalista do Washington Post Jason Rezaian, no Irã. A diferença agora é que a perseguição e confinamento de Assange acontece no coração de Londres.

O caso Assange nunca foi, primordialmente, sobre as alegações de má conduta sexual na Suécia – onde a chefe da promotoria de Estocolmo, Eva Finne, julgou a acusação improcedente, dizendo: “Eu não acredito que exista qualquer razão para suspeitar que ele tenha cometido estupro”. Além disso, uma das mulheres envolvidas acusou a polícia de fabricar evidências e forçá-la a prestar queixa, sendo que ela “não queria acusar Julian Assange de coisa alguma”. Foi quando um segundo promotor, misteriosamente, reabriu o caso após intervenção política.

A perseguição a Assange tem suas raízes do outro lado Atlântico, numa Washington dominada pelo Pentágono. Sua obsessão é perseguir e acusar whistleblowers – especialmente Assange e o WikiLeaks — por terem exposto os crimes cometidos pelos EUA no Afeganistão e no Iraque: a matança desenfreada de civis e a violação da soberania dos países e da lei internacional.

De acordo com a Constituição dos EUA, nenhuma dessas revelações é ilegal. Como candidato à presidência, em 2008, Barack Obama, professor de direito constitucional, afirmou que os whistleblowers são “parte de uma democracia saudável [e] devem ser protegidos contra qualquer vingança”.

Mas em seguida Obama, o traidor, perseguiu mais whistleblowers em seu governo, do que todos os outros presidentes norte-americanos juntos. A corajosa Chelsea Manning, que hoje cumpre 35 anos de prisão, foi torturada durante sua longa detenção pré-julgamento.

A perspectiva de um destino similar pairou sob Assange como uma espada de Dâmocles. De acordo com os documentos revelados por Edward Snowden, o nome de Assange está presente em uma “lista de alvos para caçada humana”. O vice-presidente dos EUA, Joe Biden, classificou-o como “cyber-terrorista”.

Em Alexandria, no estado da Virgínia, um tribunal secreto tentou fabricar algum crime pelo qual Assange pudesse ser acusado. Apesar de ele não ser cidadão norte-americano, os EUA desencavaram a Lei de Espionagem, criada quase cem anos atrás, e a usaram para enquadrar Assange. Sob tal lei, um acusado pode ser condenado a prisão perpétua ou pena de morte.

A capacidade de Assange se defender nesse mundo kafkiano foi prejudicada pelos EUA, que classificaram os autos de seu caso como segredo de Estado. Uma corte federal bloqueou a liberação de todas as informações sobre aquilo que é conhecido como a investigação para “segurança nacional” do WikiLeaks.

O papel de coadjuvante nesse jogo de cartas marcadas ficou para a segunda promotora sueca Marianne Ny. Até há pouco, Ny recusou-se a cumprir o procedimento de rotina europeu, que exige que ela viaje até Londres para interrogar Assange e, assim, dar prosseguimento ao caso que James Catlin, um dos advogados do jornalista, classificou como “uma piada… é como se eles fossem inventando as coisas com o passar do tempo”. De fato, antes mesmo de Assange deixar a Suécia e seguir para Londres, em 2010, Marianne Ny não realizou nenhuma tentativa de interrogá-lo.

Nos anos que se seguiram, ela nunca conseguiu explicar apropriadamente, até mesmo para as autoridades jurídicas da Suécia, a razão pela qual não prosseguiu com o caso que reabriu de maneira tão entusiasmada – assim como nunca explicou por que se recusou a oferecer a Assange a garantia de que ele não seria extraditado para os EUA, sob um arranjo secreto entre Washington e Estocolmo. Em 2010, o periódico britânico The Independent revelou que os dois governos já haviam conversado sobre a extradição de Assange.

E então aparece o pequenino e bravo Equador. Uma das razões pela qual o país sul-americano ofereceu asilo político a Assange é o fato de o governo de seu próprio país, a Austrália, não ter lhe oferecido qualquer ajuda – à qual ele tinha o direito legal. O conluio da Austrália com os EUA, contra o seu próprio cidadão, tornou-se evidente em documentos secretos revelados; não existem vassalos mais leais aos EUA do que os políticos obedientes da Austrália.

Há quatro anos, em Sydney, eu passei várias horas com o Malcolm Turnbull, então um parlamentar liberal. Discutimos as ameaças a Assange e suas implicações mais graves contra a liberdade de expressão, assim como a justiça; e por que a Austrália tinha a obrigação de ficar ao seu lado. Turnbull é agora o primeiro-ministro australiano e, enquanto escrevo, está participando de uma conferência internacional sobre a Síria, tendo como anfitrião o primeiro-ministro britânico David Cameron, a apenas 15 minutos de distância do quarto onde Julian Assange viveu os últimos três anos e meio, na pequena embaixada equatoriana.

A conexão síria é relevante, ainda que pouco conhecida.Foi o WikiLeaks que revelou que os EUA planejavam há muito tempo derrubar o governo Assad, na Síria. Hoje, enquanto troca apertos de mãos, o primeiro-ministro Turnbull tem a oportunidade de trazer um mínimo de propósito e verdade para a conferência, falando abertamente sobre o aprisionamento ilegal de seu compatriota, a quem ele demonstrara tanta preocupação quando nos encontramos. Tudo o que ele precisa fazer é citar a decisão do Grupo de Trabalho em Detenções Arbitrárias da ONU. Ele irá recuperar, para a Austrália, ao menos essa ínfima reputação perante o mundo decente?

O que é certo é que o mundo decente deve muito a Julian Assange. Ele nos contou como o poder indecente se comporta em segredo; como mente, manipula e se engaja em enormes atos de violência, mantendo guerras que matam, mutilam e transformam milhões de pessoas nos refugiados que agora vemos na televisão.

Apenas por isso, por nos contar essa verdade, Assange merece sua liberdade, ao passo que ter justiça é o seu direito.

 John Pilger

Fonte em inglês:

Freeing Julian Assange: The Last Chapter, 5 de Febrero de 2016

Fonte em português: Tradução em português Vinícius Gomes Melo para Outras Palavras

John Pilger : Jornalista. Autor de livros como “O mundo nas mãos: o que os média não dizem sobre os novos donos do mundo”. Vencedor do prêmio “British Academy Television Richard Dimbleby Award”. johnpilger.com

A Nobel prize winning economist, former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, and chairman of the President’s council of economic advisers (Joseph Stiglitz) says that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank loan money to third world countries as a way to force them to open up their markets and resources for looting by the West.

Do central banks do something similar?

Economics professor Richard Werner – who created the concept of quantitative easing – has documented that central banks intentionally impoverish their host countries to justify economic and legal changes which allow looting by foreign interests.

He focuses mainly on the Bank of Japan, which induced a huge bubble and then deflated it – crushing Japan’s economy in the process – as a way to promote and justify structural “reforms”.

The Bank of Japan has used a heavy hand on Japanese economy for many decades, but Japan is stuck in a horrible slump.

But Werner says the same thing about the European Central Bank (ECB).  The ECB has used loans and liquidity as a weapon to loot European nations.

Indeed, Greece (more), Italy, Ireland (and here) and other European countries have all lost their national sovereignty to the ECB and the other members of the Troika.

ECB head Mario Draghi said in 2012:

The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states’ national budgets.

***

I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level.

***

Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the financial markets.

And yet Europe has been stuck in a depression worse than the Great Depression, largely due to the ECB’s actions.

What about America’s central bank … the Federal Reserve?

Initially – contrary to what many Americans believe – the Federal Reserve had admitted that it is not really federal (more).

But – even if it’s not part of the government – hasn’t the Fed acted in America’s interest?

Let’s have a look …

The Fed:

• Bailed out foreign banks … more than Main Street or the American people.  The foreign banks bailed out by the Fed include Gaddafi’s Libyan bank, the Arab Banking Corp. of Bahrain, and the Banks of Bavaria and Korea

• Offered to bail out Mexico, if it would agree to join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

• Threw money at “several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires”, including billionaire businessman H. Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack

• Bailed out wealthy corporations, including hedge funds, McDonald’s and Harley-Davidson

• Artificially “front-loaded an enormous [stock] market rally”.  Professor G. William Domhoff demonstrated that the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the top 1% own 35%).  The great majority of Americans – the bottom 90% – own less than 20% of all stocks and mutual funds. So the Fed’s effort overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans … and wealthy foreigninvestors

• Is largely responsible for creating the worst inequality in world history

• Turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud (which is destroying the economy). Fed chair Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen.   Fed chair Bernanke also falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy when they were not

• Acted as cheerleader in chief for unregulated use of derivatives at least as far back as 1999 (see thisand this), and is now backstopping derivatives loss

• And for subprime loans

• Allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and financial experts say that the economy will not recover until the giant banks are broken up. For example, Citigroup’s former chief executive says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the merger of banking and insurance giants, Greenspan told him, “I have nothing against size. It doesn’t bother me at all”

• Argued that economists had conquered the business cycle, and that modern, technologically advanced financial markets are best left to police themselves

• Preached that a new bubble be blown every time the last one bursts

• Had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.  See this and this

• Intentionally discouraged banks from lending to Main Street, which has increased unemployment and stalled out the economy

Moreover, the Fed’s main program for dealing with the financial crisis – quantitative easing – benefits the rich and hurts the little guy, as confirmed by former high-level Fed officials, the architect of Japan’s quantitative easing program and several academic economists.  Indeed, a high-level Federal Reserve official says quantitative easing is “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time”.  And see this.

Some economists called the bank bailouts which the Fed helped engineer the greatest redistribution of wealth in history.

Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in Lehman’s accounting fraud, (and see this), and pushed to pay AIG’s CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as Robert Reich notes, Geithner was “very much in the center of the action” regarding the secret bail out of Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black points out: “Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October 2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but instead covered up its depth”

Indeed, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office calls the Fed corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest. Nobel prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz says the World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like the Fed as being corrupt and untrustworthy. The former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption. “Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be here,” he said.

But aren’t the Fed and other central banks crucial to stabilize the economy?

Not necessarily … the Fed caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, and many economists – including several Nobel prize winning economists – say that we should end the Fed in its current form.

They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy. For example:

Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”

Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well.  For example,  Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote:

The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.

Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world’s first central bank, the Bank of England.   Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764, this is what he observed:

When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”

In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.

Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was “the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.” This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: “the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

(for more on the Currency Act, see this.)

And things are getting worse … rather than better.  As Professor Werner tells Washington’s Blog:

Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe, yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the ‘recurring banking crises’, central banks are usually handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background here and here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.

Georgetown University historian Professor Carroll Quigley argued that the aim of the powers-that-be is “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” This system is to be controlled “in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements,” central banks that “were themselves private corporations.”

Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact.

Después de cinco años luchando para limpiar su nombre –calumniado sin descanso aunque sin acusarle de delito alguno-, Assange está más cerca de la justicia y exculpación, y quizá de la libertad, que en ningún otro momento desde que fue arrestado y recluido en Londres en virtud de una orden de extradición europea, ahora desacreditada por el Parlamento.

El grupo de trabajo de la ONU basa su dictamen en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y otros tres tratados que son vinculantes para todos sus firmantes. Tanto Gran Bretaña como Suecia han participado en la larga investigación de dieciséis meses de la ONU, presentando pruebas y defendiendo su posición ante el tribunal. Actuarían despectivamente ante el derecho internacional si no cumplieran la sentencia y no permitieran que Assange abandonara el refugio que el gobierno ecuatoriano le ha garantizado en su embajada en Londres.

En celebrados casos anteriores dictaminados por el Grupo de Trabajo –Aung Sang Suu Kyi en Birmania, el dirigente de la oposición encarcelado en Malasia Anwar Ibrahim, el periodista del Washington Post detenido en Irán Jason Rezaian-, tanto Gran Bretaña como Suecia apoyaron al tribunal. La diferencia ahora es que la persecución y confinamiento de Assange tiene lugar en el corazón de Londres.

El caso Assange no se debe ante todo a las alegaciones de conducta sexual inapropiada en Suecia, donde la fiscal jefe de Estocolmo, Eva Finne, descartó el caso diciendo: “No creo que haya razón alguna para sospechar que ha cometido una violación”, y una de las mujeres implicadas acusó a la policía de fabricar pruebas y de tratar de “encajarlas” y de protestar porque ella “no quisiera acusar de nada a Julian Assange”, y una segundo fiscal volvió a abrir misteriosamente el caso después de una intervención política y luego lo paró.

El caso Assange hunde sus raíces a través del Atlántico en un Washington dominado por el Pentágono, obsesionado con perseguir y procesar a los denunciantes, especialmente a Assange por haber expuesto en WikiLeaks los gravísimos crímenes de EEUU en Afganistán e Iraq: la matanza indiscriminada de civiles y el desprecio por la soberanía y el derecho internacional.

Nada de esto, decir la verdad, es ilegal en virtud de la Constitución estadounidense. Barack Obama, profesor de derecho constitucional, cuando era candidato presidencial en 2008 alabó a los denunciantes como “parte de una democracia sana y a quienes debe protegerse de represalias”.

Obama, el traidor, ha perseguido desde entonces a más denunciantes que todos los presidentes estadounidenses juntos. La valiente Chelsea Manning cumple una sentencia de 35 años de cárcel tras haber sido torturada durante el largo período de detención anterior al juicio.

La perspectiva de un destino similar ha colgado sobre Assange como una espada de Damocles. Según documentos publicados por Edward Snowden, Assange está en una “lista de caza de hombres”. El vicepresidente Joe Biden le ha llamado “terrorista cibernético”. En Alexandra, Virginia, un gran jurado secreto ha tratado de inventar un delito por el que Assange pueda ser procesado por un tribunal. Aunque no sea estadounidense, se le está intentando enredar desenterrando una ley de hace un siglo contra el espionaje, utilizada para silenciar a los objetores de conciencia durante la I Guerra Mundial; el Acta de Espionaje tiene disposiciones para castigar tanto con cadena perpetua como con pena de muerte.

La capacidad de defenderse de Assange en este mundo kafkiano se ha visto entorpecida al declarar EEUU que su caso es secreto de Estado. Un tribunal federal ha bloqueado la publicación de cualquier información acerca de lo que se conoce como la investigación de “seguridad nacional” de WikiLeaks.

El papel secundario en esta farsa lo ha jugado la segunda fiscal sueca, Marianne Ny. Hasta hacer poco, Ny se había negado a cumplir un procedimiento europeo de rutina que le exigía viajar a Londres para interrogar a Assange y así hacer avanzar el caso que James Catlin, uno de los abogados de Assange, llamó “un hazmerreir… es como si fueran inventándolo mientras intentan seguir adelante”.

De hecho, incluso antes de que Assange abandonara Suecia hacia Londres en 2010, Marianne Ny no hizo intento alguno de interrogarle. En los años siguientes no ha explicado nunca de forma adecuada, incluso ante sus propias autoridades judiciales, por qué no completó el caso que con tanto entusiasmo volvió a abrir, al igual que nunca ha explicado por qué se ha negado a garantizar a Assange que no será extraditado a EEUU en virtud de un acuerdo secreto entre Estocolmo y Washington. En 2010, el Independent de Londres reveló que los dos gobiernos habían discutido de forma anticipada sobre la extradición de Assange.

Luego tenemos al diminuto y valiente Ecuador. Una de las razones por las que Ecuador concedió asilo político a Julian Assange fue porque su propio gobierno, en Australia, no le había ofrecido la ayuda a la que tiene legalmente derecho y le había abandonado. La colusión de Australia con EEUU contra un ciudadano propio queda clara en documentos filtrados; no tiene EEUU vasallos más leales que los obedientes políticos de las Antípodas.

Hace cuatro años, en Sidney, pasé varias horas con Malcolm Turnbull, miembro liberal del parlamento federal. Debatimos sobre las amenazas a Assange y sus amplias implicaciones para la libertad de expresión y la justicia, y por qué Australia estaba obligada a apoyarle. Turnbull es ahora el primer ministro de Australia y, mientras escribo estas líneas, está asistiendo a una conferencia internacional sobre Siria acogida por el gobierno de Cameron, a unos quince minutos en taxi de la habitación que Julian Assange lleva ocupando desde hace tres años y medio en la pequeña embajada ecuatoriana, justo al lado de Harrod’s.

La conexión siria es importante aunque no se hable de ella; fue WikiLeaks quien reveló que EEUU había planeado hacía tiempo derrocar al gobierno de Asad en Siria. Hoy en día, entre encuentros y saludos, el primer ministro Turnbull tiene la oportunidad de contribuir a la conferencia con un propósito y verdad mínimos dejando oír su voz en defensa de un compatriota injustamente encarcelado por el que tanta preocupación mostró cuando nos reunimos. Todo lo que tiene que hacer es citar el dictamen del Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU sobre Detenciones Arbitraria. ¿Recuperará así una parte de la reputación de Australia para el mundo decente?

De lo que no cabe duda es que el mundo decente le debe mucho a Julian Assange. Nos contó cómo se comporta en secreto el poder indecente, cómo miente y manipula y se involucra en actos de enorme violencia, en mantener guerras que matan y mutilan y en convertir a millones de seres en los refugiados que vemos en las noticias.

Sólo por contarnos esa verdad Assange ya se ha ganado su libertad, aunque tiene derecho a la justicia.

John Pilger

Fuente en inglés:

Freeing Julian Assange: The Last Chapter, 5 de Febrero de 2016

www.johnpilger.com

Fuente en español: Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Sinfo Fernández. Rebelión

John Pilger : Periodista. Autor de livros como “O mundo nas mãos: o que os média não dizem sobre os novos donos do mundo”. Vencedor do prêmio “British Academy Television Richard Dimbleby Award”. johnpilger.com

Defense Ministry reported. The same day, the Pentagon accused Moscow of bombing two hospitals, despite no Russian flights over the city.

“Yesterday, at 13:55 Moscow time (10:55 GMT), two American A-10 assault aircraft entered Syrian airspace from Turkey, flew right to the city of Aleppo and bombed targets there,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said Thursday.

Also on Wednesday, Konashenkov referenced, the Pentagon’s spokesman, Colonel Steven Warren claimed that Russian warplanes allegedly bombed two hospitals in Aleppo.

“In his words, some 50,000 Syrian have been allegedly deprived of vital services,” Konashenkov said, pointing out that Warren forgot to mention either hospitals’ coordinates, or the time of the airstrikes, or sources of information.“Absolutely nothing.”

“No Russian warplanes carried out airstrikes in Aleppo city area yesterday. The nearest target engaged was over 20km away from the city,” Konashenkov stressed, adding that on the contrary, airplanes from the US-led anti-ISIS coalition were active over Aleppo, “both aircrafts and UAVs.”

“I’m going to be honest with you: we did not have enough time to clarify what exactly those nine objects bombed out by US planes in Aleppo yesterday were,” Konashenkov said. “We will look more carefully.”

However, a senior State Department official denied the allegations, saying that Russian reports are “false,” and that the US did not carry out any missions over Aleppo on Wednesday or Thursday, NBC reports.

On Wednesday, the US accused the Russian Air Force of targeting two hospitals in Aleppo.

“The situation in and around Aleppo has become, in our view, increasingly dire,” Col. Steve Warren, Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman, said Wednesday. “With the destruction of the two main hospitals in Aleppo by Russian and regime attacks, over 50,000 Syrians are now without any access to live-saving assistance.”

Warren added, “There’s little or no ISIL in the Aleppo area, so they’re kind of, at this point, separate fights.”

The spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry drew attention to the stunning similarity of the situation with the American airstrike on the Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, and the US bombing of the positions of the Iraqi army in Fallujah.

“What they do first is make unfounded accusations against us – to deflect blame away from themselves. If it goes on like this, we’re going to make two media briefings: one for ourselves, another for those coalition guys,” Konashenkov said.

Western countries never bothered to share intelligence on terrorists in Syria with Moscow, although they did accept Russian maps with terrorists’ positions marked, the Russian MoD’s spokesman said.

“Now they criticize us, saying we fly wrong way and bomb wrong places. Should we send them more maps?”Konashenkov questioned.

He recalled what the Russian Defense Ministry had pointed out earlier – the more terrorists Russia destroys the more it is being accused of indiscriminate airstrikes.

“If you look at how Western media presents information, it looks like the cities not controlled by the Syrian government are full of peaceful opposition and human rights activists,” the spokesman said.

The Russian Defense Ministry and its partners in Syria operate multilevel intelligence, maintaining unimpeachable target spotting, the MoD representative said, adding that all airstrikes are delivered only after repeated verification of a target to avoid civilian casualties. Konashenkov said intelligence also comes from the armed units of the Syrian opposition.

Konashenkov accused Western TV channels of presenting the ruins of the city of Aleppo, devastated long before the Russian Air Force was deployed to Syria, as the results of recent Russian airstrikes.

“An experienced orchestrator has a finger in this pie,” the spokesman said. “The obvious trend is to trumpet about alleged Russia sins and be silent about the ‘effectiveness’ of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in Syria.”

The Russian Air Force has performed over 500 sorties, eliminating nearly 1,900 terrorist facilities in Syria between February 4 and February 11. The Defense Ministry reports that two senior terrorist field commanders have been killed.

“Over the past week, February 4-11, the planes of Russia’s aviation group in Syria made 510 sorties during which 1,888 facilities of terrorists were destroyed in the provinces of Aleppo, Latakia, Hama, Deir ez-Zor, Daraa, Homs, Al-Hasakah and Raqqah,” Konashenkov said.

The MoD spokesman shared with the media about wholesale desertion among the terrorists in Aleppo. The jihadists intimidate local civilians and force them to walk en masse towards the Turkish border, while the militants try to melt into the crowd.

“They know for sure that neither the Russian Air Force nor the Syrian government troops ever deliver strikes on non-combatants,” Konashenkov said.

Elaborating on some details of the latest Russian airstrikes in Syria, he related how Sukhoi Su-25 ground-support fighters eliminated three terrorist convoys on the highway connecting Homs and Al-Qaryatayn. A reconnaissance check revealed that airstrikes destroyed nine trucks loaded with munitions, two armored vehicles and over 40 jihadists.

In Daraa province, a Sukhoi Su-34 bomber wiped out a hardened terrorist position near Ghariyah settlement. The strike that destroyed the fortified strong point also eliminated two armored vehicles parked nearby.

If you did not know the man’s name, and you were unfamiliar with the Western press’ habit of renaming what it fears, you would think that his family name was gang leader or bandit. For about a decade, Amaral Duclona, a charismatic Haitian, born and raised in the Cité Soleil slum of Port-au-Prince, has been the foreign occupation’s bogeyman. France, in particular, has been determined to imprison Duclona for allegedly kidnapping and killing a 51-year-old Haitian-French businessman, Claude Bernard Lauture, in January 2004. Lauture was well ensconced in the Haitian elite and belonged to the group of 184 that was plotting with the United States, France and Canada to depose Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

After the initial allegations about murdering Lauture, for a while Duclona was accused of killing every high-value foreigner who wound up dead in Haiti, including French Honorary Consul, Henri Paul Mourral, who was shot near Cité Soleil in May 2005 and Canadian policeman, Mark Bourque, of the United Nations Mission (MINUSTAH), who was shot in Cité Soleil in December 2005. Duclona continues to proclaim his innocence. He says that he is no murderer and merely an anti-occupation militant who has done consciousness raising in his community, assisted his people with voting, getting food and other services, and participated in a citizen’s police that has helped to defend Cité Soleil against the killings, rapes, and assaults by Haitian police and UN forces.

At least one judge in France appears to be listening to Duclona, because his defense secured the retrial on appeal against a May 2014 decision to convict him to 25 years in prison for the alleged murder of Lauture, with no possibility of parole until after 17 years. The new trial is in the Parisian suburb of Créteil on February 8 to 12, 2016.

Duclona’s attorney says that a major shortcoming of the previous trial is that it had relied on a weak police investigation in Haiti. According to the published facts of the case, Lauture was kidnapped on January 6, 2004, and after a few hours, he called his brother to say that he would not be released without delivery of a $100,000 ransom. In a radio interview, Lauture’s widow has said that, during this call, Lauture tried to communicate information about his location and was caught doing so. The family was told the next day to go to a morgue; there they found his body riddled with bullets. The prosecution has tried to suggest a political motive for Lauture’s murder that implicates Aristide. The main witnesses at the trial were the widow and the former Ambassador of France to Haiti (2003-2006), Thierry Burkard. Marie-Louise Michelle Lauture told the court that Aristide was unhappy with her husband for joining the group of 184 and had tried to coax him into various government posts that he refused, and she said: “I am convinced that my husband’s kidnapping was remote-controlled by Jean-Bertrand Aristide and executed by Amaral Duclona.” Burkard, for his part, presented to the court the view that the Cité Soleil militias called “chimères… had access to the presidential palace where they took their orders and received money.” The prosecution treated as a key piece of evidence a cell phone, presumably dropped in the struggle during the kidnapping, which had been used to call the chief of Aristide’s security and had been called a total of 21 times by a number attributed to Duclona. The owner of the phone was reportedly killed in a shootout. No witness from Haiti appeared at the trial, not even Lauture’s aunt and cousin, who were supposed to have relayed much of the alleged inducements and threats from Aristide to Mr. and Mrs. Lauture.

For about two years the accusations against Duclona were ignored, at least in Haiti, although he was formally the most wanted man there. In early February 2006, then 27-year-old Duclona publicly led protests to demand polling stations in Cité Soleil, which then had about 300,000 people. On the occasion, he said:

“People need to realize we’re human beings too, not the animals they think we are…. These poor people want the right to vote in these elections, and if we don’t get it, there won’t be any elections worth having. If you are fighting to take the people out of misery in Haiti, they will always call you a gang leader.”

When the polling stations did not materialize, he accompanied people to vote in the February 7, 2006 elections that returned René Preval to the presidency. Soon thereafter, Duclona disappeared underground, probably because his comrades in Cité Soleil were being killed. Amaral Duclona did not resurface until September 2009 when he was arrested in the Dominican Republic (DR), where he had been living under the alias Berthone Jolicoeur.

If Duclona kidnapped anyone, the evidence for it is rather circumstantial. On the other hand, there is solid proof that France kidnapped Duclona. His arrest in the DR was quite irregular. For one, the Dominican National Directorate for Drug Control (DNCD) conducted the arrest and jailing. For another, it was prompted by an extradition request from France in which the charges were not those for which Duclona was eventually tried. France charged Duclona with murdering a French citizen and diplomat, Henri Paul Mourral, so that the extradition would go smoothly, and indeed, Duclona was extradited to France within four months. In the end, however, France tried Duclona, not for Mourral’s murder but for that of Claude Bernard Lauture, a Haitian-French citizen, although France should have had no jurisdiction in the trial of a Haitian national for a crime committed against another Haitian national on Haitian soil. In other words, real justice now would require a dismissal of the Duclona case and its retrial in Haiti.

Given the unjust basis of the case, it is unlikely that a retrial will clear Duclona. At best, he might get a lighter sentence than the scandalous one from the 2014 trial that made a travesty of the French justice system. This old colonial power imagines that its assaults on the sovereignty of countries like Haiti and the Ivory Coast have no cost. But just as in the late 16th century on the heels of its supposed enlightenment, France finds itself no longer free after it embraced racism as policy. This time around, it is under a state of emergency.

Mural caption: “We are sown, we sprout, we make roots to give life.”

Dady Chery is the author of We Have Dared to Be Free.

Notes:

Photos one, three, and seven from UN Photo; two from Haitian Photos archive; four by James Emery; five, six, and eight by Andre Mellagi.

On Feb.10, 555th Brigade of the 4th Mechanized Division of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) supported by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and the Russian Air Force launched a full-scale military operation to recapture the road linking Ithriyah and Raqqa. The road also leads to the Tabaqa Military Airport. Following the heavy clashes with ISIS, the pro-government forces liberated Tal Abu Zayn and a water well at the village of Tal Zakiya. Now, the Syrian forces are pursuing the goal to liberate the Tabaqa Military Airport.

According to reports, some 800 fighters from Liwa Suqour al-Sahra, the pro-government Palestinian militia “Liwa al-Quds”, Fouj al-Joulan and Kata’ebat al-Ba’ath have arrived the town of Ithriyah in the Northeastern part of Hama in order to supply the efforts aimed to purge ISIS from the Tabaqa Military Airport.

In a separate development, the Syrian government forces backed up by the Russian and Syrian warplanes stormed the ISIS defense lines near the town of Zahiyeh in the Raqqa province.

In North Aleppo, the SAA supported by Hezbollah and Iraqi paramilitary units were able to take control of the village of Kafr Naya located directly south of the militants’ stronghold of Tal Rifa’at. In the nearest future, the SAA and its allies will likely to advance North-East towards Mare’ in order to cut off the militants in Misqan and Ahras from their only supply route heading from Azaz.

According to the Syrian intelligence sources, the militant groups operating in the Northeastern part of Lattakia province have called for more fresh forces to save their last main stronghold, Kinsibba, located at the border with Idlib province. We remember, the SAA and its allies with a significant air and artillery support have been continuing an offensive aimed to recapture this area from the terrorists.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) vehicles trying to enter al-Mazaya district of Damascus have been attacked by militants operating in this area on Feb.10. A number of aid workers were injured and three of them are reportedly in a critical condition.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

The Syrian Army and its allies have clearly turned the tide in the Syrian war. The “facts on the ground” have changed dramatically for all the major players, and constitute a major reversal for all the forces that have tried to institute “regime change” in Syria, in violation of its sovereignty. The Geneva “Peace Conference” opposition delegation, composed of marginal figures representing a tiny fraction of the armed anti-government factions but ostensibly speaking for all of them, is now largely irrelevant. As the terrorists and foreign mercenaries and their families flee Aleppo, thousands or tens of thousands of Syrian civilians are returning to their homes in secure government held areas.

Given the reversal of fortunes for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US, NATO and their allies and mercenaries, what’s next? The sensible thing would be for all the actors to declare victory by finishing off the ostensible terrorist enemy and accepting a face saving solution that includes a Syrian government commitment to reform, with expertise provided by a friendly international team of experts that puts Russia, the US, Europe, Iran and perhaps even Saudi Arabia on the same side.

But this is not the advice we are hearing from the advisers that got us into this mess in the first place, and who are disappointed that Syria might not go way of Iraq, Libya and Somalia after all. They are suggesting that a more and bigger war is the way to complete the job of turning Syria into a failed state. Such a war would involve an invasion of Turkish forces amassed and poised on the border, direct intervention by Saudi forces, US and perhaps other NATO ground forces, and potentially Israeli forces as well.

Such a plan risks putting these forces directly in confrontation with Syrian and Russian units and objectives. It is a recipe for great power confrontation on a scale rarely seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Rarely, but not totally. When Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft on November 24, 2015, only very cool Russian heads prevented the unthinkable by deciding that the Russian response might best be served cold.

That dish is now on the table, and it is for the Turks and bigger warmongers to decide if they want to risk Armageddon by unleashing even greater forces of destruction. There are players that would love to do so; they profit from death, misery and cataclysm, and would never miss such an opportunity. Chief among them are the arms merchants that dominate in the US and Israel, the neoconservative movement, also heavily subsidized by Israel and its Zionist lobbies in other countries, and by Israel’s investment in weakening all potential adversaries. Saudi Arabia has decided that it has much the same adversaries and has therefore thrown its lot in with Israel. The Erdogan administration in Turkey finds that its interests, including territorial aggrandizement, are congruent, and US objectives are defined by the neoconservative movement and the Israel Lobby, which have kidnapped US strategic policy in this regard, to the dismay of the Foreign Service, intelligence and military professional core of the American government.

The Syria Solidarity Movement suggests that further escalation is not a solution, but that the application of international law can bring the hostilities to a close. Astonishingly, this a war in which there are few declared enemies. Of the many parties and their sponsored combatants, only the armed groups and the Syrian government have declared themselves to be enemies, unless you count the insincere protestations that “terrorist” groups are also enemies of the same nations that are aiding and abetting them.

Syria is still recognized universally and diplomatically as a sovereign state, and under international law no power may interfere in its security considerations except by invitation from the recognized government of that state. To seek “regime change” (overthrow) is strictly illegal under international law, and prohibited by the United Nations. Governments that are pursuing such an objective should be sanctioned by the UN, although there is no realistic possibility of such action.

The Syria Solidarity Movement believes that it is time to complete the expulsion of the terrorist and mercenary forces that have been attacking Syria for the last five years. This can be accomplished by denying all support of arms and funding from the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and other countries. In addition, these countries can choose to either cooperate with the Syrian government and its allies to rid Syria of this scourge, or at least not interfere while Syrian, Russian and other allied forces complete the job. In this case, Syria can resume its role of providing government services and representation for its people, and its people can resume shaping their own government without outside interference.

It time to end this ill-advised adventurism, and to put to flight the rascals and criminals, not only in Syria but also inside the countries whose strategic policies have been hijacked by gangs who are in many respects worse than those who bring beheadings and crucifixions to our computer screens. 

The Russian Aerospace Defense Forces have conducted 510 sorties destroying 1888 terrorist targets in in the Syrian provinces of Aleppo, Latakia, Hama, Deir ez-Zor, Daraa, Homs, Al-Hasakah and Raqqa over last 7 days.

The Syrian Army announced that it destroyed an ISIS oil tanker and a number of major military facilities and hardware in a concerted air and ground operation in the province of Suwayda. The Syrian troops are conducting military operations against militant targets at Dara’a province’s border with Suwayda.

ISIS launched a massive offensive with usage of suicide bombers and heavy military equipment on the Deir Ezzor Military Airport on Feb.11. The event continued a series of the terrorists’ attempts to break the base’s fortifications this year. Following the heavy clashes, the SAA was able to defend its positions in the area. Pro-Syrian sources also report heavy casualties among ISIS militants. Nonetheless this is not yet confirmed by photo and video proofs.

In a separate development, west of the airport, the SAA repeal another ISIS advance aimed on the 137th Brigade’s headquarters near Jabal Al-Thardeh. The recent developments have shown that ISIS still maintain a possibility to conduct offensive operations in the province of Deir Ezzor despite the loses in other areas of Syria.

On Feb.11, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia made a proposal on a ceasefire in Syria. The proposal was supported by the U.S. and its allies. Thus, the ceasefire is set to begin next week and will continue indefinitely until further specified. It won’t extend to organizations which the UN Security Council designates as terrorist.

Thus, the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to continue operations against ISIS, al-Nusra, Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham and other affiliated organizations. The ceasefire also should assist all non-jihadist forces in Syria to concentrate efforts on the terrorist groups in Syria. However, it’s a big question how the all sides of the conflict will act in practice.

Support Independent News and Views!

Tune in today, Friday February 12 at 1 pm Winnipeg time (2:00pm EST/ 7:00pm GMT). Stream live here.

This week’s Global Research News Hour will be a live broadcast to raise funds for radio station CKUW. It will feature interviews and discussion promoting the virtues of independent, non-commercial media. Guests include writer and political activist Roger Annis as well as Iraq war resister and deserter Joshua Key. 

Since its debut in the fall of 2012, the newly revamped Global Research News Hour has aired over one hundred thirty episodes. It has been picked up by several community radio stations across North America!

As regular listeners are aware, the programme has made strides in tackling diverse topics from 9/11 Truth, to the dynamics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, to the role of US/NATO (as opposed to Russia) in instigating conflict in Ukraine, to the role of so-called free trade agreements in suppressing the popular will to the advantage of elites, to the origins of Al Qaeda and ISIL, to the environmental crisis.

The Global Research News Hour takes pride in getting these alternative perspectives beyond the internet and taking them to the public airwaves.

CKUW is the campus-based radio station which hosts the GRNH. CKUW broadcasts at 95.9 MHz on the FM band and is based at the University of Winnipeg in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

CKUW is now one of the few stations in Canada to operate completely without any ad revenue shaping its news content. In order to pay for the equipment and operating expenses that make it possible to put together the programme, the station must turn to its loyal listeners for revenue.

You can donate by phoning 204 774-6877 during today’s broadcast (long distance charges may apply! ) or by donating on-line:

fundrive.ckuw.ca (you can find Global Research News Hour in the drop down menu under ‘Pledge Options.’ Please note, tax receipts are only honoured for Canadian residents. Out of town residents must include instructions for delivery of incentives by mail.)

We call upon our readers to donate to to the Global Research News Hour. Click here to go to our donation

https://store.globalresearch.ca/donate  (indicate GRNH)

On behalf of Professor Michel Chossudovsky and the editors and staff of Global Research, as well as the staff and volunteers at CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg, I thank our devoted listeners for their ongoing support of this radio programme.

Michael Welch

Host and Producer , Global Research News Hour

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The  show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CFUV 101. 9 FM in Victoria. Airing Sundays from 7-8am PT.

CHLY 101.7 FM in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario – Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the  North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

As you might have heard, the opposition in Syria is in serious trouble.

Last summer, Bashar al-Assad’s army was on the ropes, as the SAA fought a multi-front war against a dizzying array of rebel forces including ISIS. Then Quds commander Qassem Soleimani went to Russia. After that, everything changed.

As of September 30 the Russian air force began flying combat missions from Latakia, rolling back rebel gains and paving the way for a Hezbollah ground offensive. Once Moscow had stopped the bleeding for the SAA (both figuratively and literally), Iran called up Shiite militias from Iraq who, alongside Hassan Nasrallah’s forces, pushed north towards Aleppo.

Now, the city is surrounded and the rebels are cut off from their supply line to Turkey. In short: it’s just a matter of time before the opposition is routed.

So much for President Obama’s “Russia will get itself into a quagmire” line.

As you might have heard, the opposition in Syria is in serious trouble.

Last summer, Bashar al-Assad’s army was on the ropes, as the SAA fought a multi-front war against a dizzying array of rebel forces including ISIS. Then Quds commander Qassem Soleimani went to Russia. After that, everything changed.

As of September 30 the Russian air force began flying combat missions from Latakia, rolling back rebel gains and paving the way for a Hezbollah ground offensive. Once Moscow had stopped the bleeding for the SAA (both figuratively and literally), Iran called up Shiite militias from Iraq who, alongside Hassan Nasrallah’s forces, pushed north towards Aleppo.

Now, the city is surrounded and the rebels are cut off from their supply line to Turkey. In short: it’s just a matter of time before the opposition is routed.

So much for President Obama’s “Russia will get itself into a quagmire” line.

The only thing that can save the rebels at this juncture is a direct intervention by the groups’ Sunni benefactors including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey.

That, or an intervention by the US.

Both the Saudis and the Turkey have hinted at ground invasions over the past two weeks and just this morning, a sokesman said Riyadh’s decision to send in troops was “final.”

But direct interventions are tricky. Russia has never denied it intends to bolster Syrian government forces against the rebels, all of whom Moscow deems “terrorists.” On the other hand, Washington, Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara cling to the notion that while they don’t support Assad, they’re primary goal is to fight ISIS. Well ISIS is in Raqqa, which is nowhere near Aleppo, meaning there’s no way to help the rebels out in their fight against the Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah under the guise of battling Islamic State.

Against that backdrop we found it interesting that Moscow and Washington are now delivering conflicting accounts of airstrikes in Aleppo on Wednesday. The Pentagon, without specifying what time the strikes allegedly took place, says Russia destroyed the city’s two main hospitals.

Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov notes that Warren didn’t provide either hospitals’ coordinates, or the time of the airstrikes, or sources of information. “Absolutely nothing,” he said, describing Warren’s report.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, says US warplanes conducted strikes at 1355 Moscow time. “Two U.S. Air Force A-10 attack aircraft entered Syrian airspace from Turkish territory,” Konashenkov said in a statement. “Reaching Aleppo by the most direct path, they made strikes against objects in the city.”

“Only aviation of the anti-ISIS coalition flew over the city yesterday,” he added.

“When asked on Wednesday whether the U.S.-led coalition could do more to help rebels in Aleppo or improve access for humanitarian aid to the city, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said that the coalition’s focus remained on fighting Islamic State,”Reuters wrote on Thursday. The group is “virtually non-existent in that part of Syria,” Warren said.

Right. Which makes you wonder what two US Air Force A-10 attack planes were doing bombing in and around Aleppo. Is the US set to conduct airstrikes in support of the rebels, thus marking a fresh and exceptionally dangerous escalation of hostilities in the country?

As for what exactly it was that the US warplanes struck, Konashenkov will have to get back to us. He’s too busy winning a war to care right now:

I’m going to be honest with you: we did not have enough time to clarify what exactly those nine objects bombed out by US planes in Aleppo yesterday were. We will look more carefully.

*  *  *

Below, find excerpts from “Will Russian Victories In Syria Spark A Regional War?” by Yaroslav Trofimov as originally published in WSJ

Defying U.S. predictions of a quagmire in Syria, Russia is achieving strategic victories there with this month’s Aleppo offensive. The question now is whether this is a turning point that hastens the five-year war’s end or the trigger for a counter-escalation that will drag other regional countries into the conflict.

Few expect that Moscow’s main target—the moderate rebels backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—would now be forced settle the conflict on the Kremlin’s, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s, terms.

“Their victory in Aleppo is not the end of the war. It’s the beginning of a new war,” said Moncef Marzouki, who served in 2011-14 as the president of Tunisia, the nation that kicked off the Arab Spring, and who recently visited the Turkish-Syrian border. “Now, everybody would intervene.”

To be sure, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have few easy options to counter Russian military might in Syria. But because of national pride—and internal politics—neither can really afford to have the rebel cause in which they have invested so much wiped out by Moscow and its Iranian allies.

While the Obama administration has long been determined to minimize U.S. involvement there, for Turkey and Saudi Arabia the prospect of Syria falling under the sway of Russia and Iran would be a national-security catastrophe.

“The whole situation, not just for Turkey but for the entire Middle East, would be reshaped. The Western influence will fade away. The question is: Can we accept Russia, and the Iranians, calling the tune in the region?” said Umit Pamir, a former Turkish ambassador to NATO and the United Nations.

 

According to the ministry spokesman, Russian warplanes and Syrian government troops never target civilians

Terrorists in Syria are trying to flee to Turkey ‘blending into’ civilians of Aleppo as they know Russian warplanes don’t attack peaceful population, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Thursday.

“Mass desertion is fixed among gunmen groups operating in the area of Aleppo. Terrorists intimidate local population and use force to drive people to the Turkish border,” he said.

Dropping their weapons, gunmen are trying to hide among these crowds as Russian warplanes and Syrian government troops never target civilians, he told reporters.

Russia’s intelligence system in Syria rules out risks for civilians

According to the officer, Russia has deployed a multi-layered intelligence system together with partners in Syria which rules out any risks for peaceful civilians.

“The Russian Armed Forces, together with partners, have deployed a multi-layered intelligence system that ensures reliable detection of targets. Only after multiple checks of the obtained data and ruling out any risks for peaceful civilians, airstrikes are delivered at those targets,” Konashenkov said.

Konashenkov also said western media were showing footage of Aleppo that was destroyed before the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces began, to pass it off as the aftermath of Russian airstrikes.

Syrian opposition shifts to cooperation with government 

The spokesman pointed out that Syrian opposition groups are shifting to cooperation with the government, adding that in Daraa Province several groups agreed to lay down arms after talks.

“Syrian opposition groups have been productively sharing intelligence with us. Many are shifting to cooperation with the Syrian government,” he said.

On February 8, armed groups in Atbaa, Daraa province, laid down arms after negotiations and Syria’s state flag was hoisted over the city.

Russia’s Aerospace Forces started delivering pinpoint strikes in Syria at facilities of the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist organisations – banned in Russia – on September 30, requested by Syrian President Bashar Assad.