US Moved Air Force Command From Qatar To South Carolina Fearing Iranian Attacks

US Moved Air Force Command From Qatar To South Carolina Fearing Iranian Attacks

Source

30.09.2019

The US Air Force Commander Center’s operation was moved from Qatar to South Carolina, after operating out of the Middle Eastern country for the last 13 years.

The Command Center was used to command fighter jets, bombers, unmanned aerial vehicles and other US Air Force assets from Northeast Africa, the Middle East to Southeast Asia.

On September 28th, the building of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in al Udeid Air Base, Qatar was vacated.

All flights and operations were controlled from Shaw Air Base in South Carolina, US. Over 300 planes were in the air when the shift happened in Syria, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

On the next day, the CAOC in Qatar regained control, but this marked the first-time operation was transferred to the US since the CAOC was initially established in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War.

Air Force Commanders said that new technology allowed the shift and it was a long-standing ambition. But it surely comes by no accident, as it happens during renewed tensions in the Middle East, with both US and Saudi Arabia having a tough rhetoric on Iran. The Islamic Republic also leaves no quarter in its responses.

“The functions that the CAOC provides for air power are so critical and so essential that we can’t afford to have a single point of failure,” said Maj. Gen. Chance Saltzman.

Air Force officials said that the increased tensions in the Middle East and the incidents blamed on Iran added urgency to possibly moving command away from the region – especially if a war would be coming.

“Iran has indicated multiple times through multiple sources their intent to attack U.S. forces,” said Col. Frederick Coleman, commander of the 609th Air and Space Operations Center.

“Frankly, as the war against ISIS winds down and as we continue to work through a potential peace process in Afghanistan, the region is calming down and potentially more stable than it has been in decades,” he said. “Except for Iran.”

Analysts, quite obviously, said that if a conflict arises the command center would likely be targeted.

“It doesn’t take a whole heap of imagination to look at it and think, if push came to shove and it was a full-blown conflict, it would be one of the priority targets,” said Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow specializing in aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Most notably, the base is defended by Patriot batteries and other missile defense systems, whose capabilities were clearly presented in defending Aramco’s oil infrastructure on September 14th.

According to Saltzman, the practicalities of missile defense made complete protection impossible.

“It’s really probably better to think about this as an immune system,” he said. “There’s going to be germs that get into the body. It’s about how fast and how resilient you can fight it off.”

By making the CAOC mobile, the US could respond to a potential attack much more quickly.

Byron Pompa, AFCENT operations director at Al Udeid, said moving facilities and equipment often could compensate for not having a huge footprint across the region.

“In times like today,” he said, “we can’t have a ton of permanent-fixture operating bases throughout the area of responsibility.”

“Our goal is deterrence,” Saltzman said, not conflict. But the lack of communication with Iran can make sending that message difficult. The U.S. has to use other measures, he said, including turning off radar from time to time or planning flight routes to make it clear it does not intend to attack.

The plan is to operate the CAOC remotely once per month, while it would remain in Qatar during the remainder of the time. The idea is to reach 8 hours of distanced operation every 24-hour period, either from South Carolina or elsewhere.

There were no plans to close al Udeid permanently. Some of the 800 positions are to be transferred to US in the future.

“The goodness here is now we’re saving taxpayer dollars that we’re giving back to America,” Coleman said. “And, you know, America’s sons and daughters aren’t abroad in the Middle East. They’re home.”

Qatar, in particular, has invested heavily on Al Udeid in recent years, spending as much as $1.8 billion to renovate the base, the largest in the region, capable of housing more than 10,000 U.S. troops. Thus, shifting focus away from it may seem as a sort of loss on investment on Qatar’s side.

This is actually a development that leads to the consideration that the US and its allies may, in fact, be considering the highly likeliness of a war in the Middle East against Iran, showing the urgency of this shift of command capability.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests

Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog

It’s a question which needs be asked, but we can’t wait for the French media to answer it because they have almost totally stopped reporting on the anti-government movement for several months.

The first poll on the Yellow Vests since late March (“!”, and then “?”) finally came out two weeks ago. It was so eagerly gobbled up by a French media hungry for objective knowledge on the Yellow Vests that as many as two media talked about it. I missed it because I have already wasted a minimum of 3 hours of my life doing fruitless Google news searches for “Yellow Vest poll”.

The headline of Ouest-France newspaper, by far the most read Francophone paper in the world, was typically “negative-no-matter-what”: “A majority of France have had enough of the Yellow Vests”.

That’s a pretty bold statement considering that this majority is just 52%, which must be within the poll’s margin of error.

The headline could have fairly been: “A majority of France still supports the Yellow Vests despite all the state repression and media negativity”. Considering what a historic anti-government movement this is – the French have just avoided a 9th consecutive austerity budget expressly because of the Yellow Vests – objective journalism would have prioritised the “support” angle and not the “oppose” angle.

More poll tidbits to munch on for those who care about public opinion (which means you are obviously not a Western politician):

Vesters are now openly opposed by retirees (63%), executives/management (61%) and technicians/professionals (58%). However, they are openly supported by workers (52%), rural citizens (47%), the National Front party (64%) and the (true, not far-) leftist Unsubmissive France party (80%). Per the pollers: “The Yellow Vests remain popular with those segments of the population which were at the origin of the movement.

One final poll petit-four: 93% of those who support Macron’s party are against the Yellow Vests, while another recent poll showed that 98% of Macronistas think he is doing a good job. What this reminds us is that there is a hard-core Macronista base for whom he can absolutely do no wrong. I assumed such adoration was limited to 60+ year old single women dreaming of a winter-spring romance (an incredibly winter-spring romance), but it is a solid quarter of the population. This rate of genuine support is actually unchanged since the election in 2017: a quarter of France just adores this guy, no matter what, and apparently no amount of violence can change that.

Let’s get to the point of this column

One segment of society which does not support the Yellow Vests is the 20- and 30-something crowd.

This is based on my regular attendance at Yellow Vest demonstrations, and also many months of informally talking with this age group (of which I am quite nearly a part of). I’d like to pass on what I think are the reasons for their opposition:

  • We must remember that the Yellow Vests are primarily a middle-aged phenomenon – the average of those marching is probably 50 years old. This age group is the one which is most motivated because they are nearing retirement and they see just how bad austerity will make things for them. This generation will not do anywhere as well as their parents, and they are rightfully upset – they really had no chance to “succeed”: they found jobs (or can’t find any job) which will provide the personal nest egg which is required in the Anglo-Saxon system, which is the system that neoliberal austerity seeks to disruptively impose on France. The main problem is that French wages have always been far lower, and taxes quite higher, than their Western counterparts because the deal was that they’d have low wages but a much better social safety net. This deal has been terminated during the Age of Austerity, and Macron’s absurd, inhuman “one-size-fits-all” pension reform is the coup de grâce. Therefore, this segment of society – not professional, working class, low savings, not university educated, not thrilled with their job but still as vital to the functioning of society as you or me – is leading the revolt because they know that if they don’t… they will be working their low-paying job until they are 64 or their knees give out (whichever comes first), and then have a pittance of a pension to boot.
  • What about the young adult Parisians? Firstly, this is an old persons’ town – you have to have money to live within its highway walls. But are you talking about those who were raised in Paris? I guess you mainly referring to those who grew up in the rich Western areas – that place I go and look at like a tourist (seems nice over there), with all their fancy little kids and quiet and trees. People who grow up in these areas are rich – these are the very Macronista urbanites who are young, terrifying and want to eat their elders. They view Macron as their leader, God and role model. So young adult Parisians manning the barricades? Fuggetaboutit. This holds true for all of France’s cities.
  • What about the working class adult urbanites? Like in my area? Do you mean the Chinese, the Hasidic or the Arabs? All of these worker bees crammed into small, noisy apartments were likely turned off by the immediate and totally false smear that the Yellow Vests were racist. Also, the working class is often quite busy working.
  • What about the poor city suburbs, surely they are sympathetic? Indeed, the poor Muslim, Arab and Black areas are all totally sympathetic to the Vesters. However, they are not stupid – they know that if they go to the Vester demonstrations in any city the cops will absolutely, undoubtedly wage police brutality on them first. This truth is so very, very, very self-evident to Muslims and people of Color that we cannot even imagine that many of you cannot accept this, and we just turn and walk away when we start getting blamed for not leading the Yellow Vest charge. People from these areas have been totally marginalised… but when you need cannon fodder, then we get an engraved invitation? LOL, thanks, but no thanks. Nobody cares about the opinion of these areas/groups anyway, but I can report that the Vesters do indeed have their sincere moral support. Finally, Muslims and Blacks probably compose around 5-8% of France – if they did join en masse only 1 out of every 20 Vesters or so would be a non-White, anyway.

And here is the main reason why French Whites – who are the majority among the 20- and 30-somethings in France – do not support the Vesters.

  • I was surprised at the immediate antipathy for the Yellow Vests among the young White French adults I talked with in Paris, but who are the young White French adults in Paris? These are the primarily the people from small towns who are creative types and who move to the urban areas in order to flee the small-town culture, people, mores and activities they found so very stifling. The Yellow Vests are a primarily rural movement, and – as I have described their primary social-class makeup – France’s young urbanites seem to view the Vesters as the older classmates/bullies who made fun of them for being arty and weird and urbanite-aping back in their small town – many 30-somethings in Paris moved expressly to get away from these types! Therefore, it is unthinkable for them to side with the Yellow Vests, and after only the very first couple of demonstrations Parisian young adults seemingly all turned against the Yellow Vests, in my experience. These Parisian young adults see a faded, generic, poorly drawn forearm tattoo on many a Vester, and then they look at their own fancy tattoo (a Chinese character, a magic symbol, or some emblem of personal motivation or social defiance) and they think: “To hell with those White Trash – I never got invited to their parties and I want to lead a different lifestyle.”

So there you have it in a nutshell. Many French people actually made the move to the big city from the small town because they fundamentally resent the people who primarily compose the Yellow Vests.

There are other reasons:

  • Paris attracts young adults from all over the world – where are they? The Western expatriates living in France feel similarly or even more hostile than their French counterparts, in my experience. Many absurdly view Yellow Vests as outright reactionaries, mainly because they have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about when it comes to “French culture + class struggle”. These Western White expats simplistically view Vesters as extensions of their own “Brexiteers”, “basket of deplorable American rednecks”, etc., and do not feel the need to dig any deeper than such a superficial comparison – many of these immigrants would have a hard time understanding even if they tried, such is their unfamiliarity with a class lens. Bottom line: they are not about to stop the “Western expat party” and get tear gassed for any Yellow Vest, that is certain.
  • France, contrary to Anglophone media claims, is not a socialist country: aristocratic snobbery permeates and runs amok in the culture here as only it can on the Old Continent. It’s worse in Paris, but “I reject you first” is the initial war a French person declares upon meeting someone. The young adult urbanites in France have not at all been inculcated with class warfare and class solidarity, but identity politics: they identify with their fellow “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), hipsters, artists and pretty young people. Have a shoulder tattoo I can’t see and not a wrist tattoo? Not cool enough. Next please. Swipe left. Je m’en fous.
  • France was an individualist country even before the rise of neoliberalism, I imagine, but rapacious neoliberalism surely leads to a fundamental lack of sympathy: Young urbanites here simply cannot imagine – nor do they try to – the grim future which 50-year old Yellow Vesters know to be a rapidly encroaching fact.
  • Furthermore, young people are dumb, (If you were paying me for this I’d look it up and provide the link but you’ll have to just take my word for it): I read a recent poll which said that something like 10% of young French people think Macron’s radical reforms will not actually reduce their own pensions, LOL! Sure… you’ll be the one who is special. Vesters are old enough to know better to get involved with this movement.

Given all these facts, we must realise that these urbanites want revenge on the class which primarily composes the Vesters – they don’t want to see them win, and they have repeatedly told me they don’t want them marching anymore in their hipster paradise areas of Paris.

I use the strong word “revenge” because I have found this to be a hugely important motivator in Western capitalist society. These young (smug, stupid, classist, fake-leftist/rabid neoliberal) anti-Yellow Vesters want not only a huge chunk of the pie, but they also to show all the people they left behind what a big shot they lost.

This is not hyperbole – this is what “competition” truly is. Western society (being anti-socialist and rabidly individualist) is fundamentally predicted on competition, and thus these types of feelings can be found plastered on billboards as a form of encouragement.

Finally, it is not “cool” to be a Vester in the French mainstream, and 20- and 30-somethings in the West prize “cool” above all. If you think famous actors, musicians, artists, thinkers, ballplayers, etc. are showing up/have ever showed up to Yellow Vest demonstrations… you must think these people don’t fear losing their social status more than anything – then they would have to get a real job.

“But Ramin,” you object, “how can cool people not be at the Yellow Vest demonstrations when YOU are there?”

Thank you. It seems paradoxical, indeed, but there’s an easy explanation: I turn 42 next week.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China”.

Occupy Down Town Beirut! Is Lebanon’s Economy Collapsing beyond Resuscitation?

Occupy Down Town Beirut! Is Lebanon’s Economy Collapsing beyond Resuscitation?

By Fatima Haydar – Beirut

Lebanon, the tiny Middle Eastern country on the Mediterranean Sea, is still recovering from a devastating civil war. Almost three decades had passed and Lebanon is still suffering from the consequences of that war which ended in 1990.

The economic situation in Lebanon is beyond repair; and the situation is getting even worse. Thanks to the dire economy, it is the third-highest indebted country in the world in terms of the ratio of debt-to-GDP.

Economist and Professor of Finance at the Lebanese University, Dr. Ali Awdeh, tackles the economic crisis in Lebanon in an interview with al-Ahed News.

“We are facing a real crisis which is being exaggerated by the complex political situation,” Dr. Awdeh said, adding that “this is not the first time Lebanon has faced such a crisis. Indeed, we have had more difficult times than what we are currently facing.”

He compared the economic situation in Lebanon prior and post 2000, “If we are talking about the budget deficit, the public debt, the trade deficit, or the Balance of Payments [BoP] deficit, sometime after the war between 2000 and 2002, then Lebanon has experienced worse times; though, there was no state of panic.”

“However, nowadays, the gravity of what makes people feel how bad the situation is, is that the political situation is worse and more complicated than before; the danger lies in the polarity of division among the parties and the depth of political differences; Not to mention, the problem posed by corruption, which has become more deeply rooted than it has been in the previous period,” Dr. Awdeh explained.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese economist explained that both the financial and monetary situations in the country are facing difficulties. Though, he clarified that the situation was not as bad as it seemed, “there is stability in the banking sector in general, and the monetary sector is also fairly stable.”

Conversely, the scarcity of US dollars is causing a crisis for Lebanese citizens and businesses. Yet, this scarcity is not “spontaneous”, as Dr. Awdeh puts it, explaining that the Central Bank was following “this policy of withdrawing US dollars from Lebanese markets to keep as much of the American currency in Lebanon. But at the same time, the Central Bank cannot control the circulation of dollars.”

Dr. Awdeh shed light on the crisis caused by the budget deficit, specifically the balance of payments and trade deficits. He said that “due to lack of sound financial decision, the financial policies set forth for the coming 20 or so years were not on the right track.”

According to Dr. Awdeh, the monetary policy was trying to fill in the gaps caused by the financial decision, though the former was unable to cover all of the latter’s aspects.

The economist stressed the need for a sound financial decision, which will pave the way for a less dependent economy. “It is a chain or a cycle, the first step being a sound financial decision-making and financial reforms; and thus, directing public finance into the right direction,” Dr. Awdeh clarified.

Furthermore, he tackled the policies of Bank of Lebanon [BDL] – the central bank of Lebanon – and its governor Riad Salameh, which had been in place since 1993, noting that financial and monetary policies should be “more pragmatic” – in other words, according to the economist, they should be more flexible – to change with the changing economic circumstances.

Dr. Awdeh focused on the positive and negative aspects of these policies. He spoke of currency exchange rates, interest rates and dollarization.

“The fixed currency exchange rate has had some positive aspects at first, as people had no confidence in the Lebanese pound,” he said, adding that this policy led to a state of stability in the exchange rate and a stability – to some extent – in inflation.

Regarding interests, Dr. Awdeh saw that it would have been much better if the Lebanese government followed a more flexible approach – one that would increase and decrease in accordance with economic developments.

The dollarization – according to Dr. Awdeh – was another failure in the policies of the BDL. He explained that the Lebanese economy “is very much dollarized and a large amount of deposits at the banks are in US dollars. As a result, a large part of the loans granted by banks are in US dollars.

He said that the BDL “could not solve this problem, so the economy remained dollarized while the exchange rate was constant.”

Nonetheless, the expert came to conclusion that many of the BDL’s policies and measures aimed to enhance the situation, but what happened was the opposite. He said the BDL should have paid attention to what he called “side effects”.

Though, Dr. Awdeh stressed the necessity on the part of the Lebanese government to take the necessary measures to deal with the crisis saying, “This is an extraordinary situation – a situation that required greater alert from the government”.

In a parallel notion, the economist related the economic situation in Lebanon to the regional and international arena. Dr. Awdeh believed that “it is no one’s interest – at home or abroad – that the economic situation in Lebanon collapses.”

He further added, “Regardless of whether they are [regional and international states] on our side or not, there are about 2 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon; and if the economy collapses, they will leave and become other countries’ burden.”

“So, no one has an interest in the significant deterioration of Lebanon’s economic situation,” Dr. Awdeh concluded.

NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN VIDEO SHOWS MOMENT OF STRIKES ON SAUDI OIL INFRASTRUCTURE

Removed By You tube

South Front

On September 30, CBS News’ 60 Minutes released an interview with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud. The interview itself includes little new or non-mainstream points of views on the September 14 strike on Saudi oil infrastructure. Nonetheless, it includes videos showing the moment of the attack.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

زلزال نجران: اليمن يقـلب المعادلات

زلزال نجران: اليمن يقـلب المعادلات

نتائج العملية: 500 قتيل ومصاب، وأكثر من 200 قتيل بغارات طائرات التحالف، و2400 أسير

اليمن الأخبار

الإثنين 30 أيلول 2019

صنعاء | ثلاثة ألوية، بعديدها وعتادها الحديث، سقطت. العشرات من الضباط والجنود السعوديين والمئات من اليمنيين المقاتلين تحت إمرتهم في محور نجران أسروا، في أوسع عملية برية تنفذها القوات اليمنية المشتركة. العملية، التي لا تزال في مراحلها الأولى بمكاسب كبيرة على الأرض، كانت «الأخبار» قد كشفت جانباً منها. وقد بدأ تنفيذها فعلياً منذ شهرين بالاستطلاع لمعرفة حجم القوات المستهدفة ووضع الترتيبات اللازمة لمواجهة تلك القوات ووضع الكمائن المحكمة. ونفّذت وفق تكتيك عسكري حديث، عكس تطور القدرات العسكرية البرية اليمنية، إذ اعتمد عنصر المفاجأة والمباغتة، بعد أن أوهم المستهدفون بالانسحاب من مناطق واسعة قبالة نجران لتستدرج تلك القوات إلى فخ كبير، فيتم الانتقال من التخطيط للعملية إلى تنفيذها في الـ25 من آب أغسطس الماضي، حين انتهى حلم الرياض، التي دفعت بالمئات من المدرعات والآلاف من الجنود إلى مديريات كتاف شرقي صعدة، في غضون 72 ساعة فقط.

تم تنفيذ العملية بإدارة وزير الدفاع وإشراف مباشر من زعيم «أنصار الله» عبد الملك الحوثي

ومساء أمس، كشف المتحدث باسم القوات المسلحة، العميد يحيى سريع، بالصوت والصورة في مؤتمر صحافي عقد في صنعاء، تفاصيل مرحلة من الهجوم، استغرق تنفيذها 72 ساعة وبدأت فجر 25 آب، ومرّت بمرحلة إعداد وتخطيط كان للرصد والاستطلاع الحربي والاستخباري دور حيوي فيها، قبل العملية وأثناءها وبعدها. وأكد أن العملية التي نفذتها وحدات متخصصة من القوات البرية المتقدمة في محور نجران، بدأت بتطويق مجاميع كبيرة من قوات العدو، بعد تقدمها، وبأعداد كبيرة، إلى الكمائن والمصائد، بحسب الخطة. كما سمحت القوات بدخول تعزيزات جديدة لقوات العدو إلى مسرح العميات، ليتم بعد ذلك قطع خطوط الإمداد (الخطوط الخلفية) لقوات العدو من مسارين مختلفين، ومن ثم أحكمت القوات اليمنية الحصار على تلك القوات من الجهات الأربع، لتبدأ وحدات من المشاة والدروع والهندسة والمدفعية من قلب الجبهة بشن عملية هجومية واسعة. وأشار العميد سريع إلى أن من أبرز نتائج العملية خلال ساعاتها الأولى محاصرة مجاميع مختلفة من قوات العدو ومهاجمة مواقع عسكرية محصنة. كما أدت العملية خلال يومها الأول إلى وقوع خسائر كبيرة في صفوف قوات العدو، وكذلك اغتنام أسلحة إضافة إلى استسلام المئات من المخدوعين.

وحول نتائج العملية أكد العميد سريع أن قوات الجيش و«اللجان» نجحت في تحرير مساحة جغرافية تقدر بأكثر من 350 كلم مربع، إضافة إلى «السيطرة على كافة المواقع العسكرية والمعسكرات المستحدثة للعدو ضمن المساحة الجغرافية المحررة، وسقوط ثلاثة ألوية عسكرية تابعة للعدو كانت في المساحة الجغرافية المحررة أثناء تنفيذ العملية، كما عززت العملية الواسعة والنوعية من مواقع قواتنا المتقدمة والمطلة على مدينة نجران».
وحول خسائر تلك القوات، أفاد بأن إجمالي الخسائر البشرية لميليشيات السعودية يتجاوز الـ500 ما بين قتيل ومصاب، وأكثر من 200 قتيل بغارات الطائرات السعودية التي تعمّدت قصف مرتزقته بعشرات الغارات، وهناك من قتل أثناء الفرار، وآخرون أثناء عملية الاستسلام. وأفاد العميد سريع بأن قوات الجيش و«اللجان» حاولت تقديم الإسعافات الأولية لمصابي العدو جراء الغارات الجوية، إلا أن استمرار التحليق المكثف وشنّ غارات إضافية أدّيا إلى وقوع المزيد من الخسائر، وهو ما أوضحته الصور. واعتبر ما حدث «إبادة جماعية متعمّدة بهدف منع المخدوعين من الفرار وعدم تسليم أنفسهم… فكانت مهمة تأمين الأسرى كبيرة بعد أن تبين أنهم هدف لطائرات العدوان». وفي النتيجة، أوضح أن عدد الأسرى بلغ 2400 أسير سلموا أنفسهم طواعية بعد حصارهم من الاتجاهات كافة وتعرضهم للغارات.

نتائج العملية: 500 قتيل ومصاب، وأكثر من 200 قتيل بغارات طائرات التحالف، و2400 أسير

وأكد أن الغارات التي شنّتها القوات السعودية أثناء تنفيذ العملية بلغت أكثر من 100 غارة جوية، كما شنّت أكثر من 300 غارة بعد العملية. وفي الأرقام أيضاً، وأوضح أن القوة الصاروخية تمكنت من تنفيذ ضربات مزدوجة استهدفت مقار وقواعد عسكرية للعدو، منها مطارات تقلع منها الطائرات الحربية وتجمعات وتحركات للقوات السعودية وميليشياتها في محاور نجران وعسير وجيزان. وبدا لافتاً أن سريع أفاد بأن العملية اشتملت على عدد من الهجمات بالطائرات المسيّرة والصواريخ، بلغت في المرحلة الأولى من الهجوم تسع عمليات، منها ضرب مطار جيزان بـ10 صواريخ بالستية، وأكثر من 21 عملية لسلاح المسيّرات، «منها عملية استهدفت هدفاً عسكرياً حساساً في الرياض»، لم يوضح تفاصيله، كما لم يشرح العلاقة بين العملية الكبرى وهذه الهجمات.

الكشف عن العملية أثار موجة جدل في أوساط الأطراف السياسيين الموالين للتحالف السعودي، فحاولوا التشكيك في صدقية الإعلان أولاً، ووجهوا وسائل إعلامهم بالتشويش، وذلك بعد أن وصفها المئات من الناشطين الموالين لهم بالفضيحة والسقوط الذريع للتحالف بعد قرابة خمس سنوات من الحرب. ودفع الإعلان الكثير من الناشطين الموالين للرياض إلى الاعتراف بتعاظم قوات صنعاء مقابل تراجع القوات الموالية للتحالف، التي تمتلك أحدث الأسلحة، بدليل «نكسة أغسطس»، كما أطلق عليها البعض، التي أفقدت ثقتهم بالتحالف.

وأمس، رأى الناطق باسم «أنصار الله»، محمد عبد السلام، أن «السعودية تحاول عبثاً أن تتستر على مثل هذه الهزيمة المدوية التي مُنيت بها أمام المقاتل اليمني».

ومن المتوقع أن تكشف صنعاء عن تفاصيل ومشاهد أخرى للعملية، بينها ما يتعلق بالأسرى، في موازاة مبادرة لحل هذا الملف. في هذا الإطار، أكد رئيس لجنة شؤون الأسرى عبد القادر المرتضى، أن المئات من جثث مسلحي العدوان والجنود السعوديين لا تزال مرمية في الشعاب والأودية في محور نجران منذ ما بعد العملية «ولم تسمح قوى العدوان للجنة الصليب الأحمر بانتشالها»، معلناً انفتاح صنعاء على إنهاء معاناة الأسرى بصفقة تبادل مع الأطراف كافة.

Related Articles

Russian Federation – Minister for Foreign Affairs Addresses General Debate, 74th Session

Source

September 27, 2019

Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, addresses the general debate of the 74th Session of the General Assembly of the UN (New York, 24 – 30 September 2019).

Transcript : http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3822351

28 September 201900:13
Statement by H.E. Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 27, 2019

Unofficial translation

Distinguished Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The 75th anniversary of the United Nations which was established as a result of the Victory in World War II and the realization of the need for a collective mechanism to maintain international peace and security, is getting closer. Regrettably, the events of the Cold War, which started soon after, prevented this tremendous creative potential from being unleashed.

The hope arose again almost 30 years ago when the Berlin Wall symbolizing confrontation of the two irreconcilable systems fell. It was the hope for the possibility to finally turn the grievous pages of wars – not only hot but also cold – and to join efforts for the benefit of all mankind.

However, we have to admit – although World War III was prevented thanks to the UN, the number of conflicts on the planet has not declined and enmity has not weakened. New most acute challenges emerged – international terrorism, drug trafficking, climate change, illegal migration, the growing gap between the rich and the poor. It is getting harder to address these and many other challenges from year to year. The fragmentation of international community is only increasing.

In our view, the reason for the current state of affairs lies, first and foremost, in the unwillingness of the countries which declared themselves winners in the Cold War to reckon with the legitimate interests of all other states, to accept the realities of the objective course of history.

It is hard for the West to put up with its weakening centuries-long dominance in world affairs. New centers of economic growth and political influence have emerged and are developing. Without them it is impossible to find sustainable solution to the global challenges which can be addressed only on the firm basis of the UN Charter through the balance of interests of all states.

Leading Western countries are trying to impede the development of the polycentric world, to recover their privileged positions, to impose standards of conduct based on the narrow Western interpretation of liberalism on others. In a nutshell, “we are liberals, and we can do anything”. Pursuing these aspirations, the West is less frequently recalling international law and more often and importunately dwelling upon the “rules-based order”.

The aim of such a concept is obvious – to revise the norms of international law which no longer suit the West, to substitute it for the “rules” adjusted to its self-serving schemes which are elaborated depending on the political expediency, and to proclaim the West and only the West as an indisputable source of legitimacy. For instance, when it is advantageous, the right of the peoples to self-determination has significance and when it is not – it is declared “illegal”.

In order to justify revisionist “rules” the West resorts to manipulation of public consciousness, dissemination of false information, double standards on human rights, suppression of undesirable media, bans on practicing journalism. Moreover, the West got “apt students” among its wards on the post-Soviet territory.

Instead of equal collective work, closed formats beyond legitimate multilateral framework are being created, and approaches agreed upon behind closed doors by a narrow group of the “select few” are then declared “multilateral agreements”. This is accompanied by the attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations, to use them in order to advance non-consensual ideas in circumvention of universal mechanisms.

Attacks on international law are looming large. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA endorsed by UNSC Resolution 2231 is broadly discussed. Washington not just repudiated its obligations enshrined in this Resolution but started demanding from others to play by American “rules” and sabotage its implementation.

The United States set a tough course for abolishing the UN resolutions on international legal framework of the Middle East settlement. It suggests waiting for some “deal of the century”, meanwhile it has taken unilateral decisions on Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. A two-state solution to the Palestinian issue – which is essential for satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and providing security for Israel and the whole region – is under threat.

Apparently, when NATO members were bombing Libya blatantly violating the UNSC resolution, they were also guided by the logic of their “rules-based order”. It resulted in the destruction of Libyan statehood, and international community is still disentangling the disastrous repercussions of NATO’s adventure with African countries affected the most.

“Hidden agendas” in countering terrorism remain – despite the universally binding Security Council decisions on listing terrorist organizations, some countries made it a “rule” to cover terrorists and even to engage in cooperation with them on the ground as it is happening, for instance, in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The United States has already been saying it loud that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is a rather moderate structure which “can be dealt with”. As recent discussions on the situation in the Syrian Idlib showed, the United States wants to induce members of the UNSC to such unacceptable logic.

The West also has its own “rules” regarding the Balkans where it is pursuing an open course for undermining the UNSC decisions on Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina settlement.

Universal conventions together with the SC resolutions are an integral part of international law. The West would like to substitute even them for its “rules” as it happened in the OPCW whose Technical Secretariat was illegally granted “attributive” functions through unlawful manipulations and unscrupulous pressure in direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and exclusive prerogatives of the Security Council.

Playing with Conventions obliging all countries to provide linguistic, educational, religious and other rights of national minorities continue. Even here our Western colleagues are guided by their “rules” – they turn a blind eye to the open denial of national minorities’ relevant rights and indulge the retaining of an ignominious phenomenon of statelessness in Europe.

The course for the revision of international law is more frequently observed in the persistent policy of rewriting the history of World War II, justifying an increasing number of manifestations of neo-Nazism, vandalism against the monuments to the liberators of Europe and Holocaust victims.

The key principles of the UN Charter – non-interference in internal affairs, non-use of force or the threat of force – are also undergoing durability tests.

We are now facing the attempts to add Venezuela to the list of countries whose statehood was destroyed before our eyes through aggression or coups inspired from abroad. Like the overwhelming majority of the UN members, Russia is rejecting the attempts to return the “rules” dating back to the times of Monroe Doctrine to Latin America, to change from outside regimes in sovereign states descending to the methods of military blackmail, unlawful coercion and blockade as it happens in relation to Cuba in defiance of the UN resolutions.

Next year marks the 60th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted at the initiative of our country. However, a number of Western states are still clinging to the old “rules”, ignoring this Declaration and other decisions of the General Assembly on decolonization addressed directly to them, while keeping former overseas territories under their control.

This November marks another anniversary – 20 years since the adoption of the Charter for European Security and the Platform for Co-operative Security. These documents set out principles of cooperation for all countries and organizations in the Euro-Atlantic region. Heads of states and governments solemnly declared that no one should provide his own security at the expense of other’s security. Regrettably, the consensus reached back then today is substituted for taken as a “rule” NATO practice, the organization which continues thinking in terms of searching for enemies, while moving its military infrastructure to the East to the Russian borders and increasing its military budgets, although they already exceed the Russian one more than 20 times. We call on NATO to return to the agreements on shaping equal and indivisible security in the OSCE area. Recently, responsible European politicians have been speaking in favor of it, which, in particular, was demonstrated during the meeting of the Presidents of the Russian Federation and France in August.

The Asia-Pacific region needs a reliable and open architecture. It is dangerous to yield to the temptation and divide it into conflicting blocs. Such attempts will contradict the task to join efforts of all countries in the region in order to effectively address the continuing threats and challenges there, including the task to resolve a whole range of issues on the Korean Peninsula exclusively by peaceful means.

Actions taken by the United States, which, following its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, destroyed the INF Treaty with the overwhelming support of all NATO members, caused a huge damage to the global system of strategic stability which had been established for decades. Now the United States is questioning the future of the New START Treaty, refusing to ratify the CTBT. Moreover, it has lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in its doctrinal documents. The United States is setting course for transforming cyberspace and outer space into the arena for military confrontation.

In order to prevent further escalation of tensions, Russia proposed several initiatives. President Vladimir Putin announced the decision not to deploy land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe or other regions if and as long as the Americans refrain from doing it. We called on the United States and NATO to join such a moratorium. We have also repeatedly suggested Washington that we start negotiations on prolonging the New START Treaty. Together with China we support the harmonization of a legally binding document on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. So far, the reaction of the United States and its allies has not been encouraging.

We are alarmed by the protracted lack of answer to our proposal made to American colleagues already a year ago – to adopt a high-level Russian-American statement on unacceptability and inadmissibility of the nuclear war which by definition cannot have a winner. We call on all countries to support this initiative.

Today I would like to make an announcement – at the current session of the General Assembly we are introducing a draft resolution on Strengthening and Developing the System of Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Agreements. We invite everyone to conduct substantial talks. The adoption of the resolution would greatly contribute to the creation of conditions for a successful hosting of another NPT Review Conference next year.

Russia will continue to work persistently in order to strengthen universal security. In this sphere, we are acting with utmost responsibility, exercising restraint in enhancing defence capacity – obviously, without any damage to the effective delivery of national security and in full compliance with international law.

We support the consolidation of efforts to combat international terrorism under the auspices of the UN. In the interests of mobilizing the potential of regional organizations to suppress the terrorist threat Russia initiated a Ministerial meeting of the Security Council with the participation of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Among the most critical tasks of the world community is elaboration of generally acceptable approaches to the digital sphere management and understanding of the processes related to the creation of artificial intelligence. Last year, the General Assembly endorsed the beginning of the substantive work on discussing the rules of the responsible conduct of states in information space. Resolution on Combating Cybercrime was adopted at Russia’s initiative. It is important to work for achieving legally binding agreements on all aspects of international information security.

We need to step up efforts to facilitate the settlement of numerous crises and conflicts in all regions of the world. The main point is to seek compliance with already existing agreements from parties without allowing them to invent pretexts to refuse from implementing obligations already taken during negotiations. This also concerns conflicts on the post-Soviet territory, including the need to strictly follow the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the crisis in the East of Ukraine.

In Syria, where major success in combating terrorism has been achieved, further advancement of the political process lead by the Syrians with the assistance of the UN is at the forefront. With the decisive contribution of Russia, Turkey, and Iran as guarantors of the Astana format, the establishment of the Constitutional Committee has been finished, which was announced by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres a few days ago. Post-conflict reconstruction and creation of conditions for the return of the refugees are the items on the agenda. Here the UN system is to play an important role.

Yet, on the whole, the Middle East and North Africa still face many challenges. We witness what is happening in Libya and Yemen. Prospects for the Palestinian settlement are on the verge of collapse. Efforts to play the “Kurdish card” – which is combustible for many countries – are alarming.

The Persian Gulf region is facing artificial escalation of tensions. We call on overcoming the existing disagreements through dialogue without baseless accusations. On our part, we made a contribution having presented this summer the renewed Russian concept of the collective security in this region.

Supporting the efforts of the African states to put an end to conflicts on their continent, yesterday Russia organized the meeting of the Security Council on strengthening peace and security in Africa. At the end of October, Sochi will host the first ever Russia-Africa Summit. We hope its outcomes will help increase the effectiveness of addressing modern challenges and threats and of work to overcome the problems of development African countries are facing.

The reform of the SC is aimed at improving the UN anti-crisis and peacekeeping activities. Given the realities of the multipolar world, the main task is to find a formula which would correct an obvious geopolitical imbalance in its current composition and would ensure increased representation of African, Asian, and Latin American countries in the Council with the broadest possible agreement of the UN Member States.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dividing lines are harmful not only to the world politics but also to the economy. Its inclusive growth is curbed as a result of the WTO norms being substituted for other “rules” – methods of unfair competition, protectionism, trade wars, unilateral sanctions, and open abuse of the American dollar status. All this leads to the fragmentation of the global economic space, negatively affects people’s standards of living. We believe it necessary to get back to the substantial work both in the UN system organizations and in the G-20. To this end, we will contribute to the creation of favorable conditions, including through the opportunities offered by BRICS, where Russia will assume the chairmanship in 2020.

Together with other like-minded countries we support the harmonization of integration processes. This philosophy lies at the core of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative of the Greater Eurasian Partnership involving the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), SCO, ASEAN, and which is open to all other Eurasian states, including the EU countries. We have already started moving in this direction by interconnecting development plans of the EAEU and the Chinese Belt And Road Initiative. Consistent implementation of these endeavors will contribute not only to increasing economic growth but also to laying a solid foundation in order to form the territory of peace, stability, and cooperation from Lisbon to Jakarta.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the run-up to the next anniversary of the United Nations, I would like to underline – the UN-centered system of the world order, despite all trials, is stable and has a great margin of safety. It is a kind of a safety net which guarantees – if the UN Charter is respected – a peaceful development of mankind through finding a balance of sometimes rather contradictory interests of various countries.

At the outcome of these 75 years the main conclusion is probably that the experience of de-ideologized cooperation of states at the face of common threat, gained in the years of that most severe war, is still relevant.

Today’s challenges and threats are no less dangerous.

Only working together we will be able to effectively address them. Half a century ago a prominent scientist and public figure, the Nobel Prize Laureate Andrei Sakharov wrote the following – The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. If mankind is to get away from the brink, it must overcome its divisions It was the unity which was considered the key task of the UN by its Founding Fathers. Let us be worthy of their legacy and memory.

Venezuela – Take 2

September 28, 2019

Venezuela – Take 2

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

It is tacitly assumed that that the American information industry produces notices and descriptions of actual events. Whereas it routinely delivers a narrative of adulterated facts and improbable fiction – the whole blended with a top-down imposition of Zionist ideology masquerading as national interest. I say ‘Zionist’ because a country in which the word of command comes from elsewhere is nothing more than a province. Which may explain many events unequivocally alien to American interest.

All this the world well knows – at least the unknown percentage of those who like to think. However, especially with Venezuela, there has been, among media outlets and pundits, a remarkable recrudescence of the presumption of imbecility in the American public.

But it is unjust and unrealistic to blame large social groups for their assumed gullibility. No one can indict a people. Individuals are caught up in the workings of a mechanism that forces them into its own pattern. Only heroes can resist, and while it may be hoped that everybody will be one, it cannot be demanded or expected.

Nor the trend is limited to America. Western European media figures and sundry politicians, having been taught the art of the ridicule – often in ‘prestigious’ States-side universities – seldom fail to signalize themselves by zealous imitation.

Were we not dealing with the suffering of a people and the economic strangling of a nation to steal her resources, the sallies and patent ridicule of the puppets and puppet-masters involved would be a recurrent fund of merriment.

Nevertheless, it commonly happens to him who endeavors to obtain distinction by ridicule or censure, that he teaches others to practice his own arts against himself.

Trump and his cabal or cartel have tried inventive ways to revile the Venezuelan government. So far they have only succeeded in ridiculing themselves. And their narrative has reached peaks of paradox and parody, in the comical effort to give their news a semblance of credibility.

I will mention but a few instances later, so as not to leave a statement unproven, though most readers may already know some.

Still, for the contemporary Pangloss there may be a measure of consolation in the Trumpian Cabal’s orgy of ridicule. For the domineering powers are literally terrorized by the alternative narratives, official and unofficial, reaching the discerning public through social media, directly from Venezuela.

Therefore they wage a grotesque battle, a Waterloo of fake-news, attempting to choke the liberty of expression – which, in the instance, amounts to curbing the liberty of intelligence.

Given that the flux of alternative news is still relatively marginal, this censorious obsession shows that, even in the secret enclaves of power, some believe that we are nearing a turning point in collective perception, a consummation devoutly to be wished by us, and unwished by them.

It is historically interesting that in the 1960s the Jewish political-ideological machine was clamoring for freedom of expression, and succeeded in having the US Supreme Court declare that pornography is free-speech.

In turn, this opened the flood to a Weimar-Republic-style mass acculturation whose consequences do not need description – see Weinstein as emblem of Jewish Hollywood, and Epstein as emblem of Jewish pornography and pornomania.

But sixty years later, and in total control of all media channels – the same forces find free-speech hateful, and want their adversaries insulted without self-defense and censored without apologists. Witness the erasure of hundreds of alternative information channels from the web.

Meanwhile, that just about all Western European countries have joined in pretending to believe Trump’s charade, is no support for his credibility.

For “Western European countries” means their politicians. And all know well that avarice is an insatiate and universal passion – since the enjoyment of almost every object that can afford a pleasure to the different tastes and tempers of mankind, may be procured by the possession of wealth. Consequently, politicians at large rarely cease to follow the easiest path to keep, maintain and increase their wealth and emoluments. And shameless servility to the moment’s master is the commonest formula.

For one thing, the Trump cartel assumed that any populace worldwide, with its immemorial and traditional levity, would applaud any change of masters, if accompanied by suitable fanfare and the promise or prospects of bread and circuses.

Hence they believed that the Venezuelans would promptly switch their allegiance to the service of a US appointed puppet. While the fanfare could adequately dissemble the plotters’ appetite for plunder.

In one of his often-quoted related pronouncements, Trump said that,

“The problem with Venezuela is not that socialism was poorly implemented, but that socialism was faithfully implemented.”

Far from me to oppose an “ism” with another. The various ‘isms’, as used, are not fruitful principles, nor even explanatory formulae. They are rather names of diseases, for they express some element in excess, some dangerous and abusing exaggeration.

Consider ‘globalism’, ‘neo-liberalism,’ ‘fascism’, ‘communism’, ‘socialism,’ ‘radicalism’, etc. If there may be something positive in them (and there is some good sometimes in sundry “isms”) it slips through these categories.

To compare, traditional medicine classified men according to whether they were ‘sanguineous’, ‘bilious’ or ‘nervous’. But someone in good health is none of the above. Equally, a state contains (or should contain) opposing points of view, holding them as in a chemical combination, much as all colors are contained in a beam of light.

But for Trump and the deep state behind him – though it has been the same since Reagan – neo-liberal capitalism is a dogma, which to dispute is heresy, and to doubt infamy.

The recurrent self-praising claim by media pundits and politicians about America being a democracy is either misleading and cretinous information or bold and imaginative fiction. Whereas actually, in some ways, the United States is a socialist state.

For example, government statistics, easily verifiable online, show that in 2018 there were 40 million people on food stamps (read ‘very poor’). And social programs with different names but similar scope exist in every state, to provide healthcare for those on food stamps and others. Furthermore, the very ‘social security’ system has socialism imprinted in its name.

Applying the same broad analysis to the economy at large, let’s say that in one case a state-owned enterprise produces something needed. In another case a private company lobbies the state to receive the same money that the state company would have spent to manufacture the same product.

Given that both instances involve human beings, is one state ‘socialist’ because it produces directly what it needs, and another ‘capitalist’ because it lets a non-state-owned company produce the same thing?

This is not advocating one method versus another – but only to suggest that a state-owned enterprise does not imply that the state itself is ‘socialist’. In fact in many countries, including the US, the state owns many enterprises, partially or completely.

The argument is purely theoretical, and it excludes many related insoluble dilemmas and controversial questions. For example whether a state or a privately owned enterprise is more subject to corruption, etc.

Nevertheless, I do not think that Venezuela’s ‘socialism’ is the cause of Trump’s uncouth bullying, contempt and coarse insults. For, as much as it is concealed, Venezuela is actually a mixed economy.

Now, cause and effect in history can be more-or-less arbitrary patterns into which we can weave events to render them significant. Nevertheless, in the instance, greed for Venezuela’s resources cannot be, in my view, the sole explanation.

Behind Trump’s contempt and insults there is a psychological engine and the whole weight of the historical-cultural machine that actually keeps America running.

Especially the Americans (and the fever began with the industrial revolution), know very little of a state of feeling that involves a sense of rest, of deep quiet, silence within and without, a quietly burning fire, a sense of comfort, existence in its simplest form. And I apologize for the generalization that always excludes the many exceptions.

For them life is devouring and incessant activity. They are eager for gold, for power, for dominion; the aim is to crush men and to enslave nature. They show an obstinate interest in means, but little thought for the end. They confound being with individual being, and the expansion of the self with happiness — while tending to ignore the unchangeable and the eternal.

It could be described as living at the periphery of our own essence for being unable to penetrate to its core. They are excited, ardent, positive, because they are also superficial. ‘Superficial’ may suggest less intelligent but the opposite is true. Superficiality and intelligence are anything but incompatible.
Why so much effort, noise, struggle and greed? It seems a mere stunning and deafening of the self.

When death comes they recognize that it is so. — why not then admit it sooner?

Activity is beautiful when, in some ways, it also partakes of the divine in the Greek sense — that is to say, when it is spent in the service of that which does not fade and transcends the mere domain of matter.

Some readers may argue that what is true for America also applies elsewhere, in Europe for example. As I repeat, short of dogmatic assertions, the idea here is but an attempt to find a cause for a culture.

For, unlike America, Europe had, in the XIX century, the romantic movement, which thoroughly influenced millions across the continent. Its literature affected the mode of thought of multiple generations in different countries. Romanticism swept through Europe at the very time when education became universal. And I include the Russian classics as powerful agents for suggesting or imprinting images and perceptions of a view of life that could not possibly be more un-American.

Before virtually crossing to the Venezuelan shores and interpreting their view of things I should add another qualifying proposition.

An analyst or interpreter of current events (just as any historian of the past), depends on his own judgment as to what is important in human life. Even when he rigorously confines himself to one selected political or cultural phase of a country, he still has decided on what constitutes the best outcome of that phase, and on what constitutes an outcome of degradation.

The whole judgment on ideas and actions (in the instance on what happens in Venezuela), depends upon such implicit presuppositions. You cannot rate wisdom or folly, progress or decadence, except in relation to some standard of judgment and to some end in view. For, in considering the flow and the history of ideas, the notion of mere knowledge is an abstraction. Accessories of emotion and purpose always accompany knowledge.

In the instance and for what is worth, an image still comes to my mind, when I compare Venezuela with other South-American countries. In 2014 Brazil held the world’s soccer championship. Multiple TV stations from different countries could not mask on their screens that, not many yards away from a stadium, began the favelas, living emblems of almost unimaginable degradation.

Considering that stadiums and infrastructures built for such colossal events routinely decay into ruins after little time of use, a question arises as to their intrinsic and extrinsic worth.

In contrast, and even according to UN official statistics, the so-called Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of people in dire poverty, while almost eliminating illiteracy. That programs of such scope are costly requires no demonstration. Whether it is preferable to invest in mass sports or in the relief of masses from illiteracy and degrading poverty, is a question that only single individuals can answer.

But it took the spirit and guts of Hugo Chavez to affect such a veritable revolution, possibly at a time when the US was not paying much attention, engaged as it was in bombing Yugoslavia and in establishing whether Clinton had or never had sex with that woman.

He who applauds the resurrection of a people, otherwise condemned as the irrelevant accessory of idle elites – who use the poor as a gauge to affirm their own ‘betterness’ – cannot feel but some sympathy towards the Bolivarian revolution. And he would feel so even without awareness of the enormous challenges and mixture of successes and defeats that accompany all epoch-making upheavals.

As for the Trump’s Cabal it would be interesting, anthropologically speaking, to understand the grotesque sociology of this flock. Their manners, as exhibited towards Venezuela, have shown a remarkable display of depravity – uniting the crimes that typically prevail among those immune from self-analysis, with the vices that spring from the abuse of power and immunity from prosecution.

Among the clowns of the Cabal, Marco Rubio deserves a special (dis)honorable mention, as the representative of a world upside-down. Including his showing a picture of Gheddafi assassinated and covered in blood, while threatening Maduro with the same outcome, should he not accede to American demands. As if the despotic power – which could take Gheddafi’s life without a trial and stigmatized his memory without proof – had any claim on using patent murder as an example of righteousness to be replicated.

Actually, I strongly doubt whether Rubio would even understand the implication of his words and gesture. Either he is a moron with the entertainment value of a tap-dancing oyster, or his head is as empty as a eunuch’s underpants.

Rubio is a senator (!) and, if I am not mistaken, was even spoken of as a candidate for president (!). Which prompts me to agree with Pythagoras that souls of animals infuse themselves into the trunks of men.

The happily departed Bolton is an equal competitor for the Olympic medal of ridicule. In the latest failed coup attempt, he proclaimed that Maduro was about to leave Venezuela for Cuba when ‘the Russians’ prevented him from boarding the plane.

As Jose’ Rodriguez – Venezuela’s Minister of Information – explained and documented on television, that ambulating Pinocchio called Guaido’ had assured Bolton that he had already corrupted and paid-off a sufficient number of generals so as to make the coup a done-deal. That wasn’t true but Bolton believed it.

All the while, the succeeding events of the failed coup make up the script of a proper farce.

Including Mike Pence’s outstanding arrogance when, in the UN assembly, had the gall to tell the Foreign Minister of Venezuela that he should not be there. As if the US had a divine right to make and unmake world governments at will. With his performance Mike Pence demonstrated to be worth less than six pence.

Of Pompeo it could perhaps be said what the historian Napier said of the British ambassador to Germany during the 1930s, “He is obtuse enough to be a menace, and yet not stupid enough to be innocuous.”

All in all, the Trump’s Cabal includes ambitious individuals, seemingly untaught or unable to observe, reason, deduce and infer, unless observation be blindness and madness logic.

Trump keeps labeling Nicolas Maduro as ‘corrupt’ and a ‘dictator’. Both words belong to the no-man’s-land of lexical ambiguity.

As for dictatorship, there have been six presidential elections, in Venezuela, since 2002. And, as readers who have followed the events know, in the last 2018 elections, the Trump Cabal ordered the opposition not to present candidates, after they had formally agreed to do so.

I will not offend the readers by proving what they already know – that charges of dictatorship may be levied against Trump and sundry predecessors on much stronger grounds.

The issue of corruption is trickier. I doubt if anyone who worked in, or had to do with, large corporations or government, never met with evidence of corruption. Without even touching on lobbying, a peculiar institution for bribing, bulldozing, and corrupting the legislators who are supposed to represent the people’s interests. Or on ‘financial engineering’, an inventive euphemism to suggest monetary genius instead of monetary fraud.

For what is worth, unable as I am to find a reliable method for measuring and assessing corruption, I pretend to do what Balzac did when he wrote his novels, though I write none.

He kept on his desk the Dictionary of Physiognomy – a monumental work in four massive volumes, written by the Swiss Abbot Johann Lavater, in the 18th century. In his novels, Balzac used Lavater’s physiognomy extensively. So that his characters, being accurately described as they are, cannot but logically behave as they do.

Physiognomy had its era of success and popularity before being dismissed as a pseudoscience. Though I suspect that many use it unconsciously when forming their first impression of an individual.

With all necessary reservations, amateurishly and therefore inaccurately, I suggest that Trump’s physiognomy reads, “Everything has a price and money buys everything. Conscience is but a word that cowards use to keep the strong in awe. Power (via money acquired from any source) is my conscience, my tool of operation and my law.”

For brevity’s sake I will not describe individual facial components of the specific physiognomy – as Lavater does in his work.

As a corollary derived from Trump’s physiognomy, “twitting” is the ideal communication tool and perfect match for his character. In his hands a ‘tweet’ means “I say so because it is and that’s it.”

By the way I am not passing judgment – however difficult it may be, the application of physiognomy should not be affected by emotional or philosophical preferences.

In fact, assuming his physiognomic profile correct, Trump is ethically consistent. Whereas, in my view, the other members of his Cabal are not. Routinely, they cannot even pretend to the smooth face of hypocrisy. They are sincere only when they are arrogant.

Again I do not pretend to be right. Two men observing the same person, or even object, will describe it diversely, according to the point of view from which either beholds it. Still, truth being the legitimate object of observation and history, it is better that she should be sought-for by many than few, lest for want of seekers, among the mists of prejudice and the false lights of interest, she’d be lost altogether.

Comparing Trump with Maduro, the difference could not be greater. Maduro’s physiognomy suggests that he takes his job as a mission. And that he has a frightful understanding of what Venezuela would revert to, if the Anglo-Zionists and their ‘lameculos’ took over. His oratory is incomparable with Trump’s. It is helped by the inherent majesty of the Spanish language, but is also evidence of a long and careful self-training and study. A remarkable achievement in itself, considering that Maduro’s political path began as a union leader among bus drivers.

For their own self-respect, we may think that the Venezuelan opposition should contain characters with greater respectability than what the world has seen so far.

The ‘interim’ president Guaido’ was recently shown holding an empty milk jug in the air while claiming that he had not enough money to buy milk for his daughter. Almost simultaneously, Venezuelan intelligence had caught Guaido’s assistant Marrero texting with other coup organizers. They were arguing about how and to assign and distribute among themselves the hundreds of millions that Uncle Sam had confiscated from the accounts of the Venezuelan bank in the US. A bank that is (was) necessary to handle the sales of Venezuelan oil to the US.

Among other exploits, Guaido’ had already ridiculed himself for believing the two Russian pranksters (’bromistas’ in Venezuelan Spanish), who faked a call from the President of Switzerland. In which the ‘president’ asked Guaido’ if the accounts of the Venezuelan government in Switzerland should be reassigned to Guaido’s name, and he agreed. And, when prompted by the bromistas, he also agreed to support the Russian pro-US candidate Navalny in a future attempt to unseat Putin.

In a theater, bad actors feel embarrassed towards the audience for their poor performance. With Venezuela it’s the audience that feels embarrassed for the actors.

Following the developments of the ongoing attempted Venezuelan coup, also yields some unusual and curious perspectives, along with the possibility of discovering other interesting Guaido’-style characters.

Readers may remember Victoria Nuland, Obama’s and Hillary’s factotum in Ukraine – passed into history for her “F-the-Europeans” pronouncement, while discussing which puppets to appoint in the US-financed, post-coup Ukrainian government.

Maybe some readers do not yet know that Victoria Nuland has a Venezuelan equivalent in the shape of a Vanessa Neumann, familiarly referred-to in the European press as “The Cracker from Caracas.”

As Wikipedia explains, Neumann is the “Venezuelan” (meaning Guaido’s) ambassador to “the court of St. James” (meaning England). Though Wikipedia modestly adds that, “The administration of Nicolás Maduro does not recognize Guaido’s diplomats.”

Besides also being Jewish, Neumann has the usual impeccable curriculum of the Vanity-Fair intellectualoids, who can read and therefore believe they can think, ever swimming with the tide of pomp that beats upon the high shores of the world. And of whom French author George Bernanos said that, “The intellectual is so often an imbecile that we should consider him as such, until he (or she) has demonstrated the contrary.”

Like others of that ilk, Neumann is the apotheosis of fake, but I mention her here for her involvement in a not-so-well-known ramification of the so-far unsuccessful coup in Venezuela.

Between Venezuela and Guyana there is a disputed territory, apparently an Eldorado of natural resources, called the Essequibo. The roots of the dispute lay in the 1600 when the Northern Provinces of Holland declared independence from Spain. The sequence of events being intricate, a summary is mandatory.

When Venezuela declared independence from Spain in 1810, thanks to Simon Bolivar, she also claimed the Essequibo as successor to the Spanish empire. For the Spaniards had originally discovered the region, established their sovereignty, settled and exercised political control.

In the meantime England also laid claims, and since England had helped Venezuela in her struggle for independence, Venezuela did not, at the time, interfere with the British claim.

Jumping many intermediate steps and disputes, in 1966 there was an agreement between Venezuela and the now independent Guyana, to delay a final decision on the settlement of the Essequibo. Even so, Venezuela maintains her claim to the rightful ownership of the territory.

Vanessa Neumann comes into the picture thanks to a telling conversation on the Essequibo between her and an assistant to Guaido’ called Manuel Avendano (link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjaSN_Hiq1I).

It appears that Neumann, or Guaido’, or both had already agreed – even prior to the attempted coup – to give ownership of the Essequibo to various American companies for exploitation.

Neumann tells Avendano that during her participation to an impending meeting of the so-called “Group of Lima” (read, the South-American countries supporting a coup in Venezuela) she will not answer any questions on the subject of the Essequibo, raised by the Guyana representative. Apparently the representative had already asked her about the related post-coup government’s intention. Or rather, officially, as she explains, “we will continue to uphold the line that we intend to appropriate ourselves of the Essequibo” – whereas they have already given it away to the American multinationals.

The current legitimate Venezuelan government has declared that the Neumann-Guaido’s arbitrary pronouncement on the Essequibo is evidence of treason by the ‘coupistas.’

Why Maduro allows Guaido’ to roam free in Venezuela, while he continues to plot for her subjugation by the US, is a puzzle for me and (I think) for those unfamiliar with the subtle tools of diplomacy. Though it is reasonable to guess that the more Guaido’ speaks and moves, the more he makes an ass of himself, hence discomposing his own cause – but it is only a supposition.

Given that Russia and China openly support and assist Venezuela, we may still hold some hope that evil may not prevail. While waiting for the verdict of time, that infallible controverter of false opinions.

هزيمة عسكرية سعودية قاصمة في جبهة اليمن: أكثر من 3 ألوية في الأسر

 

سبتمبر 30, 2019

نضال حمادة – بارس

المملكة التي لا تستطيع أن تربح حرباً، تنفق ثلث ميزانيتها على التسلّح في وقت تعجز فيه قواتها المسلحة المدجّجة بأحدث أنواع الأسلحة الغربية والشرقية عن هزيمة أنصار الله في اليمن، توعّد ولي عهدها محمد بن سلمان بالتهام الحوثيين في اليمن خلال أسبوعين! وها هي بعد مرور ست سنوات على الحرب تجرّ أذيال الهزيمة بشكل مهين وتتعرّض منشآتها النفطية للقصف عبر الصواريخ والطائرات المسيّرة اليمنية دون أن تتمكن من فعل شيء!

أضف إلى ذلك انهيار كامل لقواتها المسلحة داخل اراضيها في نجران وجيزان وعسير في كل المعارك البرية التي تخوضها ضد أنصار الله اليمنيين، في مشهد لأرتال من الجنود الأسرى لم نشهد له مثيلاً منذ حرب الخليج الثانية عام 1991.

يبلغ عدد جنود اللواء في الجيش السعودي 1100 رجل بينما يبلغ عدد جنود الفصيل بين 500 و600 رجل. وبحساب بسيط أسر ثلاثة ألوية وفصيل يعني بين 3800 الى 3900 أسير مرتزق وسعودي. وإذا لم يتم احتساب عدد القتلى والجرحى الذي أعلنه الناطق الرسمي باسم القوات المسلحة اليمنية العميد يحيى سريع والذي يبلغ 500 جندي فإن عدد الأسرى يكون بين 3300 و3400 جندي وضابط ومرتزق.

وتكمن اهمية العملية في أكثر من أمر.

الأهمية في مكان الكمين داخل محافظة صعدة في اليمن في منطقة تسمّى وادي أبو جبارة وفي منطقة كتاف كانت حتى وقت قريب تحت سيطرة التكفيريين حتى حرّرها انصار الله قبل أشهر من الآن.

الأمر الثاني الذي يجب ذكره للأمانة أن حلفاء أنصار الله الإقليميين كانوا ضد معارك الأخيرين في وادي أبو جبارة حتى لا تستنزف قواهم بينما كان انصار الله يقولون إن الجبهة سوف تبقى مخترقة بوجود التكفيريين وأظهرت الأحداث أن أهل اليمن أدرى بشعابه.

كانت خطة السعودي اجتياحاً كاملاً لمحافظة صعدة بدأت قبل أشهر عدة، ومع بدايتها ومراقبة تحرّكات القوات على ذلك المحور وضعت عملية الاستدراج المحكمة والتي أدّت قبل شهر من الآن الى هذه الضربة القاصمة للسعودية. ويكفي كل مَن يتابع قناة العربية وباقي الإعلام السعودي خلال الأشهر الثلاثة الماضية كيف كان يتحدث عن انتصارات على جبهة نجران وعن سيطرة على تلال سمعان ومناطق أخرى في محافظة صعدة باليمن وكانت الأخبار بشكل عام صحيحة الى أن توغلت القوات المعادية في هجومها وضاعت في متاهات الوديان والجبال في تلك المنطقة الصعبة إلى أن وقعت كامل تلك القوات المهاجمة بالكمين الذي حضر لها.. وانقلب السحر على الساحر.

هل سيتحمل النظام السعودي مشهد مئات الجنود والضباط من جيشه في الأسر تعرضه شاشات التلفزة العالمية؟

إذا كان بين أسرى المرتزقة جنسيات غير يمنية، خصوصاً من السودان. ما هو مصير بقاء مرتزقة الجنجاويد في اليمن؟

إنه الانهيار السعودي الكامل، لكن هل مَن يعتبر في عائلة يصفّي رجلها القوي كل من لا يرتاح لوجوده وكان آخر ضحاياه اللواء عبد العزيز الفغم الحارس الشخصي لوالده الملك سلمان بن عبد العزيز؟

إنها مملكة لا يأمن أشدّ المخلصين لها غدر حكامها بهم.

إنها نهاية الحرب اليمينة حتى لو عاند أمير الهزائم العسكرية محمد بن سلمان لبعض الوقت.

إنها نهاية الحرب السورية رسمياً.

إنه نصر كبير كبير على المملكة التي لا تستطيع أن تربح حرباً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

Here is the dirt Trump wanted from Zelensky about the Bidens and why Zelensky doesn’t want to give it to him — hidden by rampant falsehoods in the press

September 28, 2019

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

Here is the dirt Trump wanted from Zelensky about the Bidens and why Zelensky doesn’t want to give it to him — hidden by rampant falsehoods in the press

In order to understand why Ukraine’s President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn’t want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden’s boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky’s boss and benefactor until Zelensky became Ukraine’s President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.

First, the falsehoods in the press have to be documented here, since this article will go up against virtually all U.S.-and-allied reporting on these events. And, in order to do such a thing, the bona fides of my main sources need to be presented:

Naked Capitalism is, as the article about it at Wikipedia, says, the blog of Susan Webber, pen-named “Yves Smith,” who “graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Business School. She had 20 years of experience in the financial services industry with Goldman SachsMcKinsey & Co., and Sumitomo Bank.[3] She has written articles for the New York TimesBloomberg, and the Roosevelt Institute.[4][5]” “The site has had over 60 million visitors since 2007, and was cited as among CNBC’s 2012 top 25 ‘Best Alternative Financial Blogs’, calling Smith ‘a harsh critic of Wall Street who believes that fraud was at the center of the financial crisis’.[2]” “The New York Times financial reporter Gretchen Morgenson cited Naked Capitalism as one of the ‘must-read financial blogs’ she reads regularly.[9]

Her blog is widely respected amongst both scholars and experts in the field of finance, and is among the top go-to sites for trustworthy investigative news reporting in their highly complex field. So as to be able to achieve this high degree of respect, day in and day out, for decades, she carefully selects and relies upon the expertise of a small team of investigators, one of whom is Richard Smith, who has done around 200 articles for her site. One of these was dated 21 May 2014 and headlined “R. Hunter Biden Should Declare Who Really Owns His New Ukrainian Employer, Burisma Holdings”, and it reported that the U.S. Vice President’s son had become “a new member of the board” and that this “Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of the vice president’s son and the Secretary of State’s close family friend and top campaign bundler.” Since these men were being paid by the corporation’s owner, Mr. Smith researched extensively to find out who that was, or they were. He reported “what one careful Ukrainian journalist dug up in 2012”:

“Burisma changed owners last year [in 2011]: instead of Zlochevsky and Lisin, the company was taken over by a Cypriot off-shore enterprise called Brociti Investments Ltd. Pari and Esko-Pivnich” and a “third company was already waiting for them in the same building – the above-mentioned Ukrnaftoburinnya,” and “The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat Group,” which “is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky,” who “is one of the oligarchs charged with holding down the Eastern provinces of Ukraine,” and who “is far too ebulliently Jewish to look like a neo-Nazi. A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by ‘fascists’.” Those quotations are from Mr. Smith’s article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their end is the conclusion: “Thus, Ihor Kolomoisky managed to seize the largest reserves of natural gas in Ukraine.” This was the conclusion of the “careful Ukrainian journalist,” which was actually not one but a team of three, who were employed at a Ukrainian non-profit, the Anticorruption Action Centre, which specialized in tracking down the actual persons who controlled corporations and which had a particular focus on finding “Offshore fronts for Yanukovych.” Yanukovych was the democratically elected Ukrainian President, who took office on 25 February 2010. So: this non-profit was an anti-Yanukovych organization, writing more than two years into his Presidency, on 28 August 2012.

A certain historical background is essential here; and this, too, goes up against American ‘news’-reporting and will therefore be linked to articles that, in turn, link to ultimate sources that are of unquestioned reliability on each of the particulars that are in question: There was a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which is portrayed in the West as being a democratic revolution (but was actually a coup hidden behind anticorruption demonstrations, and that was entirely illegal), and it replaced the democratically elected President by a ruler who was selected by Victoria Nuland, whose boss was Secretary of State John Kerry, whose boss was Barack Obama. Nuland had been originally a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of Kerry’s immediate predecessor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama assigned Nuland to carry out his plan for Ukraine, which plan was to turn its government away from being friendly toward its next-door neighbor Russia to becoming instead a satellite of the United States against Ukraine’s next-door neighbor. Consequently, fascists, and even outright racist-fascists (nazis), people who came from the groups that had supported Hitler against Stalin during World War II, were installed into this new government, such as the co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy. (The CIA instructed that Party, which was Ukraine’s main nazi party, to change its name to “Freedom Party” — Svoboda — so as to become acceptable to Americans; and Paribuy and his colleagues did it, in order to help the U.S. Government to fool the American people about what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine.)

At least until Zelensky was elected, Ukraine’s Government remained fascist. And so is Kolomoysky himself, as I had reported about him on 18 May 2014. As I reported there,

On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced, Hunter Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings,” and reported that, “Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations.”

Promptly, Burisma’s website started presenting Burisma as if if were a Ukrainian-American if not outright American corporation. Devon Archer, shown there, was a business-partner of Hunter Biden. As the Washington Examiner  reported, on 27 August 2019:

At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm. Heinz’s college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of 2014, Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was at the center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid Biden and Archer’s companies over $3 million.

Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma’s board and replaced by a four-person board, which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013 (which still was after Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company) Alan Apter, of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital. Apter now became the “Chairman of the Board of Directors”. Here are the other three Directors: Aleksander Kwaśniewski was the President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 when it was being taken over by America, and when Kwaśniewski was also a member of the Atlantic Council (NATO’s PR arm), and of the Bilderberg Group. Joseph Cofer Black was the Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004), while President George W. Bush was lying America into invading Iraq, and Black subsequently became the Vice Chairman at Blackwater Worldwide (now Academi), which the Bush Government hired to train and arm mercenaries to help conquer Iraq. (Blackwater/Academi is owned by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos of the Amway fortune, who is the Trump Secretary of Education, and Prince also is a personal friend of Trump. Obama’s Government also hired Blackwater/Academi to kill independence fighters in the Dnieper Donets Basin, where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas.) And the fourth Director is Karina Zlochevska, whom the site identifies hardly at all, but is actually the daughter of Mykola Zlochevsky. In other words: Zlochevsky probably does remain as a minority owner of the company, and she represents his interests there.

Virtually all of the Western press simply alleges that Mykola Zlochevsky owns Burisma Holdings and brought Biden on board and was his boss; however, I have never seen from any of those ‘news’-reports any evidence or documentation that it’s true — nothing like the sources that Richard Smith relied upon and linked to documenting that this was Kolomoysky’s company. Nothing, at all.

This is important — is it Zlochevsky or Kolomoysky? — because Zlochevsky was associated with the prior Government of Ukraine and its President Viktor Yanukovych, whom the U.S. Government had overthrown in an operation that started in 2011 and that ended very successfully in February 2014 with the American Government’s Victoria Nuland on 27 January 2014 telling the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine to get “Yats” Yatsenyuk appointed to run the country as soon as Yanukovych becomes successfully overthrown — which happened less than a month later, during February 20-22 — and Yatsenyuk then received the appointment on February 26th to run the country, just as Obama’s agent Nuland had instructed. Zlochevsky fled the country, because he had been politically allied with Yanukovych, who also fled the country. Obama’s Government constantly tried to get Zlochevsky prosecuted for alleged corruption, but Zlochevsky had sold the company to Kolomoysky even before Obama took over Ukraine. It’s not at all clear that Hunter Biden had ever so much as just met Zlochevsky.

Joseph Biden, as is well reported in the press, instructed the new Ukrainian Government to fire and replace the General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, who had failed to prosecute Zlochevsky, and this action by Joe is reported as indicating that the senior Biden granted his son’s employer no favor but instead the opposite — that Joe insisted upon Hunter’s boss’s prosecution.

For example, James Risen, of The Intercept, which is owned by one of the financial backers of the overthrow of Yanukovych, Pierre Omidyar (see this and this and this and this and this and this), headlined on September 25th, “I Wrote About the Bidens and Ukraine Years Ago. Then the Right-Wing Spin Machine Turned the Story Upside Down.”, and Risen reported that:

The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.

Risen reported there that V.P. Biden’s “anti-corruption message might be undermined by the association of his son Hunter with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.”

However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted — not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is simply being written out of the picture altogether — whited-out from it

Also as is typical, the New York Times reported, on 1 May 2019, that Mykola Zlochevsky is the “owner of Burisma Holdings” and that “Mr. Lutsenko initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office. The prosecutor general reversed himself and reopened an investigation into Burisma this year. Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration.” For some mysterious reason, that article not only says that the replacement Prosecutor tried and failed and now tried again to prosecute Zlochevsky but that “Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration,” though, actually, it was the Obama Administration that had been pressing Ukraine’s Government to prosecute Zlochevsky, who wasn’t Hunter Biden’s boss and didn’t control Burisma and was associated not with the 2014 Obama-installed Government of Ukraine but instead with the Government that had preceded it and was the last of all Ukraine’s democratic Governments, having been democratically elected by all of Ukraine including the two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that broke away from Ukraine when Obama in February 2014 overthrew the Government that those two now-breakaway regions had voted for, by over 75% in that 2010 election.

And here is from Wikipedia’s article on “Viktor Shokin”:

The Biden connection[edit]

Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the oil and natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.[15] In 2014, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden‘s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.[16] In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as “an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”.[17] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[15]

In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees. “I looked at them and said, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”[18] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament later that month.

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[19][20][21][22] However, Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[23] Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial, though Amos Hochstein has claimed to have never seen coordination between Joe Biden and his son on the matter.[24][25]

And here is from Wikipedia’s Article on “Burisma Holdings”:

History[edit]

Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevsky and Nikolay Lysin [uk]. Now it is owned by Mykola Zlochevskyi [uk], who was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych.[2] Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.[3]

So, the myth that Zlochevsky was Hunter Biden’s boss and benefactor at Burisma isn’t only in the ‘news’-media that are controlled by U.S. Deep State that controls the CIA, which controls America’s major ‘news’-media, but it is also in the Web’s main encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which is not only edited by the CIA, but also, to some extent, written by the CIA.

Furthermore, the CIA was the ‘whistleblower’ that made the impeachment-charge to the Democratic Party head of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff, who is the lead proponent of impeaching Donald Trump so that Trump can then become tried in the U.S. Senate, which then would possess the power to replace Trump and make President the current Vice President, Mike Pence, which Democrats, for some unexplained reason, seem to hope will happen. As Reuters reported on September 26th, “The whistleblower is a CIA officer and was assigned at one point to work at the White House, two sources familiar with the probe into his complaint said. The New York Times first identified the whistleblower as a CIA officer, which Reuters confirmed.” That report also asserted:

The call occurred after Trump had ordered a freeze of nearly $400 million in American aid to Ukraine, which was only later released. Before the call, Ukraine’s government was told that interaction between Zelenskiy and Trump depended on whether the Ukrainian leader would “play ball,” the whistleblower said.

The report said Trump acted to advance his personal political interests, risking national security.

I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute ‘a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or executive order,’” the whistleblower complaint, dated Aug. 12, said.

The same CIA whose lies had ‘justified’ America’s invading Iraq in 2003, and invading Libya in 2011, and invading Syria starting in 2012 (and extending there up till at least 2018), is now ‘justifying’ congressional Democrats to replace Trump by Pence if they possibly can.

And Kolomoysky might be one of the world’s biggest thieves. On 19 April 2019, Graham Stack reported for OCCRP, a U.S.-and-allied-funded nonprofit anti-corruption investigatory organization that

“‘Large-scale coordinated fraudulent actions of the bank [PrivatBank] shareholders and management caused a loss to the state of at least $5.5 billion,’ [Valeria] Hontareva [former chair of Ukranie’s central bank] said in March 2018. ‘This is 33 percent of the population’s deposits … [and] 40 percent of our country’s monetary base.’ … By the time regulators took over PrivatBank, the $5.5 billion had already been transferred to banks in Austria, Luxembourg, and Latvia. From there, the trail goes cold. … This account is based on a forensic audit by Kroll, the U.S.-based corporate investigation and risk consulting firm. The report … is based on PrivatBank’s own records and was obtained exclusively by OCCRP. … Ukraine nationalized PrivatBank in December 2016, saddling taxpayers with a $5.9 billion bailout.”

There’s nothing that Zlochevsky was even accused of which exceeded tens of millions  of dollars in losses. In Ukraine, that’s tiny.

Furthermore, the estimable and reliably accurate Moscow investigative journalist John Helmer reported on 19 February 2015 that “In March 2014, days after the ouster of Yanukovich in Kiev and the installation of a new regime, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started investigating Zlochevsky. According to the evidence it presented to the Central Criminal Court between March and December of 2014, and according to Justice Blake, who assessed the evidence, there is no mention of Lisin, Deripon, Burrard or Kolomoisky.” Obama’s people (there via the U.S. regime’s lap-dog UK) were targeting Zlochevsky, certainly not Kolomoysky, who was instead on their team.

Zelensky, prior to becoming Ukraine’s President, had been the star of a popular comedy series on Ukrainian television that was telecast by Ihor Kolomoysky’s 1+1 Media group. On 19 May 2014, Forbes published a shockingly honest article, by Vladimir Golstein, “Why Everything You’ve Read About Ukraine Is Wrong”, which mentioned, about Kolomoysky, that,

His business holdings include the largest Ukrainian media group, “1+1 Media,” the news agency “Unian,” as well as various internet sites, which enable him to whip public opinion into an anti-Putin frenzy. Andrew Higgins of The New York Times published a story with the headline, “Among Ukraine’s Jews, the Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms,” which praises Kolomoisky for adorning Dnepropetrovsk with “the world’s biggest Jewish community center” along with “a high tech Holocaust museum.” Higgins notes, however, that the museum “skirts the delicate issue of how some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Nazis.

Kolomoysky himself had become installed by the Obama Administration’s Ukrainian agents as the Governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine where his approximately $5 billion financial empire was based, and which in its north extends into the Dnieper Donets Basin where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas. As this last link indicates, that Basin “is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per cent of Ukrainian production and according to EIA  may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked shale gas in place.” That article, from the investment-oriented website Zero Hedge, sums up:

In a nutshell, Ukraine (or rather its puppetmasters) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was bombed and shelled [by the Obama-installed Government] for the three preceding months, according to local residents cited by Itar Tass. The reason for the scramble? Under peacetime, the process was expected to take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may instead be completed in months!

Ukraine’s bombing of that region (for examples, this and this and this) was in order to clear the land for a massive fracking operation. However, it turned out that not only Kolomoysky’s operation with Shell in the Dnieper Donets Basin in Ukraine’s far east, but also the Ukrainian Government’s own gas-exploration operation with Chevron in western Ukraine’s Olesska field, were uneconomic; or, as I headlined about them on 16 December 2014, “Ukraine’s Two Big Gas Deals Are Now Both Dry”. It seems that if Hunter Biden is to become a billionaire, it won’t come from Ukrainian gas. (Nor, of course will it have come from Zlochevsky, which the news-media would have it to be.)

As was reported on 20 May 2014 by Israel Shamir at the website of Paul Craig Roberts, under the headline “The Ukraine in Turmoil” (and his article there was the first comprehensive and accurate summary of what had recently happened to Ukraine):

These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people’s mismanagement and theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine’s name, pocket the cash and leave the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in and protect the investment.

They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists, journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the “private” company Academi (formerly Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia [Donbass, the far-eastern region that became independent after Obama’s coup], the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East. IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US Army rations took the place of local food.

The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.

The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime.

And then, to top it off, there is the brilliant pewreport blogger, who, on 27 July 2014, headlined “USAID to Help Young Biden: The Burisma File”, and that anonymous person succinctly laid out the use of the U.S. Government to enable the families of some of its top officials to join America’s aristocracy, the billionaire class. It’s something that Trump himself is intimately involved with and exploits, but if America’s national and international police-agencies such as the FBI and CIA are trying (first with Russiagate, and now with Ukrainegate) to replace him by Pence in order to enable another friend of Obama to become installed (like Hillary was supposed to have been) as President and Commander-in-Chief, then this struggle between the agents of America’s Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires could end up having consequences that no one is predicting.

It’s also important to point out here that Zelensky’s predecessor, Poroshenko, was not Obama’s first choice to win the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian election that followed the February 2014 coup and installation of Yatsenyuk to run the country on an interim basis. Yatsenyuk was supposed to run it until that election (after which Yatsenyuk still continued long in office, and Obama pushed as hard as possible for President Poroshenko to continue Prime Minister Yatsenyuk’s policies). Obama’s first choice — and the planned winner — in the 25 May 2014 election, was an intense hater of Russia, Yulia Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk had actually been her agent. Kolomoysky was perhaps her main financial backer. But she lost the election to Obama’s second choice, Poroshenko. Kolomoysky was enough of a supporter of Tymoshenko so that even after he returned to Ukraine on 16 May 2019 just prior to the latest Presidential election, he backed her even above Zelensky. But above all, he opposed Poroshenko, because Poroshenko had been forced by the main lenders to his Government to fire Kolomoysky as governor of Dnipropetrovsk and to nationalize his bankrupt PrivatBank due to Kolomoysky’s having been looting from Ukraine’s Government too much money via his bank and via his minority ownership of the Government’s gas company. Obama had wanted that money to go toward the war against Donbass, not into Kolomoysky’s pockets. (However, America’s Democratic-Party propaganda ‘non-profit’ Public Radio International gave a positive spin to Obama-team-member Kolomoysky even at the time of his firing by Poroshenko on 28 March 2015, saying of him, “He offered $10,000 bounties for captured pro-Russian insurgents. ‘People understand that this person came here to ensure stability,’ said Stanislav Zholudev, a local political analyst.” The euphemism “captured pro-Russian insurgents” was actually referring to their corpses — Kolomoysky was paying only for their corpses. Maybe for Obama-ites that’s “stability.” Kolomoysky was already paying the nazi Azov Battalion more than that per pro-Russian corpse, and now the Trump Administration wants Kolomoysky to be prosecuted for financial crimes instead of Zlochevsky to be prosecuted, and so Zelensky is being pushed one way by Democrats, and the opposite way by Republicans.) Kolomoysky has many enemies. The main holders of Ukraine’s debt are unknown, but besides Russia which had lent to the pre-coup Government (and were thus trying to get their senior money that’s owing from Ukraine to be paid to Russia before the newer creditors get theirs), they were said to be the IMF, America’s Franklin Templeton Fund, and Blackstone Group, the World Bank, and a group of mainly American billionaires “and private Eurobond holders” who are represented by the law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges. The U.S. Government and EU countries were also said to be indirectly such holders via their ownership shares in the IMF and World Bank, but also perhaps more directly. (If Trump were a decent President, he’d be publicly pressing for the exact numbers on all of this.) Kolomoysky’s siphonings from Ukraine’s Government were at the expense of all of them. The pressures upon Poroshenko to halt it were mounting. And, so, Kolomoysky was fired; and, now, to the extent that Zelensky has to satisfy Kolomoysky, Zelensky (who publicly said of Kolomoysky “He is my business partner”) needs to resist some of the demands of the U.S. regime and of many other billionaires. Without their continued support, Ukraine’s Government will collapse in the short term instead of only (which is inevitable) in the long term. It’s no longer just a question of the Ukrainian regime’s war against Donbass. The change that Obama wrought is permanent, and Trump dithers back and forth about how to deal with it. He apparently has no strategy on that.

Zelensky might fear that if he complies with Trump’s request, then his own major benefactor, Kolomoysky, could end up in prison somewhere; and Trump might fear that if he presses Zelensky on that (as he did not do but Democrats say he did), then the entire Deep State — not only Democratic Party billionaires, but also now Republican ones — will become Trump’s enemies, and his 2020 re-election chances will therefore go to zero. Consequently: Trump will probably abandon the matter, and the till-now-unsupported and maybe unsupportable mere assumption, that Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian benefactor was Zlochevsky instead of Kolomoysky, will continue to be asserted virtually everywhere throughout the U.S. empire, for as long a time as the matter continues to remain in the ‘news’. Of course, if that turns out to be the case, then Joe Biden will continue to be portrayed in this matter as having been a crusader against corruption in Ukraine, instead of as having been the aspiring founder of yet another billionaire American dynasty.

Basically, the new Russiagate charges to replace Trump by Pence, Ukrainegate (as those charges were presented by the CIA ‘whistleblower’ on August 12th and published on September 26th), represent all of the Democratic Party’s billionaires, and many of the Republican Party’s ones, as well. It’s the pinnacle of the Obama-versus-Trump feud, because it represents the Democratic Party’s position on what was Obama’s top international achievement — his conquest (via a coup) against Ukraine. Trump refuses to condemn Obama’s coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he would, and the worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he’d be fighting for truth, and not just for himself. Apparently, that’s too big a leap for him to take.

What’s especially pathetic in all of this is that whenever the U.S. Government overthrows and destroys a country, it’s trumpeted as reflecting America’s standing-up for rule-of-law and opposition to corruption, and for support of democracy and protection of human rights; but whenever Russia or a nation that’s friendly toward Russia resists control by the U.S. and its allies, it’s portrayed as being a dictatorship and an opponent of democracy and of human rights. So, go figure.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The Trump campaign releases an *extremely* effective campaign ad!

The Trump campaign releases an *extremely* effective campaign ad!

The Saker

September 28, 2019

While I realize a a minority of hardcore Hillarybots will accuse me of endorsing Trump, most will realize that one can recognize the high quality of a political message without necessarily endorsing anybody.

In this case, I just saw this ad and, wow, in just 30 seconds it says it all.  And, sorry Dems, it is 100% factually correct.

Which makes me notice something else: the Dems center all their political efforts on lies, lies and more lies.  Frankly, this time around, the Trump campaign uses a very powerful weapon: the truth!

I was awed when the Dems nominated Hillary.  Awed by the utter stupidity of this action as Hillary was probably the only Dem candidate which could actually lose to Trump.

This time around, they pushed Biden.  Amazing….  Although knowing how corrupt and cynical the Neocons are, they will now probably eventually ditch Biden too.  Either that, or they will try to start a full-scale color revolution (again).  After all, to the Neocons, any democratic election deserves to be “corrected” via a color revolution.  You think I am exaggerating?  Maybe I am, but when I think of the very real possibility Biden might go to jail, possibly with Schiff and a host of other deep-staters, I don’t think I would put anything past the Neocons and the DNC.

Anyway, I leave you with this ad which might be the best I have ever seen.

What do you think?  Are you as impressed as I am or not.

Kind regards

The Saker

HOUTHIS RELEASE SHOCKING VIDEOS OF OPERATION VICTORY FROM GOD

29.09.2019

On September 29, the Houthis’ media wing released shocking videos of the first phase of “Operation Victory From God,” which took place south of Saudi Arabia’s Najran earlier in September.

The videos were showcased during a press conference of the Yemen group’s spokesman, Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari, who revealed new details about the operation.

According to Brig. Gen. Sari, the operation was planned for months and involved the Missile Force, the Air Force and the Air-Defense Forces.

The Yemeni Missile Force launched ten Badir-1 rockets at Jizan airport, while the Air Force carried out 21 operations against military targets throughout the Kingdom. These attacks took place over several months before the operation to distract the Saudi-led coalition air forces and hinder their operations.

During the operation, the Yemeni Air Defense Forces targeted the coalition’s attack helicopters, preventing them from provide close air support to trapped Saudi troops south of Najran.

Brig. Gen. Sari summarized the results of Operation Victory from God, as the following:

  • Houthi fighters captured 350 km2 south of Najran, including dozens of key positions.
  • More than 500 Saudi service members and Saudi-backed Yemen fighters were killed.
  • More than 2,000 personnel of the Saudi-led coalition were captured, including Saudi officers.
  • Hundreds of pick-up trucks, armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers (APCs) and engineering vehicles were captured. At least 15 other vehicles were destroyed.

The Houthis’ spokesman also revealed that Saudi warplanes carried out at least 300 airstrikes in a desperate attempt to foil the operation, targeting even its own soldiers and proxies. At least 200 coalition personnel were killed in such “friendly” airstrikes.

“Our forces attempted to provide first aid to the enemy’s personnel who were wounded as a result of the airstrikes, but the continued sorties increased their losses,” Brig. Gen. Sari.

The videos released by the media wing confirmed most of the information revealed by Brig. Gen. Sari, who promised that more videos will be released in the upcoming few days.

The Houthis’ spokesman noted that Operation Victory of God is still ongoing, calling on Saudi-backed Yemeni fighters to leave the front lines and return to their homes.

The Saudi-led coalition has not yet commented on the shocking footage. The heavy losses could force the Kingdom to reassessed its policy in Yemen.

More on this topic:

أميركا التي لا تحارب

سبتمبر 28, 2019

توفيق شومان

يسأل العلامة ول ديورانت كاتب قصة الحضارة و قصة الفلسفة : مَن هي أميركا؟

يسأل ديورانت ويجيب: أميركا هي الحصان ورجل الأعمال.

الحصان في المفهوم العام هو رمز الفروسية، إلا أنه في المفهوم الأميركي وسيلة الكاوبوي ، ولا داعي لتفصيل رمزية رجل الأعمال.

جاء دونالد ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض كـ رجل أعمال ، يمتهن عقد الصفقات وإجادتها مثلما قال وأسهب في حملته الانتخابية وبعد تنصيبه رئيساً.

هذا يعيد الأمور إلى فلسفة وصول ترامب إلى رأس الإدارة الأميركية وعلاقتها بصلب الفلسفة العملية ، او النفعية أو البراغماتية، وهي فلسفة أميركية خالصة ومحضة، وإن نشأ بعض جذورها في القارة الأوروبية.

يكتب مؤسس الفلسفة البراغماتية الأميركي تشارلز بيرس 1839ـ1914 مقالة في العام 1878 تحت عنوان كيف نجعل أفكارنا واضحة؟ ، ويذهب إلى إجابة مضمونها بأن الفكرة الواضحة هي الفكرة القابلة للتطبيق والمعبّرة عن آثار حسية.

بعد تشارلز بيرس، يأتي مواطنه وليم جيمس 1842ـ 1910 ليقول إن معنى الحقيقة في قيمتها العملية، وأي بحث عن معنى آخر ضرب من العبث، وأما الأميركي الآخر جون ديوي 1859ـ1952 الذي يكتمل به الثلاثي الفلسفي البراغماتي فيرى أن الأفكار تجارب، وأي فكرة لا قيمة لها اذا تجرّدت من نتائجها العملية.

ما علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب؟

علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب، أن الحديث يدور حول فلسفة أميركية نفعية وحول حرب يمكن أن تكون نفعية ويمكن ألا تكون. وبمعنى آخر، يدور الحديث عن الحرب كفعل أو فكرة تحقق الغاية النفعية للولايات المتحدة أو لا تحققها.

والسؤال المطروح حيال ذلك:

ما الحروب التي خاضتها الولايات المتحدة؟

هذا يفرض العودة إلى عقارب الحروب في القرن العشرين وفي أوراقها التالي:

شغلت الولايات المتحدة مقاعد المتفرّجين في بداية الحرب العالمية الأولى، فمشهد الحرب ومسرحها كان في أوروبا، وفيما ذهب الأميركيون إلى ما يمكن تسميته بـ النفعية العليا خلال السنوات الثلاث الأولى للحرب وعملوا على تزويد الأوروبيين المتقاتلين بالسلاح والملابس والدواء والغذاء. مما أدى إلى نهضة اقتصادية أميركية لا سابق لها، وهذا ما أثار حفيظة ألمانيا، فراحت تهاجم السفن التجارية الأميركية في العام 1917 وتحثّ المكسيك للدخول في الحرب واعدة إياها بإعادة ولايات أميركية جنوبية إلى سيادتها.

كان الأوروبيون يتحاربون والأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ودخل الأميركيون الحرب في لحظاتها الأخيرة.

لم يختلف الأمر كثيراً في الحرب العالمية الثانية، فالمصانع الأميركية للسلاح والألبسة والدواء والغذاء، ارتفع إنتاجها إلى مستويات أدهشت الأميركيين أنفسهم، إذ باتوا المصدّرين الأوائل إلى أطراف الحرب، فتوسّع رأس المال وتضخّمت المصانع.

هنا جاء الهجوم الياباني على بيرل هاربور في العام 1941، أي بعد ثلاث سنوات من اشتعال الحرب العالمية الثانية، وكان من شأن هذا الهجوم أن يغيّر مجرى الحرب.

مرة ثانية:

كان العالم، شرقاً وغرباً، يتقاتل في الحرب العالمية الثانية وكان الأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ينتفعون منها.

يكنزون الأرباح والذهب والفضة.

انتهت الحرب العالمية الثانية وقرعت الحرب الكورية 1950ـ1953 طبولها، وهي حرب أميركية ـ صينية بالدرجة الأولى، وخلاصة الحرب يفسّرها أحد أهم الخبراء الأميركيين في الشؤون الصينية، هـ. ج. كريل، في كتابه المعروف الفكر الصيني من كونفوشيوس إلى ماو ، حيث يقول: كان ثمة تصورات خاطئة لدى الخبراء العسكريين في شؤون الشرق الأقصى، فقد كانوا يتصورون أن الصيني لا يحارب .

هذا خطأ في التصورات.

ربما يضاهي خطأ ألمانيا في الحرب العالمية الأولى

ويوازي خطأ اليابان في الحرب العالمية الثانية. ويساوي خطأ الزعيم النازي ادولف هتلر حين هاجم الاتحاد السوفياتي في الحرب الثانية أيضاً، فانقلب ظهر المجن عليه.

ويوازن خطأ نابوليون بونابرت حين غزا روسيا في العام 1812، فأصابه ما أصاب براقش، فجنى على نفسه وأسدل الستار المأساوي على حروب التوسع النابوليونية.

خطأ في التصورات قد يؤدي الى حرب.

ذاك موجز الحرب الكورية.

ماذا عن حرب فيتنام؟

هي نظرية الدومينو التي كشف عنها الرئيس الأميركي دوايت ايزنهاور في العام 1954، وموجزها يكمن في التصور الأميركي القائل بأن سقوط فيتنام في قبضة الشيوعية، سيؤدي إلى قيام أنظمة رفيقة في كمبوديا ولاوس وتايلند والفيلبين وأندونيسيا واليابان وأوستراليا.

هذه النظرية ما فتئت محل نقاش حارّ في الولايات المتحدة وعما إذا كات مدرجة في سياق التصورات والحسابات الخاطئة أم أنها كانت أمراً محتوماً لا فرار منه، خصوصاً بعد استعار المواجهة مع الرايات الحمراء التي طرقت أبواب القارة الأميركية مع فيديل كاسترو وتشي غيفارا، وما نجم عن ذلك، من تداعيات كان في طليعتها غزوة خليج الخنازير في العام 1961 و أزمة الصواريخ الكوبية في العام 1962.

الجدل حول نظرية الدومينو ما زال قائماً.

والإجابة غير قاطعة لغاية الآن.

ولكن ماذا عن الحروب الأميركية الأخرى في أواخر القرن العشرين ومطلع القرن الحالي؟

بعد حرب فيتنام، انخرطت الولايات المتحدة في حروب الوكالة ، والتي تعني الارتكاز على حلفاء محليين لمواجهة الخصوم أو الأعداء. وهكذا كان أمرها مع حرب أفغانستان الأولى إثر الاجتياح السوفياتي في العام 1979، فراحت تقاتل بـ غيرها ، وهي الحال نفسها في أفريقيا وأميركا اللاتينية.

المشهد عينه، سوف يبرز في حروب أميركية لاحقة. فخلال حرب افغانستان الثانية في العام 2001، كانت ركيزة الحرب الأميركية قائمة على الحلفاء المحليين . وهذا ينطبق على العراق في العام 2003، وعلى ليبيا في العام 2011، مع فارق بين الحربين الأفغانية والعراقية وبين الحرب الليبية، أن الولايات المتحدة اعتمدت في افغانستان والعراق مبدأ القيادة من الأمام ، وفي ليبيا القيادة من الخلف .

ثمة دروس فائقة الأهمية في الحروب الأفغانية والعراقية والليبية خلاصتها وإجمالها في التالي:

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الأفغانية بوجه دولة ممزقة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها العراقية بوجه دولة محطّمة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الليبية بوجه دولة مشرذمة.

عملياً، كان العدو ضعيفاً ، وكأن الولايات المتحدة كانت تبحث عن حرب مع الفراغ، ولذلك كان إسقاط الأنظمة القائمة سهلاً.

الحرب السهلة لأجل النصر السهل.

ذاك عنوان قد يكون مناسباً لحروب الولايات المتحدة في دول الإقليم، وبصرف النظر عن التعقيدات والمآلات التي تلت مقدمات تلك الحروب ومفاصلها الأولى، فما بعد المقدمات والمفاصل حديث آخر.

هل يمكن الخروج بقراءة عامة لحروب الولايات المتحدة؟

لنلاحظ التالي:

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية لجأت الولايات المتحدة إلى مبدأ الانتظار ، ولم تدخل الحربين إلا بعدما تهالك وتآكل المتحاربون، وهو مبدأ يشكل ذروة النفعية.

ـ في الحرب الكورية، تورّط الأميركيّون في التصورات الخاطئة.

ـ حول الحرب الفيتنامية ما زال الأميركيون يتجادلون حول الخطأ والضرورة.

ـ في حروب افغانستان والعراق وليبيا اعتمد الأميركيون مبدأ الاستناد إلى الركيزة المحلية.

ـ في حروب أفغانستان والعراق وليبيا استغل الأميركيون واقع الأنظمة الهشة.

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية وفي حرب أفغانستان الثانية، كانت مبررات الحروب الأميركية: قصف الغواصات الألمانية للسفن التجارية الأميركية ـ الهجوم الياباني على قاعدة بيرل هاربور العسكرية ـ تفجيرات تنظيم القاعدة في واشنطن ونيويورك، أي وقوع الولايات المتحدة تحت مرمى الاستهداف المباشر.

ـ في حرب العراق 1991، اعتبر الأميركيون احتلال الكويت عبثاً بالجغرفيا السياسية وخرائطها.

أي حالة تنطبق على ايران؟

ولا حالة.

ولا مبرر.

ولا نفعية ولا منفعة.

وفي تفصيل هذه الحالات ، يمكن القول إن الأميركيين لا يمكنهم اعتماد مبدأ الانتظار ليدخلوا الحرب مع ايران في لحظاتها الأخيرة، كما في الحربين الأولى والثانية، فإيران ليست في حالة حرب مع أي دولة، كما لا يمكن للأميركيين خوض حرب مع إيران بالوكالة، فلا وجود لقوى محلية إيرانية تشكل ركيزة للحرب، ولا توجد قوى اقليمية يمكن أن تشكل الركيزة المفقودة، وفوق ذلك فإيران دولة متماسكة وليست دولة هشّة على ما كانت عليه حالات افغانستان والعراق وليبيا.

يبقى التصوّر الخاطئ.

هل يمكن ان يخطئ الأميركيون بتصوراتهم؟

هذا احتمال ضعيف، بل هو أضعف الاحتمالات، وفي القياس النفعي يفرض السؤال نفسه: ماذا يجني دونالد ترامب من الحرب مع إيران؟

لا شيء مضمون سوى أن النفوذ الأميركي في الخليج سيكون محل سؤال استراتيجي كبير، وهل يبقى على حاله ام تنقلب أحواله سلباً وتراجعاً؟

إذا لماذا الحرب والنتائج غير مضمونة؟

تحت طيات هذا السؤال ربما يعيد الإيرانيون قراءة أمثالهم القديمة.

ربما واحد منهم يردّد المثل الإيراني القديم:

لا تقتل الأفعى بيدك

اقتلها بيد عدوك.

The Terrorists Among US8- Trump Whistle Blower & the ODNI FBI CIA DOD NATO-COE

September 26, 2019

The Terrorists Among US8- Trump Whistle Blower & the ODNI FBI CIA DOD NATO-COE

by George Eliason special correspondent of the Saker blog in Novorussia

Let’s explore the top of the chain in the Information Operation and Intel community coup against the presidency. The same private contractors responsible for the 2014 coup in Ukraine brought it home to the US in time to get involved in the election. Losing that bid, they have been working to alter the fabric of the country forever. No one likes to lose.

Enough information has come in about the whistleblower what group is a secondary source to determine who the primary sources of information against President Donald Trump is.

At the bottom of this article you’ll find the names of people overseeing the primary sources and why they were found so easily. If you have followed parts 1-7 in this series, you’ll walk away feeling like I somehow scripted the Trump-Zelenskiy whistleblower narrative.

The bigger questions of why is all this happening right now need to be answered. If you haven’t read The Terrorists Among US – The Coup Against the Presidency I suggest you start there because it shows a blow by blow of the coup in progress up to this point.

So, what if US Intel capabilities were under the control of a few extremely rich families that served their own political goals and those of their clientele? I’m seriously suggesting and going to prove that at the agency level, the US government no longer controls its own spies.

When we look at the concept of terrorists among the US, the ultimate betrayal is from people whose families became enriched because they positioned themselves as the first line of defense protecting the American way of life.

They were able to replace the work they did leading government agencies after they left with the work they were doing in the private sector. This is because they led all the agencies out of the post 9/11 world into a digital age no one knew anything about.

They are the same group hiring over 4 million people to work in the Intel, Information Operation, hacking, boots on the ground, and media, to change the world to their liking and that of their clients.

When that reality sinks in, remember, the US already has the entire digital world in net so tight that nothing slips by. Those 4 million undertrained people are for the benefit of the contractors described below.

The people leading these companies can’t make money in a normal world where diplomacy and mutual respect are the coin of the realm. Their profits and egos only exist where chaos and uncertainty reign. Even today it’s estimated that more than 70% of Intel workers are not government employees. This is what created the problem of privatized terrorism that exists today.

In a 2007 Washington Post OpEd entitled “The Value of Private Spies”, DNI McConnell conceded there was a huge danger in using private companies for intelligence and direct action work. Because of this he claimed “Our workforce has recovered to the point that we can begin to shed some contract personnel or shift them away from core mission areas, and the CIA is leading the way in this,” the ODNI stated.”

In 2007, CBS noted Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) lawyers revealed at a conference in May that contractors make up 51 percent of the staff in DIA offices. At the CIA, the situation is similar. Between 50 and 60 percent of the workforce of the CIA’s most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS), responsible for the gathering of human intelligence, is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.

After 9/11 the U.S. government shortened the learning curve by hiring contractors in droves. According to John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org in 2007 America’s spy network would soon resemble NASA’s mission control room in Houston.

Most people, when they see that room, think they’re looking at a bunch of NASA people,” Pike notes. “But it’s 90 percent contractors.”

As discussed in US Intelligence Poses a Threat to the World, as early as 2004, more than 50% of Intel services were manned by private contractors. By, 2007, 70 percent of the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) unit is staffed by contractors, known as ‘green badgers.

Private Intel contractors trained the agency starting after 9/11. Soon it became the contractors that had the oversight. Managers left government service to work for private contractors and came back under lucrative corporate contracts.

Effective control, support, and management functions are in the hands of people that care more about a bottom line, politics, and a business forecast model.

The line between inherently governmental work and private contracting was smashed. While the lawman tries to bring the criminal in for justice, the bounty hunter brings back a body so he can be paid.

The New York Times headlined Private Surveillance Is a Lethal Weapon Anybody Can Buy Is it too late to rein it in? By Sharon WeinbergerJuly 19, 2019

The real 1% are Cyber

In a 2015 article at The Nation titled “How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA,” Tim Shorrock describes what he calls “the cyberintelligence ruling class.”

“Over the last 15 years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government—often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit,” Shorrock wrote.

Many of the principal figures come from America’s wealthiest families. Although the wealthiest have always had a lead in filling policy and cabinet positions, this time the public service aspect is missing.

 Shorrock goes on to detail how the same 1% Americans claim to be fighting is the cyberintelligence elite that controls the media.  Mathew Olsen is an example as the former National Counterterrorism Center director and current IronNet Corp. president. He joined ABC as a commentator. He goes further and shows how this is the rule and not the exception.

This is going on all across media channels. Every network has their own cyberintelligence “expert” to explain complicated topics, but their conflicts of interest almost always remain hidden.”

War and peace is no longer in the hands of governments. Until governments push back, your sons and daughters die grossly and openly for the highest paying lobbyist or business.

Michael Chertoff from 2005-2009 ran the massive Department of Homeland Security, where he was criticized for exempting the DHS from following laws on everything from the environment to religious freedom. A report issued by the Congressional Research Service said at the time that the delegation of unchecked powers to Chertoff was unprecedented. He was also known for railing against international law, warning that treaties such as the Geneva Conventions were placing undue constraints on U.S. actions abroad. As a long-time insider – in both the public and private sector – he is one of the top figures in the U.S. intelligence-security complex.

Private sector services mirror what they do for government including Intel-for-Hire, espionage, information operations, direct action, and state-sized propaganda operations. This is work that the government has stated on many occasions needs to remain with the agencies that can be held responsible to the public – and not to private companies that aren’t. .- From Mint News “How Intel for Hire Undermines US Intelligence

Intel Community Betrayal at Every Level

When we look at the Intel community as a whole and the agencies under the ODNI, how are we not betrayed? While there are real public servants in the Intelligence services, the trend is toward criminality and the leadership that deceived the public and violated their oaths of office.

As an example, DNI James Clapper’s admission the only proof he had of Russian influence on the 2016 election was Hillary Clinton (HRC) losing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It stretches credulity to conclude that Russian activity didn’t swing voter decisions.”

That’s it that’s all. It would have been better if there was collusion if there was a Russian hack. Instead, it was part of an Information Operation that US Intelligence agency heads were in on.

The Information Operation (IO) detailed in the last installment is the single largest example of this known today. If you want to know what collusion is, start there.

Private contractors and political activists have taken it upon themselves to change the government in the United States of America. The private contractors are in the Intelligence field and work both for the government and the conspirators trying to overthrow the type of government the United States currently has.

How else can the existence of the IO coup be explained? The most extensive regime change operation by private contractors is going on in the US for 3 years and the ODNI, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, with budgets bigger than the next largest countries militaries, can’t find it or figure out what happened?

What is billed as the crime of the century is swept under the rug as far as investigations go? The DNC hack and Russian influence game tore at the fabric of the country. Is it because former FBI head Robert Mueller’s protégé started the newest dilettante mega-corporation in the spy game? Shawn Henry’s Crowdstrike just happened to be in a position to fabricate extensive and childish fables about the DNC, Podesta, and RNC hacks.

Remember, before it was Ruskies, according to Crowdstrike, it was Bernie Sanders stepping on HRC servers.

Let’s reverse the angle and expose the criminals.

If those crimes did happen under their watch Comey, Clapper and company should have been fired for incompetence because of all the information available to them at the time.

When did an actual crime occur according to ODNI agencies about the 2016 election? The crime occurred in December 2018 when the agency heads figured out their welcome was worn out with the incoming administration.

The above named were already working for the privatized 1% while still on government payrolls. They may not have gotten paid but they turned around and towed the narrative from that period forward. The wiretaps at Trump towers are ample proof of this.

Because HRC lost an election in states that had swing populations of bloc voters that hate HRC, the Russians did it, Mr. Clapper?

Reality dictates Clapper along with Comey, McCabe, Page, and company was willfully part of a conspiracy paid for by the lobbyist groups working to benefit a politician and supported by a foreign country (Ukraine) to overthrow the 2016 US elections. This started during the primaries and continued in the background throughout the election.

When this didn’t work out, the plan switched gears and became a full-court press to discredit and overthrow the presidency itself. Now keep in mind the infrastructure for the coup was put in place before Donald Trump declared his candidacy. It is a coup against the presidency.

The private Intel corporations that brought us the failed Hamilton 68 Russian catcher (courtesy of Michael Chertoff) and other media information war games are the only game in town for the likes of James Clapper, meaning there has to be some kind of lucrative life for a master spy.

The ODNI under Clapper and FBI leadership under Comey went all in for the conspiracy to overthrow the presidency after November 2016.

Why this happened and how this happened is the most dangerous game on the planet today. With the background articles 1-7 of the series in place, the explanation of why they did it became a matter of understanding process and people.

Like Joel Harding, they wanted more action but by playing the private spy game they didn’t have to color inside the lines anymore. Private Intel, IO, Espionage, and boots on the ground companies paint the lines as they go and pay for the lines to be moved as needed.

Those in the agencies or companies that went along with this because it was their job or worse, knowing they could make money lying to the press, public, and the in the PDB, must be investigated and dealt with in the harshest terms.

The reason is simple. You are the game they play. There aren’t enough bad guy countries on ten planet earths to support the game or generate the revenues consistently. That’s on September 26, 2019.

The agencies tasked with spying, IO, Infowar, Cyberwar, war, diplomacy, etc are all beyond compromised. Add in the almost complete ownership of media by stakeholders in these companies and you have a recipe for the end of everything we know.

Right now, they are keen on overthrowing the presidency. If successful, it won’t matter which party is seated in the Oval Office. Just take a position they don’t like.

Right now, they are set on controlling public opinion and political ideology. Most of the people gravitating into these fields in the private sector are politically and emotionally undeveloped. They understand the violence they are willing to bring the populace and the rush it gives them.

War and Peace

While all this is going on, at the same time, the agencies staffed with the same contractors are delivering intelligence that is supposed to be filtered. A neutral report is supposed to be written by the agency in charge before it is delivered into the presidential daily briefing (PDB). The PDB is the most important document produced because of its impact on the world daily.

From the PDB, the president of the United States decides:

•           Who is the enemy?

•           Who is friendly (or are there really any friends out there)?

•           Who is a danger and how?

•           Why are they a danger?

•           What is their motivation?

•           What steps will the US need to take to stop them, turn them in a different direction, or make peace with them?

What happens when the PDB is written by agency personnel or private contractors that want to destroy or embarrass the United States or the sitting president?

How bad does your politics have to be to be OK with starting wars for the sake of your undeveloped ego? It’s going on as we speak.

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the reported incidents of NSA employees’ violations of the law are likely “the tip of the iceberg” of lax data safeguards. The laws guiding the NSA’s spying authority in the first place are a bigger issue, he said. “If you only focus on instances in which the NSA violated those laws, you’re missing the forest for the trees,” Jaffer said. “The bigger concern is not with willful violations of the law but rather with what the law itself allows.”

The US government must bring these services back in house. The stakes are too high for the entire world not to. Americans are first on the plate for private Intel today. If you don’t think so, disagree with one of them.

Whistle Blowing Ukrainians

In what turns out to be one of the most fortuitous events in recent history, Donald Trump’s whistleblower source is in Ukraine. The whistleblower, according to a Ukrainian SBU source is Ukrainian. Lightning has struck again in the same spot for the thousandth time.

The same Ukrainian Intel and hacking groups are at it again.

According to the Hill, A whistleblower complaint released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday alleges that President Trump sought to enlist Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by mounting a corruption investigation against former Vice President Joe Biden.

The declassified version of the whistleblower complaint details the government insider’s worries about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine’s leader, revelations of which on Tuesday triggered a formal impeachment inquiry against the president.

Now that we have the charge in place, the actual phone call showed…Ukraine’s Zelenskiy is about to have difficult days in Kiev with the nationalists there. US President Trump had a phone call and made no threats or conveyed anything to intimidate Zelenskiy.

September 24, 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the

President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhandAn “employee of an element of the intelligence community” (or an

intelligence-community contractor)…

The complainant describes a hearsay report that the President, who is not a member of the intelligence community, abused his authority or acted

unlawfully in connection with foreign diplomacy.

According to the New York Times– The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump’s conduct “in the course of official interagency business,” according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials.

What seems to be the common denominators pertinent to the larger story? We have a lone gun Intel guy working on his own listening to rumors spun by whom?

It seems he was talking to Ukrainians in Kiev. There are a lot of Ukrainians in Kiev and quite a few in the Ukrainian government.

What we need to do to find the original source of the rumor is answer a couple simple questions.

Who in Kiev wants to destroy US President Donald Trump as a favor to Democratic Party allies they work with?

Who in Kiev wants to destroy newly elected president of Ukraine Zelenskiy?

Who in Kiev has the Intel capabilities and sophistication to listen in on government phone calls?

Those questions narrow the field down considerably. There is the opportunity aspect to consider with this too. How many people can listen in on a phone call with a foreign leader?

Lucky for us there is an international Information Operation (IO) going on to unseat US President Trump. This simplifies the field and cuts it down to anyone in Milestone March 1, 2014 from the Coup Against the President article.

That narrows it down to a small handful of disgruntled ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. To get to the absolute right person all that needs to happen is to extradite InformNapalm publisher Roman Burko, Deputy Information Minister Dimitri Zolotukin, and Christina Dobrovolska who supervise them. Christina left the operation 2 months ago but she has a lot of insight and likes visiting the USA.

Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat can be taken into custody as a material witness because of the vast amount of work his firm does the Ukrainian hacker Intel groups in Ukraine and Syria.

Aric Toler is in the US and will definitely provide useful insight although he’s a little timid around the most likely candidate for this, a hacker that goes by @UCA_ruhate_.

RUH8 or UCA_ruhate_  has been very vocal about his disdain for Zelenskiy and wants to hurt his presidency. These groups are familiar with how the US Congress works because they already have testimony on the Congressional record. Refer to Benchmark DNC Hacks

Alexandra Chalupa has a lot of experience with the same Intel groups. She used them to do OppoResearch for the 2016 election as shown in Milestone June 2016.

I’m sure with this caliber of help, all the information needed will come out.

The next thing to look at is who’s pushing the defense fund page for the unknown informer? It is the Ukrainian Diaspora Democratic party HRC advisor @AdamParkhomenko among other Diaspora members.

Adam worked with the Ukrainian hacker Intel groups at team Hillary and the Atlantic Council digital Sherlock program. His stint with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian hackers made memories to last a lifetime.

In the interest of justice for people of all political stripes and a return to sanity, the Intel community monster needs to be put in a glass cage isolated from society. Criminals among them have to be prosecuted.

White House Restricted Access to Trump’s Calls with Putin, MBS

Trump telephone call

Al-Manar

September 28, 2019

White House efforts to limit access to President Donald Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders extended to phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, the CNN reported Friday, according to people familiar with the matter.

Those calls — both with leaders who maintain controversial relationships with Trump — were among the presidential conversations that aides took remarkable steps to keep from becoming public.

In the case of Trump’s call with the Saudi prince, officials who ordinarily would have been given access to a rough transcript of the conversation never saw one, according to one of the sources. Instead, a transcript was never circulated at all, which the source said was highly unusual, particularly after a high-profile conversation.

The call – which the person said contained no especially sensitive national security secrets — came as the White House was confronting the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence assessments said came at the hand of the Saudi government.

With Putin, access to the transcript of at least one of Trump’s conversations was also tightly restricted, according to a former Trump administration official.

It’s not clear if aides took the additional step of placing the Saudi Arabia and Russia phone calls in the same highly secured electronic system that held a now-infamous phone call with Ukraine’s president and which helped spark a whistleblower complaint made public this week, though officials confirmed calls aside from the Ukraine conversation were placed there.

But the attempts to conceal information about Trump’s discussions with Prince Mohammed (known in Saudi Arabia as MBS) and Putin further illustrate the extraordinary efforts taken by Trump’s aides to strictly limit the number of people with access to his conversations with foreign leaders.

The White House did not comment about the limiting of access to calls with the Russian and Saudi leaders.

Officials said the practice began more than a year ago after embarrassing leaks revealed information about Trump’s phone conversations with the leaders of Australia and Mexico. While it includes the highly secure system for particularly sensitive matters, it has also extended to limiting the number of individuals who are provided a transcript or are able to listen to the call.

Those efforts have come under scrutiny after the intelligence whistleblower alleged that White House officials took unusual steps to conceal Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s new president.

Source: CNN

Saudi Executions to be Continued: 39 Shia Detainees on Death Row

Saudi Executions to be Continued: 39 Shia Detainees on Death Row

By Staff

In the course of the Saudi regime’s continued crackdown against the Kingdom’s eastern province Shia population, activists warned that 39 detainees from Qatif are facing execution.

Detainees who come from the Shia-populated Qatif include 5 who are facing a final execution sentence and 8 are facing a preliminary sentence.

In further details, human rights activists urged urgent action is imperative to stop the government’s brutality following unfair mass trials, during which the detainees were tortured.

Earlier in April, the Saudi regime blatantly executed 37 Saudi youth for being opponents amid sickening international silence.

Giving empty pretexts and neglecting any talk of human rights, the Saudi interior ministry announced Tuesday the execution of 37 Saudi men.

“The death penalty was implemented… on a number of culprits for adopting extremist “terrorist” ideologies and forming “terrorist” cells to corrupt and disrupt security as well as spread chaos and provoke sectarian strife,” the state news agency said in a tweet.

Related

 

Watch Imran Khan’s Full Speech Before the UN General Assembly — Eurasia Future

The post Watch Imran Khan’s Full Speech Before the UN General Assembly appeared first on Eurasia Future.

3 Saudi brigades destroyed, scores of mercs captured in Najran offensive: Yemeni Army spox

The spokesman for Yemeni Armed Forces, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, speaks at a press conference in the capital Sana’a on September 28, 2019.

Sat Sep 28, 2019 03:26PM [Updated: Sat Sep 28, 2019 04:17PM

Press TV

The spokesman for Yemeni Armed Forces says three Saudi military brigades were completely destroyed after Yemeni Army troops, backed by allied fighters from Popular Committees, mounted a large-scale military offensive in the kingdom’s southern border region of Najran.

Speaking at a press conference in the capital Sana’a on Saturday evening, Brigadier General Yahya Saree described the major and efficient operation, dubbed God’s Victory, as the biggest-ever since Saudi Arabia and some of its allies embarked an atrocious military campaign on Yemen more than four years ago, noting that the offensive lasted several months and inflicted dramatic losses – both in terms of military hardware and personnel – upon the enemy, the media bureau of Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement said in a statement.

“The operation resulted in the complete destruction of three military brigades of the enemy (Saudi) forces, seizure of large quantities of military equipment, including hundreds of vehicles and armored vehicles, capture of thousands of enemy forces, mostly traitors and the beguiled (Saudi-sponsored Yemeni militiamen loyal to Yemen’s former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi). Hundreds more were killed and wounded in the process as well,” Saree pointed out.

The high-profile Yemeni military official highlighted that Saudi commanders, officers and soldiers are among those captured by Yemeni forces and Popular Committees fighters.

“Only 72 hours after the start of the operation, our forces laid full siege to enemy troops. Three brigades of traitors with units of the Saudi army were completely destroyed, and scores of people taken hostage,” Saree said.

He added, “Under the directives of the leadership [of Ansarullah movement, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi], all prisoners were treated according to the principles of Islam, Yemen’s customs and traditions as well as human ethics. Our forces worked to protect thousands of surrendered enemy forces against retaliatory raids by the coalition of aggression.”

Saree then assured all families of the prisoners that Yemeni forces and their allies would take further measures to save them from harm against Saudi-led airstrikes.

The spokesman for Yemeni Armed Forces went on to say that several specialized units of Yemeni Armed Forces participated in the operation in different geographical areas, and that Yemeni army forces and their allies could wrest control over hundreds of square kilometers of land in Najran.

Saudi Arabia and a number of its regional allies launched a devastating campaign against Yemen in March 2015, with the goal of bringing the government of Hadi back to power and crushing Ansarullah.

The US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a nonprofit conflict-research organization, estimates that the war has claimed more than 91,000  lives over the past four and a half years.

The war has also taken a heavy toll on the country’s infrastructure, destroying hospitals, schools, and factories. The UN says over 24 million Yemenis are in dire need of humanitarian aid, including 10 million suffering from extreme levels of hunger.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Education In Palestine: West Bank Struggle For School Dreams — Rebel Voice

Crimes against humanity can take many forms. Ethnic cleansing is one, sexual assaults as a policy is another. Starving people is a third as is the random slaughter of civilians. Israel is guilty of all of these and more. They are also guilty of depriving Palestinian children of their right to an education. Schools are […]

via Education In Palestine: West Bank Struggle For School Dreams — Rebel Voice

Kashmir under lockdown: All the latest updates

Source

The Indian government revoked the special status accorded to Indian-administered Kashmir in its constitution, the most far-reaching political move on the disputed region in nearly 70 years.

A presidential decree issued on August 5 revoked Article 370 of India’s constitution that guaranteed special rights to the Muslim-majority state, including the right to its own constitution and autonomy to make laws on all matters except defence, communications and foreign affairs.

In the lead-up to the move, India sent thousands of additional troops to the disputed region, imposed a crippling curfew, shut down telecommunications and internet, and arrested political leaders.

The move has worsened the already-heightened tensions with neighbouring Pakistan, which downgraded its diplomatic relations with India.

India and Pakistan claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part. The nuclear-armed neighbours have fought two of their three wars over the disputed territory. A rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir has been ongoing for 30 years.

Here are the latest updates:

India’s Kashmir propaganda: A leaf out of Israel’s book

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: