Putin at SCO Summit: Pakistan Is Integral to the Eurasian Future

Global Research, June 15, 2019

The Eurasian future that President Putin articulated during his keynote speech at the SCO is made possible by Pakistan’s leading role in this vision.

President Putin’s keynote speech at the SCO was brief but concise, laying out Russia’s envisioned future for Eurasia during its new year-long presidency of the organization. His address comprised two main parts, with the first one emphasizing that “the fight against terrorism and extremism remains among our top priorities” while the second spoke strongly about the need for enhancing economic ties between the bloc’s members. Putin made it a point to say that “the developments in Afghanistan require special attention”, while also reiterating what he said at the Belt & Road Forum in April concerning the “promising potential in integrating the Eurasian Economic Union with China’s Belt and Road project with a future aim of building a larger Eurasian partnership”. The specific manner in which the interconnected issues of security and development complement one another in Putin’s Eurasian vision is made possible by Pakistan’s integral role in the articulated paradigm.

The Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership has seen both countries conduct joint anti-terrorist exercises in order to prepare for tackling any adverse scenarios that might arise from Daesh’s presence in Afghanistan, which has reassured decision makers in both countries after their militaries shared their crucial experiences fighting against this unconventional threat in Syria and the tribal areas respectively. In addition, it was through Pakistan’s behind-the-scenes diplomatic facilitation that the Taliban unprecedentedly agreed to travel to the capital of their predecessors’ former Russian foes in a bid to revive the stalled Afghan peace process, with these two outcomes serving to satisfy the security half of Putin’s Eurasian vision. As for the developmental one of integrating the Eurasian Union with BRI, the latter’s flagship project of CPEC greatly contributed to Pakistan becoming the global pivot state and therefore being indispensable to the success of Putin’s plans.

This geostrategic fact obviously wasn’t lost on Putin, who chummed it up with his Pakistani counterpart all throughout the summit, with both leaders seen chatting and laughing together the entire time. Putin and Khan have a common interest in sports, too, which helped them bond much quicker than usual. In addition, the Russian leader is known to understand English and even be able to speak it pretty well too, only using an interpreter for formal occasions in order to ensure that he doesn’t accidentally miss anything important, which made it easier for him to exchange casual impromptu comments with PM Khan. The visible friendship between these two heads of state that was proudly on display during the SCO Summit will go a long way towards strengthening the Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership in the future, which in turn will enable Putin to actualize his Eurasian vision and accelerate the emergence of the Multipolar World Order.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Advertisements

«إدلب» معركةُ كسرِ الأحادية الأميركية!

يونيو 12, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

ليس غريباً على الإطلاق أن يدعم الأميركيون سيطرة الارهاب المتنوع في شمال سورية برعاية تركية عسكرية مباشرة. ألم يفعلوا الأمر نفسه في غربي سورية بدعمهم كل أنواع الارهاب الذي كان يطوقُ العاصمة دمشق برعاية المخابراتين الاسرائيلية الأردنية وبتمويل خليجي في مرحلة 2012 2018؟ فأين العجب اذاً؟

وبدلاً من الاسرائيليين والاردنيين، يلعب الأتراك دوراً خطيراً جداً في شمالي سورية وعفرين والشمال الغربي وبعض أرياف حماة وحلب، فلماذا لا يستثمرُ الأميركيون فيهم فيطيلون أمد الازمة السورية معيقين اي حل سياسي او عسكري لها باللعب على طموحات تركية تحلمُ بإعادة الزمن قروناً عدة الى الوراء.

هناك معوقٌ وحيد يتعلق بجملة تناقضات بين المشروعين الأميركي والتركي في المنطقة العربية. تجسدت بإسقاط الاخوان المسلمين الذين هم حلفاء تركيا في مصر وتونس وتقليص دورهم في ليبيا واليمن والسودان وجزيرة العرب، ولبنان، مع محاولة أميركية لتدبير انقلاب عسكري تركي على الرئيس اردوغان نجا منها بتنبيه روسي وتحرّك حزب العدالة والتنمية التركي وتأثيره على ألوية عسكرية موالية.

وبما أن الفريقين براجماتيان، فلماذا لا يعودون الى التعاون في الميدان السوري نتيجة لضغط اساسي يتعرضان له وهو إنهاء الدور التركي السوري بعد تحرير إدلب، والبدء بدفع الأحادية الأميركية خارج سورية والعراق بعد تحرير إدلب ايضاً؟

لذلك فإن المصيبة المحدقة بالطرفين تعيد لمّ شملهما. وتُقربُ بين أهدافهما.

للإشارة هنا، فإن الاتراك استغلوا الصراع الروسي الأميركي في سورية لبناء علاقات عميقة مع الطرف الروسي بزعم تنظيم ميادين القتال العسكرية للوصول الى مرحلة الحل السياسي.

لقد أجاد التركي أداء هذا الدور الى جانب «تربيته» لتنظيمات ارهابية من النصرة والاخوان والقاعدة وافرازاتها والألوية الباكستانية من الإيغور الصينيين الى جانب آلاف المتطرفين في تنظيمات أخرى، وردوا من آسيا الوسطى واوروبا الشرقية والخليج ومصر وشمال أفريقيا، كل هؤلاء تمكّن الأتراك من ربطهم بغرفة أركان عسكرية «موك» تركية تديرهم حسب اتجاهات انقرة السياسية، إنما هل يمكن نسيان آلاف الجنود الأتراك الذين ينتشرون ايضاً في الشمال السوري ومباشرة؟

هناك اذاً احتلال تركي مباشر لأكثر من عشرين ألف كيلومتر مربع من الأراضي السورية تضمّ أرياف حلب وحماة وادلب وعفرين وشريط يمتدّ على طول حدود سورية وبعمق وازن يصل الى 20 كيلومتراً إنما ما الذي استجدّ وحشر أردوغان في زاوية ضيقة؟

منح الروس تركيا فرصاً هامة في مؤتمر «استانا» و«مذكرة سوتشي» لتنفيذ ما وعدوا به من إنهاء جبهة النصرة في ادلب. لكنهم نكثوا بتعهداتهم مراهنين على انفجار أكبر في علاقات الأميركيين بالروس، فتزدادُ حاجة الطرفين للخدمات التركية!..

أدّت هذه المراوغة الى اصرار الدولة السورية على بدء تحرير ارياف حماه وحلب وادلب في خطة محكمة وعاجلة مدعومة من الحلفاء، لأن الروس تبيّنوا ان المماطلات التركية ليست إلا نتاج مغريات قدمها الأميركيون لأنقرة حول ضرورة استمرار دورهم في أراضي سورية. وهذا بالتوازي مع تحريض أميركي غربي خليجي اسرائيلي للارهاب بضرورة التحرك مرسلين دعماً عسكرياً تزامن مع دعم تركي بالآليات وكل أنواع الأسلحة لتنفيذ اوامر بتشديد القصف على المواقع الروسية، ففهمت موسكو الرسالة الأميركية والتركية لكن الترك لم يفهموا إلا الجانب الظاهري منها وهو رغبة الأميركيين وحلفائهم بتمديد الأزمة السورية. وهذا يتطلب تأييداً لتركيا في سورية بما هي آخر جدار يمنع الدولة السورية من الانتقال الى شرقي الفرات، لذلك استغلّ اردوغان الهوس الغربي بإدلب، فاعتبره وسيلة لإعادة إحياء طموحاته، فهل هذه هي الأهداف الأميركية فقط؟

يريد الأميركيون من إيقاف تقدم الجيش السوري نحو إدلب ثلاث مسائل مترابطة:

أولاً إرجاء حل الازمة السورية حتى اشعار آخر، لأن واشنطن لا تملك معارضات سورية وازنة تستطيع استعمالها في مرحلة الحل السياسي.

والدليل أن كل شخصيات المعارضة التي كانت تحتل شاشات التلفزة العالمية والخارجية اختفت بعد انهيار الإرهاب في غربي سورية ولم يبق إلا الاخوان المسلمون الغافون في حضن التركي وجبهة النصرة الارهابية وتنظيمات القاعدة.

أما الأميركيون في شرقي الفرات فهم قوة احتلال مباشر يتسترون بالأكراد في «قوات سورية الديموقراطية» «قسد» كواجهة لاستمرار دورهم المتراجع الى حد بعيد.

ثانياً: تفجير العلاقات الروسية التركية، يعرف الأميركيون أن المماطلة التركية في الانسحاب من ادلب تدفع نحو انهيار التقدم في العلاقات المتطورة بين انقرة وموسكو.

لذلك منحوا انقرة مهلة شهرين إضافيين لإلغاء صفقة صواريخ أس أس 400 الروسية مع طموح أميركي كبير بتعطيل خط الغاز الروسي التركي نحو اوروبا وإيقاف السخاء الروسي بالسماح لنحو خمسة ملايين سائح بارتياد ربوع تركيا وإنفاق مدخراتهم بما يؤدي الى دعم الاقتصاد التركي المعاقب من الأميركيين.

ثالثاً: وهو الأكثر أهمية ويتعلق ببحث أميركي عميق عن وسائل وموانع تحدُّ من التراجع الأميركي في الشرق الأوسط.

وهذا يتطلّب وقف الصعود الروسي ومنعه من الوصول الى شرقي الفرات والحدود مع العراق.

لذلك يريد الأميركيون إشغال الروس في شمالي سورية ومناطق اخرى، ومنعهم من العودة الى فضاءات سوفياتية سابقة في العراق واليمن وليبيا والسودان بما يكشف الربط الأميركي بين الدفاع عن أحاديتهم العالمية وبين معركة ادلب.

وما محاصرة إيران ومحاولات إسقاطها بالعقوبات الاقتصادية إلا وسيلة لمنع تشظي الأحادية الأميركية على قاعدة انبثاق تعددية في إنتاج القرار الدولي تكبح الجنون الأميركي.

هذا ما يريده الأميركيون، أما السوريون فعقدوا العزم على تحرير إدلب وكامل المناطق المحتلة بتعاون روسي ايراني يريد معالجة الجنون الأميركي بالجراحة العسكرية في ميادين سورية المنتصرة.

Related Videos

مقالات ذات صلة

CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE – WHITE HELMETS, “BANA AL-ABED” AND KILLING “EVIL RUSSIANS”

South Front

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - White Helmets, “Bana al-Abed” and Killing “Evil Russians”

Since the formal defeat of ISIS’ self-proclaimed caliphate and so-called “moderate rebels” in most of Syria, the Middle Eastern country, has largely disappeared from the front-pages of mainstream media outlets. Nonetheless, the narrative management operation to distort the real situation in the war-torn country and demonize the Damascus government and its allies fighting foreign-backed radical militant groups continues.

The upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is an obvious example of the scale and spread of this campaign. The official trailer for the new part of the franchise features “heroic actions” of the White Helmets, “big bad Russians” bombing civilians and a kid in a gas mask apparently signaling the expected usage of “Assad’s chemical weapons” mantra in the story-telling.

The description of the first missions of the coming part of the world franchise reveals that they will incorporate Russian soldiers laughing while killing civilians as well as using chemical weapons against civilians. So, a “Bana al-Abed”-styled girl will have to kill some “evil Russkies”.

It appears that the goal of this effort is to bring back into attention some propaganda narratives that appear to have, at least partially, died down in recent years under pressure of facts. It’s an open secret that the White Helmets have deep ties with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria) and other radical groups de-facto playing a role in their propaganda wing and participating in staging chemical attack provocations.

The Twitter account of Bana al-Abed became widely known during the battle for Aleppo in 2016. The account operator, using the name and photos of the then 7yo girl, was writing scripted tweets blaming the “Assad regime” and Russia for civilian casualties, spreading fake news and even calling to start a new world war if that’s what’s needed to rescue what the account described as “innocent civilians”. After defeat of the radical groups controlling her part of the city, Bana and her parents withdrew from Aleppo alongside other members of militant groups that had reached a surrender deal with the Damascus government. Later, she and her family appeared in Turkey where Bana’s image continued to be used as a tool of the ongoing campaign against Syria. Her case is a sad example of how kids are being used for war propaganda purposes.

An interesting fact is that the “Call of Duty” game writer is not even hiding that the mainstream video game franchise seeks to indoctrinate its users. Taylor Kurosaki said that “he wants “Call of Duty” to be spoken of as on par with the best war films, and he hopes ‘Modern Warfare’ will inspire fans to check out the harrowing and eye-opening documentaries ‘The White Helmets’ or ‘Last Man in Aleppo”.” It’s no surprise that both mentioned “documentaries” were designed to glorify the White Helmets and militant groups they were assisting by their work and had little in common with the real situation in parts of the country, including, at some point, eastern Aleppo, controlled by MSM-promoted “moderate rebels”.

However, the latest Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game, underlined a tendency that is by no means new. In some cases, modern video games, movies and even comic books are infested with war propaganda even more than news pieces released by CNN and similar media outlets.

Even DC comics, in late 2018, in its Doomsday Clock crossover with Watchmen showcased a superhero from Syria, called Sandstorm, who could control the desert sands. The generic stereotype boy called Nabil Azmah was from Douma, which isn’t even in the desert. He was later killed in the comics, fighting against the “Assad regime.” According to his fictional biography, his family were killed by fighters allied to Assad and his sister was gassed.

To top it off, in the next issue, Russian President Vladimir Putin was portrayed as the bad guy and even picked a fight with Superman, after a US superhero – Firestorm – democratically turned Russian citizens on Red Square into glass.

These tendencies are nothing new. DC comics, in the 80s, portrayed Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who concludes a deal with Batman’s infamous enemy the Joker. The Joker then says that Iranians and him have a lot in common, namely “being insane.”

The mainstream entertainment industry is doing its best to “inform”  American youth of who the “good guys” are in Syria and around the world, even if these “good guys” accidentally appear to be members of al-Qaeda.

This situation is a demonstration of how little propaganda capabilities Syria, Venezuela, China, Iran or Russia really do have in comparison with their “Western partners”. In most cases, the US and the EU use bogeyman stories about the mighty Russian, Chinese, Iranian and even Syrian propagandists as formal justification to tighten censorship and to increase their own propaganda efforts.

D-Day… More Drama Than Decisive in World War II Victory

Related image

Finian Cunningham
June 6, 2019

Stealing the laurels of victory was a necessary act of treachery by the Western powers in order to facilitate their Cold War against the Soviet Union. The same treachery continues today as Washington and its NATO allies try to wage a new Cold War against Russia.

US President Donald Trump called it the “greatest battle ever” while attending a 75th anniversary ceremony this week to mark the Western allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France.

Trump was joined by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and leaders from 15 other nations in the British harbor city of Portsmouth from where allied troops embarked for the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Looking back, Operation Overlord was indeed a huge military and logistical undertaking. Some 150,000 troops from the US, Britain and Canada, among others, crossed the narrow English Channel in 7,000 vessels. It is recorded as the biggest military land invasion from sea.

Allied forces were met by Nazi firepower as they stormed the Normandy beaches. But in truth the Nazi defenses were easily overwhelmed. That’s largely because Hitler had already shifted the best fighting units months before to the Eastern Front where the Third Reich was really in a war for its survival against the Soviet Red Army. The D-Day casualty figures would attest that American, British and German deaths from the brief battles in Normandy were of the order of 10,000. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front the casualties on both the German and Soviet sides were hundred-fold more, in the millions.

When the D-Day invasion was launched in June 1944, the pivotal battle at Stalingrad was long over, 16 months before that. The Wehrmacht was already being rolled back to German homeland. Some 90 per cent of all German military casualties – nearly six million soldier deaths – were to be inflicted on the Eastern Front fighting the Red Army.

The question remains: why did Western allies not launch their offensive on Nazi-occupied France much sooner? Soviet leader Josef Stalin had pleaded over the previous year with his American and British counterparts to do so on several occasions in order to relieve the Soviets. Did the Western allies finally act on D-Day because they could see that the Red Army was on the way to conquering all of Nazi Germany singlehandedly, and thus were motivated to claw some of the spoils? It was the Red Army that vanquished the Third Reich’s last stand in Berlin in May 1945. But the Soviet Union entered into a postwar carve-up of Germany with the US and Britain.

So, when President Trump talks about D-Day being the “greatest battle ever” he is being prone to unfounded exaggeration, relying on Hollywood fabulation than historical record.

There is little dispute that the opening of the Western Front did indeed help accelerate the final defeat of Nazi Germany. But it also indisputable that the greatest battles and decisive victories were achieved by the Soviet forces for the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny.

What we see in today’s celebration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day is more dramatics than actual historical reality. Official Western conceit pretends that that event was the key to defeating Nazi Germany.

Part of the reason is to arrogate a moral authority for Western states, which is hardly deserved. By claiming to have emancipated Europe from the scourge of totalitarian fascism, Western states are thereby given a political and moral cover to conduct their own otherwise blatant policies of aggression and militarism.

How many illegal wars and subterfuges have the US and its NATO allies, particularly Britain, carried out since the end of the Second World War? Some historians like the late William Blum, author of ‘Killing Hope’, or Mark Curtis, author of ‘Web of Deceit’, put the number in the hundreds. These genocidal, supreme crimes of aggression, are afforded an audacious moral license largely because these same aggressors continually invoke their supposed victory against Nazi Germany. The truth is that the US and its NATO allies have in many ways continued the same aggression of Nazi Germany in countless wars and covert operations around the world over the past seven decades. The genocides in Korea, Kenya, Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chile, Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, are just a few among many other US-UK atrocities.

The present looming conflicts involve the US threatening war and destruction against Iran and Venezuela based on transparently spurious pretexts. And yet Trump has the brass neck to eulogize during the D-Day commemorations this week about American forces standing up for “freedom and liberty”.

The US and its NATO allies are using the past and its presumed glories as a shield for their own criminal imperialism.

Dramatizing D-Day as an event is also crucial for the discrediting and demonizing of Russia, as it was previously with regard to the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to invite Russian leader Vladimir Putin to the D-Day events this week in order to pay respect to the colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people in defeating Nazi Germany?

شهر حاسم في كل الملفات: حلول تفاوضيّة شاملة أم مواجهة شاملة؟

يونيو 8, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– تزدحم في نهاية هذا الشهر الاستحقاقات، وطبيعي أن اقترابها يعني تصعيد التسخين في المنطقة استعداداً للمواجهة أو للتفاوض، ويشكل الاستحقاق الأول نهاية المهلة التي حددتها إيران بستين يوماً للإعلان عن خروجها من التفاهم على ملفها النووي، يصير بعدها السعي لإعادة إيران للتفاهم أشدّ تعقيداً، ويصير وجودها خارج التفاهم بحد ذاته تصعيداً ومساراً مفتوحاً للتصعيد، ولا يمكن قراءة أي تطوّر في المنطقة أو استحقاق تفاوضيّ بعيداً عن مضمون ما يقدّمه من إجابة على السؤال الرئيسيّ الذي تطرحه مهلة الستين يوماً لإقناع إيران بتمديد المهلة إذا تعذّر إقناعها بالبقاء تحت مظلة التفاهم، والإقناع هنا ليس لغوياً ولا عقلياً، بل هو إقناع بلغة المصالح وتقديم العروض، التي تلبي لإيران الحد الأدنى من متطلباتها المستحقة بموجب التفاهم، والتي يعترف بها الشركاء المتمسّكون بالتفاهم في روسيا والصين وأوروبا، لكنهم وخصوصاً أوروبا، يعتذرون عن توفير متطلبات إيران بسبب العقوبات الأميركية. وهذا يعني أن أي عروض ستتلقاها إيران هي عروض أميركية بلسان أوروبي وضمانة روسية صينية.

– لا يمكن الفصل بين هذا المسار الخاص بالملف النووي الإيراني وملف صفقة القرن، الذي يشكل مساراً موازياً لمسار حصار إيران في الخريطة الأميركية الإسرائيلية الخليجية المبنية على فرضية القدرة على تحجيم ومحاصرة قوى المقاومة وفرض مفهوم الأمن الإسرائيلي عليها. وبالتالي يشكل انعقاد مؤتمر البحرين أواخر شهر حزيران الجاري الفرصة الاختباريّة الأولى للتوازنات التي تحكم معادلة صفقة القرن. وبمثل ما تبدو واشنطن مرتبكة في التعامل مع تبعات خطواتها في الملف النووي مع إيران بعد ظهور حائط مسدود أمام الضغوط يضع واشنطن بين التراجع أو الذهاب للحرب، تبدو واشنطن أيضاً مرتبكة في التعامل مع تبعات خطواتها نحو صفقة القرن، حيث يواجه رئيس حكومة الاحتلال وضعاً لا يحسد عليه في الداخل الإسرائيليّ، وحيث الإجماع الفلسطيني على مواجهة صفقة القرن، عاملان كافيان لإسقاطها بالنقاط إن لم يكن بالضربة القاضية، والتردد الأميركي في الخطوات اللاحقة في مواجهة إيران يشبه التردّد في الإعلان الرسميّ عن مضمون صفقة القرن.

– يتزامن هذا الاستحقاقان المفتوحان على المواجهة في العناوين الكبرى في المنطقة، مع استحقاقيْن يشكلان فرصاً تفاوضية، لا يمكن الحديث عن نتاج إيجابي لها خارج سياق ما ستفعله واشنطن بصدد التعامل مع إيران من جهة، ومع صفقة القرن من جهة موازية. فالترويج الأميركيّ عن فرضيّة التوصل لحل روسي أميركي في سورية، واعتبار لقاء مستشاري الأمن الروسي والأميركي والإسرائيلي محطة لهذا التفاهم، وتضمينه سلفاً إشارات لانسحاب إيران وقوى المقاومة من سورية مقابل اعتراف أميركي بشرعنة النصر السوريّ، محكوم عليه بالفشل إذا كان قائماً على رهان ضمني على فرضية إغراء روسيا أو الضغط عليها لقبول حل من وراء ظهر إيران وقوى المقاومة ترفضه الدولة السورية. وهو ما تقول الوقائع أيضاً أن روسيا لا تقع بفخاخه، وتقول الوقائع إن الأميركي يعلم أن روسيا لا تملك خريطة طريق لتطبيقه إن رغبت، لكن إذا كان ما تريده واشنطن هو السعي لفرصة حلّ بالتراضي مع إيران وقوى المقاومة من البوابة الروسيّة، بمعزل عن فرص وشروط القبول بهذا العرض ضمن حلّ شامل يطال الحصار على إيران وصفقة القرن، فهذا يعني أن المسار التفاوضي أمامه حظوظ جيدة.

– من دون هذا المسار الشامل لا يمكن الحديث عن جدوى أو قيمة لأي استحقاقات تفاوضيّة أخرى، خصوصاً فرضية قمة روسية أميركية على هامش قمة العشرين نهاية شهر حزيران الجاري في اليابان، فموسكو وبكين في اشتباك متعدّد العناوين مع واشنطن، تجارياً واستراتيجياً، والدور الروسيّ والصينيّ في ملفي الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، والحصار على إيران، ظاهر من قرار مقاطعة مؤتمر البحرين، كما الموقف من المواجهة في إدلب ظاهر من مداولات مجلس الأمن والفيتو المزدوج على مشروع البيان الأميركي البريطاني الفرنسي.

– في حال قرّرت واشنطن التراجع عن الحصار على إيران ولو مواربة، ومن تحت الطاولة بغطاء أوروبي، وقررت طي مشروع صفقة القرن ولو تحت عنوان الحاجة للوقت والتنسيق مع الأطراف الدولية، سيكون ممكناً البحث في مناطق وسط لتسويات في سورية واليمن تشرعن انتصارات محور المقاومة، وتحفظ ماء الوجه للذين هزموا في الحروب لفتح الباب لانسحاب آمن أمامهم، سواء من سورية أو من اليمن.

قوى المقاومة التي تستعدّ لاجتماع على مستوى قيادي جامع ربما يجمع الحركات المقاومة في لبنان وفلسطين واليمن والعراق مع الدول المقاومة في المحور، خصوصاً سورية وإيران، ستضع بين أيدي الحليف الروسي مع جهوزيّتها للمواجهة المفتوحة، إذا كان هذا هو الخيار الأميركي، الحدود الممكنة للحلول التفاوضيّة إذا ظهرت مؤشرات جدية باتجاهه.

Related Videos

Related News

 

Sovereignists of all countries – unite!

The Saker

Sovereignists of all countries – unite!

June 07, 2019

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

We all know that the Neocons are by far the largest and most influential group of sponsors of US wars of aggression. They are the ones who lobbied the hardest for the invasion of Iraq, and they are the ones which for decades have tried every possible dirty trick to lure the US into acts of aggression against Iran. In fact, in terms of international law, the Neocons could be seen as a gang of international war criminals. Why? Because, as I have already pointed out several times, according to the fundamental positions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the worst crime possible is not genocide or any other crime against humanity. The worst possible crime is the crime of *aggression* because, according to the experts who set up the Nuremberg Tribunal, the crime of aggression “contains” all the other crimes (by the way, the International Criminal Court takes the same position). In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, “to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” By that definition, every single US President would be a war criminal (at least as far as I know; if you can think of a US President who did not commit the crime of aggression – including against Native Americans! – please let me know). As for the Neocons, they could be fairly characterized as a “criminal conspiracy to commit the crime of aggression.” In a sane world, that would make them international pariahs on par with the al-Qaeda crazies (who, whether they realize it or not, were federated by the US Neocons and are still their hired guns not so much against the West but mostly against all the other (non-Takfiri) forms of Islam, primarily Hezbollah and Iran). In fact, while most are still afraid to say so publicly, I believe that there is a growing realization amongst political analysts that the Neocons are a dangerous international gang of warmongering thugs.

What is, however, less known is that inside the US, the Neocons and their allies have been a prime force to dismantle the Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments.

Today, I want to give a simple yet telling example of how this kind of stuff is quietly happening with very little opposition. And for that example, I will use the US state in which I am currently living, Florida.

Check out this stunning sequence of events:

On April 11th the FL House unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:

  • “A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
  • “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.”

The bill also provides many examples of “anti-Semitism,” including:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.

The bill also provides that examples of anti-Semitism related to Israel include:

  • Applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel.
  • Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.

On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke!) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuit against this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws.

The tiny little fig-leaf covering the real anti-civil-rights nature of such laws is the cop-out that such laws do not technically violate the First Amendment since they “only” apply to schools (FL) or that they do not ban free speech as such, but “only” allow for disinvestment from corporations and individuals who dare to profess the “wrong” point of view about Israel (TX).

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Since the Neocons cannot openly come out and declare “let’s abolish the First Amendment”, they use what I would call a “legislative death by a thousand cuts” meaning that rather than openly repealing the First Amendment, they simply neuter it by imposing innumerable small limitations, regulations, interpretations, restrictions, etc. etc. etc (by the way, that is how the US elites are currently also trying to dismantle the Second Amendment).

As somebody who studied in the USA and obtained two diplomas here (1986-1991), I can attest that before 9/11 US schools and campuses were a wonderful Petri dish for all sorts of opinions and ideas, including very controversial ones. The freedom of speech on US colleges was total, and it was understood and expected that all opinions and ideas were to compete on their intrinsic merits and not carefully parsed for any sign of crimethink. This has now totally changed: with a few exceptions, most US schools (including many colleges!) have now become ideologically monolithic, and the only possible opinion is total hatred for Trump and unconditional support for the Clinton gang.

The most toxic aspect of these freedom-crushing laws is that they are deliberately directed at the young because the ruling plutocracy fully appreciates the fact that young people are far easier to mold ideologically, to indoctrinate. Add to this that the bulk of the US “educational” system (along with the US corporate media) is designed to actually stupidify students and make them compliant (the exact opposite of what “education” is supposed to achieve) since all that is required from 90+% of the US population are just the basic skill-sets needed to serve their overlords and ruling elites (the remaining top 10% of schools are mostly reserved for the children of the ruling US nomenklatura such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.).

There is another aspect of this slo-mo deconstruction of civil rights in the USA which I think is extremely important to point out: I believe that the absolutely outrageous nature of such laws is not only a side-effect of the infinite arrogance of the Neocons but also a deliberate mind-manipulation technique. By being so “in your face” with their ideological arrogance, the Neocons are forcing everybody observing the laws into one of two camps: first, those who meekly accept whatever the Neocons want, and those who dare to resist. The first group then becomes an accomplice, a bystander, who by silence acquiesces, while the second group becomes a target to be silenced, by whatever means necessary. The similarities in other circumstances are apparent: 9/11, MH-17, Skripal, fictional gas attacks in Syria, etc. The rulers of the Empire demand that everybody endorse a narrative which is self-evidently false thereby creating a very accurate tool to measure the degree of political subservience of every person asked whether the official version is true or not.

In this context, it is quite amazing to see that very few people dare to openly question why and how a foreign power acquired such total control over a supposed superpower. There are, of course, many courageous individuals who dare to question all this (the names of Cynthia McKinney, Ron Unz, Philip Giraldi, Paul Craig Roberts, Catherine Austin-Fitts, Bonnie Faulkner and many others come to mind), but their courageous voices are drowned by an CAT5 hurricane of pro-Zionist propaganda. And, of course, when all else fails, the vapid and nonsensical accusation of “anti-Semitism” is used to discredit anybody whose arguments cannot be simply dismissed. Finally, the US deep-state has been very successful in its covert support for all kinds of genuinely racist movements, personalities and media outlets as a means to discredit (by supposed association) anybody critical of Israel or of Zionism. The exact same technique was used to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement which has been negatively affected on a grass-roots level by all sorts of plain stupid theories (nukes, Russian missiles, directed energy weapons, etc.) which helped to “dissolve” the serious and rigorously scientific studies of what really happened on 9/11.

One of the most devastating consequences of this Zio-compatible political orthodoxy in the USA has been that no US politician has successfully challenged the total control of the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG – a much-discredited term, yet a totally accurate one, in my opinion). Cynthia McKinney tried, and we all know what happened to her. Even more chilling is the fact that even people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader or Tulsi Gabbard clearly decided to stay away from this issue, lest they be demonized and removed from any position of power like Cynthia McKinney was.

This is all entirely deliberate. Just check the language used by HB 741 which clearly and repetitively conflates any rejection or condemnation of Zionism (which is an ideology) with the hatred of Jews (as a religion, ethnicity or race; FWIW, I personally think of Jews as a tribe, not a race or ethnicity). This conflation is the cornerstone of Zionist power in the West, and this is why any discussion of it is considered as an impeachable evidence of racist crimethink).

Still, those who, like myself, live in the USA are comparatively better off than any European dissidents since in most EU countries (and in Russia, by the way) there are already plenty of laws banning specific forms of free speech including even the so-called “Holocaust denial” and the (vaguely worded) ban on “hate speech”: there is no First Amendment in Europe and the ban on some forms of free speech has always been present in Europe (the French philosopher Alain Soral is now risking a year in jail for various “thought-crimes”. I will write about his plight in the near future).

Conclusion: in so many ways, Russians and Americans have the same problem!

Once we make the decision to call things by their proper names, it becomes evident what the problem is, of the USA: the USA is not a genuinely free or sovereign country, but an “occupied territory” ruled by a transnational gang of thugs whose ideology is as racist, messianic and as hateful as it gets (Zionism); I would, therefore, suggest that a perfect US “liberation slogan” might be “restore full sovereignty to the people”. Russia, I believe, has the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree (the most significant difference is that there are still many patriots in Russia who are willing to speak up against this state of affairs, but without falling into the trap of endorsing racist views). Fundamentally, I think that it would be fair to say that both Russia and the USA are struggling to free themselves from the yoke of a trans-national gang of thugs whose goal is world domination, literally (if you are naïve enough to believe that Zionism is “just” the advocacy of a Jewish homeland and a relocation of any threatened Jews to “Eretz Yisrael” you are totally mistaken, see why here).

Furthermore, both Russia and the USA also suffer from the internal oppression of a ruling class, which is corrupt to the core and profoundly contemptuous of everybody else. And while these people are not united under one leader or organization, and while they don’t have to have secret coordinating meetings, they have such a commonality of interests that they will always and instinctively act in concert. I know that this is not a cool thing to say in 2019, but for all his other mistakes, Karl Marx was quite correct in his realization that class struggles are what defines the structure of most societies and that class consciousness often determines how those in power act.

So, whatever we choose to call them (Neocons, Zionists, Atlantic Integrationists, 5th columnists, etc.), these labels are all situational, and we all know who we are dealing with here and how these people operate. And to those who would (inevitably) accuse us of some kind of crypto-racism we would simply reply with the words of a very famous Jew, Saint Paul, who said: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). Besides, blaming Jews for Zionism is about as logical as blaming Russians for Bolshevism, Germans for National Socialism or blaming US Americans for imperialism: this is both counter-factual and profoundly immoral. But, not to worry, the Pope has already declared that Christians have to ask for pardon for “19 centuries of Christian anti-Judaism”! I suppose that soon the Latins will declare Saint Paul an “optional saint” (like they did with Saint Nicholas). In fact, judging by the Pope’s obsession with denouncing anti-Semitism, we can safely assume that soon such notorious “anti-Semites” like Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Justin Martyr and many others will soon be made “optional”. At the end of the day, I fully expect these folks to make Christ Himself “optional,” again for His anti-Semitism (especially in the Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint John which will surely be “corrected” in the near future).

Russians and US Americans live in very different societies with very different histories. Yet I believe that rather than futilely hoping that Russia will one day become a backer of the (deep-state sponsored and therefore truly racist) Alt-Right, it would be far more realistic and productive to hope that all the people of Russia and the USA, irrespective of their race, ethnicity or religion, join forces to struggle to recover their sovereignty over their country. It does not matter what ideology the trans-national plutocracy happens to advocate as long as the rest of us realize that true sovereignty is the counter-poison which will restore our freedoms and stop wars of aggression (which only the ruling elites benefit from). Today the Neocons are enemy #1 for the US. The Russian 5th columnists are the enemy #1 for Russia. Showing how they work towards the same goals is, I believe, one of the first things which those who resist these thugs must achieve. Paraphrasing Marx, I would suggest this slogan: “sovereignists of all countries – unite!”.

The Saker

Russian Media’s Under-Discussed Zionization

By Agha Hussain
Source

Is an Israel-centric, Zionist-manufactured propaganda thrust taking place in Russia’s media right now? Would this make sense given the state of Russia’s foreign policy and foreign relations? Are certain propaganda themes with their roots in partisan Zionist politics and a well-documented record of being carried by pro-Israel lobbyists in foreign states being followed by Russian media right now?

A look at recent reporting by premier Russian media, combined with historical context about these themes and how they are tailored to match Israel’s strategic and soft-power objectives reveals realities that may surprise Russian media’s burgeoning community of alternate media admirers.

Russian foreign policy toward Israel and the Middle East: does Zionist propaganda in Russian media fit in?

Given the deep strategic alliance Russia has maintained with Israel both pre and post its September 2015 Syrian intervention, the possibility of a largely Israel-centric propaganda thrust in Russian media is real. As outlined and documented in detail by the author in this 1 January 2019 article, Russia’s ties with Israel involve striving to prop up an unrelentingly aggressive Israel against what are commonly assumed to be Russia’s closest allies such as Iran and Syria. Taking real steps to contain Israel’s rivals (mainly Iran) while doing nothing regarding Israeli aggression, Russia’s pro-Israel bias has become impossible to ignore.

Promoting hatred of Muslims on behalf of Israel: historical context and Russian media’s current conduct

A detailed report on the Council of National Interest (CNI) website’s staffhighlights prominent voices in the Western Islamophobia industry operating as part of a network of pro-Israel interests. CNI, whose Executive Director Philip Giraldi is a prolific writer on the working of the Israel Lobby within the US, pulls no punches in outlining how common themes of modern day Islamophobia (that Muslims are engaged in a secret Islamization of the West and that Israel is victim to radical Muslims and so on) find their origins in individuals who made it big thanks to the Israel Lobby. Names such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and Rachel Abrams in the Islamophobia industry had more to do with promoting Israel’s supposed utility in ‘containing radical Muslims’ than they did in identifying a ‘Muslim threat’ to the West. They received ample reward from Israel and its lobbyists for their activities.

Decades ago, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the Commentary magazine from the 1960s to 1995 declared that ‘Islamofascism’ posed a deadly risk to the world and required a harsh response from the West. One of the earliest intellectual shapers of the band of Likudnik pro-Israel warhawks that came to dominate policy positions under Reagan and Bush Junior, Podhoretz’s career and work were dedicated to pushing for US militarism that achieved nothing for the US and everything for the Israelis. The fearmongering about a ‘Muslim threat’ was part and parcel of that objective.

Similar trends in the reporting style on Muslim-related events to those in the early 2000s Islamophobia surge can also be spotted in Sputnik and RT’s recent reporting. It is important to keep in mind that RT also shares a chief editor with Sputnik.

A notable theme in the Islamophobia industry was the portrayal of ‘Muslims’ as more or less a large homogenous group with a certain consistent, hostile stance toward the West. Given that it is ludicrous to suggest that ‘Muslims’ are anything remotely resembling a singular, coherent socio-political entity spanning all Muslim-majority states, the objective behind this crass generalization was fairly obvious: consider one Muslim state’s alleged crimes as those of all Muslims. Considering the speed with which the neoconservatives progressed from Iraq war hysteria to anti-Syria and anti-Iran hysteria, the benefit of this generalization paradigm to them and thus Israel’s geopolitics was obvious.

‘Illegal Muslim Migrant Jailed for BRUTALLY murdering His Christianised Wife’ went the title of a 6 April news report by Sputnik. The pointing out of the illegal immigrant status of the killer is relevant, since migrant crimes is a legitimate issue for discussion with socio-economic ramifications. However, the specific pointing out of the Muslim identity betrayed an ulterior motive similar to that behind the framing of the large ‘Muslim’ bogeyman by Zionists in the early 2000s Islamophobia surge discussed above.

Rather than use terminology which specified the source of the migrant crisis (NATO destroying Libya) and nudge the reader toward tracing Western aggression against Libya to its real roots, the usage of the ‘Muslim tag’ instead sought to give credence to the same fraudulent ‘Muslims attacking the West’ narrative spun by Israel Lobby-backed anti-Muslim activists and agitators.

Mentioning the ‘Christianization’ of the killer’s wife also clearly sought to play into the ‘Muslim vs Christian’ theme. The significance of this must not be missed, since portraying Muslims and Christians as each other’s enemies despite obvious religious commonalities (such as reverence of Jesus and Mary) has been a huge part of Zionist psychological warfare and propaganda. The ‘Judeo Christian values’ canard is used by the Zionists to this purpose to assure Christians in the West that it is their ally, not ‘the Muslims’. It also ties into the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ framework pioneered by pro-Israel partisan and Jewish Zionist scholar Bernard Lewis and incorporated fully into the early 2000s Islamophobia campaign.

Also aiming for this effect, clearly, was Sputnik’s 5 April report on a Russian family fleeing Sweden and seeking asylum in Poland due to Swedish authorities taking custody of their daughters. Emphasizing in the title that the family receiving custody of the children was Muslim and Lebanese, the report mentioned that the Russian father had no full employment and thus Swedish social services took his children to the Muslim family several hundreds of kilometres away.

It mentioned the Muslim foster father ‘admitting’ that social services paid for his trip to Poland to appear in the court which eventually granted the Russian family asylum, likely a subtle jab considering the ‘welfare leech’ narrative weaponized against Muslims since the migrant crisis took off. Despite mentioning the Russian father’s inadequate employment status at the start, Sputnik concluded the report by stating that the social services had ‘no specific reason’ for taking his daughters and did not speculate as to his own likely reliance on Swedish welfare for subsistence.

Postings on Jewish ‘victimhood’ related to Israel and Zionism have also begun to surface more gradually in Russian media.

Propagating ‘Jewish victimhood’ to whitewash Israel’s supremacist nature and forced Judaization of Occupied Palestine

A 28 April report by Sputnik following a synagogue shooting in the US described the backstory of a family of a survivor as having ‘fled rockets from Gaza’Another report on 29 April described rising migration from Germany to Israel by Jews due to ‘rising anti-Semitism’. It quoted one Jew as saying she is afraid of ‘Muslim anti-Semitism’ in particular. It also described the harassment of a Jewish girl in Germany embarking upon the Israeli government-sponsored migration to Israel for ‘wearing a T-shirt with the words Israel Defense Forces (IDF)’.

The pointing out of a girl being harassed for idolizing the IDF, which oversees war crimes against Palestinians and enforces Israel’s apartheid, sets in the victim’s seat in this context the Israeli military and Jews. Similarly, the report chooses to ignore that Israel’s subsidization of the migration of anyone in the world belonging to the ‘Jewish race’ (as Israeli authorities verify) to Occupied Palestine is part and parcel of its racial exclusivist policies. The Israeli preference to Jews over non-Jews in terms of property rights, state-provided housing and degree of voting rights as well as the racial colonies (i.e ‘Jewish settlements’) programme across Occupied Palestine was, quite obviously, not explored.

In addition, the report also cited the German right-wing Alternate for Germany (AfD) party as a cause for worry for Jews, leaving out the fact AfD focused on anti-Muslim rhetoric and supported German state attempts to curb ‘anti-Semitism’. Incredulously, Sputnik also declined to mention that the AfD, in fact, adores Israel.

Raising the spectre of ‘rising anti-Semitism’ is part and parcel of Russian media’s pro-Zionist drive. Nothing else but a heavy pro-Zionist tilt would explain media outlets that have occupied the limelight for their ‘alternate media’ status giving momentum to such a heavily fraudulent, Orwellian and mainstream media narrative as the ‘rising anti-Semitism’ canard.

Talk of ‘rising anti-Semitism’ has a long history of being exaggerated to suit ongoing Israeli political agendas such as pushing legislation in the West to criminalize public criticism of it. Countries such as France have already declared anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitism while the US has even appointed a ‘Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism’ at the State Department to counter ‘anti-Semitism’ worldwide.

Zionists in high places in Russian media

The Islamophobia industry in the US as described above took off in the early 2000s as part of a highly coordinated campaign. It coincided with dominant parts of the George W Bush government becoming occupied by the clique Podhoretz and his kind helped form (the neoconservatives).

With the US being railroaded into wars in the Middle East to benefit Israel, the Islamophobia surge fit in perfectly into the broader geopolitical context. Considering Israel’s well-fleshed out objectives in the region the neoconservatives strove toward stay unchanged despite significant setbacks in recent wars and conflicts, and considering the increased reliance of Israel on the Russians to ‘contain’ Iran, the foundations exist for similar media operations to the early 2000s Israel Lobby-led promotion of Islamophobia.

Is Zionist manoeuvring taking place in Russian media right now thus explaining it following traditional Israeli propaganda themes such as ‘evil Muslims’ and ‘Jewish victimhood’?

RT’s Middle East Bureau Chief since 2005 has been the Jewish and Zionist Paula Slier, tasked with covering Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Afghanistan events. Working as a foreign correspondent, anchor and news editor, her profile page on RT states she has been ‘twice been recognized by Russian President Vladimir Putin for her “colossal input into the development of Russian journalism”’.

According to this post by the Jerusalem Post from 2006, Slier was ‘discriminated against’ by the South African Broadcasting Corporation on account of being a Jew and blacklisted in 2004 from being used by the SABC to report on Middle East conflicts. Slier at that time was working as an Israel-based freelancer as well as reporting live from live conflict zones for Russia Today (RT’s old name). As narrated by the Jerusalem Post, she decried the decision by the state-run SABC’s news head to blacklist her on account of ‘assuming’ she was a Zionist simply for being Jewish and deciding she was not an impartial reporter for the SABC, a traditional sympathizer with the Palestinian cause, to use to cover her region of focus.

Articles by Slier such as a fairly recent one from March this year titled ‘Is BDS a real concern for Israel?’ affirm her apologism for Israeli apartheid and belief that the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, a popular grassroots activist-led international campaign to boycott Israel owing to its occupation of Palestinian territory, human rights violations and apartheid, ought to be combated since it rallies ‘attempts to de-legitimize Israel’. How a state built after a comprehensive, armed ethnic cleansing campaign of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine and which has carried out several territorial annexations throughout its history is ‘legitimate’ is not a question one may expect Zionists, whether ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ones (tags Slier enjoys using) to ask themselves.

Slier still works out of Tel Aviv, Israel, at RT’s Middle East Bureau’s office building.Slier is also the CEO of Newshound Media, which according to a 15 March post to its Facebook page ‘arranged for’ Israeli Education Minister and Security Cabinet member Naftali Bennet to appear on RT and talk about ongoing hostilities with the Palestinians. This signifies Slier’s own personal connections to the Israeli state and, coupled with her Zionist disposition,  makes her an odd choice to be RT’s main official in the Middle East unless one takes note of Russia’s preference for Israel over the anti-Zionist coalition led by Iran and involving Syria and Hezbollah.

The fact that Russia has long provided a platform for voices which have been strongly critical of Israel and Zionism adds a particularly deceptive angle to the overall tilt of its media. If anything, the recent incorporation of key facets of Zionist propaganda into Russian media reporting hint that not only is Russia extremely close to Israel, but also that ties are intimate enough for Israel to begin to recreate with Russian media what it pulled off spectacularly well in Western media following 9/11.

%d bloggers like this: