UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit’

UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit’

UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit'

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May delivered her much-anticipated speech on Brexit this week, and it was suffused with delusions of grandeur. When are British leaders going to realize that their days of imperial greatness are long gone? Listening to May, however, one would think that the world’s map was still splattered in red, white and blue colors of the Union Jack – otherwise known by former colonial subjects as the Butcher’s Apron.

The Conservative prime minister gave a bravado speech that heralded a blissful, prosperous future for «global Britain». May said that Britain was now open for free trade with the rest of the world, after having voted in a referendum last June to quit the European Union, after 43 years of membership.

Finally, after seven months of dithering and confusion on the matter, May declared that Britain would henceforth be seeking a «hard Brexit», whereby the United Kingdom would no longer seek to be part of the EU’s single market. It would therefore be free from obligations concerning migration and free movement of European citizens. That is, Britain would gain full control of its borders. A «soft Brexit» option would have involved a compromise between retaining single-market membership and accepting a degree of open borders.

No way. Theresa May was at last supposedly giving clarity on Britain’s position, saying there would be «no half measures, no half in, half out… Brexit means Brexit». The Financial Times approved of her upbeat message with the headline: «No more Theresa Maybe».

Listening to May’s prognosis of glowing prospects for «global Britain» – trading with the US, Canada, China, India and the Persian Gulf among others as bilateral partners – makes one wonder why Britain ever bothered joining the EU’s single market back in 1988, as her predecessor Margaret Thatcher had zealously committed to (15 years after its original accession to the European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU.)

Perhaps it has something do with the fact that nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s exports go to EU markets – free from any trade barriers. How Britain’s exports will fair in a global marketplace of cut-throat trade tariffs is a moot question.

According to the British government it’s all going to be rosy. That, by the way, wasn’t May’s position prior to the referendum. She campaigned for remaining in the EU and in doing so she had predicted that leaving the bloc would spell economic disaster for Britain. All that doom seems to have dramatically disappeared now in May’s apparently revised upbeat world outlook, without providing an explanation for her U-turn.

Here’s the thing: Downing Street’s supposed announcement of clarity on the Brexit this week raises, on the contrary, even more befuddling questions. May is aiming to conclude Brexit negotiations in two years with the European Commission based in Brussels. But that timescale is impossibly optimistic. Only a few weeks ago, her top diplomat charged with negotiating the Brexit was forced to resign because he dared to warn that a separation deal would take up to 10 years to finalize. And that longer-term view is probably a realistic assessment. For instance, it took Canada seven years to recently conclude a free-trade pact with the EU. For Britain, with many more legal entanglements to resolve, any less timeframe seems in the realm of «daydreams» – as some EU politicians caustically remarked following May’s speech this week.

Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson can crow all he likes that «the world is queuing up to do business with Britain». One of those potentially new trade partners is Britain’s old colony, the United States of America. Following President Donald Trump’s welcoming remarks for a «quick trade deal» with Britain earlier this week, there was much excitement from Johnson and other Brexiteers that a new lucrative horizon was indeed dawning.

The harsh reality is that Britain will be technically and legally a member of the EU until it concludes departure negotiations that could several years. Under those circumstances, as several EU politicians have pointed out, Britain will not be free to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US or any other nation. That means that Britain will not be able to gallop off into supposed new trade deals with the US, China or anyone else, until it finishes its no doubt protracted divorce proceedings with the EU.

The Brexit process is going to be a rude awakening for British leaders who seem to harbor delusions about Britain’s stature in the world.

This delusional thinking was revealed when Theresa May issued a barely veiled warning to the EU that Britain would not accept a «punitive» Brexit deal.

Despite her speech opening with charming talk of Britain being the best of friends with Europe, May drew a dagger towards the end.

«I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path. That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend,» said the British premier.

With a foreboding tone, she added: «Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.»

It was a glinting threat from May, akin to flashing a knife at the EU.

Earlier, May said in contradictory fashion that while Britain was leaving the single market, at the same time it was demanding «full access to markets as an associate member to make trading as frictionless as possible».

So, only in a rhetorical sense is the British government declaring a «hard Brexit» by purportedly «leaving the single market». For all intents and purposes, however, the British still want «full access» to the market, as May stipulated in her speech. And this privilege is to be had at the same time that Britain takes full control of its borders over EU migration.

That sounds like Britain wanting to have its cake and eating it. Supposedly being out of the market, but still in it for all practical purposes, while pulling up the draw bridge on the rest of Europe. Moreover, the British prime minister is declaring that if Britain does not get «full access» it will be perceived as «punitive» – and then in that case her country will «walk away» from negotiations.

Her haughty attitude sparked outrage across the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament’s point man on Brexit, reportedly fumed that Britain’s «days of cherrypicking and a la carte Europe are over».

Tomas Prouza, the Czech’s EU minister, noted sardonically of the British position: «Trade as free as possible, full control of immigration… where’s the give for all the take?»

What May was alluding to in her threat of walking away was that Britain would undercut the EU by slashing corporation tax, thereby luring foreign companies away from continental Europe to set up shop in Britain. That is, turning Britain into a tax haven to cheat the rest of Europe.

May also hinted that Britain’s military forces in NATO might be pulled out of Poland and the Baltic states, which would have the effect of destabilizing these EU members, given their congenital paranoia over alleged Russian aggression.

The British government’s threats to the EU stems from a misplaced arrogant attitude of a has-been world power, which somehow still thinks that it can pontificate to other, perceived lesser nations.

With a ballooning trade deficit with Europe and an all-but extinct industrial base, the only asset that the UK can claim is its City of London global financial center – which accounts for 80 per cent of its national economy. Despite Theresa May’s supercilious tone, Britain will find that it needs Europe a lot more than Europe needs Britain. And if cut loose harshly, the former Great Britain is in no industrial shape to ply the global markets as it once did with the backing of its colonial armies of occupation.

Britain’s «hard Brexit» is all «hard talk» belying typical British subterfuge to wheedle self-serving concessions. Such conceited British attitude will only stiffen EU resolve to make minimal trade concessions in the final separation. If the British are seen to get a «cherry-picked» deal of access to the single market, yet be able to spurn any immigration, that would be tantamount to giving an exit license for other members of the EU to do likewise. And given the level of Euro-skepticism rising across Europe, Brussels and other pro-EU governments must, of their own necessity, act sternly towards Britain in its divorce arrangement.

Britain can indeed expect a «hard Brexit». On much harder terms from the EU than delusional British politicians are arrogantly demanding. Less Rule Britannia; more like Fool Britannia.

West Directed Killer’s Hand in Assassination of Russian Ambassador

West Directed Killer’s Hand in Assassination of Russian Ambassador

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 20.12.2016 | OPINION

West Directed Killer’s Hand in Assassination of Russian Ambassador

The brutal slaying of Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov in Ankara sent shockwaves around the world. Condemnations were issued by Washington and European states of the act of terrorism by a gunman who shot Karlov in the back while he was speaking at a photo gallery in the Turkish capital.

The White House condemned what it called a «heinous attack», while the European Union’s foreign policy chief Federica Morgherini vowed solidarity with Russia in the aftermath of the killing.

One headline read: ‘EU, US Shocked by killing of Russian ambassador in Turkey’.

Given the months of relentless and unwarranted vilification of Russia by the US and EU over the Syrian conflict, the phrase «crocodile tears» comes to mind on hearing their condemnations in regard to the murdered ambassador.

Within hours on the same day of this atrocity, Monday, a second apparent terrorist attack took place in the German capital, Berlin, when a Pakistani asylum plowed a lorry into a crowded Christmas market, killing at least 12 people and injuring nearly 50 others. Taken together, both events ramped up state security measures across Europe. Again, another cruel irony, given the culpability of European states in sowing seeds of violence.

Karlov (62) had been a career diplomat for four decades, taking up his post in Turkey in 2013. He worked deftly behind the scenes to facilitate the recent political dialogue between Russia, Iran and Turkey aimed at finding an evacuation arrangement for civilians and militants out of the battleground Syrian city of Aleppo.

Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that Karlov’s assassination was a «provocation» to derail the ongoing sensitive negotiations on finding a political settlement in Syria’s conflict. Those talks went ahead the day after the killing when foreign ministers from the two countries, plus Iran, met in Moscow as planned on Tuesday.

Pointedly, the US and its European allies have been left out of the talks between Russia, Iran and Turkey. Even though the Western states are a party to the nearly six-year war in Syria, having bankrolled and armed various anti-government militant factions.

Putin, in a televised address from the Kremlin, said that investigations into the murder of ambassador Karlov needed to find «who was behind the hand of the gunman».

The shooter, who was quickly killed by Turkish special forces when they stormed the photo gallery, was named as Mevlut Mert Altintas, a 22-year-old off-duty member of the Ankara’s anti-riot police squad. Video footage taken by surviving members of the public attending the fatal event showed the killer declaring support for the people of Aleppo and shouting «Allahu Akbar» («God is Great»)… «This is payback for Aleppo», as Karlov lay dying on the floor.

Turkish authorities later claimed that the shooter was affiliated with the Gulenist movement, which they have already blamed for inciting the failed coup back in July. That move may be a diversion by the Turkish government to conceal what would otherwise be an embarrassing affiliation between its police force personnel and Islamist terrorists in Syria.

Some Russian lawmakers went as far as alleging that the slaying of Karlov may have been orchestrated by the US-led NATO military alliance. The Syrian army’s liberation of Aleppo last week, with the help of Russian, Iranian and Lebanese military allies, has come as a strategic defeat for NATO powers who have been waging a covert war for regime change in Syria.

Over the weekend, reports also emerged of several special forces from NATO members having been captured by Syrian troops in Aleppo. The covert presence of NATO personnel in Aleppo, presumably training and directing jihadist terrorists, would be proof positive of the Western criminal conspiracy prosecuting the war in Syria.

It remains to be seen if the killer cop who shot ambassador Karlov was acting under direction from NATO intelligence.

However, even if he acted alone, it can still be said that the Western governments and their news media have an onerous responsibility for «directing his hand».

Among the condemnations pouring forth from UN chief Ban Ki-Moon, the US, UK, France and Germany were those articulated by American Secretary of State John Kerry and Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN. Only days before the murder of Andrey Karlov, the Western states and senior UN officials were waging an intense media campaign alleging that Russia was committing war crimes during the Syrian offensive to retake Aleppo.

John Kerry denounced what he called was a «massacre» in Aleppo. Samantha Power was almost hysterical at the UN Security Council berating Russia for being «incapable of shame» and bandying reckless, unsubstantiated claims of women and children being executed in Aleppo.

A months-long crescendo of condemnation by Western governments and media reached a climax last week when Aleppo finally was finally recaptured by the Syrian army and its allies. Citing dubious sources linked to terror groups holding east Aleppo under siege, the West has demonized Russia as an oppressor of civilians, committing crimes against humanity.

American, British and French diplomats have grossly distorted historical analogies by comparing Russia and its Syrian ally to the depredations of Nazi Germany and Spain’s fascist Franco.

Recall too that when Russian consular offices in Syria have been targeted by militant rockets, the Western states declined to condemn these gross violations. Recall too how British foreign secretary Boris Johnson urged public protests outside the Russian embassy in London. Recall too when two Russian nurses were murdered in a terror rocket attack on a mobile hospital in Aleppo, Western states kept a muted silence rather than condemn. In countless subtle and not-so subtle ways, Western governments and media have set Russia up as a villain deserving attack.

The climax of condemnation reached unconscionable heights last week when Washington, its Western allies and the UN – all amplified unquestioningly by the Western news media – vilified Russia for allegedly slaughtering civilians in east Aleppo. American ambassador Samantha Power specifically cited unverified reports of children being killed in a basement by Syria and Russian forces.

Belying Western hysteria, a calm evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians in Aleppo was actually underway. There was no evidence of any massacres or crimes against humanity that the West and UN officials were screaming about. Droves of civilians have instead expressed relief and gratitude for having been liberated by Syrian and Russian forces from a reign of terror imposed on them for four years by Western-backed militants.

Virtually everything that Western official sources have been saying about Aleppo, and the Syrian war more generally, is seen to be a grotesque lie.

Russian lawmaker Alexey Pushkov, of the Duma’s foreign affairs committee, is correct when he said following the death of Andrey Karlov that the West bore responsibility because its hysteria and fabrications about events in Aleppo have fostered a climate of deranged hatred towards Russia.

When the Turkish assassin raised his pointed gun at Karlov, he declared that he was acting in memory of «civilians killed in Aleppo». But who gave him the image of Russia being a legitimate target for «payback»? Who filled his head with (false) images of carnage and horror against civilians in Aleppo?

In answering those questions honestly, the conclusion is that Western governments, diplomats and media directed the gun that murdered ambassador Andrey Karlov.

Russophobia: War Party A Digital 9/11 If Trump Wins

By Finian Cunningham

November 06, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “Sputnik” – There are disturbing signs that a digital 9/11 terror attack is being readied for election day in the US to ensure that Donald Trump does not win.

Such an attack – involving widespread internet and power outage – would have nothing to do with Russia or any other foreign state. It would be furnished by agencies of the US Deep State in a classic “false flag” covert manner. But the resulting chaos and “assault on American democracy” will be conveniently blamed on Russia.

That presents a double benefit. Russia would be further demonized as a foreign aggressor “justifying” even harsher counter measures by America and its European allies against Moscow.

Secondly, a digital attack on America’s presidential election day this week, would allow the Washington establishment to pronounce the result invalidate due to “Russian cyber subversion”. That option stands to be invoked if the ballot results showed Republican candidate Donald Trump as the imminent victor.

Democrat rival Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for the White House among the Washington establishment. She has the backing of Wall Street finance capital, the corporate media, the military-industrial complex and the Deep State agencies of the Pentagon and CIA. The fix has been in for months to get her elected by the powers-that-be owing to her well-groomed obedience to American imperialist interests.

The billionaire property magnate Trump is too much of a maverick to be entrusted with the White House, as far as the American ruling elite are concerned.

The trouble is, however, that despite the massive campaign to discredit Trump his poll support remains stubbornly close to Clinton’s. The latter has been tainted with too many scandals involving allegations of sleazy dealings with Wall Street, so-called pay-for-play favors while she was former Secretary of State, and her penchant for inciting overseas wars for regime change using jihadist terrorist foot-soldiers.

As one headline from McClatchy News only days ago put it: “Majority of voters think Clinton acted illegally, new poll finds”.

Trump is right. The US presidential election is “rigged”. Despite handwringing condemnations by pundits, it seems obvious that the system is heavily stacked against any candidate who does not conform with the interests of the establishment. The massive media-orchestrated campaign against Trump is testimony to that.

But such is popular disgust with Clinton, her sleaze-ball husband Bill and the Washington establishment that her victory is far from certain. Indeed in the last week before voting this Tuesday various polls are showing a neck-and-neck race with even some indicators putting the Republican narrowly ahead.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post, which has been one of the main media outlets panning Trump on a daily basis, reported this: “The electoral map is definitely moving in Trump’s direction”.

This is where a possible Deep State contingency plan is being readied to scupper a shock win by Trump.

In recent days, American media are reporting a virtual state of emergency by the US government and its security agencies to thwart what they claim are Russian efforts to incite “election day cyber mayhem”.

In one “exclusive” report by the NBC network on November 3, it was claimed that: “The US government believes hackers from Russia or elsewhere may try to undermine next week’s presidential election and is mounting an unprecedented effort to counter their cyber meddling.”

On November 4, the Washington Post reported: “Intelligence officials warn of Russian mischief in election and beyond.”

Apparently, the emergency security response is being coordinated by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the National Security Agency and other elements of the Defense Department, according to NBC.

These claims of Russian state hackers interfering in the US political system are not new. Last month, the Obama administration officially accused Moscow of this alleged malfeasance.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has lambasted American claims that his country is seeking to disrupt the presidential elections as “hysterical nonsense”, aimed at distracting the electorate from far more deep-rooted internal problems.

The Obama administration and its state security agencies have not provided one iota of evidence to support their allegations against Russia. Nevertheless the repeated charges have a tendency to stick.

The Clinton campaign has for months been accusing Trump of being a “pro-Russian stooge”. Her campaign has also claimed that Russian hackers have colluded with the whistleblower organization Wikileaks to release thousands of private emails damaging Clinton with the intention of swaying the election in favor of Trump.

Wikileaks’ director Julian Assange and the Russian government have both rejected any suggestion that they are somehow collaborating, or that they are working to get Trump elected.

But on the eve of the election, the US authorities are recklessly pushing hysteria that Russia is trying to subvert American democracy.

Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014 is quoted as saying: “The Russians are in an offensive mode and the US is working on strategies to respond to that, and at the highest levels.”

NBC cites a senior Obama administration official as saying that the Russians “want to sow as much confusion as possible and undermine our process”.

Ominously, the news outlet adds that “steps are being taken to prepare for worst-case scenarios, including a cyber-attack that shuts down part of the power grid or the internet.”

Nearly two weeks ago, on October 21-22, the US was hit with a widespread internet outage. The actors behind the “distributed denial of service” were not identified, but the disruption was nationwide and it temporarily disabled many popular consumer services. One former official at the US Department of Homeland Security described the event as having “all the signs of what would be considered a drill”.

Could that cyber-attack have been the work of US Deep State agencies as a dress rehearsal for an even bigger outage planned for November 8 – election day?

The Washington establishment wants Clinton over Trump. She’s the marionette of choice for their strategic interests, including a more hostile foreign policy towards Russia in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere.

But Trump might just snatch an election day victory from the jaws of defeat.

In which case, the shadowy forces that really rule America will trigger a “digital 9/11”. It’s not difficult to imagine the chaos and mayhem from internet blackout, power, transport, banking and communications paralysis – even for just a temporary period of a few hours.

Months of fingering Russia as a destabilizing foreign enemy intent on interfering in US democracy to get “Comrade Trump” into the White House would then serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In that event, the US authorities could plausibly move to declare the election of Donald J Trump null and void.

In fact the scenario could be contrived to a far more serious level than merely suspending the election result. The US authorities could easily feign that a state of emergency is necessary in order to “defend national security”.

That contingency catapults beyond “rigged politics”. It is a green light for a coup d’état by the Deep State forces who found that they could not win through the “normal” rigging methods.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Turkey and USA Consolidate Terror Assets from Iraq to Syria

Turkey and US Consolidate Terror Assets from Iraq to Syria

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 18.10.2016 |

This week Western news media were full of reports on the “epic” battle for Mosul where US-backed forces are supposedly set to defeat the Islamic State terror group besieging the northern Iraqi city.

There is little doubt that the Iraqi army aided by Iranian Shia militia and Kurdish Peshmerga are intent on routing the militants from Iraq’s second city, which has been under a reign of terror since June 2104.

But the intentions of other protagonists are decidedly more dubious. The US is providing air strikes supposedly to aid the ground forces penetrating Mosul, as are NATO members France and Turkey. Turkish air strikes on the city have reportedly begun despite objections from the Iraqi government, which is urging Ankara to stay out of the battle.

The Iraqi authorities have a long-running dispute with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government since Turkish military invaded northern Iraq last year, claiming that it had a deal with Baghdad to train Arab militias to fight the Islamic State (IS, also known as Daesh). Baghdad insists it gave no such permission and has time and again reiterated demands for Turkish troops to withdraw from its territory, but to no avail.

Far from withdrawing, Erdogan is pointedly ignoring the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi, asserting that his troops will march on Mosul. The launch of air strikes by Turkey serves to emphasize Erdogan’s determination to shape the battle for the city.

With typical bluster, Erdogan dismissed the Iraqi premier as nothing more than an “administrator of a Shia army”, and added: “If we say we want to be both at the table and in the field, there is a reason.”

As Hurriyet newspaper reported, Erdogan’s ambitions are more about gaining military and administrative control over Mosul in conjunction with the Syrian city of Raqqa, rather than liaising with the Iraqi government to eliminate IS.

Erdogan also stridently called on the US to side with Turkey in its ambitions rather than with Iraq. Addressing Washington, he said: “Do you have a NATO partnership with Iraq? No. Then you can’t put us in a position of preference against Iraq.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed concerns that jihadi extremists could flee from Mosul into neighboring Syria, presenting a greater challenge to the Syrian-Russian campaign to defeat terror groups there. Lavrov said that Russia would exercise military force to stop this from happening.

Intriguingly, Lavrov added: “The city [Mosul] is surrounded, but not completely. I do not know why. Possibly, they’ve just failed. It is to be hoped they just failed, and not were reluctant to do so.”

It is notable that in previous US-Turkish assaults on IS-held towns there have been unconfirmed reports of large numbers of the jihadists being covertly afforded safe passage out of harm’s way. This has been suspected of happening in US-backed offensives on Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and in the northern Syrian town of Manbij.

As the offensive on Mosul gets underway, there are similar suspicions that the US, Turkey and Saudi military objective is not about crushing the IS hold-outs, but rather evacuating these mercenaries from the city.

Said Mamuzini of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Iraq believes that up to 7,000 militants belonging to the IS will be given safe passage out of Mosul to reconsolidate with other jihadist mercenaries already in Syria.

This of course negates Washington and Ankara’s official claims of fighting against IS. But it is fully consistent with the critical assessment that the US and its allies have all along been covertly sponsoring various terror groups to wage a war for regime change in Syria. The latter being a strategic ally for Russia and Iran in the pivotal Middle Eastern region.

Across Syria and Iraq there are three main strongholds remaining for al Qaeda-associated terror groups, whether they go by the name of IS, Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Shams, Jaysh al Fatah or some other nom de guerre. These terror bases are Aleppo city in Syria, Mosul in Iraq and positioned roughly halfway between those two sites is Raqqa located in central Syria.

It seems significant that as Syrian and Russian forces bear down on the militants besieging the eastern quarter of Aleppo that Washington and its allies have escalated a media campaign decrying “war crimes” in order to halt that offensive. This has been accompanied by vociferous efforts from the US, Britain and France to implement no-fly zones around Aleppo. This all strongly suggests that the Western powers are trying to extricate their proxy insurgents from the Aleppo crucible.

More than coincidently, it seems, while the drama of Aleppo has been underway, the Turkish and US military launched a major campaign in August to effectively annex large swathes of northern Syria, due east from Aleppo and stretching nearly 100 kms back to the city of Jarablus on the Euphrates, proximate to the Turk border.

Indeed, Turkish forces occupying Jarablus have begun erecting the national flag of Turkey on public buildings, much to the consternation of the Syrian government which has denounced it as a violation of its sovereign territory.

All the while, Turkey and the US have claimed that the northern Syrian operations are aimed at “cleansing” the area from IS terrorists. But more troubling are reports that the militants whom Turkey in particular has been mentoring during these operations are indistinguishable from IS in terms of brutish ideology towards any local people deemed to be “infidels”.

In the Turk-led capture this week of the northern Syrian border city of Dabiq, the Western media portrayed this as a “liberation” from IS terrorists. But it was evident from France 24 news footage that the new gun-toting militants were shouting out Islamist slogans. Syrian sources say that the residents are fearful of having to live under yet another reign of terror as before.

There are also reports of Turkish military forces this week firing artillery at the Syrian villages of Sourkeh in Efrin district and Deir Ballout, causing civilians, women and children to flee, and prompting Syrian sources to comment that Turkey is actually mounting a campaign of “ethnic cleansing”.

This is important context to underscore the wider implications of the battle at Mosul. It could be a case of all jihadist safe corridors leading to Raqqa.

Turkey and the US have been mulling military plans for several weeks now to extend their northern Syrian security curtain down to Raqqa. This concurs with what Erdogan was boasting about this week when he indicated that the US-backed offensive on Mosul should be integrated with broader plans to militarily take Raqqa.

If the jihadist mercenaries can be shunted safely into Raqqa from either Aleppo or Mosul, they would then be able to consolidate there under the safety of a Turkish and US de facto no-fly zone if the latter NATO forces do actually proceed with plans to take Raqqa, as Erdogan bragged about.

Moreover, because of the US-Turk annexed territory straddling the Syrian borders, the jihadists sheltered in Raqqa would once again be plugged into a Turk lifeline as never before, and therefore be able to live to fight another day.

Russia needs to make sure Aleppo falls with no terrorist breakout; and, as Lavrov hinted, Moscow must make sure too that there is no influx of jihadists from Mosul into Syria. Russia should also demand that Turkey and the US do not take any steps towards a military takeover of Raqqa, as Erdogan is calling for.

That battle, in the future, to clear illegally armed insurgents from their final bastion in Raqqa should be the prerogative of the Syrian army and its trusted allies.

 

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages


America Losing Its Grip on Southeast Asia

Syrian Free Press

asean-map-960x569


By Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation

The recent diplomatic row between the Philippines and the United States has come as a shock to U.S. State Department and Pentagon policy wonks but for astute observers of Southeast Asian politics, the decision of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to «pivot» to China and Russia was long in the making.

Ever since the so-called «Yellow Revolution» that saw Corazon Aquino replace the Philippines autocratic ruler Ferdinand Marcos, the majority of Filipinos have roiled under one corrupt American-blessed president after another.

Duterte, the fiery former mayor of Davao City in Mindanao, has channeled the disgust of many in the Philippines to adopt a hostile attitude in the face of a renewed U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia designed to counter China.

philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte

The 1986 «People Power Revolution», also known as the Yellow Revolution, was crafted by the United States as a way to ease President Ferdinand Marcos out of power. The revolution followed by three years the assassination of Senator Benigno «Ninoy» Aquino, who was shot to death by as was deplaning from his aircraft at Manila International Airport after returning to the Philippines from exile in the United States.

Marcos, who was blamed for the Aquino assassination, was forced out by the combined pressure of the Catholic Church, the pro-U.S. Philippines Armed Forces, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Aquino’s widow, Corazon «Cory» Aquino, succeeded Marcos as president and what followed her were a series of corrupt and pro-U.S. presidents. General Fidel Ramos, a committed globalist, succeeded Mrs. Aquino as president and he, in turn, ensured the presidencies of his two successors, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both of whom were dogged by corruption scandals.

Macapagal-Arroyo was the daughter of America’s Cold War ally, President Diosdado Macapagal who served in office from 1961 to 1965 and saw troops from the Philippines committed to fight alongside American troops in the Vietnam War.

At the time of the committal of Philippines troops to the U.S. war effort in South Vietnam, the most outspoken opponent of the move was Macapagal’s political adversary, Ferdinand Marcos, something that is not lost on Duterte as he steers the Philippines away from Barack Obama’s military «pivot to Asia».

Macapagal-Arroyo was succeeded by another corruption-plagued president, Benigno «Noynoy» Aquino, the son of the assassinated Ninoy Aquino and Cory Aquino. The Philippines has been plagued by presidents from the same families serving in office, not much unlike what the United States has seen in recent decades.

Macapagal-Arroyo and Estrada were both impeached for corruption but only Estrada resigned from office. Duterte is the first fresh face to live in the Malacañang Palace in quite some time and the Philippines electorate gives him high marks for his plain-speaking persona.

Duterte has decided that the policies of his predecessors, who all sought close relations with Washington, is not in the best interest of the Philippines. Duterte has followed up on his independent foreign policy by inviting China and Russia to establish bases in the Philippines, canceling further U.S.-Philippines military exercises in the region, and calling President Barack Obama a «son of a whore».

Durtete also told the United States, «Do not treat us like a doormat because you’ll be… We aren’t ‘little brown brothers of America». 

duerte-obana

The Obama administration’s trouble with Duterte began after U.S. ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg began interfering in the domestic affairs of the Philippines, including the election that propelled Duterte into office.

Goldberg has a history of involving himself in the affairs of countries where he is posted and he made no exception to this policy during the Philippines election campaign, in which he spoke out against Duterte.

In 2008, the Bolivian government of President Evo Morales expelled Goldberg, then the U.S. ambassador in La Paz, for stoking secessionist movements in four Bolivian provinces. In August of this year, Duterte called Goldberg a «’bakla’ son-of-a-bitch». «Bakla» is Tagalog for «gay».

With news of the death of the long-reigning King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, who was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts and ensured that no Thai government veered too far from being allied with the United States, Thailand may follow the Philippines in a marked policy of independence from Washington.

Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, the heir to the throne, is known to be close to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, both of whom were ousted in military coups engineered by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Thaksin was overthrown in 2006 and Yingluck in 2014. Yingluck, who was accused of corruption by Thailand’s «anti-graft» agency, saw essentially the same «constitutional coup» treatment as meted out to Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, and Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo.

Today, rather than use tanks and military juntas to overthrow leaders it does not like, the CIA relies on phalanxes of lawyers and judges, all controlled by the CIA, to bring about «constitutional coups».

This strategy has been a hallmark of the Obama administration and could be called the «Obama Doctrine».

Thaksin, who lives in exile in Cambodia, and Yingluck continue to enjoy wide support from the largely rural-based «Red Shirt» movement of Thailand. Vajiralongkorn is not popular with the loyal subjects of his father. In order to garner support for his reign, Vajiralongkorn may have to conclude a pact with not only Thaksin and Yingluck but also the Red Shirts, among whose ranks are a number of anti-monarchists. The Red Shirts are also opposed to American hegemony over Thailand and are suspected of receiving support from China. Just as the Obama Doctrine has not been lost on Duterte, it will not be lost on King Vajiralongkorn.

Like many of the past presidents of the Philippines, Thai prime ministers, since the end of World War II, have largely been approved by the CIA power brokers in Langley. Bhumibol succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol.

At 9:00 am on June 9, 1946, Bhumibol visited his brother in his bedroom at the Royal Palace in Bangkok. At 9:20 am, a shot rang out from the king’s bedroom. Ananda was found lying face up in bed with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. The cause was determined to be accidental suicide caused by the young king playing with a loaded pistol.

The U.S. ambassador to Thailand was Edwin Stanton, Ironically, his namesake, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, continues to be accused of involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

Ambassador Stanton worked closely with the Japanese-appointed Regent of Thailand, Pridi Banomyong, who ruled the country during Ananda’s exile during World War II and who became prime minister after the war, to absolve Bhumibol and the United States and Britain of any involvement in the king’s death.

The British Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, thought Ananda was a «pathetic» figure and not worthy of being a king. In any event, after Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsonggram, the pro-Japanese military leader of Thailand during the war, overthrew Prime Minister Pridi in 1947, the government charged two royal pages with the assassination of the king. Both of the pages were ultimately found guilty after a dubious trial and executed.

Stanton had successfully convinced Prime Minister Pridi that Communists disguised as students, Buddhist monks, journalists, and academicians were invading Thailand with the intent of overthrowing the monarchy. Stanton’s warnings were a ruse and none of the reports of Communist «infiltration» were true.

Many people in Thailand know that it was the pre-CIA Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that carried out the 1946 assassination of Ananda with the connivance of U.S. james-jim-thompsonambassador Stanton, U.S. chargé d’affaires Charles Yost, the British MI-6 station in Bangkok, and the OSS chief in Bangkok James «Jim» Thompson.

After «officially» leaving the OSS, Thompson founded the Thai Silk Company, Ltd., which helped to revitalize Thailand’s war-ravaged silk industry. Thompson was also a notorious pedophile whose house guests in Bangkok always included a number of Thai and Burmese children. The house, itself, was adorned with a number of phallic statues. Authors Truman Capote; Somerset Maugham; and Margaret Landon, the author of Anna and the King of Siam, upon which the movie «The King and I» was based. were among Thompson’s famous guests in Bangkok. In 1967, Thompson, who knew where many of the CIA «skeletons» were buried throughout Southeast Asia, disappeared without a trace in the Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaya.

For seventy years, the Thai people have only been able to whisper about the events of 1946. With the king’s passing, there are several scores to be settled by Thailand with the United States, just as Duterte is currently settling past scores in the Philippines.


SOURCES:
By Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation
Submitted by SyrianPatriots
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/usa-losing-grip/
~

Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

By Finian Cunningham

Hysteria and histrionics at the United Nations Security Council from the three permanent members, the United States, Britain and France, was tantamount to a signed confession. Ironically, one can imagine how the wording of such a «confession» would go: We the intensely vexed members are hereby displaying our boorish displeasure that the terror proxies we covertly sponsor in Syria for regime change are being thrashed.

Such was the tawdry display of undiplomatic conduct by the US, Britain and France, with officials from these countries inveighing against Russia with unsubstantiated, sensationalist accusations of committing war crimes. The intemperance was then followed by tantrums and walk-outs from the Security Council meeting – a meeting that these three members had originally convened.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later lambasted the imperious attitude from the Western trio as an «unacceptable» breach of diplomatic protocol.

During the weekend, the US, Britain and France claimed that Russia was a «partner» with its Syria ally in perpetrating war crimes over the breakdown of the ceasefire that had been declared on September 12.

As usual, it was the American UN ambassador Samantha Power who excelled in the hysteria and histrionics. «What Russia is doing is not counter-terrorism. It is barbarism», declared Power with shrill, puffed up vitriol.

The US official even hinted that she would like to henceforth have Russia sanctioned from Security Council membership. «Russia holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This is a privilege and a responsibility. Yet in Syria and in Aleppo, Russia is abusing this historic privilege».

That’s breath-taking delusional hubris coming from an official of a country that is currently bombing seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen) and which has destroyed dozens more over the past decades with millions of civilian deaths.

The British ambassador Mathew Rycroft chipped into the Russia bashing by adding that «the Security Council needs to be ready to fulfill our responsibilities». He blamed Russia for unleashing «hell on Aleppo».

The concerted American, British and French rhetorical offensive against Russia suggests that these three powers are striving for an unprecedented objective. Perhaps, by delegitimizing Russia through a media process of criminalizing, the Western states are intending to over-ride the Security Council’s veto in order to give themselves a mandate for a large-scale military intervention in Syria – under the well-worn guise of «protecting human rights».

Incredibly, the US, British and French – together with the Western news media – continue to blame Russia for an attack on a UN aid convoy in Aleppo last week. Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson told the BBC that Russia «may have committed a war crime». This allegation is made despite the paucity of any supporting evidence to impute Russia or Syrian forces.

Both Russia and Syria have refuted any involvement in the deadly sabotage, and even the UN aid agencies and Syrian Arab Red Crescent have declined to blame Russia or Syrian forces.

Indeed, the evidence is more indicative of some kind of false flag propaganda incident carried out by the foreign-backed anti-government militants. Suspiciously, the video of the aid convoy attack, which forms the basis of subsequent Western claims, was supplied by the dubious White Helmets, also known as the Syrian Civil Defense. This group works closely with the Al Qaeda-linked Aleppo Media Center and has been involved in fabricating atrocities with which to smear the Assad government forces. Tellingly, the White Helmet «volunteer» who was filmed commenting in the aftermath of the aid convoy attack last week has since been identified by Syrian patriots as an armed militant in one of the al Qaeda-affiliated terror brigades.

We are thus left to deduce that Western allegations of «war crimes» against Russia are not only false; they are terrorist-sourced fabrications that are a being peddled by Western governments and news media in a desperate attempt to slander Russia.

The escalation of Western media claims demonstrates a full-court psychological operation to rail-road the narrative of Syria and Russia being villainous and illegitimate. The preponderance of Western media reports on the renewed fighting around the northern city of Aleppo invariably attribute their source of information as «according to activists». These «activists» could be the White Helmet propaganda artists or the terrorist groups themselves. But Western media and governments are citing these unverified sources for their figures on «civilian deaths» and «banned munitions» allegedly being used by Syrian and Russian air forces. This is taking Western collusion with terrorists to a whole new level.

The recent broadside at the UN from the US, Britain and France is indicative of a coordinated political effort by these powers to hobble Russia’s otherwise successful military intervention in Syria. Not only has Russia’s intervention succeeded militarily in defeating the West’s covert regime-change war by wiping out the terrorist proxies; Russia’s involvement in Syria has succeeded in the international media war by exposing the true culpability of the Western powers in inflicting their dirty war on Syria.

With astounding arrogance, this Western trio is pounding Syria illegally with warplanes over the past two years and have documented covert links to the illegally armed insurgents. In a recent TV interview on France 24 (September 25), Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also confirmed that special forces from the US, Britain and France were operating in northern Syria, purportedly to assist «moderate rebels» to fight against the al Qaeda-type terror groups. This all amounts to a gross violation of Syrian sovereignty by the NATO powers and warrants a legal prosecution for foreign aggression.

The Western media offensive against Russia also comes within a week of American and British warplanes massacring over 62 Syrian army troops at the airbase near Deir ez-Zor, which led to the ceasefire’s collapse two days later.

Yet the West has managed to blackout that war crime after quickly shoving it down the memory hole as an «accident».

American ambassador Samantha Power was incandescent when Russia called for a Security Council emergency meeting over the Deir ez-Zor atrocity on September 17. She disparaged Russian concerns as a «cynical stunt».

As if to avenge Russian audacity to shame the Americans, the US and its Western allies countered with their own «emergency» meeting alleging Moscow’s «war crimes» the following week. But, as noted, the only «evidence» that the West presents is hearsay from anonymous «activists» who are most probably acting as propaganda conduits for terrorist groups.

Syrian ambassador Bashar al Jaafari reminded the UN Security Council that it was his country’s legal and constitutional prerogative to defend the Syrian nation and defeat illegally armed militants on its territory.

Rather than giving the Syrian representative a modicum of respect, the American, British and French officials stormed out of the Security Council meeting – just as American ambassador Power had done the week before when Russia’s Vitaly Churkin was addressing media about the Deir ez-Zor massacre.

Following the latest ceasefire charade in which Western-sponsored «moderate rebels» were conspicuously indistinguishable from terror groups, Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have every right to launch a renewed offensive to finally bring an end to this foreign-fueled covert war for regime change. The gloves are off. They need to be.

And as the foreign proxy army of terrorist brigades gets wiped out in their last stand at Aleppo, the Western masterminds behind the covert war are becoming increasingly desperate.

The desperation at seeing the regime-change project being lost in Syria could trigger all-out war between NATO powers and Syria’s allies, including Russia. This is a very real danger especially with Turkey, the US, Britain and France expanding military operations in northern Syria.

One thing is for sure though. Washington and its accomplices will step up the media hysteria and defamation against Syria and Russia. Expect more histrionic tantrums at the UN and a barrage of «humanitarian tragedies» – from the three permanent members of the Security Council who brought us the hell of Syria’s catastrophe in the first place.

Finian CUNNINGHAM

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations.

He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

More

Why USA Had to Kill the Syria’s Ceasefire

Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire

Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire

By Finian Cunningham

SCF” – There are several sound reasons for concluding that the US-led air strike on the Syrian army base near Deir Ezzor last weekend was a deliberate act of murderous sabotage. One compelling reason is that the Pentagon and CIA knew they had to act in order to kill the ceasefire plan worked out by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The compulsion to wreck the already shaky truce was due to the unbearable exposure that the ceasefire plan was shedding on American systematic involvement in the terrorist proxy war on Syria.

Not only that, but the tentative ceasefire was also exposing the elements within the US government responsible for driving the war effort. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – the head of the Pentagon – reportedly fought tooth and nail with Obama’s top diplomat John Kerry while the latter was trying to finalize the ceasefire plan with Russia’s Lavrov on the previous weekend of September 9 in Geneva.

While Sergey Lavrov and media reporters were reportedly kept waiting several hours for Kerry to finally emerge to sign off on the deal, the American foreign secretary was delayed by intense haggling in conference calls with Carter and other military chiefs back in Washington. Even days before Kerry’s diplomatic shuttle to Geneva, Carter was disparaging any prospective deal with Russia on a Syrian ceasefire.

It is well documented that both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been running clandestine programs for arming and training anti-government militants in Syria since the outset of the war in March 2011. Officially, Washington claims to be only supporting «moderate, vetted opposition». However, on occasion, Western media reports allude to the deeper sinister connections between the US military and terrorist groups when it has been reported that American weaponry «accidentally» finds its way into the hands of extremist jihadist networks.

This pretense by the US – and its other NATO and Arab allies – of supporting «moderate rebels» and of having no involvement with recognized terror groups like Al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS) was being exposed by the latest ceasefire.

It is conceivable that the diplomatic corps of the Obama administration, including President Barack Obama and his foreign emissary John Kerry, may be benighted about the full extent of America’s dirty war in Syria and its systematic connections to the terrorist brigades. Perhaps, this Obama flank is gullible and venal enough to believe in Washington’s propaganda of a dichotomy between «moderate rebels» and «terrorists».

Thus, when Kerry announced the ceasefire plan with Lavrov in Geneva on September 9, the American diplomat’s calls for the US-backed «moderate rebels» to separate themselves from the terror groups may have been made out a naive notion that such a distinction might exist. How else could we explain such a futile public appeal?

Not so, though, the Pentagon and CIA. The covert warmongers in the Pentagon and at Langley know the vile truth all along. That is, that all the militant groups in Syria are integrated into a terrorist front, albeit with a plethora of different names and seeming differences in commitment to al Qaeda Wahhabi ideology. The masters of war know that Washington is a sponsor of this terrorist front, along with its NATO and Arab allies.

Anyone with an informed knowledge about the origins of Al Qaeda from CIA authorship in Afghanistan during the 1980s would not be surprised in the slightest by such a systematic American role in the Syrian conflict.

This perspective reasonably explains why Carter. and the US military generally, were making conspicuous objections to Kerry’s ceasefire plan with Russia. They knew the ceasefire was not only infeasible because of the systematic links between the US and the terror groups, but also that a failing ceasefire would furthermore expose these systematic connections, and create wider public awareness about American complicity in the Syrian war.

And, as it transpired, the apprehensions of the Pentagon and the CIA terrorist handlers were indeed founded. Within days of the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire being implemented on September 12, the following was undeniable: there was no separation of «moderates» and «terrorists». All militant groups were continuing to violate the nominal truce in the northern battleground city of Aleppo and in other locations across Syria.

The US and Western media then began venting about the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally not delivering on giving humanitarian aid access to insurgent-held areas of eastern Aleppo. But that rhetorical gaming could not disguise the fact that the ceasefire was being breached by all the militant groups, which made it impossible for humanitarian aid convoys to enter Aleppo. Another factor played down by the Western media was that the Turkish government refused to coordinate with the Syrian authorities in the routing of UN truck convoys from the Turkish border into Aleppo. Given Turkey’s past documented involvement in using «humanitarian aid» as a cover for supplying weapons to insurgents, the vigilance demanded by Damascus is understandable.

The floundering ceasefire was thereby providing a withering world exposure of American terrorist complicity in Syria. The US lie about backing «moderates» as opposed to «terrorists» was being shown once and for all to be a cynical delusion. Evidently, US claims of supporting a «legitimate» opposition were seen for what they are – an utter sham. That leads to an even more damning conclusion that the US government is a sponsor of a terrorist proxy army in Syria for its criminal objective of regime change in that country. In theory at least, this disclosure warrants legal prosecution of Washington and its allies for the commission of war crimes against the state of Syria.

Given the grave stakes for American international standing that the ceasefire was endangering, it is reasonable to posit that a decision was taken by the Pentagon to sabotage. Hence, on September 17, American, British and Australian warplanes struck the Syrian Arab Army elite forces’ base near Deir Ezzor,  in eastern Syria, killing over 60 personnel and wounding nearly 100 more.

The US, Britain and Australia have since claimed that it was an accident, and that their aircraft were intending to attack Daesh militants in the area. The US-led coalition claims it will carry out an investigation into the air strike. As with many times before, such as when the US devastated a hospital in Afghanistan’s Kunduz killing more than 30 people last year, we can expect a cover-up.

Briefly, a few factors for doubting the US coalition’s claim of an accident are: why did the Daesh militants reportedly launch an offensive operation on the Syrian army base less than 10 minutes after it was struck by F-16s and A-10s? That suggests coordination between the coalition air forces and the terrorists on the ground.

Secondly, it defies credibility that sophisticated air power and surveillance could mistake an army base and adjacent air field containing hundreds of troops for ragtag guerrilla units.

Thirdly, as Russian military sources point out, the US coalition had previously not been active in that area over the past two years of flying operations. The Syrian army was known to be recently waging an effective campaign against Daesh around Deir Ezzor. That suggests that the US air power was being deployed to defend the terrorist units, as the Syrian and Russian governments were quick to claim after the US-led air strike on Deir Ezzor. That is consistent with the broader analysis of why and how the entire Syrian war has been fomented by Washington for regime change.

But perhaps the most telling factor in concluding that the US and its allies carried out the massacre at Deir Ezzor deliberately is the foregoing argument that the Pentagon and CIA war planners knew that the flawed ceasefire was exposing their terror tentacles in Syria. And certainly, if any US-Russian joint anti-Daesh operations were to take place as envisaged by the Kerry-Lavrov plan, then the charade would definitely be blown apart.

In that case, only one thing had to be done as a matter of necessity. The unwieldy, discomfiting ceasefire had to be killed off. And so the Pentagon decided to make a «mistake» at Deir Ezzor – a «mistake» that has gutted any minimal trust between the US and Russia, unleashing recriminations and a surge in ceasefire violations.

The American and Western media respond in the usual servile way to aid the cover-up. The massacre at Deir Ezzor is being largely ignored as a news story, with much more prominence given to a relatively minor bombing incident in New York City on the same weekend in which no-one was killed. Or, when reported on, the US media in particular have automatically accepted without question that the air strike was an accident. CNN also dismissed out of hand Syrian government claims of it being proof of American collusion with terrorists as «absurd». A claim that would otherwise seem fairly logical.

The New York Times had this gloss to paint over the air strike:

«The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief».

The American so-called newspaper-of-record then adds:

«The United States had thought that if a deal to ease hostilities in Syria, struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva nine days ago, fell apart, it would reveal Russia’s duplicity in the war, in which Moscow has supported the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad».

How ironic. According to The New York Times, the Americans anticipated that the ceasefire deal would reveal «Russia’s duplicity in the war». Maybe, they calculated that Russia and Syria would not abide by the cessation, which they very much did during the first week, showing discipline and commitment to finding a peaceful settlement.

Far from revealing Russia’s «duplicity», it is Washington that emerged as the culprit, as the Pentagon and CIA had feared all along because of their deep complicity with the terrorist proxies.

Killing the Syrian ceasefire was like the necessity to extinguish a spotlight that had suddenly come on and begun exposing the putrefaction and bloodied hands in America’s dirty war

%d bloggers like this: