Guinea Pigs United

 BY GILAD ATZMON

Guinea Pig.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Not many countries are brave or reckless enough to execute a vast medical experiment on their entire population and put vulnerable people at risk. Britain and Israel did.

On December 8, Britain was the first Western country to start “immunising its population.” Two weeks later, just a few days before Christmas, Britain grasped that it was in serious trouble. Covid-19, the virus that was supposed to disappear from our lives, mutated into something else. On December 19, PM Boris Johnson admitted that British scientists had identified a new Covid-19 mutant that is ‘70% more transmissible’ than its ancestors. Britain introduced tighter local restrictions, yet despite these, along with the vast vaccination campaign, the numbers of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths kept rising. They are escalating exponentially on a daily basis.

 Israel launched its mass vaccination campaign a few days after Britain. Within the next two weeks, Israel managed to vaccinate nearly 20% of its population. Israel is by far the world winner when it comes to the mass vaccination contest, but the country is also in big trouble. Like Britain, Israel is facing a huge Covid-19 surge. Its national health system is on the brink of collapse and the inevitable question is if these similar (if not identical) health crises are related to them both pioneering vast covid-19 vaccination campaigns.

Today, In the biggest Israeli news outlet News12, Israeli computer scientists revealed that the British Mutation is about to become the dominant Covid-19 strain in Israel. You may wonder how the British mutant strain managed to make Aliya and settle so comfortably in the Jewish State. The News 12 article may answer the question. “Cases in Israel aren’t rising uniformly: there is a significant slowdown in the (Israeli) Arab sector, which in the past was the main area of concern. On the other hand, there is a major outbreak in the (Jewish) ultra-Orthodox sector. This week 1.3% of all ultra-Orthodox came out verified, and the rate of increase in cases of children (63%) this week was almost double that of adults. Among the ultra-Orthodox sector, there was a 16-fold increase in the number of verified people within four weeks: this is a doubling every week – from 100 verified people per day (per million people) to 1,600 verified people, and all within a month. Such a growth rate is not seen throughout the plague and is probably due at least in part to the British mutant. It is estimated that the British mutant is about 20% of all ultra-Orthodox verified.”

This must raise eyebrows. Why would the British mutant strain spread so vastly amongst orthodox Jews? Why doesn’t it spread as quickly in the Arab population?

We may be able to stumble upon a very crucial piece of information here. Israeli Arabs may be doing better on the Covid-19 front because many of them seem to be reluctant about the vaccine. The Israeli Marker’s headline on 27 December stated: “A cause for concern: (Israeli) Arabs do not come to get vaccinated.” The Marker pointed out that Jewish citizens from all over Israel travel to Arab villages and cities to receive the vaccines that were designated to Arabs. According to a duty manager of a vaccination centre in Nazareth, 70-80% of the those who come to receive the vaccine were Jewish. Some of them travel as much as 50 km to do so.

But the story doesn’t end here. On January 3, the Israeli news website Walla reported that  “the  ultra-Orthodox are leading the population vaccination campaign.”  Walla confirmed that ‘the percentage of people vaccinated against corona among ultra-Orthodox society is higher than the rest of the population of all ages.’

It is beyond me why the Israelis decided to become guinea pigs in this reckless unscientific experiment in human lives. One option that can’t be dismissed is that Israel is once again heading towards an election and it is more than likely that Israel’s leaders believed that a mass vaccination campaign may translate into an electoral success.

As things stand at the moment, it is hard to deny the possibility of a correlation between mass vaccination and a sharp spike in Covid-19 cases in both Israel and Britain. It is hard to deny the fact that Israeli Arabs who at large avoid the vaccine are doing far better than the Jewish orthodox who seem to also believe in Pfizer. 

Alongside the revelations about the British strain, we also learned about a South African strain that is highly dangerous and possibly resistant to the current vaccines. It takes very little research to figure out that South Africa, together with Brazil and Britain, had been the testing ground for new vaccine trials since September. It is hardly a secret anymore that this was at roughly the same time that the new mutants were discovered in Britain at least.

I point here at the devastating possibility of a link between mass vaccinations and Covid-19 spikes. I am not qualified to support or explain the science that may cause this correlation. My facts are supported by data that is available to the wider public through mainstream news outlets. I am not an epidemiologist or a virologist and I really hope that people with the appropriate scientific training can refute the issues raised above. 

Sometimes I really wish to be wrong.   

Donate

Leaked files show how UK govt spent millions exploiting Syrian women in cynical PR offensive

RT

18 Dec, 2020 15:17 

Leaked files show how UK govt spent millions exploiting Syrian women in cynical PR offensive
FILE PHOTO: Women stand as they wait their turn to cast the votes inside a polling station during the parliamentary elections in Douma, in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, Syria July 19, 2020 ©  REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

By Kit Klarenberg, an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow Kit on Twitter @KitKlarenberg

A swath of leaked documents reveals the lengths to which the British government went to paint the Syrian opposition in a flattering light. They also confirm that women unknowingly formed part of this effort.

The leaked UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) documents reveal a variety of covert ways in which London sought to not only propagandize women in Syria, but to exploit them as weapons in a vast information warfare campaign waged at home and abroad.

The papers are among bombshell files released by hacktivist collective Anonymous, which expose a number of cloak-and-dagger actions undertaken by Whitehall against Damascus. Women figured prominently in a number of the plans, which cost the FCO millions of pounds over many years.

‘Outreach initiatives’

The propaganda value of women in conflicts has long-been well understood and cynically exploited by governments.

A leaked US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) memorandum from March 2010 on covert means of increasing flagging support for NATO’s Afghanistan mission noted women in the country “could serve as ideal messengers” in “humanizing” the military occupation, due to their “ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory.”

“Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women…could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the mission,” the document noted. “Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences.”

Over a decade later, Afghanistan remains one of the worst countries in the world to be a woman, by some margin.

Roughly a year after that CIA memo was authored, A Gay Girl in Damascus, a blog purportedly written by Syrian-American lesbian Amina Arraf, garnered significant mainstream attention. Widely hailed for her “fearless” and “inspiring” eyewitness reporting, the author was lauded as a symbol of the “progressive” revolution erupting in the country.

In June  2011, Amina’s cousin announced on the blog she (Amina) had been kidnapped by three armed men in the Syrian capital. In response, numerous Facebook pages were set up calling for Amina’s release and ‘liked’ by tens of thousands, #FreeAmina trended widely on Twitter, journalists and rights groups begged Western governments to demand her release, and the US State Department announced it was investigating her disappearance.

Six days later, it was revealed ‘Amina’ was in fact Tom MacMaster, a US citizen residing in Scotland. While corporate news outlets hurriedly rushed to forget all about the hoax they’d so comprehensively fallen for, their appetite for dubious ‘human interest’ stories emanating from the crisis evidently wasn’t diminished.

‘Huge global coverage’

In July 2019, an image of two young Syrian girls trapped in rubble in opposition-occupied Idlib attempting to haul their sister to safety as she dangled off the precipice of a dilapidated building, their father looking on in horror above, spread far and wide on social media.

The photo, snapped by a photographer for Syrian news service SY24, went viral the world over. Unbeknownst to the overwhelming majority of observers, though, SY24 was created and funded by The Global Strategy Network (TGSN), founded by Richard Barrett, a former MI6 counter-terrorism director.

In a file submitted to the FCO, TGSN boasted of how “campaigns” it broadcast via SY24 generated “huge global coverage,” having been seen by “many hundreds of millions of people,” and “attracting comment as far as the UN Security Council.”

SY24 content was produced by a network of ‘stringers’ in Syria that TGSN trained and provided with equipment, including “cameras and video editing software.” The firm drew particular attention to a team of female journalists it had tutored, “who provide about 40 percent of all SY content,” and were part of “a broad ‘network of networks’” enabling TGSN “to drive stories into the mainstream.”

TGSN also established a dedicated centre for training female journalists to produce content for SY24 in Idlib, “accessing stories that male journalists cannot,” which were then shared on social media. It boasted that almost half of SY24’s followers were women, “a remarkably high ratio for Syria-focused platforms.

‘Communications surges’

Carefully cultivating an entirely misleading image of an inclusive, credible ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition was of paramount importance to the FCO – it helped whitewash the barbarous nature of the various ‘rebel’ factions London was backing in the region, while simultaneously engendering support among Western publics for regime change.

In order to engage the “international community” to this end, TGSN, in conjunction with ARK – a shadowy “conflict transformation and stabilization consultancy” headed by veteran FCO operative Alistair Harris – planned“communication surges” around “key dates” such as International Women’s Day.

In a particularly elaborate example of such a “surge,” the pair collaborated on a campaign, ‘Back to School,’ in which young Syrians returned to education while Idlib City Council, opposition commanders, and other elements on the ground concurrently engaged in a “unified” communications blitz, using “shared slogans, hashtags and branding.”

Rebel fighters were sent to “clear roads” and “enable children and teachers to get to schools,” all the while filmed by the pair’s voluminous local journalist network, footage of which was then “disseminated online and on broadcast channels.” Ensuring “female teachers” received sizable coverage in the Western media was a key objective of the campaign.

In many of the leaked files, ARK boasts of the huge network of journalists it trained and funded in Syria, who would cover such PR stunts; their reports in turn fed to the firm’s “well-established contacts” at major news outlets including Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, New York Times, and Reuters, “further amplifying their effect.”

‘Thrust by tragedy’

However, other documents make clear ARK well-understood the immense difficulties inherent in promoting the role of women internally and externally during the crisis.

One file on “[incorporating] the role of women in the moderate opposition” notes Syrian women in rebel-occupied areas faced “an almost overwhelming variety of problems,” and “the space for women to participate in public life has contracted significantly as the conflict has progressed.”

As a result, ARK said it was “extremely aware of the risks of promoting women’s participation beyond currently accepted social norms…given the potential to hinder message resonance or result in a backlash against female participation.” It therefore proposed to “subtly reframe the narrative of women…increasing the amount of coverage of their initiatives and opinions as the context allows.”

One such means of “subtle reframing” was Moubader (which translates to “a person who takes initiative”), a media asset comprising a “high-quality hard copy monthly magazine with widespread distribution across opposition-held areas of Syria,” with a website and Facebook page boasting over 200,000 likes as of December 2020.

Moubader was established by ARK in 2015 specifically to achieve “behavioural change” in readers, at Whitehall’s request. “Given the importance of broadcast television as a trusted source” in Syria, ARK also sought FCO funding to develop a Moubader TV programme to “leverage stories and values to maximum effect and reach an even wider audience.”

Documents submitted to the FCO by another psyops contractor, Albany, similarly noted women’s access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity had “been debilitated” during the crisis, with issues such as early marriage, child military recruitment, and “transactional sex” exacerbated. The UN defines the latter as “non-commercial sexual relationships motivated by an implicit assumption that sex will be exchanged for material support or other benefits.”

Still, Albany considered so many Syrian women having been “thrust by tragedy into head of household and breadwinner positions” over the course of the crisis as a golden opportunity to propagandize them and, in turn, their families, while promoting the ‘inclusive’ nature of the opposition, by creating and partnering with female civil society organizations and journalists.

ARK likewise believed women to be a “critical audience” given the number of Syrian households headed by women –“up to 70 percent”– so sought to ensure they were well-represented in all its domestic and international “broadcast products,” as well as on social media.

‘Jihadis You Pay For’

Unsurprisingly, the files make no acknowledgement of the fact this increasingly hostile environment for women in Syria directly resulted from foreign efforts to destabilise and depose its government.

Islamic State, (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and al-Nusra are rightly notorious for their monstrous treatment of women in the areas which they occupied, which included widespread rape, sexual violence and abduction.

However, many armed opposition groups, backed by foreign powers, whether openly Salafist or not, imposed stringent restrictions on women in the areas they occupied, requiring them to wear hijabs and abayas, doling out extreme punishments for failing to comply, imposing discriminatory measures prohibiting them from moving freely, working, attending school, and more.

There are indications FCO contractors were in close quarters with such activities. For instance, in December 2017 BBC Panorama documentary Jihadis You Pay For alleged FCO cash distributed on its behalf by Adam Smith International (ASI) in Syria ended up in the pockets of Free Syrian Police (FSP) officers who’d stood by passively while women were stoned to death.

The program focused on the Access to Justice and Community Security (AJACS) program, under which ASI funded and trained FSP, an unarmed civilian force set up to reestablish law and order in opposition-controlled areas.

In a perverse irony, leaked ASI files relating to the project indicate it, too, sought to exploit women for propaganda purposes, applying a gender policy to AJACS “which [aimed] to encourage female participation in justice and policing,” and boasting of how, of the 1,868 police officers it trained under the scheme, six – 0.32 percent ­­– were female.

Quite some revolution. As Human Rights Watch notes, prior to 2011, women and girls across the country were “largely able to participate in public life, including work and school, and exercise freedom of movement, religion, and conscience.” While the Syrian penal code and laws governing issues such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, contains provisions discriminatory to women, the country’s constitution guarantees gender equality.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

ALSO ON RT.COM

Against the Witch Hunt: On the Instrumentalization of Antisemitism in Britain’s Labour Party

December 17, 2020

UK Labour Party voted in favor of a motion which could see Britain cease trade with Israel. (Photo: via Twitter)

By Ronnie Kasrils

The assault on free speech within Britain’s Labour Party speaks like a ghost from my past. I was banned from public speaking in apartheid South Africa almost sixty years ago. My crime aged 23, was advocating votes for all. The apartheid government accused those like me of undermining the safety of whites. When all avenues of peaceful change were blocked, we had no option but to turn to armed struggle.

We argued that there was no equivalence between the state violence of the oppressor and the resistance of the oppressed. International solidarity helped bring about the demise of the apartheid system. We empathize with those in the Labour Party today, who are being victimized by a double agenda: for their socialism and defending Palestinian rights. It is astonishing and deplorable that a witch hunt is underway within those ranks – as elsewhere.

I was invited to address a BDS event in Vienna over a year ago which the city council quickly banned. A couple of months ago I was involved in a planned event with Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled, at San Francisco State University, which was blocked. Then attempts to have our discussion broadcast via Zoom, Facebook and YouTube were obstructed. The voice opponents of free speech were desperate to gag was Leila Khaled. The Palestinian narrative being the primary target.

Those who attack human rights, whether in advanced capitalist countries or feudal tyrannies, simultaneously attack Palestinian rights. They follow violent precedents and consequences.

Repressing freedom of speech in South Africa paved the way for the emergence of a terrorist state. Ruthless suppression was instrumentalized in Europe’s colonies, and by USA imperialism on the back of slavery and genocide; and in the colonization and dismantling of Palestine.

The latter context falls within the project to counter the national liberation upsurge of the 20th Century.

The Apartheid regime’s use of anti-communism as a blanket device to smash opposition; along with Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunting; is mirrored in manipulating “anti-Semitism” as a shield to protect Israel. It is an umbrella formula to delegitimize the Palestinian cause and BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign.

Upholding Palestinian rights has been reflected in United Nations resolutions; and statements by Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, Angela Davis, Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky; and back in time Jewish scholars such as Eric Fromm and Martin Buber.

Apartheid alleged the South African struggle was about sweeping whites into the sea and handing the country to Russia. This echoes the claim that giving in on the human and national rights of the dispossessed Palestinians means the extinction of the Jewish people.

Those linking freedom of expression and Palestinian solidarity articulate the same goals as we did in South Africa’s struggle – the objective is about changing a system not destroying a people.

Criticizing Zionism, an exclusivist ethnic-based political doctrine is not anti-Semitic. It is the valid criticism of a reactionary political theory.

Zionism, not the Judaic religion; Israel, not the Jewish people is the focus of criticism.

The anti-communism of apartheid South Africa, and charges of anti-Semitism against Israel’s critics, are terms of Machiavellian elasticity stretched by charlatans to stifle opposition. This is the new taboo. The untouchable holy cow shamelessly peddled in Western countries that preach freedom of expression.

Those who fall prey, who are deceived by the confusion sown, should note the lesson of the boy who cried wolf. When the real monster of anti-Semitism strikes, the most steadfast of opponents, have been on the left of the political spectrum.

False allegations of anti-Semitism weaken the fight against the real demon. This is exactly the pitfall of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) treatise conflating criticism of Israel with hate speech. It is biased and fatally flawed. A dubious, non-internationally represented Eurocentric document, devised by a hand-picked cabal of sophists seeking to be referee and player at the same time. With a veiled attempt at “objectivity,” Israel is given umbrella-like cover, impunity for its crimes and a cudgel to beat its opponents.

In 1948 when Menahem Begin visited New York to raise funds for his party – later to become Sharon and Netanyahu’s ruling Likud – Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt labeled him a “fascist”. After cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians that year, an Israeli cabinet minister, Aharon Cizling, declared “now we too have behaved like Nazis and my whole being is shaken.”

In terms of the IHRA’s guidelines, they would be labeled anti-Semitic. Jeremy Corbyn’s “crime” that accusations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party have been exaggerated is minuscule by comparison.

Manufacturing mountains out of molehills, characterizes the sophistry of medieval inquisitors, hitching Labour to the Blairite anti-socialist bandwagon. Unopposed this witch hunt will escalate, attacking popular protest wherever humanity opposes injustice.

We say to the deceit of Labour Party leaders, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, who misappropriate a sacred trade union principle: Yes! “An injury to one is an injury to all” – but in your denialism you ignore the millions of Palestinians facing the bullets and bombs of Israeli aggression.

The recent statement of prominent Palestinian and Arab figures with regard to the IHRA’s false strictures eloquently attests to how the issue of anti-Semitism should be formulated.

They declare:

“Antisemitism must be debunked and combated. Regardless of pretense, no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world.”

The left and human rights movement, including Black Lives Matter and formations such as the African National Congress of South Africa, should join those Palestinian and Arab voices in formulating genuinely international guidelines regarding defense of free speech; and in combatting the scourge of anti-Semitism and all forms of racism.

– Ronnie Kasrils, veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, and South Africa’s former Minister for Intelligence Services, activist and author. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle

Why China is NOT the Enemy of the West (Why British Psychological Warfare Must Now be Examined)

Why China is NOT the Enemy of the West (Why British Psychological Warfare Must Now be Examined)

December 17, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

Since many good people have found themselves susceptible to the narrative that China is the global supervillain conspiring to overthrow western Christian values by any means necessary, I believe some lessons should be brought to bear.

  1. Anti-Nation state fanatic George Soros stated at the 2020 Davos Summit that China has become the greatest threat to his vision for Open Society (right behind Trump’s USA). This was echoed by Lord Malloch Brown’s 2020 Global Government Speeches.
  2. China’s deep alliance with Russia and the increased integration of the Eurasian Economic Union with the 135 nation strong Belt and Road Initiative form the basis of an alternative multipolar paradigm has kept imperialists up at night for the past several years.
  3. The prospect of a US-China-Russia alliance has been one of the greatest threats to empire which peeked in the weeks before COVID-19 arose onto the scene as the US-China Trade Pact successfully entered its first phase (and has since fallen into shambles) as well as Trump’s repeated calls for “good relations with Russia.”

Amidst the surge of anti-China media psy ops published across Five Eyes nations, countless patriots of a conservative bent have found themselves absorbed into a red-scare manic hysteria while forgetting that the actual causal hand of British Intelligence has been caught blatantly running the overthrow of nation states for decades (including the 2016-2020 to run regime change within the USA itself).

Understanding the nature of the current psy ops, and new red scare deflection underway, it is necessary to review some seriously underappreciated facts of recent history, and since former secretary of State Sir Henry Kissinger (a genuine Knight of the British Empire), figures prominently in this story, it is wise to start with his relationship with China.

Although he is celebrated for being an “enlightened” liberal politician who helped China open up to the west after the dark days of Mao’s Cultural Revolution by extending western markets to China, the truth is very different.

A devout proponent of world government and population control, Kissinger had been the tool selected during a particularly important period of human history to advance a new ordering of world affairs.

The Division of the World Into Producers and Consumers

Since the world was taken off the gold reserve system way back in 1971, a new age of “post-industrialism” was unleashed onto a globalized world. Humanity was given a new type of system which presumed that both our nature and the cause of value itself were located in the act of consuming. The old idea that our nature was creative, and that our wealth was tied to producing, was assumed to be an obsolete thing of the past… a relic of a dirty old industrial age.

Under the new post-1971 operating system, we were told that the world would now be divided among producers and consumers.

The “have-not producers” would provide the cheap labor which first world consumers would increasingly rely on for the creation of goods they used to make for themselves. “First world” nations were told that according to the new post-industrial rules of de-regulation and market economics, that they should export their heavy industry, machine tools and other productive sectors abroad as they transitioned into “white collar” post-industrial consumer societies. The longer this outsourcing of industries went on, the less western nations found themselves capable of sustaining their own citizenries, building their own infrastructure or determining their own economic destinies.

In place of full spectrum economies that once saw over 40% of North America’s labor force employed in manufacturing, a new addiction to “buying cheap stuff” began, and a “service economies” took over like a cancer.

To make matters worse, the many newly independent nations struggling to liberate themselves from colonialism were told that they would have to abandon their dreams of development since those goals would render the formula of a producer-consumer stratified society impossible to create. Those leaders resisting this edict would face assassination or CIA overthrow. Those leaders who adapted to the new rules would become peons of the new age of “Economic Hitmen”.

China and the West: The Real Story

By the time Deng Xiaoping announced the “opening up” of China in 1978, Kissinger had already managed the economic paradigm shift of 1971, the artificial “oil shock therapy” of 1973 and authored his 1974 NSSM 200 Report which transformed U.S. Foreign Policy from a pro-development orientation towards a new policy of depopulation targeting the poor nations of the global south under the logic that the resources under their soil were the lawful possession of the USA.

The NSSM 200 (titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests”) outlined its objective “Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special US and strategic interest”.

Kissinger, and the hives of Trilateral Commission/CFR operatives to which he was beholden never looked on China as a true ally, but merely as a zone of abundant cheap labor which would feed cheap goods to the now post-industrial west under their new dystopic producer-consumer world order. It was in that same year that Kissinger’s fellow Trilateral Commission cohort Paul Volcker announced a “controlled disintegration of western society” which was begun in full with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes to 20% that ensured a vast destruction of small and medium businesses across the board.

Believing China (then still largely an impoverished third world country) to be desperate enough to accept money and short-term salvation after years of trauma induced by the Cultural Revolution. Under Kissinger’s logic, China would receive just enough money to sustain a static existence but would never be able to stand on its own two feet.

Unbeknownst to Kissinger, China’s leaders under the direction of Zhou Enlai, and his disciple Deng Xiaoping had a much longer-term strategic perspective than their western partners imagined.

While receiving much needed revenue from foreign exports, China began to slowly create the foundations for a genuine renaissance which would be made possible by slowly learning the skills, leapfrogging technologies and acquiring means of production which the west had once pioneered. Zhou Enlai had first enunciated this visionary program as early as 1963 under his Four Modernizations mandate (Industrial, agricultural, national defense and science and technology) and then restated this program in January 1976 weeks before his death.

This program manifested itself in the July 6, 1978 State Council Forum on the “Principles to Guide the Four Modernizations” informed by the findings of international exploratory missions conducted by economist Gu Mu’s delegations around various advanced world economies (Japan, Hong Kong, Western Europe). The findings of Gu Mu’s reports laid out the concrete pathways for full spectrum economic sovereignty with a focus on cultivating the cognitive creative powers of a new generation of scientists that would drive the non linear breakthroughs needed for China to ultimately break free of the rules of closed-system economics which technocrats like Kissinger wished the world adhere to.

Deng Xiaoping broke from the radical Marxism prevalent among the intelligentsia by redefining “labor” from purely material constraints and elevating the concept rightfully to the higher domain of mind saying:

“We should select several thousand of our most qualified personnel within the scientific and technological establishment and create conditions that will allow them to devote their undivided attention to research. Those who have financial difficulties should be given allowances and subsidies… we must create within the party an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and respect for trained personnel. The erroneous attitude of not respecting intellectuals must be opposed. All work. Be it mental or manual, is labor.”

Over the course of the coming decades, China learned, and like any student, copied, reverse engineered and reconstructed western techniques as it slowly generated capacities that ultimately allowed them press on the limits of human knowledge outpacing all western models.

Scientific and technological progress became the driving force of its entire economy and by 1986, the “863 Project for Research and Development” was announced which focused on areas of space, lasers, energy, biotechnology, new materials, automation and information technology. This project became the driver for creative innovation guided by the National Science Foundation and was upgraded to the 973 Basic Research Program in 2009 to: “1) support multidisciplinary and fundamental research of relevance to national development; 2) Promote frontline basic research; 3) Support the cultivation of scientific talent capable of original research; and 4) Build high-quality interdisciplinary research centers.”

The fruits of these long term programs was beginning to be felt and by 1996, discussion for a New Silk Road reviving the ancient trade routes connecting China to Europe and Africa through the Middle East and Caucasus was beginning with conferences hosted by Beijing under President Jiang Zemin.

One of the few western participants at these Chinese events was the Schiller Institute, whose founders delivered a full day seminar in 1997 describing the program that would finally come back to life in 2013 when Xi Jinping made it the focus of China’s foreign policy outlook under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Why did this program wait until 2013 to blossom onto the world stage when obvious momentum was already in motion in 1997?

George Soros and the Attack on the Asian Markets

From May 1997, George Soros’ targeting of the Southeast Asian “Tigers economies” of Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Laos, and Malaysia with speculative short sales of their local currencies resulted months of vast anarchy across all of Asia and the world more broadly. Currencies collapsed from 10-80% over the next 8 months and took many years to begin to recover.

Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed was brave enough to call out Soros’ economic warfare and did much to help his nation weather the storm by imposing capital controls to maintain some semblance of stability calling out the speculator saying: “as much as people who produce and distribute drugs are criminals, because they destroy nations, the people who undermine the economies of poor nations are too.” Chinese President Jiang Zemin followed suit calling Soros “a financial sniper” and stated he would not let the speculator enter Chinese markets.

As analyst Michael Billington astutely wrote in his August 1997 EIR report:

“The ultimate target is China. The British are particularly worried about the increasingly close collaboration between China and the ASEAN nations, which are being integrated into the massive regional and continental development projects initiated by China under the umbrella of the Eurasian Continental Land-Bridge program. Such real development policies offer the alternative to the cheap-labor, colonial-style export industries of the “globalization” model- the model that has led to the financial bubbles now bursting worldwide.”

The Tumultuous Years of 1997-2013

With the advent of the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (whose meltdown nearly took down the world economy in 1999 if not bailed out by central banks), followed by the Y2K/tech bubble explosion of 2000, the world markets nearly collapsed on several occasions. 9-11 unleashed a new era of warfare which deflected attention from the rot of the financial system while derivatives were deregulated, and ‘Too Big To Fail’ banking formed in short order growing far beyond the powers of any nation state to rein in.

Under this period of destabilization, wars, terrorism and easy money speculation, China and its Eurasian allies moved slower to rebuild the physical basis of their existence with the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, long term planning, and a slow but steady focus on real (vs speculative) economic activity. The fact that China was among the only nations of the world to keep national controls over their central bank and maintain Glass-Steagall bank separation were not lost on the enemies of humanity yearning for a bankers’ dictatorship.

This process continued until it became evident that the western unipolar agenda would stop at nothing including nuclear war in order to assure the total subservience of all nation states, with Obama unveiling his Asia Pivot (air-sea battle) plans against China along with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) economic attack on China. The veil was now lifted to the true ugly face behind the liberal fascist smiles and it became clear that the full spectrum dominance military encirclement of Russia’s perimeter was being fully extended to China’s perimeter as well.

The Revival of the New Silk Road

It was in the face of this existential threat that Xi Jinping emerged as the new leader of China and a historic crackdown of party corruption on all levels Federal, Provincial and Municipal was begun in force while Xi’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan revived the New Silk Road/Eurasian land bridge policy of 15 years earlier.

Although China is often accused of intellectual theft, the reality is that it has begun to clearly outpace western nations becoming a pioneer on every level of science and technology. China now registers more patents than the USA, has become the cutting edge leader of high speed rail engineering with over 30 000 km, bridge building, tunneling, as well as water management, quantum computing, AI, 5G telecommunications, and even space science becoming the first nation to ever land on the far side of the moon with an intent to mine Helium 3 and develop permanent bases on the Moon in the coming decade.

All of these cutting edge fields of science and engineering are being organized by the ever-growing Belt and Road Initiative which has taken on global proportions and integrated itself into a deep alliance with Russia, Iran and over 135 nations who have signed onto the BRI Framework stretching from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia, and Europe.

This is the system which the USA and other western nations could have joined on multiple occasions, but which has instead been targeted as a global threat to western hegemony. According to the logic of those western utopians who refuse to let go of their old outdated 1971 script for a new world order, China’s New Silk Road must be subverted at all costs since it is very well understood that it would become the basis for a new world system as the old globalized paradigm comes crashing down faster than the Hindenburg.

The Real Perpetrators Laugh as a New Cold War Hysteria is Orchestrated

It is perhaps an irony that those figures who have been caught time and again attempting to destroy the foundations of both the USA, China and Russia have deflected attention from their own actions by promoting the idea that China is the USA’s natural enemy.

The reality is China is currently not only reviving the ancient silk road paradigm that focused on a harmony of interests and mutual self interest through economic and cultural exchange but they have also revived the spirit of President Sun Yat-sen’s International Development of China program in full. In this 1920 document China’s first President outlined the superiority of the American system of political economy which he studied deeply beginning in his early student days in the USA, and upon which he explicitly modelled his new republican China and his three Principles of the People (premised on Lincoln’s principle of a nation for, by and of the people). Sun Yat-sen (a Christian Confucian revolutionary) is not only the beloved founding father of the republic of China celebrated to this day, but stated his views pro-American views in the following terms

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

Both mainstream and alternative media outlets that tend to be sympathetic to conservative values have bit the bait and are now blind to the fact that those oligarchical social engineers managing the World Economic Forum and drooling over a new era of World Government, population reduction and technocratic feudalism are laughing at all of those fish in their nets whose ignorance to history and other cultures are leading them to their own self-destruction.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

صبية السفارة….صيدا تصوّب البوصلة

See the source image

ابراهيم الأمين 

الخميس 17 كانون الأول 2020

«اللي بجَنبو مسلّة بتنعَروا»!

التسريبات عن دور الحكومات الغربية في رعاية «الأنشطة المدنية التغييرية» ليست جديدة. والمعلومات المتداولة كثيرة حول أدوار تفصيلية تقوم بها هذه الجهة أو تلك. وفي كل مرة، يلجأ المشار اليهم بعنوان «المتعاونين» مع هذه الجهات الدولية الى الاحتجاج، بعد إشهار ما يخص «تعاونهم»، سواء على شكل محاضر اجتماعات جرت معهم (وثائق الخارجية الاميركية)، أم على شكل خلاصات وتوصيات تشير الى أدوارهم (وثائق السعودية والامارات). مع ذلك، يمارس هؤلاء دفاعاً فيه حياء من يشعر بأنه بات من دون غطاء، إلى درجة تستحق الشفقة، كما هي حال معارضين سوريين (تحولوا إلى أدوات في معركة تدمير الدولة والمجتمع في سوريا) امتنعت «الأخبار» – عن سابق تصميم – عن نشر ما يتعلق بـ«تعاونهم» أيضاً، رغم أن تفاصيل ذلك باتت مباحة على موقع «ويكيليكس»!

لكنَّ ثمة أمراً غريباً يحصل منذ أيام في بيروت. لم تنشر «الأخبار» سوى الاطار العام للوثائق المسرّبة من جهات بريطانية حول برامج الدعم التي قدمتها حكومة صاحبة الجلالة الى «المتمردين» في لبنان. ما نُشر لا يُقارن بما نُشر سابقاً حول البرامج نفسها في سوريا، ولا يمثّل سوى رأس جبل الجليد في ملفات موثّقة، بصورة رسمية وغير رسمية، حول تفاصيل العمل البريطاني المستمر في لبنان منذ عقدين على الاقل، مع حرارة أعلى منذ نحو عقد. مع ذلك، ثارت ثائرة «صبية السفارة» ممن استشعروا «خطر» الكشف عن صلاتهم العميقة بهذا المشروع، وبادروا الى حملة ردود لها عنوان واحد: إذا كنا متّهمين بالعمالة للغرب، فأنتم عملاء لإيران… ما يعني عودة من جديد الى لعبة الأشقياء المحبّبة والتي لها عنوان واحد: «بيّي أقوى من بيّك»!

حقيقة الأمر تكمن في أن هذه المجموعات وعدت مشغّليها بكثير من الانجازات. أساساً، لم تتحمّل رؤوس هؤلاء أورام 17 تشرين عندما تخيّلوا أنفسهم أمام قصر الشتاء في لينينغراد، وهم الذين لم يتقدموا مرة واحدة صفوف الشباب المحتج. بل كانوا يتكلون، طوال الوقت، على «أطفال اليسار» أو «فقراء الضواحي وطرابلس». وإلا، هل في ذاكرة أحد خبر عن اعتقال أحد هؤلاء أو توقيفه أو ضربه من قبل جلاوزة السلطة؟ لم يحصل ذلك… ولن يحصل، لأن هؤلاء الصبية تعلّموا وتدرّبوا ليتولّوا إدارة البلاد، ولكي يُطلّوا منظّرين على الشاشات، خصوصاً «شاشات الثورة» التي اهتمت بها مشاريع صاحبة الجلالة ايضاً، تماماً كما تهتم بها اليوم مشيخة الامارات العربية المتحدة أو برنامج الدعاية الاميركية؛ إذ لم يعد سراً ما تدفعه دولة الامارات والولايات المتحدة لقنوات «الجديد» و«مر تي في» و«المؤسسة اللبنانية للإرسال» مقابل خدمات التحريض ضد حزب الله، حيث أمكن، وضد حلفاء الحزب، حيث يجب. ولن تكون مقدمة نشرة أخبار «الجديد» المليئة بالقبح والحقد والسفالة تجاه الرئيس ميشال عون، قبل يومين، آخر الأنشطة الثورية لهذه الموبقات الموجودة على شكل هياكل خراسانية أو بشرية!

المهم أن هؤلاء «الصبية» انزعجوا من فتح الملف فقط. وهم في حال قلق من المستور الذي لم يكشف بعد. وربما يدرسون، الآن، كيفية إعادة النظر في حساباتهم، لأنه عندما تُنشر أرقام الاموال التي حصلوا عليها، ستطرح الاسئلة في دوائرهم الضيقة، وعندما تُنشر البرامج سيسأل القريبون منهم عن حقيقة ما أنجز. إلا أن هذا القلق لم يجعل توترهم يقتصر على الهجوم الأعمى دفاعاً عن أنفسهم، بل دفعهم الى قطع «شرش الحياء»، لأنهم وجدوا أنه لم يعد هناك من داع للتبرؤ من الانتماء الطوعي الى مشروع له هدف واحد أحد: ضرب المقاومة في لبنان، سواء كان ذلك عبر تدمير الدولة بحجة مكافحة الفساد، أم تدمير المؤسسات بحجة أنها خاضعة لسيطرة حزب الله، وشن حملة إعلامية بأدوات مختلفة تحت عنوان الدفاع عن الحريات، من «تمكين المرأة» و«حقوق المثليين» الى «إدارة النفايات الصلبة» وتقليص حجم القطاع العام بحجة تطهيره من حشو أزلام السلطة.

ما نُشر حول تفاصيل العمل البريطاني في لبنان لا يمثّل سوى رأس جبل الجليد في ملفات موثّقة


هؤلاء الصبية لا يهتمون لبقاء شيء في لبنان، ويظهرون استعدادا لتدمير صروح من داخلها. ترى، مثلاً، كيف يتصرف «العلمانيون» الذي حصدوا الحكومة الطلابية في الجامعة الاميركية مع خطط فضلو خوري وبرامجه لتدمير الجامعة وتفريغها من أصحاب الرأي الآخر وإبعاد الخبرات الجدية ودفع كثيرين الى الهجرة، بحجة تقليص النفقات، وهو الذي لم يقل لنا ما هو حجم التبرعات التي حصلت عليها الجامعة لترميم ما دمره انفجار المرفأ من زجاج فيها. هل لأحد أن يسأل عن الرقم؟ ما يقوم به خوري في هذه المؤسسة بات يرقى الى مصاف التآمر على تدمير صرح كبير، لأنه صار واحداً من مجموعة تعتبر أن بيروت لا تستحق مؤسسة لها سمعة أكاديمية مقبولة، إلا في حال صمتنا عن سوء سمعتها الأخلاقية والسياسية، وامتنعنا عن التدقيق في طريقة إدارتها اليومية لشؤون العاملين فيها، علماً بأنه في الوقت نفسه الذي قرر فيه رفع الاقساط بنسبة 160 في المئة، وهو يعرف أن النتيجة تعني إبعاد ثلث الطلاب من ذوي الاصول الاجتماعية المتوسطة، أطلق معركة في وجه العاملين بعقود مع الجامعة (غير المتفرغين)، أي ممن لا يتقاضون راتباً شهرياً مع بدلاته وضرائبه. فوضع ميزانية لهم تجعل عملهم أقرب الى السخرة، صارفاً لهم زيادات لا تتجاوز قيمتها ثلاثين دولاراً، فيما يوقّع عقوداً خاصة لمن يعملون على العلاقات العامة بآلاف الدولارات الطازجة شهرياً. أكثر من ذلك، فقد قرر تعديل آلية احتساب مداخيل العاملين لديه من حملة الجنسية الأميركية، بقصد رفع نسبة الضريبة على دخلهم، والنتيجة، أنه يحتسب الدخل على أدنى سعر للصرف، بينما يدفع للحكومة الأميركية ضرائب أكبر… لكن بالدولار الطازج نفسه.

«صبية السفارة» هؤلاء «يصادف» أنهم تلامذة وأساتذة ومتعاونون ومتعاملون وخبراء في «دكانة فضلو خوري وشركاه». وهؤلاء يريدون اليوم نقل المواجهة الى مستوى جديد، لكنهم لا يزالون يخشون إشهار علاقتهم بالغرب الاستعماري، ويرفضون الإقرار بأنهم يعملون عنده وفي خدمة أهدافه. ولو كان بينهم من يملك شجاعة القول لخرج علينا ليقول: نحن أحرار في اختيار الدولة التي نتأثر بأفكارها، وفي اختيار الجهات والحكومات التي نعمل وفق برامجها، وفي تلقّي الأموال من دون الحاجة الى شروحات أو توضيحات أو تبريرات.

لكن مهلاً. هل تعتقدون أنكم إذا رفعتم صوت صراخكم فستوقفون عملية فضحكم، أو أن ذبابكم الإلكتروني قادر على غسلكم من عار التآمر على أبناء بلدكم والمشاركة في ارتكاب أفظع الجرائم في حقهم، والتورط في أكبر عملية إعداد لأكبر عدوان وحشي يعدّ له الغرب على لبنان، أو أن كل برامجكم عن محاربة الفساد والدفاع عن الحريات ستؤهلكم لقيادة البلد… اللهم إلا إذا كان ارتفاع معنوياتكم سببه رأفة «أهل الأمر» بكم، أو لأنكم تشعرون بـ«وهم القوة» لأن مموّليكم في عواصم القبح قد أشهروا علاقتهم مع العدو؟

مشكلتكم أنكم مجرد صبية. لكن لم يتح لكم اللعب في أحياء طبيعية. لذا لا تجيدون الركل ولا حتى السباب. كل ما تعرفون القيام به، هو تقمّص شخصية الرجل الأبيض الذي حبذا لو تجيدون سماعه في تقييم أحوالكم كمجرد فقراء العقل وحقيري الأنفس!

البناء
صيدا تصوّب البوصلة

في خطوة غير عاديّة رغم كونها تعبيراً هو الأقرب لتاريخ هذه المدينة العريقة في نضالها الوطني والقومي، فصيدا هي ذات موقع وبصمة في كل تاريخ النضال لأجل فلسطين وهي عرين المناضل الوطني والقومي الشهيد معروف سعد ومن بعده نجله الشهيد مصطفى سعد، لكن السياق السياسي الراهن يجعل الموقف الاحتجاجيّ الفاعل الذي عطل زيارة السفيرة الأميركية الى بلدية صيدا ذا قيمة مختلفة، والإعلان عن إلغاء الزيارة من السفارة الأميركية لا تعوّضه صورة للسفيرة من القلعة البحريّة في ظل العواصف لمجرد القول إنها قبلت التحدّي وهي تعلم أن التحدّي كان ينتظرها وهربت.

قيمة الحدث بزاويتين جديدتين، الأولى أنه في زمن العقوبات الأميركية وانقسام الوسط السياسيّ بأغلبيته بين نصفين، نصف يتأقلم مع السياسات الأميركية ونصف يتفادى الظهور في الصفوف الأمامية للمواجهة، هذا بمعزل عن الذين يمثلون فرق التطبيل والتزمير للسياسات الأميركية، والاعتقاد السائد بأن الذين يقفون خارج كل ألوان هذا السياق جذرياً هم حكر على لون طائفي وعقائدي يتوسطه حزب الله، فتأتي المدينة الجنوبية التي كانت دائماً تمنح المقاومة بعدها الوطني والقومي بانتمائها الطائفي المختلف لتؤكد موقعها كعاصمة للمقاومة وتُعيد الكرة وتقول إن ليس للمواجهة مع السياسات الأميركية لوناً طائفياً.

الزاوية الثانية هي أن الذين قادوا الحراك بوجه السفيرة الأميركية لا ينتمون الى الخط العقائديّ الذي يمثله حزب الله، أي الخط الإسلامي، بل إنهم لا ينتمون الى أي من المجموعات الحزبية الكبرى التي تتصدّر المشهد الصيداوي، فالمجموعة التي نظمت التحرك هي مجموعة يساريّة قوميّة من الحزب الديمقراطي الشعبي الذي يمتلك في صيدا قاعدة نضالية متجذّرة وله حضور مميز في الحراك الصيداوي الذي مثل حضور صيدا في انتفاضة 17 تشرين ومن حوله مجموعات يسارية بعضها ينتمي للحزب الشيوعيّ وبعضها للتنظيم الشعبيّ الناصريّ.

نموذج حراك صيدا كما ظهر أمس يصوّب البوصلة الوطنية، في الرسالة التي يحملها للأميركيين، الذين ربما توهّموا أنهم نجحوا بترويض النخب اللبنانية والشباب اللبناني وهم يستقبلون عشرات نشطاء جماعات المنظمات «المدنية» طالبة التمويل، ومثلهم من الساسة التقليديين، وكذلك يصوّب الحراك الصيداويّ البوصلة في شأن الحراك نفسه فيقدّم نموذجاً لقيادة شعبيّة ميدانيّة فاعلة في الحراك تدرك حجم الترابط بين النضال لأجل التغيير وبين التمسك بخيار المقاومة.

مقالات ذات صلة

What Does The Future Hold For a Suffering Yemen?

Source

08.12.2020 

Author: Valery Kulikov

YEM83222

On November 30, both sides of the Yemeni front line marked the 53rd anniversary of the end of British occupation and Yemen’s complete independence from Britain. However, it should be noted that true sovereignty of the Yemenis is not the reality of this country. The poorest people in the Middle East continue to suffer from foreign interference.

The war between the government of Yemen and the Houthi rebels has been going on since 2014 with the active participation since 2015 of the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which was supported by the United States, Britain, France, Germany. The West’s instigating role in unleashing the Yemeni conflict, in supplying arms to Yemen and various terrorist groups, does not stop either.

The President of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee of Yemen, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, bluntly told the media on October 6 that the US counterterrorism struggle was a cover for attacks on civilians. “Saudi Arabia and the United States crossed all the red lines in the war against Yemen. They attack all vital targets and civilians with prohibited weapons and use the siege of Yemen as a pressure tool. One of the reasons the United States and Saudi Arabia still did not stop the war in Yemen, lies in the fact that they want to plunder the resources of the Gulf countries and put their mercenaries in power in Yemen,” – al-Houthi stressed.

As the  Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs claims, 233,000 people have died in the last five years of the conflict in Yemen.

In addition, hunger, which the world has not faced in decades, threatens Yemen unless urgent action is taken, said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He believes that, in addition to the ongoing hostilities, a significant cause of the famine is the reduction in funding for emergency programs in this country.

A human rights organization in the Yemeni capital, Al-Raidat al-Idala lit-tanimiyya wal-Hukuk bi-Sanaa (Pioneers of Justice for Development and Rights in Sana’a), in its annual report, showed statistics on the crimes of the Saudi coalition and human rights violations against Yemeni women stressing that “direct and indirect violations of women’s rights and their suffering as a result of the continued aggression and siege of Yemen have led to the killings, forced migration of thousands of Yemenis, health, education and nutrition crises, in addition to their psychological and social consequences.”

In view of the damage inflicted on the civilians of Yemen, a court in the city of Saada in the north-west of the Arab country, controlled by the Ansar Allah (Allah’s Helpers, Houthis) rebel movement, sentenced in absentia the highest officials of Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States “to death. executions for the killing and wounding of more than 100 people in an air strike by the Saudi coalition in August 2018 “. At the same time, the court sentenced “several officials in Yemen, the United States and the coalition led by Saudi Arabia, including King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman, the President of the United States Donald Trump, Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi., for involvement in the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians.”

The court also ruled that “the defendants must pay $ 10 billion to the families of the victims.”

Regarding the assessment of the development of the situation in Yemen, Deputy Head of the Yemeni Parliament Abdulaziz Jabari in an interview with the Qatari TV channel Al-Jazeera at the end of September said that “the real master of the situation in the territories not controlled by the Houthis is the Saudi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Jaber, who treats the Yemenis as his own subordinates”, seeking to carry out instructions from the Saudi kingdom and the UAE to establish “control over political decisions in Yemen.” At the same time, the deputy head of parliament stressed that the Yemenis “will not obey anyone,” and the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE “want to become strong players in the region at the expense of the Yemenis.”

The representative of the Ministry of Information of Yemen Mohammad Qizan said that “there is no talk about any 80% of the Yemeni territories liberated by the Saudi coalition, the government cannot return to any of the allegedly liberated provinces.”

As noted by regional media, recently, not only Saudi Arabia is trying to strengthen its military presence in Yemen. The UAE and Israel are also actively seeking to increase the number of their military installations, in particular on Socotra Island. For example, Israel plans to build its intelligence facilities on the island, and the UAE has begun building military bases and seizing large strategic territories in Socotra, which is controlled by UAE-backed separatists from the Southern Transitional Council.

At the same time, according to experts, by the end of 2020, trends in the Yemeni war were extremely unfavorable for the Saudi coalition. The foreign intervention that Riyadh began in the spring of 2015 with plans of a fairly rapid capture of East Yemen, the fall of Aden and a number of key cities on the coast, did not initially suggest that the war could drag on for so long. Ansar Allah is increasingly demonstrating that, with proper support, it can not only succeed in the Yemeni war, but also become for Iran what Hezbollah has become in Lebanon. “Ansar Allah”, speaking from the standpoint of protecting the territorial integrity of the country, attracts more and more supporters, including from the ranks of former opponents, who are massively deserting by entire tribes and divisions.

Today it is recognized that 2019 was the beginning of a radical turning point in the course of the Yemeni war. The flow of weapons and other foreign aid allowed Ansar Allah to firmly seize the operational initiative and win a series of landmark victories, while the Saudi coalition has not been able to achieve even small successes at the front for the past two years. By the end of November 2020, Houthi troops reached the approaches to Marib, where an attack on Sana’a was planned in June. There is a high probability that even before the end of 2020, the rebels will be able to take Marib, which may entail a significant destruction of the original plans of the Saudi coalition to resolve the Yemeni issue by force. In addition, the protracted Yemeni war continues to drain Saudi Arabia, whose budget has recently been bursting at the seams.

At the same time, unique opportunities are being created for Iran to deliver direct attacks by the hands of the Houthis on the territory of Saudi Arabia in response to the hybrid actions of the United States, Israel and the kingdom against Iranian forces in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Britain’s spy system منظومة بريطانيا للتجسس

Britain’s spy system

Ibrahim Al-Amin

See the source image

Monday, December 14, 2020

The British ambassador to Lebanon left for good, and a successor was appointed. It was said that the reasons are personal and family, and in this speech, there is a lot of accuracy. But other official and informal staff with the British embassy in Beirut also left without noise, but not for personal or family reasons. As for those who remained, he was advised to be very careful, act on the basis that he was under surveillance, and to work to convince his family members of the futility of living in a country that was coming to a collapse.

However, not all informal liaison and work offices have been closed. To date, Badaro Street, for example, is still teeming with “foreign youth” who care about the Lebanese and Syrian people. They are working according to the principle of cash payments.


The British with experience in ancient colonialism also became experienced in the services of neo-colonialism. In Iraq, they laughed at the Americans for how they manage things in chaos, and in Syria they succeeded in convincing the Americans to leave some tasks for them, as is now the case in the Gulf states and in Yemen in particular.


After months of widespread frustration among the “cadres” of October 17 protests, the British motivated some activists, presenting many business projects focused on corruption, uncovering the hidden of the ruling political class, and identifying the source of the real danger to Lebanon’s position and role.

Unfortunately, they assume that there is no need to make much effort in other circles, where Her Majesty’s government has relations dating back to tens or even hundreds of years, as isthe case with the Druze reference and with the club that took root with Rafik Hariri within Sunna sect

The British know very well what has been happening in Lebanon for at least 18 months. A few weeks ago, the most prominent British government ministers explained the situation in Lebanon in front of Lebanese and Arab figures from our country, meeting them on the sidelines of a private meeting in the British capital.

If the general collapse is the only way to achieve this goal, it will be difficult for the Lebanese to anticipate any kind of support in the near term…

In the meantime, all those who accept to join the world of NGOs, the most attractive title of the new spies of the West deployed in many places and sectors, must work hard, and most of them call for revolution in the name of freedom, sovereignty and independence…

Britain has been and continues to be a bastion of colonial thought, whether it does so with its own hands and by its own decision, or as an adviser to the executioner of the new world.


Her Majesty… Everyone has strong eyes, ears and hearts whenever it is needed!

Subscribe to “News” on YouTube  here

From the file:    «London Lex»: How do we make the revolution of Lebanon?

منظومة بريطانيا للتجسس

ابراهيم الأمين 

See the source image

الإثنين 14 كانون الأول 2020

غادر السفير البريطاني في لبنان نهائياً، وتم تعيين خلف له. قيل إن الاسباب شخصية وعائلية، وفي هذا الكلام الكثير من الدقة. لكنّ آخرين من العاملين بصورة رسمية وغير رسمية مع السفارة البريطانية في بيروت غادروا ايضاً من دون ضجيج، لكن ليس لأسباب شخصية ولا عائلية. أما من ظل منهم، فقد جاءته النصيحة بأن يكون شديد الحذر، ويتصرف على أساس أنه تحت المراقبة، وأن يعمل على إقناع افراد عائلته بعدم جدوى الاقامة في بلد مقبل على الانهيار.

لكنّ مكاتب الاتصال والعمل غير الرسمية لم تقفل كلها. الى الآن، لا يزال شارع بدارو، مثلاً، يعجّ بـ«الشباب الاجنبي» الذي يهتم لأمر الشعبين اللبناني والسوري. هؤلاء، يعملون وفق مبدأ الدفع نقداً. لا حوالات ولا إيصالات ولا حتى تسجيلات. فقط هناك اتفاق على عمل يتم بين المشغّل وشباب لبناني يبحث عن عمل، وكل ما يعرفه أنه يقوم بأعمال الترجمة أو البحث أو كتابة عن أمور عادية يعرفها كل أبناء الحي. لكن مستلم المادة، ليس فقيراً وساذجاً. جمع كل هذه الداتا يجري في سياق خطة أوسع، هدفها معركة اتجاهات الرأي العام لدى الاوساط الشبابية اللبنانية.

البريطانيون أصحاب الخبرة في الاستعمار القديم باتوا اصحاب خبرة ايضاً في خدمات الاستعمار الجديد. في العراق كانوا يضحكون على الاميركيين كيف يديرون الامور بفوضى، وفي سوريا نجحوا في إقناع الاميركيين بترك بعض المهام لهم، كما هي الحال الآن في دول خليجية وفي اليمن على وجه الخصوص. عندنا، يتعرف البريطانيون من جديد على طواقم شبابية تهوى الغرب وأسلوب حياته. وبعض هؤلاء يتحمسون للعمل علناً مع أي عاصمة غربية. لكنّ البريطانيين، الذين سبق أن جرّبوا احتراق الجواسيس بعد كل انهيار، لا يريدون المغامرة. هم يفضّلون إدارة الامور بهدوء، وبصمت، وبعيداً عن أي جلبة.

بعد أشهر من انتشار الإحباط بين «كوادر» 17 تشرين، عمد البريطانيون الى تحفيز بعض الناشطين، عرضوا مشاريع عمل كثيرة تركز على الفساد وكشف المستور عن الطبقة السياسية الحاكمة، وتحديد مصدر الخطر الحقيقي على موقع لبنان ودوره. لا يحتاج البريطانيون الى شروحات كثيرة، لكنهم في بعض الحالات يغضبون، وعندما يلحّون على إنجاز أمر معين، هم يحددون العنوان فوراً: المطلوب التدخل لتحقيق انزياح في تموضع الشباب بين قواعد التيار الوطني الحر عند المسيحيين والقواعد «المتعلمة» المؤيدة لحزب الله عند الشيعة. وهم يفترضون – بكل أسف – أنه لا داعي لبذل جهد كبير في الاوساط الاخرى، حيث تربط حكومة صاحبة الجلالة بأقطاب الطوائف علاقات تعود الى عشرات بل مئات السنين، كما هي الحال مع المرجعية الدرزية ومع النادي الذي ترسخ مع رفيق الحريري عند السنّة.

البريطانيون يعرفون جيداً ما يحصل في لبنان منذ 18 شهراً على الاقل. لهم إصبعهم في كثير من الامور، وهم لا يتحدثون بجزم عن استراتيجية واضحة وحاسمة. وقبل اسابيع، تولى أبرز وزراء الحكومة البريطانية شرح الموقف من الوضع في لبنان امام شخصيات لبنانية وعربية من بلادنا، التقاهم على هامش اجتماع خاص في العاصمة البريطانية. كان شديد الوضوح في الحديث عن تضارب في الافكار لدى الغرب حيال ما يجب القيام به في لبنان. لكنه شدد على وجود خيار قوي، يقول بأن هناك من يعتقد أن لبنان يصعب إصلاحه مع هذه الطبقة الحاكمة، وأنه يمكن توفر فرصة كبيرة في حال أطيحت. واذا كان الانهيار العام هو الوسيلة الوحيدة لتحقيق هذا الهدف، فسيكون من الصعب على اللبنانيين توقع أي نوع من انواع الدعم في المدى القريب… و في هذه الاثناء، يجب العمل بقوة على كل من يقبل الانضمام الى عالم الـ«ان جي أوز»، العنوان الأكثر جذباً لجواسيس الغرب الجدد المنتشرين في أماكن وقطاعات كثيرة، وجلّهم يدعو الى الثورة باسم الحرية والسيادة والاستقلال…

بريطانيا كانت ولا تزال معقل الفكر الاستعماري، سواء فعلت ذلك بيدها وبقرارها، أو كمستشارة عند جلاد العالم الجديد. وكل كلام عن ديموقراطية وحرية وغير ذلك، يمكن التعرف عليه، في الغرفة الضيقة، حيث تتم عملية الاغتيال البطيئة لأحد أبطال التحرير، المناضل المعتقل جوليان أسانج.
صاحبة الجلالة… للجميع أعين وآذان وقلوب قوية متى احتاج الأمر!

 اشترك في «الأخبار» على يوتيوب هنا

من ملف : «لندن ليكس»: كيف نصنع ثورة لبنان؟

مقالات متعلقة

The Interpretation of (Left) Dreams

 BY GILAD ATZMON

left dream1_edited-1.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

“Why do we dream? Freud’s answer is deceptively simple: the ultimate function of the dream is to enable the dreamer to stay asleep.” Slavoj Zizek (2006)

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’ The Left’s view can be summed up as the belief that social justice is the primary requirement for improving the world, and that this better future entails the pursuit of equality in various forms. The Left ideologist believes that it is both ethical and moral to attempt to approach equality in terms of civil rights and material wealth.

But if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

Left ideology, accordingly, is shaped like a ‘dream.’ Aiming for what ‘ought to be’ rather than ‘what is’ induces a level of utopian illusory detachment and depicts a phantasmal egalitarian world often removed from our abusive, oppressive and doomed reality. In this phantasmic future, people will just drift away from greed and gluttony, they will work less and learn to share, even to share that which they may not possess to start with.

This imaginary ‘dream’ helps explain why the (Western) Left’s ideology rarely appealed to the struggling classes; the masses, consumed by the pursuit of bread and butter, were hardly going to be interested in utopian ‘dreams’ or futuristic social experiments. Bitten by the daily struggle and chased by existence, working people have never really subscribed to ‘the revolution,’ usually because they were just too busy working. This perhaps explains why so often it was the middle-class and bourgeois agitators who became revolutionary icons. It was they who had access to that little bit extra to fund their revolutionary adventures.

The ‘Left dream’ is certainly appealing, perhaps a bit too appealing. Social justice, equality and even revolution may really be nothing but the addictive rush of effecting change and this is perhaps why hard-core Leftist agitators often find it impossible to wake from their social fantasy of transformation. They simply refuse to admit that reality has slipped from their grasp, preferring to remain in their cozy phantasmal and delusional universe, shielded by ghetto walls built from archaic terminology and political correctness.

In fact, the more appealing and convincing the revolutionary fantasy is, the less its supporters are willing to be awaken by reality. This blindness helps explain why the Western ideological and political Left has failed on so many fronts: it was daydreaming when the service economy was introduced, and it did not awaken when production and manufacturing were eviscerated. It yawned when it should have combatted corporate culture, big money and its worship, and it dozed when higher education became a luxury. The Left was certainly snoring noisily when, one after the other, its institutions were conquered by ‘New Left’ Identitarian politics.

It is most important to point at the contemporary American so-called ‘Left’ that was deeply asleep when the American working classes drifted away to the Republican party. The American Left was so deeply consumed by its ‘revolutionary fantasy’ that it didn’t notice the embarrassing fact that an abrasive multi-billionaire real estate tycoon morphed into a populist revolutionary icon for hard-working people. The American Left was so thrilled by its self-worship that it pretended not to see that its entire operation was practically sustained by Wall Street tycoons and globalists of the worst type. The American Left has become a controlled opposition apparatus. It practically went to bed with the bitterest enemies of peace and justice let alone anything that resembles ‘social justice’ and human harmony.

In one of his most insightful moments, Slavoj Zizek delved into a comparison between Freud and Lacan’s perception of the dream: “Why do we dream?” Zizek asked. “Freud’s answer is deceptively simple: the ultimate function of the dream is to enable the dreamer to stay asleep.”

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds. It represses the external disturbance (whether it is depression, anxiety, noise or even an immediate threat) by incorporating it into the dream. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud tells a story of a father whose young son has just died. The father falls asleep and dreams that the child is standing by his bed in flames, whispering the horrifying reproach: ‘Father, can’t you see I’m burning?’ Soon afterwards, the father wakes to discover that a fallen candle has set fire to his dead son’s shroud. The father had smelled the smoke while asleep and incorporated the image of his burning son into his dream to prolong his sleep. Zizek wonders: did the father wake up because the external stimulus became too strong to be contained within the dream-scenario? Or was it the obverse, that the father constructed the dream in order to prolong his sleep, but what he encountered in the dream was even more unbearable than external reality, so that he woke up to escape it?

In the ‘Left Dream,’ the cosmopolitan revolution occurs by itself, as its conditions are ‘determined’ by an inevitable mass consciousness shift. In the ‘Left dream’ the revolution is inevitable so to say. In the ‘Left’s nightmare,’ however, reality proves the complete opposite; the condition for the revolution are ripe on the verge of ultimate but then, pretty much out of the blue, the same script keep repeating itself, a ‘Hitler’ figure appears ‘out of nowhere’ and steers the masses away from the ‘revolution’ to the ‘flag.’ But one thing is clear. In the Left Dream there is no escape route to reality. Unlike the father who awakes devastated by the image of his son being burned, there is no Left dream where the struggling masses can have their say. In the American Left Dream, for instance, there is no room for ‘White uneducated males’ who pop out of the blue and ask: what about us? Why have you forsaken us? In the American Left Dream these kinds of ‘white’ people are called ‘Trumpsters,’ ‘Deplorables,’ White Supremacists,’ white nationalists, and so forth. In the Contemporary American Left dream there is no path back to reality. Those few Leftists who are awaken by any sort of reality check are effectively pushed out, left with no other option but flipping (political) sides. This may explain why demographic studies reveal that people are most often born Leftists and die Conservatives. Maturity, so it seems, involves a growing acceptance of ‘realistic pessimism.’ People tend to wake up, but the dream doesn’t.

One may wonder: where was the German Left when Hitler’s popularity increased amongst Germany’s Working class at a speed that puts Covid-19 to shame? Where was the British Left when Margaret Thatcher, who destroyed many of Britain’s industries and undermined the unions, became so popular amongst British Working people for making it possible for them to own their homes? Where was the British Left when Corbyn and Labour’s popularity minced into dust? It is also fascinating to look at the Israeli Left, as Israel was formed around the idea of Labour Zionism. The Israeli Labour party that dominated Israeli politics until 1977 literally vanished as its ‘dream’ of a Hebraic proletarian metamorphosis couldn’t sustain itself. Due to the fact that Labour Zionism was shaped and operated in a dream mode, it could never adopt to a political reality that was molded by its own dream.

The Left is often too blind to the political and social conditions in which it operates. It never detects the growing wave of resentment it brings upon itself because operating in a dream mode inflicts a severe form of detachment. As Freud realised, the dream is there to sustain the slumber. It ignores political opposition by reducing it into an outer ‘noise.’ It either sets regions of blind spots (political correctness) or alternatively defines growing regions of ‘political outcasts’ (Trumpsters, Fascists, Racists, Deplorables, White supremacists etc.)

In November 2016 Hillary Clinton was in a state of a total shock when she woke up to learn that Donald Trump won the election. In her dream Hillary already won the election, the act of voting was just a formal procedure. Four years later, Biden, the DNC and pretty much the entire Mainstream media followed the exact same pollsters who were totally off-mark in 2016. They anticipated a ‘landslide victory.’ The fact that Donald Trump was meeting so many supporters in his open rallies must have been realised within the context of the ‘Left Dream’ as noisy disturbances. When Michael Moore warned the American Left that the GOP and Trump could make it again, not one in the American progressive universe cared to address his concerns. When people are asleep you are expected to walk on your tiptoes.

I assume that the contemporary American Left’s wet Dream is easy to describe: You go to sleep with Donald Trump in the White House, you wake up and he is gone. This simple dream describes exactly what happened in the early morning of the 4th of November. America went to sleep accepting that Trump, against all odds, did it again. In the wee small hours bookies all over the world put their money on his success by a rate as high as 7 to 1. In the morning suddenly the situation flipped: Trump was on his way out. On the face of it the American Left dream has materialised.

America is obviously divided in the middle. Those who favour Biden insist that he won the election. Those who support Trump are convinced that something unusually dishonest happened during that night and in the days to follow.

I do not have the means or the intention to tell or even try to determine who won the election but it is clear that the DNC, Biden, Harris and the entire American mainstream media do not let the tsunami of mistrust interfere with their ‘materialised dream.’ Biden doesn’t seem too concerned by the fact that America currently looks like a banana republic. Like in a banana republic, Americans do not trust their political system nor do they trust their institutions. People who live in banana republics learn quickly to expect the unexpectable to the point that the unexpectable is becomes the new normal. Biden doesn’t let reality interfere with the dream. As ‘president-elect’ he doesn’t waste time, he works with his transition team, he keeps the fantasy afloat. America is on the verge of a civil war but even that doesn’t bother the ‘president-elect’ and his transition team. In the progressive dream, vowing to ‘unite the nation’ is way more forceful that the reality of a sharp divide.

Back in 2006, Zizek provided a Lacanian insight into the reality that we currently see in the USA. “Reality,” Zizek wrote, “is for those who cannot sustain the dream.” It is always the hard-working people struggling for bread and butter who can’t sustain the fantasy of social change. It is always the working classes that push for concretization. They want America to be great again (Trump), they want Great Britain to be as ‘Great’ as implied by its name (Brexit), they want France to be French (Yellow Vests). Before it is too late, those who watched the so-called ‘Trumpsters’ yesterday in Washington DC should accept that the patriotic reality embodied by the flag must at least be as meaningful as the Identitarian ‘dream’ of ‘others united.’

Source: https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-interpretation-of-left-dreams/

Donate

Expert explains Yemen’s global strategic value & why US/Saudis want it

Source

Description:

An expert on Yemen, Hassan Shaaban, explains the global strategic importance of Yemen and its Bab al-Mandeb waterway, and thus underlines the motives of the American-Saudi military campaign in the impoverished country.

Source: Al-Manar TV via Kalam Siyasi (YouTube Channel)

Date: Oct 25, 2020

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JtTiaZ73oqU?feature=oembed

Transcript:

Hassan Shaaban, Expert in Yemeni Affairs:

Ever since the bourgeoisie – which originated in Europe right after the fall of the feudal system – decided to colonize the (rest of the) world; extract its wealth; gain control over its (natural) resources; and turn its people into consuming animals; ever since that moment, the Western political psyche, which believes in power-based realism, has come to target every country that stands in its way, and every country that has any degree of influence.

Yemen is situated here, (next to) the Bab al-Mandeb (Strait). (This Strait) is located in a (strategically) vital region. 60% of Europe’s energy supply and one eighth of the global economy flows through (it). Millions of barrels of oil pass through (Bab al-Mandeb) every day.

You are talking about a country that has a grip over (the movement of trade) anywhere in the world, in any region of the world. (For that same reason), the British dug the Suez Canal to form a (direct shipping) route to India and Asia.

Well, Bab al-Mandab is naturally created by God. Britain paid a fortune to build the Suez Canal, and Egypt sacrificed the lives of thousands of its people who died during its construction. (Thus, imagine) how much (the West) is willing to sacrifice to (gain control over) Bab al-Mandeb?

Which (countries) are located near the Bab al-Mandab (Strait). What countries border this (connecting) canal and this line that links Bab al-Mandab to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea?

(First, there is) Saudi Arabia, the Arab Zionist entity that mirrors the Israeli Zionist entity and has a significant influence (in the region).

Host:

We will talk about the benefits that Saudi Arabia (would gain from controlling the Strait)…

Shaaban:

(Second), there is Egypt, historically the oldest and most powerful Arab state. Third, we have Sudan, the richest (in natural resources) and the largest country at some point in history.

Host:

The country that was split, they managed to partition it…

Shaaban:

And here (pointing to the location on the map) are Eritrea, Ethiopia – which used to border the Red Sea – Somalia and Djibouti..

Well, what is there in the Red Sea? Go back to what (Israeli) Zionists have written about the significance of this Sea. Did you know – I am  sure you do – that Eilat (a port city), known as “Umm Al-Rashrash” (in Arabic), is Israel’s only maritime outlet towards Asia? Linking (Israel) to the Red Sea – or as some Israeli strategists call it, “Lake David”, this outlet is vital for the survival of the (Israeli) Zionist entity.

———

Look at the incredible location of Yemen. The Yemeni coastline stretches for around 1,900 miles, equivalent to 2,400 or 2,500 km along the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea.  

Host:

That is 2,500 km along the two seas.

Shaaban:

Yes, (equivalent to) around 1,900 miles.

Did you know that successive Yemeni governments did not form a naval military power despite the important and strategic location of Yemen along the sea?

Host:

What is the reason for that? Why?

Shaaban:

The reason goes back to Yemeni political decision-making…

 Host:

(Decision-making) controlled by the US?…

Shaaban:

(Nods his head) (The absence of a naval force) was an order. When the martyr Yemeni president Ibrahim al-Hamdi came to power in the 1970s, when he started planning and called a conference to discuss the security of the Red Sea, he was assassinated, he was murdered. And the party responsible for the assassination was Saudi Arabia.

The vital location (of Yemen) is significantly important for the colonially-created Gulf entities , and for the (Israeli) Zionist entity, which represents probably the West’s largest global investment. (Yemen) overlooks all of Asia all the way to China, and has this huge region (east Africa) within its reach. (In other words), (Yemen) is (in the region) where Asia and Africa meet. This is where Yemen is located.


Host
:

Do you mean that having control over the Bab al-Mandeb (Strait) is equivalent to having control over global trade (between) continents?

Shaaban:

Yes. It (also) means having control over the strait classified as the third most important worldwide.

Host:

What does the control over the Bab al-Mandeb Strait mean?

Shaaban:

As you have just mentioned in the report, having control over the Bab al-Mandab (Strait) means having control over the movement of the world’s economy, global oil transportation, and the route connecting Europe to India and China, and thereby to Asia. Even if we turn the opposite way, and focus on China and the port that it is trying to build in Pakistan in order to extend its maritime reach, (we will see that…)

Host:

(…that the route) will pass through Yemen and the (Bab al-Mandeb) Strait.

Shaaban:

It is a must. (China’s) “Belt and Road Initiative” passes through (the Strait).

Host:

China’s strategic project will only be completed if…

Shaaban:

(If) it goes through Bab al-Mandeb. Let me tell you something about Bab al-Mandeb. If you zoom in on it, you will see an island that divides it into…

Host:

(into) two channels…

Shaaban:

Exactly. The first (channel) is next to Djibouti, and is not suitable for deep-sea shipping. The other (channel) is about 12 km (in width) on the Yemeni (side). Yes, it is subject to international law, but it falls under Yemen’s sovereignty. (Not to mention that) it is the only channel (among the two) that is navigable. Therefore, what you called the bottleneck is the Yemeni (side of) Bab al-Mandeb.

Host:

The Yemeni (Bab al-Mandeb) not the Djiboutian for example..

Shaaban:

Exactly. Accordingly, if you also take into account (the importance of) Socotra and the group of islands. For example, look, roughly in this region, above Bab al-Mandab, there are groups of islands such as Zuqar, Perim and Hanish. In fact, the Hanish Islands have always been under dispute between Eritrea and Yemen. A confrontation (between the two countries) took place in the nineties because of this issue. The mountain in Zuqar Island rises to 600 meters, or approximately 624 meters. Do you know what this means?

Host:

It means that it overlooks the whole region..

Shaaban:

What if I told you that there are Israeli military bases in Eritrea? There are corvettes and naval vessels navigating in the Red Sea. They are docked at Eretria. What if I told you that there is a French military base in Djibouti, and an American military presence as well?

Host:

There is also a Chinese military base in Djibouti.

Shaaban:

I am going get to that (topic). Djibouti was established only to be rented like hotel. The US, Israel and other countries maintain (military) presences in Somalia. If you go up towards Sudan, you would notice that the Turks recently entered the sea area. The whole world is fighting over this area.

Then in 2014, the Yemenis, despite all that we have talked about, started a revolution, i.e. the revolution of September 21, 2014 under the leadership of Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din al-Houthi. Sayyed Abdulmalik, who forms (a strong) leadership, project and vision said: “Yemen will not be divided into regions”. Notice that after they (Saudi-led coalition) divided Mahra, Socotra, Abyan – I think – and Hadramout, (Ansarullah) brought them together as one region. In other words, Saudi Arabia wanted (to gain control over) some regions. However, this great Yemeni leader (Sayyed Abdulmalik) came and said: “we will not allow this”.  Saudi Arabia said…

Host:

The question we are seeking to answer is: “why did they wage a war (on Yemen)? Why did they start an aggression against Yemen?”

Shaaban:

Yes. Saudi Arabia said that it wants to (build) an oil pipeline that will pass through here. Furthermore, a Saudi magazine once wrote about (building) a marine channel that will also pass through Hadramout, thus connecting Saudi Arabia to the Arabian Sea. Here is the Indian Ocean and here is the Arabian Sea. What is the idea? Saudi Arabia, and others parties hiding behind it, want to avoid (the Strait of) Hormuz (controlled by) Iran, the great power that they cannot clash with. The solution for (Saudi Arabia) is to flee to the South (to Bab al-Mandeb).

Therefore, unlike what the (Saudis) say, their war in Yemen is not a war against Iran, it is a war to get away from Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz. But unfortunately for them, there is a large force in Yemen called “Ansarullah”, a force with national vision unlike what they try to portray. (Ansarullah forces) have a Yemeni national project. They want to preserve the unity (in Yemen), the unity that the Emirates wants to destroy by dividing (the country). We can get into more details (about that) later. The Yemeni revolution led by Sayyed Abdulmalik gained influence and control over Ma’rib and the channels that we talked about, and thereby saying that “Yemen will not be any country’s backyard”. Yemen is not a territory that anyone can manipulate. It is an independent, sovereign state that has policies, that has the right to be present in this strategic region of the world.

How did (Saudi Arabia and its allies) perceive this issue? They believe that these Yemeni forces (Ansarullah), in one way or another, serve the interest of the Islamic Republic (of Iran) because they do not support America, they do not support Israel, nor are they tools like the (leaders who governed) before the (2014) revolution, before Sayyed Abdulmalik, before Sayyed Hussein’s project, the Quranic project based on the Quranic path.  They are not tools. They are not venal. They do not accept bribes as did many politicians who historically controlled Yemen’s political decision-making.

They will not be assassinated like they assassinated the martyr (President Ibrahim) al-Hamdi, even if they assassinated Sayyed Hussein (al-Houthi). The assassin of Sayyed Hussein got the order directly from these countries (Saudi Arabia and its allies), (who ordered the killing) of Sayyed Hussein because he chanted the slogan: “Death to America, Death to Israel”. What does “Death to America, Death to Israel “mean? (It means) death to the interests of those (who govern) this region of the world, death to their entities in this region of the world, death to their policy in this region of the world, and life to Yemen.

When Sayyed (Hussein al-Houthi) came up with the strategic slogan of Ansarullah, i.e. “Victory to Islam”, (he meant) the Islam that represents the identity and the independence of a nation. Yes, in this case, Yemen with its (strategic) geographical location and its rich history turned into a strategic political project. (Therefore,) it was necessary for (Saudi Arabia and its allies) to wage a war, to start this aggression. It was necessary for them to do what they are currently doing.

Host:

It was also a must for Ansarullah to fight them.

Shaaban:

(They fought) in defense (against the Saudi aggression)

Host:

We will show the outcomes of the (Saudi) aggression (on Yemen) in a quick report, then we will continue…

—-

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

PREVIOUS

Arab analysts predict ‘action-packed’ & ‘dangerous’ end to Trump presidency

The Karabakh war is over. The crisis is not. What comes next?

Source

The Karabakh war is over.  The crisis is not.  What comes next?

First, I want to begin this analysis by posting the full translation of an article posted yesterday by the Russian webzine Vzgliad.  I materially don’t have the time to make my own translation, so what I will post is just a minimally retouched machine translation, I apologize for this.

original Russian text: https://vz.ru/world/2020/11/12/1070326.html

Five main mysteries of the second Karabakh war

by Evgenii Krutikov

The end of the second Karabakh war gave rise to many riddles and conspiracy theories. Indeed, some of the circumstances of this conflict are extremely mysterious, or at least paradoxical from the point of view of conventional military logic. Apparently, the Armenian leadership itself provoked a political catastrophe.

Let’s list which riddles raise the biggest questions and provoke the appearance of “conspiracy theories” in Armenia (and not only).

1. Why was not a full-fledged mobilization carried out in Armenia, and full-fledged military units were not deployed to the conflict area?

Despite loud Patriotic statements, there was no real mobilization in Armenia. The permanent number of the Armenian army – about 50 thousand people-was increased only by volunteers. While the conditions of the fighting required to increase the number of defenders of Karabakh to 80-100 thousand people at least. At the same time, very soon the lack of specialists (for example, artillery calculations and MLRS) began to affect the front in the Armenian army. There was no one to fill in the losses.

It is inexplicable why Yerevan did not conduct a real mobilization. The Armenian leadership simply avoids talking about this topic. If there was a mobilization plan, no one tried to implement it. As a result, there was no rotation of military personnel on the first line, in some areas people were sitting in the trenches for a month without a shift. 18-20-year-olds were on the front line, and at some point the untrained youth made up up to 80% of the personnel. The Karabakh detachments, made up of professionals and veterans, suffered heavy losses in the first week, which there was no one and nothing to make up for, since there were simply no reinforcements.

Groups of volunteers in Armenia were formed along party lines. The scandal was caused by an attempt to form a separate detachment of the prosperous Armenia party named after the oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan, who is now Pashinyan’s main opponent. The two have been in conflict for more than a decade. Now the Prime Minister openly calls Tsarukyan “the culprit of the fall of Shusha”, since his phantom squad allegedly did not have enough at the front to win. These conflicts could have been avoided simply by having a mobilization plan and a desire to implement it.

The main military forces of Armenia did not move to Karabakh. But in order to relieve the tension created by Azerbaijani UAVs, it was enough to simply relocate early detection locators to Goris. And one army corps would have been enough to cover the southern direction even at the stage when the Azerbaijanis were languidly marking time in front of the first line of defense. Proper supplies were not organized, and after a month of fighting, this led to a shortage of missiles for the MLRS and shells for the barrel artillery. And without artillery support, the infantry can only die heroically.

All this borders on sabotage, although it may be partly explained by local sloppiness and unwillingness to weaken the defense of Armenia proper. The latter is a very controversial position and it looks like the Armenian leadership has simply abandoned Karabakh to its fate.

2. Why did the Northern front behave so strangely?

In the North and North-East of Karabakh, in the area of the Kyrgyz Republic, there was a large fortified area of the Armenian defense, which included very combat-ready units. And they really put up a serious resistance to the advancing Azerbaijani group and in the end actually stopped it (losing, however, several positions and significant villages).

But after that, the elite Yehnikner battalion suddenly retreated, although its commander managed to get the “Hero of Artsakh”. Moreover, since October 3, neither “Ehnikner” nor any military unit at all was removed from the Northern front and was not transferred to help the burning South. At the same time, the Azerbaijanis only once decided to simulate an offensive in the North again, clearly for distracting purposes. There was no need to keep up to 20 thousand people in the North.

The Karabakh Leadership informally explains all this with a lack of resources. But now the” lack of resources ” in Karabakh explains everything.

3. Why did the southern front collapse?

The fact that the main blow is being inflicted by the Azerbaijanis in the South, in the steppe zone, was visible to the naked eye already in the first few days of the war. Nevertheless, resources – human and technical-began to arrive on the southern front when this front was no longer in fact there. The steppe zone was lost, and the front stopped along the edge of the mountains from Krasny Bazar to Martuni. As a result, up to 30 thousand people defending Karabakh have accumulated in this area. They were threatened with complete encirclement and death, which was one of the reasons for signing the ceasefire agreement. At the same time, before the occupation of Jabrayil, the Azerbaijani troops advanced very slowly, disrupting their own pace of attack. This gave the Armenians a small, but still a head start in order to understand the situation and engage in relocation.

After the occupation of Jabrayil, the front began to fall apart, and the advance of the Azerbaijanis sharply accelerated. The moment was lost.

For some reason, the Armenian command has not made a decision about the transfer of additional resources to the southern front? This is another mystery.

4. Why did the Armenian side limit itself to passive defense?

During the entire war, the Armenian side only twice attempted a counterattack against the advanced units of the Azerbaijanis who were running far ahead. Both times this happened opposite Lachin in a narrow gorge, with the extreme vulnerability of the Azerbaijani battalion-tactical group (BTG). Once even successfully. But these operations were simply reduced to a massive attack by the MLRS on enemy clusters. Operations to block the gorge and encircle the enemy in other sections of the southern front were suggested. But not a single Armenian unit moved. An amazing war in which one of the parties did not conduct a single offensive operation on the ground, limited only and exclusively to passive defense.

A successful counteroffensive in the gorge before Lachin would have crushed so many Azerbaijani forces in the cauldron that they would not have thought about attacking Shusha for at least a couple of weeks. And later it was quite possible to destroy the Azerbaijani infantry in the ravine Averatec. But it took a lot of effort.

There is no explanation for why the Armenian side did not even try to counterattack or use other methods to use the operational advantage that it repeatedly had. The lack of resources can only be referred to endlessly in the last stages of warfare, but passive defense has been a constant tactic since the beginning of the war.

5. Why was Shusha handed over?

The most sensitive and incomprehensible question. The first assault on the city by Azerbaijani infantry was extremely unsuccessful. Then the second column of Azerbaijanis was covered by the MLRS strike. With some effort and assistance from Armenia, the Azerbaijani group that broke through to the city could be destroyed. However, suddenly a decision is made to leave the city without a fight and not to attempt to liberate it with the favorable operational and tactical situation remaining for another day.

It is believed that the decision to leave Shusha was made by NKR President Araik Harutyunyan and Secretary of the NKR security Council General Samvel Babayan, a local legend. Now, in protest against the signing of the armistice, he left his post and renounced the title of Hero of Artsakh. The Armenian YouTube channel “Lurer” (“news”) published a recording of Babayan and Harutyunyan’s talks, from which it follows that General Babayan really considered the possibility of recapturing Shusha even after its abandonment,but the further prospect of resistance was very gloomy.

Fragment of a conversation (not translated verbatim): “Let’s calculate the (combat) task. Twenty, thirty volleys of the “Smerch” MLRS blanket Shushi. We kill everyone there. Taking the city back. What’s next? The state of the army and the civilian population does not allow for war. We gave battle, took Shushi, then what? ( … ) we Can’t fight with the NATO army, with mercenaries, fully equipped… I tried to organize an operation with three battalions yesterday. We only have four howitzers. If we are not provided with artillery, how will you ensure the offensive or cut off his (the enemy’s) tails? (…) Today we must finally negotiate with Russia that we are handing over these territories and leaving them. Or they help us. Imagine that we have two Grads for the entire army today, a dozen howitzers, for which we have no shells.”

To sum up, General Babayan believed that resistance was useless at this stage of the fighting. We must refuse to continue the war and either surrender, or ask for ten days for an organized exit of the local population and the 30 thousand soldiers of the southern front who are completely surrounded. As an alternative, it was proposed to urgently ask Russia for direct military assistance in the form of PMCs or volunteers, equipment and ammunition.

But all this does not negate the question of why a small group of Azerbaijani infantrymen without heavy equipment, who broke through to Shusha, was not destroyed before the Armenian army began to panic. The retention of Shusha created a completely different architecture of political agreements for the NKR and Armenia. If this is a political decision, then who actually made it?

* * *

This list of mysteries of the second Karabakh war is far from complete. In addition, the Armenian leadership has accumulated many similar questions about preparing for war. This war was lost before it even started, precisely because of the inaction or strange action of Yerevan.

The proceedings will continue for a long time. The situation in the region has changed so radically in these forty days that all the old approaches to resolving the conflict and its military component have died out of themselves. And the new reality will require new solutions for Armenia. And it is not yet clear who will take these decisions.  


Personally, I do not see any dark conspiracy here.  What I do see is a truly PHENOMENAL level of incompetence from the Sorosite leadership of Armenia.  Simply put, the vast majority of the truly competent Armenian leaders, civilian and military, were either jailed or, at the very least fired en masse.  There is a very simple explanation for this too.

From Pashinian’s (and, from now on, when I say “Pashinian” I mean the usual suspects: MI6, CIA, Soros, etc.) point of view, the “old guard” of Soviet trained leaders had to be removed because they could not be trusted.  But what this imbecile, and his masters, did not realize is that the “Soviet educated” leadership was far more competent than the “woke and transgender friendly democrats” which took power in 2018.

[Sidebar: Did you notice something quite interesting? The “old” and “Soviet trained” military forces in general, and their commanders especially, are systematically much better trained that those forces trained by NATO or “the most powerful military in the history of the galaxy”.  Why is it that the democratic, progressive and advanced forces like, say, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Georgians, the Yemeni or all the other many “good terrorists” always perform miserably in combat?  I will let you ponder this question :-)]

By the way, Pashinian, who is hiding in a bunker or inside the US embassy compound in Erevan, is still at it!  Yesterday he called Macron, who is under pressure from the huge Armenian immigration in France to do something, to ask for his help and Macron promised to help find a solution acceptable to all sides, implying two things:

  1. That the “Russian solution” (in reality Armenian the acceptance by Erevan of the Azeri terms) is not acceptable and that
  2. That France has some kind of magic wand that Macron can wave a few times and forever turn the entire area of operation into a peaceful land of milk and honey were everybody would hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and “feel the love” forever and ever.

As usually, the Brits are much more devious, secretive and smart: the head of MI6 is in Turkey to meet with “senior officials”.  Yeah, right!  By the way, this guy, Richard Moore, is a former UK Ambassador to Turkey.  To get a sense of what this is all about, all you need to do is look into any history book to see that the Brits have always used the Ottomans as canon-fodder against Russia.

As for the US Americans, they are basically paralyzed by the chaos in their own country.  But either one of the dummies running might try something desperate to “show the flag” and prove that he is “tough on Russia”.

So what’s next?

For years now I have been saying the following about the Western political leaders: they are unable to build anything worthwhile, but they are most definitely able to spread chaos, anarchy, violence, insurgencies, etc.  So the first thing you can be sure of is that the AngloZionists will do everything in their power to egg on the Armenians, the Azeris and even the Turks to reject an outcome which the West sees as a triumph for Russia (and for Putin personally!).

Then there is Erdogan, who is furious at the Russian categorical rejection of his demands to be part of the peacekeeping force.  All the Russians have agreed to is to create a special “monitoring post” staffed by Russians and Turks, far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh region where a joint team of observers would “monitor” the situation by looking at computers.  There will be no Turkish soldiers in the peacekeeping area (see Russian military map above).

As a fallback option, the Turks are also demanding they they be allowed to fly their own drones over the area of operations.  In response, the Armenian side has declared that Armenia and Russia have jointly declared a no-fly zone over the entire area.  As far as I know, the Russians have not confirmed that “yet”, but you can be pretty sure that they will immediately shoot down any unauthorized aircraft approaching their positions.

To get a sense of how the Russians are acting, you need to know two things:

First, the Russian liberal media is already complaining that Russia has included “undeclared” weapons systems in its peacekeeping force (MLRS and APCs).  This is hardly surprising considering the very high probability of provocations (by both sides).  Besides, the vague language of the agreement allows Russian to bring in “specialized vehicles” which could mean anything and everything.

Furthermore, I am pretty confident that the Russian 102nd Military Base is a Russian military base in Gyumri will receive reinforcements and will serve as the logistical support hub for the Russian peacekeeping force.

Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov and Vladimir Putin

Second, it is worth looking at the career of the man who will be commanding the Russian peacekeeping force, Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov.  You can check his biography here and here.  I will simply summarize this man’s career by saying two words: Donbass, Syria.

He is not some kind of pretend-general whose qualifications are mainly as organizers and politicians.  This guy is a real combat general, the kind who personally comes under fire because he makes sure to regularly be with his men on the frontlines and who has experience dealing with the Axis of Kindness and its “good terrorists” (whether local or special ops).

The West perfectly understands this and is absolutely furious about being “cheated” by Russia again!

First, the Russians stopped the bloody war in Syria, now they stopped the war in Azerbaijan.  For the Empire, this means the total loss of the axis of instability which they lovingly tried to create in the Caucasus and the Middle-East to eventually hit the Russian underbelly.  They failed.  They won’t forgive this.

Second, most Armenians worldwide are absolutely horrified at the outcome of this war, and they have my sincere sympathy.  The problem here is that many of them blame Russia, rather than their own leaders.  Furthermore, there are many truly rabid nationalists amongst the anti-Pashinian forces in Armenia.  Right now, Pashinian is hiding somewhere and he still refuses to resign (backed to the hilt by the West, of course).  But this will change, I can’t imagine anybody staying in power after such a catastrophe.

However, Pashinian gone does not at all mean that pro-Russian, or even Russia-neutral, forces will succeed him.  In fact, as in most chaotic situations, it is the extremists who are most likely to seize power.  And God only knows what they might do next!

In a paradoxical way, the best outcome for Russia would be to have Pashinian stay in power just a little longer, just long enough to create a fait accompli on the ground which no nutcases could meaningfully overturn.

Right now, two things are happening: Armenian refugees are clogging the only roads which will allow them to flee to Armenia.  These poor people will never trust the word of an Azeri or, even less so, a Turk, could say (and who could blame them?!).

This is truly a heart-breaking tragedy which could have been completely avoided had Pashinian and his Sorosites done a few, really basic, things (preparing for war and settling for an imperfect peace agreement for starters).

Armenian-NK forces are also withdrawing, and it’s not like they have much of an option here: escaping with their lives is really all these poor soldiers could hope for (and by no fault of theirs, I would add!).

The next couple of weeks will be crucial and I can only hope that the Russians are fully ready to deal with any contingency, including a complete Armenian turnaround if Pashinian is overthrown very soon.

It is now a race against the clock: on one side, the West wants Russia out at quite literally *ANY* costs in Azeri and Armenian lives while the Russians are scrambling to make the agreement a well-defended reality on the ground.  In the Ukraine they say that “the West is willing to fight Russia down the the very last Ukrainian“.  I hope and pray that this does not happen in the Caucasus.

The Saker

PS: on the really sad and tragic side, I personally can’t imagine any refugees willing to come back, in spite of all the pious promises made by all sides.  Look, let’s be honest here: during the first NK war, which the Armenians won, the Azeris were brutally expelled, there were several instances of mass murder of Azeri civilians by the triumphant Armenian forces.  This time around, the Azeris made all sorts of promises, but if I was an Armenian I would not trust a single word the Turks or Azeris say (heck, these two still deny that there was any genocide of Armenians by the Ottomans!).  Keep in mind that in this short war, about 4000 civilians have died; that is the official figure, the real one is probably even worse!

Maybe in a decade or two, and only if Russia remains the peacekeeper of the Caucases, will some refugees, or their sons and daughters return to their historical homelands.  But right now, the Russian peacekeeping force will probably end up maintaining the peace in a very empty Nagorno-Karabakh.  This is a revolting outcome which, I will repeat this, could have been avoided by Pashinian and his gang of Sorosites.  May that be a lesson to anybody else taking these evil clowns seriously!

Palestine and the Other Philby

By Jeremy Salt

Source

Philby of Arabia 518d9

This reading of history is substantially but not wholly based on Elizabeth Monroe’s book Philby of Arabia (London: Quartet Books, 1973). With the exception of Kim Philby’s references to his wife, his father, and his once best friend, Nicholas Elliott, all the quoted material is taken from the book.

The young generation may never have heard of Kim Philby, so a few words by way of introduction are necessary. Philby was at Cambridge University in 1934 when he was recruited as a Soviet agent. He went to Spain to report the civil war before being recruited by M16 in 1940, rising to senior positions, including control of the Soviet desk, even as he handed Britain’s secrets to his Soviet controller. By 1949 he was head of intelligence at the British embassy in Washington, which, through his close friendship with James Jesus Angleton, the head of the CIA’s special operations section, gave him insights into American secrets as well, and perhaps the secrets themselves.

In 1951, Guy Burgess and Donald McLean, both friends of Philby and his colleagues in the British intelligence community in the US, and both Soviet agents, defected. Philby also came under suspicion and was compelled to resign, before being cleared of any wrongdoing by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1955.

In 1956 Philby moved to Beirut as a correspondent for the London Observer. A Soviet defector having pointed the finger at him again, MI6 sent another old friend and colleague, Nicholas Elliott, to Lebanon in 1963 to question him. They had one meeting, during which Philby verbally confessed but refused to put anything down in writing. Before their planned second meeting, Philby made his way at night to the docks where a Soviet freighter took him to Odessa. Honored by the Soviet government, he lived in Moscow until his death in 1988.

Philby is ranked as the most successful of all cold war agents. The information he passed on led to the death of hundreds of people, including armed men sent into Albania to overthrow the Stalinist government of Enver Hoxha and a defector who tipped off the British consulate in Istanbul. Soviet agents got to him and once back in Moscow, he and his family disappeared forever.

Philby expressed no regret for any of this, on the basis that these victims of the spy game knew, like him, what they were letting themselves in for. He even provided information to the Soviet Union on his wife Aileen (“bourgeois and philistine”), his old friend Nicholas Elliott (“ugly and rather pig-like”) and even on his father, Harold St John Philby, which is where the central point of this article begins.

If Philby made his way into the intelligence community and then journalism with such ease it was because he was ‘one of us,’ the privileged elite which ran Britain. His father was also ‘one of us,’ even if generally out of tune with what his government was doing. Whereas Kim concealed who he really was, Harold spoke openly, critically and often angrily, irrespective of the effect on his listeners. He would never have been a good choice for the intelligence community, but he did serve the government after 1918, holding down numerous positions in Iraq, Transjordan (as it then was) and Saudi Arabia.

If he irritated senior figures wherever he went he was always respected for his knowledge, his explorations and his close and useful personal connection with the Saudi monarch, Abd al Aziz ibn Saud.

Even when serving the government Philby used his spare time to explore Arabia. He crossed the fearsome desert expanse known as the ‘empty quarter (ruba’ al khali), he looked for (and found) evidence of ancient cities and culture. He also amassed collections of rare specimens of butterflies and birdlife, many ending up in British museums.

Privately, Philby ran two families, one in England and one in Riyadh. At the age of 60, having become a Muslim, he accepted the ‘gift’ of a girl of 16 from the Saudi king and went on to have several children with her. He was still running his other home and wife, Dora, in England,   seeing her only when he visited or she visited him. As illegal and as abhorrent as it would be in England for a man of Philby’s age to take as a wife a girl of 16, it was probably unremarkable in Saudi culture.

His Cambridge background, his butterfly and bird collecting and his life-long love of cricket established Philby as a conventional upper-middle-class Englishman but there was this other maverick side, often intemperate and deeply critical of imperialism, in particular Britain’s policies in the Middle East, establishing him as another kind of conventional Englishman, strongly individual and eccentric by the standards of others. The two sides lived somewhat awkwardly with each other throughout his life.

Philby was immediately hostile to the post-1918 mandates system, which he regarded as a “fig leaf” for French and British imperialism. In Iraq and Syria, it was clear to him that both Britain and France had betrayed their promises of national governments to be established on the basis of the free choice of the indigenous people. The exception in this stream of thinking was Palestine.

Charged with going to the Hijaz to smooth over differences with the Sharif Husain of Mecca – now self-proclaimed king of the Hijaz as well – over British policy on Palestine and the rising power of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, Philby got somewhere on the first issue, Husain seeming to understand “that the British wished to settle some Jews in Palestine,” but he was immovable on the second. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was preparing to pounce on the Hijaz, driving Husain and his family into exile, and forbade Philby from making a side trip to the Saudi kingdom in Najd (central Arabia) before returning to Cairo.

On Palestine, Philby was inconsistent. If the Iraqi and Syrian people were to be given the right to their own government through the free choice of their people, why not the people of Palestine? From official quarters the answer was clear if usually muffled: because we intend to give Palestine to zionist settlers and until they reach a majority, independence has to be withheld.

In Britain Philby sat on a League of Nations Union committee alongside academics, politicians, and zionists charged with coming up with a model mandate for Palestine. Although the British government and the Zionist movement knew what they wanted in Palestine, a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinians (as Balfour had made clear in public statements),   the Zionist intention from the start to get rid of the Palestinians through ‘transfer’ was concealed by the zionists and bypassed as a subject for polite conversation by the British government.

Far from speaking against the zionist colonization of Palestine, Philby and T.E. Lawrence, forever linked in British minds with the struggle for Arab independence, believed, as Elizabeth Monroe has written, that “an injection of Jewish brains and money into the Arab world would improve Arab chances of successful independence.”

Thus swayed by zionist thinking, Philby was supported by Chaim Weizmann, whom he later took tea with in London, when he applied for a position in Palestine, only to be turned down because of advice to the High Commissioner that he was argumentative and would prove to be a nuisance.

Philby’s views on Palestine were nothing if not inconsistent with each other and with his general support for Arab independence. He regarded the Balfour Declaration as “an act of betrayal for whose parallel, the shekels and the kiss and all the rest of it, we have to go back to the Garden of Gethsemane.”

At the same time, he thought British governments should reaffirm the declaration because Jews had a “perfect right” to settle in Palestine on “a basis of equality with the existing population.”   Transjordan, he thought, would only be too happy to accept Jewish investment and immigration into a territory that should never have been separated in the first place. He never budged from his belief that the Jews had it in them to benefit the Arab world as long as – the critical qualification – they dropped any wish to dominate. Of course, Weizmann and others in the Zionist leadership gave endless assurances that this was the last thing they had in mind.

Philby frequently tried to bring Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud around to his way of thinking on Palestine. The king shared the general Arab view that to take land from the indigenous population of Palestine and give it to Zionist settlers was unjust. He opposed partition when it was proposed in 1937 (the Peel plan) and said that even if all other Arab states recognized a Jewish state he never would, a statement of contemporary relevance given the recognition of Israel by the UAE and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s scarcely concealed dealings with Israel.

In 1939 Philby showed how poorly he understood Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on the question of Palestine. During a meeting in London with Professor Lewis Namier, Jewish, and a zionist, he said the king would come on board with British policies in the Middle East (as against the growing influence of Germany and Italy) if he were given money and weapons.

Namier suggested a meeting with Weizmann to see what might be arranged. When Namier, Philby and Moshe Shertok (later Sharett), political secretary of the Jewish Agency, met Weizmann on October 8, Philby proposed that if the zionists could come up with a 20 million pound ‘subsidy’ for the king, they could be given western Palestine, with the exception of the ‘Vatican City’ in east Jerusalem. At the same time, they should commit themselves to help secure Arab unity and independence (outside Palestine of course), which in Philby’s view was only attainable under Abdul Aziz’s leadership.

According to Weizmann, the conversation included references to “considerable transfers of the Arab population”: hedging his position, he said there was not much the zionists could do to advance the situation politically, apart from which they were bound by their “loyalties” to Britain and France.

Forever chasing money, Philby no doubt saw some coming to him if this scheme could be pulled off. He presented it to Abdul Aziz on January 8, 1940, when, in his own understanding, the king did not turn it down, saying only that he would give an answer at the appropriate time. In truth, the king was probably taken by surprise and did not like what he was hearing. Philby misconstrued silence as consent, wrote to his wife about the king agreeing and was sufficiently indiscreet to mention it to Syrians in the king’s entourage.

In February 1940, Weizmann contacted him from Washington to see how things we going. “Slowly,” Philby had to respond, while remaining confident that the king was “quite favorably inclined towards the proposal and is just thinking about how it can be worked out without producing howls of anger among certain Arab elements.” While Weizmann worked on the Americans, the plan would have to wait for the king to work out how to overcome Arab objections.

In 1940 and 1942 Weizmann saw President Roosevelt and, in the second of these years, Churchill as well. In Weizmann’s account, Churchill talked of wanting to make Abdul Aziz the “boss of bosses” in the Middle East “provided he settles with you.” This was an opportunity for Weizmann to try and dovetail the Zionist-Philby plan with what the Americans and British were both thinking.

In August 1942, Roosevelt sent Colonel Harold B. Hoskins to the Middle East as the head of a mission to engender goodwill. At a time the Middle East was unanimously hostile to the zionist presence in Palestine, not much goodwill was going to be generated by the plan which came out of the Hoskins mission, which was to admit 500,000 Jews into Palestine and set up a binational state as part of a Levant Federation that would include all of historic Syria.

In 1943 Roosevelt sent a message to the Saudi king that both “Arabs and Jews” would be consulted over the future of Palestine.   In August Hoskins was sent to Saudi Arabia to see if the king would agree to meet Weizmann. When he made the suggestion the king blew up. In Elizabeth Monroe’s summary of the occasion, “he hated Weizmann personally because the latter had impugned his character by offering a bribe of 20 million pounds if he would accept Arab settlers from Palestine.”

Furthermore, the king had been told the payment would be guaranteed by Roosevelt, which was certainly due to Weizmann’s campaigning. The king was so incensed at the offer and the involvement of the US president “in such a shameful manner” that he never brought it up again in his discussions with Hoskins.   Hoskins went to London, where he “disabused” Weizmann and Namier of the idea that Philby’s views represented the Saudi king’s. Philby persisted in believing that if Hoskins had approached the king with a firm offer on behalf of the US and British governments it would have been accepted. Of course, with oil being drilled in commercial quantities since 1938, the money on offer would soon be eclipsed by the vast sums flowing into the kingdom.

With partition passed by the UN General Assembly and the situation in Palestine worsening, the king could not bring himself to listen to the radio. Tears would come to his eyes. He agreed to meet members of an Anglo-American Commission bent on linking “Jewish victims of Nazi persecution everywhere” to the zionist colonization of Palestine. The king distrusted Philby when it came to Palestine so he was not at the meeting, at which Abdul Aziz told his visitors that “if the immigration of Jews continues and their possessions in Palestine increase, they will become one of the most powerful governments, equipped with arms and wealth and everything else. They will be against the Arabs and at the same time [will be] difficult for them.”

With the British leaving Palestine, he said a continued British mandate would be better than a triumph for the Jews or an enlarged kingdom for King Abdullah of Jordan, then conspiring with the Zionist leadership.

With the Arab states under foreign domination, and the Arab League newly formed and ineffectual, Philby came to admire “the courage and fanaticism of the Jews as much as I deplore the futility of the Arabs.” It was no wonder that many in Saudi court circles regarded him as a zionist spy, a British intelligence agent or a communist. As Philby’s son Kim was a committed communist and at the time was handing secrets from inside MI6 to the Soviet Union, there was certainly irony in their suspicions.

Philby needed to be in Saudi Arabia for further desert explorations and to make money from his various commercial ventures. He must have known that if he pushed the king any further on the question of Palestine he would he putting his own interests at risk. He continued to argue for the right of the Arabs to run their own affairs, all the Arabs, that is, except the Palestinians.

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press). He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

If the Burevestnik Cruise Missile Is a Joke, Then Why Are Anglo-Saxons Worrying? (Ruslan Ostashko)

If the Burevestnik Cruise Missile Is a Joke, Then Why Are Anglo-Saxons Worrying? (Ruslan Ostashko)

September 30, 2020

Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.

The phrase “filmed at Mosfilm” has become a meme after the Euro-Ukies and the Russian ‘creatives’ squealed for a long time in unison about Putin’s cartoons in the form of drawings of the Crimean Bridge and the new weapon systems. While they have had to grudgingly admit the existence of the bridge, the reality of such missiles as the ‘Burevestnik’ is more than they can reconcile with. Great Britain however obviously believes that Putin’s cartoons are real.

The topic of the new Russian weapons which our president regularly puts on the agenda strongly irritates the ‘fighters with the regime’. It is not difficult to see the reason for their irritation. According to the liberal symbol of faith, the West has overtaken Russia in technological advancement by some 50 or 100 years, i.e. forever and ever. And admitting that this symbol of faith is nothing but an agitation leaflet is physically impossible for these ‘creatives’, because this threatens their already shaking mental integrity. In the meantime, in the West itself from where this symbol of faith was palmed off to the Russian liberals, they have rid themselves of such prejudices.

Source – Sunday Telegraph: “The Chief of the British military intelligence, Jim Hockenhull warned that the Russian global range missile with a nuclear power source ‘Burevestnik’ is capable of staying in the atmosphere for a practically unlimited period of time,” wrote the Sunday Telegraph.

“Moscow is trialing a subsonic cruise missile with a nuclear powered engine, which has a global range and will allow a strike from unexpected directions,” Jim Hockenhull stated at a media briefing at the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance HQ. The ‘Five Eyes’ alliance unites the intelligence services of purely Anglo-Saxon countries – USA, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the head state of four of which, by the way, is that very Buckingham old lady who, they say, only reigns but never rules. Well, as you can see this gentlemen’s club regards the Russian missile as quite real. Even if to take into account the inflation of the image of the Evil Ivan which allows to carve up the defense budgets, the Anglo-Saxon countries’ apprehensions cannot be dismissed as far-fetched.

Source – RIA Novosti: “According to the publication, Hockenhull stressed that thanks to its rocket engine the Russian missile has ‘practically unlimited standby time.’ It also said that the chief of the British military intelligence noted the Russia’s considerable investments in development of her submarine fleet and deep water capabilities.” “’They have studied the West thoroughly in order to understand where their investments would cause more problems for us,’ Hockenhull believes.”

This must be a typo in RIA Novosti’s publication. Instead of “thanks to the rocket engine” it should say “thanks to the nuclear powered engine.” But the readers surely understood what was meant. And the trolling on the subject immediately began in the social networks: “How come? It’s supposed to be just cartoons.” This way it’s impossible to go without the cunning-plan style explanations like “the British elite secretly controls Putin by having his daughters as hostages.” Because otherwise it is unclear why the ‘Five Eyes’ alliance member CIA’s prognosis, which the liberals danced around so joyfully back in 2004, still hasn’t come true.

Source – CIA 2004 prognosis: “A dark future awaits Russia, if we believe the authors of the ‘Global Tendencies 2015’ report. It will remain the zone of instability. Even in the best case scenario with a yearly growth of 5%, in 11 years the Russian economic figures will still be less than one fifth of those in the United States. In the social sphere Russia will face reduction of its population which at the same time will become increasingly less healthy and will not be able to be the engine for economic advancement. The main thing however is that Russia will partition into 6-8 separate states. The chief reason for this partition is the economic isolation and the secretive nature of the current state. The process of the power centralization will lead to the governing system’s malfunction. The result will be the ‘territorial fragmentation.’”

It must be said that the CIA analysts have been putting forward such assumptions since 2000, when this was said about Russia: “Right up till 2015, Moscow will increasingly face problems with tying up ambitions for the global leadership and its catastrophically reduced resources. The most probable outcome is that Russia will remain internally weak and included in the global political process mostly thanks to the permanent seat at the UN Security Council. As for the Russian analysts, they see the beginning of partitioning of Russia in strengthening of the local leaders who seize full financial control over entire regions, like, for instance, Abramovich did with Chukotka.”

It turned out rather embarrassing indeed. Instead of partitioning us, our country gained Sevastopol and Crimea. Among the prospects are Donbass’ return to the native harbor and some sort of renewed form of the union state with Belorussia. The local leaders whom the bright faced analysts set their hopes upon either fled, like Abramovich or did time, like Khodarkovsky, or are still doing time, like Gaiser. As for the global leadership ambitions, then, if we believe the American Democrats, not only we have the ‘Burevestnik’ but we [Russians] elected Trump for president on top of that. How does the liberal symbol of faith survives all of this is a mystery which light is yet to be shed upon by the British scientists. Perhaps you have any ideas?

The mortal battle of the Perfidious Albion

The mortal battle of the Perfidious Albion

September 28, 2020

By Katerina for the Saker Blog

In this my third and hopefully last essay I will try to analyse an ingrained and totally unresolvable animosity between England and Russia. Here what riles me a lot is when some people would describe England as “Britain”. I have lived in both Scotland and England and I have also spent some wonderful holidays on the Welsh coast and I can say this, with the most assured certainty, that those three countries are totally different from each other, and the Scottish and the Welsh despising of English is unanimous, as both had suffered greatly from their terrible English neighbour. Those two, at various times, had a bitter experience of this so-called “Imperial Power”, which has been the cornerstone of this English “supremacy”.

Let’s look at this English “supremacy” a little bit closer. England has evolved as a combination of invaders to that part of the island, mostly a hybrid of Franco – German abnormality, combined with some “Norman” extracts. Aggressiveness was the unifying factor among them. And this inbred aggressiveness has also been a defining factor in their attitude towards the rest of the world. The drive to subjugate, to control, to enslave has been the hallmark of this English “race”. They have a lot to answer for, together with the Roman Catholic Church.

Unfortunately the brainwashing of their own English population has been extremely successful – in England, the notions of England as “the green and pleasant land”, the “land of hope and glory”, the one “ruling the waves” and having had the vast empire on which the “sun never sets” is still totally pervasive among most of them. They think it’s a great legacy.

They didn’t see the victims.

What we now have is a country that has lost its imperial status but still trying to hang on to the previous “glory”, this time by using their “dumb giant”, aka USA, thru which they are still trying to impose this control and subjugation on the rest of the world – in cahoots with the Jewish banking cabal.

The City of London is the headquarters. This banking cabal, starting with Rothschilds, at the time of the Napoleonic wars, through lies and machinations, had pretty much taken control of the Bank of England and also, unfortunately for the world, discovered that they had an absolute affinity with the English in their identical and all-consuming need for domination and control of others.

Their method was to use money. Even better, other people ‘s money, and the Talmudic Zionistic mentality could never stay away from possessing such money and using it for their pervasive manipulation and control.

It was a union made in HELL.

So, now we have this Anglo-Zionist entity that has managed to gain control of the world banking, and of course, the political arena, the military industrial complex, pharmaceutical and food industry, mass media, entertainment, etc, AND, importantly, education. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world does not seem to realise as to what extent they are being manipulated and CONTROLLED. Some are waking up though.

The fight I am describing is the fight of this Anglo-Zionist entity with Russia, and it is a MORTAL fight. I will also add that, not least of all, Russian true Orthodox religion is unacceptable to some, who are hiding in the background for now – where they prefer to be.

Over the centuries Russia and England had a remarkably fraught relationship – based on mutual dislike and distrust. One can wonder as to why – there are no shared borders, nothing to trigger the usual conflicts and yet, this deep-seated, centuries old animosity continues unabated. Why?

Well, this conflict is going MUCH deeper – it is a civilisational and a conceptual conflict – of totally opposite mentality, which is the essential and conscious self-awareness of being and how that affects others – whether one lives in harmony with the others or whether one wants to have power over them.

England has always seen itself as a dominant force – divide and conquer type of power. Russia has always strived for unity and peace, and not to be controlled by any external forces.

Russia became an Empire largely by absorbing various “peoples” living on that vast land and giving them a “Russian Home”, where they were being protected and their cultures preserved. England, on the other hand was building a different kind of Empire – a colonial one, with slavery, oppression, subjugation and control. Two radically different examples of “world order”.

(Here is a thought – perhaps if they had the rich landmass that Russia has, then that driven and destructive colonial mindset might not have unleashed itself on the world? Just a thought, although I don’t believe that would have been very likely, also we cannot afford to be charitable here).

England wanted global domination and Russia stood in its way. Most wars that Russia had to fight had an English “hand” behind them. It supported Sweden in its war with Russia, it supported Turkey in numerous Russian – Ottoman wars, it supported Japan in their war on Russia and the list can go on and on. The Crimean war was one of the exceptions where they actually fronted up for the fight. The very good rhetorical question that nobody seems to be asking – what on earth they were doing there in the first place?!

The most devastating of those wars, the WWII, had England’s full support and encouragement for Nazi Germany to attack Russia. That way they were hoping to get rid of BOTH their enemies at once. Thus is the mentality of this English “race” – a pathological hatred towards anyone who threatens their craven need for dominance. Hidden by a false smile.

What also greatly contributes to this mortal conflict, is the ingrained Zionistic hatred towards Russia. The reason for it I believe is well known – centuries ago most of them were expelled from Russia, from an enclave known as “Khazaria” (roughly above and between Black and Caspian seas), as they were making life a living hell for their Russian neighbours.

(I would say that nothing has changed, just ask the Palestinians!)

Why do you think that in the past, most countries in Europe had these talmudic Jews living in “ghettos”, shunned, segregated, and not allowed to interact with the rest of the population? What does that tell you? I would say that speaks of experience.

The moment they were stupidly released from these ghettos, of course by the liberal minded of those days, they had immediately infiltrated (or better say, infested) the hubs of power and control, wherever they could. Especially when it came to money and banking – they knew very well that by controlling money they can control everything else, including political power. People in USA and Europe are now paying a very heavy price for that liberal stupidity of the past, as most of their politicians are bought and paid for. It’s called lobbying and political donations – those who are paying for these politician’s election campaigns, get to dictate the favourable to themselves policies and while this system exists, the political structure, inevitably, will be always corrupt.

Russia has paid its heavy price as well, the so-called “Bolshevik Revolution” was carried out mainly by this vile spawn. Stalin, by the way, despite being a Georgian, was a Russian patriot and was hell-bent on getting rid of them. (For those who do not understand why Russians still feel great affection for Stalin, this should explain it).

Here I would like to clarify something. There are lots of Jews in Russia who are very intelligent, highly educated, good, hard-working, “normal” people, who love the country they live in. They also passionately defend it from the attacks by the West. Russia is their home. My good friend from school days was beautiful, intelligent and talented girl from a Jewish family; lots of people living in Israel speak Russian as their first language and a lot of them do not condone or support Israel’s policies, but that’s not the Jews we are talking about here.

In Russia there are two very distinctive nouns for people from that bloodline – “evrey” as in jew and “zhid” as in zionist, and that distinction there is for a very good reason! We are talking here about Zhids, unfortunately there are also quite a few of them in Israel and USA as well as everywhere else – the spawns of what I call a degenerate, defective gene, sadly, from that same gene pool. The ones who would sell their own mother if they can make a profit. Psychopaths, in other words.

This, the “khazarian” zionistic, psychopathic hatred towards Russia is centuries old and the desire for revenge is all consuming, but at the same time, of course, also to have a chance to pillage the country’s resources. Most of these so-called “Russian oligarchs” were such Zhids, who looted as much as they could during the terrible 90s and then ran to, where else… England!

To this Anglo-Zionist entity, throughout the ages, Russia has always been and remains enemy number one. That deeply ingrained animosity and hatred is impossible to eradicate. Unless the entire English “establishment”, including Monarchy is removed, and replaced with some forward-thinking people, and the Zhids owned banking is thoroughly cleansed, regulated and controlled, this state of affairs will not be resolved peacefully. This time this evil twin’s “HAND” will be behind the USA, which they totally own and control and which they would try to use. Add to that the greed of wanting to possess what Russia has and you will get a very clear picture as to why we have this aggressive, war-mongering posture towards Russia. They desperately want to destroy it as a Nation, over the centuries they have tried quite a few times and they will not stop until they destroy the whole world with it… They are Psychopaths.

And they need to be stopped.

I cannot think of any British Prime Minister (most were English born), who even attempted to improve this situation in any way. At least in the USA they had few Presidents (very few) who clearly understood how crucially important it was to have Russia as an ally, not as an enemy.

That understanding didn’t end well for them. The spider has indeed woven a very large web.

Although a much better comparison would be to that of a malignant cancer that has spread through the body and is killing the living tissue. This Anglo-Zionist cancer could destroy this humanity – while the humanity continues to be wilfully ignorant, insouciant, lazy and willing to be deceived. While we are being distracted with various side-shows, such as US elections, for example, the Psychopaths ugly hands are on the steering wheel, and one can only guess as to where they are driving this thing.

The only force that can stop them is Russia and China but that does not mean that others in this world should be sitting on their hands and watching – we are talking about our survival as a human family and the future for our children. Everyone who can think of that, needs to fight this evil in every way one can. As I have said before, we need to stop fighting among ourselves and turn our full attention towards one COMMON ENEMY.

The constant demonization of Russia and now China is all pervasive as Global MSM channels of information are totally OWNED by this Cabal, all of them. The populations of USA, Europe, Australia and everywhere else that has those MSM channels gets this brainwashing propaganda INCESSANTLY, every day! And lots of people believe it. Here again is that willingness to be deceived and that laziness that stops them from finding out the actual facts, the TRUTH. Listening to some of these people can make one feel absolute despair. For Christ sake, USE you God given brains!

Russia and China, two powerful countries each in its own right, are now combining their efforts to basically, save our world. We must do all we can to help – they are trying to save this world for us, after all.

The very first thing that needed to be done was to cut off the blood supply that feeds that cancer, the US dollar, and slowly but surely this is happening and they are beginning to feel it, hence the hysterical aggression unleashed on China and more demented provocations against Russia, including an attempt at “colour revolution” in Belarus and another “Novichok” garbage, now with this twit Navalny. Honestly, they cannot even come up with something original anymore!

I believe we have some German readers on this blog, here are few words for them:

Germany is in a dire need to get out of this sick and abusive dependence and the sooner, the better. This situation with NorthStream2 will be Germany’s biggest test. The Anglo-Zionist Cabal is arrogantly showing to you, Germans, how much you are under THEIR control and not just to you, to the rest of the world. Are you going to assert yourself and fight for your vital national interests or are you going to fold?

They have waited until the gas pipe was almost completed, with 8 BILLIONS already invested into it, and with only a hundred or so km left to go, they pulled the plug. Do you Germans realise what you are dealing with here and what that means? They are saying to you loud and clear– see what we can do, and if in the future, you dare to sign any agreements that we don’t approve, this is the price you are going to pay. You are vassals and you will do only what your Master tells you!

How does that feel?

Germany needs that gas pipe much more than Russia, as your future economy would absolutely depend on it. This Cabal has already done quite a few nasty things to your car industry, which no doubt, affected your economy, are you going to roll over here as well? Hopefully not. You Germans must still have some dignity left and can find the strength to stand up to this bullying and abuse, especially from THIS vile lot.

You are better than that.

As for the others, I like the very apt description of them having “tied their boats to the Titanic” and we all know what happened to that “unsinkable” ship. Are you hearing this, Australians? And Japanese and South Koreans and the rest of you vassals, including EU Europe? The time is now, to untie these ropes and move away – fast!

The “Perfect Storm” is coming.

Apparently, the Atomic Clock is now at only 100 seconds to midnight.

God help us.

Sources: https://www.stalkerzone.org?s=England+Russia+enemy

Leaked Docs Expose Massive Syria Propaganda Operation Waged by Western Govt Contractors and Media

Source

Leaked Docs Expose Massive Syria Propaganda Operation Waged by Western Govt  Contractors and Media — Strategic Culture

September 26, 2020

Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders, planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network.

Ben NORTON

Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria’s political and armed opposition.

Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it.

The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle, carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.

US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels, from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile. These firms also organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the UK’s Channel 4.

More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media activists.

Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient TV.

These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a network of more than 1,600 international journalists and “influencers,” and used them to push pro-opposition talking points.

Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to “re-brand” Syria’s Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by “softening its image.” ARK boasted that it provided opposition propaganda that “aired almost every day on” major Arabic-language TV networks.

Virtually every major Western corporate media outlet was influenced by the UK government-funded disinformation campaign exposed in the trove of leaked documents, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, CNN to The Guardian, the BBC to Buzzfeed.

The files confirm reporting by journalists including The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal on the role of ARK, the US-UK government contractor, in popularizing the White Helmets in Western media. ARK ran the social media accounts of the White Helmets, and helped turn the Western-funded group into a key propaganda weapon of the Syrian opposition.

The leaked documents consist mainly of material produced under the auspices of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All of the firms named in the files were contracted by the British government, but many also were running “multi-donor projects” that received funding from the governments of the United States and other Western European countries.

In addition to demonstrating the role these Western intelligence cutouts played in shaping media coverage, the documents shine light on the British government program to train and arm rebel groups in Syria.

Other materials show how London and Western governments worked together to build a new police force in opposition-controlled areas.

Many of these Western-backed opposition groups in Syria were extremist Salafi-jihadists. Some of the UK government contractors whose activities are exposed in these leaked documents were in effect supporting Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and its fanatical offshoots.

The documents were obtained by a group calling itself Anonymous, and were published under a series of files entitled, “Op. HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] Trojan Horse: From Integrity Initiative To Covert Ops Around The Globe. Part 1: Taming Syria.” The unidentified leakers said they aim to “expose criminal activity of the UK’s FCO and secret services,” stating, “We declare war on the British neocolonialism!”

The Grayzone was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents. However, the contents tracked closely with reporting on Western destabilization and propaganda operations in Syria by this outlet and many others.

UK Foreign Office and military wage media war on Syria

A leaked UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office report from 2014 reveals a joint operation with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development to support “strategic communications, research, monitoring and evaluation and operational support to Syrian opposition entities.”

The UK FOC stated clearly that this campaign consisted of “creating network linkages between political movements and media outlets,” by the “building of local independent media platforms.”

The British government planned “Mentoring, training and coaching for enhanced delivery of media services, including digital and social media.”

Its goal was “to provide PR and media handling trainers, as well as technical staff, such as cameramen, webmasters and interpreters,” along with the “production of speeches, press releases and other media communications.”

An additional 2017 government document explains clearly how Britain funded the “selection, training, support and communications mentoring of Syrian activists who share the UK’s vision for a future Syria… and who will abide by a set of values that are consistent with UK policy.”

This initiative entailed British government funding “to support Syrian grassroots media activism within both the civilian and armed opposition spheres,” and was targeted at Syrians living in both “extremist and moderate” opposition-held territory.

In other words, the UK Foreign Office and military crafted plans to wage a comprehensive media war on Syria. To establish an infrastructure capable of managing the propaganda blitz, Britain paid a series of government contractors, including ARK, The Global Strategy Network (TGSN), Innovative Communication & Strategies (InCoStrat), and Albany.

The work of these firms overlapped, and some collaborated in their projects to cultivate the Syrian opposition.

Western government contractor ARK plays the media like the fiddle

One of the main British government contractors behind the Syria regime-change scheme was called ARK (Analysis Research Knowledge).

ARK FZC is based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. It brands itself as a humanitarian NGO, claiming it “was created in order to assist the most vulnerable,” by establishing a “social enterprise,  empowering local communities through the provision of agile and sustainable interventions to create greater stability, opportunity and hope for the future.”

In reality ARK is an intelligence cutout that functions as an arm of Western interventionism.

In a leaked document it filed with the British government, ARK said its “focus since 2012 has been delivering highly effective, politically-and conflict-sensitive Syria programming for the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the European Union.”

ARK boasted of overseeing $66 million worth of contracts to support pro-opposition efforts in Syria.

On its website, ARK lists all of these governments as clients, as well as the United Nations.

ARK contractor Syria UK US Australia Canada

In its Syria operations, ARK worked together with another UK contractor called The Global Strategy Network (TGSN), which is directed by Richard Barrett, a former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6.

ARK apparently had operatives on the ground inside Syria at the beginning of the regime-change attempt in 2011, reporting to the UK FCO that “ARK staff are in regular contact with activists and civil society actors whom they initially met during the outbreak of protests in spring 2011.”

The UK contractor boasted an “extensive network of civil society and community actors that ARK has helped through a dedicated capacity building centre ARK established in Gaziantep,” a city in southern Turkey that has been a base of intelligence operations against the Syrian government.

ARK played a central role in developing the foundations of the Syrian political opposition’s narrative. In one leaked document, the firm took credit for the “development of a core Syrian opposition narrative,” which was apparently crafted during a series of workshops with opposition leaders sponsored by the US and UK governments.

ARK trained all levels of the Syrian opposition in communications, from “citizen journalism workshops with Syrian media activists, to working with senior members of the National Coalition to develop a core communications narrative.”

The firm even oversaw the PR strategy for the Supreme Military Council (SMC), the leadership of the official armed wing of Syria’s opposition, the Free Syrian Army (FSA). ARK created a complex PR campaign to “provide a ‘re-branding’ of the SMC in order to distinguish itself from extremist armed opposition groups and to establish the image of a functioning, inclusive, disciplined and professional military body.”

ARK admitted that it sought to whitewash Syria’s armed opposition, which had been largely dominated by Salafi-jihadists, by “Softening the FSA Image.”

ARK contractor Syria soften FSA image

ARK took the lead in developing a massive network of opposition media activists in Syria, and openly took credit for inspiring protests inside the country.

In its training centers in Syria and southern Turkey, the Western government contractor reported, “More than 150 activists have been trained and equipped by ARK on topics from the basics of camera handling, lighting, and sound to producing reports, journalistic safety, online security, and ethical reporting.”

The firm flooded Syria with opposition propaganda. In just six months, ARK reported that 668,600 of its print products were distributed inside Syria, including “posters, flyers, informative booklets, activity books and other campaign-related materials.”

In one document spelling out the UK contractors’ communications operations in Syria, ARK and the British intelligence cutout TGSN boasted of overseeing the following media assets inside the country: 97 video stringers, 23 writers, 49 distributors, 23 photographers, 19 in-country trainers, eight training centers, three media offices, and 32 research officers.

ARK emphasized that it had “well-established contacts” with some of the top media outlets in the world, naming Reuters, the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, The Times, Al Jazeera, Sky News Arabic, Orient TV, and Al Arabiya.

The UK contractor added, “ARK has provided regular branded and unbranded content to key pan-Arab and Syria-focused satellite TV channels such as Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, BBC Arabic, Orient TV, Aleppo Today, Souria al-Ghadd, and Souria al-Sha’ab since 2012.”

“ARK products promoting HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) priorities by fostering attitudinal and behavioural change are broadcast almost every day on pan-Arab channels,” the firm bragged. “In 2014, 20 branded and un-branded Syria reports were produced on average by ARK each month and broadcast on major pan-Arab television channels such as Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, and Orient TV.”

“ARK has almost daily conversations with channels and weekly meetings to engage and understand editorial preferences,” the Western intelligence cutout said.

The firm also took credit for placing 10 articles per month in pan-Arab newspapers such as Al Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat.

US-UK program Basma cultivates Syrian media activists

The Syrian opposition media war was organized within the framework of a project called Basma. ARK worked with other Western government contractors through Basma in order to train Syrian opposition activists.

With funding from both the US and UK governments, Basma developed into an enormously influential platform. Its Arabic Facebook page had over 500,000 followers, and on YouTube it built up a large following as well.

Mainstream corporate media outlets misleadingly portrayed Basma as a “Syrian citizen journalism platform,” or a “civil society group working for a ‘liberatory, progressive transition to a new Syria.’” In reality it was a Western government astroturfing operation to cultivate opposition propagandists.

Nine of the 16 stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained through the US/UK government’s Basma initiative, ARK boasted in a leaked document.

In an earlier report for the UK FCO, filed just three years into its work, ARK claimed to have “trained over 1,400 beneficiaries representing over 210 beneficiary organisations in more than 130 workshops, and disbursed more than 53,000 individual pieces of equipment,” in a vast network that reached “into all of Syria’s 14 governorates,” which included both opposition- and government-held areas.

ARK UK contractor Syria media map

The Western contractor published a map highlighting its network of stringers and media activists and their relationships with the White Helmets as well as newly created police forces across opposition-controlled Syria.

ARK UK contractor Syria opposition media map

In its trainings, ARK developed opposition spokespeople, taught them how to speak with the press, and then helped arrange interviews with mainstream Arabic- and English-language media outlets.

ARK described its strategy “to identify credible, moderate civilian governance spokespeople who will be promoted as go-to interlocutors for regional and international media. They will echo key messages linked to the coordinated local campaigns across all media, with consortium platforms able to cover this messaging as well and encourage other outlets to pick it up.”

In addition to working with the international press and cultivating opposition leaders, ARK helped develop a massive opposition media super-structure.

ARK said it was a “key implementer of a multi-donor effort to develop a network of FM radio stations and community magazines inside Syria since 2012.” The contractor worked with 14 FM stations and 11 magazines inside Syria, including both Arabic- and Kurdish-language radio.

To propagate opposition broadcasts across Syria, ARK designed what it called “Radio in a Box” (RIAB) kits in 2012. The firm took credit for providing equipment to 48 transmission sites.

ARK also circulated up to 30,000 magazines per month. It reported that “ARK-supported magazines were the three most popular in Aleppo City; the most popular magazine in Homs City; and the most popular magazine in Qamishli.”

A Syrian opposition propaganda outlet directly run by ARK, called Moubader, developed a huge following on social media, including more than 200,000 likes on Facebook. ARK printed 15,000 copies per month of a “high-quality hard copy” Moubader magazine and distributed it “across opposition-held areas of Syria.”

The British contractor TGSN, which worked alongside ARK, developed its own outlet called the “Revolutionary Forces of Syria Media Office (RFS),” a leaked document shows. This confirms a 2016 report in The Grayzone by contributor Rania Khalek, who obtained emails showing how the UK government-backed RFS media office offered to pay one journalist a staggering $17,000 per month to produce propaganda for Syrian rebels.

Another leaked record shows that in just one year, in 2018 – which was apparently the final year of ARK’s Syria program – the firm billed the UK government for a staggering 2.3 million British pounds.

This enormous ARK propaganda operation was directed by Firas Budeiri, who had previously served as the Syria director for the UK-based international NGO Save the Children.

40 percent of ARK’s Syria project team were Syrian citizens, and another 25 percent were Turkish. The firm said its Syria team staff had “extensive experience managing programmes and conducting research funded by many different governmental clients in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq and other conflict-affected states.”

Western contractor ARK cultivates White Helmets “to keep Syria in the news”

The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.

The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense, known more commonly as the White Helmets.

ARK took credit for developing “an internationally-focused communications campaign designed to raise global awareness of the (White Helmets) teams and their life saving work.”

ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria Campaign, a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White Helmets in the United States.

It was apparently “following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams” that The Syria Campaign “selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news,” the firm wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office.

“With ARK’s guidance, TSC (The Syria Campaign) also attended ARK’s civil defence training sessions to create media content for its #WhiteHelmets campaign which launched in August 2014 and has since gone viral,” the Western contractor added.

In 2014, ARK produced a long-form documentary on the White Helmets, titled “Digging for Life,” which was repeatedly broadcast on Orient TV.

While it was running the White Helmets’ social media accounts, ARK bragged that it was boosting followers and views on the Facebook page for Idlib City Council.

The Syrian city of Idlib was taken over by al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which then went on to publicly execute women who were accused of adultery.

While effectively aiding these al-Qaeda-aligned extremist groups, ARK and the British intelligence cutout TGSN also signed a document with the FCO hilariously pledging to follow “UK guidance on gender sensitivity” and “ensure gender is considered in all capacity building and campaign development.”

Setting the stage for lawfare on Syria

Another leaked document shows the Western government-backed firm ARK revealing that, back in 2011, it worked with another government contractor called Tsamota to help develop the Syrian Commission for Justice and Accountability (SCJA). In 2014, SCJA changed its name to the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA).

The Grayzone exposed CIJA as a Western government-funded regime-change organization whose investigators collaborated with al-Qaeda and its extremist allies in order to wage lawfare on the Syrian government.

ARK noted that the project initially worked “with seed funding from the UK Conflict Pool to support investigative and forensic training for Syrian war crimes investigators” and has since “grown to become a major component of Syria’s transitional justice architecture.”

Since the US, European Union, and their Middle East allies lost the military phase of their war on Syria, CIJA has taken the lead in trying to prolong the regime-change campaign through lawfare.

InCoStrat creates media network, helps them interview al-Qaeda

In the leaked documents, another UK government contractor called Innovative Communications Strategies (InCoStrat) boasted of building a massive “network of over 1600 journalists and key influencers with an interest in Syria.”

InCoStrat stressed that it was “managing and delivering a multi donor project in support of UK Foreign Policy objectives” in Syria, “specifically providing strategic communication support to the moderate armed opposition.”

Other funders of InCoStrat’s work with the opposition in Syria, the firm disclosed, included the US government, the United Arab Emirates, and anti-Assad Syrian businessmen.

InCoStrat served as a liaison between its government clients and the Syrian National Coalition, the Western-backed parallel government that the opposition tried to create. InCoStrat advised senior leaders of this Syrian shadow regime, and even ran the National Coalition’s own media office from Istanbul, Turkey.

The Western contractor took credit for organizing a 2014 BBC interview with Ahmad Jarba, the then-president of the opposition National Coalition.

The firm added that “journalists have often reached out to us in search of the appropriate people for their programmes.” As an example, InCoStrat said it helped plant its own Syrian opposition activists in BBC Arabic reports. The firm then added, “Once making the initial connections we encouraged the Syrians to maintain the relationships with the journalists in the BBC instead of using ourselves as the conduit.”

Like ARK, InCoStrat worked closely with the press. The firm said it had “extensive experience in engaging Arab and international news media,” adding that it worked directly with “heads of regional news in major satellite TV networks, press bureaus and print media.”

“Key members of InCoStrat have previously worked as Middle East correspondents for some of the world’s largest news agencies including Reuters,” the Western contractor added.

Also like ARK, InCoStrat established a vast media infrastructure. The firm set up Syrian opposition media offices in Dera’a, Syria; Istanbul and Reyhanli, Turkey; and Amman, Jordan.

InCoStrat worked with 130 stringers across Syria, and said it had more than 120 reporters working inside the country, along with “an additional five official spokesmen who appear several times a week on international and regional TV.”

InCoStrat also established eight FM radio stations and six community magazines across Syria.

The firm reported that it penetrated the armed opposition by developing “strong relationships with 54 brigade commanders in Syria’s southern front,” that involved “daily, direct engagement with the commanders and their officers inside Syria,” as well as defected officers Free Syrian Army (FSA) units in government-held Damascus.

In the leaked documents, InCoStrat boasted that its reporters organized interviews with many armed opposition militias, including the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

Don’t just plants media stories; “initiate an event” to create your own scandals

In its media war on Damascus, InCoStrat pursued a two-pronged campaign that consisted of the following: “a) Guerrilla Campaign. Use the media to create the event. b) Guerrilla Tactics. Initiate an event to create the media effect.”

The intelligence cutout therefore sought to use the media as a weapon to advance tangible political demands of the Syrian opposition.

In one case, InCoStrat took credit for a successful international campaign to force the Syrian government to lift its siege of the extremist-held opposition stronghold of Homs. The Grayzone contributor Rania Khalek reported on the crisis in Homs, which was besieged by Damascus after the far-right Sunni fundamentalists that controlled it began carrying out sectarian massacres against religious minorities and kidnapping Alawite civilians.

“We connected international journalists with Syrians living in besieged Homs,” InCoStrat explained. It organized an interview between Britain’s Channel 4 and a doctor in the city, which helped raise international attention, ultimately leading to an end to the siege.

In another instance, the UK contractor said it “produced postcards, posters and reports” comparing the secular government of Bashar al-Assad to the fundamentalist Salafi-jihadists in ISIS. Then it “provided a credible, Arabic-English speaking Syrian spokesperson to engage the media.”

The campaign was very successful, according to InCoStrat: Al-Jazeera America and The National published the firm’s propaganda posters. The British contractor also organized interviews on the topic with The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, The Times, Buzzfeed, Al-Jazeera, Suriya Al-Sham, and Orient.

InCoStrat Syrian opposition media Assad ISIS

After regime change comes Nation Building Inc.

InCoStrat has apparently been involved in numerous Western-backed regime-change operations.

In one leaked document, the firm said it helped to train civil society organizations in marketing, media, and communications in Afghanistan, Honduras, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. It even trained a team of anti-Saddam Hussein journalists inside Basra, Iraq after the joint US-UK invasion.

In addition to contracting for the United Kingdom, InCoStrat disclosed that it has worked for the governments of the United States, Singapore, Latvia, Sweden, Denmark, and Libya.

After NATO destroyed the Libyan state in a regime-change war in 2011, InCoStrat was brought in in 2012 to conduct similar communications work for the Libyan National Transitional Council, the Western-backed opposition that sought to take power.

Coordinating with extremist militias, cooking news to “reinforce the core narrative”

The leaked documents shed further light on a UK government contractor called Albany.

Albany boasted that it “secured the participation of an extensive local network of over 55 stringers, reporters and videographers” to influence media narratives and advance UK foreign policy interests.

The firm helped create an influential Syrian opposition media outfit called Enab Baladi. Founded in 2011 in the anti-Assad hub of Daraya, at the beginning of the war, Enab Baladi was aggressively marketed in the Western press as a grassroots Syrian media operation.

In reality, Enab Baladi was the product of a British contractor that took responsibility for its evolution “from an amateur-run entity into one of the most prominent Syrian media organizations.”

Albany also coordinated communications between opposition media outlets and extremist Islamist opposition groups by hiring an “engagement leader (who) has deep credibility with key groups including (north) Failaq ash-Sham, Jabha Shammiyeh, Jaysh Idleb al Hur, Ahrar ash-Sham, (center) Jaysh al Islam, Failaq al Rahman, and (south) Jaysh Tahrir.” Many of these militias were linked to al-Qaeda and are now recognized by the US Department of State and European governments as official terrorist groups.

Unlike other Western government contractors active in Syria, which often tried to feign a semblance of balance, Albany made it clear that its media reporting was nothing more than propaganda.

The firm admitted that it trained Syrian media activists in a unique “newsroom process” that called to “curate” news by “collecting and organising stories and content that support and reinforce the core narrative.”

In 2014, Albany boasted of running the Syrian National Coalition’s communications team at the Geneva Peace talks.

Albany also warned that revelations of Western government funding for these opposition media organizations that were being portrayed as grassroots initiatives would discredit them.

When internal emails were leaked showing that the massive opposition media platform Basma Syria was funded by the United States and Britain, Albany wrote, “the Basma brand has been compromised following leaks about funding project aims.”

The leaks on social media “have damaged the credibility and trustworthiness of the existing branded platform,” Albany wrote. “Credibility and trust are the key currencies of the activities envisaged and for this reason we consider it essential to refresh the approach if the content to be disseminated is to have effect.” The Basma website was taken down soon after.

These files provide clear insight into how the Syrian opposition was cultivated by Western governments with imperial designs on Damascus, and was kept afloat with staggering sums of cash that flowed from the pockets of British taxpayers – often to the benefit of fanatical militiamen allied with Al Qaeda.

While Dutch prosecutors prepare war crimes charges against the Syrian government for fighting off the onslaught, the leaked files are a reminder of the leading role that Western states and their war-profiteering companies played in the carefully organized destruction of the country.

thegrayzone.comThe views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

تحالف الحرب «الإسرائيلي» من تفاصيل رؤية بيريز…

 د. ميادة ابراهيم رزوق

تأسست جامعة الدول العربية أعقاب اندلاع الحرب العالمية الثانية، وبغضّ النظر عن كونها صنيعة بريطانية وفقاً لتصريحات أنتوني ايدن وزير خارجية بريطانيا عام 1943 بأن بريطانيا لا تمانع في قيام أي اتحاد عربي بين الدول العربية، أو وفقاً لما قدمه وحيد الدالي (مدير مكتب أمين عام جامعة الدول العربية عبد الرحمن عزام) في كتابه «أسرار الجامعة العربية» بأن ذلك غير صحيح، وحقيقة الأمر أنه أصدر هذا التصريح ليطمئن العرب على مستقبلهم بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، وفي الوقت نفسه كان عبارة عن مزايدة سياسية اقتضتها ظروف الحرب بين ألمانيا وبريطانيا، وقد أعلنت الحكومة الألمانية على لسان هتلر، أنه في حالة كسب المانيا الحرب، فإنها تضمن سلامة الدول العربية، وتؤكد وتؤيد استقلالها، وتعمل على إيجاد اتحاد في ما بينها، فقد أدرك العرب بعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الثانية، أنّ الاستمرار بتكريس التجزئة، وفرض سياسة الأمر الواقع، سيجعل الشعوب العربية ترزح تحت الاحتلال الأجنبي، ويصبح الحصول على الاستقلال صعباً، لذلك بدأ التحرك والمشاورات للبحث عن صيغة مناسبة لتوحيد الجهود العربية، وقد تمّ الاتفاق على توجيه مصر الدعوة إلى العراق وشرق الأردن والسعودية وسورية ولبنان واليمن، وهي الدول التي كانت قد حصلت على استقلالها، ولو أنّ ذلك الاستقلال لم يكن كاملا، وكانت الدعوة بقصد عقد اجتماع لممثلي تلك الدول، لتبادل الرأي في موضوع الوحدة.

صادقت على هذا البروتوكول خمس دول عربية في 7 تشرين الأول عام 1944، ويعد هذا البروتوكول الأرضية التي بني عليها ميثاق إنشاء الجامعة، وفي 22 آذار عام 1945 تمّ التوقيع على الصيغة النهائية لنص الميثاق.

ولكن هل التزمت جامعة الدول العربية بقضايا العرب؟

بقيت القضية الفلسطينية حاضرة دوما على جدول أعمال معظم القمم العربية، منذ القمة العربية الأولى عام 1946 التي أكدت عروبة فلسطين، بوضعها «القلب في المجموعة العربية»، وأنّ مصيرها مرتبط بمصير دول الجامعة العربية كافةً، معتبرة أنّ الوقوف أمام خطر الصهيونية واجب على الدول العربية والشعوب الإسلامية جميعا، وظلت مؤتمرات القمة العربية تؤكد خلال العقود الفائتة مركزية هذه القضية بوصفها قضية العرب جميعا، معتبرة أن النضال من أجل استعادة الحقوق العربية في فلسطين مسؤولية قومية عامة، وعلى جميع العرب المشاركة فيها.

إلا أنه في حقيقة الأمر وبتنفيذ الأنظمة الرجعية العربية دورها في الأجندة الصهيوأميركية، لم تعد فلسطين قضية العرب المركزية، ومسؤولية قومية عامة، بل طغت عليها وخصوصاً في السنوات الأخيرة قضايا أخرى راحت تحتل موقع الأولوية، ولم يعد الخطر الصهيوني يمثل تهديداً للأمن القومي العربي بل تم حرف البوصلة نحو مزاعم (الخطر الإيراني)… وبدأت بوادر ذلك في قمة فاس العربية في المغرب عام 1982، بمبادرة الأمير فهد بن عبد العزيز التي تضمّنت اعترافاً ضمنياً بالكيان الصهيوني كدولة، ومن بعدها قمة بيروت عام 2002 التي تبنّت «مبادرة السلام العربية» التي طرحها الملك عبد الله بن عبد العزيز التي اعتبرت أنّ انسحاب «إسرائيل» الكامل من الأراضي العربية المحتلة عام 1967، والتوصل إلى حلّ عادل لمشكلة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين يتفق عليها وفقاً لقرار الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة رقم 194، وقبول قيام دولة فلسطينية مستقلة ذات سيادة على الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة منذ الرابع من حزيران عام 1967 تكون عاصمتها القدس الشرقية، هو شرط ومدخل اعتبار الصراع العربي الصهيوني منتهياً، ودخول الدول العربية في اتفاقية سلام بينها وبين الكيان الصهيوني، وإنشاء علاقات طبيعية معه في إطار هذا السلام الشامل.

وبالإمعان ببقية التفاصيل التي سنأتي على ذكرها لاحقاً عن كتاب شمعون بيريز «الشرق الأوسط الجديد» الذي صدر عام 1993، أو المؤتمرات الاقتصادية التي تلت ذلك في الدار البيضاء في المغرب عام 1994، وفي عمان 1995، وفي مصر 1996، إلى ورشة المنامة الاقتصادية، ومشروع نيوم، إلى محاولات تطويع الدراما ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وتفاصيل أخرى في تطبيع مشيخات الخليج مع الكيان الصهيوني بمجال الرياضة والسياحة والثقافة لتكون عوناً في غسل أدمغة الجماهير نحو تصفية القضية الفلسطينية، نجد أنها ليست إلا خطوات وتكتيكات مدروسة وممنهجة في إطار مشروع بيريز الذي دعا إلى قيام نظام إقليمي شرق أوسطي يقوم على أساس التعاون والتكامل بين العرب والكيان الصهيوني في شتى المجالات السياسية والاقتصادية والعلمية، وفي ما يلي التفاصيل:

1

ـ اعتمد بيريز في مشروعه على تحليل واقعي مفاده سقوط مضمون نظريات العمق الاستراتيجي، والاستراتيجية التقليدية القائمة على «الوقت والفراغ والكم» مع التطور التكنولوجي وتطور الصواريخ الباليستية للانتقال بأن الاقتصاد هو العقيدة البديلة، وبناء على ذلك كتب بيريز في كتابه: «يمكن لنا أن نبدأ في نقطة البحر الأحمر، فقد تغيرت شطآن البحر الأحمر مع الزمن، وأصبحت مصر والسودان واريتريا تقع على أحد الجوانب فيما تقع (إسرائيل) والأردن والسعودية على الجانب الآخر، وهذه البلدان تجمعها مصلحة مشتركة، ويمكن القول أنه لم يعد هناك أسباب للنزاع، فاثيوبيا من بعد نظام منجستو واريتريا المستقلة حديثاً تريدان إقامة علاقات سليمة مع جاراتها بما في ذلك (إسرائيل)، في حين أن مصر وقعت بالفعل اتفاقية سلام مع (إسرائيل)، أما الأردن والسعودية واليمن فتريد تأمين حرية الملاحة والصيد وحقوق الطيران»، كما كشف في كتابه كيف سيبدأ التطبيع الكبير عندما قال» ويمكننا كخطوة أولى التركيز على القضايا الإنسانية مثل التعاون في عمليات الإنقاذ البحري والجوي وإقامة شبكة اتصالات للإنذار المبكر من المناورات البرية والبحرية، كما ويمكن الحفاظ على النظام الإقليمي من خلال المشاريع والأبحاث المشتركة، تطوير مصادر الغذاء من البحر، وكذلك السياحة، أما إقامة حلف استراتيجي فستكون خطوة ممكنة في مرحلة متقدمة»، وحدّد ملامح الشرق الاوسط الجديد بقوله» بالنسبة للشرق الأوسط فإنّ الانتقال من اقتصاد صراع إلى اقتصاد السلام سوف يعني حصر المصادر لتطوير بنية تحتية تلائم هذا العصر الجديد من السلام، وإنّ بناء الطرق وتمديد خطوط السكك الحديدية وتحديد المسارات الجوية وربط شركات النقل وتحديث وسائل الاتصالات، وتوفير النفط والماء في كل مكان، وانتاج البضائع والخدمات عن طريق الكمبيوتر، سوف يفتح حياة جديدة في الشرق الأوسط».

2

ـ إذا ما دققنا النظر في سطور كتاب بيريز سنجد أن ما ذكره وضع تصوّراً دقيقاً لما يدور في منطقتنا في وقتنا الحالي، بإعلان ولي العهد السعودي عن إقامته (مدينة نيوم) التي ستقع في الشمال الغربي للمملكة، وستضم اراضي مصرية وأراضي اردنية على مساحة 26 ألف كلم2، يخدم فقط مشروع شمعون بيريز وكل أحلامه الواردة في كتابه آنف الذكر، حيث ووفق ما تم إعلانه فإن مدينة نيوم ستعمل على مستقبل الطاقة والمياه ومستقبل التقنيات الجوية، ومستقبل العلوم التقنية، ومستقبل الترفيه، وهذه القطاعات ذكرها كلها بيريز في كتابه، ولاننسى أنه في عام 2015 فازت مجموعة شنغهاي للموانئ بمناقصة دولية لتطوير ميناء حيفا لينتهي العمل به في عام 2021، ليكون جاهزا لمد خطوط السكك الحديدية من الكويت والرياض، و جدير بالذكر أن 90٪ من مشروع السكك الحديدية موجود مسبقاً منذ أيام الدولة العثمانية، واستكماله لن يحتاج كثيرا من الجهود.

3

ـ إنّ عقد مؤتمرات القمم الاقتصادية التي ضمت وفوداً من الكيان الصهيوني والولايات المتحدة الأميركية والدول الأوروبية والآسيوية والدول العربية على مستوى رؤساء دول وحكومات باستثناء سورية ولبنان في الدار البيضاء عام 1994، وفي عمان 1995، وفي القاهرة 1996، وفي الدوحة 1997 تحت عنوان عريض «التعاون الإقليمي والتنمية الاقتصادية»، وكذلك ورشة المنامة في البحرين عام 2019 التي دعا إليها جاريد كوشنر كجزء من مبادرة ترامب للسلام في الشرق الأوسط والمعروفة باسم «صفقة القرن»، ليست إلا تكريسا لمشروع بيريز الذي قال في كتابه «يجب إجبار العرب على سلام مقابل المساهمة في تطوير القطاعات الاقتصادية والتكنولوجية كمحفزات لقبول (إسرائيل)، هدفها النهائي هو خلق أسرة إقليمية من الأمم ذات سوق مشتركة وهيئات مركزية مختارة على غرار الجماعة الأوروبية.

4

ـ خطوات التطبيع العلنية الأخيرة التي بدأت بالإمارات والبحرين إلى أنظمة أخرى تقف في الطابور ليست إلا تنفيذا لرؤية بيريز الصهيونية الممتدة عبر الزمن على مراحل، والتي ترى بالنتيجة عدم جدوى المفهوم العسكري لضمان أمن الكيان الصهيوني ويجب اعتماد طريق التكامل والاندماج في محيطها تحقيقا لأهدافها وبقائها كقوة عظمى تسيطر وتتسيّد أمنياً واقتصادياً.

5

ـ في إطار هذه الرؤية تندرج استدامة الصراع الداخلي في ليبيا بين قوى مدعومة من أطراف دولية وفقاً لضابط الإيقاع الأميركي، وحرب اليمن، واستمرار استنزاف سورية، ومزيداً من تعقيد الوضع الداخلي اللبناني بعد حادثتي تفجير وحريق مرفأ بيروت، وسد النهضة الإثيوبي، وقلاقل العديد من الدول العربية… لتهيئة البيئة اللازمة لإتمام مشروع بيريز بانصياع ملوك وامراء ورؤساء الأنظمة الرجعية للأوامر الأميركية التي يصدرها ترامب على الإعلام أولا فيهرولون منفذين.

6

ـ في المقلب الآخر وأمام حلف الحرب الأميركي (الإسرائيلي) الخليجي هناك حلف إقليمي نواته إيران وسورية وقوى المقاومة في العراق ولبنان واليمن وفلسطين المحتلة بات أكثر قوة وتماسكاً بإمكانيات تقنية، عسكرية، استخبارية وعقيدة وإرادة قتالية يهدد وجود الكيان الصهيوني الذي لا زال يقف على اجر ونص منذ قرابة شهرين، وعروش الأنظمة الرجعية التي أصبحت ضمن بنك أهداف حلف المقاومة إذا وقعت الواقعة وكانت الحرب الكبرى.

وأخيراً تتحدث الوقائع عن انهيار منظومة القطب الواحد، وبداية تبلور عالم جديد بتحالفات إقليمية ودولية سياسية اقتصادية عسكرية من نوع جديد لن يكون جيش واشنطن الجديد المتقدّم عثرة في إرساء روائزها.

ماكرون الإقليميّ تغيير سايكس بيكو وليس حدودها

ناصر قنديل

ثوابت يجب عدم نسيانها وأوهام ممنوع السماح بمرورها وتغلغلها في نفوس الناس وعقولهم في النظر للحركة الفرنسيّة التي يقودها الرئيس امانويل ماكرون، حيث يتمّ تمرير كل شيء تحت ضغط الكارثة التي يعيشها اللبنانيون، أولها التوهّم أن فرنسا أم حنون جاءت لتساعد وتسهم في رفع المعاناة عن كاهل اللبنانيين، وثانيها أن إدراك أن السياسة باعتبارها لغة مصالح لا يعني الرفض المطلق لسياسات الآخرين ومصالحهم إذا لم تتعارض مع سياساتنا ومصالحنا، وثالثها أن ما لا يتعارض مع سياساتنا ومصالحنا ويؤسس لنقاط تقاطع لا تجوز إدارته بتساهل واسترخاء لأن المصالح تتراكم وتتغيّر والأطماع لا يردعها إلا حضور الحذر واستحضار القدرة وتحصين القوة. والمشهد اللبناني المقزّز في درجة التهافت أمام الرئيس الفرنسي، وتغيّر المواقف وتبدل الثوابت وتقديم أوراق الاعتماد، أظهر خصال انحطاط ليست حكراً على ما يحلو للبعض وصفه بطبقة سياسية فاسدة، فقد نخر سوس التهافت والانحطاط، صفوف الذين سمّوا أنفسهم ثواراً، والذين قدّموا أنفسهم بدائل، والنخب والكتاب والفنانين، ومن له مصلحة ومن ليس له مصلحة، إلا قلة رفيعة الشأن كبيرة النفس شامخة الأنف، لا عارضت علناً وقدمت الولاء سراً، ولا قاطعت، ولا سوّقت، ولا تهافتت، حالها كحال فيروز التي بقيت تشبه أرز لبنان يحتاجها ماكرون ولا تحتاجه، وتقاطع المصالح يعني لها النديّة، وليس الذل والاسترهان، ولا الزحف والبكاء، والبكاء السياسي والإعلامي، ليس بكاء وجع الناس المفهوم، وبقيت هذه القلة تحفظ سرّ المقام والدور والمسؤوليّة، فشارك بعضها بجدية ومسؤولية واحترام وندية، ولكنه لم يمنع نفسه من متعة التفرج على “الزحفطة” السياسية والإعلامية والاقتصادية و”الثورية” و”المدنية” وغير المدنية”، ولم يكن بعضها موجوداً فتابع عن بُعد وهو يجمع السخرية والألم من درجة هبوط وانحطاط مشهد، هو بالنهاية مشهد وطن لا يفرح محبّوه برؤيته على هذه الحال.

توضح زيارة امانويل ماكرون للعراق وتصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركية مايك بومبيو، أن الحركة الفرنسيّة محميّة أميركياً، ولا تحظى فقط بالتغطية، بل هي جزء من سياسة أميركية بالوكالة، حيث تحتفظ واشنطن بالخطاب الدعائي ضد إيران والمقاومة، وتتولى فرنسا تبريد جبهات المشرق الملتهبة، بينما تتفرّغ واشنطن لتزخيم حفلات التطبيع العربي “الإسرائيلي” في الخليج، فماكرون المتحمّس لمرفأ بيروت بدا متحمساً لمشروع مترو بغداد، بينما كان الأردن والعراق ومصر يبشرون بمشروع “الشام الجديد” الذي يلاقي نتائج التطبيع الإماراتيّ الإسرائيليّ، بربط العراق عبر الأردن الذي يقيم معاهدة سلام مع كيان الاحتلال، بمرفأ حيفا، أسوة بالإمارات، في زمن خروج مرفأ بيروت من الخدمة، ولا يُخفى أن المشروع الذي قام أصلاً وفقاً لدراسة للبنك الدولي على ضم سورية ولبنان وفلسطين على المشروع قد اعتبر تركيا جزءاً منه، وقد أسقطت سورية ولبنان وفلسطين، واستبعدت تركيا حكماً، وفي زمن التغوّل التركي ورعاية أنقرة للإرهاب وتطبيعها مع الكيان لا اسف على الاستبعاد، وبمثل ما رحبت بالشام الجديد واشنطن وتل أبيب، هرول الرئيس الفرنسي مرحباً باستبعاد تركيا، على قاعدة تناغم مصري فرنسي سيظهر أكثر وأكثر، من ليبيا إلى لبنان، وصولاً للعراق، بحيث تقوم فرنسا بالإمساك بلبنان عن السقوط و”خربطة الحسابات” بانتظار، تبلور المشروع الذي يريد ضم سورية ولبنان معاً في فترة لاحقة، بعد إضعاف قدرتهما التفاوضيّة وعزلهما عن العراق، والمقصود بالقدرة التفاوضيّة حكماً قوى المقاومة وتهديدها لأمن الكيان، وهذا هو معنى التذكير الأميركي بأن المشكلة هي في حزب الله وصواريخه الدقيقة، كما يؤكد بومبيو.

لا مشكلة لدى قوى المقاومة بالمرحلة الانتقالية التي يتمّ خلالها انتشال لبنان من قعر السقوط، ليس حباً ولا منّة ولا مكرمة من أحد، بل خشية انفجار كبير يحول التهديد الإفتراضي للكيان إلى تهديد واقعي، ويأتي بالصين على سكة حديد بغداد دمشق بيروت، هي السكة التي يريدها ماكرون لفرنسا، لكن بعد التفاوض، بحيث تحفظ حدود سايكس بيكو، لكن يتغيّر مضمون التفويض بنقل الوكالة في حوض المتوسط إلى فرنسا، التي منعت من العراق والأردن قبل قرن، لحساب بريطانيا، المتفرّجة اليوم إلى حين. وهذا يكفي للقول إنه بعد فشل الرهان “الإسرائيلي” على نظرية معركة بين حربين كادت تفجّر حرباً، جاءت فرنسا بمشروع تسوية بين حربين، عساها تجعل الحرب الثانية اقتصادية، هدفها إبعاد الصين عن المتوسط، وإبعاد صواريخ المقاومة الدقيقة عن رقبة الإسرائيليين، والمقاومة المدركة للتحديات والاستحقاقات، تعرف ما بين أيديها كما تتقن ذكاء التوقيت.

لا شام جديد بدون الشام الأصلي والقديم، حقيقة يجب أن ينتبه لها ماكرون قبل أن يرتكب الأخطاء القاتلة، فلا ينسى أن التذاكي لا يحل المشكلات الأصلية، وأن روسيا لا تكتفي بالكلمات طويلاً، وأن بريطانيا لا تطيل النوم بعد الظهر.

Is Britain avoiding justice for possible assets who ‘joined’ ISIS in Syria? — The Wall Will Fall

A recent report in Military Times details the case of two British extremists who were members of a brutal ISIS cell nicknamed “The Beatles” believed to have been involved in various crimes including kidnapping, executions and murder of against British and American citizens in Syria. They are possibly linked to the murder of British “aid-worker”, Alan Henning.

via Is Britain avoiding justice for possible assets who ‘joined’ ISIS in Syria? — The Wall Will Fall

US Push for Iran Sanctions ‘Self-Serving Political Manipulation’ – Beijing

Source

US Push for Iran Sanctions ‘Self-Serving Political Manipulation’ - Beijing

By Staff, Agencies

China said the United States’ call for the re-imposition of the United Nations sanctions on Iran is ‘nothing but a self-serving political manipulation,’ stressing once again that Washington has no right to make such a demand after its unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal of 2015, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

“Like we stressed many times, the US unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, means renunciation of its rights as a participant of the deal, and it is in no position to demand enacting the snap-back mechanism,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a regular press conference on Friday.

Pointing to Washington’s attitude in withdrawing from international organizations and treaties, harming multilateralism and the authority of the Security Council and undermining international non-proliferation regime, the Chinese official said, “Its move to push for a resolution or send a letter to the Security Council cannot justify its above-mentioned behaviors.”

Zhao emphasized that the parties to the JCPOA and an overwhelming majority of the Security Council believe that the US demand to enact the ‘snapback’ mechanism has no legal basis, and it has not been invoked.

“This fully demonstrates that the US unilateral position runs counter to the wide consensus of the international community and its attempt to sabotage the JCPOA will never succeed,” he said.

China urges the US to “stop going down the wrong path, otherwise it will only meet further opposition,” the spokesman added.

The Iranian nuclear issue, Zhao underscored, can be solved through “equal-footed dialogue and candid consultations” instead of imposing sanctions, mounting pressure or even making military threats.

Beijing is ready to cooperate with other parties to find a proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through political and diplomatic channels with the purpose of maintaining the JCPOA and authority of the Security Council, upholding international non-proliferation regime and safeguarding regional peace and stability, Zhao stated.

As part of an illegal underway push, the United States is trying to invoke the snapback mechanism in the JCPOA despite its withdrawal in May 2018 in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 that endorses the nuclear deal.

On Thursday, the United States’ most prominent Western allies refused to fall into step with the push to snap back the sanctions against Iran.

Britain, France, and Germany said they could not support the United States in the move, describing Washington’s action as incompatible with efforts to support the 2015 deal, Reuters reported.

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

1. Introduction

There are some incidents in life which a person would continue to review time and again, knowing pretty well that, it would be just a futile exercise from which he/she won’t really draw serious lessons (those who believe in learning from past deeds/misdeeds seldom forget the proverbial statement of Marx: ‘History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce’). Similarly there are some historical events which intelligent people re-evaluate and reappraise repeatedly even after centuries – needless to say that, such reappraisals don’t stop the historical figures from different societies and different times from committing similar mistakes. Leaving aside the question of why and how political actors might indulge in erroneous reiteration of policy implementation, let me indulge in a simple exercise of re-evaluating – arguably the most prominent political leaders of inter-war Europe – Lenin and Stalin. Safeguarding the core interests of Russia during the world wars – I and II – was the greatest ‘sin’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Quite expectedly, the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State elites, who coordinated the 20th century ‘world order’, had been castigating Lenin and Stalin for all sufferings that the world has been infected with, since the beginning of 20th century.

As I said, some historical events remain ‘evergreen’ in terms of importance and impact – no other historical event in the past millennium was more intriguing and had more significance than WW-I and WW-II. And, Lenin and Stalin were the towering figures who influenced most decisively the outcome of WW-I and WW-II with respect to Russia. Having educated under Anglo-dominated education system, and spent working life under the influence of Zionist-Capitalist world order, I’m amply exposed to the 24×7 propaganda on so-called ‘cruelty’ and ‘sins’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Now in the diamond jubilee of Victory Day (Nazi Germany’s surrender to Soviet Union) it is time to explore the greatest ‘sins’ of the greatest ‘sinners’. Let history speak for itself.

This article will be primarily a mapping of political and economic event-vs.-timeline in the Eurasian landmass, with minimum commentary, as and when required, from my side. It would be better if history speaks for itself.

2. Soviet Russia at the End of WW-I

It is interesting to note that neither Russian empire nor German empire were adversary to each other to a very high degree of enmity. Actually both the Russian emperor and his cousin, the German emperor were reluctant antagonists in the WW-I, events of which from the very beginning (assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914, when he and his wife were on official trip in Sarajevo, Serbia that came under Austro-Hungarian rule after centuries of Ottoman Turk rule) to the very end (abolition of four empires in Europe and Asia i.e. Russian empire in 1917, Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, German Empire in 1918, Ottoman Turk Empire in 1922) were manipulated and managed by the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State consisting of the ruling elites of British, French, American (USA) empires (representing the interests of wealthy class of bankers-industrialists-landed aristocrats and other elites having substantial wealth and power).

2.1 Objectives of WW-I:

Even if the belligerents Nicholas II and Wilhelm II didn’t suspect in 1913 that a war was brewing, Polish leader Joseph Pilsudeski (most dedicated Zionist imperialist leader in 20th century east Europe ) had prior knowledge of the war plans and how it would end! Viktor Chernov, one of the founders of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, wrote in his memoirs about a lecture by Josef Pilsudski, Polish leader delivered in Paris in early 1914. Chernov wrote:

“… Pilsudski confidently predicted the Balkans sparking an Austrian-Russian war in the near future … Pilsudski then set the question squarely: how would the war go down and who would triumph? His response reads as follows: Russia will be defeated by Austria and Germany who will in turn fall to the English and French (or English, Americans and French) …”

The WW-I primarily served three key purposes:

2.1.1 Due to the expansion of German empire in Africa as well as their world-wide business in the last quarter of 19th century, the Deep State of major colonial empires British and French increasingly came under the perception that German empire would very soon develop into a formidable competitor to their business of colonial empire across the world. WW-I wrecked the German empire as well as demolished the German economy to the extent that Germany couldn’t become a competitor to other European empires in the 20th century. Due to that, the British, French, Dutch, Belgium, USA colonial empires got a fresh lease of life.

2.1.2 In the European and Mediterranean geopolitical arena the longstanding empires like Russian, Ottoman Turk, and Austro-Hungarian Empires were obstinate in resisting the manipulations by Anglo and French rulers. The Anglo and French oligarchy found it very difficult to bring the entire European region under the influence of politics of liberal democracy whereby the elites of the society would create political parties, hold elections, and run government that will create a façade of people’s involvement in the governance (at the same time, however, everywhere in Europe the government, the central bank, and the economy would be owned and operated by the Deep State of major colonial empires). Due to destruction of 4 empires, the stage was set for the so-called transformation of most of the European societies to democracy

2.1.3 The Jewish and Anglo bankers and businessmen based in west European societies had been always in the forefront of the process of development of capitalism in Europe and the global colonies of European powers – starting from the ‘school’ of mercantile capitalism in 16th century, they ‘graduated’ from agrarian capitalism in 17th century, and in 18th century earned ‘master’s’ in industrial capitalism. The autocratic monarchy without democratic government proved to be impediment to the development and growth of capitalism in large part of Eurasia and east Europe. Destruction of four empires opened the floodgate of capitalistic development in those regions at the cost of common people who formed 90% of the population

2.2 Onset of WW-1:

After assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914 in Sarajevo, Serbia Austro-Hungarian empire laid a claim on Serbia. Serbia resisted with backing from Russian empire. Germany and Austro-Hungarian unity was backed by historically German-speaking community in both Germany and Austria, while Orthodox Slavic culture was the bond between Russia and Serbia. If Austro-Hungarian and German leadership were confident that Russian empire would come forward to actively support Serbia in case of any conflict with Serbia, they would not have not crossed that line (since any attack on Russia would mean conflict with France, and any attack on France would mean conflict with Britain). Instead of peace-making efforts British and French diplomacy was busy adding fuel into the fire. British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey enticed Germany and Austro-Hungary at one side and Russia at the other side to declare war against each other, and then involved France and Britain in the war. Key events unfolded as below:

2.2.1 Instead of saying that Britain will support Russia, in July 1914 Grey told German ambassador that, Britain “cannot tolerate the destruction of France.” which meant that, in case of hot conflict between Germany and Russia, the British won’t come into picture unless France came under attack

2.2.2 Grey hosted Russian Ambassador Benckendorf after his meeting with the German ambassador, and expressed that Russia should come to Serbia’s defence when Austria attack Serbia

2.2.3 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov proposed that Russia, England and France collectively pressure Austria, and force Austro-Hungarian Empire into a political settlement of their claims against Serbia. Grey rejected the proposal because that would have killed the entire war plan

2.2.4 On 23rd July, the Austrian ambassador to Serbia presented the Serbs with the ultimatum; Serbian Prince Regent Alexander sent telegram to Russian Tsar Nicholas II seeking help

2.2.5 On 28th July 1914, Austrian guns opened fire on Serbian land on the pretext that couple of clauses of Austrian demand were not agreed by Serbia

2.2.6 On 29th July, the Grey met twice with the German ambassador Lichnowsky. In the words of Lichnowsky “Grey declared that, the British government wished to maintain its former friendship with us, and it would stay out of it, since the conflict was limited to Austria and Russia. If, however, we pulled France into it, then the situation would dramatically change and the British government would potentially be compelled to take immediate action.” British and French Deep State not only organized the First World War, they tried to adjust the situation so that the fighting broke out only between Austria, Germany and Russia. They themselves wanted to stay out of it. Only when Russia and Germany destroy one another, the French and British forces will join the fight to extend their empire! (The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State followed same simple logic to plan for WW-II.)

2.2.7 Assuming that France and Britain would not join the conflict, on 31st July 1914 Germany (siding with Austro-Hungarian empire) declared war against Russia

2.2.8 France and Russia were party to ‘alliance treaty’ by which France should have come forward in support of Russia against German aggression on 31st July itself – but keeping in line with Grey’s diplomacy, against German query dated 31st July 1914 of whether or not Paris would remain neutral, France pulled back military forces 10 kilometers from the border and told that the action was “proof of France’s peaceful intentions”

2.2.9 But the duplicity was evident next day when French Prime Minister Viviani announced the military mobilization on 1st August 1914

2.2.10 On 3rd August 1914, Germany was left with only one option – to declare war on France

2.2.11 Next day on 4th August 1914, Britain entered the war to help France and Belgium. Thus with an ulterior motive of complete destruction of Russia and Germany, British and French empires ensured that the Austro-Hungarian animosity towards Serbians (culminated through the murder conspiracy) would engulf all key powers of Europe and Eurasia in WW-I viz. Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, colonial empires of Britain and France.

2.2.11 At the onset of WW-I in 1914, Russian Empire consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Russia
  • Ukraine except Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • North-Eastern Warsaw-Lublin region of Poland
  • Finland
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Moldova (and Transnistria region)

Eastern (Russian) Theatre of WW-I encompassed at its greatest extent the frontier between the Russian Empire and Romania on one side and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Turk Empire on the other. It stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south, involved Eastern Europe. Between August 1914 and the end of 1914, Russian empire was advancing against German and Austro-Hungarian forces, but 1915 onwards German and Austro-Hungarian forces were on the offensive (except Galician and Romanian regions where Brusilov Offensive worked in favour of Russian empire). German-Austrian advance was stopped at the end of 1915 on the line Riga–Dvinsk–Dünaburg–Baranovichi–Pinsk–Lutsk–Ternopil. That imply, the Russian Empire already lost by the beginning of 1916 the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Lithuania
  • Large part of Ukraine
  • Large part of Belarus
  • Large part of Poland

2.3 March (February) Revolution in 1917:

The above mentioned front line did not change significantly until the abdication of Russian Tsar in March 1917 when ‘February Revolution’ was instigated by the following 3 political parties and Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd (Leningrad / St. Petersburg) by the Provisional Committee of the State Duma:

  • Constitutional Democratic Party (support base – professionals, academicians, lawyers)
  • Socialist Revolutionary Party (support base – peasantry, agrarian labour)
  • RSDLP-Menshevik faction (support base – industrial labour, intellectuals with moderate view)

Economy of Russian Empire bore the brunt of the mobilisation and losses in WW-I. Gross industrial production in 1917 decreased by around 36% of what it had been in 1914. Real wages (inflation adjusted) fell to about 50% compared to what they had been in 1913. Over and above that, to meet the war expenditures, Russian Tsarist government took debt of more than 50 billion roubles. In and around Petrograd, discontent with the monarchy erupted into mass protests mainly against food rationing on 23 February (8 March). Mass demonstrations, violent clashes with police and gendarmes, industrial strikes continued for days. On 27 February (12 March) mutinous Russian forces sided with revolutionaries – 3 days later on 15 March Tsar Nicholas II abdicated ending Romanov dynastic rule. In the new post-Tsarist era, State Duma was led first by Prince Georgy Lvov and then by Alexander Kerensky.

There are two groups of ‘nationalist’ intellectuals with leftist and rightist views in Russia and Europe who share, rather a delusional view of 1917 anti-monarchist revolution – they think that the Zionist anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian oligarchy and elites of Europe conspired with Bolshevik communists (popular feeling was all communists are atheist) to destroy the ‘Russian’ Tsar Empire and Orthodox Slavic society (fact of the matter was Romanovs were a German clan migrated from Prussian region). This group of intellectuals forget that (a) for at least two centuries Russian empire was one of the most unequal oppressive hierarchical feudal society, and people from industrial working class, peasantry, soldiers were spontaneously agitating for most basic of the rights – right for food, and (b) in March 1917, Bolshevik communists were completely outsmarted by the above mentioned three party combination, who ousted Tsar and his council of ministers to form Provisional Government – had the Provisional Government not messed up, Bolshevik party would have to wait few decades to come to power.

Historian Alexander Rabinowitch summarised the causes of February 1917 revolution: “The February 1917 revolution … grew out of pre-war political and economic instability, technological backwardness, and fundamental social divisions, coupled with gross mismanagement of the war effort, continuing military defeats, domestic economic dislocation, and outrageous scandals surrounding the monarchy”.

The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State, was pleased with the abdication by Tsar and the installation of the Provisional Government. They were very swift in recognising the government:

USA government recognition on 22 March 1917

UK, France, Italy government recognition on 24 March 1917

The haste with which the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State (the same elites who manipulated the events that led to entry of Germany and Russia in WW-I) welcomed the Provisional Government led by three anti-Bolshevik parties prove that, the Zionist-Capitalist elites were indeed anti-Tsar anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian, but they teamed up with anti-Bolshevik regime; and identifying Zionist-Capitalist elites with Bolsheviks would be no more than Orwellian truth.

Various estimates suggest Russian empire had around six million casualties (dead, missing, and wounded) during WW-I before January 1917. On the war front, by January 1917 everything was bleak – inadequate supply of arms-ammunition-food, incompetent officers, war-weariness among soldiers, mutinies among soldiers demanding end to war efforts, abnormally low level of morale among officers and soldiers, etc. And, on the home front burning issues like inflation, poverty, scarcity of food commodities, overstretched railway network, and millions of refugees from German-occupied Russia combined to bring a nightmare in Russian empire.

Initial composition of the Provisional Government formed mainly by three parties was led by Minister-President and Minister of the Interior Georgy Lvov. After July crisis, on 6th August 1917 the Second coalition cabinet was formed under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky (Minister-President and Minister of War and Navy). The Third Provisional government led by Minister-President Alexander Kerensky was formed on 8th October 1917. The Provisional Government was inherently weak and incompetent – even if they passed new laws and policies, implementation and enforcement of the same lacked ingenuity. The Provisional Government had internal contradictions on the issue of continuation of WW-I – Kerensky Offensive was launched with disastrous results. Opposition from common people to government policies and war efforts increased by the day.

On 14th March 1917 the Petrograd Soviet issued “Order No. 1,” which instructed the troops to disarm their officers. This was one of the significant instances where Provisional Government and Soviet both wanted to assert their power. To restore Army’s morale Kerensky launched an offensive (Kerensky Offensive) on 1st July which ended in a military catastrophe – morale of the Russian Army went down further. In September 1917 the then commander-in-chief of the Russian army, General Lavr Kornilov’s troops approached Petrograd, apparently to seize power in a military coup. Kerensky arrested them. The Kornilov affair remain unresolved till now. The exist a line of thought which suggest that Kornilov and Kerensky reached an agreement before the troop movement by which it was agreed that power would be shared by two of them; however in reality, Kerensky’s actions were betrayal of Kornilov. Whatever might the reality, relation between Provisional Government and Russian Army hit a new low.

2.4 November (October) Revolution in 1917:

While the country was rapidly sinking in chaos and disorder, the Bolshevik party under Lenin’s leadership quickly recovered the organisational ground lost to the Menshevik Party and Socialist Revolutionary Party in the beginning of 1917, by (a) positioning the Petrograd Soviet as a working committee which was more competent compared to the Provisional Government (indeed, Petrograd Soviet managed to take over the control of Petrograd, the most important trading and port city, gained control of the Imperial Army, and the Russian Railways beside their already existing control of local factories); (b) steadily weakening the three parties who were the backbone of the Provisional Government through pulling the left-minded members of those parties within the fold of Bolshevik party (within just 7 months, intellectual voices almost became non-existent in those three parties which outsmarted Bolshevik party in seizing state power; and, (c) creating the Red Guard units in March 1917 as paramilitary volunteer organizations (comprised mainly of factory workers, peasants, soldiers, sailors) for “protection of the soviet power”. They fought to protect and extend the power of the soviets (like Petrograd Soviet).

Continuous shortage of food, and other supplies created tremendous unrest – there were mass strikes by millions of workers in Petrograd, Moscow, Donbas, Urals, and Central Industrial Region during September and October 1917. The factory committees coordinated workers’ strike and negotiated better pay, working hours, and working conditions. During the same time, the peasant community lost faith that the land would be distributed to them by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries – peasant movements targeted against the landowners spread to 482 of 624 counties. Seizures of land as well as marches on landowner manors became common. Spectre of famine generated a tendency of storing grains rather than selling them in the market. Soldiers and sailors became unionised and they started ignoring the authority of the Provisional Government.

Families of soldiers would incite “subsistence riots”/ “hunger riots” during which rural citizens seized food and other supplies from shop owners, who they believed to be charging higher prices.

The Central Committee of Bolshevik party made the decision on 23rd October to seize power. Red Guards forces attached with Bolshevik party began to occupy the government buildings on 7th November, 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace was captured. The Military-Revolutionary Committee coordinated the Red Guards activities. On 8th November, 1917 the Second Congress of Soviets elected a new cabinet of Bolsheviks known as the Council (Soviet) of People’s Commissars, with Lenin as leader. The cabinet passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land which were approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies.

Historical timeline shows that the first seizure of power in Tallinn by Soviet happened on 5th November 1917, next in Petrograd, Minsk, Novgorod, Ivanovo-Voznesenski and Tartu on 7th November 1917, next in Ufa, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, and Narva on 8th November 1917. Significant power seizures included Pskov, Moscow, and Baku on 15th November 1917, Sevastopol on 29th December 1917, Kiev and Vologda on 8th February 1918, and the last on 25th February 1918 in Novocherkassk.

The Constituent Assembly elections were held on 25th November 1917. On 18th January 1918 the Constituent Assembly had its first and only day in session. The Constituent Assembly rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land that prompted the Congress of Soviets to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.

Apart from the peace and land decrees, Soviet issued other decrees which clearly established their ideology as pro-poor as their party claimed:

  • Nationalization of private property
  • Nationalization of Russian banks
  • Expropriation of Church properties
  • Expropriation of private bank accounts
  • Repudiation of foreign debts
  • Higher rates of wages for workers
  • Introduction of eight-hour working in factories and other establishments

2.5 WW-I Peace Treaty in 1918:

There were three views prevalent in 1917 Russia:

  • Continue fighting in WW-I to defend liberty and “Russian honour” – Kerensky (initially the Minister of War, thereafter the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government) was a proponent of this opinion
  • Opinion called as “revolutionary defensism” suggested achieving peace without annexations and indemnities. Supporters of this view didn’t have much fervour for territorial gains or Pan-Slavic liberation, but if pushed to the wall they were not ready to formally accept defeat
  • Another view called “defeatism” was held by the Bolshevik Party leaders who proposed that WW-I was an ”imperialist war” where common people were being killed for the expansionist designs of empires – they also wished to achieve peace without annexations and indemnities, but if pushed to the wall they were ready to formally accept defeat

Lenin’s call for cessation of hostilities in WW-I was backed by hard realities of poverty among common Russians and shortage of supplies for Russian Army – Lenin was neither swayed by the aristocratic ‘glory and glamour’ of the Tsarist empire nor influenced by ritualistic ‘patriotism’ parroted by bourgeois and Menshevik socialist politicians. The Decree on Peace called “upon all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace” – peace may be decorative item for oligarchy and aristocracy, but peace is an essential element of plebeian life. Lenin was particularly scathing in exposing the role WW-I played for Russian people’s suffering – food shortage, tax rise, rising cost of living, refugee crisis, etc.

Trotsky was appointed Commissar of Foreign Affairs in new Bolshevik government. Trotsky appointed Adolph Joffe to represent the Bolsheviks at the peace conference with the Central Powers. The key events were:

2.5.1 An armistice between Russia and the Central Powers (German empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman empire) was concluded on 15th December 1917. A week later peace negotiations started in Brest-Litovsk

2.5.2 Kaiser Wilhelm II, Chief of Imperial German Army Paul Hindenburg, Army General Max Hoffmann, Army General Erich Ludendorff, Foreign Minister Richard Kuhlmann, these five high priests of German imperialism were the main actors on German side during negotiation. On the Russian side Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Stalin were main actors during negotiation.

2.5.3 Germany agreed to Russian demand of peace with “no annexations or indemnities”, but with proposition that Poland and Lithuania will be independent on the basis of ‘self-determination’ (obviously both the so-called independent state will align with German empire). One of the Russian negotiation team member, noted Marxist historian Mikhail Pokrovsky wept and asked how they could speak of “peace without annexations, when Germany was tearing eighteen provinces away from the Russian state”

2.5.4 On 1st January 1918, the Kaiser discussed with Hoffmann on future German-Polish border during which Hoffman suggested Germany should take a small slice of Poland. Hindenburg and Ludendorff were of different opinion who, being the winning side, wanted much more territorial acquisitions including Baltic countries. Ukrainian Rada declared independence from Russia, and demanded the Polish city of Cholm and its surroundings.

2.5.5 During 1st week of February 1918, a group of ‘Left’ Communists comprising of Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek wanted to continue the war with a newly-raised revolutionary force while awaiting for socialist revolution in Germany, Austria, and Turkey. Trotsky wanted to “announce the termination of the war and demobilization without signing any peace”. Lenin advocated for signing an early deal rather than having even more disastrous treaty after a few more weeks of military defeats.

2.5.6 Peace negotiation started on 10th February 1918 and Trotsky proposed the German side his concept of ‘no war and no peace’, and abstained from drawing any conclusion

2.5.7 German General Hoffmann notified Russian team on 16th February 1918 that German Army would resume their attack on Russia because peace treaty was not signed. On 18th February 1918 Lenin’s resolution that Russia sign the treaty was supported by Central Committee. Lenin convinced the majority of Bolshevik party leadership (most of whom, as a first choice, wanted a new war to be waged against imperialist Central Powers) that a peace treaty with the Central Powers is a must for the new Bolshevik revolution to sustain in the long run – historical facts show, extremely unfavourable environment at that point of time in Russia because (a) Food shortage was rampant which created large scale civil unrest, (b) Tsarist Army was in complete disorder while Red Army was being built from scratch, and (c) lack of strength of German socialist party to compel their government to cease offensive (as part of WW-I) on Russian front

2.5.8 Germany launched Operation Faustschlag on 18th February 1918. General Hoffmann advanced further into Russian territory till 22nd February 1918, and on 23rd February 1918 he tabled new terms for peace treaty that included withdrawal of all Russian troops from Finland and Ukraine

2.5.9 Trotsky resigned as foreign minister. Sokolnikov arrived at Brest-Litovsk to represent Soviet Russian Bolshevik government, and the peace treaty (called as Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) was signed on 3rd March 1918

2.5.10 With this treaty, Russia had to renounce all territorial claims in

  • Finland
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Ukraine
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • Bessarabia
  • Russian part of Poland (was under possession of White Army);

Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks. Consequently, Russia lost one-third of its population, half of its industrial land, one-fourth of its railway, three-quarters of iron ore, and nine-tenth of its coalfields as German side insisted that Russia has to cede more than 150,000 sq. km. of territories.

2.5.11 This treaty was annulled by the Armistice of 11th November 1918 when Germany surrendered to the Entente Powers (excluding Russia). The Bolshevik legislature (VTsIK) annulled the treaty on 13th November 1918

2.6 Russian Civil War and Formation of Soviet Union:

Anti-Bolshevik groups landowners, bankers, middle-class citizens, monarchists, army senior officers, and politicians like liberals-conservatives-democrats as well as non-Bolshevik socialists aligned against the Bolshevik Communist government. The anti-Bolshevik groups were collectively known as ‘White Army’ who controlled significant parts of the former Russian Empire between 1918 and 1920.

In January 1918 Trotsky headed the reorganization of the existing Red Guards into a Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army in order to create a more efficient military force. In June 1918 Trotsky instituted mandatory conscription of the peasantry into the Red Army, and inducted former Tsarist Army officers as “specialists”. By 1922, more than one-third of all Red Army officers were ex-Tsarist Army officers. To prevent sabotage, the orders of ex-Tsarist Army officers were subject to approval by Bolshevik political commissars assigned to the unit. At the height of the Civil War the Red Army numbered almost five million men. Trotsky was the overall Commander and the Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council.

The Civil War in the military sense was fought on several fronts. The key events during the civil war between the ‘White Army’ and ‘Red Army’ were:

2.6.1 Czechoslovak Legion (by end of 1917, the Legion had more than 60,000 soldiers) was granted permission to evict from Ukraine in February 1918 by the Bolshevik government – since most of Russia’s main ports were blockaded, the Legion would travel from Ukraine to port of Vladivostok, where the men would embark on ocean-going vessels. The slow evacuation by Trans-Siberian Railway was aggravated by shortage of transport vehicles. On 14th May 1918 at Chelyabinsk Legion forces attacked POW and revolted against Bolshevik authorities. The Red Army lost control over Volga, Ural, and Siberia regions along the Trans-Siberian Railway. The Czechoslovak Legion occupied more cities in along the Railway route, including Nizhneudinsk, Kurgan, Novonikolaevsk, Mariinsk, Kansk, Samara, Kuznetsk, Irkutsk, and Chita. With Bolshevik forces on retreat, the White Army occupied Petropavl, Omsk, and Syzran, and advanced towards Saratov and Kazan. By 1919 relation between the Legion forces and White Army deteriorated sharply. Between December 1919 and September 1920, the Legion evacuated by sea from Vladivostok.

2.6.2 Western Siberia was the theatre for another White Army – Admiral Kolchak assumed command of this army in November 1918. During the summer and fall of 1919 Kolchak launched successful offensives against Red Army. In the spring of 1919 while approaching the shores of the Volga he was stopped and defeated by the Red Army. He was captured and shot without a trial, and his army disintegrated quickly.

2.6.3 Eastern Siberia Japanese forces entered through Vladivostok in August 1918 strength of which later increased to 70,000 troops. The Japanese were joined by British, USA, Canadian, French, and Italian troops. On 5 September 1918, the Japanese forces linked up with the vanguard of the Czechoslovak Legion. The Japanese forces ventured up to the west of Lake Baikal. By November, they occupied all ports and towns in Siberia east of Chita and the maritime provinces. The British, French, and Italian contingents marched westward to support Kolchak’s White Army.

2.6.4 Southern Russia & Ukraine had Volunteer Army organized among the Cossacks by General Alekseyev and General Kornilov in the winter of 1917-18. General Anton Denikin took over after death of Alekseyev and Kornilov. To extend material support to the White Army the French Army occupied Odessa and Sevastopol on 18th December 1918, a month after the WW-I armistice. In October 1919, Denikin’s Army, augmented by French and British aid and supplies, reached Orel about 250 kilometres south of Moscow. The Red Army crushed Denikin’s Army in the subsequent battles waged in October and November 1919. In the Crimean peninsula General Wrangel reorganized his army and held on for a while, from where it was dislodged on 14th November 1920 when General Wrangel fled Russia.

2.6.5 Caucasus also had its own share of civil war. In 1917, Allied military troops from British forces (and its colonies – Australia and Canada) deployed across Qajar Persia to seize Baku oil fields. The force fought the Red Army at Enzeli, then proceeded by ship to the port of Baku on the Caspian Sea. Ottoman forces clashed with Allied forces in September 1918. After the Ottoman Empire withdrew its forces from the borders of Azerbaijan in the middle of November 1918, fresh British troops arrived in Baku on 17 November.

2.6.6 North Russia was the most intensely battled region (apart from Baltic). To counter German troops that landed in Finland in April 1918 (who could capture Murmansk–Petrograd railway, ice-free port of Murmansk, and city of Arkhangelsk including supply warehouses) and to actively participate in anti-Bolshevik struggle of the White Army, the Allied block sent a huge force to north Russia. The military force comprising of army and navy of Zionist-Capitalist powers (UK and colonies, USA, France, and Italy) led by a British officer Lt. General Poole, launched anti-Bolshevik operation in late May-June 1918 in Arkhangelsk. On 2nd August 1918 Tsarist Russian officer staged a coup under tutelage of General Poole against the local Bolshevik government, and seized power.

In September 1918, the Allied Powers captured Obozerskaya. Their invasion followed the routes of both banks of the Northern Dvina river in the east, Vaga river and Onega river in the west, and Arkhangelsk Railway. Fighting was heavy – after initial gain by Allied forces, Red Army fought back. By next four months the Allied Powers’ gains shrunk to only around 50 km along the Northern Dvina and Lake Onega Area. USA forces fought their last major battle at Bolshie Ozerki from 31st March till 4th April 1919. From April 1919, the inability to defend the flanks and mutinies in the White Army caused the Allied Powers to decide complete withdrawal. On 27th September 1919, the last Allied troops departed from Archangelsk. Murmansk was abandoned on 12th October 1919.

Estonian Commander Laidoner rescinded his command over the White Russians on 19th June 1919, and they were renamed the Northwestern Army under the command of General Yudenich. The Northwestern Army on 9th October 2019 launched Operation White Sword to capture Petrograd with arms-ammunition provided by Britain and France. With the help of Estonian Army, Estonian Navy, and British Royal Navy Yudenich’s troops approached to within 16 km of Petrograd. The Red Army repulsed them back to the Narva River, and launched a counter-offensive in December 1919. Defeated and disorganised, some White Army soldiers retreated beyond Estonian state border and the remnants of the Army were evacuated from Arkhangelsk in February 1920. The Bolsheviks took Arkhangelsk on 20th February 1920 and Murmansk on 13th March 1920.

2.6.7 Baltic campaign of British military (Operation Red Trek) was the biggest naval intervention starting from November 1918 in Russia by the imperialist powers especially UK. British Royal Navy ships supported the Estonian and Latvian anti-Bolshevik troops by bombarding the Red Army positions on land. British military provided military supplies to the anti-Bolshevik troops and denied the Bolsheviks the ability to move by sea. The Russian Baltic Fleet, though severely depleted after WW-I, was still relevant to the Red Army for protection of Petrograd. The Estonian High Command pushed across the border into Russia and initiated an offensive Narva – the attack was supported by British Navy and Estonian Navy. The Estonian Pskov offensive commenced at the same time on 13th May 1919 and captured Petseri town by 25th May to clear the land between Estonia and Velikaya River (to facilitate northern White Army movements). In the summer of 1919, the Royal Navy boxed up the Red fleet in Kronstadt. In the autumn of 1919, British forces provided gunfire support to General Yudenich’s White Army which launched a failed offensive against Bolshevik-held Petrograd. On 2nd February 1920, Soviet Russia signed the peace treaty recognising Estonian independence – this resulted in withdrawal of British Navy from Baltic.

In November 1918 Latvia proclaimed independence, but Red Army launches its assault on the pro-White Latvian troops on 1st December 1918 and moved forward to control most of the territory by February 1919. German and Latvian forces launch counterattack on Red Army on 3rd March 1919. Pro-German nobility formed army and tried to establish their authority before ceasefire on 3rd July. The anti-Bolshevik West Russian Volunteer Army attacked Riga on 8th October, but was defeated after five weeks of fighting. The joint forces of Poland and Latvia launched an attack on the Bolsheviks in Latgale and took Daugavpils. Latvia signed cease-fire on 1st February 1920 with Soviet Russia, and on 15th July 1920 with Germany.

2.6.8 When it became evident that the Red Army and the Bolshevik government has effectively organised themselves across Soviet Russia to crush all resistances by different White Army as well as foreign forces, all Allied forces were evacuated by 1920, apart from the Japanese forces who stayed until 1922. Estimates of the casualties of the Civil War, most of them civilian victims range from a minimum of 10 million to 25 million

2.6.9 By 1921 the Red Army reoccupied all those regions that were part of the defunct Russian Empire except Poland (Poland also seized western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia), and Baltic region (Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia-Finland). On 29th December 1922 a conference of plenipotentiary delegations from the Russian SFSR, the Trans-Caucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). These two documents were confirmed by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first USSR constitution was formally adopted in January 1924.

The most agonising irony of this historical period was that, White Army was seeking support (in the name of Tsar) from same imperialists who completely destroyed Tsarist empire just 3 years back. The-then zionist-capitalist Deep State in UK-France-USA-Japan-Italy withdrew all support and threw the Russian White Army contingents into bottomless pit when they found Soviet Russia had built a strong new army – the Red Army.

There exists a view shared by so-called “nationalist” and “patriotic” leaders of past and present Russia – had Bolshevik party led by Lenin not interfered with Russia’s involvement in WW-I to sign a peace treaty with Germany (and its allies), Russia would have been in the ‘winning team’ of the Entente Powers and would have got a share of the booty flowing out of the Versailles Treaty signed just 8 months later. This view is untenable when scrutinised deeply. Had Russia been active on the WW-I war front even after February 1918, they could have lost even more territory that could include Russia proper. By 1916, Russian Army was not only hopelessly short of food, clothing, ammunitions, and other logistics in the war front, but Russian Army morale was, to a large extent, shattered; moreover Red Army was not yet in complete shape. Strategically, Lenin proved to be far-sighted – he could sense that, with USA officially entering the WW-I on 6th April 1917, Entente Powers would win against Central Powers, and those Zionist-Capitalist powers would directly control the vast east European territories (earlier part of Tsar Russia, but lost to Germany during WW-I). Lenin assessed that concluding a peace treaty with Germany in February 1918, while control of at least Russia proper was still with Bolshevik party, was administratively better than, simultaneously facing onslaught of German Army (in absence of a peace treaty) plus assault of White Army buttressed by active support from anti-communist governments of about 15 countries that included significant imperialist power like:

  • UK, Australia, Canada
  • France
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • USA
  • Romania etc.

History proved Lenin’s sagacity – after the conspiracy by British diplomat Bruce Lockhart to sabotage the Bolshevik government in 1918 got exposed, from 1918 till 1921 the Zionist-Capitalist hyenas were out to dismember Russia proper in dozens of pieces using the White Army generals Yudenich, Kolchak, Denikin, and few others, but with German Army neutralized along most of the front, the Red Army valiantly fought against them for unification of Soviet Russia.

2.7 Who Ultimately Won WW-I?

Genoa Economic and Financial Conference was held in Genoa, Italy from 10th April to 19th May 1922, as planned by British PM David Lloyd George. Primarily the objective was how the European countries can deal with the pariah states of Germany and Russia to resolve the major economic issues.

The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State comprising of more than 30 countries including the imperialist powers UK, France claimed that Soviet Russian (Bolshevik) government need to pay them (a) pre-WW-I debts plus interests, (b) war time debts plus interests, (c) all assets provided to the White Army plus interests, (d) cost of all enterprises, which had been owned by foreign citizens. Total claim was worth 18 billion golden roubles. The expectations were that the Bolshevik government would surrender Soviet Russian economy and become a kind of colony of UK-France-Italy.

Lenin’s government submitted a counterclaim 30 billion golden roubles that would pay for the losses due to foreign intervention and the blockade during the civil war. While the imperialist Deep State delegates were busy discussing the unbelievable ‘audacity’ of the Soviet government, the Soviet Russian delegates concluded a pioneering agreement with Germany on 16th April 1922 in Rapallo, the Genoa suburb. Both sides accepted the nullification of Brest-Litovsk Treaty, mutually gave up their territorial and financial claims (like reimbursement of military expenses and civilian losses), Germany acknowledged nationalization of (German state and private) property in Soviet Russia. West European delegations came to know about this Agreement only after it had been signed previous night.

Soviet Russian delegates offered the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State a softer version of Soviet claim – Soviet government would acknowledge pre-war debts of Russia and would provide former owners the right to lease their ex-property or to take it on concession; in lieu of that UK-France-Italy were to acknowledge the Soviet government and provide it with financial support, forgive war debts and interests, acknowledged nationalization of enterprises. The Soviet delegation stuck to their stand during the Hague conference in June, 1922. The objective of the conferences, obviously, were not achieved (by the-then Deep State).

At every step of statecraft – economic, political, diplomatic, and military – Lenin outmanoeuvred the zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries. Their revulsion about Lenin was so complete that they refused to recognise USSR while Lenin was alive! Only after his death on 21st January 1924, USSR was recognised by European and American imperialist powers – UK on 2nd February 1924, France on 28th October 1924, Italy on 7th February 1924, and USA on 16th November 1933.

Soviet Union was constructed on the same map where Tsarist Russian Empire once existed, albeit with smaller footprint. Led by Lenin, the new country set out on the journey of a social development free from ALL sorts of exploitation unheard of in the entire human history. Soon Russia and its imperial adversary Germany patched up in order to tackle their own financial and economic problems. In the final assessment, one can conclude that it was Lenin’s Soviet Union which won the WW-I by not allowing the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State to ruin the Eurasian landmass. And, that fact didn’t go down well with the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy of imperialists like UK-France-Italy-Japan-USA, who again started next round of conspiracy to draw Soviet Union and Germany into yet another devastating war.

3. Soviet Union and Germany during WW-II

No sooner had the news spread about signing of the Treaty of Rapallo on 16th April 1922 night than the Zionist-Capitalist powers started their plan for another round of conflict between Russia and Germany in order to ruin both. In the 1920s neither Russia nor Germany remained empires ruled by aristocracy, but WW-II remained same old story just like WW-I – a web of deception and conspiracy pieced together by Zionist-Capitalist elites.

3.1 Objectives of WW-II:

In the section 6. ‘Geopolitics 1930 onwards’ of my earlier article ‘Bridging China’s Past with Humanity’s Future – Part 2, I recapitulated on the objectives of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State related to WW-II.

[Link: http://thesaker.is/bridging-chinas-past-with-humanitys-future-part-2/ ]

I would like to quote it here, since it is pertinent:

“ With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist-Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW-I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:

  • own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
  • own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
  • control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth

I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.

The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW-II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of Zionist-Capitalist empire:

  • combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
  • combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
  • stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
  • stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire (as against ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version) in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way;

Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW-II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. “

3.2 Prelude to WW-II:

Treaty of Versailles to end WW-I was signed on 28th June 1919 in Versailles exactly 5 years after assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, with stringent conditions that impacted Germany’s economy. Harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles created a kind resentment among the Germans as well as other peace-loving Europeans, for they anticipated a violent reaction in future from the German population against such humiliating treaty.

3.2.1 Conditions of Treaty of Versailles

Territorial implications – Germany was stripped of 65,000 sq. km. of territory and 7 million people. Germany had to give up all direct territorial gains and protectorates via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Germany would recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and Eupen-Malmedy. Germany was to cede the control of Saar to League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite would decide sovereignty. France would control Alsace-Lorraine. A plebiscite would decide sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein. Germany would recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia including some parts of Upper Silesia. Germany would recognize the independence of Poland including some portions of Upper Silesia, East Prussian Soldau area, Posen, and eastern Pomerania. Sovereignty of Southern East Prussia would be decided via plebiscite. Thus Poland got about 51,000 sq. km. area at the expense of Germany. Germany would cede Danzig and its hinterland for the League of Nations to establish the Free City of Danzig.

German colonies in Africa were converted into League of Nations mandates. Togoland and Cameroon were transferred to France. Ruanda and Burundi were transferred to Belgium. Britain got German East Africa, and (UK’s colony) South Africa got German South-West Africa. Kionga Triangle in northern Mozambique was allocated to Portugal. German Samoa was allocated to New Zealand, while German occupied islands in the Pacific Ocean south of equator were allocated to Australia. German concessions in Shandong, China was transferred to Japan who also got German occupied islands in the Pacific north of equator.

Trading of military machinery – Germany was prohibited from the manufacture or stockpile of armoured cars, battle tanks, military aircrafts, naval vessels, chemical weapon etc. Limits were imposed on the type and quantity of weapons and arms trading.

Reparation implications – An Allied “Reparation Commission” would be established to determine the amount which Germany would pay – it would submit its conclusions by 1st May 1921 after hearing the German Government’s stand. Interim reparation fixed at 20 billion gold marks ($5 billion) in gold, commodities, ships, securities, and other assets.

On 24th April 1921 German Government wrote to USA Government expressing readiness to accept total liability of 50 billion gold marks as reparation. The London Schedule of Payments of 5th May 1921 established final reparation sum of 132 billion gold marks to be paid by all Central Powers combined. The Commission, however, recognized that the Central Powers were not in a position to pay except Germany. Reparation amount was divided into three series of bonds: “A”, “B”, and “C” Bonds. “A” and “B” together had a nominal valuation of 50 billion gold marks (US$12.5 billion) which must be paid by Germany (out of which 9 billion gold marks payments were made between 1919 and May 1921). Reparation against “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) may/may not be required to be paid depending on Allied Powers decision in future.

The USA provided UK and France with loans amounting to USD 8.8 billon, when it formally entered WW-I. The total sum of war debt owed to the USA was USD 11 billion (including the loan given between 1919 and 1921) – essentially the UK and France governments wanted Germany to pay the reparations equivalent to their total loans accumulated during the course of WW-I.

3.2.2 Implementation of Reparation Payments

The flight of German capital abroad as a result of reparation payments and lower tax collection resulted in massive state deficit. To overcome that German government printed and dumped German marks without backing of gold/silver/forex. As a result, 1922 to 1924 German currency collapsed on hyperinflation (in 1923, inflation rate reached 578512%, 1 USD was worth 4.2 trillion Deutsch marks). Germany was unable to pay reparations.

During March to December 1923, Dawes Plan was formulated for which John Foster Dulles (legal advisor to USA President Woodrow Wilson), Montague Norman (Head of Bank of England), Charles G. Dawes (Director of one of J.P. Morgan banks), collaborated with Hjalmar Schacht (Dresdner Bank official). Dawes Plan transformed the existing Reichsbank as an institution independent of the Reich government (at least 50% of ruling body non-German) with Schacht as the director of ReichbankDawes Plan also introduced Reichsmark on 30th August 1924 replacing the old German mark and the hyperinflation was brought under control. In April 1924 the Dawes Plan formally replaced the “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) omitted. In 1st year following the implementation of new plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. Increasing gradually that figure would become 2.5 billion marks per year by 5th year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established to coordinate the payments. A loan of 800 million marks would be arranged to back the German currency and economy – over 50% from USA based banks, 25% from UK based banks, and the balance from other European countries.

On 16th September 1928, a joint Allied-German statement was published acknowledging the necessity of a new reparation plan. The Young Plan (formulated by Owen D Young, American industrialist and trustee of Rockefeller Foundation) presented in June 1929 established the final reparation requirements at 112 billion gold marks (US$26.35 billion) with a new schedule of payments that would see final instalment of payment by 1988. In addition, Young Plan shifted the responsibility of coordination of reparation payments to Bank for International Settlements (which was established to coordinate among central banks and to receive and disburse reparation payments). A new loan of 1200 million marks would be raised by USA, UK, France and other European banks to back the German currency and economy.

With the financial crisis in German economy in 1931, USA President Herbert Hoover publicly proposed in June 1931 a one-year moratorium to reparation and war debts. Reparations were suspended for a year. On 16 June 1932 the Lausanne Conference opened, which annulled the Young Plan and instead required Germany to pay a final, single instalment of 3 billion marks. Thus Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid less than 21 billion marks in reparations.

The relationship between Nazi government and the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State was so good that Reichsbank head Schacht travelled to the U.S. in May 1933 to meet major Wall Street bankers. As a result, USA-based banks provided Germany with new loans totalling USD 1 billion. After that, in 1933 new German Chancellor Adolf Hitler cancelled all payments, but neither Britain nor France forced German government to pay up. In June 1953, London Agreement on German External Debts resulted in agreement to pay 50% of the loan amounts that had been defaulted on in the 1920s and 1930s, but deferred some of the debt until German unification. In 1995, following reunification, Germany began making the final payments towards the loans. A final instalment of US$94 million was made on 3 October 2010, settling German loan debts in regard to WW-I reparations.

It will not be out of place to recall the views on ‘burden of WW-I reparation on Germany’ from three outstanding historians: AJP Taylor in his The Origins of the Second World War stated that in 1919 “many people believed that the payment of reparations would reduce Germany to a state of Asiatic poverty”, and that Keynes “held this view, as did all Germans; and probably many Frenchmen”. However, he also says these “apprehensions of Keynes and the Germans were grotesquely exaggerated”Hans Mommsen & Elborg Foster wrote in their book The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy, “Germany financed its reparation payments to Western creditor nations with American loans”, which the British and French powers then used to “cover their long-term interest obligations and to retire their wartime debts with the United States”. Apparently what the authors wanted to convey between the lines was: as a direct fallout of the Treaty of Versailles, the Zionist-Capitalist banking elites of USA, UK, France and other European countries established total control in 1920s over Germany’s economy including monetary system through loans, and forced equity purchase as reparations.

3.2.3 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Economy of Germany

With the support of large bank loans from New York and London economic prosperity returned during 1924 to 1929 period. During this period exports doubled, and by 1929 GDP per capita was about 12 per cent higher than in 1913. However, even before the financial crisis of 1931, unemployment was more than 2 million by the end of 1928.

Germany made payments for both reparations and loans with shares of German companies – that allowed USA-based and UK-based capital to integrate itself into the German economy. The total foreign investment in German industry during 1924 to 1929 period amounted to nearly 63 billion gold marks – repay of loans accounted for 30 billion gold marks, and reparations accounted for 10 billion gold marks. JP Morgan provided majority of the investments. By 1930, German industry (majority owned by USA’s financial and industrial oligarchy) was second ranking in the world:

  • German military industry company IG Farben was under control of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
  • German radio and electrical industry companies AEG and Siemens had General Electric as large investor around 30% stake, JP Morgan controlled General Electric
  • 40% of Germany’s telephone network was controlled by ITT, JP Morgan controlled ITT
  • 30% of Germany’s aircraft manufacturer Focke-Wulf was controlled by JP Morgan
  • Germany’s automotive industry company Volkswagen was owned 100% by Henry Ford, while Opel was taken over by the DuPont family’s General Motors.
  • In Germany metallurgical monopoly was established by Rockefeller bank, Dillon Reed and Co in 1926 – Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Unified Steel Trust) of Thyssen, Flick, Wolf etc.
  • By 1933, USA capital entered major banks like Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank etc.; in 1936 New York branch of Schroeder’s bank merged with a Rockefeller holding to create investment bank Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.

After Hitler seized power as the Chancellor, 1933 onwards, the economy continued to develop. Like the previous government, Hitler also viewed foreign credit as source of financing his four-year plans. Government mixed pro-people measures (as subsidies) with corporatocracy. UK and Germany signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement in 1934 which enabled Germany to become UK’s primary trading partner. Nazi party allotted maximum predominance to Germany’s military industry. During the WW-II German economy was buttressed exploitation of conquered territories and society. Real GDP grew by more than 50% between 1933 and 1937. Spending on military machinery between 1933 and 1939 increased tenfold (from 1.9 billion to 18.41 billion marks) and, growth as a percentage of the annual budget from 24% to 58%. Industrial production increased substantially until 1945 (due to production of military armament) when WW-II ended.

Rockefeller oil giant Standard Oil constructed large oil refineries in Germany that supplied the Nazi war machinery with oil. For the military and aerospace sector also American MNCs like Douglas, Pratt and Whitney tied up with German companies to build aeroplane factories. By 1941, when the WW-II was in full-swing, direct USA investment in the German economy crossed more than USD 0.5 billion (Standard Oil – USD 120 million, General Motors – USD 35 million, ITT – USD 30 million).

3.2.4 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Politics of Germany

Weimar Constitution stipulated that Reichstag elections would be held every two years. Such impractical postulation resulted in 9 Reichstag elections over the course of 14 years (1919-1933) and 14 different persons served as chancellor. As a result of the absurdity when Hitler appeared and Nazi party renounced the ‘circus show’ general population welcomed them enthusiastically. The significant points about the rise of Nazi party and Hitler are noted below:

  • NSDAP (Nazi party) was based on racist imperialist anti-communist philosophy from its birth. Adolf Hitler announced Nazi party’s program on 24th February 1920 which included clause like:
    • We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples
    • We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germaine shall be abrogated
    • We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population (i.e. Lebensraum – living space)
    • Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be countryman
    • Etc.
  • On behalf of USA secret services, US Military Attaché in Germany Captain Truman-Smith explored potential recruits among German politicians who would work to further the interests of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State – retired General Ludendorff, Crown Prince Ruprecht, and Adolf Hitler. On 20th November 1922, the captain met with the future Fuhrer in his apartment. Hitler was quite candid with the American. After returning from Berlin, Truman-Smith submitted a report, which the embassy sent to Washington on 25th November 1922. Hitler, the Nazi leader invited Truman-Smith, the USA diplomat to his next rally. Instead of going there, Truman-Smith sent his friend (another secret service officer) Ernst Hanfstaengl. Ernst Hanfstaengl had dual German-USA citizenship (born in Bavaria, Germany and graduated from Harvard University along with FD Roosevelt as his classmate-cum-friend in 1909). Two meters tall Ernst was called as “Putzi” by Nazis. Ernst Hanfstaengl Putzi was truly the friend-philosopher-guide for Hitler, he was the puppet master behind the scene:
    • Hanfstaengl, introduced Hitler, the rustic corporal to Munich’s elite society, taught Hitler the manners prevalent in high society and gave Hitler respectability. Putzi’s family did the most important task of image-making for Hitler.
    • The Hanfstaengl family was rich. In March 1923, Hanfstaengl gave Hitler a loan of USD 1,000, which was a huge amount those days.
    • In his memoirs, Hanfstaengl states the ideas he embedded into Hitler’s mind: “If there’s another war, whoever has America on their side will win. The only sensible policy that you should follow is friendship with the United States. If they Americans end up on your enemy’s side, you will lose any war…”. During 1923, Hanfstaengl held a series of geopolitical discussions with Hitler to shape his ideas in detail and expanding his horizons – “In many ways, Hitler was still malleable and obedient,” Hanfstaengl wrote. In 1924, “the obedient student” wrote his own book, repeating the thesis of his friend, the USA secret service agent.
    • Hitler was a gifted orator. Ernst Hanfstaengl added confidence and enhanced effectiveness of Hitler’s communication skills.
    • Responding to Hitler question: “how can I get through to the German people, without the press? The newspapers totally ignore me. How can build on my success as an orator with our pitiful Volkischer Beobachter (Nazi newspaper), which comes out with my speeches only once a week? We will not achieve anything until it prints daily.” Ernst Hanfstaengl provided a loan of USD 1,000. With the money Nazi party bought a new printing machine for their newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter. Putzi pulled cartoonist Schwartzer to make the newspaper attractive.
    • Hitler ‘appointed’ Putzi as the foreign press secretary of the party. Furthermore, Putzi also headed the foreign press division in Hitler’s deputy’s office. He was the single most important interlocutor between the German national oligarchy and zionist-capitalist oligarchy based out of USA-UK-France-Italy.
  • The Beer Hall Putsch or Munich Putsch was a failed coup d’état by Nazi Party led by Hitler – he tried to seize power in Munich along with Hess and Hanfstaengl, Bavaria on 8th and 9th November 1923 using about 2000 Nazis marching to the Feldherrnhalle, in city centre. Police confronted, and a wounded Hitler escaped to Hanfstaengl’s house in Uffing about 60 km from Munich. After 2 days, he was arrested and charged with treason. The putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation through front-page headlines in newspapers. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to 5 years in prison. In prison he dictated Mein Kampf to his fellow prisoner Hess – in it he extolled the benefits of an Anglo-German alliance (UK and USA being the principal countries of Anglo block). The manuscript of Hitler’s book was secretly taken out of prison. Hitler was released only after 13 months in prison (12th November 1923 to 20th December 1924). The zionist-capitalist oligarchy of Anglo block used their clout to release Hitler so quickly. He came to Hanfstaengl’s new house across the Isar river after leaving prison.

Hitler’s book – Mein Kampf (My Struggle) – was unable to get wide audience. The first edition sold 10,000 copies in 1925, and about 7,000 were sold in 1926. In 1927, first and second editions combined found only 5,607 buyers, and in 1928, only 3,015 buyers took it. But even without any other income, by the summer of 1925, he bought a villa in the Bavarian Alps (future Obersalzberg) and six-seater Mercedes Kompressor car. Hitler’s lifestyle changed – upmarket clothes, a car and chauffer. Responding to the Weimar tax inspectors, Hitler said “neither in 1924, nor in the first quarter of 1925 did I receive any income. My living expenses are covered by loans” – it happened 100 years back, as it happens now – a ‘leader’ selected by zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy has multiple avenues of income that a commoner won’t have!

  • In the summer of 1932, Winston Churchill came to Germany on a personal visit. As written in Winston Churchill’s memoirs: “In the hotel, Regina, a gentleman introduced himself to someone in my entourage. His surname was Hanfstaengl and he spoke at length about the Fuhrer, with whom he was apparently very close… In all likelihood, he was assigned to make contact with me and clearly tried to make a good impression… As it turned out, he was Fuhrer’s closest confidante. He told me I should meet Hitler …”

Hanfstaengl’s side of the story reads differently: “I spent a good deal of time in the company of his son Randolph (son of Churchill) over the course of our pre-election trips. I even arranged for him to fly with us one or two times. He brought to my attention that his father would soon arrive in Germany and that we should organize a meeting”.

American secret services wanted a face-to-face meeting between would-be Chancellor of Germany and would-be Prime Minister of UK so that a personal equation grow between them – in spite of Hanfstaengl’s persuasions Hitler didn’t go to the meeting with Churchill. Churchill lamented in his memoirs: “Thus, Hitler missed his only opportunity to meet me”. However, Churchill discussed very sensitive geopolitical subjects with Hanfstaengl during that meeting. Hanfstaengl’s memoirs mention: “Churchill asked, ‘say, what your boss thinks about an alliance between France, England and your country?”

In February 1934 Hanfstaengl left Germany without the Fuhrer’s consent and went to Italy to meet with Benito Mussolini to initiate rapprochement between the two dictators. Putzi told Mussolini, “Such difficulties can exist between our two Fascist states.” History shows that the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was on upswing from this point onward. Hanfstaengl time and again proved that he was the boss and Hitler-Mussolini were being groomed to carry out some strategic mission in near future – to destroy Soviet Union and communism.

  • The Nazi Party became largest party in parliament, but it didn’t get absolute majority. It received 33.1% of vote in November 1932, 37.4% of vote in July 1932, and 18.3% of vote in March 1930. Vote share of Social Democratic Party dropped from 37.9% in 1919 to 18.3% by 1933, while vote share of German Democratic Party dropped from 18.6% in 1919 to 0.8% by 1933.
    • On 4th January 1932, at a meeting between Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, German Chancellor Franz von Papen, Bank of England Governor Montague Norman, and USA politician John Foster Dulles a secret agreement was reached on funding for the Nazi Party. On 14th January 1933 Hitler held a meeting with Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schroeder, a Nazi-oriented banker during which Nazi party’s programme was fully endorsed. Even if Hitler was unable to win elections, he was sworn in as chancellor on 30th January 1933. Such move by the President Paul Hindenburg could be possible because the oligarchy modified the procedure of appointment of chancellor in March 1930 – instead of the leader of the parliamentary majority becoming the chancellor, the post would be appointed by the country’s president (article 48 of Weimar constitution). So President Hindenburg could appoint any German citizen as chancellor irrespective of result of the parliamentary election.
  • Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the German parliament (Reichstag) building in Berlin on 27th February 1933, four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s government stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist was the culprit – German court gave verdict that Lubbe had acted alone. After that incident, Reichstag Fire Decree was passed – Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to come down heavily on the German Communist party that was completely against the Nazi party. Historians later concluded based on evidence, that the arson had been planned and executed by the Nazis as a false flag operation. In 2008, Germany posthumously pardoned Lubbe under a law to lift unjust verdicts dating from the Nazi period.

Following the Reichstag fire, the Nazis suspended civil liberties and the Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections, no single party secured a majority. Hitler tabled the Enabling Act on 24th March 1933 which gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and without constitutional limitations. With Nazi paramilitary encircling the building, Hitler forced the Centre Party and Conservatives to vote for the Act while only the Social Democrats voted against (the Communists were excluded). The Act allowed Hitler to rule by emergency decree for next 4 years, though Hindenburg remained President.

Hitler immediately abolished the powers of the states and on 14th July 1933 outlawed all non-Nazi political parties and trade unions. The Act did not infringe upon the powers of the President, and after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler usurped the Presidency by appointing himself President. German military took an oath on the day of Hindenburg’s death, swearing “unconditional obedience” to Hitler personally, not to the office or to the nation.

3.3 Onset of WW-II:

The revival and rearming of the German and Italian military forces between 1933 and 1939 occurred with the prior knowledge and continuous financial and technological support of the-then zionist-capitalist oligarchic elites of Anglo block countries especially UK and USA. The goal of this policy was to create a colossal war machine in the guise of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy in order to strike a deadly blow to the Soviet Union (the resurgent new ‘edition’ of the ancient Rus Slavic civilisation).

3.3.1 Rebuilding German empire

Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power as a dictator in a single party rule, 1934 onwards Hitler went on a steady military build-up and empire building in Europe in order to create a communist-free German empire that will include most of the Europe and expand into East direction to create a Lebensraum i.e. living space for the racially superior ‘German race’ after decimating local population like Poles, Russians, Jews, Gypsyes, Serbs, Czechs etc. who collectively were termed as the so-called non-Aryan Untermenschen i.e. sub-human creatures (these policies were part of 25-point programme of Nazi party declared in 1920, as well as part of Mein Kampf book published by Hitler in 1925):

3.3.1.1 Hitler’s first major foreign-policy agreement was with Poland – on 26th January 1934 ‘Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact’ was signed for 10 years

3.3.1.2 In June 1935, ‘Anglo-German Naval Agreement’ was signed in London that allowed Germany to build naval power including submarines, beyond the limits set by the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I

3.3.1.3 In September 1935 Nazi Germany adopted the ‘Nuremberg Laws’, which revealed the racist philosophy of the Nazi party. According to the “Reich Citizenship Law” citizenship could only be held by a person possessing “German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich.”

3.3.1.4 On 7th March 1936, Hitler sent troops into Rhineland which was a demilitarized buffer zone between Germany and France as per the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I

3.3.1.5 In 1936, Nazi Germany signed pacts with Militarist Japan and Fascist Italy to create an anti-communist platform as well as friendly cooperation among themselves

3.3.1.6 Fascist military insurrection against the Spanish government began on 17th July 1936 in Spanish Morocco and in Canary Islands. Within two weeks, two German military squadrons arrived in Spain, and German transport planes brought Moroccan troops into mainland Spain. Nazi Germany continuously sent military supplies, carried out bombing raids, and assisted the Fascist forces of General Franco in Spanish Civil War till Franco’s win in April 1939. It can be safely assumed that the same zionist-capitalist oligarchy from Anglo imperialist countries extended generous help to Franco through Hitler.

3.3.1.7 Nazi Germany forced Austria to sign ‘Austro-German Agreement’ on July 11, 1936 that guaranteed mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs plus independence of Austria as “a German State.” Being served ultimatum on 11th March 1938, Austrian chancellor von Schuschnigg announced his resignation. On 12th March 1938, German troops entered Austria – Germany annexed Austria [practically, WW-II started with it]

3.3.1.8 In the first conference about Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland (where ethnic Germans were numerically much larger than the Czechs) was held in London in April 1938 – British and French statesmen opined that a clash with Germany be avoided at all costs. On 30th September 1938, ‘Munich agreement’ was signed between Germany, Italy, UK, and France represented by Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, and Daladier to transfer Sudetenland to Germany – the Czechoslovak representatives were not even invited to this meeting! On 1st October 1938, German troops entered Czechoslovakia. By mid-March 1939 Czechia was annexed by Germany. Slovakia announced its independence and withdrew from the country. Hitler allowed Hungary to annex 12000 sq. km of southern Slovakia and a small region of Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia on 2nd November 1938. Hitler also allowed Poland to get a small region of Těšín of Czechia. Instead of taking military or diplomatic measures against Hitler, Bank of England transferred Czech gold reserves worth six million pounds stored in London to Nazi Germany.

3.3.1.9 In October 1938, German Foreign Minister Joachim Ribbentrop demanded that, in lieu of renewal of Poland-German non-aggression pact (signed in January 1934), city of Danzig (now called Gdansk) would be occupied by Germany, and Danzig corridor (to connect Germany proper with East Prussia by a motorway and a railway through Polish land) would be constructed by Germany. As a normal reaction, Poland refused. Hitler rescinded the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact (and Anglo-German Naval Agreement) unilaterally on 28th April 1939 in the Reichstag, with Germany renewing territorial claims in Poland

3.3.1.10 In April 1939, Nazi German forces seized the Memel district from Lithuania

3.3.2 Policy of Appeasement

1934 Onwards, the period when Hitler went on a steady military build-up in Europe, UK (world’s foremost colonial empire) Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Ramsay MacDonald as well as French (world’s second largest colonial empire) leader Edouard Daladier followed a compromising policy towards Nazi Germany – this was called in history as the ‘policy of appeasement’ (with German Nazi government). Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, who led foreign policy initiatives since 1934 (centred on concept of ‘collective security’ among all big European powers), commented on such policy of appeasement “England and France are now unlikely to retreat from the policy they have set out for them-selves, which boils down to unilateral satisfaction of the demands of all three aggressors – Germany, Italy and Japan. They will present their claims in turn, and England and France will make them one concession after another. I believe, however, that they will reach a point where the people of England and France will have to stop them. Then, probably, we will…return to the old path of collective security, because there are no other ways for preserving peace“.

Stalin gave a speech that was broadcast on Soviet Union television on 10th March 1939, in which he not only identified the policy of appeasement, but, he also outlined the objectives of such policy:

“The war is being waged by aggressor nations, which in every way infringe upon the interests of non-aggressor states, primarily England, France, and the United States, and the latter withdraw and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors. Thus, we are witnessing a blatant carving up of the world and its spheres of influence, at the expense of the non-aggressor states, without any attempt at resistance, and with even a bit of their acquiescence. It is hard to believe, but it is so. …. The policy of non-intervention betrays a desire not to impede the aggressors in their shameful deeds, not to obstruct, for example, Japan’s involvement in its war with China, and even better – with the Soviet Union, and not to deter Germany, for example, from getting caught up in events in Europe or from getting involved in a war with the Soviet Union. A motive can be seen to allow all the participants in the hostilities to sink deeply into the quicksand of war, to surreptitiously urge them onward, to allow them to weaken and exhaust each other, and then, when their strength has been sufficiently sapped – to appear on the scene with fresh forces, to take a stand, ‘in the global interest’ naturally, and to dictate conditions to the crippled belligerents.”

Britain, France and Poland continued to sabotage the collective security talks proposed by Soviet Union. UK and France wouldn’t give any guarantees of attacking Germany in the West in case of war – on the contrary, the zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy was, in fact, in collusion with Nazi Germany. Poland was generally viewing Russia as a victim for its own colonial war (war between Russia and Poland after Russian Revolution over the Tsarist territory claims-counterclaims still were resonating with Polish leader Pilsudski) and Poland saw Germany as an ally for such an adventure. Poland would not agree to let the Red army engage Germans on Polish territory. Basically the USSR was offered nothing but would have to declare a war on Germany and wait till Germany is done with Poland and invades the USSR.

On March 18 1939, Litvinov again suggested convening a pan-European conference to be attended by Britain, France, Poland, Russia, Romania, and Turkey. During March and April 1939 Europe witnessed hectic parleys over possible tripartite alliance among UK-France-USSR as suggested by USSR through a documented proposal. In the UK Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy on 24th April 1939, Neville Chamberlain opposed the Soviet proposition saying “The Soviet’s present proposal was one for a definite military alliance between England, France and Russia; It could not be pretended that such an alliance was necessary in order that the smaller countries of Eastern Europe should be furnished with munitions… Then there was the problem of Poland.” (Who oppose any agreement with USSR based on which USSR participate in fighting against Nazi Germany within Poland boundary). Communist USSR’s Joseph Stalin removed Maxim Litvinov and installed Vyacheslav Molotov thinking Molotov to be a dynamic negotiator. Molotov spent May and June 1939 to work out on the same tripartite alliance, but in vain.

In July 1939 Germany proposed a non-aggression pact to Molotov in which they suggested USSR can get control of most part of the former Tsar empire like:

  • the western parts of Ukraine and Byelorussia following the Curzon line of demarcation discussed during closure of WW-I (both erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, part of which were taken by Poland between 1918 to 1922),
  • Bessarabia (erstwhile Tsar empire province, part of which were taken by Romania),
  • Karelia (part of erstwhile Tsar empire Dutchy of Finland),
  • Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania in Baltic (erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, independent countries WW-I)

And as per the German proposal, rest of the East Europe will come under Nazi Germany sphere of influence either by direct annexation or formation of protectorate. Soviet leadership, after exasperating failure of 5 years of discussions on military pact with UK and France, and in the midst of a massive war since May 1939 with Japanese empire in Khalkhin Gol near Mongolian border, couldn’t miss ‘opportunity’ of getting few extra years (before Nazi assault). On 23rd August 1939 the German–Soviet nonaggression pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) was signed.

USSR regained control of western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia in September 1939 from Poland, and Karelia region from Finland in November 1939. Then USSR moved into Baltic region and Bessarabia in June 1940. While discussing on the annexation by Soviet Union, on 4th October 1939 Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said in the House of Lords “… the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.”

Hanfstaengl set the ball rolling with frantic pace of militarization in Germany, and then he left Germany in March 1937 before any (future) Nazi war crime could implicate him. Putzi went to USA and was appointed an advisor to his friend USA President FD Roosevelt (as an expert on Nazi Germany he was in a position to suggest best how to coordinate with his ex-student, Hitler)! Ernst Hanfstaengl was the pioneer of a future phenomenon whereby thousands of Nazi scientists, technocrats, businessmen, military officers, and government officials would become American citizens and job seekers through ‘Ratlines’.

3.4 WW-II:

3.4.1 Journey from Phony War to Operation Barbarossa

Hitler’s Germany was in the thick of action during the 1939 through 1941 opening war fronts one after another:

3.4.1.1 Nazi Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939, Warsaw resisted until 27th September before surrendering. As usual, neither UK nor France militarily intervened to support Poland.

3.4.1.2 On 3rd September 1939, UK and France declared war on the Third Reich which is called as Phoney War’ in WW-II history. The Polish military mission who flew to London had to wait for a week to meet British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Edmund Ironside – General Ironside promised 10000 obsolete rifles (while German Battle Tanks and Fighter Planes were thrashing Poland). During the 8 months duration of Phoney War, only once there was a land operation when French troops invaded Germany’s Saar district for couple of days. British Navy tried to enforce a blockade against German goods transport, and during German attacks at sea Royal Navy carrier HMS Courageous was sunk. During the ‘Nuremberg Trials’, German General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions, during our war with Poland, remained absolutely idle.”

3.4.1.3 Nazi Germany struck again to occupy Denmark with a surprise attack that lasted less than 4 hours on 9th April 1940. Attacking Norway on the same day, German forces completed the Norway invasion on 10th June 1940

3.4.1.4 On 10 May 1940, eight months after Britain and France had declared Phoney War on Germany, German Wehrmacht launched Operation Fall Gelb and marched into Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France marking the end of the Phoney War. By the evening of 10th May most of Luxembourg was occupied by German military. In Netherlands, the battle lasted from 10th May to 17th May, while in Belgium the battle raged on from 10th May to 28th May. In Belgium and northern France the fight was between German Wehrmacht and Allied forces in which France committed their best troops. Between 26th May and 4th June 1940 the defeated Allied soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk harbour in northern France. German forces began Operation Fall Rot on 5th June 1940 to capture remaining part of France outflanking the Maginot Line. Paris was occupied on 14th June, on 22nd June 1940 armistice was signed by France and Germany.

3.4.1.5 Formal military alliance i.e. ‘Berlin Pact’ was signed by Germany-Italy-Japan in September 1940 (original Axis Power). Later on Hungary joined in November 1940, Romania joined in November 1940, Bulgaria joined in March 1941.

3.4.1.6 In April 1941 Nazi Germany launched an invasion of Yugoslavian regions and Greece (the original Balkan campaign launched by Fascist Italy in October 1940 didn’t achieve the objective, hence this new initiative). Yugoslavian regions and Greece were divided among the Axis Powers viz. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

3.4.1.7 When Nazi Wehrmacht launched ‘Operation Barbarossa’, the largest military operation in documented history of humankind on 22nd June 1941 (officially authorized by Adolf Hitler on 18 December 1940, but got delayed due to delay in finishing Balkan campign) across western border of USSR along a 2,900-kilometer war-front with more than 38 lakh military personnel from countries of Axis Powers, USSR could not sustain its resistance against the Nazi Wehrmacht. Since November 1941 when Nazi military was about 25 km away from Moscow, USSR fought back and launched ferocious counterattack on German military. From January 1943, after winning the Battle of Stalingrad, Red Army became more confident about defeating the so-called ‘unassailable’ Wehrmacht. However, it was the Battle of Kursk (largest tank battle in history) in July 1943 which completely turned the tide in favour of Soviet Red Army. Every passing day the Red Army became unconquerable force that decimated Nazi Wehrmacht single-handedly and liberated entire east Europe before capturing Berlin in May 1945.

As analysed by Mikhail Meltyukhov (Russian military historian working at the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research), during a period of two and half years (from 1 January 1939 to 22 June 1941) USSR increased their military strength assiduously that helped the final destruction of Nazi Germany:

  • Battle Divisions increased from about 131 to 316 (140% increase)
  • Military Personnel increased from 2,485,000 to 5,774,000 (132% increase)
  • Battle Tanks increased from about 21,100 to 25,700 (22% increase)
  • Aircrafts increased from about 7,700 to 18,700 (143% increase)

3.4.1.8 Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power in Germany, Lebensraum (Hitler announced Nazi party’s 25-point program on 24 February 1920 which included Nazi demand for new land and territory for the maintenance of German people and the settlement of surplus German population – known as Lebensraum i.e. living space) became an objective of Nazi party’s militarism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Eastern Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (GPO) or ‘Master Plan for the East’ dealt with how Germany can set up a Lebensraum in Eastern Europe necessary for survival of so-called Aryan race (Nazis assumed Germans as ‘pure Aryan’ race) by eliminating most of the local non-Aryan population (Nazis assumed Slavs as non-Aryan and hence Untermenschen i.e. sub-human) like Poles, Russians, Jews, Czechs, Slovaks, Gypsyes etc. through mass killing, decimation by starvation and disease, and deportation to Siberia. The body responsible for the GPO was the SS’s Reich Main Security Office under Heinrich Himmler, which commissioned the work before World War II started. After the invasion of Poland, the original blueprint for GPO was discussed by the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood (RKFDV) in mid-1940. The next known version of GPO was procured by the RSHA from Erhard Wetzel in April 1942. The next revision was officially dated June 1942. The final settlement master plan for the East came in from the RKFDV on 29th October 1942. A document which enabled historians to accurately reconstruct the Generalplan Ost was a memorandum released on 27th April 1942, by Erhard Wetzel, director of the Nazi party Office of Racial Policy, entitled “Opinion and thoughts on the master plan for the East of the Reichsführer SS”.

Himmler stated openly: “It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply. As of June 1941, the GPO policy envisaged the deportation of 31 million Slavs to Siberia. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum after exterminating majority of the indigenous populations, to enable Germany to confiscate agricultural and mining products to transfer to Germany.

[Link: http://gplanost.x-berg.de/gplanost.html ]

After Stalingrad defeat and surrender by the legendary 6th Army of German Wehrmacht in February 1943, Generalplan Ost was suspended by Nazi party. However, German savagery with the civilian population of Slavs, Jews, and Gypsyes, from 1940 to 1945 still continue to shock the people across world.

3.4.2 Second Front of Allies

True to their deceptive and manipulative core nature, the leaders of UK and USA zionist-capitalist clique didn’t pay any attention to Stalin’s repeated request from 1941 to 1944 of opening a second front in the west against Nazi Germany which would help Soviet Union to get a respite from deadly Nazi onslaught. For the Anglo imperialists the WW-II plan was simple – Germany and Soviet Union should fight between them to finish each other, and then they would appear on the scene to occupy the vast Eurasian landmass and spread Freedom (to loot the natural resources) and Democracy (to install puppets over the illiterate and simple people).

On 28th April 1942, FD Roosevelt addressed to the USA: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Only when it became crystal clear that, in absence of a second front, Soviet Red Army would liberate the entire Europe on its own (thereby banishing any future influences of zionist-capitalist oligarchy on the government formation in whole of Europe), the Allies opened a second front in WW-II in June 1944 with the Allied landings in Normandy.

From all four key perspectives – mobilization, viciousness of struggle, loss of life, and loss of infrastructure – Eastern front was far more significant compared to Western front. In the opinion of Norman Davis: “German losses on the Eastern Front accounted for about 80 per cent of the total…”

At the end of the WW-II, Soviet Union had lost about 26.6 million people, Western Allies lost less than 2 million, Germany lost around 4 million troops in the Eastern front and 1 million on the Western front.

Also, from the military logistics point of view, Soviet Union could defeat the industrially and technologically superior Nazi Wehrmacht and invade Nazi Germany capital by May 1945 because:

  • 21-month respite provided by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was utilised for increasing the production of military machinery on a gigantic scale
  • Lend-Lease policy of the FD Roosevelt provided food-clothing-raw materials-rail engines-automobiles-petroleum products-ordnance goods and ammunitions etc. between 1 October 1941 to 2 September 1945 (1947 money value of which amounted to about USD 11 billion)

3.5 Aftermath of WW-II:

At the onset of WW-II in 1938, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Russia
  • Ukraine except Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus

A complete and thorough assessment of WW-II casualties should be again undertaken by the group of CIS countries who were part of USSR 30 years back – every post-1945 citizen of this planet owe a bit to every known/unknown USSR citizen for their immense sacrifice to resist the Fascist forces during WW-II. I think, casualties were more than 30 million – military killed in action, soldiers missing in action, killed/died while POW, military death of wounds, civilian death on front, civilian death of forced labourers in Germany, civilian death in German prisons, civilian death of starvation, missing civilian, the list of category consists of all possible permutation-combination. Even if we accept government figure of 26.6 million dead plus wounded, it become 13.7% of 194 million population of USSR in 1940. Almost all physical infrastructures in Belarus, Ukraine, Crimean, and European regions of Russia were destroyed by indiscriminate bombing of Germany. Tragedy of such gigantic scale in any society would have been the cause of crushing defeat. But Communist Party of Soviet Union led by Stalin withstood such barbaric assaults only to rebound with more strength – economic, political, and military.

At the end of WW-II in 1945, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory:

  • Russia
  • Ukraine including Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Moldova (Bessarabia)

Except during the initial 6 months of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin proved himself a leader who was in control of the complete situation even at the worst moment. The zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries and their lackeys in east Europe were outsmarted by Stalin at every round of the geopolitical game surrounding WW-II. Stalin was disliked so much among the zionist-capitalist oligarchy and aristocrats that, on the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 (under suspicious circumstances) the stark enemies like Winston Churchill sent no condolences, or send a sympathy card. Interestingly, only after Stalin’s demise, Churchill was found to be suitable candidate for Knighthood and Nobel Prize (in literature) in 1953.

By 1953 when Stalin died, USSR already changed beyond imagination. A country that had, 30 years back, one of the most oppressive society with extreme poverty, widespread illiteracy, very high mortality, and high concentration of wealth within aristocrats, got transformed into a society where ALL citizens had guaranteed food-education-healthcare-housing-employment-vacation facilities. Soviet Union was the second most powerful country in terms of scientific research, atomic research (second country to test atomic bomb), space research (first country to send space craft), military machinery, and industrial machinery. By then, 85 significant Soviet journals were being translated into English language by USA government funding. Within three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major world power struggling almost single-handedly against the Zionist-Capitalist powers and their monstrous Fascist offspring. Born to shoemaker and house cleaner, Stalin was a true anti-elitist plebeian revolutionary who even sacrificed his son during WW-II by refusing to exchange him (in German captivity) with German General (in Soviet captivity).

4. Conclusion

Let me clarify at the end that, this article doesn’t aim to paint a bright untainted image of Stalin. I would like to also take this opportunity to briefly explain why.

The 6th Congress of the RSDLP (Bolshevik) party in July-August of 1917 elected the Central Committee comprising of 21 leaders:

  • Politburo members – Vladimir Lenin, Andrei Bubnov, Grigory Sokolnikov, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky
  • Secretariat members – Felix Dzerzhinsky, Matvei Muranov, Yakov Sverdlov
  • Only Narrow Composition members – Vladimir Milyutin, Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky
  • Only members of CC but not part of above groups – Ivar Smilga, Fyodor Sergeyev, Alexei Rykov, Viktor Nogin, Nikolay Krestinsky, Alexandra Kollontai, Nikolai Bukharin, Jan Berzin

In 1940, only 3 of the top 21 leaders of Bolshevik party would be alive: Stalin, Matvei Muranov who was sent into retirement from political life, and Alexandra Kollontai who was sent on foreign diplomatic assignment away from internal politics and governance. A little workout reveals that 7 of the top 21 leaders (Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Fyodor Sergeyev, Vladimir Lenin, Viktor Nogin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky) died due to ailments, or accidents. In other words, the remaining 11 of the top 21 leaders perished during the period when Stalin consolidated his power within the Bolshevik party and USSR. Like many others, I couldn’t get convinced, how more than 50% of the Bolshevik Party leaders were traitors to the state and the party! That would also mean, as a corollary, that Lenin led Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 with less than half of the Bolshevik party central committee members as true patriots! Even considering and acknowledging the facts that:

  • Trotsky and his team representing the interest of Zionist bankers based in Europe and USA tried to derail the economy and destroy the society across Soviet Union, and
  • Marshall Tukhachevsky and his team of Generals tried to seize state power and thereafter surrender large tract of the then USSR to Fascist Germany to make peace with Germany,

There can’t be any doubt that, paranoid and autocratic behaviour of Stalin created an organisational disarray within the Bolshevik party which pushed more and more leaders against Stalin’s style of functioning, that again created even more distrust in Stalin, finally culminating in massive purge and repression (after murder of Kirov).

Keeping in view the stellar achievements and leaving aside the organisational mismanagement during the initial decades of formation of Soviet Union, let me remind the readers across the world who love truth-justice-equality-morality, Lenin and Stalin were among the most outstanding leaders of the toiling masses in the history of humankind, who never compromised with capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism (academicians caringly call the combination of these three virus as ‘world-system’ or ‘world order’).

The application of the Marxist theory of socialism, as carried out by CPSU under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin had significant drawbacks, which were resultant of the-then prevailing geopolitical conditions as well as the necessity of creating a ‘material basis’ for the socialist transformation of the society. Fundamental working principle of capitalism has not and will not change in future – whether it was mercantile version, agrarian version, industrial version, or more recent financial version, capitalism (coupled with Zionism and imperialism) will continue to seek accumulation of wealth by direct and indirect exploitation of 90% common people. Considering the maxim ‘failure is the pillar of success’, people across the world look forward to the current Marxist parties and leaders in Russia and other Eurasian regions for making the second and completely successful attempt to initiate a colossal movement that will sweep away the Zionist-Capitalist filth accumulated over past 6 decades in erstwhile USSR, to usher new era of Marxist economy and collective society where every citizen can breathe fresh air free from the polluted pungent smell of capital and profit. Inquisitive readers may look into details of such possibility in one of my previous articles, link of which is given below:

[Link: http://thesaker.is/towards-a-new-dawn-of-collective-community-in-a-new-union/ ]

Russian society would, thus vindicate the appearance of so many extraordinary personalities on its soil each of whom was a doyen in their own era, including great humanists like Tolstoy-Chekhov-Gorky and great leaders like Peter-Lenin-Stalin!

Note: The following books were referred:

Nikolay Starikov – Who Set Hitler Against Stalin

William Shirer – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Joachim C. Fest – Hitler


Short profile:

By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

August 13, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

It has recently come to light that the primary source of the Steele Dossier and Mueller Investigation is none other than Igor Danchenko- a veteran Brookings Institute employee from Ukraine who not only hadn’t been to Russia for decades but who admitted to the FBI in January 2017 that the entire Steele dossier was a fraud.

For those who do not know, the Brookings Institute is a powerful DNC think tank founded by Bill Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott who stepped down as president in 2017. Brookings has become known for its revolving door between officials in the Obama White House/DNC and the private sector. In recent weeks, it has come to light that Talbott reached out to Steele in August 2016 to share his own data accumulated by Danchenko and conspired with Steele on advancing the dossier in the wake of Trump’s November 2016 election. Other Brookings Institute agents deployed by Talbott include former NSC Russia Expert Trump impeachment witness Fiona Hill who co-authored a paper with Danchenko and also Talbott’s brother-in-law Cody Shearer who circulated a parallel dossier containing many of the falsified evidence printed in Steele’s script.

Sadly many analysts have read these new revelations badly and have concluded that MI6’s Christopher Steele was actually duped by fake American intelligence coming from opportunistic American operatives seeking to undermine a republican president for purely political considerations. Nothing however can be further from the truth.

Straussian vs Rhodesian Flavors of the Same Poison

Talbott himself may be American by blood, but thoroughly British in spirit. Both he and Clinton were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford in the 1970s and were joined by dozens of other Rhodes Scholars who flooded into the White House in 1992.

While appearing on the surface to oppose the brute force approach of the neoconservative Straussians, the Rhodes Scholar nests have distinguished themselves over the past century by promoting a world order that saw a more technocratic/Malthusian system of controls with the USA playing a subservient position in the Great Game. The Straussian neocons on the other hand aimed at a post-nation state world order with America acting as the lead and monetarism serving as a ruling religion. The differences between these two outlooks differs only superficially, as both plans involve a global bankers dictatorship controlled by the City of London and both demanded divided world of war, poverty and resource monopolies by an elite that have no allegiance to the USA or any sovereign nation state per se.

This outlook was expressed by Talbott in a most visceral manner in 1992 when he said:

“All countries are basically social arrangements….No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary….Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all….But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Rhodes Scholars are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said:

“The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

In a 1934 video address to the nation, General Butler said:

“I appeared before the Congressional Committee, the highest representation of the American people under subpoena to tell what I knew about activities which I believe might lead to an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship… the upshot of the whole thing was that I was to pose to lead an organization of 500 000 men which would be able to take over the functions of government”

Left-Wing Fascism blossoms in Canada

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms:

“The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

At the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in France, Kissinger (who would soon be knighted for his work on behalf of the British Empire) stated:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21stCentury

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, Strobe Talbott, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential for a Multipolar Alliance of Sovereign Nation States. This sabotage has taken the form of a Great Global Reset and Green New Deal.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

%d bloggers like this: