US media is reporting that Ukraine has five months to show demonstrable and significant gains or Western allies fear financial and military support from the US may wane and pressure will mount on the country to enter into peace negotiations.
US media reported on the matter, citing several senior European officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The United States is entering an election cycle and it is important, one European official says, that the American public can be sold on the idea that the more than $113 billion in taxpayer aid given to Ukraine has been effective and “to prove that all of those aid packages have been successful in terms of Ukrainian advances.”
US officials contend that the current $48 billion package which was authorized last year, is enough to sustain Ukraine for roughly five more months, but European allies are concerned future aid packages from the US will come close to matching that level.
Nevertheless, earlier this month Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said his country needed more Western weapons before he could order the start of Ukraine’s much-hyped counter-offensive. He visited four NATO nations this week, Italy, Germany, France, and the UK, securing billions in more aid, but European support is still a fraction of what the US has been providing.
The US government has also hit its self-imposed debt ceiling, which has led to a debate on domestic spending. Some social programs may be cut in the negotiations, which would make selling aid packages to the American taxpayer even more difficult if Ukraine cannot be presented as a winning bet.
US President Joe Biden has, publicly at least, remained steadfast in his support for Ukraine. Before heading to the G7 Summit on Wednesday, a White House official said that “President Biden has been very clear about supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
However, Biden’s likely opponent in 2024, former President Donald Trump, said last week he didn’t think of the war “in terms of winning and losing,” and is instead focused on “getting it settled so we stop killing all these people.” He also would not commit to sending more aid packages and promised to end the war “in 24 hours.”
And there have been hints from other Republicans that support for Ukraine is not unlimited. While House Speaker Kevin McCarthy [R-CA] said he will “continue to support” aid to Ukraine, he also said previously that it won’t come in the form of a “blank check.”
Support among the American public for Ukraine has also been slipping. Polls have shown support as low as 48% in January and while other polls have had that number over 50% in more recent months, it is still far from last summer when 73% of Americans supported military aid to Ukraine.
Without significant gains by the Ukrainian armed forces, it is unlikely that trend will reverse itself.
“If we get to September and Ukraine has not made significant gains, then the international pressure on [the West] to bring them to negotiations will be enormous,” one official said.
Both the UN General Assembly and G20 summit take place in September. Both events would represent an opportunity to get both sides to the negotiating table.
Several countries have offered to act as mediators, including China, Brazil and Turkey, but Zelensky has rejected mediation since the beginning of the conflict when Ukraine pulled out of negotiations mediated by Turkey. On Saturday, he rejected another offer from Pope Francis for mediation.
But much of Ukraine’s sustained capabilities depend on Western support, and another European official said they “can’t keep the same level of assistance forever,” though he felt another year or two may be possible.
America gives Ukraine 5 months before cutting support, disrupting its access to the F-16, and strikes targeting the Crimean railways
379 _ A radioactive cloud from the detonation of depleted uranium missile stores in Ukraine and the completion of control over Bakhmut
The Group of Seven held a de facto war summit in Hiroshima, a place that is synonymous with the horror and evil of war.
The United States-led “Group of Seven” cabal held one of their increasingly meaningless jamborees this weekend in the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The posturing of solemnity by these warmongering elites in a place that represents the ultimate barbarity of American imperialism is not only sickening in its hypocrisy and profanity. The evident lack of awareness and shame of these charlatans is a sure sign that their privileged historical charade is coming to an end.
American President Joe Biden took time out from his nation’s collapsing economy and scandals over his rampant family corruption to attend the G7 summit in Japan. He was joined by so-called leaders from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada as well as the premier of the host nation, Fumio Kishida. Joining the lackeys was the European Union’s chief ventriloquist doll, Ursula von der Leyen, and Ukrainian comedian-turned-arms-dealer, aka “president”, Vladimir Zelensky.
The proceedings began with a cynical and disingenuous “dedication” at the Hiroshima Peace Park whose centerpiece is the Genbaku Dome, the iconic spectral ruin caused by the U.S. atomic bombing in 1945. The very gathering of leaders at this sacred place is the same people who are criminally pushing the world toward another conflagration.
Biden and his cronies soon dispensed with hollow talk about “peace” and “nuclear disarmament” to make the G7 summit a rallying call for more hostility toward Russia and China. There were plans for more economic warfare (sanctions) against Moscow, which was vilified as usual for “unprovoked aggression” against Ukraine. There were pledges of supplying more weapons to the powder keg that the U.S. and its NATO partners have created in Ukraine. There were high-handed dismissals of international diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, which have been proposed by China, and Latin American and African nations.
The U.S.-led G7 camarilla also made their hate fest a forum for drumming up more hostility toward China, accusing Beijing of building up nuclear arms and threatening the world.
In short, the Group of Seven held a de facto war summit in Hiroshima, a place that is synonymous with the horror and evil of war.
Seventy-eight years ago, on the morning of August 6, 1945, at 8.15 am, the US Air Force Enola Gay B-29 bomber dropped the atomic bomb on the city. The resulting death toll would be 140,000, mainly civilians, many of them instantly incinerated, others dying from horrendous burns and radiation poisoning. A second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki three days later.
History has shown that there was no military need to use such weapons of mass destruction. Official American reasoning ostensibly about hastening the end of the Pacific War can now be seen as a flagrant lie. The bombs were deliberately used by the United States in a demonstration of state terrorism especially directed at its wartime ally, the Soviet Union. Arguably, these grotesque genocidal crimes sealed the beginning of the Cold War. This horrific demarcation was how the U.S.-led Western imperialist system would try to control the postwar world.
The same deplorable and criminal Cold War mentality persists among the U.S. rulers and their Western minions. Washington needs wars and conflict to maintain its untenable hegemonic ambitions along with its Western satraps who are equally complicit. The barbarous power structure can only be sustained by “ideological projections” designating “enemies” and “threats” that, in turn, provide cover for the otherwise unacceptable barbarism and warmongering. The Soviet Union was the “enemy”, then it became “Islamic terrorists”, and now it’s Russia and China.
The ideological projection also casts a narcissistic image of America and its Western allies as benevolent, peace-loving, democratic, law-abiding, and so on. It’s an almost incredible feat of global gaslighting and inversion of reality; made possible largely by mass disinformation via the Western corporate media/propaganda system. Thankfully, that charade is becoming threadbare too.
One indicator this week was a study by the respected Brown University’s Cost of War project which estimated the number killed just over the past two decades from U.S.-led wars at 4.5 million. All told, since the end of World War Two estimates of deaths from American wars of aggression around the world are in the order of 20-30 million. No other nation in history comes close to the destructiveness of U.S. power, which laughably declares itself the “leader of the free world”, the “democratic upholder of rules-based order”.
The United States has devolved into a monstrous imperialist rogue state that is addicted to war, conflict, mass killing and even threats of annihilation in order to prop up its corporate capitalist economy. Its accumulated record $31 trillion of national debt speaks of the chronic disease and its moribund dollar lifeline.
Yet, Washington’s ideological pretensions – sustained and promulgated by a subservient corporate media/propaganda system – have the absurd audacity to paint Russia, China and other nations as “threats” to international peace.
The war in Ukraine has been at least nine years in the making. Even NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg brazenly admits the preparation for war against Russia since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. The war is playing out now in a way that vividly manifests the psychopathic logic of the U.S. rulers and their Western lackeys. Britain has emerged as Uncle Sam’s righthand henchman for provoking escalation, the latest provocation to Russia being the supply of long-range Storm Shadow cruise missiles capable of striking Crimea. Already, Russian civilians have been casualties from these British munitions. This is like Part Two of the slaughter-fest madness of Britain’s Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimea War (1853-56). Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is another contemptible diversity cut-out figure. Dweebs like him, Biden, Scholz, Trudeau, Macron, Meloni and Von der Leyen should be marched off to the dock for war crimes.
The relentless logic of war compelled by American hegemonic ambitions means that the world is being pushed to the brink of world war again. The same imperialist tendencies that created two previous world wars are reaching fever-pitch again.
Hiroshima is an obscene reminder of war and in particular U.S.-led war. It is truly disturbing that an American president and his Western elite flunkies were paying homage to victims of an atomic holocaust while at the same insanely making plans for intensifying aggression toward Russia and China.
The arrogant American rulers have never even offered an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, they persist in claiming righteousness. Biden over the weekend added insult to travesty when he declared that Japan would be offered “protection” from America’s “nuclear umbrella” against alleged Chinese expansionism. This was stated by the leader of a nation that is ringing China with military bases, missile systems, naval firepower and nuclear-capable bombers. Japan’s abject premier Fumio Kishida actually thanked Biden and declared that the U.S. was a force for peace in the world.
In any case, the G7 is becoming a global irrelevance. It is a relic of former American imperial might. The “rich club” used to command half of the world’s economy, it is now down to 30 per cent and falling. The emerging multipolar world led by China, Russia, the Global South and many others, the BRICS, ASEAN, ALBA, EEA, SCO, are all testimony to the waning American Empire and its rapidly declining dollar dominance. The G7 doesn’t even make any pretence about helping the global economy and development. It has become a bellicose vehicle emitting desperate warmongering by a crumbling hegemonic system.
Only in the fairytale realm of Western media/propaganda could such a vile charade at Hiroshima be projected. To the rest of the world, it is utterly sickening.
قدّم مشهد الانتخابات الرئاسية التركية صورة شديدة التركيب والتعقيد بين عناصر تتشكّل منها كل مشاكل وأزمات المنطقة والعالم، وتدور حول أسئلة كبرى وتفصيلية، لتقول إن هناك توازناً هشاً بين معسكرين متداخلين، لا يمكن للمفاضلة بينهما أن تتم إلا بصعوبة عالية، بما يُعبّر عن غياب الخيارات الواضحة في تعبيرها عن مقاربة مشاكل الغد بلغة متجانسة؛ حيث يمثّل الرئيس أردوغان نموذج الإسلام السياسي القريب من الغرب ومفهوم الدولة المدنية، مقابل منافسه كمال كليجدار كممثل للعلمانية الأصولية المشبعة بروح الغرب والمعادية للدين؛ ويمثل أردوغان من موقعه في زعامة الأخوان المسلمين ضمن معسكر الإسلام السياسي نموذج العنف وشهوة البحث عن دور على حساب استقلال دول المنطقة، وصولاً للاستعداد لاستضافة عشرات آلاف الإرهابيين التكفيريين، وبالمقابل تصدير بعضهم الى حيث يلزم، تحت عباءة مشروع العثمانية الجديدة وحلم السلطنة الكامن والجاهز للظهور دائماً، ومقابله منافس يريد استعادة نموذج أتاتورك لدور إقليمي ينضبط بالأجندة الغربية، لكن دون خوض حروب وطموحات التوسع؛ ويمثل أردوغان مشروعاً استقلالياً يقف على مسافة المصالح المتحركة بين الشرق والغرب، من حرب أوكرانيا إلى حرب سورية، والبحث عن شراكات سياسية واقتصادية تأخذ بالاعتبار متغيرات العالم ومخاطر البقاء في المركب الغربي بقيادة أميركية متوحشة، يأنس اليها منافسه ويأخذ عليه التقرّب من روسيا، بينما في الاقتصاد قدّم أردوغان نموذج اقتصاد قوميّ عماد النهوض بالصناعة وإنتاج دور يستند الى عناصر القوة في الجغرافيا الاقتصادية، ويقابله منافس يتبنى الليبرالية الكاملة، حيث لا دور للدولة في الاقتصاد؛ وفيما يقدم أردوغان مثالاً قاسياً في التعامل مع الحريات الشخصية والاجتماعية والسياسية والاعلامية، يتباهى خصمه بالذهاب الى أبعد الحدود دفاعاً عنها وصولاً لتشريع المثلية.
يقول المشهد الانتخابي في الجولة الأولى إن الأتراك حائرون. وهذا معنى توزعهم بنسب متساوية تقريباً بين المتنافسين، في لحظة يطلق عليها علماء الاجتماع والفلاسفة، لحظة انعدام اليقين. ولعل تصويت ستة وخمسين مليون تركي من أصل ستين مليوناً يحق لهم الانتخاب، يدل على حجم الانخراط الذي تعيشه المجتمعات في محاولة البحث عن اليقين، وانقسام هؤلاء الى نصفين شبه متساويين، بين ثمانية وعشرين مليوناً في ضفة وخمسة وعشرين مليوناً في ضفة مقابلة، ومقابل الإثنين ثلاثة ملايين صوّتوا للمرشح القومي المتطرف، تعبير عن حال عدم اليقين، وعدم وضوح الخيارات بصورة حاسمة؛ وبالتدقيق في اتجاهات التصويت، سوف يتبين أن المدن الكبرى كانت صاحبة الصوت الحاسم لصالح خيارات كليجدار، مقابل تصويت الأرياف بنسب أعلى لصالح أردوغان. وهذا يعني أن الأرياف صوتت بدافع الميل لصالح الهوية القومية الإسلامية المتصالحة مع المنطقة، خصوصاً في ضوء مرارة التجربة مع محاولات الانضمام الى الاتحاد الأوروبي، والإطار العنصري الذي قابلت به أوروبا طلب تركيا ذات الغالبية الإسلامية للانضمام إليها، بخلفية الخشية على التكوين الديمغرافي الأوروبي والحرص على ما وصفه الخبراء بالنقاء المسيحي، كما صوّتت لصالح دور الدولة الاقتصادي في السكن والتعليم والصحة ودعم الزراعة والسياحة والصناعة، بينما تأثرت المدن بالتطلع نحو الاندماج بالغرب خصوصاً مع الضائقة الاقتصادية وتراجع القيمة الشرائية لليرة التركية، وتغليب الدولة التي بلا هوية على نموذج الهوية التي قدّمها أردوغان، والتصويت للحريات بأبعادها الإعلامية والشخصية والاجتماعية بنسختها الليبرالية، بما فيها المثلية، والرغبة بالخروج من التوترات والنزاعات والحروب.
تكشف الانتخابات الدور المؤثر لشريحة وازنة وقضية بارزة. الشريحة هي الشباب الذين يتمركزون في المدن، ويبدو أن غالبية كبيرة منهم لم تصوّت لصالح أردوغان، ولو على خلفية طلب التغيير تحت شعار “عشرون عاماً تكفي”، أما القضية التي تعاني منها المدن وحضرت في خلفية التصويت بقوة فهي قضية اللاجئين السوريين، التي يتحمّل أردوغان مسؤولية تفاقمها، من موقعه ودوره في الحرب على سورية، مقابل التزام منافسه بإعادتهم خلال سنتين، ولو اقتضى الأمر ترحيلهم. والواضح أن ضغط قضية النزوح السوري على سكان المدن اقتصادياً واجتماعياً على خلفية الأزمة التي تعصف بالاقتصاد التركي وارتفاع نسب البطالة والتنافس على الأعمال بين العمال الأتراك والعمال السوريين، وتحميل البرجوازية السورية بين اللاجئين مسؤوليّة ارتفاع بدلات الإيجار والبيع في السوق العقاري، والسيطرة على بعض المهن، فيما يبدو أردوغان متردداً في اتخاذ القرار الذي يجعله أقرب لتقديم حل عملي لقضية النزوح، حيث يمكن التوصل مع الدولة السورية بدعم روسي إيراني خليجي، لروزنامة تتضمّن الانسحاب التركي من سورية وعودة النازحين وتفكيك الكانتونات التقسيمية والجماعات الإرهابية شمال شرق وشمال غرب سورية بالتوازي خلال سنتين.
يمكن القول إن الدورة الثانية قد تمنح فرصاً أفضل لمنافس أردوغان، إلا إذا أشهر أردوغان ورقته الرابحة بشجاعة، وأعلن استعداده للالتزام بروزنامة متوازية لعودة النازحين والانسحاب من سورية، عبر قمة سورية تركية بمشاركة روسية وايرانية تعقد في الرياض أو أبو ظبي تعلن هذا الالتزام وتضع له جداوله الزمنية.
For various reasons related to political leverage, regional grandstanding, and outright animosity, Qatar is likely to remain the last Arab state to return to Syria.
While most Arab countries have already moved to reestablish relations with the Syrian government – in line with a regional and international recognition of the failure to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad after a dozen years – some Arab states, led by Qatar, are out of sync, opposing rapprochement with Damascus.
Doha’s ongoing refusal to normalize ties with Damascus raises many questions, especially as it contradicts the trend of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, under Saudi leadership, to restore relations with Syria to their pre-war levels.
It also contradicts the attempts of Qatar’s only regional strategic ally, Turkiye, to resolve its differences with Damascus, abandon its decade-long enmity with Syria, in a Russian-mediated effort to solve a wide range of problems between the two neighbors. The most prominent of these issues is the removal of Turkish troops from northern Syrian territories, the crisis of Syrian refugees and displaced civilians on both sides of the border, and the growing capabilities of US-backed, secessionist Kurds leading a “self-administration” project inside large swathes of eastern and northern Syria, which Turkiye sees as a threat to its soft underbelly.
Today, Qatar appears to be virtually the only Arab regional state actively toeing the rejectionist position of the US and EU in refusing to open up to the government in Damascus.
The Qatari betrayal of Syria
With the ascension of President Assad to power in 2000, Syrian-Qatari relations witnessed a significant improvement, reaching a climax with Israel’s July 2006 war on Lebanon and then its 2008 war on the Gaza Strip.
Qatar’s public posture appeared firmly supportive of both the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance, and Doha became a major funder of the post-war reconstruction of areas destroyed by Israeli attacks. This coincided with the improvement of relations between Qatar and Hamas, the Palestinian resistance’s most prominent faction.
Between 2000 and 2011, relations between Doha and Damascus strengthened outside of the conventional political arena. Assad and former Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani struck up a personal relationship, and the latter paid numerous visits to Damascus.
With the 2011 outbreak of unrest in Syria, signs of a clear and unexpected Qatari shift began via Al-Jazeera – Doha’s most prominent media outlet – and its biased, often inciteful coverage of events in Syria. Sequentially, the political stances of Qatar, Hamas, and Turkiye began to change, with Doha and Ankara pressing for Damascus to alter its position on the banned Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – designated a terrorist organization – and to include it in governance.
When Damascus completely rejected the Qatari and Turkish demands, the unrest in Syria turned from civil disobedience to armed assault, which began to expand rapidly throughout the country. Turkiye opened its borders to foreign fighters from all over the world, with Arab states of the Persian Gulf funding – initially led by Qatar – amounting to billions of dollars, according to the Financial Times.
As the war on Syria expanded, a US-led alliance was formed to train Syrian fighters, and two command centers were established, “MOC” (Military Operations Command) in Jordan, and “MOM” (Müşterek Operasyon Merkezi) in Turkiye.
The task of overthrowing the Syrian government was transferred to Riyadh, led by former intelligence chief Bandar Bin Sultan, who demanded a budget of $2 trillion, according to Bin Jassim. With the growing emergence of “jihadi” terrorist organizations, led by ISIS and the Nusra Front, Syrian authorities lost control over massive swathes of territory and a partial blockade was imposed on Damascus.
The Syrian war entered a new phase in 2015, after Russian military forces intervened at the request of Damascus. Less than a month later, the US launched an “international coalition” to militarily intervene in Syria under the pretext of fighting ISIS. This changed the contours of the war map. With the help of foreign allied forces, including Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, the Syrian government regained control of much of the country, and established the ‘Astana process’ with Russia, Turkiye, and Iran to demilitarize areas outside of US and Kurdish separatist control.
Qatar’s continued Syrian role
Despite an ostensible decline in Qatar’s role in the Syrian war, Doha has not followed in the footsteps of most Gulf countries, who recognized their efforts to unseat Assad had failed. Even the Saudis, who played an oversized role in the assault against Damascus, dialed down their rhetoric against Syria in recent years, and have now moved to reconcile with Assad and his government.
Instead, Qatar’s adversarial footprint in Syria has continued unabated. It maintains its relationships with various Syrian opposition factions, including the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front (which controls Idlib and areas in the countryside of Aleppo), and has transformed the Syrian embassy in Doha into an operations room for adversaries of Syria.
Syrian opposition sources tell The Cradle that Doha continues its ties with all the armed factions in northern Syria, including the Levant Front, the National Army – which it co-funds with Turkiye – and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.
These relationships guarantee Doha – which has pumped billions of dollars into the Syrian war – a desirable modicum of influence in northern and northwestern Syria. The Qataris have bet heavily on the jihadist factions there; these militias are less expensive to maintain because of their efficiencies in self-financing and on the battlefield. Furthermore, the jihadi groups have ultimately proven to be more loyal to Qatar’s interests, especially Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the former Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
Likewise, the presence of more than a million Syrians in hundreds of encampments near the Turkish border provides Doha – which has financed the construction of towns for the displaced in this region – with additional leverage to be used on Damascus when the moment arises.
This partially explains the reasons for Qatar’s continued refusal to restore relations with Damascus and approve the return of Syria to the Arab League. Doha seeks to exert leverage and extract a price from the Assad government in any future Syrian solution. But there are several other factors that impact Qatari intransigence on the Syrian issue:
First, Qatar currently hosts the largest US Central Command (CENTCOM) military base in West Asia, and Washington outright rejects any and all rapprochement initiatives with Damascus.
Second, is Assad’s refusal to normalize relations with Turkiye pending a wholesale withdrawal of Turkish military forces from occupied Syrian territories. So long as Syrian-Turkish differences remain unresolved, Doha will not move to improve its own ties with Damascus.
Third, is Syria’s own refusal to normalize relations with Qatar without the latter paying a substantial price for its role in inciting, expanding, and militarizing the conflict. Qatar is a small, wealthy emirate, far from Syria’s borders. Unlike other regional supporters of opposition militias – such as Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and the UAE, who exercise substantial regional influence – Qatar has little value for Damascus other than the outsized wealth it can contribute to Syria’s reconstruction.
However, these deeply-embedded Syrian-Qatari differences do not preclude Syria’s return to the Arab League fold, from which it was suspended in 2011. Qatar cannot afford to exercise a veto on Syria’s return all by itself, nor will the organization tolerate being held up on this critical inter-Arab issue solely based on Doha’s stubborn refusal.
On 7 May, Arab foreign ministers will meet in Cairo specifically to discuss Syria’s Arab League restitution. Arab diplomatic sources inform The Cradle that the mere convening of the League Council at this extraordinary political level means that there is an agreement to endorse the Syrian return. They say that the council is likely to discuss two proposals: The first, submitted by Saudi Arabia, will require Qatar to abstain from voting, and the second is for Syria to initially return to the League as an “observer,” with the provision that it regains its full membership next year.
As for Kuwait and Morocco, which also ostensibly reject Syria’s return, the diplomatic sources reveal that Saudi Arabia has managed to persuade them not to oppose its proposal, which will make it easier for Doha “not to oppose what the member states of the Arab League are unanimously agreed upon.”
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Moscow will be ready to respond to Kiev’s attempt to carry out a drone attack on the Kremlin whenever and wherever it sees fit, the Russian presidential press service said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Russia reserves the right to take retaliatory measures whenever and wherever it sees fit,” the statement reads.
According to the statement, “last night, the Kiev regime attempted to attack the Russian president’s Kremlin residence using unmanned aerial vehicles.”
The Kremlin noted that it was “a pre-planned act of terrorism and an attempt on the life of the Russian president, which took place just before the Victory Day and the May 9 Parade that will be attended by foreign guests.”
The following video shows the moment of the drone attack:
State Duma Speaker, Vyacheslav Volodin, said the US and the EU by providing financial and military assistance to the Zelensky regime, become sponsors and accomplices of nuclear terrorism.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was not harmed in an overnight drone strike on the Kremlin, his press service announced on Wednesday.
“As a result of this terrorist act, the President of the Russian Federation was not injured. His work schedule has not changed, it continues as usual,” the message said.
Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov explained that the head of state was not in the Kremlin during what he described as a Ukrainian UAV attack on Tuesday night. He noted that President Putin is currently working from his residence near Moscow.
Europe must accept the fact that the world today is no longer the Western playground and that the growing anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible.
It’s important to emphasize that Europe was not a victim in the current world order run by Washington, but rather a participant. Its contributions were destructive, filled with colonialism, theft, dismantling, and murder of nations that directly led to corruption, poverty, and injustice worldwide.
Europe’s bloody history
Despite Europe joining the global financial systems established by the US in the 20th century, such as the IMF and World Bank, the continent has used these tools to deepen its colonialism and expansion policies towards countries worldwide. It has even leveraged its position with bodies like the UN and UNSC to exploit weaker states and enforce its hegemonic agendas, including wealth looting and proxy wars against rivals politically and economically.
However, the rise of the Global South in recent years has allowed its nations to counter the hegemonic exploitation of international bodies by funneling their resources into their economies to advance in the new world order. By engaging with the Western coalition while shielding themselves from their malicious agendas, these nations can benefit in the long run.
Post-WW2 world order
After World War II, the United States emerged as an unrivaled superpower, untouched by the catastrophic destruction of the war and claiming a barely earned victory. Between 1944 and 1949, milestone events secured the unipolar order under the US and placed the EU under Washington’s direct influence for decades to come.
Bretton Woods in 1944 established the USD as the global reserve and trade currency, while the Marshall Plan in 1945 provided funding to Western European countries that agreed to follow America’s dictates to rehabilitate and rebuild their infrastructure and industrial capabilities (note that the plan’s funds were used to purchase American goods).
The establishment of the IMF and World Bank enforced the new world monetary and financial system crafted by Washington. The Truman Doctrine finally ensured that Western Europe became a follower of Washington’s foreign policies.
Establishing NATO, a war coalition under Washington’s direct control, was the highlight of that period. It served the interests of the United States and ensured that Europe did not attempt to create a sovereign military power but rather relied on the US for protection.
The final blows to Europe’s industrial complex in the 20th century were the Nixon Shock in 1971, where the bloc’s member states found themselves stuck with paper notes whose value was solely determined by Washington, and in 1974 when the United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to peg oil to the USD – establishing the petrodollar. This meant that Europe’s access to the world’s largest energy reserve was now controlled by Washington.
The petrodollar required Europe to maintain an abundance of USD reserves for oil purchases, resulting in increased investment in American treasury bonds and currency inflow to US markets. Despite partnering with the US in its bloody crusades over the past decades, the EU’s interests were not taken into consideration by Washington.
The US has used its European allies as tools in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the destruction of Libya and Syria, and relations with the Arab world (the world’s richest energy region). Although Europe faced similar political and public backlash, it was the US that acquired the real strategic interests.
Disregarding the changed world we live in, the EU continues to live under a WW2 mentality.
Despite warnings against militarily provoking Russia, the EU doubled down on the American-NATO illusion that being the strongest military coalition worldwide guarantees inevitable victory, and using force to impose the West’s worldview remains a viable option.
Self-destructive tendencies
After years of Russia sending signals and after many world vocal warnings, including from prominent Western figures like Kissinger, regarding NATO’s eastward expansion, European member states made the same mistake and adopted Washington’s doctrine on Moscow, leading to a conflict with Russia. Despite the historic failure of this approach, EU leaders repeatedly attempted to humiliate Russia and publicly claimed that the West aimed to bring Moscow to its knees since the beginning of the war in Ukraine until recently.
The conflict with Russia has deeper repercussions on the EU than just preventing mutually beneficial trade ties that would put both economies on a trajectory of development and growth. The United States aims to fight against the growing Global South, with China at the top, and to cut off any attempts by its European allies to further integrate with Asia’s rising powers.
Following the start of the war in Ukraine, Europe not only faced energy shortages, while US energy companies continued to extract oil from Iraq, Syria, and Libya but also realized how Washington was profiting from the very war they had incited. They were overcharged for LNG at three to four times the price sold within the domestic US market, which itself impacted their major industry’s capabilities to continue production.
On the other hand, the US led an international campaign to force its European allies mainly to adopt a price cap on Russian oil. But despite Washington’s push for this bill, Americans themselves were not affected nor were they directly part of the pressure campaign in Moscow, mainly since they did not rely on Russian oil, and with the petrodollar in place, it did not matter how much the EU paid for oil, as the currency used would go back to US banks.
Soon, Europe, left alone after countries such as Japan did not abide by the price cap, found that it still had to buy Russian Urals but with additional middlemen fees through countries such as India.
The EU witnessed firsthand the US tearing down their economies, which are under increased levels of deindustrialization, with industry giants moving to the US for lower energy prices and a more business-friendly environment crafted by Washington to lure companies mainly from its European allies.
As a result, Europe found itself seeking energy from African nations that it had previously colonized and destroyed. EU officials scrambled through countries like Algeria and Libya to secure gas and oil.
As the world order shifts towards a more multipolar one with a center of gravity shifting towards China, Europe has begun to become aware that the US-led model that has dominated the world order for decades has not brought the desired outcome for the bloc. Despite benefiting immorally from genocidal campaigns and being America’s partner in crime, Europe’s gains were short-lived.
With a history of self-destructive tendencies and after years of psycho-preparation and media propaganda, Europe was politically and economically prepared to repeat its historic mistakes in its approach to Russia and later to China.
The West quickly convinced its public that the rivalry with Russia was ideological and existential, that joining NATO and dropping neutrality (as with Finland and Sweden) was the only secure way to protect against the demons of the East, and that China is at the core of everything against the neoliberal values of the West.
Inevitable Multipolar world order
During a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on April 18, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde noted that the world is becoming more multipolar, with a fragmentation of the global economy into competing blocs.
Lagarde stated that this new “global map” would have “first-order implications,” with the possibility of two blocs emerging, led by China and the US.
On many levels, Lagarde’s statement hits the core of the current world state of affairs.
The US reintroduced the political bloc mentality on a wider scale through the proxy war in Ukraine, pulling all its strings and employing all its accumulated influence to focus its power on obstructing a Eurasian uprising and realigning Europe’s foreign policy towards dismantling connections with China and Russia.
The post-WW2 era, characterized by bloc politics pushed by the US, is no longer feasible in the current period of deep integration, interest overlaps, and political complexity established by globalization, advanced trading networks, financial intertwining, and complementary production needs.
The West’s expansion of NATO forces to Russia’s border, followed by Moscow’s campaign to protect its national security, has put the global change on a pedestal.
The fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine and the historic barrage of sanctions against Moscow has led to the fracturing of the financial system, and exposed the fragility of the West’s proclaimed “rules-based international world order”.
During an event hosted at Renmin University’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies last January to discuss the current state of world powers, the editor-in-chief of the Beijing Cultural Review (BCR) said that the fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine led to events that could have never been imagined earlier.
“These [events] include the fracturing of the financial system, the expropriation and seizure of Russian private assets, and the freezing of Russian foreign exchange reserves. These are all abominable and unimaginable forms of confrontation,” Yang Ping said in his speech.
“The world is moving inexorably in the direction of decoupling. The phenomenon of politics affecting the economy and the capitalist political order no longer upholding the capitalist economic order is extremely striking.”
If not for the war in Ukraine, Ping’s statement regarding the world taking shape would have been shunned by Western experts as an illusion or merely a forecast, but now, and thanks to the West’s undivided efforts, the world is moving inexorably towards decoupling, and the phenomenon of politics affecting the economy is becoming strikingly apparent; a world with limited Western hegemony is on track to becoming an irreversible reality.
Europe’s amputated foreign policy
In recent months, top EU leaders including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have visited China amid rising global tensions.
Their visits aimed to balance relations between the US and China as Washington’s hostility towards Beijing escalated, its sanctions against the Asian giant increased, and its provocative actions in the South China Sea intensified.
Macron’s visit, in particular, was noteworthy, as it seemed to reassure China of Europe’s distinct position from Washington’s policies against Asian giants. Despite announcing that the main reason for his visit was to push Beijing against arming Russia and push Moscow to end the war, behind the scenes, Macron’s visit aimed to assert Europe’s position.
He stated that Europe should not be caught up in a disordering of the world and crises that aren’t ours and that the government must build a “third pole.”
“We must be clear where our views overlap with the US, but whether it’s about Ukraine, relations with China, or sanctions, we have a European strategy,” the French leader said then.
“We don’t want to get into a bloc versus bloc logic.”
At first, many European leaders publicly announced or hinted at their support for Macron’s move, considering it a positive approach to their largest trading partner.
But later, some European leaders expressed their rejection of his statements, the most blatant of which was the finance minister in Scholz’s government, Christian Lindner, who said that Macron’s “Idea of strategic autonomy of the European Union,” is “naïve.” Of course, the statement was not objected to by the German Chancellor, signaling that the minister has also voiced Scholz’s opinion.
Following Lindner’s remarks, and after von der Leyen reaffirmed the bloc’s neutral position on the Taiwan Strait issue provoked by the US during an EU parliamentary hearing on April 18, Manfred Weber, who helms the Parliament’s largest group, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), accused Macron of “destroying” European unity with his trip to China, and that the French president “weakened the EU” and “made clear the great rift within the European Union in defining a common strategic plan against Beijing.”
To counter Macron’s position that the Taiwan issue is not a European concern, Weber also compared the matter to the war going on in Ukraine from Washington’s perspective.
“We shouldn’t be surprised if Washington starts asking whether Ukraine is a European issue,” Weber said. The question they may ask, he warned: “Why should American taxpayers do so much to defend Ukraine?”
His comments, of course, are nothing but shortsighted and delusional, given that the war in Ukraine was created and pushed forward by the US’ decades-long policies on NATO’s take against Russia.
From an outside observer, the contradicting statements – while also taking into account that the bloc members are dividing roles – can only be described as a political mess, a loss of strategic planning, and entails that the union is currently lacking the tools to form a united framework to establish a basis to approach the Global South as a whole, and especially China.
Is the EU’s policy being molded by an actual comprehensive overview of the world’s geopolitical shifts, or is it being dictated by a handful of US pawns that have served nothing but American hawks since they took office?
Blind Economic outlook as bloc
The disunity in Europe extends beyond just their political approach to China, as trade policies with their largest business partner also show division.
In 2020, China and the EU agreed on a trade framework, eliminating Chinese restrictions on European companies and investments in China. However, the deal was put on hold after the bloc sanctioned Beijing for alleged human rights abuses and China responded with sanctions of its own.
Just under two weeks after Macron’s and von der Leyen’s trip to China, the EU leaders said that they consider the deal with China as not applicable anymore, following the events since it was reached in 2020.
“We started negotiations around about 10 years ago and concluded the comprehensive agreement on investment two years ago. A lot has happened since then,” she said, adding that Europe’s “position is that we do have to reassess the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment,” she said earlier in April.
On his part, Macron considered that the agreement today is “less urgent,” and “just not practicable”.
On the other hand, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz lately has been pushing for “reactivating” the agreement and considered it was time to reinstate the deal and put it back on track.
It is understandable that this dynamic is not unusual between world powers, especially at a time when the globe is witnessing historic geopolitical shifts, and it is definitely not unusual considering that the American influence across Europe and its leaders is still very significant, and Washington’s sanctions sword is constantly raised against its allies.
However, the lack of a united foreign policy within the bloc may negatively impact its position in the emerging multipolar world order and lead to the weakening or collapse of the union. Europe’s incomplete and fragile relations with growing global pillars, especially China and the emerging Global South, may also be observed from Beijing’s perspective.
Losing post-WW2 against Global South
Europe’s lack of clear foreign policy extends beyond its position on China, as it also pertains to the US’s declared soft war on the Asian giant.
For decades, Brussels relied on the assumption of a long-term realm by Washington as the unipolar power, which led the bloc to neglect sustainable and strong relations with the Global South.
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the Global South has made unexpected, unprecedented moves, guided by the goal of forming sovereign policies that are far from Western hegemony led by Washington. They declared historic political shifts, leading to the formation of a new and influential world pillar in the multipolar era.
Protectionist economic policies, accompanied by subsidization, act for vital sectors like electric vehicles and batteries.
More systems (such as BRICS and SCO) and countries are growing monetary bodies and alternative trade frameworks to those dominated and influenced directly by the United States. It has become clear that political global organizations such as the UNSC and the UN, which were long exploited by Washington and its European allies to extend their hegemony and colonialism, are slowly losing more relevance and impact on the global arena.
On April 16, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, in an interview with CNN, said that the United States economic sanctions imposed on Russia and other nations have put the dollar’s hegemony at risk as targeted countries seek out an alternative.
“There is a risk when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar that over time it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar,” she said then.
Financial global institutions and systems such as the IMF, World Bank, and SWIFT, are gradually declining as de-dollarization proceeds and countries are finding alternatives to bypass the West’s complete influence, including mutual lending and local currency trade, sovereign projects, in addition to domestic SWIFT alternatives such as China’s CIPS, Russia’s SFPS, and Iran’s SEPAM, to name some.
The movement today is driven by Beijing along with other powers including Brazil, India, Russia, Iran, and South Africa, among others.
Despite all signs in previous years of the emergence of the new geopolitical reality, Europe failed to form appropriate policies and outline a vision to engage and adapt to these drastic global shifts, nor did it take advantage of some of the outcomes that fall into its interest, such as de-dollarization and the end of the petrodollar. Instead, Europe insisted on following Washington’s agenda, further sidelining its world influence.
Sidelined
On March 10, Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to restore diplomatic relations and reopen missions after seven years of strained ties.
Talks were brokered in Beijing under the auspices of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Western role, especially that of Washington, in inciting dispute and rift between the two nations was criminal, leading to tens of thousands of deaths, mass destruction, displacement of hundreds of thousands, and feelings of hate among the people of the region.
China managed in just a few months to achieve what the United Nations and other international political bodies failed to do, marking Beijing’s first public political approach to the Middle East. The Beijing-brokered rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh reveals Europe’s falling influence in the region and the growing tendency of countries to sideline the West in bilateral issues. It also highlights China’s rise as a peace-bringing and key power in the region.
Oppressed nations rejoice
Europe’s centuries-long history of producing global superpowers makes it a hybrid bloc with a combined cultural, political, social, economic, and institutional maturity that can quickly adapt to world geopolitical shifts and overcome emerging challenges.
However, it can be argued that the current world challenges are unprecedented, especially with the concept of globalization and the world’s interconnectedness.
Europe today has limited options that require a new approach and view of the world, with a humble and realistic policy that acknowledges the end of its hegemony and the adoption of sovereignty and mutual respect in bilateral relations.
The EU must also accept that the world is no longer a Western playground and that anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible in a multipolar world. Regardless of Europe’s decisions, oppressed nations are watching the declining global influence of the colonial bloc with joy.
The Jubbet Adh Dhib school near Bethlehem is threatened with demolition by Israeli authorities. (Photo: via UK in Jerusalem Twitter page)
European diplomats visited a Palestinian school at risk of Israeli demolition in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday, The New Arab reported.
The British Consulate in Jerusalem said it had joined other missions at the Jubbet Al-Dhib school near Bethlehem, noting that the school is one of 58 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that is threatened with demolition.
“We urge Israel to reverse the demolition order and protect the right to education for all,” the consulate tweeted.
The EU Delegation to the Palestinians said about 70 children in the first to fourth grades would be impacted and lose the chance to attend school if the demolition goes ahead.
“Such demolitions should not take place,” the mission said on Twitter.
“The EU remains concerned at the continued humanitarian suffering of such actions to Palestinians.”
The Irish mission in Ramallah tweeted that Israel “must safeguard access to children’s education” in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The Society of St. Yves Catholic rights group said it brought the diplomats up to speed on news concerning the school, with pupils urging them to save it from demolition, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.
The rights group said “We need to do everything” to prevent the school’s demolition and “guarantee Palestinians’ right to education”.
It also urged greater advocacy and the release of statements urging a stop to school demolitions, calling for international presence at schools threatened with demolition.
The visit comes after the general secretaries of eight British and Irish trade unions last month “urged the Israeli government immediately to call a halt” to the demolition of the Jubbet Al-Dhib school and other planned West Bank school demolitions.
“It is impossible to continue with Assad. How can we look forward with a Syrian president who has murdered over a million of the country’s citizens?”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at a press conference in Tunisia in December 2017.
The Turkish president’s claims show that he did not consider the prospect of Bashar Al-Assad staying as Syria’s president. Undoubtedly, he has begun to notice the failure of his ambitions since 2018 when the battlefield track has shifted to a large extent in favor of the Syrian army. He was not the only one who had high expectations for the war, which erupted in Syria in the summer of 2011. Many Arabs, as well as the West and the USA, took part in this.
Throughout ten years, they all fantasized about a new Syria that “has no room” for Bashar Al-Assad and his government. Damascus was suspended from the Arab League. Instead, Moaz Al-Khatib, the leader of the so-called opposition alliance represented Syria at the summit conference in March 2013.
All diplomatic relations were severed. Moreover, the UN-sponsored sessions of negotiations were a formality, as they imposed unrealistic conditions on Damascus to force its surrender.
Syria was subject to the toughest sanctions, the last of which was the “Caesar Act”, as its entire territory faced death and bloodshed. However, the scale was tipped in favor of the Syrian state and its allies. Whoever wins eventually imposes his demands, and that exactly what happened.
‘Marathon’ of Restoring Ties
Twelve years after the start of the Syrian war, experts in Syrian affairs classify the countries’ relationship with the regime into two camps: those who are “enthusiastic about normalizing relations, such as Turkey and the UAE, and those who link the normalization with a political solution in Syria, such as the United States, the European Union, and Qatar.”
There is also a third camp which observes the situation, waiting for the image to clarify before determining its position. This camp is represented by Saudi Arabia, in addition to Egypt and Jordan, to a lesser extent.
Following the devastating earthquake that shook Turkey and northwest Syria, the latter group made a remarkable advance into Syria. Egypt offered aid to Syria, as President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi contacted his Syrian counterpart and Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry visited Damascus.
🇸🇾🇪🇬 Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry arrived in Damascus earlier today and met with his Syrian counterpart. This visit falls down within the process of breaking siege on Damascus .. Egypt and Syria have always been key players in the Middle East political scene ! pic.twitter.com/BPNGL0Z5lO
Further, Jordan’s relationship with the Syrian government improved by the end of 2021, after being for years one of the prominent backers of the terrorists and the role it played the “MOC” operations room. At the time (in late 2021), Jordanian King Abdullah II discussed measures to boost bilateral relations with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad during a phone call that coincided with a meeting between Syrian Minister of Defense General Ali Ayoub and Jordanian Chief of Staff Major General Yusef Al-Hunaiti. Moreover, the “Nassib-Jaber” border crossing, Jordan’s northern lung, was reopened.
Nassib crossing, main border post between Jordan and Syria (photo from archive).
As for the Saudi which was a major player in the war in terms of armaments and even the media war, Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan recently confirmed that “consensus is growing in the Arab world that isolating Syria is unlikely to work and that dialogue with Damascus is required.” The top Saudi diplomat also hinted at Syria rejoining the Arab League, which is set to convene in Riyadh in May.
Turkey Enthusiastic for Normalization with Syria
Back to the first camp, or the ‘enthusiasts,’ Turkey prevails. Despite its primary role and direct engagement in the war through its military presence in northern Syria, Turkey’s interests in Syria have shifted after the formation of the alliance between the US and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). This gave the SDF power in the Syrian north, which Ankara deemed to be a threat to its national security, prompting it to work with Russia to prevent the emergence of a “Kurdish entity.” This was in return for relinquishing the objective of “toppling the regime” and forging a sort of a ceasefire in Idlib, where Turkey has direct control over the armed groups.
However, the February 6 earthquake in Kahramanmaraş had terrible consequences for Ankara, which was already in the grip of an economic crisis.
As a result, addressing the Syrian refugee issue became an urgent demand for Ankara, as well as a major key to increase Erdogan’s prospects of winning the coming presidential elections in May. It became obvious herein that the Turkish wooing towards Syria increased, as did the reiteration on the need for mending ties and demonstrating seriousness in this regard, as shown in communications through Iranian and Russian mediators.
This was not the first attempt of its kind, as Erdogan officially declared at the end of November 2022 that he had proposed to President Vladimir Putin a tripartite route to go forward with the normalization process. As a result, on December 28, a conference in Moscow was convened with the defense ministers of Russia, Turkey, and Syria, as well as intelligence officers from the three countries.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has arrived in Tehran for talks with his Iranian and Russian counterparts on the Syria peace process. pic.twitter.com/rIFUVrMjo0
The UAE regarded eliminating Assad in 2011 as a “blow to Iran,” but it also backtracked due to the scheme’s failure. It reopened its embassy in Damascus in December 2018. In early 2020, the first public phone contact between then-Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, and President Assad since the two nations severed diplomatic relations in 2012.
In November 2021, UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed had his first visit to Damascus in ten years. Then, in March 2022, Al-Assad paid his first Arab visit to Abu Dhabi since the start of the conflict, followed by Abdullah bin Zayed’s visit to Damascus in December 2022. The Emirati openness was visible in the amount of aid offered to Syria in various forms following the earthquake, amid blatant Western and American intransigence and adherence to sanctions despite the enormity of the humanitarian catastrophe.
The Syrian president also paid another visit to the UAE earlier this month in another sign of thawing ties.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad met Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi. The visit is #Assad's first state visit to the #UAE since the beginning of the conflict in #Syria in 2011. A geopolitical breakthrough. pic.twitter.com/ZJ7sNdSLuK
According to sources, “there is an Emirati interest in obtaining economic opportunities in Syria throughout the post-war and reconstruction phase.” Furthermore, Abu Dhabi aspires to join the line of communication between Turkey and the Syrian regime, which would strengthen its regional presence.
Stubborn US
Turning to the camp of the obstinate states, the USA is the most prominent of them, with a military presence in bases such as Al-Malikiyah, Rumailan, Himo, Qasrak, Al-Hasakah’s sports city, Al-Shaddadi, and Al-Tanf. In addition to the tough sanctions that led to unambiguous consequences following the earthquake, Washington also plays a role, albeit in secret, in training terrorists such as ISIL militants and pillaging Syria’s wealth.
Meanwhile, these sanctions are regarded as one of the major impediments to normalization with the Syrian government by many nations, particularly the European Union. Herein, the Union’s Foreign Relations High Representative, Joseph Borrell, stated that the EU “will remain against normalization with the Syrian regime until it effectively engages in a political solution to the conflict as stipulated by the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2254.”
Syria the Victor’s role: Settlement Has Conditions
On his recent visit to Russia, President Al-Assad set the records straight. In exchange for all the “messages of friendliness,” and despite the economic and human misery exacerbated by the earthquake, the latter promised: there are prerequisites for the comeback.
Al-Assad informed Erdogan that restoring communication and ties is related to establishing a clear timeline for the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from the Syrian territory. This resulted in the delay of an anticipated meeting between the two countries deputy foreign ministers with Russia and Iran to an undetermined date.
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad (photo from archive).
In terms of the Arab world, despite his “positive” approach toward Saudi goodwill during his visit to Moscow, President Al-Assad has ruled out his country’s participation in the next Arab summit. “Syria’s membership in the Arab League is frozen, and to attend the summit, the suspension must be ended, and this requires an Arab summit,” he stated. “Returning to the Arab League is not an ambition in itself; the goal is the joint Arab action,” he added.
“As a result of its ambiguous regulations, the Arab League is frequently used to settle scores, therefore Syria cannot return while the AL is merely a label for division”, Al Assad added.
“Thousands of years may pass before the Arabs unite,” said Al-Assad in an interview on Russia TV. “So let us wait thousands of years,” he added, laughing.
“What’s Coming IS WORSE THAN A WW3, THIS IS SERIOUS” in Exclusive Interview Larry Johnson is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine.
Johnson gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Johnson then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war.
They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Find more @judgenapolitano-judgingfre7226 Discussed on the show: “This Time It’s Different” (The American Conservative) “Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut: ‘Our troops are not being protected’” (Kyiv Independent) Larry Johnson is an American blogger and former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. He is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group).
“Russia IS WIPING THEM OUT, THIS IS IT” in Exclusive Interview Douglas Macgregor is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine. Macgregor gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Macgregor then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war. They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Douglas Macgregor: “Ukraine IS LOSING, THIS IS IT” in Exclusive Interview Douglas Macgregor is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine. Macgregor gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Macgregor then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war. They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Premiered 13 hours ago
Discussed on the show: “This Time It’s Different” (The American Conservative) “Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut: ‘Our troops are not being protected’” (Kyiv Independent) Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share buttons above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
On March 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will start deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Construction of designated storage facilities for the weapons is planned to be completed by July 1.
The decision to transfer nuclear weapons to Belarus was made after Minsk [allegedly] issued a formal request, essentially mirroring Washington DC’s nuclear sharing agreements with several NATO member states. And while the decision was officially made after the United Kingdom announced it would supply depleted uranium munitions to the Kiev regime, the actual reasoning might have to do with much more sinister plans by the United States.
Namely, Warsaw and Washington DC have been floating the idea of transferring some of the US nuclear weapons stockpiled in Europe to Poland. The move has been mentioned several times in recent years, including in early October last year, when Polish President Andrzej Duda mentioned it in an interview with Gazeta Polska. The US has nuclear sharing agreements with the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey, with approximately 100 (mainly air-launched) tactical nuclear weapons deployed in all five countries. Greece also took part in the program, but discontinued its participation in 2001, although it’s widely believed Athens still keeps the necessary storage facilities functional.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko advised against UK plans to deliver depleted uranium munitions to the Kiev regime and warned that Russia would soon supply Belarus with “munitions with real uranium”. However, Putin himself stated that “even outside the context of these events”, Belarus still has legitimate security concerns and that “Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko] has long raised the question of deploying Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus”. This clearly implies that threats to Minsk transcend the immediate danger of depleted uranium munitions deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.
“There is nothing unusual in such a decision, as the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territories of their allies, NATO countries, and in Europe. In six states – the Federal Republic of Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Greece – well, not in Greece now, but there is still a storage facility,” Putin stressed, further adding: “[Russia and Belarus] will do the same, without violating our international obligations on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”.
He added that Russia is indeed mirroring the United States in this regard and that it’s not transferring the ownership of its tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, but that it’s simply deploying them to the country and training the Belarussian military to operate and use them in the case of a wider escalation by the US and NATO. The Russian military has already provided Belarus with the necessary upgrades to be able to deliver tactical nuclear warheads. At least 10 (presumably Belarussian Air Force) jets have been assigned and equipped to carry such weapons, although neither side specified what type of aircraft received the said upgrades.
Belarus operates several types of nuclear-capable fighter jets, including the recently acquired Su-30SM and the Soviet-era MiG-29. In addition to air-launched nuclear weapons, Russia already deploys ground-based assets in Belarus, including the “Iskander” systems capable of launching nuclear-tipped hypersonic and regular cruise missiles. Minsk also operates its own “Iskander” units, meaning that those too could be equipped with tactical nuclear warheads, further bolstering the country’s deterrence capabilities. This is particularly important as Belarus has also been targeted by US/NATO covert/black operations in recent years, including an attempted Maidan-style color revolution in 2020.
“We have handed over to Belarus our well-known and very effective ‘Iskander’ system that can carry [nuclear weapons],” Putin stated, adding: “On April 3, we will start training the crews and on July 1 we will complete the construction of a special storage [facility] for tactical nuclear weapons on the Belarussian territory.”
In addition to the “Iskander”, Belarus still maintains a number of Soviet-era nuclear-capable assets, including a substantial arsenal of “Tochka-U” tactical ballistic missiles. These could serve as a secondary delivery option given their shorter range and inferior accuracy when compared to the “Iskander” which boasts a 500 km range, high precision, extreme maneuverability at every stage of flight, as well as a hypersonic speed estimated to be at least Mach 5.9, although military sources indicate that it can go up to Mach 8.7. This makes the “Iskander” virtually impossible to intercept, as evidenced by its performance during the SMO (special military operation). The system also provides a significant advantage over NATO forces in Eastern Europe.
President Lukashenko strongly indicated that Minsk could host Russian nuclear weapons as soon as NATO implied it could deploy US B61 nuclear bombs to Poland, highlighting that his country’s Soviet-era infrastructure for such weapons remains intact despite US pressure to destroy it during the 1990s.
Belarus is home to a growing arsenal of state-of-the-art Russian military units and equipment, including strategic assets such as the S-400 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, as well as the advanced Su-35S air superiority fighter jets and MiG-31 interceptors, including the K/I variants capable of deploying the already legendary “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles, which are also nuclear-capable.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Tel Aviv for Rome on March 9, he was flown to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv by a helicopter because anti-government protesters blocked all the roads around it.
Netanyahu’s visit was not met with much enthusiasm in Italy, either. A sit-in was organized by pro-Palestine activists in downtown Rome under the slogan, ‘Non sei il benvenuto’ – ‘You Are Not Welcome’. An Italian translator, Olga Dalia Padoa, also refused to translate his speech at a Rome synagogue, which was scheduled for March 9.
Even Noemi Di Segni, President of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, though unsurprisingly reiterating her love and support for Israel, expressed her concern for Israeli state institutions.
Back in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s trip to Italy was slammed by Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid as “a wasteful and unnecessary weekend on the country’s dime”. But Netanyahu’s trip to Italy had other goals, aside from spending a weekend in Rome or distracting from the ongoing protests in Israel.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, published on March 9, the Israeli prime minister explained the lofty objectives behind his trip to Italy. “I would like to see more economic cooperation,” he said. “We have natural gas: we have plenty of it and I would like to talk about how to bring it to Italy to support its economic growth.”
In recent weeks, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has shuttled between several countries in search of lucrative gas contracts. Not only does Meloni want to secure her country’s need for energy following the Russia-Ukraine crisis, but she wants Rome to be a major European hub for gas imports and exports. Israel knows this, and is particularly wary that Italy’s major gas deals in Algeria on January 23 could undermine Israel’s economic and political position in Italy, as Algeria continues to serve as a bulwark of Palestinian solidarity throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Netanyahu had other issues on his mind, aside from gas. “On the strategic front, we will discuss Iran. We must prevent it from going nuclear because its missiles could reach many countries, including Europe, and no one wants to be taken hostage by a fundamentalist regime with a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu said with the usual fear-mongering and stereotypical language pertaining to his enemies in the Middle East.
Netanyahu has two main demands from Italy: not to vote against Israel at the United Nations and, more importantly, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Though East Jerusalem is recognized by the international community as an occupied Palestinian city, Netanyahu wants Rome to change its position, which is consistent with international law, based on the flimsy logic of the “strong and ancient tradition between Rome and Jerusalem”.
Using the same logic, that of natural resources and arms exports in exchange for political allegiance to Israel at the UN, Netanyahu has achieved much success in normalizing ties between his country and many African nations. Now, he is applying the same modus operandi to Italy, a European power and the world’s ninth-largest economy.
Whether this strategy is an outcome of the growing subservience of Europe to Washington and Tel Aviv, or Netanyahu’s own failure to appreciate the changing geopolitical dynamics around the world, is a different matter. But what is clear is that Netanyahu has perceived Italy as a country in desperate need of Israeli help. During the meeting with Meloni, Netanyahu promised to make Italy a gas hub for Europe and help Rome solve its water issues, while Meloni, for her part, reiterated that “Israel is a fundamental partner in the Middle East and at a global level”.
The most enthusiastic response to Netanyahu’s visit, however, came from far-right Italian Minister of Infrastructure, Matteo Salvini, who strongly backed the Israeli call to recognize Jerusalem as its capital “in the name of peace, history and truth”. This response, although inconsistent with Italian foreign policy, was hardly a surprise. The leader of the La Lega party has often been criticized for his racist language in the past. Salvini, however, was ‘reformed’ in recent years, especially following a visit to Israel in 2018, where he declared his love for Israel and criticism of Palestinians. It was then that Salvini began rising in the mainstream, as opposed to regional, Italian politics.
But this is not Salvni’s position alone. The Italian government welcomed Netanyahu’s visit without making a single criticism of his far-right government’s extremist policies carried out in Occupied Palestine. While this position is in line with Italian foreign policy, it is hardly surprising from an ideological point of view, as well.
Although Italian politics, in the past, showed great solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle for liberation and right of self-determination – thanks to the revolutionary forces that had a tremendous impact on shaping the Italian political discourse during World War II and the country’s subsequent liberation from fascism – that position shifted throughout the years. As Italy’s own politics itself reared towards the Right, its foreign policy agenda in Palestine and Israel completely moved towards a pro-Israel stance. Those now perceived to be pro-Palestine in the Italian government are a few and are often branded as radical politicians.
However, despite the official pro-Israel discourse in Italy, things for Netanyahu are not as easy as they may appear, especially when it comes to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Indeed, Meloni did not express an outright commitment to the Israeli demand. To the contrary, in an interview with Reuters last August, even before becoming Italy’s prime minister, Meloni seemed cautious, merely stating that this is “a diplomatic matter and should be evaluated together with the foreign ministry”.
There is a reason behind Meloni’s hesitation. Italy’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would place Rome outside the consensus of international law. In an open letter to Meloni, United Nations Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, reminded the Italian government that the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would constitute a stark violation of international law.
Italy’s foreign policy is also accountable to the collective policies of the European Union, of which Rome is an integral member. The EU supports the UN’s position that East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian city and that Israel’s annexation of the city in 1980 is illegal.
Moreover, Italy’s recent landmark deal with Algeria’s state-owned gas company, Sonatrach, in January, makes it particularly difficult for Rome to take an extreme position in support of Israel. The delicate geopolitical balances resulting from the gas crisis, itself a direct outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, make any shifts in Italian foreign policy on Palestine and Israel akin to an act of self-harm.
For Italy, at least for now, Arab gas is far more important than anything that Netanyahu could possibly offer. The new Rome-Algiers deal would grant Italy 9bn cubic meters of gas, in addition to the gas supply already flowing through the TransMed pipeline, ‘BNE Intellinews’ reported. This vital infrastructure connects Algeria to Italy via Sicily which, in turn, flows through pipelines under the Mediterranean Sea. “The expansion of these vital routes has already been planned, aiming to augment the current capacity of 33.5 bcm per year,” the business news website added.
Meloni, although a far-right politician with no particular affinity or respect for established international norms, understands that economic interests trump ideology. “Today Algeria is our first gas supplier”, Meloni said in a press conference in Algiers after signing the agreement. The deal, she said, would supply the country with “an energy mix that could shield Italy from the ongoing energy crisis”.
Such a fact would make it impossible for Italy to deviate, at least for now, from its current position regarding Jerusalem, and the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. While Israel would find it difficult to persuade Italy to change its position, Algeria, Tunisia and other Arab countries might finally find an opening to dissuade Italy from its blind support of Israel.
– Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out’. His other books include ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is http://www.ramzybaroud.net
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Tel Aviv for Rome on March 9, he was flown to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv by a helicopter because anti-government protesters blocked all the roads around it.
Netanyahu’s visit was not met with much enthusiasm in Italy, either. A sit-in was organized by pro-Palestine activists in downtown Rome under the slogan, ‘Non sei il benvenuto’ – ‘You Are Not Welcome’. An Italian translator, Olga Dalia Padoa, also refused to translate his speech at a Rome synagogue, which was scheduled for March 9.
Even Noemi Di Segni, President of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, though unsurprisingly reiterating her love and support for Israel, expressed her concern for Israeli state institutions.
Back in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s trip to Italy was slammed by Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid as “a wasteful and unnecessary weekend on the country’s dime”. But Netanyahu’s trip to Italy had other goals, aside from spending a weekend in Rome or distracting from the ongoing protests in Israel.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, published on March 9, the Israeli prime minister explained the lofty objectives behind his trip to Italy. “I would like to see more economic cooperation,” he said. “We have natural gas: we have plenty of it and I would like to talk about how to bring it to Italy to support its economic growth.”
In recent weeks, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has shuttled between several countries in search of lucrative gas contracts. Not only does Meloni want to secure her country’s need for energy following the Russia-Ukraine crisis, but she wants Rome to be a major European hub for gas imports and exports. Israel knows this, and is particularly wary that Italy’s major gas deals in Algeria on January 23 could undermine Israel’s economic and political position in Italy, as Algeria continues to serve as a bulwark of Palestinian solidarity throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Netanyahu had other issues on his mind, aside from gas. “On the strategic front, we will discuss Iran. We must prevent it from going nuclear because its missiles could reach many countries, including Europe, and no one wants to be taken hostage by a fundamentalist regime with a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu said with the usual fear-mongering and stereotypical language pertaining to his enemies in the Middle East.
Netanyahu has two main demands from Italy: not to vote against Israel at the United Nations and, more importantly, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Though East Jerusalem is recognized by the international community as an occupied Palestinian city, Netanyahu wants Rome to change its position, which is consistent with international law, based on the flimsy logic of the “strong and ancient tradition between Rome and Jerusalem”.
Using the same logic, that of natural resources and arms exports in exchange for political allegiance to Israel at the UN, Netanyahu has achieved much success in normalizing ties between his country and many African nations. Now, he is applying the same modus operandi to Italy, a European power and the world’s ninth-largest economy.
Whether this strategy is an outcome of the growing subservience of Europe to Washington and Tel Aviv, or Netanyahu’s own failure to appreciate the changing geopolitical dynamics around the world, is a different matter. But what is clear is that Netanyahu has perceived Italy as a country in desperate need of Israeli help. During the meeting with Meloni, Netanyahu promised to make Italy a gas hub for Europe and help Rome solve its water issues, while Meloni, for her part, reiterated that “Israel is a fundamental partner in the Middle East and at a global level”.
The most enthusiastic response to Netanyahu’s visit, however, came from far-right Italian Minister of Infrastructure, Matteo Salvini, who strongly backed the Israeli call to recognize Jerusalem as its capital “in the name of peace, history and truth”. This response, although inconsistent with Italian foreign policy, was hardly a surprise. The leader of the La Lega party has often been criticized for his racist language in the past. Salvini, however, was ‘reformed’ in recent years, especially following a visit to Israel in 2018, where he declared his love for Israel and criticism of Palestinians. It was then that Salvini began rising in the mainstream, as opposed to regional, Italian politics.
But this is not Salvni’s position alone. The Italian government welcomed Netanyahu’s visit without making a single criticism of his far-right government’s extremist policies carried out in Occupied Palestine. While this position is in line with Italian foreign policy, it is hardly surprising from an ideological point of view, as well.
Although Italian politics, in the past, showed great solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle for liberation and right of self-determination – thanks to the revolutionary forces that had a tremendous impact on shaping the Italian political discourse during World War II and the country’s subsequent liberation from fascism – that position shifted throughout the years. As Italy’s own politics itself reared towards the Right, its foreign policy agenda in Palestine and Israel completely moved towards a pro-Israel stance. Those now perceived to be pro-Palestine in the Italian government are a few and are often branded as radical politicians.
However, despite the official pro-Israel discourse in Italy, things for Netanyahu are not as easy as they may appear, especially when it comes to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Indeed, Meloni did not express an outright commitment to the Israeli demand. To the contrary, in an interview with Reuters last August, even before becoming Italy’s prime minister, Meloni seemed cautious, merely stating that this is “a diplomatic matter and should be evaluated together with the foreign ministry”.
There is a reason behind Meloni’s hesitation. Italy’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would place Rome outside the consensus of international law. In an open letter to Meloni, United Nations Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, reminded the Italian government that the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would constitute a stark violation of international law.
Italy’s foreign policy is also accountable to the collective policies of the European Union, of which Rome is an integral member. The EU supports the UN’s position that East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian city and that Israel’s annexation of the city in 1980 is illegal.
Moreover, Italy’s recent landmark deal with Algeria’s state-owned gas company, Sonatrach, in January, makes it particularly difficult for Rome to take an extreme position in support of Israel. The delicate geopolitical balances resulting from the gas crisis, itself a direct outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, make any shifts in Italian foreign policy on Palestine and Israel akin to an act of self-harm.
For Italy, at least for now, Arab gas is far more important than anything that Netanyahu could possibly offer. The new Rome-Algiers deal would grant Italy 9bn cubic meters of gas, in addition to the gas supply already flowing through the TransMed pipeline, ‘BNE Intellinews’ reported. This vital infrastructure connects Algeria to Italy via Sicily which, in turn, flows through pipelines under the Mediterranean Sea. “The expansion of these vital routes has already been planned, aiming to augment the current capacity of 33.5 bcm per year,” the business news website added.
Meloni, although a far-right politician with no particular affinity or respect for established international norms, understands that economic interests trump ideology. “Today Algeria is our first gas supplier”, Meloni said in a press conference in Algiers after signing the agreement. The deal, she said, would supply the country with “an energy mix that could shield Italy from the ongoing energy crisis”.
Such a fact would make it impossible for Italy to deviate, at least for now, from its current position regarding Jerusalem, and the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. While Israel would find it difficult to persuade Italy to change its position, Algeria, Tunisia and other Arab countries might finally find an opening to dissuade Italy from its blind support of Israel.
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.netRomana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature, and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.
Twenty years after the unlawful and destabilizing US-led invasion of Iraq, Washington must face the ultimate consequence of that war: UNSC powers China and Russia laying the foundation for a genuine, UN Charter-based system of multipolarism.
On the night of 19-20 March, 2003, the US air force began bombing the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. The EU and NATO were deeply divided on whether to join the aggression: While newer NATO members from Central and Eastern Europe were in favor of the war, European heavyweights Paris and Berlin opposed it.
The Iraq war also marked the onset of diplomatic coordination between Moscow and Beijing at the UN Security Council (UNSC). The two countries began in 2003 to apply similar voting patterns in the Council, first on Iraq, then on Libya in 2011, and over Syria in several key votes. That early Russia-China UN coordination has, 20 years later, transformed into a determined joint policy toward “guarding a new world order based on international law.”
Looking back at March 2003 from the vantage point of March 2023, the invasion of Iraq unleashed geopolitical consequences far beyond the obvious ones, like the proliferation of terrorism, a decline of US power, and regional chaos. In 2003, a foundational, global shift in the balance of power was surely the last possible consequence envisioned by the war’s planners in Washington and London.
Disconnecting the dots
The destruction of Iraq, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army by the first “US Consul” Paul Bremer in May 2023, the outflow of refugees to neighboring states such as Syria and Jordan, and the exponential growth of extremism and terror attacks are among the consequences of this misguided war.
The flimsy reasons for the war, such as non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and Baghdad’s alleged support of terror groups like Al Qaeda, were debunked extensively in the following years. By the spring of 2004, evidence was already rife – whether from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or from the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group (ISG) – that Iraq had no WMD program at all.
Rarely before had disinformation campaigns – what is now commonly referred to as “fake news” – been so meticulously executed. The “with us or against us” narrative had firmly taken hold: Western think tanks were out in full force promoting regime change and “democracy” (not a stated goal of the US-led invasion) in Iraq, while those who opposed it were labeled anti-Israel or anti-America.
Despite unprecedented, massive public protests across western capitals in opposition to the Iraq war, the US and its allies had already set in motion their considerable war machine, led by figures such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar.
A false narrative linking Baghdad and the September 11 attacks had already been well-seeded, despite there being no connection whatsoever between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the bombers. It should be noted that there were no Iraqi or Afghan citizens among the terrorists who piloted the 9-11 planes, who were predominantly Saudi nationals.
Unfinished Business
In the autumn of 2001, war scenarios for an invasion of Iraq and regime change were already being laid out in Washington. Johns Hopkins University dean Paul Wolfowitz – an avid supporter of regime-change and US military expansion into Iraq – was named deputy secretary of defense in February 2001, a full seven months before the 9-11 attacks. Wolfowitz’s working hypothesis was that Iraq, with the liberalization of its oil industry, would be able to finance a post-war reconstruction from its own petroleum exports.
The group around Vice President Dick Cheney, which included Wolfowitz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was influential in shaping President George W. Bush’s position on Iraq. Unlike his father, George H. Bush, who was an experienced CIA director and analyst, the younger Bush lacked a distinct personal worldview on foreign policy, which he outsourced to his hawkish coterie.
Nevertheless, he was determined to finish what he saw as his father’s “unfinished business” from the 1991 ‘Gulf War’ aimed at expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That conflict was executed under a UN Security Council resolution, authorizing legal measures against Iraq as a state, but which did not constitute a war under international law.
In 1991, only Jordan‘s King Hussein took a position supporting Saddam Hussein, with all other nations backing the coalition assault against Baghdad. The US government adhered to the UN resolution, which aimed to restore Kuwait‘s territorial integrity – but not to overthrow the Iraqi government.
Instead, the US supported Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country and encouraged them to revolt against Baghdad. The Iraqi army crushed that rebellion, as it did an uprising in the Shia-dominated south. Perhaps the rebels had hoped for more concrete military aid from the US, but regardless, Hussein remained firmly in power despite military defeat elsewhere.
From Washington’s perspective, the US had failed to unseat Hussein, and within the Bush family, there was a desire to settle a score. For George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq provided an opportunity to step out of his powerful father’s shadow by executing the elusive regime-change goal. The September 11 attacks provided a justification for this obsession – what remained was to connect Iraq to the US terror attacks and galvanize public and political support for a war, both domestically and internationally.
The UN Security Council in turmoil
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was a great deal of division among UN Security Council (UNSC) members. US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented questionable evidence of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, while the foreign ministers of Germany and France publicly opposed the aggression, for which they occasionally received applause in the Council.
China and Russia, who vehemently opposed the war, began coordinating their decisions and responses, in part because of their respective oil interests in Iraq. This cooperation between Moscow and Beijing set the stage for a coordinated multilateral approach between the two nations. Both governments understood that a war would open Pandora’s box, leading to the collapse of Iraqi institutions and resulting in widespread regional disharmony.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened. The subsequent years saw weekly attacks, an expansion of Salafi terror groups like Al Qaeda, the rise of ISIS in 2014, and perpetual internal Iraqi conflict. Anyone familiar with the country‘s conditions was aware of the looming catastrophe when the illegal invasion of Iraq began on 20 March, 2003.
China and Russia and the multipolar order
Twenty years to the day, Chinese President Xi Jinping will embark on a three-day state visit to Moscow, and the focus will extend beyond bilateral energy relations, which have been a consistent priority since 2004.
As previously stated in their joint declaration in Beijing in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart aim to coordinate their foreign policy and advance it together. Their discussions may also touch on the Ukraine dossier, although media expectations in the west may be overestimated.
It may be pure coincidence that the meeting coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion. Yet it also highlights how extensively Russian and Chinese strategies have intertwined over the past two decades.
Today, increasingly, “orientation comes from Orient.” Cooperative geostrategic leadership and sound alternative propositions to resolve global conflicts are being shaped in Beijing and Moscow – because the old centers of power can offer nothing new.
Twenty years after the US invasion of Iraq, a failed ‘war on terror,’ the proliferation of extremism, millions of dead and displaced in West Asia, and never-ending conflict, China and Russia have finally teamed up to systematically advance their view of the world, this time with more resolve and global clout.
As catastrophic as it was, the Iraq war ended the practice of direct US military invasions, ushering in a war-weary era that desperately sought other solutions. That global division of opinion that began in 2003 over Iraq is, 20 years later, being institutionalized by emerging multipolar powers that seek to counter forever wars.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
The International Criminal Court [ICC] has issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin on war crime accusations, while the Kremlin rejected the warrant and said the court has no jurisdiction and the decision is “null and void”.
The Hague-based court said in a statement on Friday the arrest warrant was issued over Putin’s alleged involvement in the unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility” for the alleged child abductions “for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others [and] for his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts,” the statement added.
The international court has also issued a warrant for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, the commissioner for children’s rights in the office of the Russian president, on the same charges.
The ICC has no powers to enforce its own warrants as ICC member states can make the arrests and hand over the individuals to the Huge.
Russia has repeatedly rejected accusations of committing war crimes by its forces during the year-long war in Ukraine.
Reacting to the development, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Describing the questions raised by the court as “outrageous and unacceptable”, he stressed that any decisions of the court were “null and void” with respect to Russia.
Furthermore, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the warrant is meaningless.
“The decisions of the International Criminal Court have no meaning for our country, including from a legal point of view,” she said, adding, “Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and bears no obligations under it.”
Meanwhile, the United States which is not a member of the ICC welcomed its decision. US President Joe Biden told the reporters at the White House on Friday that the ICC’s decision was justified.
“He’s clearly committed war crimes,” Biden told reporters, referring to Putin.
“Well, I think it’s justified,” Biden added, referring to the warrant. “But the question is – it’s not recognized internationally by us either. But I think it makes a very strong point.”
Western leaders have, unsurprisingly, been welcoming the ICC move.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also hailed the decision as historic.
The ICC decision was also welcomed by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who described it as “an important decision of international justice and for the people of Ukraine.”
The move was just the start of “holding Russia accountable” for its alleged crimes in Ukraine, he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an expanded board meeting of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in Moscow on March 15, 2023. (Photo by AFP)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin on war crime accusations, while the Kremlin rejected the warrant and said the court has no jurisdiction and the decision is “null and void”.
The Hague-based court said in a statement on Friday the arrest warrant was issued over Putin’s alleged involvement in the unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility” for the alleged child abductions “for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others [and] for his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts,” the statement added.
The international court has also issued a warrant for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, the commissioner for children’s rights in the office of the Russian president, on the same charges.
The ICC has no powers to enforce its own warrants as ICC member states can make the arrests and hand over the individuals to the Huge.
Russia has repeatedly rejected accusations of committing war crimes by its forces during the year-long war in Ukraine.
Reacting to the development, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Describing the questions raised by the court as “outrageous and unacceptable”, he stressed that any decisions of the court were “null and void” with respect to Russia.
Furthermore, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the warrant is meaningless.
“The decisions of the International Criminal Court have no meaning for our country, including from a legal point of view,” she said on her Telegram channel, adding, “Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and bears no obligations under it.”
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin lauded ICC’s decision as “a historic decision for Ukraine and the entire international law system” and said that “it is only the beginning of the long road to restore justice.”
The ICC decision was also welcomed by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who described it as “an important decision of international justice and for the people of Ukraine.”
The move was just the start of “holding Russia accountable” for its alleged crimes in Ukraine, he said.
Russia launched the military operation in Ukraine in late February 2022, following Kiev administration’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements and Moscow’s recognition of the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin said one of the goals of what he called a “special military operation” was to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.
Over the past year, Western countries, led by the United States, have shipped billions of dollars worth of weaponry to Kiev while slapping unprecedented economic sanctions on Moscow to force it into submission.
Amid the Western support for Ukraine, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan opened an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide in Ukraine a year ago. He made four trips to Ukraine, noting that he was looking at alleged crimes against children and the targeting of civilian infrastructure.
In a statement on Friday, Khan claimed that hundreds of Ukrainian children have been taken from orphanages and children’s homes to Russia. “Many of these children, we allege, have since been given up for adoption in the Russian Federation,” he added.
According to Khan, Moscow has changed laws to facilitate the adoption of children by Russian families while Ukrainian children at the time of deportation are protected individuals under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Today’s arrest warrants were “a first concrete step”, he said, noting that other investigations into the Ukraine war are still ongoing.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Arab leaders offered Assad help in lobbying the west to lift crushing economic sanctions, despite Washington’s disinterest in loosening its grip on Damascus
Arab leaders are offering Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a deal that includes billions of dollars for reconstruction efforts and a pledge to lobby the west to lift sanctions in exchange for “[asking] Iran to stop expanding its footprint in the nation,” according to Arab and European officials that spoke with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
Other conditions set by the leaders of the unnamed Arab nations include a pledge from Damascus to engage with opposition and rebel groups, accept Arab troops to “protect returning refugees,” and crack down on the captagon drug trade.
The secret talks reportedly gained momentum following the devastating earthquakes that struck Turkiye and Syria last month, killing 6,000 in the Levantine nation alone.
Nonetheless, a Syrian government adviser told the WSJ that Assad “has shown no interest in political reform or a willingness to welcome Arab troops.” Western powers have also made little effort to lift crushing sanctions or stop politicizing humanitarian aid deliveries.
Last month, US State Department spokesman Ned Price urged the international community not to let humanitarian assistance to Syria be accompanied by normalization, stressing: “[Washington’s] position on the Assad regime has not changed.”
The talks between Damascus and Arab leaders are reportedly backed by Saudi Arabia, which recently agreed to restore ties with Iran in a China-brokered deal. In recent weeks, Saudi officials have called for an end to the isolation of Syria to allow a response to its dire humanitarian crisis.
“There is a consensus building in the Arab world that the status quo is not tenable. And that means we have to find a way to move beyond that status quo,” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said earlier this month.
European and Arab officials also confirmed to the WSJ that Syria’s regional reintegration would be high on the agenda at the next Arab League summit, set to be held later this year in Saudi Arabia.
In recent weeks, Jordan and Egypt sent their foreign ministers to Damascus for their first diplomatic visits since the war erupted in 2011.
Cairo in particular is spearheading a reconciliation plan which proposes restoring relations between Syria and Arab states to pre-2011 levels, returning Syria to the League of Arab States, and negotiating the deployment of joint “Arab forces” on the Syrian-Iraqi border, according to exclusive information made available to The Cradle.
Other Arab nations responsible for fueling the war in its early stages, such as Tunisia, have announced plans to restore diplomatic ties.
Even before the earthquake hit, Arab nations had slowly started to rebuild ties with Syria after more than a decade of war and isolation, citing the failure of the US-sponsored war and concerns about Iran’s growing presence in the country.
Despite these concerns, Iran has welcomed progress between Syria and the Arab world. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani called it “a realistic approach” and “a positive step toward Islamic solidarity.”
Damascus has repeatedly denied “inaccurate reports about Iranian military forces in Syria” and asserts that “the number of Iranian advisors in Syria does not exceed 100.”
It has now been one week since Seymour Hersh published an in-depth report claiming that the Biden administration deliberately blew up the Nord Stream II gas pipeline without Germany’s consent or even knowledge – an operation that began planning long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Based on interviews with national security insiders, Hersh – the journalist who broke the stories of the My Lai Massacre, the CIA spying program and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal – claims that in June, U.S. Navy divers traveled to the Baltic Sea and attached C4 explosive charges to the pipeline. By September, President Biden himself ordered its destruction. But, according to Hersh, all understood the stakes and the gravity of what they were doing, acknowledging that, if caught, it would be seen as a flagrant “act of war” against their allies.
Despite this, corporate media have overwhelmingly ignored the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter’s bombshell. A MintPress News study analyzed the 20 most influential publications in the United States, according to analytics company Similar Web, and found only four mentions of the report between them.
The entirety of the corporate media’s attention given to the story consisted of the following:
One five-minute segment on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (Fox News);
One 600-word round-up in The New York Post;
A shrill Business Insider attack article, whose headline labels Hersh a “discredited journalist” that has given a “gift to Putin.”
The 20 outlets studied are, in alphabetical order:
ABC News; Bloomberg News; Business Insider; BuzzFeed; CBS News; CNBC; CNN; Forbes; Fox News; The Huffington Post; MSNBC; NBC News; The New York Post; The New York Times; NPR; People Magazine; Politico; USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
Searches for “Seymour Hersh” and “Nord Stream” were carried out on the websites of each outlet and were then checked against precise Google searches and results from the Dow Jones Factiva news database.
This lack of interest cannot be explained due to the report’s irrelevance. If the Biden administration really did work closely with the Norwegian government to blow up Nord Stream II, causing billions of dollars worth of immediate damage and plunging an entire region of the world into a freezing winter without sufficient energy, it ranks as one of the worst terrorist attacks in history; a flagrant act of aggression against a supposed ally.
Therefore, if Biden did indeed order this attack, it is barely possible to think of a more consequential piece of news. Indeed, according to Hersh, all those involved – from Biden, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Secretary of State Antony Blinken to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan – understood that what they were doing was “an act of war.”
The Nord Stream attack was also one of the world’s worst ecological disasters, constituting the largest single leak of methane in history – a gas 80 times worse for the planet than carbon dioxide at accelerating climate change.
“The media system has, predictably, tried to marginalize the report,” Bryce Greene, a writer and media critic who has closely followed the press’ lack of interest in scrutinizing the Nord Stream story, told MintPress, adding,
They don’t want to deal with the repercussions. It also reflects poorly on the profession…Even Jeffery Sachs in his Bloomberg interview said that journalists he knew personally understood that evidence, but also understood that the media system they worked in wouldn’t respond kindly to any suggestion of US complicity, so they kept quiet.”
Greene explained that bothersome facts about the war have consistently been swept under the rug, noting that,
This is indicative of the entire Ukraine War coverage. From hiding the history of NATO expansion, to calling Ukrainian Nazis Russian propaganda, to CBS even retracting a story about Ukrainian corruption. The fact that US media figures want to be seen as ‘on the good team’ or ‘on the right side of history’ means that they’re unwilling to confront reality as it exists.”
RADIO SILENCE
This complete radio silence from most of the country’s most influential news organizations is all the more remarkable, considering Hersh’s revelations have been all over newswire services. Reuters, for example, has published 14 separate reports on the topic since Thursday. Every large media outlet in America (and many medium-sized and even small ones) subscribes to Reuters, republishing content from their newswires.
One of the main tasks of a newsroom editor is to follow the newswire and follow up on Reuters’ content. This means that editors around the country have been bombarded with this story every day since it broke, and virtually every single one of them has passed on it – 14 consecutive times. Thus, even when repeatedly presented with free content to monetize, almost every newsroom in the U.S. decided against it. Independent, reader-supported media, however, have covered the story much more closely.
This is not to say that Reuters has been supportive of Hersh’s assertions. Its first article on the subject, for example, was entitled “White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion ‘is utterly false,’” thereby allowing the Biden administration to set the agenda and downplay Hersh’s investigation as a mere blog post – something those in alternative media were quick to highlight. Hersh self-published his report on the online platform Substack – a fact that either undermines his findings or the credibility of the corporate media apparatus, depending on one’s perspective.
“The most incredible thing about the backlash against Hersh’s article on the U.S. blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines is the fact that it’s clear no establishment media outlet has any intention of carrying out the basic journalism needed to confirm or refute what he’s reported,” wrote journalist and MintPress contributor Jonathan Cook.
Other journalists, particularly those connected to the Western intelligence services, were scathing of the report. “The only people Hersh impresses any more [sic] are the sort of people who carry water for Putin and Assad, or the terminally dumb,” quipped Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins. Christo Grozev, another Bellingcat writer, labeled Hersh “senile,” “corrupt,” and an “obsessive liar” whose “irresponsible single-anonymous-source reporting by a name with legacy authority is among the worst damage to journalism anyone ever caused.”
Fact-checking website Snopes also sprung into action, calling Hersh’s claim a “conspiracy” that rested on a single “omnipotent anonymous source.”
In an interview with the Radio War Nerd podcast, Hersh fired back, claiming:
The New York Times and the Washington Post have just ignored me. What they think I should do is use [the source’s] name, get him put in jail, stuff like that, which would end my career. I’ve been doing this for 50 years. My Lai started in 1969, and I will tell you something…I will protect people.”
He also noted that he actually cultivated multiple corroborative sources for the story.
Thank God we got Snopes on the case.
Notice that they had absolutely nothing to say when random people were saying Russia blew their own pipeline.
Now when there's a credible accusation of US complicity, they have to intervene to protect the discourse from "conspiracy" pic.twitter.com/3urDxdspnj
According to Hersh’s source, last June, under the cover of an international NATO exercise happening in the area, U.S. Navy divers based in Panama City, Florida, planted remotely-triggered C4 explosives on a section of the pipeline. Then, three months later, the order was given to blow it up. Navy divers were assisted by the Norwegian military, who found the perfect location; calm and shallow water just off the coast of Bornholm Island, Denmark.
An earlier Nord Stream pipeline was already supplying Germany and Western Europe with Russian gas, providing a cheap and readily available source of fuel to heat and power the continent. With the introduction of the second pipeline, Europe would have become effectively energy-independent of the United States, raising the possibility that the continent might move in a neutral or independent political direction too, creating a powerful regional bloc of its own rather than the current Atlanticist (i.e., U.S.-dominated) model that prevails. The 760-mile pipeline travels along the Baltic Sea floor, from western Russia to northeastern Germany, transporting liquified natural gas into homes and businesses throughout Europe. As such, it represents a vastly more cost-efficient form of energy than purchasing American liquified national gas or fracked oil – something Washington had been leaning hard on Europe to switch to.
Successive White House administrations had long made their opposition to the new, multi-billion dollar project publicly known. But Hersh alleges that the Biden administration began planning the sabotage in 2021, many months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Tubes are stored in Sassnitz, Germany, during construction of the natural gas pipeline Nord Stream 2, Dec. 6, 2016. Jens Buettner | DPA via AP
The choice to use Navy divers rather than members of America’s Special Operations Command was reportedly down to secrecy. Unlike Special Ops, by law, Congress, the Senate and House leadership do not need to be briefed about Navy operations. “The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks,” Hersh wrote.
Nevertheless, many in the know had cold feet. “Some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out,’” Hersh’s source said.
In the end, Biden himself gave the mission the green light, and three months after it was completed, Washington pressed the button, destroying the pipeline.
In the immediate aftermath of the destruction, Western corporate media were coy about the culprit, even suggesting that Vladimir Putin himself was by far the number one suspect in the case. They also actively suppressed any other opinions on the matter, sometimes to a near-comical degree. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, for example, was abruptly taken off the air by Bloomberg as he ran through circumstantial evidence suggesting Western forces could be behind the attack.
CAN WE BELIEVE THIS?
Hersh’s account adds weight to Sachs’ assertions. But is it credible? On the one hand, Hersh is a veteran investigative journalist who has built a stellar reputation over decades, working closely with government sources to break important news stories. On the other, his bombshell relies almost entirely on unnamed sources. It is standard journalistic practice to name and check sources. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics states that “reporters should use every possible avenue to confirm and attribute information before relying on unnamed sources” and that they must “always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity” because too many “provide information only when it benefits them.”
Without a name to go with a claim, there are no consequences for sources (or journalists, for that matter) simply lying to further their agenda. Hersh, therefore, is implicitly asking readers to trust his credibility and his judgment. Moreover, Hersh’s sources are government and intelligence insiders. Part of their role is placing false or inaccurate information into the public domain to further the state’s agenda. Journalistically speaking, then, anonymous government or intelligence officials are about the least credible sources imaginable.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that, given Washington’s war on whistleblowers, no source would ever publicly disclose this sort of information unless they were ready to risk decades in prison. Therefore, they could reasonably qualify for anonymity.
Greene took a nuanced position on the story’s credibility, stating,
Is everything Hersh alleged correct? While it would surprise me if there were evidence of any other power being behind the pipeline explosion – which would mean Hersh’s report is a complete fabrication – it would not be surprising if a few of Hersh’s details don’t line up, but that is common in journalism, and not always the result of bad faith or incompetence.
“The thing to remember is Hersh’s sources are in the world of military and intelligence. They will lie, exaggerate, obfuscate – and of course get things wrong by mistake,” Greene added, “But The compartmentalized nature of any bureaucracy – and the intelligence world especially – means that the full picture is sometimes murky, even to those considered to be ‘in the know.’ The fact that Hersh’s source knows so much detail is remarkable but certainly not implausible given the history of high-level leakers.”
Establishment journalists in US and UK hate and traduce Seymour Hersh for same reason they hated and traduced Robert Fisk: their work exposes our “free press” as glorified state propagandists who follow the party line 99% of time. Truth hurts.
If the United States did indeed sabotage Nord Stream II, it was one of the least well-hidden and most signposted attacks in history. The U.S. and NATO had, for years, publicly made clear that they were exploring options to stop the project.
A few weeks before the Russian invasion last February, Biden summoned German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to the White House, where the president made him participate in a bizarre press conference in which Biden stated, “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream II. We will bring an end to it.”
The event had the air of an adult chastising a misbehaving child, yet Biden was, in effect, telling Scholz to his face that his country’s infrastructure might face a U.S. attack.
To be fair to the president, he was merely repeating what many in his administration had been publicly saying for months. Both Victoria Nuland and State Department Spokesperson Ned Price had independently stated that “one way or another, Nord Stream II will not move forward.”
Likewise, after the attack, the U.S. barely tried to hide its satisfaction. “This is a tremendous opportunity,” Antony Blinken beamed. The Secretary of State continued,
It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy, and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity.”
Police accompany a protest against sanctions on Russia while a banner with the inscription “Open Nordstream 2 immediately” is held, Sept 05, 2022. Sebastian Willnow | DPA via AP
Other prominent officials thought U.S. culpability for the blast was so obvious that they assumed that they would take credit for it rather than claim Russia carried out a false flag attack. Member of the European Parliament and former Foreign Minister of Poland, Radek Sikorski, for example, tweeted out a picture of the blast with the words “Thank you, USA.” Sikorski, married to U.S. national security state insider Anne Applebaum, later deleted his post.
For Greene, the United States is near the top of the list of potential culprits. As he explained,
The charge of U.S. complicity is supported by a good deal of circumstantial evidence: The clearest answer to the ‘cui bono’ [who benefits?] question is obviously the U.S. Even before Hersh’s reporting, German officials reportedly said they were open to the idea of Western complicity. So in that sense, Hersh’s reporting is in line with what we already know (and what the mainstream media refuses to seriously discuss).”
Certainly, Washington has significantly benefited from the explosion. Its major competitor (Russia) has been seriously economically weakened, and European purchases of expensive American liquified natural gas have more than doubled since last year. Norway, too, has gained from the blast and is now Germany’s principal supplier of gas, allowing it to make billions in profits.
In light of the Seymour Hersh bombshell on the U.S. and Norway blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, let's recall how U.S. officials openly incited against it for months, then blamed… Russia.https://t.co/qp1d7Jx9rypic.twitter.com/V0Cy2JPSXI
Born in 1937 into a working-class Jewish immigrant family, Hersh cut his teeth as a crime reporter in early 1960s Chicago. He first came to national attention in 1969, however, when he exposed the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians by U.S. troops at My Lai – a scoop that won him the Pulitzer Prize. His revelations were far from welcome in establishment media, though, and he had to fight to get even a small startup newswire to take a chance on his story.
In 1974, Hersh again caused a national scandal after exposing a massive Nixon-era CIA spying operation targeting hundreds of thousands of left-wing activists, anti-war dissidents and other anti-establishment figures. Again, far from being heralded, the majority of the corporate press attempted to defend the national security state and discredit him and his reporting.
Thirty years later, he dropped yet another bombshell on the American public, exposing the U.S.’ widespread torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
Whether it was reporting on the U.S.’ role in the 1973 coup in Chile or undermining the Obama administration’s claims on chemical weapons attacks in Syria, Hersh has courted controversy and attracted flak throughout his career. Yet his fearlessness has won him respect the world over. As journalist Glenn Greenwald stated,
Seymour Hersh is beyond any reasonable dispute one of the two or three most accomplished, important and courageous journalists of his generation. Very few journalists on the planet – and virtually none who still work inside the nation’s largest media corporations – can even get close to him when it comes to having broken more major, history-changing stories.”
It is for this reason that Hersh’s reporting is so important – and why corporate media’s steadfast refusal to cover it is so noteworthy. If Hersh is correct, the United States and Norway essentially attacked their supposed NATO allies, something that could have gigantic geopolitical implications. Article 5 of NATO’s treaty states that if a NATO member is attacked, then all other NATO members must defend said country. Several NATO members, including the United Kingdom and France, possess nuclear weapons.
Of course, NATO will not declare war on the United States, precisely because it is, since its very inception, an unequal alliance. As Lord Ismay, the organization’s first secretary general, explained, “NATO’s role is to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the Americans in”. In other words, it is a U.S.-dominated confederation meant to stifle the pan-European project that sought to reorient the continent away from serving the U.S. and towards becoming an independent regional bloc.
While the culprit of the attacks still remains in doubt, many of the consequences are not.
Germans – like much of Europe – have had to endure freezing winters amid enormous fuel price spikes. The dearth of energy has helped spark double-digit inflation in Germany that has eroded the savings of tens of millions of people. Energy costs are causing vast numbers of businesses to permanently close and presents a crisis of competitiveness for European industry, which is struggling to compete with American and Asian manufacturers enjoying cheap fuel.
Moreover, huge numbers of European businesses are closing or reducing their domestic workforce in favor of moving production to the U.S., where, alongside cheaper energy costs, the Biden administration is offering them financial incentives to do so. The European Union has accused Washington of breaching World Trade Organization rules.
Thus, it could be said that the invasion of Ukraine has marked a turning point in geopolitical history, whereby the United States is not only carrying out a proxy war against Russia, but engaged in an economic war against the entirety of Europe. If Hersh’s Nord Stream story is true, it could send a shockwave throughout Europe and should cause long held beliefs about the nature of Europe’s relationship with the United States to be challenged. Therefore, given the massive negative consequences of all this for Washington, perhaps it is no surprise that the revelation will not be televised.
A Spanish journalist has been rotting in a Polish prison for the past year. And nobody knew or cared, Stephen Karganovic writes.
Those who watched Duran associate Alex Christoforou’s podcast the other day [at 18 to 19:45 minutes] must have been as taken aback as I was by Alex’s revelation of the unsavoury fate of Spanish journalist Pablo Gonzales in European “values” stronghold Poland.
Gonzales, a Spanish (another “EU values” country) citizen, it turns out has been rotting in a Polish prison for the past year. Not a week, not a month or even a couple of months, but for just over a year. And nobody knew or cared. He is not being detained on any specific charges to which he could mount a legal defence. He is listed simply as “under investigation” for the somewhat vague offence of being an agent of Russia. If that is what indeed he is, so far it seems no judicially cognisable evidence to support such an allegation has been produced by the Polish authorities. After just over a year that Gonzales has been kept in prison, the Polish “investigation” has failed to turn up any incriminating facts that might form the basis for even a flimsy indictment. As a result, no charges have been filed and no trial is in prospect for Gonzales. As trite as that may sound, it is also disturbingly accurate: in the Europe that, with its gallant overseas allies, fights for democracy in Ukraine, European journalist Pablo Gonzales is languishing in a Kafkaesque predicament.
In his expose, Alex Christoforou asks the natural question, “Where is the Spanish government in all this?” [at 19:20 minutes]. The answer is bound to disillusion everyone who imagined that in situations such as this morality had any influence over political decisions. It all comes down to the odious principle of raison d’état. Spain has issues with Catalan and Basque troublemakers and is loath to create a precedent that would provide foreigners a pretext to meddle in the way it treats its prisoners. For Spain the convenient solution therefore is to downplay the incarceration in Poland of one of its own citizens and hope that no one will notice.
Thankfully, Alex Christoforou did. And he informs us that since February of last year, in Poland, Spanish and EU citizen Gonzales has been kept in solitary confinement in an EU country, his wife and children have been denied all but a few brief visits, his lawyer’s efforts to communicate with his client have been systematically thwarted, and that, scandalously, the prisoner has been left essentially without consular protection. The Spanish government has signalled its disinterest to Gonzales’ Polish jailers.
As for the international media silence, broken belatedly by Christoforou, it has been shameful. It would perhaps be too bold to expect a moral colossus like Greta Thunberg to bother taking up Gonzales’ cause, but how about Amnesty International? This sordid case, replete with human rights violations of every imaginable sort, would seem to be right up their alley. On the AI website we read the following unctuous lines: “Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights … Amnesty International finds the facts, exposes what’s happening, and rallies people together to force governments and others to respect everyone’s human rights.” Well Amnesty, do something then.
Pablo Gonzales would undoubtedly appreciate a smidgeon of attention and support from a Nobel Prize winning human rights conglomerate such as Amnesty International. A quick check of the AI website, however, while producing an appeal for financial donations laced with a tear-jerking reminder that “after one year, Russian missiles are STILL raining down on families and children in Ukraine . .. Help us document human rights violations and war crimes – your gift will be matched,” does not mention Pablo Gonzales. And what was that about “after one year”? Ukrainian missiles have been raining down indiscriminately on families and children (it is a moot point whether Ukrainian or Russian, all the victims are human beings); not, however, since last year but since 2014, and at last count killing about 15,000 people. But Amnesty International’s eagle eyed human rights monitors missed that, just as they missed the plight of NATO and EU Poland’s prisoner of conscience, Pablo Gonzales.
It turns out that Pablo’s case is not unique.
In Serbia, there is another “prisoner of conscience” and hardly anyone has heard of him, either. He is also a journalist, like Pablo Gonzales, and is similarly doing time without any charges or judicial procedure. His name is Dejan Zlatanovic and he is rotting not in an EU but a Balkan dungeon. True, unlike Poland Serbia is not a part of EU and strictly speaking is not obligated to adhere to EU “values,” whatever they are. But as an aspiring EU member, it could at least try. Unfortunately, as the treatment of Zlatanovic shows, it is trying and succeeding remarkably well, except not by adhering to those values in beautiful theory but by copy-pasting the deplorable Polish practice.
In essence, what happened in Serbia is the following. On February 15, 2023, Serbian police arrested Dejan Zlatanovic, editor of internet news portal Srbin-Info, for a remark he made at a protest rally in Belgrade. Denouncing the possibility that government officials might sign an agreement to recognize the secession of Kosovo, and under the naïve impression that public expression of his views was constitutionally protected speech, Zlatanovic remarked: “Whoever signs is sure to be killed.” The reference was to an entirely reasonable apprehension shared by many Serbs, both those who attended the rally and those who did not. They suspect that high government officials are preparing to sign off on a European “peace” plan which requires Serbia to recognize the secession of NATO occupied Kosovo, considered the heart of Serbian identity, culture, and spirituality.
Both in the original and in translation, Zlatanovic’s remark was general and did not mention any political functionary by name. Furthermore, even on the strictest reading it could not even remotely be framed as a threat, imminent or implied. Rather, it contemplated the possible outcome of a hypothetical action. To anyone with a legal background, that much is clear. But for saying publicly only that and no more, as he was being arrested Zlatanovic was beaten to a pulp by the police, which cared not for the fact that he is a congenitally handicapped person.
The actual moments of Zlatanovic’s arrest can be heard in a mostly audio recording where he screams in anguish “Vucic’s thugs are kidnapping me!”
Zlatanovic has been kept in detention ever since. Apparently being applied is the “values” manual from the Gonzales case. No formal charges have been filed. Zlatanovic’s open ended incarceration was decreed on the basis of police authorities’ gratuitous interpretation that his statement constituted a direct threat to assassinate the country’s President and to violently overthrow the government. So far, a month into the illegal detention, no court hearing to present charges and air the evidence has been held, so it is uncertain what Serbian judges, who presumably do have some legal training, might have to say about the police interpretation of the prisoner’s words.
But is anyone listening? Another quick check reveals that on the website of Amnesty International there is no record of Dejan Zlatanovic or comment about his case.
The operational similarities that connect these two cases of human rights abuse are striking and they do no honour to the governments involved, the “values” hypocritically invoked, or the international advocacy organizations pretending not to notice.
كانت المفاوضات بين الجانبَين اليمني والسعودي قد قطعت أشواطاً كبيرة بالفعل (أ ف ب)
حفّز إعلان السعودية وإيران استعادة علاقتهما الثُنائية، تساؤلات كثيرة حول تفاصيل الاتفاق وما إنْ كان يحتوي ملحقات سرّية، خصوصاً في شأن الملفّ اليمني الذي انعقدت جولات تفاوض عديدة بشأنه بين الرياض وصنعاء في مسقط. الأكيد أن الاتّفاق ليس مثار قلق لدى حلفاء طهران، بقدْر ما هو كذلك من وجهة نظر أصدقاء الرياض الذين بنوا برامجهم واستراتيجيّاتهم على تأجيج الصراع بين الجانبَين الإيراني والسعودي. بالنسبة إلى دول «محور المقاومة» وقِواه، فإن الخلاف الرئيس مع المملكة يتمثّل في التصاقها بالمشروع الأميركي، وتماهيها معه، وتمويلها تطبيقاته الهدّامة في كلّ من سوريا واليمن والعراق ولبنان؛ وعليه، فكلّما ابتعدت الرياض عن واشنطن في أيّ ساحة من ساحات المنطقة، كلّما سنحت الفرصة لتكون أقرب إلى خصوم الولايات المتحدة.
ومن هنا، لا خشية مطلقاً لدى هؤلاء من أيّ ملحق سرّي أو غير معلَن للاتفاق الإيراني – السعودي، خصوصاً في شأن اليمن. فطوال السنوات الماضية، طُرح الملفّ اليمني على الجانب الإيراني من قِبَل أطراف وازنة مِن مِثل روسيا والاتحاد الأوروبي، ودول خليجية كقطر وسلطنة عُمان، وأخرى آسيوية على رأسها باكستان، وأيضاً من قِبَل الأمم المتحدة، لكن الجواب الإيراني كان واحداً في كلّ المرّات والفترات، ومفاده أن مناقشة هذا الملفّ مكانها في صنعاء وليس في أيّ مكان آخر. كذلك، حاول الجانب السعودي طرْح المسألة اليمنية في مفاوضات بغداد مع الوفد الإيراني، ولكن من دون جدوى، فيما لم تفوّت الرياض وسيلة لتفادي التواصل المباشر مع حركة «أنصار الله»، إلى أن اقتنعت العام الماضي بعقم خيارها تجاهُل صنعاء، وانسداد كلّ الأبواب لتجاوزها، فلجأت مرغمة إلى التفاوض المباشر معها.
يُضاف إلى ما تَقدّم، أن المفاوضات بين الجانبَين اليمني والسعودي كانت قد قطعت أشواطاً كبيرة بالفعل، ليس في ما يختصّ بوقف إطلاق النار وتوسعة الهدنة فقط، بل وصولاً إلى مناقشة صيَغ للحلّ النهائي. وبحسب معلومات «الأخبار»، فإن من جملة ما طُرح في تلك المفاوضات، مسألة خروج القوّات الأجنبية من اليمن تمهيداً للبدء بحوار يمني – يمني. وفي هذا المجال، لم تمانع الرياض تلبية مطالب صنعاء، بل وأبدت استعدادها للانسحاب خصوصاً أن كلّ ما تملكه من قوّات على الأرض لا يتجاوز الـ200 جندي وضابط، بالإمكان إجلاؤهم خلال دقائق، لكنها أوضحت أنه ليس في مقدورها دفْع واشنطن أو لندن أو أبو ظبي إلى اتّخاذ قرار مماثل، وهو ما مثّل إحدى الإشكاليات التي اعترت طريق التفاوض. إذ اعتبرت «أنصار الله» أن السعودية التي قدّمت نفسها بوصفها قائدة لـ«التحالف» الذي يضمّ الأميركيين والبريطانيين والإماراتيين، مسؤولة عن إيجاد الحلّ المناسب لإقناعهم بالخروج، مصرّةً على ضرورة انسحاب جميع «القوّات الأجنبية» بلا استثناء. وبالنتيجة، كاد الاتّفاق بين صنعاء والرياض يُعلَن لولا التدخّل الأميركي الخفيّ لعرقلته، بدافعٍ من سعي الولايات المتّحدة إلى إبقاء الوضع الراهن ورقة مزدوجة بيدها، تُستخدَم من جهة من أجل ابتزاز وليّ العهد السعودي، محمد بن سلمان؛ ومن جهة أخرى في الاستمرار في خنْق اليمن وشلّ قدراته ومنْعه من استخدام موقعه الاستراتيجي، أخذاً في الاعتبار خصوصاً مصالح إسرائيل.
جرت أخيراً نقاشات شاركت فيها موسكو وطهران وصنعاء بهدف إيجاد مخرج للرياض من المستنقع اليمني
في الفترة الأخيرة، جرت نقاشات شاركت فيها موسكو وطهران وصنعاء وعواصم أخرى، في محاولة لإيجاد مخرج للرياض من المستنقع اليمني، يحافظ في الوقت نفسه على المطالب اليمنية الأساسية. أريدَت، من خلال ذلك، خصوصاً من جانب روسيا، محاولة تكبير المسافة الفاصلة بين السعودية والولايات المتحدة، على رغم إدراك الجميع أن الخلاف متركّز حالياً مع الحزب «الديموقراطي»، فيما لا تزال علاقة المملكة بالدولة العميقة الأميركية قائمة، وفق ما يؤشّر إليه مثلاً وجود خمس مجموعات عمل أميركية في الرياض لتعزيز التعاون الأمني والعسكري والسياسي بين الجانبَين. لكن الإيرانيين والروس، وحتى الصينيين، يُجمعون على ضرورة السعي إلى الابتعاد بالسعودية عن أن تكون «أداة» بيد الولايات المتحدة في النزاعات الإقليمية، وهو ما يصبّ في خانته اتّفاق عودة العلاقات الديبلوماسية بين طهران والرياض، برعاية صينية.
على أن الأطراف كافّة، بمَن فيهم الأميركي، يدركون أن حجر الرحى في ما يتّصل باليمن قائم في صنعاء. صحيح أن «أنصار الله» لا تُنكر تلقّيها مساعدات عسكرية من طهران، لكنها تؤكّد أن هذه المساعدة ليست مشروطة، وأنها مستعدّة لتلقّي أيّ معونة من الدول الصديقة الراغبة في ذلك، على أساس احترام السيادة الوطنية للبلاد، فيما تتعاطى إيران، من جانبها، بواقعية سياسية مع حلفائها، مدرِكةً ضرورة مراعاة خصوصيّاتهم الوطنية. وفي هذا المجال، أكد السفير اليمني في طهران، إبراهيم الديلمي، أن «السعودية طلبت من إيران في الجلسات السرّية في بغداد ومسقط خلال الأعوام الماضية، الاتّفاق أوّلاً على الملفّ اليمني، فكان ردّ الإيرانيين صريحاً وواضحاً بأن القرار في ما خصّ هذا الملفّ موجود في صنعاء وليس في طهران». كما اقترح الجانب الإيراني على السعوديين وقْف العدوان ورفْع الحصار، وأبدى استعداده، بالاتّفاق مع اليمنيين، للعبِ دور الميسّر من خلال استضافة مفاوضات بين المملكة و«أنصار الله»، منبّهاً إلى أن إيران ليست وسيطاً في هذا النزاع، بل هي دائماً ما أعلنت انحيازها إلى جانبه اليمني. ومن هنا، انحصر النقاش في مسألة استعادة العلاقات الديبلوماسية، علماً أن إيران كانت تخضع حينها لعقوبات أميركية قصوى، مترافقة مع تهديد بشنّ حرب عليها، فيما كان اقتصادها يعاني أزمة كبرى. وإذا كانت تلك هي حالها في ذروة الحصار، فما الذي سيوجب عليها اليوم، بينما تعاظمت قدراتها العسكرية، وتعزَّز حضورها السياسي، وتَحسّن وضعها الاقتصادي، تقديم تنازلات سواءً ربطاً بملفّاتها الداخلية، أو الملفّات الإقليمية ذات الصلة بها؟
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 