NATO Chief Calls for Removing Nonexistent Russian Forces from Ukraine


Stephen Lendman)

On Monday, US-appointed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg expressed “unwavering support” for the illegitimate, US-installed putschist regime – while visiting Kiev.

During a joint press conference with US-anointed, illegitimate president Petro Poroshenko, he voiced concern about continued hostilities in Donbass – irresponsibly blaming Russia, ignoring Kiev regime high crimes.

Addressing illegitimate parliamentarians, he said the only way to resolve ongoing conflict is for Russia to withdraw its “thousands of troops” from eastern Ukraine.

Where are they? No one can find them. How can “thousands” of Russian forces stay concealed? It’s easy when when they’re nowhere on Ukrainian territory – not now or earlier.

Stoltenberg lied, representing US interests, supporting conflict, abhorring resolution.

“I am convinced that an investment in Ukraine’s security is an investment into the security of NATO and its member states that pays off,” he blustered.

How since neither NATO or Ukraine faces any security issues except ones they invent?

Stoltenberg called for full implementation of Minsk ceasefire terms, failing to explain Kiev and US-led NATO alone violate them.

Commenting on the situation in Ukraine, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed concern about Kiev plans for NATO membership, what’s unacceptable to Moscow, given its 1,500 km land and sea border with Russia.

“(F)or many years, Russia has been voicing concern over NATO moving its military infrastructure facilities closer to our borders,” Peskov stressed, adding:

There are no Russian military personnel in Ukraine, not now, earlier, or intending to be deployed to the country. Claims otherwise are false.

Last February, Poroshenko said he plans a referendum on joining NATO, an easily rigged ploy if held to portray the illusion of public support for what he, his regime, Washington and NATO want.

Putin earlier accused Kiev of using pseudo-Russian threats to manipulate public opinion and EU politicians. Peskov explained the regime’s only plentiful export commodity is “Russophobia.”

US-led NATO special forces train Ukraine’s military for aggression against Donbass. According to Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) authorities, Kiev’s military violates Minsk terms daily, 28 times on Monday alone, shelling residential areas with artillery, mortars, tank, and other fire.

Unauthorized “foreign instructors” were spotted in Donbass, maybe there to choose targets for Kiev aggression.

Conflict resolution is unattainable because Washington wants Donetsk and Lugansk freedom fighters eliminated – for complete control over the country, the most important central Europe one.

Russia is justifiably concerned about hostile forces on its borders. Ongoing low-level conflict could escalate to something much more serious if not contained.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman)

Three Countries, Three Continents, One Western Imperial Project

[ Ed. note – An excellent comparative analysis of US regime change operations in three different countries–Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia. Writer Neil Clark discovers a seven-step process that the regime-changers seem to have employed in all three cases. ]

By Neil Clark

A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare, education and social services.

An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist movements.

Social progress in a number of areas, including women’s emancipation.

The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in common.

All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.

The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the state-owned passenger airliner JAT

Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.

Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.

The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these “regimes”. The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups),  and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian intervention’ by the US and its allies.

In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and logistical support by the West.

In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda’s air force

In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically labelled ‘moderate rebels.’ It didn’t matter to the ‘regime changers’ that weapons supplied to ‘moderate rebels’ ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating ‘the Syrian regime’.

The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.

Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a ‘dictator’ even though he was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely operated.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.

Syria’s Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba’ath Party’s monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded ‘rebels’.

The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come  to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.

The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a ‘progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.

Continued here

U.S–Led NATO’s Tree Of Lies

U.S–Led NATO’s Tree Of Lies

By Mark Taliano,

On the heels of an evidence-free “atrocity” allegation leveled against Syria and Syrians, yet another in a long list of stories used as fake pretexts to escalate criminal warfare and support international terrorism, U.S-led NATO is finding it increasingly difficult to climb down from its tree of lies.

Despite its best efforts, and increasingly creative cover stories, the West’s on-going support for terrorists in Syria most recently emerged when it refused to designate a newly-branded al Qaeda-affiliated group – Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – as a terrorist group.

In Canada, a May 15, 2017 CBC report, entitled “Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate escapes from Canada’s terror list” notes that

(t)he reasons for the reluctance to list the new al-Qaeda formation may have to do with one of its new members, the Nour ed-Dine Zenki Brigade, a jihadi group from the Aleppo governorate.

The Zenki Brigade was an early and prominent recipient of U.S. aid, weapons and training.

Zenki was cut off by the State Department only after Amnesty International implicated them in killings of Orthodox Christian priests and members posted a video of themselves beheading a young boy.

For the U.S. to designate HTS now would mean acknowledging that it supplied sophisticated weapons including TOW anti-tank missiles to “terrorists,” and draw attention to the fact that the U.S. continues to arm Islamist militias in Syria.

In other words, if the West were to acknowledge that HTS (al Qaeda) is a terrorist group, then the Western war criminals would be admitting to their own complicity. And NATO, like the CIA, tries conceal its criminality beneath the cover of “plausible deniability” whenever possible.

All of this is consistent with the West’s on-going propaganda campaign against Syria.  The fake stories, the false flags, and the evidence-free demonization campaigns have been known and documented for years. Prof. Tim Anderson’s new e-book, “Countering War Propaganda of the dirty war on Syria” documents it all in an easy-to-read infographic format.

All of this underscores the West’s on-going support for international terrorism in its campaign of globalized war and poverty.

And all of this highlights the irony that the same terrorist group that supposedly flew airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon – al Qaeda – is U.S –led NATO’s proxy in Syria.

The US Without NATO Could Mean No Wars and Terrorism in the World

The US Without NATO Could Mean No Wars and Terrorism in the World

By Masud Wadan,

NATO was primarily founded by the US with then-12 members in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression. NATO’s mission terminated following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of Warsaw pact in 1991. At that time, there was no giant beyond Soviet Union to take up position, though the US scrambled to keep NATO running, otherwise the disbandment of NATO could mean a recipe for the US’s shrinking of supremacy over the world.

The other advantage by maintaining NATO is that it is a combined force that allows US to hold an overall grip on the European region. NATO involves 25 European member states among others while the European Union and the NATO have 22 members in common. In this row, France, Britain and the US are nuclear powers.

According to NATO treaty’s article 5,

if a member of the organization faces direct incursion from outside powers, the rest of members shall spring into its defense.

The most spectacular example and the only tragedy ever seen that represents this article was 9/11 attacks. The NATO powers were, indeed, on their own to go for helping the US, yet the enormity of world trade center’s havoc earned their sympathy to join US forces in the invasion of Afghanistan.

NATO’s latest mission began in 2003 in Afghanistan where it deployed thousands of troops through International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). By the term NATO, the finger is pointed at those few member states that really run things and hold a massive stake on the ground. The US and UK are the only two spearheads when it comes to the Afghan war. The rests below these two in the list are just operating under NATO with far fewer troops or some may even contribute to appease the US.

The US deployed NATO forces in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Indian Ocean, of which Uzbekistan demanded several million dollars as payment for exploitation of its soil against Afghanistan.

The second to US at the helm of NATO is the UK. This leading NATO member played more like an influential conduit for the passage of NATO’s proposals and plans into the European Union. But this trend seems to start faltering after the revolutionary Brexit referendum in the UK last year. Although the NATO and UK officials have ruled out a likely split of UK from the NATO following Brexit, it is presumed that the deadlock would start to loom in the longer term – if not in near one.

NATO binds its members to dedicate at least 2 percent of their GDP for defense spending, while only five members including the US, the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia are less or well above the target. Amazingly, the powerful economies such as Germany and France are falling short in this area.

As aftereffect of the Brexit referendum, the UK could lose the most senior military position of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander which it held for more than 60 years. The deputy leadership among other key roles could possibly slip to France.

The other turning point triggered by Brexit is the EU’s intention to speed up the creation of independent military headquarters outside NATO. This idea, however, was frequently downplayed and turned down by the UK which it saw as a threat to the role of NATO. The UK had said last year it would veto such a proposal, because it may possibly undercut UK’s vigorous engagement in NATO.

Image result for jens stoltenbergGiven the pre-emptive use of force, NATO’s chief Jens Stoltenberg last year in a meeting in Brussels urged allies to keep anti-Russian sanctions alive. He said:

“The international community must keep pressuring Russia to respect its obligations”.

If it sees all this allegations to be hurled at Russia over Ukraine’s standoff, then NATO too has to end a protracted and costly war in Afghanistan, which Russia terms as “offensive”.

It was until Russia’s annexation of Crimea when NATO and Russia led easy marriage and would strike several cooperation deals. In the wake of Crimea’s annexation – whose reason was inferred as Russia’s fear over NATO’s plan to build military headquarters there – the organization froze relationship with Russia.

As a major determinant of NATO, Germany press for exercising of sanctions against Russia at a time this country is Russia’s largest trade partner, followed by France and Italy. By all this, we discover that the NATO and the EU go on the same trajectory after the latter approved anti-Russian bans and embargoes over Ukraine’s crisis which was sparked by NATO in the first place. While others believe the EU is NATO in the guise of a Union.

Given the EU’s drastic need for Russia’s energy resources as well as the broad Russian markets for European products, the EU, more or less, is eager to cut the intensity of sanctions and edge it towards the end. Moreover, the German businessmen and economists have vocalized opposition to further and tougher sanctions on Russia.

On the heyday of NATO deployments and engagements in Afghanistan, some wrecked sectors of this victimized country were shared out among a number of members for the purpose of revival. The US assumed the training and strengthening of the Afghan Army, Japan was handed over the “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration” (DDR) project, Germany undertook training of the Afghan police, the UK picked war on narcotics and stationed only in southern Helmand province despite having second highest number of troops following the US, and Italy took on the responsibility of the justice sector reform.

Fewer would fit into their tasks, as Japan had no servicemen or armed forces at the time to forcefully disarm the militias. And the UK’s failure to tackle narcotics is largely on display in the eyes of world as Afghanistan still ranks the first for feeding world habits of addiction, let alone the booming drug business worldwide. Lastly, Italy was a poor choice for the justice sector’s reform thanks to being a big law-breaker and Mafia country in the Europe.

Image result for boris johnson

On the Syrian side, the latest chemical attack bears out the fact on the collusion and conspiracies of critical NATO members behind peppering of blames on Assad’s regime. First the US used every effort at disposal to direct the blame on Syrian government. Later the UK’s – also first in toeing the US’s line – foreign minister Boris Johnson meaninglessly called off an official trip to Russia allegedly over this country’s involvement in Syria and the gas attack. In third place, France inconsiderately released a report blaming Syrian government for chemical gas attack without a shred of evidence.

All these concurred attacks come as the international neutral investigators as well as Russian team sought to inspect the chemical attack for findings, but they said the US blocked them from participating in a formal investigation.

If it was not for NATO or concerted conspiracies, the UK’s Boris Johnson or French report had nothing to do with a far-regional chemical weapon attack, even if it was perpetrated by very Assad’s government.

The NATO’s pro-war European members are the cornerstone of the US’s decision-making process on waging a war or invading a country. North Korea, for example, might be on the brink of bursting into a war with US. Apart from South Korea’s opposition to the US-DPRK’s likely armed strife, the US might still strongly hesitate to instigate another endless conflict without consent of leading NATO members, importantly because it is unwilling to bear the brunt of costs and arms alone, and that’s why compelling of the NATO members to raise defense spending matters.

Back in 2003, France and Germany stood critical to the US war plans against Iraq. The Wall Street Journal at that time accused Germany of actively promoting American defeat. It concluded by declaring

“What President Bush calls ‘a coalition of the willing’ will become America’s new security alliance”, even though the two states continued to take several diplomatic initiatives to avert a military strike against Iraq which were not well covered in media.

The same year, French president Jacques Chirac and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin presented a joint declaration by France, Germany and Russia calling for extended weapons inspections in Iraq. It said:

“There is still an alternative to war. The use of violence can only be the last resort”.

It was a riposte to President Bush’s remarks just a week earlier that said,

“The game is over”.

After NATO representatives from Germany, France and Belgium vetoed military preparations for the protection of Turkey in case of war in Iraq, President Bush publicly accused Berlin, Paris and Brussels of “damaging NATO”.

Most NATO allies were distaste to the US’s invasion of Iraq, because the ploy to draw them into this [Iraq] war was not as elaborate as that of Afghanistan [9/11 attacks] and unconvincing for the European members. More than a decade later now, we notice a U-turn or a fair degree of rotation in some European and NATO members’ posture towards globalization of war and warmongering. It can be concluded that if major aides of the US – the UK, France and Germany – withhold military and non-military support to this superpower, the peace may descend into the earth over the long haul.

France caught up in terrorism, victim of her own NATO allies

by Thierry Meyssan

France has just become the victim of a new terrorist attack, three days before the first round of her Presidential election. For Thierry Meyssan, Paris needs to stop talking rubbish and realise the importance of what this means. International terrorism, in which France herself participates, is commanded and used – even against her – by certain of her NATO allies.

JPEG - 44.3 kb

Attack on the Champs-Elysees, 20 April 2017.

At the beginning of 2017, we were informed that jihadists were preparing actions which were intended to force France and Germany to postpone their elections. It was not easy to discern:

- whether the aim was to postpone the French Presidential election (April-May), or the French parliamentary elections (June), or both;
- whether France was a target in itself, or if the actions in France were a preparation for future actions against Germany.

Among the candidates for the Presidential election, only François Fillon and Marine Le Pen have criticised the support offered by France to the Muslim Brotherhood. Fillon has even made it one of the recurring themes of his campaign.

Speech at Chassieu (Lyon), 22 November 2016.

We alerted our readers that the Press campaigns and the legal affairs launched against Donald Trump in the United States, and against François Fillon in France, were commanded by the same groups. We wrote that according to Messrs. Trump & Fillon,

« … it will not be possible to restore peace and prosperity without first putting an end to the instrumentalisation of Islamic terrorism, without freeing the Muslim world from the ascendancy of the jihadists, and without attacking the true source of terrorism: the Muslim Brotherhood. » [1]

At that time, the French, believing wrongly that the Muslim Brotherhood was just a movement within the Muslim religion, did not react. Later, I published a book , Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump, whose second part describes in detail, and for the first time, how this secret organisation, created and controlled by MI6, is run by the British secret services. It is this Brotherhood which, since the Second World War, has been attempting to transform Sunni Islam into a political instrument. All the leaders of jihadist groups without exception came from the Brotherhood – from Oussama Ben Laden to Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi.

On 26 February, without explanation, François Fillon published a communiqué which was widely criticised:

« We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: less than two months from the Presidential election, we are in a state of quasi civil war which is disturbing the normal course of the campaign (…) I say again that we are in a state of emergency, and yet the government does nothing (…) Today, in my rôle as ex-Prime Minister, as an elected member of the Nation, I solemnly accuse the Prime Minister and the government of failing to guarantee the conditions for a serene exercise of democracy. They have a very heavy respnsibility in allowing a state of almost civil war to develop, and which can only profit the extremes (…) Whoever the candidates are, they must have the right to express themselves, and the government must take the necessary measures so that the rioters and the enemies of democracy cease disrupting the Presidential campaign » [2].

On 17 April, the Police Nationale informed the four main candidates that there were threats to their security, and reinforced their protection.

On 18 April, M. (29 years old) and Clement B. (23 years old) were arrested while they were preparing an attack during a meeting in support of François Fillon.

On 20 April, a policeman was killed and two others seriously wounded during an attack on the Champs-Elysées.

François Fillon and Marine Le Pen cancelled the journeys they had planned for the 21 April. Following the movement, and althought here was no real threat to him at all, Emmanuel Macron did the same.

The responsibility of the next President of the French Republic

The security of the French people will be a central issue for the next five-year Presidential term. This question is all the more complex in that the recent terrorist attacks perpetrated on French soil have implicated three of France’s NATO allies – the US deep state, the United Kingdom, and Turkey.

I have widely covered the question of the attacks in Paris (13 November 2015) and Brussels (22 March 2016). [3]. In my latest book, I indicate that while the responsibility for these attacks was claimed by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Press, they were carried out by « independent commandos, with the exception of a common operator, Mohammed Abrini of MI6 » (p. 231) [4].

For years, the successive governments of Nicolas Sarkozy and Alain Juppé, and also the government of François Hollande and Laurent Fabius, have hidden their criminal activities from the French people, and the consequences for which they are responsible – terrorism intra muros.

It is absurd to believe that al-Qaïda and Daesh could be in possession of so much money and weaponry without the support of major states. It is absurd to believe that France could have participated in the remodelling operations in the « Greater Middle East » without suffering the counter-attacks. It is absurd to believe that it will be easy to fight international terrorism when it is commanded by our own NATO allies.

Pete Kimberley

Syria: ISIS using weapons supplied by NATO

ISIS Drone Drops NATO Munitions on Syrian Children

Just another day in Syria

a NATO-Bulgarian GLV-HEF projectile
a NATO-Bulgarian GLV-HEF projectile

Syrian forces shot down an ISIS drone that was targeting civilians in eastern Syria on Wednesday, according to multiple reports.

The drone was allegedly carrying a NATO-Bulgarian GLV-HEF projectile.

How did Islamic State acquire NATO munitions? Probably craigslist.

Al Masdar News has more details:

According to the NDF, their forces in the village of Abu Al-Alaya downed the Islamic State attack drone while it was flying over their positions and bombing civilians in the area.

The bomb used by the Islamic State to attack the civilians of Abu Al-Alaya was identified by the Syrian military as a NATO-sponsored GLV-HEF projectile, which is produced in Bulgaria.

ISIL has been using these projectile bombs to harass the civilians in east Homs and Deir Ezzor for several months now, forcing the Syrian military to constantly monitor these villages and towns in eastern Syria

2017: The year when flying robots controlled by terrorists dropped NATO projectiles on Syrian children. 

Apparently there’s quite a lot of Bulgarian munitions that have “ended up” in Syria:

On 21 February 2016, the Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA News) and Frontinfo posted some footage seemingly filmed near Nabi Younes in Latakia Governorate, Syria. Amongst the footage is a fired cartridge case from a 40 × 46SR mm high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) round produced in Bulgaria. The Arsenal 40×46 RLV-HEF round is of the 40 × 46SR mm calibre common amongst NATO states and other users, and produced widely around the world. The Arsenal RLV-HEF is built around the GLV-HEF projectile which delivers an explosive charge of 40 grams of  A-IX-1 (96% RDX phlegmatised with 4% paraffin wax) out to some 400 m. Ammunition of this type is most commonly employed with under-barrel or stand-alone grenade launchers, including multi-shot varieties documented in service with Syrian opposition groups, such as the Croatian RBG-6.

What is particularly interesting about the cartridge case is that it indicates that the round in question was produced in 2014. The presence of this cartridge case in Syria is clear evidence of the recent supply of ammunition during the ongoing fighting in Syria. Whilst perhaps not especially noteworthy in its own right, it is another data point that ARES and other organisations can record

USA and NATO Forces Are Butchering Civilians en Masse in Iraq and Syria

US and NATO Forces Are Butchering Civilians en Masse in Iraq and Syria


3463234234As it’s been recently noted, the latest mass-casualties inflicted by US and NATO airstrikes in Raqqa and Mosul reveal that Washington has decided to turn its back on rules designed to protect the innocent. In turn, the Times reports that field commanders appear to be exercising more latitude to launch strikes in civilian-occupied areas than ever before.

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that we’re witnessing by far the deadliest attack on civilians in decades. Just one US airstrike on a densely populated neighborhood of Mosul resulted in more than 200 civilian casualties, according to the official numbers released.

It’s been announced that during the same month, at least 30 civilians were reported killed by a US airstrike outside Raqqa, Syria — where the real battle against ISIS hasn’t even begun yet — and up to 50 more may have died when the US bombed a mosque in Aleppo.

Yet another airstrike that was launched on March 20 in the Al-Mansour area resulted in at least 33 civilians deaths, as human rights activists reported. The Focus has already announced that the German Bundeswehr was taking part in the attack.

Foreign Policy The Nation would note that:

The carnage comes amid a push by the US and its Iraqi allies to reclaim Mosul, Iraq’s second most populouscity, from ISIS. That’s making life terrifying for the city’s residents, who’ve endured years of depredations from ISIS only to fall under US bombs.

The only logical question one is temped to ask under these circumstances is why organizations like the notorious “White Helmets” are nowhere to be found? Did these so-called “defenders of the weak” disappear into thin air once the funding provided by the United States and Britain ran dry? So then, who is going to expose the ongoing genocide of civilian populations in Syria and Iraq, which the US and its NATO allies are committing in broad daylight? Were those comic book-style heroes created just to falsely accuse Russia of the very crimes Washington is now eagerly committing in the Middle East?

AirWars, which has been keeping track of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, reports that there’s been over 1,300 claims of civilian deaths from coalition airstrikes in March alone. That’s about triple the count from February.

It’s now clear that US President Donald Trump is not the peace-loving president everybody had been waiting for. The Week would point out that instead of cutting American losses in unwinnable situations, moving toward retrenchment, and re-assessing America’s long war in the Middle East, the Trump administration seems to be taking bigger gambles amid US operations, loosening the rules of engagement for the military, and doubling down on conflicts that only have the most marginal relation to core US interests.There’s no doubt that for those who hoped for a candidate that would drain the swamp, he is instead making it much deeper.

So who’s going to put an end to the genocide of the civilian populations of Syria and Iraq?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

%d bloggers like this: