Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO

By David Swanson,

The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia. According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

 

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

Advertisements

US Switching to Ukraine as Location to Start World War III Against Russia

Source

US Switching to Ukraine as Location to Start World War III Against Russia

The United States Government is now treating Ukraine as if it were a NATO member, and on September 27th donated to Ukraine two warships for use against Russia. This is the latest indication that the US is switching to Ukraine as the locale to start World War III, and from which the nuclear war is to be sparked against Russia, which borders Ukraine. Here is why Syria is no longer the US alliance’s preferred choice as a place to start WW III:

On September 4th, US President Donald Trump publicly threatened Syria, Iran and Russia that if they exterminated the jihadists in Syria’s only remaining jihadist-controlled province, Idlib, then the US might launch a full-scale invasion against Syria, Iran and Russia in Syria. Either the US or Russia would then quickly escalate to nuclear war so as not to lose in Syria — that would be the conventional-war start to World War III.

The leaders of Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Syria (Putin, Rouhani, Erdogan, and Assad), agreed in two meetings, one on September 7th and the other on September 17th, to (as I had recommended on September 10th) transfer control of Syria’s only remaining jihadist-controlled province, Idlib, to NATO-member Turkey. This action effectively prevents the US alliance from going to war against Russia if Russia’s alliance (which includes Syria) obliterates all the jihadist groups in the Al-Qaeda-led Syrian province Idlib. For the US to war against Russia there would also be war against fellow-NATO-member Turkey — out of the question.

The US has been using Al Qaeda in Syria to train and lead the jihadist groups which have been trying to overthrow Syria’s Government and to replace it with a government that has been selected by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia. Ever since 1949 the US Government has been trying to do this (to place the Saud family in charge of Syria). That plan is now being placed on-hold if not blocked altogether, because of the Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, agreement. As I reported on September 25th, “Turkey Now Controls Syria’s Jihadists”. The US would no longer be able to save them, but Turkey would, if Erdogan wants to. “Turkey is thus now balanced on a knife’s edge, between the US and its allies (representing the Saud family) on the one side, versus Russia and its allies (representing the anti-Saud alliance) on the other.”

During the same period in which the US Government was setting Syria up as the place to start WW III, it was also setting up Ukraine as an alternative possibility to do that. US President Obama, in a very bloody February 2014 coup which he had started planning by no later than 2011, overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President, and replaced him by a rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascist regime whose Ukrainian tradition went back to ideologically nazi Ukrainian organizations that had supported Hitler during World War II. Though communism is gone from Russia ever since 1991, the US aristocracy never ended its goal of conquering Russia; the Cold War was secretly continued on the US-NATO side. Ukraine’s nazis (meaning its racist-fascists) are now the US and UK aristocracies’ chief hope to achieve this ambition of a US-and-allied global conquest. Here are the recent steps toward WW III regarding the US alliance’s new (since 2014) prize, Ukraine:

On September 28th, John Siciliano at the Washington Examiner bannered “Ryan Zinke: Naval blockade is an option for dealing with Russia” and he reported that Trump’s Interior Secretary Zinke had said “There is the military option, which I would rather not. And there is the economic option. … The economic option on Iran and Russia is, more or less, leveraging and replacing fuels.” He was saying that in order for the US to get its and its allies’ (mainly the Sauds’) oil and gas into Europe replacing some of Russia’s dominant market-share in that — the world’s largest energy-consuming — market (and also shrink Iran’s market-share there), a military blockade against Russia and Iran would be an option. Currently, most of Russia’s oil and gas into Europe goes via pipelines through Ukraine, which the US already controls. Siciliano’s news-break received a follow-up on September 30th from Zero Hedge.

On October 1st, George Eliason, the great investigative journalist who happens to live in Donbass, the southeastern part of Ukraine that broke off from Ukraine when Obama’s coup overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President who had received over 90% of the votes in Donbass, reported at The Saker’s site, that Ukraine’s war against Donbass was now returning in full force. Headlining “War Crimes in LNR and DNR [Donbass] —The Unannounced War”, he opened:

On September 28th, Lugansk Peoples Republic (LNR)Deputy Foreign Minister Anna Soroka and Andrey Chernov gave a presentation unveiling a photo album entitled Unannounced war. This collection of 150 images details the war crimes by the Ukrainian government during the war from 2014-2018.

Over the last 4 years, many journalists including myself reported on the war crimes committed by Ukrainian punisher battalions and sometimes the Ukrainian army. These war crimes are privately funded by Ukrainian Diaspora groups led primarily by US and Canadian citizens.

The Ukrainian punisher battalions and Ukrainian volunteer battalions take pride in the fact there is no need to hide any of Ukraine’s crimes from the West’s prying eyes.

Even now, when there is supposed to be a ceasefire so the children can go to school, Kiev is shelling cities and towns across Donbass. On September 29th, in just 24 hours Ukrainian army units shelled DNR (Donetsk Peoples Republic) over 300 times violating the ceasefire.

The US Government is trying to bully Russia and its allies, and now is overtly threatening to go to a naval blockade against Russia. Those two warships that the US just donated to Ukraine could be helpful in such a blockade. Alternatively, Ukraine’s re-invasion of Donbass might become Trump’s opportunity to ‘aid a NATO ally’ and precipitate WW III from a conventional war in Donbass. Either way would likely produce from Russia a nuclear blitz-attack to eliminate as many of America’s retaliatory weapons as possible, so as to beat the US to the punch. In military terms, the side that suffers the less damage ‘wins’, even if it’s a nuclear war that destroys the planet. The side that would strike first in a nuclear war would almost certainly suffer the less damage, because most of the opponent’s retaliatory weaponry would be destroyed in that attack. Trump is playing nuclear “chicken” against Putin. He is sorely trying Putin’s patience.

If the US regime uses any of these entry-points to a conventional war, Russia would simply be waiting for the US to nuclear blitz-attack Russia, which the US regime has long been intending to do. Regardless which side goes nuclear first, the blockade and/or re-invasion of Donbass (repeating there such things as this and this) will have started WWIII. And, clearly, any survivors would likely view the US in the way that most of today’s world views the fascist powers in WWII: as having been the aggressors. Consequently, if the American people cannot first overthrow the US regime and establish an authentic democracy here, then WWIII seems likely to result, which would be an outcome far worse, for the entire world, than an overthrow of the government that the entire world considers to be by far the most dangerous on Earth.

US, Europe & NATO Risk All-out War By Backing Unhinged Kiev Regime

Finian Cunningham
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

By Finian Cunningham

US, Europe & NATO risk all-out war by backing unhinged Kiev regime

 

With the US, EU and NATO all bolstering claims of “Russian aggression” – in face of contrary evidence – the real danger is that the Kiev regime will be emboldened to carry out more reckless provocations leading to all-out war.

It seems indisputable that the three Ukrainian Navy vessels were dispatched last Sunday in order to instigate a security response from Russian maritime border forces. In contrast to normal procedures for passage clearance through the Kerch Strait, the Ukrainian warships refused to communicate with Russian controls and acted menacingly inside Russia’s Black Sea territorial limits.

At a United Nations Security Council emergency meeting on Monday, the US, Britain and France pointedly refused to take on board Russia’s legal argument for why it felt obliged to detain the Ukrainian boats and 24 crew. The Western powers automatically sided with the version of events claimed by President Petro Poroshenko – that the Ukrainian Navy was attacked unlawfully by Russia.

The US, EU and NATO denounced Russia’s “aggression” and demanded that the Ukrainian vessels and crew be repatriated immediately, even though under Russian law there is a case for prosecution.

It is the West’s refusal to acknowledge facts that is part of the problem. Russia is continually accused of “annexing” Crimea in 2014 instead of the Western powers recognizing that the Black Sea peninsula voted in a constitutionally held referendum to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Crimea was prompted to take that historic step because the US, EU and NATO had only the month before backed an illegal coup in Kiev against the elected Ukrainian government. That coup brought to power the present Kiev regime led by Poroshenko and a parliament dominated by neo-Nazi parties.

So, the problem here is a refusal by Western supporters of the dubious Kiev regime to accept the legal, historic reality that Crimea is part of Russia’s territory. Ships passing through the Kerch Strait between Russia’s mainland and Crimea are obliged to notify Russian maritime controls of passage. Russia has since reopened the strait to civilian cargo transport following the naval skirmish at the weekend.

When the Ukrainian Navy vessels violated legal procedures and entered Russian territorial limits, their action was aggressive, not Russia’s response.

Furthermore, there are already emerging signs that the Ukrainian naval transport was orchestrated for the purpose of inciting an incident.

Some of the detained crew members have admitted carrying out orders which they knew would be seen by Russia as provocative.

It has also been reported by US government-owned Radio Free Europe that the Ukrainian secret services (SBU) have confirmed that its officers were among the crew on the boats. The vessels were also armed. If the transfer was an innocent passage, why were secret services involved?

Recall that Ukrainian secret services have previously been caught staging sabotage operations in Crimea.

Another major background factor is the increasing NATO military buildup in eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin officially opened the 19km bridge linking Russia’s mainland with Crimea in May earlier this year, there were calls in US and Ukrainian media for the structure to be sabotaged. Moscow has understandably stepped up security controls around the vital infrastructure, which cost $3.7 billion and is the longest bridge in Europe.

In recent months, the US and Britain have ordered increasing military deployment to the region under the guise of “training” and “assistance” to the Kiev regime forces.

Earlier this year, in July, the NATO alliance held naval drills, Sea Breeze, along with Ukrainian forces in the Black Sea. That’s in spite of the fact that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, although it is aspiring to join the 29-member US-led bloc at some time in the future.

It was the following month, in August, that Russia began stepping up its controls and searches of vessels through the Kerch Strait linking the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. The latter leads to ports under the control of the Kiev regime such as Mariupol, which is adjacent to the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic. The DPR and Luhansk People’s Republic broke away following the coup in Kiev in 2014 and have been under military attack for the past four years despite the so-called Minsk peace treaties. These are more facts that the Western backers of the Kiev regime refuse to deal with.

More NATO buildup continued in September with the supply of two gunboats by the US to the Ukrainian Navy for deployment in the Sea of Azov. Pentagon-linked publication Defense One described that supply as part of efforts by Washington and Kiev to develop a “mosquito navy” in order to skirmish with Russian forces.

Only four days before the latest naval clash, Britain’s Defense Minister Gavin Williamson announced the Royal Navy was to send HMS ‘Echo’ to patrol with Ukrainian special forces to “defend freedom and democracy.” Williamson said: “As long as Ukraine faces Russian hostilities, the United Kingdom will be a steadfast partner.

This is background to the simmering tensions in the Black Sea between Ukraine and Russia. The situation has arisen because of Western interference in Ukraine – primarily the coup in Kiev in February 2014. Yet, in all discussions about events since then, the Western powers are in denial of facts and their culpability. The recent militarization of the Black Sea by the NATO alliance is a stark provocation to Russia’s national security, but again the Western powers bury their collective heads in the sand.

Given the reckless indulgence by the US, Europe and NATO of the Kiev regime amid its ongoing violations against the populace in eastern Ukraine, its refusal to abide by the Minsk agreements, and its continual inflammatory and unhinged rhetoric against Russia, it should not be surprising if this same regime feels emboldened to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow.

Arguably, the Kiev regime and its adulation of World War II Nazi collaborators never had any legitimacy in the first place. It continues to demonstrate its lack of legitimacy from the immense social problems in Ukraine of poverty, corruption, human rights violations, neo-Nazi paramilitaries running amok, and now martial law being imposed.

It remains to be seen if the recent naval provocation was carried out with the tacit approval of Washington and other NATO powers as a pretext for further militarization against Russia. The initial misplaced condemnations of Russia have subsided to more measured calls from US President Donald Trump and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian for “restraint” and “dialogue.”

That might suggest Kiev’s failing President Poroshenko and his security services acted alone to order the naval confrontation as a desperate throw of the dice to escalate NATO and EU support for his shaky regime against Russia.

Trump’s comments hoping that Kiev and Russia would “straighten things out” sound like Washington is not behind the provocation and has no desire for a wider conflict. Just as well, because such a development is a gateway to all-out war.

Nevertheless, such a catastrophe is always a serious risk when Western powers indulge this unhinged Kiev regime.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by RT

Libya, an entire Nation has been destabilized and destroyed by the USA and NATO

Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

,

The war on Libya started in March 2011.

This article was originally published by GR in September 2011,  following the devastation triggered by seven months of intensive NATO bombings.

Today, Libya as a country and a nation state has been destroyed. Under Nuremberg, the leaders of the NATO member states involved in the war on Libya are war criminals.

Michel Chossudovsky, November 14, 2018

***

“There is no tomorrow” under a NATO sponsored Al Qaeda rebellion. 

While a  “pro-democracy” rebel government has been instated, the country has been destroyed.

Against the backdrop of war propaganda, Libya’s economic and social achievements over the last thirty years, have been brutally reversed:

The [Libyan Arab Jamahiriya] has had a high standard of living and a robust per capita daily caloric intake of 3144. The country has made strides in public health and, since 1980, child mortality rates have dropped from 70 per thousand live births to 19 in 2009. Life expectancy has risen from 61 to 74 years of age during the same span of years. (FAO, Rome, Libya, Country Profile,)

According to sectors of the “Progressive Left” which endorsed NATO’s R2P mandate:

“The mood across Libya, particularly in Tripoli, is absolutely —like there’s just a feeling of euphoria everywhere. People are incredibly excited about starting afresh. There’s a real sense of rebirth, a feeling that their lives are starting anew. (DemocracyNow.org, September 14, 2011 emphasis added)

The rebels are casually presented as “liberators”. The central role of Al Qaeda affilated terrorists within rebel ranks is not mentioned.

“Starting afresh” in the wake of destruction? Fear and Social Despair, Countless Deaths and Atrocities, amply documented by the independent media.

No euphoria…. A historical reversal in the country’s economic and social development has occurred. The achievements have been erased.

The NATO invasion and occupation marks the ruinous “rebirth” of Libya’s standard of living  That is the forbidden and unspoken truth:  an entire Nation has been destabilized and destroyed, its people driven into abysmal poverty.

The objective of the NATO bombings from the outset was to destroy the country’s standard of living, its health infrastructure, its schools and hospitals, its water distribution system.

And then “rebuild” with the help of donors and creditors under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank.

The diktats of the “free market” are a precondition for the instatement of  a Western style “democratic dictatorship “.

About nine thousand strike sorties, tens of thousands of strikes on civilian targets including residential areas, government buildings, water supply and electricity generation facilities. (See NATO Communique, September 5, 2011. 8140 strike sorties from March 31 to September 5, 2011)

An entire nation has been bombed with the most advanced ordnance, including uranium coated ammunition.

Already in August, UNICEF warned that extensive NATO bombing of Libya’s water infrastructure “could turn into an unprecedented health epidemic “ (Christian Balslev-Olesen of UNICEF’s Libya Office, August 2011).

Meanwhile investors and donors have positioned themselves. “War is Good for Business’. NATO, the Pentagon and the Washington based international financial institutions (IFIs) operate in close coordination. What has been destroyed by NATO will be rebuilt, financed by Libya’s external creditors under the helm of the “Washington Consensus”:

“Specifically, the [World] Bank has been asked to examine the need for repair and restoration of services in the water, energy and transport sectors [bombed by NATO] and, in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund, to support budget preparation [austerity measures] and help the banking sector back on to its feet [The Libyan Central bank was one of the first government buildings to be bombed]. Employment generation for young Libyans has been added as an urgent need facing the country.” (World Bank to Help Libya Rebuild and Deliver Essential Services to Citizens emphasis added)

Libya’s Development Achievements

Whatever one’s views regarding Moamar Gadaffi, the post-colonial Libyan government played a key role in eliminating poverty and developing the country’s health and educational infrastructure. According to Italian Journalist Yvonne de Vito,

“Differently from other countries that went through a revolution – Libya is considered to be the Switzerland of the African continent and is very rich and schools are free for the people. Hospitals are free for the people. And the conditions for women are much better than in other Arab countries.” (Russia Today, August 25, 2011)

These developments are in sharp contrast to what most Third World countries were able to “achieve” under Western style “democracy” and “governance” in the context of a standard IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment program (SAP).

Public Health Care

Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” was the best in Africa.

“Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services…. (WHO Libya Country Brief )

Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World.

Under 5 mortality rate per 1000 live births declined from 71 in 1991 to 14 in 2009
(http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_lby_en.pdf)
 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya General information

2009  Total population (000)  6 420

Annual population growth rate (%)  2.0

Population 0-14 years (%) 28

Rural population (%)  22

Total fertility rate (births per woman)  2.6

Infant mortality rate (0/00) 17

Life expectancy at birth (years)  75

GDP per capita (PPP) US$   16 502

GDP growth rate (%)  2.1

Children of primary school-age who are out of school  (%)  (1978) 2

Source: UNESCO. Libya Country Profile

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009)

Total life expectancy at birth (years)   72.3
Male life expectancy at birth (years)   70.2
Female life expectancy at birth (years)  74.9
Newborns with low birth weight (%)  4.0
Children underweight (%)   4.8
Perinatal mortality rate per 1000 total births 19.0
Neonatal mortality rate  11.0
Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 14.0
Under five mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 20.1
Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 23.0

Source WHO http://www.emro.who.int/emrinfo/index.aspx?Ctry=liy  

Education

The adult literacy rate was of the order of 89%, (2009), (94% for males and 83% for females). 99.9% of youth are literate (UNESCO 2009 figures, See UNESCO, Libya Country Report)

Gross primary school enrolment ratio was 97% for boys and 97% for girls (2009) .
(see UNESCO tables at

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4340&BR_Region=40525

The pupil teacher ratio in Libya’s primary schools was of the order of 17 (1983 UNESCO data), 74% of school children graduating from primary school were enrolled in secondary school (1983 UNESCO  data).

Based on more recent date, which confirms a marked increase in school enrolment, the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in secondary schools was of the order of 108% in 2002. The GER is the number of pupils enrolled in a given level of education regardless of age expressed as a percentage of the population in the theoretical age group for that level of education.

For tertiary enrolment (postsecondary, college and university), the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) was of the order of 54% in 2002 (52 for males, 57 for females).
(For further details see http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4340&BR_Region=40525

Women’s Rights

With regard to Women’s Rights, World Bank data point to significant achievements.

“In a relative short period of time, Libya achieved universal access for primary education, with 98% gross enrollment for secondary, and 46% for tertiary education. In the past decade, girls’ enrollment increased by 12% in all levels of education. In secondary and tertiary education, girls outnumbered boys by 10%.” (World Bank Libya Country Brief, emphasis added)

Price Controls over Essential Food Staples

In most developing countries, essential food prices have skyrocketed, as a result of market deregulation, the lifting of price controls and the eliminaiton of subsidies, under “free market” advice from the World Bank and the IMF.

In recent years, essential food and fuel prices have spiralled as a result of speculative trade on the major commodity exchanges.

Libya was one of the few countries in the developing World which maintained a system of price controls over essential food staples.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick acknowledged in an April 2011 statement that the price of essential food staples had increased by 36 percent in the course of the last year. (See Robert Zoellick, World Bank)

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had established a system of price controls over essential food staples, which was maintained until the onset of the NATO led war.

While rising food prices in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt spearheaded social unrest and political dissent, the system of food subsidies in Libya was maintained.

These are the facts confirmed by several UN specialised agencies.

“Missile Diplomacy” and “The Free Market”

War and Globalization are intiricately related.  The IMF and NATO work in tandem, in liason with the Washington think tanks.

The NATO operation purports to enforce the neoliberal economic agenda. Countries which are reluctant to accept the sugar coated bullets of IMF “economic medicine” will eventually be the object of a R2P NATO humanitarian operation.

Déjà Vu? Under the British Empire, “gun boat diplomacy” was a means to imposing “free trade”. On October 5, 1850, England’s Envoy to the Kingdom of Siam, Sir James Brooke recommended to Her Majesty’s government that:

“should these just demands [to impose free trade] be refused, a force should be present, immediately to enforce them by the rapid destruction of the defenses of the [Chaopaya] river… Siam may be taught the lesson which it has long been tempting– its Government may be remodelled, A better disposed king placed on the throne and an influence acquired in the country which will make it of immense commercial importance to England” (The Mission of Sir James Brooke, quoted in M.L. Manich Jumsai, King Mongkut and Sir John Bowring, Chalermit, Bangkok, 1970, p. 23)

Today we call it “Regime Change” and “Missile Diplomacy” which invariably takes the shape of a UN sponsored “No Fly Zone”. Its objective is to impose the IMF’s deadly “economic medicine” of austerity measures and privatization.

The World Bank financed “reconstruction” programs of war torn countries are coordinated with US-NATO military planning. They are invariably formulated prior to onslaught of the military campaign…

Confiscating Libyan Financial Assets

Libya`s frozen overseas financial assets are estimated to be of the order of $150 billion, with NATO countries holding more than $100 billion.

Prior to the war, Libya had no debts. In fact quite the opposite. It was a creditor nation investing in neighboring African countries.

The R2P military intervention is intended to spearhead the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya into the straightjacket of an indebted developing country, under the surveillance of the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions.

In a bitter irony, after having stolen Libya’s oil wealth and confiscated its overseas financial assets, the “donor community” has pledged to lend the (stolen) money back to finance Libya’s post-war “reconstruction”.   Libya is slated to join the ranks of indebted African countries which have driven into poverty by IMF and the World Bank since the onsalught of the debt crisis in the early 1980s:

The IMF promised a further $35-billion in funding [loans] to countries affected by Arab Spring uprisings and formally recognized Libya’s ruling interim council as a legitimate power, opening up access to a myriad of international lenders as the country [Libya] looks to rebuild after a six-month war.  …

Getting IMF recognition is significant for Libya’s interim leaders as it means international development banks and donors such as the World Bank can now offer financing.

The Marseille talks came a few days after world leaders agreed in Paris to free up billions of dollars in frozen assets [stolen money] to help [through loans] Libya’s interim rulers restore vital services and rebuild after a conflict that ended a 42-year dictatorship.

The financing deal by the Group of Seven major economies plus Russia is aimed at supporting reform efforts [IMF sponsored structural adjustment] in the wake of uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

The financing is mostly in the form of loans, rather than outright grants, and is provided half by G8 and Arab countries and half by various lenders and development banks. (Financial Post, September 10, 2011,

http://www.truthseeker444.blogspot.com/

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Libya Turned Into Hell: Seven Years Without Gaddafi

Source

This October 23 marks the anniversary of the “end of the civil war” in Libya in 2011.

According Boris Dolgov, Senior Researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS, when NATO intervened in that internal military conflict, it led to the collapse of the Muammar Gaddafi rule and the collapse of the Libyan state.

“As a result Libya has collapsed as a state; and today there are various political forces, including Islamist ones, competing to become the only authority in the country,” the expert says.

At the moment there are two main political forces fighting for power in the country — the House of Representatives and the Government of National Accord, but there are other forces as well. In Libya there are various clans that have armed groups in their areas of influence. Some of the groups adhere to radical Islam.

Russia, like other members of the international community, is making great efforts to find a solution to the Libyan crisis, but so far no one has managed to obtain any tangible result in the process.Moscow is working with Libya’s most influential forces, like the armed forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar who is fighting radical Islamists and aims to rebuild the Libyan state.

Russia Making Maximum Effort to Resolve the Crisis

Russia is working together with various forces in Libya to reach a political consensus among them and make the political process a priority. The representatives and delegations of various political forces even went to Russia to take part in talks.

In the future, Russia will continue working to resolve the crisis.

“Russia hasn’t officially declared it will send military advisers or other Russian military personnel to Libya, but, in my opinion, it would be possible if the Libyan side, for instance the forces such as those led by Marshal Haftar, asked for it,” Dolgov explained.

Russia can help solve the Libyan crisis. It could help end the local conflict with the aid of Russian military advisors or instructors on the ground who can pass on their experience to the Libyans.

Khalifa Haftar is Libya’s most powerful military force. According to the Marshal, he is fighting against radical Islamic groups. This is really important for Russia as these groups pose a threat not only to Libya, but also to the region as a whole, and even to Russia itself.

We know that Islamists from Syria and Iraq have arrived in Libya; in one of the regions, they have even created a para-state that swore allegiance to Daesh (terrorist group banned in Russia). This poses a threat to Russia as Daesh terrorists and other affiliated groups have stated that their goal is to promote jihad in Russia, namely in the Caucasus and southern Russia.

“Haftar’s forces are helping to eliminate this threat, so that Moscow’s willingness to cooperate with these forces becomes clear,” the expert said.

What we are seeing in Libya today is a very complex process. An armed conflict can have repercussions; finding a compromise among a number of armed groups will take time. But perhaps the elections in Libya will somehow glue society together.

“The normalization won’t happen tomorrow or the day after; it won’t happen even in a year, but at least we’ve found the right path and hopefully Libyan society will follow it,” Dolgov concluded.

“Libya Turned into Hell”

“We can say that from a sovereign state, Libya has been divided between various forces, many of which are controlled by foreign intelligence services,” Usef Shakir, an expert on Libya, told Sputnik.

“Libya was stable and secure; the state apparatus worked well, the country was developing and growing steadily. And now chaos and fear has reigned for 8 years,” he added.

“Libyan ambassadors to European countries have become personae non gratae. In fact, the ambassadors serve as agents to the forces who have appointed them. They protect the interests of their patrons and seek support for them in the host countries,” Shakir said.

“Libya’s economy is almost nothing — hundreds of billions of dollars have come in from the sale of oil, but for 8 years not a single strategic development project has been implemented in the country. We see the constant waste of national wealth and bloody confrontations. Lots of people are armed and we constantly hear about victims and wounded. Libya has become hell.””Whose fault is it? It’s the elite, who betrayed everyone and let NATO into the country. The government was overthrown, but in the end nothing good came out of this. Regional and world players are interested in the Libyan crisis continuing. It is linked to oil and other natural resources: the country is fragmented, there is no dialogue between south, north, west and east, and no one contributes to getting out of the crisis. When Khashoggi was killed, all the media was talking about that. But in Libya lots of people, journalists and activists are constantly being killed. The DAESH and Al-Nusra extremists as well as the opposition from Sudan and Chad have found a home in the country.  Can you imagine what Libya has turned into? Can you imagine the current situation in the country?” the expert concluded.

READ MORE:

NATO Hypocrisy’s Twilight Zone

1066270052.jpg

What a week it’s been for trying to tolerate hypocrisy and hysteria from the United States and its NATO partners. The slanderous accusations against Russia and China, in particular, can hardly become more absurd, or unhinged.

US Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at the imperialist Hudson Institute, accused China of “interfering” in elections to oust Trump from the White House. Beijing hit back, slamming the claims as “ridiculous”.

Then we had Britain’s pipsqueak Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson denouncing Russia as a “pariah state” over allegations that the Kremlin has been conducting a “global computer-hacking campaign”.

Surely, the hypocrisy can’t get more superlative than this.

Pence’s diatribe against China over “interference” follows the barrage of humongous trade levies imposed on Chinese exports by the Trump administration, as well as the recent sale of billion-dollar weapons by the US to Taiwan, which China regards as a renegade province.

ust days before Pence uttered his unctuous words, a US warship was involved in a near-collision with a Chinese navy vessel after the Americans breached Beijing’s proclaimed territory in the South China Sea. The incident — which could have sparked a war — was but the latest in a series of provocative incursions by US forces into China’s maritime spaces, under the guise of “freedom of navigation” exercises.

As for Britain’s defense minister Williamson, his rhetoric about Russia being a pariah state reminds one of the admonition to not throw bricks in a glasshouse. After its spate of criminal wars in the Middle East, destroying millions of lives — and that’s just counting the most recent years — Britain is not in any position to indict others for pariah status.

Specifically though, Britain’s pious flourishes this week concerned allegations against Russia for conducting cyberattacks in various countries. The British claims were conveniently amplified by NATO allies, including the US, Canada and Netherlands, as well as partners Australia and New Zealand.

Again, the hypocrisy and hyper preciousness here are cringe-making. US and British state intelligence are known to run the biggest, most pervasive illegal hacking of telecommunications across the entire globe. American whistleblowers Edward Snowden, William Binney and other honorable people, have provided irrefutable evidence of the mass global hacking carried out by the CIA, NSA and Britain’s GCHQ.

Recall just one example: the Americans spying on personal phone calls by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

What’s particularly nauseating, however, is when the criminals who have been caught redhanded on numerous grave violations then turn around and accuse others of alleged misdemeanors. That is what we may call “hyper-precious hypocrisy”.

In the case of Mike Pence’s grandstanding on alleged Chinese attempts to oust Trump from the White House, what he was referring to was Beijing’s retaliatory trade sanctions on US exports from agricultural states. The corn-belt states of Iowa, Idaho and Illinois were crucial to electing Trump in the 2016 presidential race.

The Chinese government also paid for advertorials in an Iowa newspaper last month which criticized Trump’s policies for inciting a trade war, in which US farmers could suffer consequences from retaliatory measures. There was nothing underhand in what Beijing was doing. It was simply explaining to American voters the damaging impact of starting a trade war — an explanation that the US president has not been leveling to his rural supporters.

For the Trump administration to launch into shrill accusations against China of “interfering” in American democracy is a sign of how far Washington has become divorced from reality.

We can go way back to the Boxer Rebellion in the late 1800s, when American and British troops slaughtered Chinese civilians in order to prop up a corrupt regime so that they could sell narcotic opium to a lucrative oriental market.

Over the past century, the Americans and British have subverted more foreign governments and elections than any other foreign power. The American and British hacking into elections is off the charts, involving hundreds of occasions, which often resulted in bloody mayhem and failed states, wracked by poverty and sectarian violence.

If we can set aside the rank hypocrisy for a moment, what about the latest US, British and other NATO claims of Kremlin hacking operations around the world?

It was claimed this week that Russian military intelligence agents were involved in trying to hack into numerous entities. Those entities targeted by supposed Russian computer-espionage related to the Skripal poison affair in England; meddling in US elections; the downing of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014; the use of doping by Olympic athletes; and investigations into chemical weapons in Syria.

Western media reports came up with the imaginative theory that Russian state hackers were trying to “clean up” past illicit operations.

What’s really going on here is now a concerted effort by the NATO powers to consolidate all their desperate, bankrupt anti-Russia propaganda into a neatly fortified package. It’s called getting your stories straight.

Each one of the sensational stories impugning Russia, from the Malaysian airline disaster to the alleged poisoning of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal, have been failures. Failures, that is, to galvanize world public opinion against Russia’s so-called “malign activities”. People around the world just don’t buy the absurd, hollow accusations slated by NATO powers.

That’s why the NATO powers, especially the biggest liars America and Britain, are being forced into consolidating their voices and bizarre accusations against Russia. They are now being forced to use loudspeakers and chorused hymn sheets to try to win their failing information war.

But shouting lies ever louder does not make these lies more credible.

Perhaps Russian agents were trying to hack into various systems in NATO countries. We don’t know. But in the murky realm of all foreign powers being involved in information gathering and espionage, the alleged transgressions are relatively redundant. Again, look at the massive surveillance being carried out by the US and Britain.

Another possible factor is this: it would be reasonable for Russia to want to learn what NATO powers and their partners are concocting in the way of fabricated incriminations against Moscow. If that were the case, it still does not justify the hysterical claims made by the US, Britain and others this week of Russia running global cyberattacks.

Indeed, we have entered a sort of twilight zone of propaganda and hypocrisy.

The Trump administration itself accuses domestic political opponents of conducting witch-hunts, “fake news”, and contriving accusations.

Yet this administration, along with its NATO minions, shows the same reprehensible tendencies towards Russia and China.

Russia and China are right to be wary of the madness that has taken hold in the West’s political class. The madness is beyond reason and therefore highly dangerous. As Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov warned this week, the NATO powers are pushing the rest of the world down a dangerous path, at the end of which is the abyss of world war.

The Western public must get rid of their warmongering political class before it’s too late. Ironically, and absurdly, such observation coming from a Sputnik columnist will no doubt be construed as “evidence” that Russia is inciting revolution in Western states. Such is NATO hyper-hypocrisy in the twilight zone.

By Finian Cunningham

Source

NATO’s Takfiri Laundromat

It wasn’t at all long ago

✓ Turkey’s intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, named as member of terror group linked to al-Qaeda and ISIS.
✓ Turkish intelligence directly supplied military aid to ISIS for years.
✓ Turkish government siphoned military supplies to ISIS through humanitarian relief agency.
✓ ISIS fighters, including al-Baghadi’s deputy, received free medical treatment in Turkey and “protection” from Turkish police.
✓ Head of ISIS in Turkey received “24/7 protection” under the personal order of President Erdogan.
✓ Turkish police investigations into ISIS are being systematically quashed.
✓ ISIS oil is sold with complicity of authorities in Turkey and Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
✓ NATO affirms Turkey’s role as ally in war on ISIS.

Well folks, if the President’s palace in Ankara can be compared to the administrative office of a regional Hell, Recep Erdogan and his intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, a member of the Turkish branch of al-Qaida since the 1990s (according to a Turkish former counter-terrorism police chief) aptly fit the descriptions of Satan and Beelzebub respectively; but it wasn’t only Erdogan enriching his family by laundering ISIS & al-Qaida’s stolen oil and his intelligence chief Fidan arranging the shipments of weapons to ISIS & al-Qaida that laundered oil bought. Yeah, that’s what was going on with NATO’s Turkey [pun intended] through 2015, all as the complicit Western intelligence community has pretended the real problem is Assad. That is, that’s how it all went down until late 2015 when Russia stepped in shortly before the Syrian ‘regime’ would have collapsed to the takfiris. We can thank Orthodox Russia (and ‘Vlad’) Syria is not run by head-choppers with slave markets brought to you courtesy of NATO and ‘friends’ (including but not limited to Saudi money and Israeli weapons.)

But wait! It’s not ‘game over’ yet, ISIS leadership and core cadres seem to have found its way (as if by magic) to Afghanistan where they found ready logistics enough to become quickly established and I don’t think it was their arch-enemy Iran let them cross to relative safety let alone supports their new mission. How that happened is likely related to this next, where Erdogan is playing two sides (his habit of backstabbing), we begin with the preliminary circumstance:

According to the [Sochi/Idlib] agreement [between Russia, Iran, Turkey], all heavy weaponry operated by opposition [opposed to Assad] factions must be pulled out of the demilitarized zone by October 10 and “terrorist groups” should be cleared by October 15″

It is 3 October as I write this, and that’s not happening, yet.

“The sources said Moscow already informed Tehran, Damascus and Ankara that in case the above conditions were not fully implemented, Russia would therefore immediately launch a military operation and airstrikes against Idlib

According to the sources, Russia and Turkey disagree over the depth of the decentralized zone, as Moscow is seeking to annex Idlib and other main cities to it [out of opposition control], but Ankara has rejected the offer

“The second disagreement is related to the two main roads linking Aleppo to Latakia and Hama, which are considered the “main artery of the North.” Russia asked that the Syrian regime control the M4 from Aleppo to Latakia and the M5 from Aleppo to Hama before 2019. However, Ankara insists that the roads remain monitored by Russia and Turkey

Preceding, we see the Turkish side seeking to block Syria’s long term reassertion of sovereignty via access to the Idlib region.

“The third disagreement is related to the fate of extremists as Turkish officials want to transfer them to Kurdish-controlled areas while Russian officials insist on “terminating them””

This is the big disagreement in the near term, and the one we’ll be looking at a bit more closely.

“Also, the two sides disagree over the range of the Sochi agreement.

“Moscow wants it a temporary agreement similar to the ones implemented in the de-escalation areas of Daraa, Damascus Ghouta and Homs, while Ankara prefers to have it permanent, similar to the one implemented in the areas of Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch operations.

In plain words, Erdogan wants to keep Idlib province as a ‘moderate jihadi’ Turkish ‘protectorate.’

“Both countries hope that a Russian-Turkish-French-German summit planned for next month could contribute to solving the disputes over Idlib”

This last bit is disingenuous on the Turkish side, Erdogan is playing for time to consolidate Idlib Province in Syria as a laundered al-Qaida controlled district and the Russians have noticed:

“Terrorist organizations Jabhat al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [both al-Qaida affiliates] have agreed, under pressure from Turkish intelligence, to disband and withdraw their forces from the demilitarized zone in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib, Al Watan newspaper reported, citing sources with knowledge of the situation.

“Al-Watan newspaper reported, citing sources close to the Turkish Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front, that Turkish intelligence had held several meetings with the leadership of these two groups.

“The sources said that Turkish intelligence had put pressure on the groups’ leaders, while also pledging that the government would not carry out a military operation in Idlib.

“Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, in turn, pledged to change its structure and alter its jihadist ideology so that Ankara does not qualify it as a terror organization any longer, the newspaper added.

“For its part, al-Nusra promised to withdraw its troops and heavy weapons from the demilitarized zone, without any official announcement of the move, according to the media.

“Al-Nusra further promised to disband its so-called “rescue government” that manages the territories the group controls in Idlib. Part of this government will merge with the interim government created by the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces”

So, Edogan’s intelligence people, whose boss is known to have held membership in al-Qaida, is rapidly changing al-Qaida’s label and reintegrating them to Idlib’s ‘moderate rebel’® governing structures. That sounds very far removed from Russia’s sensible determination to ‘terminate’ the takfiri terrorists even as Erdogan claims he is working with the Russians to eliminate the radicals. Meanwhile, as Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had stated the task of isolating the radicals… “is not easy”and hoped that Turkey would “succeed”… it would appear it was easier than he could have imagined (far too easy, in fact.)

This analysts conclusion? Erdogan is in process of backstabbing Putin and it is not a wise choice, particularly considering Erdogan’s backstop is the Russophobic Trump administration’s desire to preserve and protect the bad players, doubtless so they may be employed to do the empire’s dirty deeds on another day:

“For the President, who is Commander in Chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned…”

Of course it should come as no surprise the USA’s so-called ‘efficient institution’ would work with American media to deny Americans this information; and go so far as to have the Department of Homeland Security warn Americans away from Russian media where these facts indeed ARE reported. No surprise, one might wonder? Well, no surprise if you’d had access to this bit of history:

“By the end of 1962 this nation had gone so far down the line following the Agency [CIA], the new Special Forces doctrine, the MAP [Military Assistance Plan]and the new U.S. philosophy as outlined in the President’s Committee report, that it was saying openly it was well on its way to carrying out as top national policy a major clandestine operation so big in fact that the entire government would be involved. Obviously, it could not be really clandestine in the sense that it would be kept secret from our enemies; on the contrary, it was a new kind of “clandestine”, so it would be kept secret from all Americans” –L. Fletcher Prouty, Pentagon liaison to the CIA

To carry this operation out, and see where we are today, it were only necessary for the CIA to establish a lap-dog American press. They’ve done it. The Russian press as alternative to American press most certainly isn’t a perfect vehicle but; the Russians will report the treason in DC whereas the Washington Post and New York Times will not.

By Ronald Thomas West
Source

 

%d bloggers like this: