Betrayal (Andrei Martyanov)

September 11, 2022

Please visit Andrei’s website: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
and support him here: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=60459185

While I have a very different take on 9/11, Martyanov, again, is spot on.  Highly recommended!

REVEALED: HOW THE US AND UK STOPPED PEACE DEAL IN UKRAINE

SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2022

Source

By Lee Camp

new report shows that Russia and Ukraine had negotiated a peace deal back in April, but the U.S. and U.K. intervened to stop it. So Russia and Ukraine wanted to end the war four months ago. They were going to end the horror and death traumatizing the Ukrainian people but NATO refused because they wanted their proxy war to continue.

Let’s take a step back and think about this.

Let’s forget the fact that the U.S. and NATO helped create the war in Ukraine by breaking their promise to Russia not to expand NATO.

Let’s forget that the U.S. perpetrated the 2014 coup in Ukraine.

Let’s forget the fact that many top US officials, including former CIA head Leon Panetta, have admitted that this is a proxy war between the U.S., NATO, and Russia.

Let’s forget the fact that Biden and Congress have sent tens of billions of dollars of weapons and aid to an army that is at least partially Nazis who don’t do a very good job of hiding that they’re Nazis.

And let’s forget the fact that even U.S. propaganda mouthpieces CBS and CNN have admitted that only about 30% of the billions of dollars of weapons have made it to the frontlines in Ukraine. The rest has been stolen and sold on the black market to terrorists and people who like using grenade launchers as coasters.

Let’s forget the fact that the U.S. government has admitted that they’re lying about what’s going on in Ukraine because they say it’s justified when in an information war.

Let’s forget the fact that a U.S.-funded committee in the Ukrainian government has called anyone reporting the truth about the war an “information terrorist” who should be prosecuted for war crimes. This includes U.S. Congressman Rand Paul and Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters.

Let’s forget th

e fact that the sanctions against Russia have backfired and are destroying the lives of average Americans.

Let’s forget that documents have already revealed that the U.S. and the West have been planning to plunder Ukraine for years.

Let’s forget all of that – and that’s a lot of forgetting. That’s Joe Biden on his worst day.

Even with all of that forgetting. Even if you’re still just waving your Ukrainian flag and refusing to hear any of those facts that I’ve just listed, would it matter to you that a new report shows the U.S. and its allies actually tore up a peace deal, stopping it from going forward, way back in April?

That’s right. Way back in April, Russia and Ukraine had tentatively agreed to a peace deal. A deal that could’ve ended all this senseless killing.

David DeCamp reports, “Russian and Ukrainian officials tentatively agreed on a potential peace deal during negotiations back in April 2022, according to a Foreign Affairs article. … The terms of that settlement would have been for Russia to withdraw to the positions it held before launching the invasion on February 24. In exchange, Ukraine would ‘promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.’”

That sounds incredible. It sounds like it could’ve ended an immense amount of suffering.

A footnote

13 Sep 2022 16:32

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Bouthaina Shaaban 

Because they cannot stop igniting wars in one part of the globe or another, that is the most pending danger NATO countries constitute to the welfare of human beings everywhere. 

Professor John Mearsheimer said the war in Ukraine will be a footnote in the history books written about the world changes this war has triggered. This remark may provide the best explanation of the huge noise the NATO countries have made about providing Ukraine with more sophisticated armaments and with billions of dollars in order to prevent a Russian victory. It also explains the big media campaign led by the West about the so-called advance made by the Ukrainian army against the Russians in Kharkov area. The press conference by NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, and the US Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, has to be seen and understood in light of the dire economic crisis which is biting into Europe. 

Despite the iron fist laid on Western media, it is an open secret today that the sanctions imposed by the West against Russia have backfired on the West itself, and it has become clear that Western people are the ones suffering because of these sanctions, and not the Russian people as the western governments planned. In addition, the Eastern rapprochement between China and Russia is treading fast steps toward an alliance, and the Shanghai organization is attracting more member states, which in a short while, will become one of the most important world alliances that NATO countries do not want to see at all. Both China and Russia have announced that their future dealings and trade are going to be in Yuans and Rubles, which will start to weaken the dollar and shake its world status. 

During the week and contrary to the expectations of Western media, the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that he is going to Kazakhstan for a Shanghai meeting with the aim of meeting with President Putin. Every time these two leaders meet, they add another brick to the fortified base of their alliance whose grand announced aim is to change the world system into a multipolar system after getting rid of Western hegemony once and for all.

Of course, western experts and planners know all this and dread it, but instead of mentioning it or trying to address it in the real world, these jumped to the domain that they know best; i.e. the military claiming to their audiences that “Ukrainian forces have been able to stall Moscow offensive in the Donbass strike back behind Russian lines and retake territory.” On this narrative, they built the argument that NATO countries should send more support to Ukraine, with more billions of dollars and with the most sophisticated arms. Their imagination was set free to imagine that this is a very important moment for the Ukrainian people and army, and we should support them in order to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, as per their illusions.

First, there is no doubt that the press conference and all the media fever that came in its aftermath hailing progress made by Ukrainian forces against Russian forces was meant to change the focus of the Western people’s attention from the horrible consequences of the war on Ukraine on their daily lives and to stop the masses from taking to the streets to forcefully object to these policies, which proved to be disastrous to most of them.

Second, NATO countries have a history of supporting wars that have nothing to do with their geography or history. They now claim that they have to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to protect the Eastern borders of NATO. What about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; are those also bordering NATO, or threatening its power? And what about Taiwan now; is it on the borders of NATO too?

The history of these countries proves without a shadow of a doubt that the military industry is at the core of its survival and continuity, and that is why they cannot survive and keep their hegemony over the world without this industry being well and prosperous, knowing that for this industry to be well and prosperous, it can only feed on wars. That is why they cannot stop igniting wars in one part of the globe or another, and that is the most pending danger NATO countries constitute to the welfare of human beings everywhere. 

What we have to remember is that we are dealing with two different worlds, two different systems of thinking, two different histories, and two very different objectives. The West, which has subjugated and colonized many countries across the world over centuries, has perfected the usage of media and psychological wars to keep people as its subject. Throughout history, Western colonial powers gave no thought to civilian casualties. A reminder of the answer of Madeleine Albright about millions of Iraqi children being killed; she said, “But it was worth it,” whereas Eastern powers represented by Russia in this war pay so much attention to avoiding unnecessary loss of civilian lives. They change their plans and their tactics if they can save lives in their military or on the adversary’s civilian lives. In fact, the Eastern attitude always believes in taking time. They are not in a hurry, and they do not rush to launch a media or psychological campaign because their objectives are far-reaching and by far nobler than those of the party whose main concern is to sell arms and accumulate more capital. 

For those reasons and many others unlisted here, we have to take the Hollywood postures made by the NATO Secretary-General and the US Secretary of State with a huge pinch of salt. Their major aim was to divert attention from the huge disaster they have created to their people through this uncalculated and misconceived adventure. It would have been much wiser and historically correct to review their decisions and decide whether they should continue in this futile endeavor or acknowledge the new realities on the ground born from the rise of the East and its determination, supported by the majority of people on Earth, to put an end to Western hegemony and remap the world on the basis of equal integrity and mutual respect. This may take a bit more time than what most people desire, but the train has left the station and it will undoubtedly reach its abode. The rest are insignificant details that no one will mention in the future.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Roger Waters’ open letter to “Ze”‘s wife

September 09, 2022

“Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?”
An Open letter to Mrs. Olena Zelenska from Roger Waters
Sunday 4th September 2022

Dear Mrs. Zelenska,

My heart bleeds for you and all the Ukrainian and Russian families, devastated by the terrible war in Ukraine. I’m in Kansas City, USA. I have just read a piece on BBC.com apparently taken from an interview you have already recorded for a program called ‘Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg’ which is to be broadcast on the BBC today, September 4th. BBC.com quotes you as saying that “If support for Ukraine is strong, the crisis will be shorter.” Hmmm? I guess that might depend on what you mean by “support for Ukraine”? If by “support for Ukraine” you mean the West continuing to supply arms to the Kiev government’s armies, I fear you may be tragically mistaken. Throwing fuel, in the form of armaments, into a fire fight, has never worked to shorten a war in the past, and it won’t work now, particularly because, in this case, most of the fuel is (a) being thrown into the fire from Washington DC, which is at a relatively safe distance from the conflagration, and (b) because the ‘fuel throwers’ have already declared an interest in the war going on for as long as possible. I fear that we, and by we I mean people like you and me who actually want peace in Ukraine, who don’t want the outcome to be that you have to fight to the last Ukrainian life, and possibly even, if the worst comes to the worst, to the last human life. If we, instead, wish to achieve a different outcome we may have to seek a different route and that route may lie in your husband’s previously stated good intentions.

Yes, I mean the platform upon which he so laudably ran for the office of President of Ukraine, the platform upon which he won his historic landslide victory in the democratic election in 2019. He stood on the election platform of the following promises.

1. To end the civil war in the East and bring peace to the Donbas and partial autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk.
2. And to ratify and implement the rest of the body of the Minsk 2 agreements.

One can only assume that your husband’s electoral policies didn’t sit well with certain political factions in Kiev and that those factions persuaded your husband to diametrically change course ignoring the peoples mandate. Sadly, your old man agreed to those totalitarian, anti-democratic dismissals of the will of the Ukrainian people, and the forces of extreme nationalism that had lurked, malevolent, in the shadows, have, since then, ruled the Ukraine. They have, also since then, crossed any number of red lines that had been set out quite clearly over a number of years by your neighbors the Russian Federation and in consequence they, the extreme nationalists, have set your country on the path to this disastrous war.

I won’t go on.

If I’m wrong, please help me to understand how?

If I’m not wrong, please help me in my honest endeavors to persuade our leaders to stop the slaughter, the slaughter which serves only the interests of the ruling classes and extreme nationalists both here in the West, and in your beautiful country, at the expense of the rest of us ordinary people both here in the West, and in the Ukraine, and in fact ordinary people everywhere all over the world.

Might it not be better to demand the implementation of your husband’s election promises and put an end to this deadly war?

Love
Roger Waters

source

Putin To Macron: Ukraine’s Shelling Near Zaporozhye Nuclear Plant Poses Danger of Large-scale Disaster

August 21, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron have had their first phone call in almost three months to discuss the Ukraine conflict and nuclear security in the area of Zaporozhye, the Kremlin announced on Friday.

The call was initiated by the French side and saw the two leaders discuss “various aspects of the situation around Ukraine,” according to the Kremlin’s readout.

Putin emphasized that “the systematic shelling of the territory of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant by the Ukrainian military poses a danger of a large-scale disaster that could lead to radiation spillover onto a large territory,” Moscow said.

The two leaders agreed that a mission under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] should be dispatched to the NPP “as soon as possible” in order to assess the situation on site.

“The Russian side confirmed it’s ready to provide the Agency’s inspectors with all the necessary assistance,” the Kremlin said.

According to the Elysee Palace, Putin agreed that the IAEA mission to Zaporozhye NPP would be dispatched on the terms already arranged by Ukraine and the United Nations. This would mean that the IAEA delegation might travel via the territory currently controlled by Kiev’s forces. Previously, Moscow insisted that such a mission could arrive only via Russian-controlled territory.

The two sides will address this issue again in the coming days, after technical teams discuss the matter in detail, the Elysee said.

According to the Kremlin, Putin once again invited international experts to visit a detention facility in Yelenovka, in the Donetsk People’s Republic. An artillery attack on the prison, which Moscow says was carried out by Kiev’s forces, killed 50 Ukrainian POWs and injured dozens more last month.

Putin also informed Macron on the implementation of the deal for Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea. This agreement, which was brokered by the UN and Turkey, is also supposed to allow Russia to deliver fertilizers and food products to the global markets. However, the Kremlin noted, “obstacles for the Russian grain [export] persist,” which continues to have an adverse effect on global food security.

The most recent call between the two leaders took place on May 28 and also involved German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. During that conversation, Putin blamed Ukraine for the stalled peace talks, assuring his counterparts that Moscow remained ready to negotiate an end to the ongoing conflict and condemning the West for supplying Kiev with weapons.

The New York Times Exposed Kiev’s Latest Lie: No Newly Exported Grain Is Going To Africa

Aug 11, 2022

Source

By Andrew Korybko

Observers might have thought that the Golden Billion’s Ukrainian proxy would have dispatched at least a single ship to one African country in order for their patron’s Mainstream Media to manipulate perceptions about this to falsely claim that Kiev is helping to counteract the consequences of the global food crisis that the US-led West’s sanctions immensely worsened, but that’s obviously not what happened.

Ukrainian officials have a track record of not telling the truth so it shouldn’t be a surprise that Foreign Minister Kuleba lied when he tweeted that his country’s resumption of grain exports “sends a message of hope to every family in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia”. The New York Times (NYT) exposed his lie after reporting that while some ships are going to China and Turkiye, which represent East and West Asia respectively, literally none of those that just departed from that crumbling former Soviet Republic are en route to Africa. In order to cover up for him, however, the outlet quoted a UN official who implied a belief in former US President Reagan’s theory of trick-down economics to predict that Kiev’s grain exports to non-African countries will eventually lead to prices falling in that continent over time.

Just last week, Ukrainian leader Zelensky tweeted that he told his counterpart from Guinea-Bissau about his country’s “readiness to be a food security guarantor in the region”, yet the whole world now knows that he lied after what the NYT’s latest report just revealed. He also told African journalists that their countries supposedly gain nothing from their ties with Russia, but the reality is that they don’t gain a single thing from their relations with Kiev as was just proven by one of the world’s most influential Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets. Moscow, by contrast, provides bespoke “Democratic Security” solutions to partners like the Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali for counteracting Hybrid War threats, which also includes fertilizer, food, and fuel for sustainably ensuring socio-economic stability.

African leaders and their people are well aware of the differences between Russia and Ukraine. This is proven by the first-mentioned snubbing Zelensky en masse during his virtual speech at the African Union in late June, while the second are sincerely inspired by President Putin’s global revolutionary manifesto and especially Foreign Minister Lavrov’s related promise that Moscow will help them fully complete their decolonization processes. No African government or the society that they represent sincerely supports Ukraine over Russia since they simply have nothing tangible to gain by doing so. Nevertheless, the US’ new “Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa” very clearly conveys Washington’s intent to coerce them into a zero-sum choice under the implied pain of Color Revolution unrest if they refuse.

This isn’t just due to that declining unipolar hegemon’s self-professed belief in its own discredited “exceptionalism”, but also because Africa is now a major battleground in the New Cold War. The recently accelerated global systemic transition to multipolarity has resulted in the US-led West’s Golden Billion fiercely competing with the BRICS-led Global South (in this context represented by Russia) over which model of International Relations should define the 21st century: the neo-colonialist one of unipolarity or the multipolar model that aspires to make the world system more equal, fair, and just. The choice is obvious for all African countries, but therein lies the reason why the US and France are poised to step up their destabilization operations in a desperate attempt to reimpose their hegemony.

Returning back to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister’s latest lie, there’s no doubt that it was directed towards the Western audience and not the African one since the latter would obviously know that Kiev hasn’t exported grain to any of the continent’s several dozen countries. Nevertheless, his crumbling former Soviet Republic is being used as a stand-in by his US-led Western backers to impose the zero-sum choice upon those states that was earlier described whereby they’ll become increasingly pressured to support Kiev at the expense of their ties with Moscow. Be that as it may, it’s expected that this will still remain a struggle for the Golden Billion since African countries have thus far proven their strategic sovereignty in the New Cold War by hitherto refusing to sanction that Eurasian Great Power.

Observers might have thought that this bloc’s Ukrainian proxy would have dispatched at least a single ship to one African country in order for their patron’s MSM to manipulate perceptions about this to falsely claim that Kiev is helping to counteract the consequences of the global food crisis that the US-led West’s sanctions immensely worsened. That obviously didn’t happen though, which shows that the Golden Billion still practices an extremely condescending and racist policy towards Africa. This American bloc wouldn’t even order its Eastern European proxy to send one boatload of grain for an easy photo op, instead choosing not to give anything at all to those countries while still demanding that they dump Moscow for Kiev.

The resultant outcome is that Africans will likely become more suspicious than ever about the true cause of the global food crisis. African Union Chairman Macky Sall already agreed with President Putin in early June during the former’s trip to Sochi that the US-led West’s sanctions exacerbated the crisis that the Russian Ambassador to the UN earlier explained predates the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict and is actually attributable to a combination of factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and reckless Western fiscal policies during that time. Furthermore, CNN surprisingly discredited Western officials’ prior claims accusing Russia of full responsibility for that crisis by pointing out the same things as its aforementioned representative to that global body did almost one-quarter of a year ago.

Considering this sequence of events, some might conclude that the global food crisis’ consequences for the African people are being deliberately exacerbated by the Golden Billion through their refusal to order Kiev to dispatch even just a single ship’s worth of grain to the continent. This form of Hybrid War punishment is being inflicted against them in response to their governments’ principled neutrality towards the Ukrainian Conflict after they all without exception declined to sanction Russia. Nevertheless, those states are still unlikely to unilaterally concede on their objective national interests in maintaining mutually beneficial relations with Russia, especially since doing so would be very unpopular after their people already realized the literal “hunger games” that the Golden Billion is playing.  

An unpleasant truth for Ukrainians is coming to light

August 07, 2022

Source

By Batko Milacic

Ukrainian forces have threatened civilians by setting up bases and operating weapons systems in populated areas, including schools and hospitals, as they battled the Russian intervention that began in February, Amnesty International said in a statement.

“Such a tactic violates international humanitarian law and endangers civilians, as it turns civilian objects into military targets. The Russian strikes that followed in populated areas killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure,” the statement said.

– Amnesty International has documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when conducting operations in populated areas – said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

He pointed out that the defensive position does not free the Ukrainian army from respecting international humanitarian law.

The organization’s researchers spent several weeks from April to July investigating Russian attacks in Kharkiv, Donbass and the Mykolaiv region.

The organization inspected the attacked sites, interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses, relatives of the victims of the attack, and carried out remote detection and analysis of weapons. During those investigations, evidence was found that Ukrainian forces were firing from heavily populated areas and were themselves inside civilian buildings in 19 towns and villages in these regions. The organization analyzed satellite images to further confirm some of these incidents – it is emphasized.

According to Amnesty International, most of the residential areas where the soldiers were located were kilometers away from the front.

– Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians, such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it has documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military, located in civilian structures in residential areas, asked or helped civilians to evacuate, which is a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians. announcement.

Directed shooting from populated areas

Amnesty says survivors and eyewitnesses of Russian attacks in Donbass, Kharkiv and the Mykolaiv region told researchers that the Ukrainian military was conducting operations near their homes at the time of the attacks, exposing the areas to counterfire from Russian forces. Amnesty International researchers have witnessed such behavior in numerous locations.

International humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the greatest extent possible, military targets within or near densely populated areas. Other obligations to protect civilians from the effects of attacks include removing civilians from the vicinity of military targets and providing effective warning of attacks that may affect the civilian population.

– The army was stationed in the house next to ours and my son often brought food to the soldiers. I begged him several times to stay away, because I feared for his safety. That afternoon, when the attack happened, my son was in our yard and I was in the house. He died on the spot. His body was mutilated. Our house was partially destroyed – said the mother of a man (50), who was killed in a rocket attack on June 10 in a village south of Nikolaev.

Amnesty International found military equipment and uniforms in the house next to hers.

Nikola, who lives in the block in Lisichansk in Donbass, which the Russians regularly targeted and killed at least one person, said that it is not clear to him “why our army fires from the cities and not from the fields”.

Another resident said that “there is definitely military activity in the neighborhood.”

– We hear “outgoing” and then “incoming” fire” – he said.

Amnesty International teams saw soldiers using residential buildings located 20 meters from the entrance to the underground shelter, which was used by residents and where an elderly man was killed.

In one Donbas town on May 6, Russian forces used cluster munitions over a neighborhood of mostly one- or two-story houses where Ukrainian forces were manning artillery. Shrapnel damaged the walls of the house where Ana (70) lives with her son and 95-year-old mother.

In early July, a farm worker was injured when Russian forces attacked an agricultural warehouse in the Nikolayev area. Hours after the attack, Amnesty International researchers witnessed the presence of Ukrainian military personnel and vehicles in the grain storage area, and witnesses confirmed that the military was using the warehouse, which is located across from a farm where civilians live and work.

As researchers surveyed damage to residential and public buildings in Kharkiv and villages in the Donbass and east of Mykolaiv, they heard gunfire from nearby Ukrainian military positions.

In Bakhmut, several residents said the Ukrainian military was using a building barely 20 meters across the street from the high-rise. On May 18, a Russian rocket hit the front of the building, partially destroying five apartments and damaging nearby buildings.

Military bases in hospitals

Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In the two cities, dozens of soldiers rested and ate in hospitals. In another town, soldiers fired from near a hospital.

A Russian airstrike on April 28 injured two workers at a medical laboratory in the suburbs of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces set up a base in the compound.Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

Military bases in schools

The Ukrainian army routinely set up bases in schools in the cities and villages of the Donbass and in the Mykolaiv region. Schools have been temporarily closed to students since the beginning of the conflict, but in most cases the buildings were located near civilian settlements.

In 22 of the 29 schools visited, researchers either found soldiers using the premises or found evidence of current or previous military activity – including the presence of military equipment, ammunition, military ration packs and military vehicles.

Russian forces attacked many schools used by Ukrainian forces. In at least three cities, after Russian bombing of schools, Ukrainian soldiers moved to other schools nearby, putting surrounding neighborhoods at risk of similar attacks.

In a city east of Odessa, Amnesty witnessed Ukrainian soldiers using civilian areas for accommodation and staging areas, including basing armored vehicles under trees in residential areas and using two schools located in densely populated residential areas.

Conclusion

Amnesty International’s report was not a surprise to me as an analyst. Since the beginning of the conflict, all of us who follow the behavior and tactics of the Ukrainian army have witnessed such tactics of the Ukrainian army, which are strictly prohibited by international law. Also, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned about the behavior of the Ukrainian army that threatens innocent civilians. However, the fact that the respected Amnesty International writes about it in its report represents a strategic turn. Bearing in mind that this is an extremely respected Western non-governmental organization, we can safely say that even in the West, the opinion is slowly growing that the criminal behavior of the Ukrainian army will no longer be tolerated.

More

Exclusive: Arms flow to Ukraine will not bring peace – Corbyn

July 31, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Al Mayadeen English 

Former British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, in an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, discussed his stances regarding the latest international events and internal British politics.

Former British Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

in an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, former British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed many issues, including the war on Yemen, the war in Ukraine, the Palestinian cause, and other topics related to the United Kingdom and its international role.

Jeremy Corbyn affirmed his opposition regarding the war in Ukraine, deeming Russia’s military operation in Ukraine “fundamentally wrong.” 

“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, It’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” he asserted, expecting that this war will drag on for years.

The former Labour Party leader touched upon NATO’s expansion and the implications it has to the global economy and world peace: “Expanding NATO isn’t going to bring about a longer-term peace, [but it] will only bring about greater, greater strain and greater stress.”

“Then the world woke up and suddenly realized that Russia and Ukraine are the world’s biggest grain exporters and something has to be done. So they came to an agreement , and I hope it holds, to export grain through Odessa and through the Bosphorus to the rest of the world. That is a good move, but at the same time, putting more and more arms into Ukraine isn’t going to bring about it [peace].”

It is noteworthy that last month, the British government announced that it will be providing $1.2 billion in military aid to Ukraine. 

Corbyn continued, “Ukrainians are dying. Ukrainians are going into exile here; Thousands and thousands. And Russian soldiers are dying, conscripted. Young Russian soldiers are dying. This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world. And therefore, there has to be more much more effort put into peace.”

Corbyn spoke of the racist, double standards that Europe holds towards refugees: “Europe has been very welcoming of Ukrainian refugees, and that’s good, that’s right. Sadly, they’re not so welcoming and not so enabling of refugees coming from Yemen or anywhere else.”

Related Stories

Gravitas: Zelensky poses for Vogue as Ukraine loses towns to Russia

July 28, 2022

Asking exactly the correct questions.

Germany’s Century-Long Plot To Capture Control Of Europe Is Almost Complete

July 20, 2022

By Andrew Korybko

Source

Germany was waiting this whole time for a major crisis, which ultimately turned out to be the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict that US-led NATO is entirely responsible for provoking, in order to make its two interconnected power plays that are now actively unfolding.

The German elite has consistently remained hellbent on capturing control of Europe for over a century, with the only thing changing over the decades being their means after military ones horribly failed twice already. The former West Germany came to believe after World War II that the best bet for fulfilling this plot was to play it cool by abandoning unilateralism in favor of US-led multilateralism. That in turn enabled it to strategically disarm the rest of the continent, especially in the run-up to reunification with the former East Germany, after having tricked everyone into thinking that its elite finally changed their ways even though the only change was the means employed to this end.

The strategic patience practiced by the German leadership in the decades since World War II and especially the end of the Old Cold War was impressive since it certainly did indeed seem as though their elite finally abandoned their hegemonic plans. Even President Putin, who established extremely close relations with former Chancellor Merkel and arguably seemed to trust her, was duped to an extent despite his former career in intelligence. After all, he took her government’s word that it would resolve the ”EuroMaidan” crisis that soon thereafter led to a Berlin-backed coup and then still continued to believe that she’d succeed in getting Kiev to implement the UNSC-endorsed Minsk Accords.

These observations speak to how convincing the German elite’s act had been that even this world-class professional largely fell for it, which resulted in Russia losing almost eight years’ worth of time before it was finally compelled to commence its ongoing special military operation in Ukraine. This whole time, Germany was playing everyone for fools by plotting behind the scenes to capture control of Europe exactly as it’s sought to do for a century, albeit through different means than what observers had come to expect from Berlin. Instead of military ones, superficial multilateralism was employed via EU institutions and associated hyper-liberal ideology in order to disguise these hegemonic ambitions.

Germany was waiting this whole time for a major crisis, which ultimately turned out to be the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict that US-led NATO is entirely responsible for provoking, in order to make its two interconnected power plays that are now actively unfolding. The first concerns Chancellor Scholz’s plans for his country to have the “biggest conventional army” in Europe and the second involves his latest proposal to abandon national vetoes in order for the EU to compete with other Great Powers. About the last-mentioned, he predictably added that Germany should “assume responsibility for Europe and the world in these difficult times”, which exposed the whole charade as a hegemonic power play.

Russia finally seems to have wised up to Germany’s complicity in provoking the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict, with Foreign Minister Lavrov blaming it and France for killing the Minsk Accords in a recent op-ed. From there, it’s only a proverbial hop, skip, and a jump away from realizing that this was all part of Germany’s plan to capture control of Europe by “passively facilitating” the major crisis that was required to unveil the two interconnected power plays that were mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This hegemonic plot is so important for the German elite that they’re even willing to accept massive self-inflicted economic damage in pursuit of it as proven by their anti-Russian sanctions.  

In hindsight, this latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict was the only scenario that could prompt Germany to unveil this long-plotted power play in a “plausibly deniable” way. The 2015 Migrant Crisis concerned unconventional security threats and wouldn’t have realistically necessitated Germany openly aspiring to build the biggest conventional army in Europe, nor would it have been the proper pretext for proposing an end to the EU’s policy of national vetoes. Only a conventional security crisis could have created the conditions for superficially “justifying” that, hence why Berlin “passively facilitated” this outcome for the past eight years after earlier duping everyone into thinking its elite had finally changed.

What’s different from the last two World Wars and what many have begun describing as a hybrid form of the so-called “Third World War” is that the former saw Germany truly aspiring for independent hegemony over everyone else while the latter sees it willingly behaving as the US’ “Lead From Behind” proxy for managing Europe on Washington’s behalf. In fact, this all seems to have been part of the larger plan too since Germany learned the hard way twice already that America will never let it truly become an independent hegemon, ergo why its elite modified their plot after World War II by incorporating their “junior partner” status vis-à-vis that superpower into everything from the get-go.

Where Russia got it wrong for so long is that its passionately sovereign leadership subconsciously projected their independent aspirations onto Germany, naively believing that the EU’s de facto leader sought to strive for the same Great Power status that their own civilization-state has while also falling for the charade of thinking that its elite abandoned their hegemonic plans. What really happened is that this same elite simply duped everyone through their embrace of superficial multilateralism via EU institutions and associated hyper-liberal ideology into thinking that they changed when the only thing that’s different is the means through which they’ve consistently pursued the same end.

France doesn’t feel militarily threatened by Germany anymore so it won’t seek to sabotage its neighbor’s militarization plans, and while its famous perception of itself as the bastion of European culture might be bruised by Berlin proposing that the bloc abandon national vetoes, Paris could always redirect its grand strategic focus away from Europe in response and towards Françafrique (West-Central Africa) where it’s struggling to retain its declining hegemony there in the face of newfound multipolar trends embodied by the Malian junta. This observation suggests that only Poland could stand in the way of Germany’s century-long hegemonic plot, though it’s unrealistic to expect it to succeed.

Its faux “conservative-nationalist” ruling party already submitted to hyper-liberalism by actively advancing the Ukrainization of their country, plus it’s powerless to indefinitely rebuff Germany’s pressure for Poland to adopt the euro, which gray cardinal Kaczynski just warned would kill its economy once that happens. This aspiring Great Power in its own right might become a nuisance to Germany, but it’s incapable of stopping the latter’s hybrid economic-institutional-military capture of the continent. Poland might temporarily prevent Germany from exerting its envisioned hegemony over the Baltics and especially Ukraine, but Warsaw was ultimately Berlin’s “useful idiot” as it’s finally beginning to realize.

For these reasons and barring any black swan events such as the consequences of President Putin’s prophesized populist-driven “elite change” across the continent that he made in mid-June while speaking at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), it should therefore be taken for granted that Germany will inevitably capture control of the continent sooner or later. This poses a complex array of geostrategic challenges for the emerging Multipolar World Order and Russia in particular, though the silver lining is that they can at least be better predicted than previously now that Moscow finally acknowledges Berlin’s hegemonic ambitions.

US Announces $270mn In Military Aid to Ukraine After Russia Destroys HIMARS

July 23, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

The United States has vowed to supply Ukraine with more high mobility artillery rocket systems [HIMARS] after Russia claimed to have destroyed at least four of them amid the simmering war that will enter its sixth month this week.

The White House on Friday announced that the US is sending an additional $270 million in military aid to Ukraine, which includes additional medium-range rocket systems and tactical drones.

The new package includes four HIMARS and up to 580 Phoenix Ghost drones, according to John Kirby, White House national security council spokesman.

“The president has been clear that we’re going to continue to support the government of Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes,” Kirby said.

The latest package also includes some 36,000 rounds of artillery ammunition and additional ammunition for the HIMARS.

It will take the volume of the overall US military assistance to Ukraine under President Joe Biden’s administration to $8.2 billion, which is being paid for through $40 billion in economic and security aid for Ukraine approved by the US Congress in May.

The package also takes the total number of rocket launchers that Washington has supplied Ukraine with since Russia launched its military operation in the former Soviet republic in late February to 16.

The HIMARS is a mobile rocket launcher that can strike targets from 40 to over 300 miles away, depending on the type of rocket it is outfitted with. The rockets that the US administration has decided to send to Ukraine are on the shorter end and can reach up to 48 miles.

Earlier on Friday, Russia’s defense ministry said its forces destroyed four of the weapon systems earlier this month.

Between July 5 and 20, four launchers and one reloading vehicle for the US-made multiple launch rocket systems [HIMARS] were destroyed near the settlement of Malotaranovka in the Donetsk region, and another HIMARS and a transport-loading vehicle in Krasnoarmiisk said ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

He added that a fourth launcher was destroyed on the eastern outskirts of Konstantinovka in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic [DPR], according to government military media outlet Zvezda.

The announcement came amid efforts by the US and Ukraine to portray the rocket launchers as “a potential game changer” in the conflict.

Meanwhile, Washington is also exploring whether it can send US-made fighter jets to Ukraine, Kirby told reporters on Friday.

While the Biden administration was conducting preliminary explorations on the feasibility of potentially supplying the jets to Ukraine, that decision would not be made immediately, he said.

“It’s not something that would be executed in the short term,” Kirby said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the “special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24 to demilitarize and “de-Nazify” the ex-Soviet country and to “liberate” Donbas, composed of two breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Two days before the war, Moscow had officially recognized the two regions as independent republics. Luhansk has already fallen under the full control of Russian forces.

Over the last five months, the United States and its European allies have supplied billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry to Ukraine and imposed unprecedented sanctions on Moscow, despite Russia’s repeated warning that the arms influx and coercive economic measures will only prolong the war.

Nasrallah: ‘US/Israel must submit to our demands, or risk full-blown war’

July 20, 2022

Archival image

Description:

According to ‘reliable leaks’ shared across social media, Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has told thousands of Lebanese that the current situation may soon lead to full-blown war if the US and Israel do not submit to Hezbollah’s demands that crisis-stricken Lebanon be allowed to extract and sell its offshore energy reserves.

Nasrallah also said that his movement will not allow the ‘Israeli enemy’ to extract and sell any oil and gas so long as Lebanon is prevented by the Americans from exploiting and selling its own reserves.

The Hezbollah leader made these comments in an internal speech delivered to thousands of the party’s members in preparation for the upcoming ‘Ashura’ mourning ceremonies.

Seen as a symbol of resistance and anti-imperialism to many in the Arab and Islamic world, Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organisation by a number of Western states, including the U.S., the UK, Canada and Australia.

Please note: the below transcript consists of large portions of the leaks that are summaries of Nasrallah’s speech on 19-07-2022 i.e. MEO is not directly translating Nasrallah’s words in this post.

Source: Leaked summary shared across social media sites

Date: 19 July, 2022

( Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing a small monthly amount here )

Transcript:

The political situation:

– After (my) latest speech, some stood with (it) and some against (it).

– The remarks of some people is natural and we do not expect anything less from them. We must not be affected by them, (for) ‘even if we feed them pure honey, they won’t feel favourably towards us’ (i.e., no matter what we do to please them, they won’t like it)

– Our responsibility is to clarify and demonstrate our strong logic, (even if) they do not respond to us with logic.

– The Americans (did all they can to) prevent electricity from becoming available to (the Lebanese people)

– Our words (in my latest speech) led to the confirmation of the negotiations (translator’s note: indirect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel mediated by the U.S.), not their disruption, because Europe needs oil and gas, and every country is concerned with its own interests in Europe

-There are positive signs, and we are still awaiting

– A serious crisis will befall Europe in September and October if they do not secure (alternative) oil and gas supplies

– Biden visited the (Middle East) region only for the sake of oil and gas and to exert pressure on the Gulf states to increase (oil and gas) production.

– We are in a historical moment, and there is no other opportunity (after this one).

– There are billions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves, just sitting there (in our waters), and the Americans are obstructing (the extraction process).

– Some foreign companies expressed their willingness to begin the drilling process but only after the (border) demarcation process is finalised (and this is an American request)

– (We are talking about Lebanon) that is in debt 100 billion dollars, and the only possibility (to pay for it) is oil/gas. This is a golden opportunity, the only remaining hope for our country. The other (camp) has no choice, they did not offer any other option.

– We are before an opportunity. Indeed, we benefit from the (circumstances surrounding the) Russian-Ukrainian war by (pushing for the) extraction of (Lebanese) oil/gas. People must understand that the United States will not allow the extraction of oil/gas even after 100 years, therefore the (established) equation was necessary.

– We do not want a (mere) moral achievement by preventing (Israeli) extraction from the Karish (oil/gas offshore filed). Rather, we want to extract our own oil/gas.

– There will be no extraction of oil/gas from any area across the (entire Israeli) entity if Lebanon does not gain its rights (in terms of extracting and selling its oil/gas reserves).

– We want to explain (the situation) to the people so that the background of our position regarding the oil/gas issue will become clear (i.e. we may gain our rights with or without war)

– We must take risks and adopt a difficult stance.

-The Israelis may submit (to our demands) even without any (military) steps by the resistance, or, they may respond (to our future military/security actions) and drag things into a (full-fledged) war.


(In other remarks):

– After an introduction on the history of Shias in Lebanon and the wars, killings, displacement and abuse that befell them, he spoke about the current situation of Shia in Lebanon, saying that it is upon us to thank God for the blessings we are in and to preserve these blessings (i.e. (our various) institutions /religious seminaries/power/security/safety etc).

–  We have to protect our people and talk to them, as they are people of loyalty, insight, readiness and sacrifice.

– All sects in Lebanon had a regional protector, except for the Shias, and they were even accused of being followers of the Safavids, and they paid the price for it.

– Loyalty of the people in our support base and constant readiness: for 40 years, our people have been sacrificing, prepared, and giving, they gave their children, believed in the resistance and the path, and embraced it.

– After the year 2000, people’s presence transformed and became greater in all fields, celebrations, and various developments/challenges…and the resistance proved its effectiveness and correctness until people came to it and began to bet/rely upon it.

– Since the beginning of the resistance, the enemy discovered that (this movement) constitutes a threat to its project in Lebanon and the region, and since then it’s been carrying out wars / killings / massacres / assassinations (against it).

– After the July War 2006, the enemy discovered that the option of war is a threat to the (very existence of the Israeli) entity and entails many equations/calculations.

– If war develops (between the Israeli enemy) and Hezbollah, it may expand (and bring in) the entire Axis of Resistance, so calculations/equations regarding the option of war has become limited/narrow for the (Israeli) entity.

– Security assassinations (carried out by Israel over the years) have increased us in strength and presence, and God compensates (us for our fallen comrades).

– Since 2019, we have information about retreats and conferences held in which they discussed how to get rid of Hezbollah. These meetings included religious scholars/security figures/journalists/specialists in soft war etc, and many of these studies have reached us. The studies are directed from a (central) operations room.

– A writer/journalist would be paid $700 for each weekly article that he writes accusing Hezbollah of being responsible for the Beirut Port explosion.

– The Americans and Saudis spent $30 billion in recent years to distort the image of the party and keep people away from it.

– On a daily basis in the world there is distortion of Hezbollah (associating it with drugs/mafias etc)

– What has emerged as a new factor (in this war against Hezbollah) from 2019 is the social and economic pressure on all of Lebanese society, including the closure of bank accounts within (various Lebanese) banks.

– People’s bank deposits were completely lost, while our wealth is still with us. They wished to harm us, yet our enemy is foolish, it (constantly) shoots itself in the foot.

– China, Iran and Russia are ready for carrying out projects in Lebanon, but some (Lebanese) are afraid of US sanctions while they agree with us in secret.

– (The enemy) funded (various) television (networks) and NGOs, and their goal was to create a huge social revolution aimed against Hezbollah, and to hold it responsible for the economic and social situation in Lebanon.

– The goal was to lead people to surrender and submit, surrender their weapons, recognise Israel, settle (millions of) Syrian and Palestinian (refugees in Lebanon), and loot (Lebanese) wealth. The real obstacle was the resistance.

– They lost (in their efforts to) put pressure on our people and bet on their (surrender). (The enemy) was left frustrated and helpless.

– The people were facing a big test with all the pressures they were targeted with. The elections came and the Americans’ hopes were dashed. Their only goal (in that election) was to cause a breach in our electoral districts.

– The message of the (Salam Farmandeh/Salam Ya Mahdi) song (being played across the Middle East today) is that this generation will not give up anything and will continue this path with greater enthusiasm and passion.


Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

Putin heads to Tehran for talks with Iranian and Turkish leaders

19 Jul, 2022

The trilateral talks will focus on Syria but other key issues will also be addressed in the Iranian capital, the Kremlin has said

Putin heads to Tehran for talks with Iranian and Turkish leaders
FILE PHOTO: Russia’s President Vladimir Putin leaving his plane. © Sputnik / Ramil Sitdikov

Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to arrive in Tehran on Tuesday for talks with his Iranian counterpart Ebrahim Raisi and Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

It will be his second foreign trip since the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine on February 24. In late June, he visited Turkmenistan and Tajikistan to meet the countries’ leaders and attend the sixth Caspian Summit, in which Iran also took part.

The trilateral negotiations in the Iranian capital will be held as part of the so-called Astana Peace Process, which was launched by Moscow, Tehran and Ankara in 2017 with the aim of achieving a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria.

According to the Kremlin, the three heads of state will discuss steps to fully eradicate the hotbed of international terrorism in the country, the facilitation of the inter-Syrian peace process and solutions to humanitarian issues, including post-conflict reconstruction.

Putin, Raisi and Erdogan will issue a joint statement after the negotiations, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said on Monday, adding that its draft had already been prepared.

Bilateral talks between the leaders will also take place, while Putin is also expected to meet with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

During those meetings, the Russian president and his interlocutors will discuss the situation around the stalled talks on restoring the Iranian nuclear deal.

Trade will also be on the agenda, with Moscow and Tehran preparing a new major cooperation deal, Ushakov said.

Iran is an important partner of Russia. Our relations are friendly, have a centuries-old history, and are developing very effectively in many areas. Both sides have plans to take bilateral cooperation to a new level – the level of strategic partnership,” he pointed out.

Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, who earlier gave an interview to the Iranian media, said trade between Russia and Iran had surpassed $4 billion in 2021, and grew by 31% in the first four months of this year.

With Russia and Iran being among the most sanctioned nations in the world, Peskov expressed confidence that the two countries would be able to build relations that will allow them to minimize the effect of international restrictions on their economies.

When it comes to Ukraine, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made it clear that Tehran would not provide assistance to any of the sides of the conflict as it believes that the conflict “has to be stopped.” By saying so, the minister refuted the US claims that his country was planning to provide Russia with hundreds of drones, including combat drones.

At the same time, Raisi has said on multiple occasions that Tehran stands ready to contribute to a diplomatic resolution of the Ukrainian conflict.

Putin’s bilateral meeting with Erdogan is expected to touch on the issue of Ukrainian grain exports from the Black Sea ports, according to Ushakov. Turkey, which declares itself a neutral country when it comes to the situation in Ukraine, has been engaged in various issue-resolving initiatives. It recently hosted multilateral consultations on the grain issue, with the participation of Russia, Ukraine and the United Nations.

Food security was also one of the main subjects of the phone conversation between Putin and Erdogan last week. The Turkish leader said at the time that “it was time for the United Nations to take action for the plan regarding the formation of secure corridors via the Black Sea.”

In March, Istanbul hosted a crucial round of peace negotiations between Kiev and Moscow.

You can share this story on social media:

قمة القيصر والإمام وخرائط النصر على الأطلسي

 2022-07-18

محمد صادق الحسيني

كلّ الأنظار تتجه الى طهران وتحديداً في نهاية شارع فلسطين حيث مقرّ القائد العام للقوات المسلحة الإيرانية وقائد ثورة المستضعفين الإيرانيين الذين صاروا يشكلون دولة اقليمية عظمى تتشارك معها جيوش محور مقاومة هي الرأس فيه.

الى هناك تحديداً سيذهب قيصر الشرق الجديد حاملاً معه خرائط المنتصرين على الإرهاب والأطلسي واليانكي الأميركي المنكسر والغارق ومعه رهط من المنهكين والمتساقطين الأوروبيين من البرتغال حتى البلطيق فضلاً عن الامبراطورية التي غابت عنها الشمس تماماً.

قمة خامنئي ـ بوتين حسب العارفين والمتابعين سترسم خرائط الطاقة والجغرافيا الجديدة وتبلغها لمبعوث المهزومين، حارس مرمى الناتو الجنوبي ـ أردوغان ـ كما يلي:

أولا:ـ التعاطي مع الزائر التركي ايّ أردوغان على أنه موفد المنكسرين على تخوم الشرق وهو الذي ما وافق أصلاً للقدوم الى طهران (بعد تردّد طويل) إلا بعد امر العمليات الأميركي الذي تمّ إبلاغه إياه من سيده في واشنطن.

ثانيا: ـ التوافق على آلية مشتركة لإخراج المحتلّ الأميركي من شرق الفرات والتنف واستيعاب أدواته (قسد) في جسم الدولة السورية بعد أن تخلت عنها واشنطن وطالبتها بالبحث عن مصيرها بنفسها.

ثالثا: ـ التنسيق التام على آلية خروج المحتل التركي من كلّ شبر سوري دون شروط (خاصة بعد تخلي واشنطن عنه وعن خياره العسكري تماماً) ومطالبته التعاطي مع الدولة السورية لاحقاً بموجب اتفاقية أضنة الشهيرة فقط لا غير، وإبلاغه بنفاد الوقت والصبر الاستراتيجي معه.

رابعا: ـ ضمّه (أيّ تركيا) إنْ تجاوبت الى خرائط الطاقة الجديدة التي سيؤمّنها الروس والإيرانيون بأسعار معقولة للنفط والغاز، لأوروبا وغرب آسيا من تركمانستان حتى البرتغال على قواعد السوق الدولية.

خامسا:ـ التوافق بشكل واضح وقاطع وصارم على انّ أمن آسيا الوسطى والقوقاز وبحر الخزر والمتوسط إنما هي مهمة التحالف الروسي الإيراني وهما أصحاب التاريخ المشترك في فضاء أوراسيا والشريك الاستراتيجي لانتصار الدولة السورية وحلفائها على الإرهاب في بحر الشام وبرّه والمطلوب من كلّ القوى الدخيلة بما فيها تركيا التخلي عن طموحاتها هناك تماماً.

سادسا: ـ التوافق على آلية أمن إقليمي مشترك للخليج الفارسي، تكون فيه روسيا والصين شريكاً استراتيجياً للإيرانيين والعرب بانتظار ان يحسم أنصار الله الأمن في البحر الأحمر وخليج عدن وباب المندب لصالحهم وصالح محور المقاومة ليكونوا القطب الوليد الأهمّ لأمن البحار والمحيط الهندي هناك.

سابعا: ـ دعوة أوروبا للخروج من عبادة أميركا، والتحرّر مما هم فيه من انقياد لواشنطن في أمن الطاقة ما يجعلهم منفعلين وخاسرين في كلّ المعادلات، والبدء بالتدرّج في العودة الى قوانين السوق التقليدية مع أقطاب الشرق الجديد لأخذ دورهم التقليدي المستقلّ.

ثامنا:ـ وضع بوتين حليفه الإيراني بنتائج النصر الكبير على الأطلسيين في أوكرانيا وشروط روسيا الصارمة والحازمة حول شكل الحلّ السياسي المرتقب والذي جوهره نزع سلاح كامل لأوكرانيا وحياد كامل، وتقديم أوروبا وأميركا ضمانات لروسيا بعدم ممارسة ايّ نشاط أطلسي جديد من البلطيق حتى أوروبا الشرقية، والتدرّج بالخروج من فناء منظمة وارسو والعودة بالناتو الى توافقات ١٩٩٧ بين الغرب والاتحاد السوفياتي.

ايّ تمنّع لأردوغان عن قبول هذه المعادلات الجديدة او محاولة التمنّع عن تسلّم شروطها الشديدة الصرامة (وهو الذي تبلغها سلفاً من الروسي والإيراني قبل وصوله إلى طهران) من خلال مغامرة عسكرية ولو محدودة ضدّ سورية سيقابل بالميدان كما قوبل هو وميليشياته الإرهابية في أول العدوان وبحزم أشدّ وأقسى هذه المرة.

هذا ما سيحمله أردوغان كحصيلة اجتماعاته الثنائية والثلاثية في طهران، باعتباره مبعوثاً للأطلسي، وطبقاً للمعلومات التي بين يدينا فإنّ المبعوثين الغربيين الذين لم ينقطعوا عن التواصل مع موسكو، وخاصة الأميركي منهم فإنهم يبحثون عن عودة تدريجية لمعاهدة الاستقرار الاستراتيجي في زمن ترامب، هذا مع الروس، وعن تهدئة شاملة مع الإيرانيبن حتى ولو لم يتمّ الاتفاق على النووي.

والسبب حالات الانهيار العامة التي يعيشها الغرب من عودة كورونا القوية الى تساقط مقولات، ورموز الديمقراطيبن الأميركيين في عيون مواطنيهم وفي عيون حلفائهم ما وراء الأطلسي.

بايدن خسر كلّ شيء الآن ولم يبق أمامه سوى تظهير خسارته بألوان سينما هوليوود.

حتى اليهود الأميركيين الذين عمل كلّ جهده لإرضائهم بعناء السفر الى فلسطيننا وجزيرتنا العربية، لن يغفروا له تخليه عنهم خوفاً ورهبة مما ينتظره من صعود ثلاثي الشرق العظيم، وبالتالي لن يضمنوا فوزه لا في نوفمبر/ تشرين الثاني المقبل ولا في استحقاق ٢٤ الرئاسي!

هذه خرائط عملية نهائية رسمها المنتصر وسيباشر في تحويلها الى وقائع عالم ما بعد أميركا والدولار.

انها السنن الكونية الربانية او الحتمية التاريخية يا بايدن سمّها ما شئت او اختر ايّ منهما ستصل الى نفس النهاية، او الى قعر جهنم كما يردّد الصينيون في ردهات حزبهم الحاكم في بكين.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

بايدن في إسرائيل: توسيع التطبيع مهمّة أولى

 الأربعاء 13 تموز 2022

هناك تقديرات في إسرائيل بأنّ زيارة بايدن محدودة الأهداف والنتائج (أ ف ب)

يحيى دبوق

على رغم أن الرئيس الأميركي، جو بايدن، سيحلّ، اليوم، ضيفاً على إسرائيل، إلّا أن زيارة الكيان العبري لا تمثّل محطّة رئيسة ضمن جولته المختصرة التي تنتهي في السعودية، حيث غاية الزيارة ومقصدها. مع هذا، يجهّز المسؤولون الإسرائيليون سلّة مطالب يتوقّعون من الضيف الأميركي أن يلبّيها، وفي مقدّمها الإسهام في توسيع اتفاقات التطبيع لتشمل المملكة، والدفع نحو حلف عربي – إسرائيلي لمواجهة تهديدات إيران وحلفائها، وإنْ بدأ على شكل منظومات رادارية إنذارية مشتركة لكشف الصواريخ والمسيّرات «المعادية»، إلى جانب عطاءات مالية وتكنولوجية لن تبخل واشنطن في تعزيزها. وفي ظلّ محدودية التوقّعات، فإن أهمّ ما في الزيارة، من جهة تل أبيب، هو أنها تمثّل فرصة ممتازة لمعاينة وفحص حدود القوّة الأميركية في عالمٍ بات سريع التحوُّل

يصل الرئيس الأميركي، جو بايدن، إلى تل أبيب، اليوم، في زيارة مجاملة للحليف الإسرائيلي، قبل أن يتّوجه إلى السعودية، حيث ينتظره زعماء دول عربية، هم هدف الزيارة ومقصدها. وسيسعى بايدن إلى تجنيد هذه الدول ما أمكن، لمؤازرة الولايات المتحدة والغرب عموماً، في المواجهة العسكرية – الاقتصادية القائمة مع روسيا في أوكرانيا. ومن المقرَّر أن تتضمّن الزيارة إلى إسرائيل، لقاءات بروتوكولية يتخلّلها إطلاق مواقف أميركية تعبّر عن تأييد كامل وشامل لتل أبيب والتزام مطلَق بأمنها وتفوّقها العسكري، وتشديد على الوقوف إلى جانبها في مواجهة التهديدات المُحدقة بها، وفي مقدّمها تلك الإيرانية. من جهته، سيركّز الجانب الإسرائيلي على إثارة مكامن قلقه – وإن بصورةٍ غير مباشرة – من إمكانية تبديل التموضع الأميركي في المنطقة، وتراجع انشغال واشنطن فيها لمصلحة ساحات أخرى. أمّا تهديد إيران وحلفائها، فسيكون محور المقاربة الإسرائيلية للزيارة.

ما هي توقّعات تل أبيب؟
هناك تقديرات في إسرائيل بأنّ زيارة بايدن محدودة الأهداف والنتائج، وهي تُعّد في الأساس خطوة أولى تمهيدية تكتنفها المجاملات والودّ، قبل زيارة جدة، حيث المقصد الرئيس لزيارة المنطقة. مع ذلك، فإن محطّة بايدن في تل أبيب، تشكّل فرصة لهذه الأخيرة لتحصيل ما أمكن من الإدارة:

تريد تل أبيب حلفاً عربياً – إسرائيلياً لمواجهة تهديدات إيران وحلفائها


– كما تطالب بدفع تسوية ما تلحظ مصالحها، في ما يتعلّق بترسيم الحدود البحرية مع لبنان، ليس فقط في إنهاء الترسيم وحفظ المصالح البحرية الغازية والنفطية المباشرة، بل في أن تكون تسوية كهذه توطئة لأخرى أكبر، تصل، في نهاية المطاف، إلى التطبيع مع لبنان، علماً أن المطالب الإسرائيلية – قبل التسوية البحرية وبعدها – ستكون مركّزة على إشراك الإدارة الأميركية أكثر في الجهود والمساعي الاستخبارية والأمنية لمواجهة سلاح «حزب الله»، الذي باتت القدرة الذاتية على لجمه وصدّه ومنع تناميه، متواضعة ومتعذّرة من ناحية إسرائيل، فيما الضغط على لبنان و«حزب الله» بواسطة الأزمة الاقتصادية، هي في الأساس استراتيجية تتبنّاها الإدارة وتسعى إلى تعزيزها، مع أو من دون دفع إسرائيل وتحفيزها.

مقالات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

The seeds of the split: How the Russian-speaking Donbass first attempted to win independence from Ukraine in 2004

11 Jul, 2022

FILE PHOTO.Viktor Yanukovich, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, greets his supporters in Severodonetsk, eastern Ukraine, 28 November, 2004. © AFP / PHOTO MIG

In late June, after fierce fighting, the last remaining units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pulled out of Severodonetsk, a large industrial center in the western part of the Lugansk People’s Republic.

Back in 2004, the city hosted the famous congress of the ‘federalists’, Ukrainian politicians – elected at different levels – who backed the presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych during the Western-backed Orange Revolution. Back then, they declared then that the Kiev protests were an attempted coup and warned that an illegitimate government coming to power could prompt the congress to establish south-eastern autonomy to protect local residents.

At the same time, regional deputies decided to hold a referendum on changing the country into a federal state and appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin for support. In this article, RT recounts the first attempt of Ukraine’s southeastern regions to gain independence from Kiev and explains why the events of 2004 defined the future armed conflict in Donbass.

Just a step away from federation

Political discussions about a possible disintegration and reconfiguration of Ukraine have been going on ever since the country became independent in 1991. Ironically, one of the first people to doubt the country’s unity was Vyacheslav Chornovol, the founder of the national democratic party Narodny Rukh (People’s Movement) and a hero for Ukrainian nationalists. Admittedly, he only mentioned the possibility of turning Ukraine into a federation. The idea of federalization was the focal point of discussions that – until the Maidan political crisis of 2014 – were commonly referred to as “separatist” discourse.

As early as 1989, Chornovol said that Ukraine should be a “union of lands.” “I imagine future Ukraine as a federal state, a union of lands, which have come together throughout the course of history and whose natural, climatic, cultural, ethnographic, and linguistic differences, as well as idiosyncrasies in their economies, habits, and customs define the unique diversity of a single people. I envision the People’s Republic of Ukraine, which includes such lands as the Kiev Region, Podolye, Volhynia, Galichina, Bukovina, Transcarpathia, Getmanshchina, Sloboda Ukraine, Zaporozhye, the Donetsk region, and Tauria, whereas Crimea could be an independent neighbor or an autonomous republic in alliance with Ukraine,” he wrote

Chornovol added that Ukrainian should be the only state language in the new federation, although local authorities could make certain provinces bilingual.

Two years later, in 1991, Chornovol initiated the convention of the so-called Galicia Assembly, which spoke in favor of administrative reform and the creation of a new autonomous regional entity, Galichina, based on the amalgamation of the Lviv, Ternopol, and Ivano-Frankovsk Regions. Even though the assembly was one of the catalysts of Ukraine’s independence, Chornovol’s supporters were accused of separatism after Leonid Kravchuk was elected president. This was in large part due to ideas to create a Donetsk Republic and Novorossiya in the Russian-speaking southeast of Ukraine, which began circulating in the 1990s. Over time, Chornovol’s proposals came to be viewed as too radical, and opponents of federalization have been linking his designs with the breakup of the country for more than 30 years now.

When the Ukrainian constitution was adopted in 1996, it defined Ukraine as a unitary state, which removed the issue of federalization from the agenda. And yet, apart from the 24 regions and two federal-level cities (Kiev and Sevastopol), Ukraine also included the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which, for a few years, even had its own constitution and president. Throughout those years, Ukrainian presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma managed to strike the right balance in their foreign and domestic policies, especially as regards to handling relations between regions on both sides of the “Subtelny line,” which is traditionally used to divide Ukraine into two distinct parts.

FILE PHOTO. Some 3,500 local officials from 17 of Ukraine’s 27 regions meet in Severodonetsk, an eastern Ukrainian town 28 November, 2004. © AFP / PHOTO MIG

However, in 2004, when the outcome of the protests was still uncertain, politicians who supported Yanukovych (dubbed “pro-Russian” in the West, despite his years of negotiations with the EU) revived the idea of federalization. Members of the Party of Regions claimed that Ukraine had failed as a unitary state and therefore had to be reorganized as a federation with a high degree of autonomy at the level of administrative and territorial entities. Ukraine was going through a real crisis, and, probably for the first time, that schism was pushing the country to the brink of an all-out civilian conflict.

“Not going to let Galichina tell us how to live our lives”

The mass protests in Kiev, which would later be known as the Orange Revolution, were met with little enthusiasm in the southeast of Ukraine, especially in Donbass. While protesters at the Maidan claimed their ‘pro-European’ candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, had his victory “stolen from him,” many supporters of Yanukovych felt the same watching their opponents clamor for official election results, which had declared the latter victorious, to be repealed. A response to the protests in the capital was imminent.

On November 28, the All-Ukrainian Congress of Deputies of All Levels welcomed more than 3,500 pro-Yanukovych delegates from across the country. They declared that the protests were an attempted coup and warned that an illegitimate Yushchenko-led government taking over Kiev could prompt the congress to establishautonomy to protect the residents of southeastern Ukraine.

The final statement of the congress, which had been unanimously adopted by its delegates, said: “If the sociopolitical situation in the country develops according to the worst crisis scenario, we will stand firm and united to defend the vote of the people of Ukraine going as far as holding a referendum on possible changes to the administrative and territorial structure of Ukraine.” The significance of the gathering was further elevated by the presence of Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who delivered a sharp rebuke to Ukraine’s radical opposition. “On the one hand, we’re seeing this orange-fueled mayhem [orange became the symbol of support for Yushchenko – RT], which claims to represent the majority in Ukraine. On the other hand, we have this quiet force gathered in this room today,” Luzhkov said to a round of applause. 

At the same time, the Regional Council of Lugansk came up with an alternative project, proposing the establishment of the South-East Ukrainian Autonomous Republic with Kharkov as its capital city. Along with the initiative, local MPs also asked President Putin to help them organize a referendum on Ukraine’s federalization. The referendum was scheduled for December 5, 2004. At the same time, the Regional Council of Donetsk decided to establish its own police force. 

Leaders of Ukraine’s southeastern regions began to voice their support for the idea of reorganizing the country. Kharkov’s authorities decided to set up committees that would have executive state powers. Governor Yevgeny Kushnarev was elected head of the regional executive committee – he was well known as a pro-Russian politician and supporter of federalization, as well as a presidential hopeful according to many journalists and activists. His responsibilities at the time included coordination between other councils in the southeastern territories. The Kharkov Region also stopped making payments to the national budget, waiting for the situation in Kiev to stabilize.    

It was Kushnarev who put into words the idea that later defined the development of the Donbass armed conflict. Speaking at the Severodonetsk conference, he said, “I’d like to remind you that we are 400 kilometers away from Kiev and 40 kilometers away from Russia. We understand that the east is very different from Galicia in the west. We are not imposing our way of life on Galicia, but we will never let Galicia lecture us either.” Together with Boris Kolesnikov, head of the Regional Council of Donetsk, he proposed organizing a referendum in every city to see if people trusted the government and asked what they thought of ‘relaunching’ Ukraine as a federal republic.  

All of this political activity in the country’s southeast caused some serious concerns in the West, where governments started to see that the dissolution of the state was quite possible. The diplomatic channels were activated. EU and Russian representatives began making frequent visits in order to work out some compromises. At the end of the day, they didn’t include a referendum, but a process was agreed on to transfer power to Yushchenko. The compromise worked like this: Yushchenko got the green light at the election, and his win in the runoff was accepted by the opponents. In return, he agreed to change the constitution and have presidential privileges reduced as of January 1, 2005, thus turning Ukraine into a parliamentary republic. The local governments in the South-East wrapped up their plans. 

One Step Closer to the Abyss

As time went on, everyone felt comfortable forgetting about the convention of ‘federalists’ in Severodonetsk and the programs announced by the local governments in the South-East. They were only recalled when attempts were made to blackmail or jail the local big wigs. One shouldn’t underestimate the significance of those events, however. It was the very first time the South-East made it clear what its response was to “patriots” in Kiev trying to seize power and disregard the opinion of half the country’s population while they were at it. Back then, there were no consequences because the parties to the conflict worked out a solution based on compromise, while Russia abstained from backing and pushing Yanukovych.

A little later, however, the members of the Severodonetsk rally came under severe pressure. A criminal charge was launched against Evgeny Kushnarev – a famous member of the Party of Regions – on the grounds of separatism, to be dropped later. That was enough for Kushnarev to distance himself from the separatism agenda, focusing instead on regional issues. In 2005, he “engaged,” as he called it, Yanukovych by merging his New Democracy platform into the Party of Regions. The two politicians ran together in the parliamentary elections in 2006. It was Kushnarev who addressed the items on the election program the most, including the issue of the status of the Russian language.

In January 2007, Kushnarev was severely wounded during a wolf hunt in the Izyum district of Kharkov Region. He was shot by one of his friends, who had joined him for the hunt. A day later, Kushnarev died in spite of two surgeries. He was regarded as the leading anti-Maidan spokesman and a pro-Russian candidate for presidency.

The events of those years – Maidan, federalization attempts in southeastern Ukraine and the death of a popular champion of Russia and federalism, Evgeny Kushnarev – marked the end of the first era in the history of an independent Ukraine. The people in power, Kuchma included, were anything but impeccable. They had a lot to answer for. But they were forged in the Soviet era and they had a sense of responsibility for their country and understood how complex the situation really was in Ukraine and abroad.

During that period, politicians avoided any radical steps and tried to resolve conflicts through compromise. But when Yushchenko came to power, he abandoned this approach and attempted to impose on Ukraine an agenda that was alien to millions of its citizens. Aggressive ‘Ukrainianization’ and a policy aimed at distancing the country from Russia eventually resulted in mounting tensions and a protracted political crisis. 

All of that has brought Ukraine to its present state – a country plagued by domestic political crises and economic instability, a nation suffering territorial loss and ravaged by an armed conflict in the southeast that began in 2014. Today, Ukrainians look back on the period, which ended in 2004, as the last peaceful era in Ukraine’s modern history. Kiev’s failure to draw the right conclusions from the ‘Severodonetsk case’ contributed to the tragedy Ukraine experienced in 2014. Ukrainian society was never able to bridge its internal divide, and the revolution that came a decade later only split the country further, leading to the loss of Crimea and a bloody war in Donbass.

By Alexander Nepogodin, аn Odessa-born political journalist, expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Why don’t the African cosmos support the West in its sanctions war against Russia?

July 06, 2022

Source

By José Francisco Lumango

The answer may not be simple. But the memory of European colonisation in Africa, and its harmful effects, are still visible despite the independence of its states, may be a reasonable way of understanding it. An African adage teaches that “One should never forget the lessons learned in times of pain”, which seems to be the source of inspiration for the African cosmos – the set of entities that formally and materially hold the power relations in Africa – not to forget the tragic consequences of European colonisation, to protect their independence and not repeat the errors of the past. Without being simplistic or too complex, the answer to the question in question may have several reasons:

1. Historical memory of colonisation and the struggle for national liberation: Russia, heir to the Former USSR, supported ideologically, politically, economically, and militarily the national liberation struggles of several African countries, which after the achievement of independence, followed the communist model as the basis of their political, social and economic construction. Even though they later adopted Western capitalism, the mentality of the African cosmos is still of Soviet influence, because it was there that most of them did their military and political training and received economic support to finance the liberation wars to put an end to Western colonisation, with direct and indirect help from Cuba as an intermediary in some cases. The cold war between the USA and NATO against the USSR led to civil wars in African countries to conquer the spaces of influence. After the fall of the Berlin wall and the resurgence of Russia, Westerners looked at the situation as an absolute victory. Despite this, the African cosmos has not forgotten colonisation, the interference of Western countries in their internal affairs, and the rigged processes of massive indebtedness of their economies as a way of controlling their strategic natural resources.

2. Recent memory of wars at the beginning of the 21st century: Beyond colonial issues, the African cosmos has been following since 2001 the behaviour of the West (US, NATO, and EU) in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, sweetened by the Arab Springs, attempted coups in Turkey, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, etc., without forgetting the massacre in Rwanda and the war in Somalia and Yemen. These wars and coups have destroyed thousands of human lives, social infrastructure, jobs, etc. It was a catastrophe for the entire continent and nearby territories like South East Asia. The existing wars in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Mozambique, DRC, Ethiopia, etc, allow the African cosmos, even those with strong ties to the West like Morocco, for example, not to act frontally against Russia, a fact verified in the recent votes of the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council which suspended it. The expulsion of French forces by the military junta in Mali and their replacement by the Russians through the Wagner group, like the construction of a port for the Russian Nave Arms on the Sudanese Red Sea coast, could be a revealing symptom.

3. The damaging memory of Western unipolarity and the chance for a global multipolar alternative power: For Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, the Ukrainian war is a civil war within Slavic civilisation, through several wars within it: economic-financial, propaganda-media, cultural, biological, radiological, and military war. It is a hybrid war that has ended with globalisation, as confirmed by Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. For Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, it is not a question of total deglobalisation, but of economic-financial, cybernetic-digital, energy, and commercial deglobalisation. The West was no longer interested in economic-financial globalisation because they lost the battle against China, and cybernetic-digital globalisation (software, etc.) was won by the Indians. This bipolarity also involves the division of the UN Security Council into two blocs: the first composed of the US, UK, France (G7/NATO), and the second of Russia and China (Shanghai Group and BRICS). This situation led to an operational dysfunction of the WTO and led to the resignation of its previous Director General, Roberto Azevedo. In this sense, Jalife-Rahme quotes Philipe Stephens’ article “The world is marching back from globalisation”, where he states that “The US does not see a vital national interest in maintaining an order that transfers power to rivals”. Thus, according to Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, “Everything that is not globalised becomes balkanised”. Thus, the end of globalisation, especially the economic-financial one, as dictated by Larry Fink, will inevitably entail its balkanisation, through two regional blocs, i.e. de-globalisation and bipolar trans-meta-regionalisation, on one side the G7/NATO and EU, and on the other side the BRICS/Shanghai Group and Eurasian Union.

The de-globalisation said by Larry Fink is “neoliberal de-globalisation”, which occurs through the gradual paralysis of global supply chains, which are founded on the reduction of operating costs through outsourcing (relocation of companies) and downsizing (lowering labour costs to increase shareholder profits and value companies in capital markets), according to Alfredo Jalife-Rahme. The African cosmos believes that if Russia, even with nuclear weapons, a continental country with Eurasian tradition, which supplies almost 40% of energy resources and other strategic raw materials to the West, is treated this way, what will become of African countries, which are visibly weaker in military terms? The destruction of Libya for trying to sell oil in Euro and rejecting the USD may be indisputable proof.

The meddling of the West in Africa, beyond colonisation, needs no introduction. The wars and coups d’état in Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan, the Central African Republic, the civil war in Angola and other conflicts are facts that remain in the collective memory of the African cosmos. If the colonial memory was tragic, the expressive and aggressive interference of the West in the African cosmos is breaking any remaining trust, for historical reasons (over 400 years of colonisation), by unfair competition in the exploitation of natural resources, the massive interference in internal affairs by the IMF in the financing of road and housing infrastructures, etc., and the attempt to incorporate western values aggressively through sanctions and blackmail, even if these values do not correspond to the African historical-epistemic and gnosiological cosmogony.

4. China and Russia as a financial and military alternative for the existential survival of African countries in a multipolar world in the medium and long term: The African cosmos observes with concern and caution everything that Western leaders do against Russia as a result of the technical-military operation in Ukraine, regardless of the causes, which by common sense is perceived since 2014. The reason for this concern lies in the fact that whenever the West finds itself in crisis or politically, geostrategically, and economically cornered, it uses internal or external wars as a way out, a can be seen in the Roman wars, the colonisation of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the Napoleonic wars, the First and Second World Wars. Faced with the circumstances, the African cosmos shows resistance towards sanctions against Russia, abstaining from votes at the UN, in official pronouncements, that is, maintaining certain strategic neutrality, despite the gigantic Western pressure, forcing them to choose a side as if they were still vassals or colonised. It is not that the African cosmos agrees in its entirety with Russia’s technical-military operation in Ukraine, insofar as, there is a history of invasions in Africa carried out by Westerners, Arabs, Persians, and Ottomans. The main concern is the need for an economic-financial and military alternative to the West for its own existential survival, and to protect itself from possible aggressive interference in the long term, when strategic reserves of Western raw materials reach their limit. The way the West behaved during the Covid19 Pandemic in the context of vaccine distribution policies, by buying in advance almost 80% of all vaccines in production in the world, leaving poor countries without vaccines even to buy for a certain period, and changing their position only when they realised that, the non-global distribution of the vaccines prolonged the pandemic, led to the creation of the COVAX system by the WHO, after harsh criticism from Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, stating that, “The growing gap between the number of vaccines offered in rich countries and those administered through COVAX is becoming “more grotesque by the day”. And how could it be otherwise, the gesture of Russia and China in the swift distribution of vaccines and protective medical supplies was taken into account by the African cosmos at the time of decision making. As is well known, China’s economic and Russia’s military presence in Africa is seen as an alternative guarantee to what the West is offering. Since 2002, while the West was distracted with its eternal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Arab Spring, Syria, Libya, etc., China entered Africa in silence, massively funding road infrastructure projects etc., without interference in internal affairs, through the adoption of the “Win-Win” strategy.

Russia, on the other hand, has become the main military alternative, accounting for 49% of total arms exports to Africa by 2020, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database, to avoid internal conflicts and protect itself from external interference. Paul Stronski confirms that “The rulers of many African countries look to Moscow from Soviet-era links, and Moscow takes advantage of this and manages to maintain its influence. In the case of Algeria [and Angola], this is done by writing off old debts. Sometimes Russia also makes generous promises, assuring that it will build workshops or facilities for manufacturing or maintenance.

The African cosmos serenely realises that a defeat of Russia in Ukraine will lead the world to a more aggressive, self-centred and militarised Western unipolarisation and the weaker countries will have no alternative for survival and existential resistance. The fear of perishing and becoming a colonial space again seems to be more important to the strategists of the African cosmos than Western values about democracy, neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. For the African cosmos, its course and future depend on the economic-financial cover of China and the military cover of Russia, so that there is a certain balance in its relations with the West.

And it considers the situation of Russia and Ukraine as an internal issue between brothers of the same homeland linked historically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously. But it does not mean that it wants a radical change in its strategic relations with the West. It is only a preventive measure of existential survival.

The way the West treats Ukrainian refugees compared to what has been done with African refugees arriving via the Mediterranean and from the Canary Islands via the Atlantic has not been forgotten, as have the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage and the destruction of Libya. These historical events may justify the fear of the African cosmos in resisting in the face of Western pressure to give up its strategic relations with Russia and China.

This neutrality and strategic ambiguity serve to prevent a geostrategic and existential risk for sovereign and independent countries in the medium and long term. And, according to an African adage “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”. Thus, the African cosmos realises that it is grass in this war of titans, and Ukraine only as a geostrategic, geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geofinancial singularity of the hegemonic power struggle between Eurasia and the West. So that may have been the reason they refrained from the sanctions war against Russia, for the lessons learned from their tragic experiences, old and recent, of their relations with the West.

The African cosmos does everything it can to avoid being the grass in the conflict at hand, promoted by the West since 2014, through the coup d’état against Viktor Yanukovich, and the failure to implement the Minsk I and II agreements. Soon, it seems that the African cosmos uses the proverbial philosophy of its ancestors to avoid entering into another’s war, even though it is already feeling the side effects of the increase in the prices of wheat, fertilizers, oil, gas, etc., and the risk of probable retaliations, for disobedience of political guidelines, by the West.

The claim by Macky Sall, President of Senegal and Chairperson-in-Office of the African Union on his recent visit to Russia, in demanding the West remove sanctions affecting Africa’s food security is, without doubt, a clear and unequivocal demonstration of this position. ”

CHOMSKY ON ISRAELI APARTHEID, CELEBRITY ACTIVISTS, BDS AND THE ONE-STATE SOLUTION

Chomsky believes that calling Israeli policies towards Palestinians “apartheid” is actually a “gift to Israel”, at least, if by apartheid one refers to the South-African style apartheid.

JULY 5TH, 2022

RAMZY BAROUD

This is, according to the Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci, the ‘interregnum’- the rare and seismic moment in history when great transitions occur, when empires collapse and others rise, and when new conflicts and struggles ensue.

The Gramscian ‘interregnum, however, is not a smooth transition, for these profound changes often embody a ‘crisis,’ which “consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born”.

“In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear,” the anti-fascist intellectual wrote in his famous “Prison Notebooks”.

Even before the Russia-Ukraine war and the subsequent deepening of the Russia-NATO crisis, the world was clearly experiencing an interregnum of sorts – the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the global recession, the rising inequality, the destabilization of the Middle East, the ‘Arab Spring’, the refugee crisis, the new ‘scramble for Africa’, the US attempt at weakening China, the US’ own political instability, the war on democracy and decline of the American empire ..

Recent events, however, have finally given these earth-shattering changes greater clarity, with Russia making its move against NATO expansion, and with China and other rising economies – BRICS nations – refusing to toe the American line.

To reflect on all of these changes, and more, we spoke with the world’s ‘most cited’ and respected intellectual, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

The main objective of our interview was to examine the challenges and opportunities facing the Palestinian struggle during this ongoing ‘interregnum’. Chomsky shared with us his views about the war in Ukraine and its actual root causes.

The interview, however, largely focused on Palestine, Chomsky’s views of the language, the tactics and solutions affiliated with the Palestinian struggle and the Palestinian discourse. Below are some of Chomsky’s thoughts on these issues, taken from a longer conversation that can be viewed here.

CHOMSKY ON ISRAELI APARTHEID

Chomsky believes that calling Israeli policies towards Palestinians “apartheid” is actually a “gift to Israel”, at least, if by apartheid one refers to the South-African style apartheid.

“I have held for a long time that the Occupied Territories are much worse than South Africa. South Africa needed its black population, it relied on them,” Chomsky said, adding: “The black population was 85% of the population. It was the workforce; the country couldn’t function without that population and, as a result, they tried to make their situation more or less tolerable to the international community. (…) They were hoping for international recognition, which they didn’t get.”

So, if the Bantustans were, in Chomsky’s opinion, “more or less livable,” the same “is not true for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Israel just wants to get rid of the people, doesn’t want them. And its policies for the last 50 years, with not much variation, have been just somehow making life unlivable, so you will go somewhere else.”

These repressive policies apply in the entirety of the Palestinian territory: “In Gaza, (they) just destroy them,” Chomsky said. “There’s over two million people now living in hideous conditions, barely survivable. International law organizations say that they are not likely to even be able to survive in a couple of years. (…) In the Occupied Territories, in the West Bank, atrocities (take place) every day.”

Chomsky also thinks that Israel, unlike South Africa, is not seeking the international community’s approval. “The brazenness of Israeli actions is pretty striking. They do what they want, knowing the United States will support them. Well, this is much worse than what happened in South Africa; it’s not an effort to somehow accommodate the Palestinian population as a suppressed workforce, it’s just to get rid of them.”

CHOMSKY ON THE NEW PALESTINIAN UNITY

The events of May 2021 and the popular unity among Palestinians are “a very positive change”, in Chomsky’s opinion. “For one thing, what has severely impeded the Palestinian struggle is the conflict between Hamas and the PLO. If it’s not resolved, it’s a great gift to Israel.”

Palestinians also managed to overcome the territorial fragmentation, according to Chomsky: “Also, the split between the legal boundaries” separating Israel from “the expanded area of greater Palestine” was always a hindrance to Palestinian unity. That is now being overcome, as the Palestinian struggle “is turning into the same struggle. Palestinians are all in it together.”

“B’tselem and Human Rights Watch’s description of the whole region as a region of apartheid – though I don’t entirely agree with it for the reasons I mentioned, because I think it’s not harsh enough – nevertheless, it is a step towards recognizing that there is something crucially in common between all this area.”

“So, I think this is a positive step. It is wise and promising for Palestinians to recognize ‘we’re all in it together’, and that includes the diaspora communities. Yes, it’s a common struggle,” Chomsky concluded.

CHOMSKY ON ONE STATE, TWO STATES

Though support for a one state has grown exponentially in recent years, to the extent that a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC), concluded that a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank now supports the one-state solution, Chomsky warns against discussions that don’t prioritize the more urgent conversation of Tel Aviv’s colonial quest for a “greater Israel.”

“We should not be deluded into thinking that events are developing towards a one-state outcome or towards a confederation, as it’s now being discussed by some of the Israeli left. It’s not moving in that direction, that’s not even an option for now. Israel will never accept it as long as it has the option of greater Israel. And, furthermore, there is no support for it in the international community, none. Not even the African states.”

“The two-states, well, we can talk about it but you have to recognize that we have to struggle against the ongoing live option of a greater Israel.” Indeed, according to Chomsky, “much of the discussion of this topic seems to me misplaced.”

“It is mostly a debate between two states and one state that eliminates the most important option, the live option, the one that’s being pursued, namely greater Israel. Establishing a greater Israel, where Israel takes over whatever it wants in the West Bank, crushes Gaza, and annexes – illegally – the Syrian Golan Heights .., just takes what it wants, avoids the Palestinian population concentrations, so, it doesn’t incorporate them. They don’t want the Palestinians because of what is called the democratic Jewish state, the pretense of a democratic Jewish state in which the state is the sovereign state of the Jewish people. So, my state, but not the state of some Palestinian villager.”

Chomsky continues, “To maintain that pretense, you have to keep a large Jewish majority, then you can somehow pretend it’s not repressive. But so the policy is a greater Israel, in which you won’t have any demographic problem. The main concentrations of Palestinians are excluded in other areas, they are basically being expelled.”

CHOMSKY ON BDS, INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY

We also asked Chomsky about the growing solidarity with Palestinians on the international stage, on social media, and the support for the Palestinian struggle among many public personalities and celebrities.

“I don’t think mainstream celebrities mean that much. What matters is what is happening among the general population in the United States. In Israel, unfortunately, the population is moving to the right. It is one of the few countries I know, maybe the only one, where younger people are more reactionary than older ones.”

“The United States is going in the opposite direction,” Chomsky continued, as “young people are more critical of Israel, more and more supportive of Palestinian rights.”

Regarding the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), Chomsky acknowledged the significant role played by the global grassroots movement, though he noted that BDS “has a mixed record”. The movement should become “more flexible (and) more thoughtful about the effects of actions”, Chomsky noted.

“The groundwork is there,” Chomsky concluded. “It is necessary to think carefully about how to carry it forward.”

Feature photo | Graphic by MintPress News

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is “Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out”. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

Israeli mercenary fighting for Ukraine taken captive by LPR

1 Jul, 2022

Source: Israeli ,media

By Al Mayadeen English 

“Israel’s” Foreign Ministry confirms that an Israeli mercenary fighting alongside Ukrainian forces was captured by LPR forces.

Israeli mercenary Vladimir Kozlovsky displaying his Israeli ID card, June 30, 2022 (Telegram)

An Israeli mercenary fighting for the Ukrainian armed forces was captured during fighting by LPR forces.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry confirmed on Thursday that it was aware of the case after videos surfaced on social media showing the captured Israeli, Vladimir Kozlovsky, showing his Israeli ID card.

Identification card of the Israeli mercenary captured by the Lugansk forces

In the video, the Israeli identified himself as a signal operator in Ukraine’s intelligence forces. He also said that he was recruited into the Ukrainian military by border officials who he claimed would not let him leave.

Earlier in April, a footage also surfaced showing several Israelis fighting alongside Ukrainian forces and thanking “Israel” for its assistance. The videos, which went viral, showed the men dressed in Ukrainian military uniforms in an unspecified forested area.

“We want to give thanks to the people of ‘Israel’ and the government of ‘Israel’ for the help they give us. We are here fighting against the Russians in this very difficult war,” said one fighter.

“I want to say thank you to the whole Jewish people who are helping us — we are here for you, for the whole nation,” said another man. “We are here for all those whose lives are in danger. We are fighting for you, doing good work.”

You’re either with us or you’re a “systemic challenge”

June 30, 2022

Source

After all we’re deep into the metaverse spectrum, where things are the opposite of what they seem.

By Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted

Fast but not furious, the Global South is revving up. The key takeaway of the BRICS+ summit in Beijing,  held in sharp contrast with the G7 in the Bavarian Alps, is that both West Asia’s Iran and South America’s Argentina officially applied for BRICS membership.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has highlighted how BRICS has “a very creative mechanism with broad aspects”. Tehran – a close partner of both Beijing and Moscow – already had “a series of consultations” about the application: the Iranians are sure that will “add value” to the expanded BRICS.

Talk about China, Russia and Iran being sooooo isolated. Well, after all we’re deep into the metaverse spectrum, where things are the opposite of what they seem.

Moscow’s obstinacy in not following Washington’s Plan A to start a pan-European war is rattling Atlanticist nerves to the core. So right after the G7 summit significantly held at a former Nazi sanatorium, enter NATO’s, in full warmongering regalia.

So welcome to an atrocity exhibition featuring total demonization of Russia, defined as the ultimate “direct threat”; the upgrading of Eastern Europe into “a fort”; a torrent of tears shed about the Russia-China strategic partnership; and as an extra bonus, the branding of China as a “systemic challenge”.

There you go: for the NATO/G7 combo, the leaders of the emerging multipolar world as well as the vast swathes of the Global South that want to join in, are a “systemic challenge”.

Turkiye under the Sultan of Swing – Global South in spirit, tightrope walker in practice – got literally everything it wanted to magnanimously allow Sweden and Finland to clear their paths on the way of being absorbed by NATO.

Bets can be made on what kind of shenanigans NATO navies will come up with in the Baltics against the Russian Baltic Fleet, to be followed by assorted business cards distributed by Mr. Khinzal, Mr. Zircon, Mr. Onyx and Mr. Kalibr, capable of course of annihilating any NATO permutation, including “decision centers”.

So it came as a sort of perverse comic relief when Roscosmos released a set of quite entertaining satellite images pinpointing the coordinates of those “decision centers”.

The “leaders” of NATO and the G7 seem to enjoy performing a brand of lousy cop/clownish cop routine. The NATO summit told coke comedian Elensky (remember, the letter “Z” is verboten) that the Russian combined arms police operation – or war – must be “resolved” militarily. So NATO will continue to help Kiev to fight till the last Ukrainian cannon fodder.

In parallel, at the G7, German Chancellor Scholz was asked to specify what “security guarantees” would be provided to what’s left of Ukraine after the war. Response from the grinning Chancellor: “Yes … I could” (specify). And then he trailed off.

Illiberal Western liberalism

Over 4 months after the start of Operation Z, zombified Western public opinion completely forgot – or willfully ignores – that Moscow spent the last stretch of 2021 demanding a serious discussion on legally binding security guarantees from Washington, with an emphasis on no more NATO eastward expansion and a return to the 1997 status quo.

Diplomacy did fail, as Washington emitted a non-response response. President Putin had stressed the follow-up would be a “military technical” response (that turned out to be Operation Z) even as the Americans warned that would trigger massive sanctions.

Contrary to Divide and Rule wishful thinking, what happened after February 24 only solidified the synergistic Russia-China strategic partnership – and their expanded circle, especially in the context of BRICS and the SCO. As Sergey Karaganov, head of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy noted earlier this year, “China is our strategic cushion (…) We know that in any difficult situation, we can lean on it for military, political and economic support.”

That was outlined in detail for all the Global South to see by the landmark February 4th joint statement for Cooperation Entering a New Era – complete with the accelerated integration of BRI and the EAEU in tandem with military intelligence harmonization under the SCO (including new full member Iran), key foundation stones of multipolarism.

Now compare it with the wet dreams of the Council on Foreign Relations or assorted ravings by armchair strategic “experts” of “the top national security think tank in the world” whose military experience is limited to negotiating a can of beer.

Makes one yearn for those serious analytic days when the late, great Andre Gunder Frank penned ” a paper on the paper tiger” , examining American power at the crossroads of paper dollar and the Pentagon.

The Brits, with better imperial education standards, at least seem to understand, halfway, how Xi Jinping “has embraced a variant of integral nationalism not unlike those that emerged in interwar Europe”, while Putin “skillfully deployed Leninist methods to resurrect an enfeebled Russia as a global power.”

Yet the notion that “ideas and projects originating in the illiberal West continue to shape global politics” is nonsense, as Xi in fact is inspired by Mao as much as Putin is inspired by several Eurasianist theoreticians. What’s relevant is that in the process of the West plunging into a geopolitical abyss, “Western liberalism has itself become illiberal.”

Much worse: it actually became totalitarian.

Holding the Global South hostage

The G7 is essentially offering to most of the Global South a toxic cocktail of massive inflation, rising prices and uncontrolled dollarized debt.

Fabio Vighi has brilliantly outlined how “the purpose of the Ukrainian emergency is to keep the money printer switched on while blaming Putin for worldwide economic downturn. The war serves the opposite aim of what we are told: not to defend Ukraine but to prolong the conflict and nourish inflation in a bid to defuse cataclysmic risk in the debt market, which would spread like wildfire across the whole financial sector.”

And if it can get worse, it will. At the Bavarian Alps, the G7 promised to find “ways to limit the price of Russian oil and gas”: if that doesn’t work according to “market methods”, then “means will be imposed by force”.

A G7 “indulgence” – neo-medievalism in action – would only be possible if a prospective buyer of Russian energy agrees to strike a deal on the price with G7 representatives.

What this means in practice is that the G7 arguably will be creating a new body to “regulate” the price of oil and gas, subordinated to Washington’s whims: for all practical purposes, a major twist of the post-1945 system.

The whole planet, especially the Global South, would be held hostage.

Meanwhile, in real life, Gazprom is on a roll, making as much money from gas exports to the EU as it did in 2021, even though it’s shipping much smaller volumes.

About the only thing this German analyst gets right is that were Gazprom forced to cut off supplies for good, that would represent “the implosion of an economic model that is over-reliant on industrial exports, and therefore on imports of cheap fossil fuels. Industry is responsible for 36% of Germany’s gas use.”

Think, for instance, BASF forced to halt production at the world’s biggest chemicals plant in Ludwigshafen. Or Shell’s CEO stressing it’s absolutely impossible to replace Russian gas supplied to the EU via pipelines with (American) LNG.

This coming implosion is exactly what Washington neocon/neoliberalcon circles want – removing a powerful (Western) economic competitor from the world trading stage. What’s truly astonishing is that Team Scholz can’t even see it coming.

Virtually no one remembers what happened a year ago when the G7 struck a pose of trying to help the Global South. That was branded as Build Back Better World (B3W). “Promising projects” were identified in Senegal and Ghana, there were “visits” to Ecuador, Panama and Colombia. The Crash Test Dummy administration was offering “the full range” of US financial tools: equity stakes, loan guarantees, political insurance, grants, technical expertise on climate, digital technology and gender equality.

The Global South was not impressed. Most of it had already joined BRI. B3W went down with a whimper.

Now the EU is promoting its new “infrastructure” project for the Global South, branded as Global Gateway, officially presented by European Commission (EC) Fuhrer Ursula von der Leyen and – surprise! – coordinated with the floundering B3W. That’s the Western “response” to BRI, demonized as – what else – “a debt trap”.

Global Gateway in theory should be spending 300 billion euros in 5 years; the EC will come up with only 18 billion from the EU budget (that is, financed by EU taxpayers), with the intention of amassing 135 billion euros in private investment. No Eurocrat has been able to explain the gap between the announced 300 billion and the wishful thinking 135 billion.

In parallel, the EC is doubling down on their floundering Green Energy agenda – blaming, what else, gas and coal. EU climate honcho Frans Timmermans has uttered an absolute pearl: “Had we had the green deal five years earlier, we would not be in this position because then we would have less dependency on fossil fuels and natural gas.”

Well, in real life the EU remains stubbornly on the road to become a fully de-industrialized wasteland by 2030. Inefficient solar or wind-based Green Energy is incapable of offering stable, reliable power. No wonder vast swathes of the EU are now Back to Coal.

The right kind of swing

It’s a tough call to establish who’s The Lousiest in the NATO/G7 cop routine. Or the most predictable. This is what I published about the NATO summit . Not now: in 2014, eight years ago. The same old demonization, over and over again.

And once again, if it can get worse, predictably it will. Think of what’s left of Ukraine – mostly eastern Galicia – being annexed to the Polish wet dream: the revamped Intermarium, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, now dubbed as a bland “Three Seas Initiative” (with the added Adriatic) and comprising 12 nation-states.

What that implies long-term is a EU breakdown from within. Opportunist Warsaw just profits financially from the Brussels system’s largesse while holding its own hegemonic designs. Most of the “Three Seas” will end up exiting the EU. Guess who will guarantee their “defense”: Washington, via NATO. What else is new? The revamped Intermarium concept goes back all the way to the late Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski.

So Poland dreams of becoming the Intermarium leader, seconded by the Three Baltic Midgets, enlarged Scandinavia, plus Bulgaria and Romania. Their aim is straight from Comedy Central: reducing Russia into “pariah state” status – and then the whole enchilada: regime change, Putin out, balkanization of the Russian Federation.

Britain, that inconsequential island, still invested in teaching Empire to the American upstarts, will love it. Germany-France-Italy much less. Lost in the wilderness Euro-analysts dream of a European Quad (Spain added), replicating the Indo-Pacific scam, but in the end it will all depend which way Berlin swings.

And then there’s that unpredictable Global South stalwart led by the Sultan of Swing: freshly rebranded Turkiye. Soft neo-Ottomanism seems to be on a roll, still expanding its tentacles from the Balkans and Libya to Syria and Central Asia. Evoking the golden age of the Sublime Porte, Istanbul is the only serious mediator between Moscow and Kiev. And it’s carefully micromanaging the evolving process of Eurasia integration.

The Americans were on the verge of regime-changing the Sultan. Now they have been forced to listen to him. Talk about a serious geopolitical lesson to the whole Global South: it don’t mean a “systemic challenge” thing if you’ve got the right kind of swing.

%d bloggers like this: