Russia Confronting the Entire NATO Machine; West Engaged in Economic Terrorism – Ambassador to Lebanon

February 3, 2023

By Mostafa Awada

As the Russian military operation in Ukraine approaches the one-year mark, Al-Ahed News sat down with Moscow’s envoy to Lebanon Alexander Rudakov.

According to the Russian ambassador, his country “is not at war with the Ukrainian people, but it is facing the entire NATO military machine led by the United States that is using the Ukrainians as fuel. Kiev has no authority to make any sovereign decisions.”

“The objectives of the Russian special military operation on Ukrainian soil have not changed. They primarily include protecting our Motherland, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, ensuring the security of the Russian people, including [those living] in the territory of Ukraine liberated from neo-Nazis, and the disarming and the de-Nazification of this country,” Rudakov explained.

“We are actively and rapidly developing our own economic countermeasures. We are taking the necessary measures to minimize damage and ensure the sustainable functioning of all sectors of the national economy. The import substitution policy, the accelerated development of private industry, and the strengthening of technological sovereignty are designed to neutralize the impact of sanctions and all restrictions.”

Below is the complete transcript of the interview:

It’s been almost one year since the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. What goals has Russia achieved so far? And what is your assessment of the progress of the operation?

The system of international relations is experiencing radical changes. The course and results of 2022 show the clear and categorical refusal of the Western world to deal with anyone on an equal footing as a fully sovereign partner. Rather, it deals with some countries as dependent entities, colonies, or as second-class countries. The West also openly commits aggressive and treacherous actions without the slightest regard for the interests of other countries.

NATO’s hostile steps towards Russia began well before February 2022, which eventually led to an escalation on the Ukrainian front.

The objectives of the Russian special military operation on Ukrainian soil have not changed. They primarily include protecting our Motherland, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, ensuring the security of the Russian people, including [those living] in the territory of Ukraine liberated from neo-Nazis, and the disarming and the de-Nazification of this country. We are moving steadily towards the completion of all difficult tasks.

Are the doors of dialogue with Kiev still open?

One of the main principles of Russia’s foreign policy is the need to resolve differences by political and diplomatic means.

We have always been and remain open to dialogue with Kiev, including a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Several rounds of these negotiations have already taken place in the spring of last year, which the Ukrainian side refused to continue, on the orders of Washington.

It is important to understand that Russia is not at war with the Ukrainian people, but it is facing the entire NATO military machine led by the United States that is using the Ukrainians as fuel. Kiev has no authority to make any sovereign decisions.

Thus, it is necessary, first of all, for Washington, the European capitals, and the Kiev puppet regime to realize the imperative of respecting Russia’s legitimate security interests in order to begin negotiations on a settlement in Ukraine.

There is nothing new in our position regarding this issue. We have always strived to create a system of equal and indivisible security for all. We consider attempts to enhance the security of a state by infringing on the interests of another state useless.

What are the methods adopted by Russia to withstand Western attacks through the media, politically, and economically?

In fact, a fierce hybrid war has been launched against Russia. Western countries are taking hostile measures towards us in the political, economic, and media sectors, in addition to providing military support to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

Attempts to isolate Russia globally continue. In the pro-Western media, they are trying to discredit us and make false accusations about the world’s problems, such as the global food and energy crises. Unlawful penalties are being imposed unilaterally, and they use fraudulent and illegal methods to compete with us.

This is done with the aim of weakening or breaking Russia, but they will not be able to achieve their desired goals.

We were able to successfully prepare ourselves for sanctions. We are actively and rapidly developing our own economic countermeasures. We are also working hard to clarify and spread our positions aimed at promoting world peace, ensuring global security and stability, and establishing a fair, democratic system for relations between states. We are developing relationships with countries that share this vision and mission.

How does Moscow deal with the economic sanctions imposed on it in light of the war with Kiev? What is the impact of these sanctions on the Russian interior? And how does Moscow face this economic terrorism legally?

At the beginning, I would like to point out the correct formulation of the question: Western countries are currently practicing economic terrorism in its most obvious form.

The Europeans, whom we used to call “partners”, have completely lost their credibility. They are trying to strangle Russia economically. They arbitrarily set price ceilings for the purchase of Russian gas and oil, sabotage the infrastructure that guarantees supplies of hydrocarbons, and then unfoundedly accuse us of provoking the global food and energy crises, knowing that they themselves prevent the shipment of Russian grain and fertilizers to countries in need.

The policy of economic sanctions has long been practiced against Russia. In recent years, we have witnessed a new round of measures. However, it was fairly easy to predict, so we were able to prepare ourselves for it.

We take the necessary measures to minimize damage and ensure that all sectors of the national economy function sustainably. The import substitution policy, the accelerated development of private industry, and the strengthening of technological sovereignty are designed to neutralize the impact of sanctions and all other restrictions.

What is the role of Russia’s allies in strengthening its steadfastness in the face of the Western attack?

The true reasons for the war that a handful of Western countries launched against Russia are not a secret for much of the world.

We maintain reliable relations with many of our friends and allies in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, and with them we continue to develop political dialogue and bilateral trade and economic cooperation, as well as through various frameworks of international bodies.

Russia has long been a reliable trading partner and supplier of energy, food, and other goods and services. Due to the hostile course of the West towards Russia, our relations are currently being redirected to the markets of friendly countries, especially Asian ones.

We are successfully cooperating with member states of the Eurasian Economic Union, BRICS, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization to overcome emerging challenges.

In Lebanon, we have heard in the media about Russian offers in various fields to provide assistance to the government and the people. Can you provide an overview? And what was the government’s response to this?

Our Lebanese friends are well aware of Russia’s continuous readiness to lend a helping hand in difficult times.

Russian in-kind assistance is provided to Lebanon, including through United Nations humanitarian organizations. For example, last year 714.15 tons of Russian sunflower oil were distributed to Lebanese schools.

Every year, we offer 150 scholarships to Lebanese students who wish to receive free education in Russian universities.

Heeding the call of the Lebanese government, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided regarding the free supply of wheat and petroleum products. The technical logistics of transporting these products are currently being coordinated.

In addition, we are studying prospects for intensifying bilateral cooperation in a number of fields, including energy, medicine, and agriculture.

We are looking for other opportunities to support our Lebanese friends during this difficult time for their country. We always remain open to considering proposals for launching any mutually beneficial projects.

We are convinced that the early election of a Lebanese President and the subsequent formation of an effective and capable government will greatly contribute to the successful progress of all these initiatives.

Some Russian airlines are suffering from a fuel crisis in Lebanon. Care to comment?

One of the manifestations of Western economic terrorism, which we mentioned earlier, is the blatant intimidation of our partners. This is intended to get them to refuse to cooperate with us.

Companies operating in Lebanon specialized in ground maintenance of aircraft could not escape this fate, as under the threat of sanctions, they were prohibited from refueling Russian aircraft.

This, of course, creates some inconvenience and confusion. Considering this, the entire Russian economy has adapted to the pressure of continued sanctions, and in the best interests of our country, we are adopting effective methods to neutralize the damage caused by the restrictions on us and respond to them appropriately.

We are convinced that over time we will be able to restore Moscow-Beirut flights.

Does the Lebanese government’s acceptance of some of the sanctions imposed on Russia, at the West’s request, affect the Lebanese community in Russia?

Western countries, in their reckless attempts to inflict economic damage on Russia, create a whole host of human complexities that affect innocent people, often exacerbating the social and economic problems in these same countries imposing sanctions.

We regret that this short-sighted policy has negatively affected thousands of Lebanese expatriates living in Russia, depriving them of the possibility of benefiting from inexpensive direct flights to their homeland. We are trying to find a way out of this situation.

A final word

Russia traditionally stands for the promotion of international peace and stability, with strict respect for the principle of sovereign equality of states.

Russia’s relations with all Arab countries have always been characterized by an open and friendly nature, with our willingness to consider each other’s interests and mutual assistance.

Today, in the emerging multipolar world, Russian-Arab relations have become a model of sincere, mutually beneficial and diversified relations.

The steadfastness of many Arab countries in the face of extortion and intimidation is respected, as well as their firm position of being guided by their national interests in resolving pressing international issues.

I am confident that by uniting the efforts of like-minded people all over the planet, we will be able to contribute effectively to building a new, democratic, multipolar world order without threats against “unwanted” countries and without manifestations of neo-Nazism and neo-colonialism.

What is behind the escalation between Ankara and NATO?

Enigma’s second episode: The 26th of July Movement

22 Jan 2023

Source: Al Mayadeen

Al Mayadeen sheds the light on Cuba under US hegemony up until the Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro.

By Al Mayadeen English 

The second episode of Al Mayadeen‘s Enigma documentary series, aimed at shedding the light on the Cuban revolution and the impact it had on the world, highlighted the most prominent figures in the Cuban revolution and the circumstances that led to it altogether.

The episode that aired at 9 PM Al-Quds time talked about the time period that Cuba spent under US control and Washington’s exploitation of Cuba’s resources, as well as the foundation of the July 26 movement and revolutionary leader Fidel Castro’s emergence as a key figure in the revolution.

With the US Marines docking in Cuba in 1898, the Cubans’ war of liberation against the Spanish Empire ended. For centuries, the island was under the control of Spain, but now it was the United States that had the Caribbean nation under its control; the end of the War of Independence coincided with the rise of imperialism, throwing Cuba and the rest of the world into a new era.

In the aftermath of the war, on a farm located in the heart of Havana, the people warmly received with veneration Dominican Generalissimo Máximo Gómez, the man of the two wars. The general lived on this farm for the rest of his life.

This farm was also where Cuba established its demobilization offices for the liberation army, the men who left everything behind on the battlefield and handed over their weapons. In exchange, they received 75 pesos and went back to their civilian lives with nothing but their weariness, their torn-up military uniforms, and a semi-republic that was born with its hands tied.

On December 31, 1901, the Military Governor of Cuba, Leonard Wood, called for the holding of a general presidential election. Without any opposition, Tomás Estrada Palma was elected as Cuba’s first president while he still lived in the United States after he had been exiled by the Spanish colonialists.

The first president

Estrada Palma’s presidency wasn’t all smooth sailing, as two opposition factions grew under his rule: the moderates on one hand and the liberals on the other. The dispute between the two factions was heightened, and by 1906, the President demanded a military intervention by the United States.

On September 29 of that year, a US naval landing operation saw some 2,000 US Marines land in Cuba. Soon thereafter, Estrada Palma submitted his resignation before Congress and went to Matanzas by train, thus leaving Cuban history.

The US military intervention between 1898 and 1902 was the first, but it certainly wasn’t the last. Another one took place in 1906 when then-US President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Charles Magoon as occupation governor of Cuba, who was largely criticized for his tenure in the Caribbean nation.

Between 3,000 and 5,000 marines were going through the streets of Havana to guarantee the success of the US operation, though they would perform their duties in civilian clothing, never being seen donning their military attire.

The renowned red, white, and blue Cuban flag might have flown everywhere in the Island nation, but another red, white, and blue was exploiting Cuba’s resources, for Magoon was ravaging its natural resources for the benefit of the United States.

US exploitation of Cuba

Cuba became a cake that military generals and the political elite wanted a piece of for themselves, and all of that was going on under the watchful eyes of US diplomats that worked in Cuba.

The representative of the United States in Cuba was a strong man – not only because Washington treated Cuba as its trustee under the Platt Amendment, but also because the US was the largest importer of Cuban sugar, meaning that a hefty portion of the island nation’s economy was dependent on the United States.

In 1912, Cuban sugar replaced in the US markets the sugar that it had imported from Europe and the West Indies, among other nations. Moreover, American businessmen owned 34% out of the 160 sugar mills and plantations in Cuba in 1907.

As for the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, established under the pretext of guaranteeing Cuba’s independence, it was a thorn in the side of the people of Cuba, because it served as a reminder of the US hegemony over their country. At the beginning of the 1920s, Cuba, with all its deeper structures and institutions, was subject to the control of its northern neighbor. At the same time, corruption, bribery, and plundering of state coffers became customary, especially among the ranks of the political elite.

There was plenty of money to spend, as sugar prices rose due to World War One sending them soaring to 23 cents per pound, or $6.83 in today’s money, which was more than profitable for Cuba – or the US businessmen who owned much of the sugar businesses – at a time when the country was practically serving as a massive sugar plantation. By 1916, Cuba was the main source of sugar for the allies, but everything was about to change. Sugar prices plummeted, and the Cuban government was bankrupt.

It was getting harder and harder for the least fortunate, which prompted them to revolt against the ruling class. The demonstrations and protests gave rise to concerns in Washington, as it saw that the government in Havana was inept and incapable of confronting the crisis, which would influence the elections set for 1920. A new US ambassador was appointed, and Washington continued to interfere in the island’s internal affairs: Special Representative of the President, Enoch Crowder.

Coming aboard the USS Minnesota, Crowder arrived in Havana, and there he established his general barracks. From there, he served as more or less an advisor to the Cuban President, as he was puppeteering the President and giving him orders he had to follow. Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso, Cuba’s third President, was lenient, and rampant corruption ravaged his government.

In light of this status quo, young, forward-thinking personalities began to emerge, drawing inspiration from Jose Marti and the founding fathers who fought epics of liberation.

By the end of 1922, Cuban revolutionary youth Julio Antonio Mella founded the Federation of University Students (FEU) and co-founded the Communist Party of Cuba. He was the first student leader who became a prominent and prestigious national figure.

Mella was resented by the government, and he was arrested, but pressure from the Cuban people forced the president to release him. He later fled President Gerardo Machado’s repression in Cuba and lived in exile in Mexico. Machado sent his assassins after Mella, and the young revolutionary was assassinated at 25 years old after he was shot in the back on January 10, 1929.

Despite his numerous crimes, Machado, a dictator, was propped up regardless, with support from the United States, and in 1928, US President Calvin Coolidge went to Cuba on an official visit to attend the Summit of the Americas that was held in Cuba.

Although President Gerardo Machado had prepared the bright and new amphitheater for the University of Havana to receive the US President, the students protested against Coolidge’s visit, forcing him to stay out of the theater.

Popular resistance was one of Machado’s biggest enemies, as he instructed the police and the military to violently suppress any demonstration or protest by beating the protestors or using water cannons – or even live munition – against them. The island was bleeding, and after Mella’s assassination, poet and writer Rubén Martínez Villena led Cuba’s Communist Party.

It was Villena, despite having tuberculosis, who led the strike in 1933, and it was then that newspapers stopped publications, and restaurants, cafes, and pubs closed down for the first time in history. Everything was shuttered, and there were barely any people in the streets.

There was change, for the working class was unified, allowing them to discover a previously untapped strength that redirected the narrative in Cuba, which forced Machado to leave office and resort to exile.

Antonio Guiteras and La Joven Cuba

Antonio Guiteras was one of the key figures in the Cuban revolution, though he was not recognized by the Communist Party at the time despite being a true anti-imperialist nationalist socialist revolutionary.

The United States never recognized the government of Ramón Grau San Martín, otherwise known as the One Hundred Days Government, which lasted from September 4, 1933, until January 15, 1934, and it was set not to last for long since the beginning due to internal disputes between President Grau, Interior Minister Guiteras, and the Chief of the Armed Forces Fulgencio Batista, a violent and brutal man whose tenure saw the Cuban people wearing nothing but black in mourning of their loved ones throughout the 1940s and 1950s.

Under pressure from the new US ambassador to Havana, Jefferson Caffery, President Grau was forced to step down from office.

With the collapse of the One Hundred Days Government, it became clear that regardless of who was in power, the real leader of Cuba was Fulgencio Batista as commander of the armed forces.

Batista’s bloody rule over Cuba lasted because the dictator ruled with an iron fist, as he dispersed demonstrators using live bullets, suspended constitutional guarantees, and took no steps to hold legislative elections as corruption ravaged the Caribbean island.

Guiteras chose the path of rebellion and founded La Joven Cuba for that, but Batista’s forces persecuted him, so he chose to leave the country. While he was trying to escape the suppression, he was martyred, fighting until the last breath on May 8, 1953, on the banks of the Canímar River in the province of Matanzas.

The rise of Fidel Castro

The 1940s began with the winds of a new constitution. With the birth of the new constitution, a new president was elected, General Fulgencio Batista.

Even after the United States entered World War II, the Cuban government demonstrated its subordination by declaring war on Japan, and then on Germany and Italy. In the following years, two governments were formed, the first headed by Grau and the second by Carlos Prío Socarrás.

Both leaders exacerbated corruption and expanded the killers’ hold on the country, with students, unionists, and proletariat leaders getting killed left and right, the likes of Niceto Pérez and Jesús Menéndez.

The Cuban region of Birán was an investment hub for US businessmen, and there were stark differences between the wealthy American companies and the poor population of the region. Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz watched his people suffer as a result of injustice in the life of the Cuban countryside, and this had, of course, an impact on his awareness and understanding of the meaning of justice.

However, as he declared many years later, Castro became a revolutionary when he was at the University of Havana after he became a law student in 1945 in the only university that was in Cuba at the time, making for a grand hub for leftist students who played a part in the revolutionary struggle.

Warry of the possibility that the Independence Party would win the 1952 elections, General Fulgencio Batista staged a military coup, through which he overthrew the constitutional government and abolished the 1940 constitution. The United States wasted no time recognizing the government that came as a result of the coup, consolidating its influence on the island.

Castro was among the first to condemn the military coup before an emergency court, accusing the putschists of violating the constitution.

January 1953 was the year that split the country’s history in two – it was the month when Cuba celebrated the 100th birthday of José Martí.

The poet was commemorated and honored with a march of torches that kicked off from the amphitheater of the University of Havana on January 27, 1953. The new generation was expressing its position. Fidel Castro and Abel Santamaría Cuadrado, serving as commander and second commander, respectively, were secretly preparing the resistance against the existing regime.

Later on in the year, the dawn of July 26 would radically change the history of Cuba, with Fidel Castro and his comrades going into the Moncada Barracks. There were 106 revolutionaries, six of whom were killed in action, while 55 others were brutally executed after the element of surprise failed them during their armed attack on the second-largest military fortress in Cuba. Those who managed to stay alive fled to the Sierra Maestra mountain range. This operation would go on to immortalize them and eventually lead to the toppling of the Batista regime. The 26th of July Movement would go on to change Cuba forever, making Batista the last US asset to hold public office in Cuba.

Castro and the Treaty of Mexico 

The revolutionaries formed a resistance movement in Mexico against Batista’s rule, taking decisive steps to unify their ranks. That is when the leader of the 26th of July Movement, Fidel Castro, and José Antonio Echeverría, the President of the Federation of University Students, signed what they called “the Treaty of Mexico”.

There was not a single arena in which the Cuban people resisted the US-backed dictatorship, as resistance spread throughout the entire island, with the Cuban people taking to the streets to bravely resist their oppressors. Many men risked everything to support the revolution, planting IEDs, raising funds for the revolutionary army, and raising awareness about the resistance movement through brochures and other forms of media. That is when the red and black flag of the 26th of July Movement started being seen all over Cuba.

Batista’s assassins, at the direction of their paranoid leader, killed key revolutionary figure Frank País in the streets of Santiago de Cuba. Not fearing the repercussions, the citizens of Santiago de Cuba held a funeral for the revolutionary who was born and raised in the city, marching against the regime and in support of the cause. Despite all the bloodshed and oppression, the United States did not once stop backing the government.

There were many ways that Washington supported the ruthless dictator, including advisory meetings with CIA agents and high-ranking officials, as well as senior US officials, not to mention indirect arms sales to the Batista regime using a lengthy trail. Washington would sell arms to Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle and Dominican dictator Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, who would, in turn, sell them to Batista.

In the summer of 1958, Batista waged a bloody offensive on Sierra Maestra using an army of 10,000 men with the aim of crushing the revolutionary army.

However, this bid failed, and about half a century into its struggle for freedom, Cuba managed to get rid of Batista. The ruthless dictator escaped from the country on December 31, 1958, and on the first day of 1959, the leader of the first Cuban revolution entered Santiago de Cuba as the nation’s leader.

• United States
• Fidel Castro
• Fulgencio Batista
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Dominican Republic
• Enigma
• Cuba

Related Stories

• Enigma: Al Mayadeen’s documentary on Cuba’s history, revolution
• Enigma’s First Episode: Colonization of Cuba, roots of revolution
• Cuba’s hero, American spy: Ana Belen Montes

US Embassy takeover in Iran and my arrest in NY protest in 1979

Friday, 04 November 2022 6:21 PM  [ Last Update: Friday, 04 November 2022 6:21 PM ]

By Mohsen Badakhsh
 
This day, 43 years ago, I was detained atop the Statue of Liberty in New York for taking part in a peaceful protest against the Jimmy Carter administration for hosting Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after the popular Islamic Revolution toppled the West-backed monarch.

The entire Liberty Island housing the France-gifted colossal neoclassical sculpture was immediately evacuated.

Six of us protesting against the US government’s decision chained ourselves to the statue while holding huge banners condemning Washington’s continued support for the ruthless despot.

We were soon arrested, strip-searched, handcuffed behind the back, and held in detention for over eight hours before being transferred to a jail in Manhattan.

The inhumane treatment meted out to us by the American police and the country’s legal system following the protest action, which coincided with the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, reinforced my belief that the exaggerated Western claims of upholding human rights were hollow.

I came to realize that the right to free speech and other so-called “liberties” outlined in the First Amendment were baseless publicity tools to advance the US military-industrial complex’s inhumane, discriminatory, and hegemonic ambitions across the globe.

The students who took over the US Embassy in Tehran – which later came to be known in Iran as the ‘Den of Espionage’ – exposed through classified documents found there that the sprawling compound located in the heart of the Iranian capital was used to orchestrate vicious coup plots to overthrow the nascent Islamic Republic.

The students later published the damning documents in the form of multi-volume books to reveal the sinister agenda of American “diplomats” stationed in Iran, but the incriminating documents were never allowed to be published in the United States.

After the evacuation of the island housing the Statue of Liberty, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other US security and intelligence agencies tried to get us to unchain ourselves from the statue promising to set us free without charges.

We did comply, only to be firmly handcuffed and detained and held without food or water until being transferred in the evening to the Manhattan jail, where we decided to go on hunger strike in protest against the inhumane treatment meted out to us. We were placed in a dingy cell, where jail guards deliberately staged mocking moves to break our will by obnoxiously eating in front of us.

Eventually, we appeared in court and gave a bond to reappear for sentencing about a month later. We were slapped with a $50 fine and 6-month probation, which meant that we had to report to a police authority every month to prove we were behaving well.

Shortly after my return to Chicago — a major mid-western city where I lived and attended college – I found out that its City Council had submitted a proposal for deporting all Iranian students enrolled in colleges and universities across the city at the time.

I was asked by a group of fellow Iranian students to represent them at a hearing deliberating on the passage of the racist legislation. When I attended the sham hearing I was shocked to witness an American student-activist testifying against the proposal being harshly taunted by city aldermen (council members) with unbelievably obscene language and then brutally beaten and dragged out of the hearing room by police officers.

As I was awaiting my turn to testify and wondering about my fate after testifying, I simply started smiling at the mean-looking lawmakers, only to be cussed at angrily and asked “what the F— are you laughing at?”

I then decided to walk out of the room after reminding the city legislators that there was no point in testifying since their minds were already fixed on something.

I later learned that the draft proposal never became law because it defied every basic right outlined in the US Constitution under the preamble, “We the People”.

Today Iranians annually observe November 4 as the National Day Against Global Arrogance by taking part in demonstrations from the compound that formerly housed the US embassy in Tehran to recall what took place on this day back in 1979.

It’s still relevant as the US continues to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, including Iran.

This year, the countrywide demonstrations drew a much larger crowd than in previous years with people from all walks of life denouncing the Western regimes for instigating deadly riots in the country through media and political campaigns to bring about a “regime change” in the Islamic Republic.

Iranians appear ever more determined to resist and rigorously campaign against all US-led ploys to meddle not only in their nation but the world over.
 
Mohsen Badakhsh is an educator and freelance journalist.

(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

---

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

Iran contained protests, Washington’s efforts failed: Israeli Media

24 Sep 2022 23:52

Source: Israeli Media & Al Mayadeen Net

By Al Mayadeen English 

Israeli media reports that “the authorities in Iran have succeeded in damping down the protests,” and that “Washington’s efforts have not worked.”

A pro-Islamic revolution protest in Iran

Israeli media reported that “the authorities in Iran succeeded in damping down the wave of protests, as there is a very clear decline in their size and strength,” noting that “the US efforts have not worked.” 

Earlier on Saturday, the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported that the protests in Iran went down by 90% all over the Islamic Republic by Friday night, attributing the decrease to pro-government protestors that took to the street in light of nationwide anti-government protests. 

MidEast analyst for Channel 2 Ehud Yaari said, “Unfortunately, the authorities in Iran succeeded in quelling the wave of protests in Iranian cities, which included attacks against government centers and attacks with Molotov cocktails against the Basij forces who were dispersing the protests.”

“The Americans are making efforts to activate the internet, after the Iranian authorities imposed an internet blackout to disrupt social networks, but this did not help, and we see a very clear decline in the size and strength of the protests,” he added.

Iranian Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi stated on Friday that some social networking sites took an active role in directing the riots and igniting the fires, adding that many elements of the riots were the result of training received using these sites.

Vahidi then went on to announce that the ministry decided to put temporary restrictions on social networking sites to “maintain security and the safety of the people.”

Subsequently, the US Department of the Treasury issued a license expanding the provision of internet services to Iran despite the US sanctions on the country.

Tehran: Efforts to violate Iran’s sovereignty will not go unanswered

Commenting on the US measures, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said on Saturday, that the United States “has always sought to target Iran’s security and stability, but it has always failed to do so.” 

“By reducing the severity of some sanctions related to communications, while maintaining its maximum pressure, the United States is seeking in a hypocritical manner to pass its anti-Iran goals,” he added, stressing that “the efforts to violate Iran’s sovereignty will not go unanswered.” 

Mass protests took place in Tehran and Iranian cities, on Friday, raising slogans in support of the Islamic Republic and rejecting the riots that took advantage of the death of the young woman, Mahsa Amini. The protests resulted in deaths and injuries among the security forces and civilians.

Read: Mahsa Amini’s father breaks silence: Protest “not for our sake”

Kanaani commented on the US and European interventions in the case of the Iranian young woman Mahsa Amini, tweeting, “With a despicable human rights record both at home & abroad, how does the US have the audacity to give itself higher moral ground to lecture the world?”

Iran witnessed demonstrations denouncing the death of the young woman, while the Director General of Forensic Medicine in Tehran Province said Wednesday that there were no traces of beating or wounds on the head and face of the late Iranian Mahsa Amini.

The Iranian police published CCTV footage documenting the last moments of Mahsa Amini at the police station. The Tehran police said the footage proved that the 22-year-old was not subjected to any violence or physical abuse.

Watch: Western media promoted Iranophobia after death of Mahsa Amini

Related Videos

America seeks to fuel internet protests in Iran

The axis of resistance.. messages of deterrence and a coup in the scales

Mass demonstrations in a number of Iranian cities to condemn the riots and incitement plots

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards describe recent events as an absurd attempt doomed to failure

Related Stories

• Mahsa Amini’s Death and Western Obduracy in Accepting the Truth
• Mahsa Amini’s father breaks silence: Protest “not for our sake”
• Mahsa Amini and Zainab Essam Al Khazali: Two Dead Women, One Political Game
• Mahsa Amini’s father breaks silence: Protest “not for our sake”
• Iran denounces West’s meddling in internal affairs, Mahsa Amini’s case
• Iran denounces West’s meddling in internal affairs, Mahsa Amini’s case
• West politically exploits death of Mahsa Amini through fake news
• Tehran reminds US of its own killings by race, provides proof

More Billions to Ukraine as America Falls Apart

The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO.

 -August 29, 2022

By  Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

ISKANDARIYA, IRAQ – JULY 19: U.S. soldiers with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment patrol a new ditch they have dug to protect the base from attack on July 19, 2011 in Iskandariya, Babil Province Iraq. As the deadline for the departure of the remaining American forces in Iraq approaches, Iraqi politicians have agreed to meet in two weeks time in order to give a final decision about extending the U.S. troops’ presence beyond the end of the 2011 deadline. Violence against foreign troops has recently picked-up with June being the worst month in combat-related deaths for the military in Iraq in more than two years. Currently about 46,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

By Ron Paul

There is a video clip making the rounds showing President Biden speaking at a recent NATO summit about the seven billion dollars the US government had – at that time – provided to Ukraine. Attached to that is another clip showing the horrific state of several US major cities, including in Pennsylvania, California, and Ohio. The video of American cities is shocking: endless landscapes of filth, trash, homelessness, open fires on the street, drug-addicted zombies. It doesn’t look like the America most of us remember.

Watching Biden bragging about sending billions of dollars to corrupt leaders overseas with American cities looking like bombed-out Iraq or Libya is US foreign policy in a nutshell. The Washington elites tell the rest of America that they must “promote democracy” in some far-off land. Anyone who objects is considered in league with the appointed enemy of the day. Once it was Saddam, then Assad and Gaddafi. Now it’s Putin. The game is the same, only the names are changed.

What is seldom asked, is what is in this deal for those Americans who suffer to pay for our interventionist foreign policy. Do they really think a working American in Ohio or Pennsylvania is better off or safer because we are supposedly protecting Ukraine’s borders? I think most Americans would wonder why they aren’t bothering to protect our own borders.

A reported 200,000 illegals crossed the border into the US in July alone. You can believe they are learning quickly about the free money provided by the US government to illegals. They’ll probably get a voting card as well.

Last Friday the Pentagon announced that yet another $775 million would be sent to Ukraine. As Antiwar.com reported, it was the eighteenth weapons package to Ukraine in six months. Has there ever been a more idiotic US intervention in history?

Supporters of this proxy war may celebrate more aid to Ukraine, but the reality is that it is in no way aid to Ukraine. That’s not how the system works. It is money created out of thin air by the Fed and appropriated by Congress to be spent propping up the politically-connected military-industrial complex. It is a big check written by middle America to rich people who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Americans watch their budget being stretched to the limit while the Beltway fat-cats loosen their belts to continue enjoying the gravy train.

Bloomberg reported earlier this summer that inflation is costing the average American household more than $5,200 this year. Inflation is a tax on middle class and poor Americans. The wealthy – like those who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin – always get the new money first, before prices go up. The rest of us watch as the dollar buys less and less.

As Washington salivates over fighting Russia in Ukraine, the rest of America feels like we’re becoming Zimbabwe. How long until it takes a trillion dollars for a loaf of bread? Will there be a run on wheelbarrows?

There is a way out. It’s called “non-interventionism.” The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO. The State Department and CIA thought it was a great victory to overthrow the elected government, but meanwhile the rest of us get the bill. No NATO and not one more penny for Ukraine!

SOURCELibertarian Institute

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>

بعد دعوة عمران خان لانتخابات مبكّرة.. حلّ الحكومة والبرلمان في باكستان

المصدر: الميادين نت+ وكالات

بعد تقديمه طلباً لرئيس الجمهورية بحلّ البرلمان وإجراء انتخابات مبكرة، وزير الإعلام الباكستاني يعلن حل حكومة رئيس الوزراء عمران خان، والرئيس الباكستاني يوافق على طلب خان بحلّ البرلمان.

رئيس الوزراء عمران خان

أعلن وزير الإعلام الباكستاني حلّ حكومة رئيس الوزراء عمران خان، مشيراً إلى أنّ خان سيواصل مسؤولياته.

ووافق الرئيس الباكستاني عارف علوي على حل الجمعية الوطنية (البرلمان) بعد إلغاء التصويت الذي كان من المتوقع أن يجري فيها اليوم الأحد على سحب الثقة عن رئيس الوزراء عمران خان.

بالتزامن، قال الجيش الباكستاني “لا علاقة لنا بما يحدث على الساحة السياسية”.

وفي وقت سابق من اليوم، أعلن رئيس الوزراء الباكستاني عمران خان تقديمه طلباً لرئيس الجمهورية بحلّ البرلمان وإجراء انتخابات مبكرة. وعدّ خان رفض البرلمان التصويت على سحب الثقة “فشلاً للمؤامرة الخارجية”. 

وقال رئيس الوزراء الباكستاني  “نبارك للباكستانيين رفض البرلمان التصويت على سحب الثقة وفشل المؤامرة الخارجية ضدي وضد البلاد لقد أرسلت النصيحة إلى الرئيس لحل البرلمان واجراء انتخابات مبكرة وعلى المواطنين الاستعداد للانتخابات”.

ويأتي ذلك بعدما رفض نائب رئيس البرلمان الباكستاني التصويت على سحب الثقة من رئيس الوزراء داخل البرلمان. ووفق مراسل الميادين، تمّ تأجيل جلسة سحب الثقة إلى 25 من الشهر الحالي. 

واعتبر نائب رئيس البرلمان الباكستاني إنّ التصويت على سحب الثقة من عمران خان “تحرك غير قانوني ومخالف للدستور”.

 وكان رئيس الوزراء الباكستاني عمران خان قال، أمس السبت، إنّ التحرك لعزله هو محاولة لتغيير النظام بدعم من الولايات المتحدة. 

تشديد الإجراءات الأمنية في إسلام أباد

في غضون ذلك أفادت قناة “GEO” التلفزيونية بأن السلطات الباكستانية شددت الإجراءات الأمنية في العاصمة إسلام أباد اليوم.

وذكرت القناة أن الإدارة المحلية قررت تفعيل “البند رقم 144” في العاصمة بغية “لمنع وقوع أي حوادث سيئة في اليوم الحاسم”، موضحةً أنّ نائب عمدة إسلام آباد أكّد في بيان أن “المنطقة الحمراء” (التي تضم المباني الحكومية والعسكرية وكذلك مقر إقامة رئيس الدولة ورئيس الوزراء) تم تسييجها بالأسلاك الشائكة، علاوة على تعزيز الإجراءات الأمنية في العاصمة عموماً.

وحظرت الإدارة المحلية جميع أنواع التجمعات في مناطق داخل وخارج “المنطقة الحمراء”، في دائرة نصف قطرها كيلومتر واحد.

Russia, China a Model of Inter-State Relations and Peace

December 17, 2021

Russia and China are proof that an alternative basis of international relations is possible. And fortunately, both are strong enough to prevail for the sake of peace.

For many observers around the world, the cordial and cooperative relations between Russia and China are inspiring, precisely at a time of mounting international tensions and belligerence.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin hailed the bilateral relations between Russia and China as a model for inter-state cooperation in the 21st century.

In a videoconference this week with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, the two leaders expressed warm greetings of friendship. Putin described the border between their countries as representing “a belt of eternal peace and good-neighborliness”.

President Xi said that both nations based their sound relations on principles of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter. Both countries, too, he noted, were committed to advancing people-centered development as a genuine manifestation of democracy and human rights.

Referring to the United States and its Western allies, the Chinese leader adroitly remarked how “international forces” had appointed themselves the right to meddle in the affairs of China and Russia under the duplicitous guise of advocating democracy and human rights. In doing so, these foreign powers were “trampling” all over international law and stoking dangerous tensions.

It is hard to disagree with that assessment. Just in recent weeks, the United States and its allies in the G7, NATO and European Union have been amplifying accusations against Russia and China over alleged malign conduct. It’s all sound and fury signifying little in the way of substance. Step back from the shrill rhetoric and sensational claims and what is actually apparent is an attempt to manipulate public opinion into accepting Western aggression towards Russia and China. The poachers are making themselves the gamekeepers in an audacious inversion of reality.

The Western powers arrogantly assume the right to rebuke over a bewildering array of issues. There is a vast media campaign of public perception management going on. In short, propaganda and psychological gaslighting.

Russia and China are accused of “authoritarianism”; of abusing human rights; of threatening Ukraine on the one hand and Taiwan on the other. China is condemned for alleged “genocide” against its Uighur people and “as a result” the U.S. and its allies are conducting a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing.

The evidence for all these tendentious claims is flimsy if non-existent.

The United States and the European Union are relentless in their accusations of a Russian military build-up and threat to invade Ukraine. Sanctions are drawn up to potentially cripple the Russian economy. But where’s the evidence or even credible logic? The U.S. and European governments and Western media have not reported any substantive evidence to back up their claims against Russia. Moscow has consistently and categorically rejected these claims as “hysterical nonsense”.

Russian troops are on Russian territory. The supposed satellite images depicting military build-up “on Ukraine’s borders” are of Russian troops in established bases such as Yelnya in Smolensk Oblast hundreds of kilometers from the border. Meanwhile, American and NATO warplanes and warships are increasingly menacing Russia’s borders in unscheduled maneuvers thousands of kilometers from their bases.

This is all ludicrous and is hardly worthwhile rebutting every accusation since it is time-consuming to do so. Provocative narratives are distractions from reality.

The germane point is this: the U.S. and its Western allies are self-anointed to throw pejorative claims at Russia and China when the reality is they are hurling bricks in glasshouses. Washington and its European partners have run amok for decades, destroying nations with illegal foreign wars, killing en masse civilians from drone assassinations and indiscriminate bombings. These criminal governments have no shame in smearing others with accusations that resonate a thousand-fold with the appalling reality of their own heinous misconduct.

Just look at some events this week. Russia has called on the United States and its NATO allies to agree on a mutual basis for security in Europe pertaining to its borders. So far, the U.S.-led military bloc has rebuffed Moscow’s reasonable concerns. NATO’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg arrogantly dismissed Russia’s appeals for the bloc to cease its eastward expansion. (Somehow it seems fitting that this automaton is reportedly applying to become the next head of Norway’s central bank after he steps down from NATO. It’s all just careerism and payoffs for Stoltenberg, who, as the quip goes, is more secretary than general.)

Then we have the European Union’s unelected wooden president Ursula von Der Leyen announcing that the bloc has prepared sanctions that will have “massive consequences” on Russia’s economy “in the event of further military aggression on Ukraine”. Based on what? What aggression is she talking about? The one that the United States intelligence agencies have told her to mouth like a ventriloquist? She is certainly not referring to the aggression of the U.S. and NATO funneling billions of dollars of weapons into a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev that is waging a war against a civilian population in Southeast Ukraine for the last nearly eight years. (Russian President Putin is correct to describe that siege as resembling genocide.)

Western media report breathlessly on how Russia and China have “seen their relations deteriorate with the West”. But such media don’t explain or investigate why such deterioration is happening.

It is essentially instructive that the United States and its European powers are self-evidently behaving as Neo-colonialists and imperialists. They presume to have the superior right to interfere in other nations based on self-righteous arrogance and self-serving machinations.

It is absurd that the United States is declaring a diplomatic boycott of China’s Olympic Games given its own legion of flagrant violations and crimes against humanity, past and present. Australia and Canada have living legacies of genocide and yet they too have the brass-necks to pontificate to China about unsubstantiated claims of human rights abuses.

Going down this cynical, hypocritical path is par for the course for Western states. It is their inherent modus operandi. But ultimately it is futile. It inevitably leads to conflict and war.

Western relations towards Russia and China are becoming crystal clear in their incorrigible belligerence. The United States and its capitalist-imperialist partners-in-crime simply cannot coexist with other nations in peace and cooperation. The principles of peace and lawful respect for others are anathemas.

The toxic, destructive behavior of Western powers is more and more a transparent disgrace in today’s world. By contrast, Russia and China are proof that an alternative basis of international relations is possible. And fortunately, both are strong enough to prevail for the sake of peace.

Sheikh Daamoush: The US Blockade is One of the Reasons Behind Lebanese Suffering

4 Dec 2021

Translated by Al-Ahed News

Deputy Chief of Hezbollah Executive Council Sheikh Ali Daamoush said that, “The Lebanese should know that the US is deceiving them no matter how much it tries to appear keen on Lebanon’s interest, because whoever is keen on it does not besiege it, impose sanctions on it, prevent it from aid, incite the Lebanese against each other, and does not pressure Lebanon regarding the demarcation of the maritime borders to make concessions at the expense of its rights to the “Israeli” enemy, and all this is done by the US in Lebanon”.

During his Friday sermon, Sheikh Daamoush asserted saying, “One of the reasons behind the suffering of the Lebanese is the American blockade imposed on Lebanon and the US policies and measures followed in it; our priority is to break this blockade and mitigate its repercussions on the Lebanese, as well as to serve the people and help them with all possible means to get out of this crisis that is pressuring everyone”.

His Eminence considered “The biggest responsibility lies with the government that must assume full responsibility and address all the reasons that prevent it from meeting. It is not true that the Shiite duo is behind disrupting government sessions, but rather the one behind this delay is also the one who is insisting on politicizing judiciary and keeping it hostage to political interventions and uses as well as the internal and external pressures”.

Sheikh Daamoush said: “These are the reasons that have so far prevented the government from meeting once again. Not getting rid of these reasons will make things more complex, so we should address them, find a way out, and react with the appropriate ways out that help solve the problem”.

Fake News London Guardian Kremlin Papers Report

 July 18, 2021

By Stephen Lendman

Source

US/Western dark forces never quit proving that they’re hostile to what just societies hold dear.

Time and again, their press agent media show they long ago abandoned what journalism is supposed to be — banning it on issues mattering most.

On domestic issues, they support privileged interests at the expense of most others — notably by pushing health destroying flu/covid jabs, instead of warning about their hazards.

On all things geopolitical mattering most, they stick to state-approved talking points — notably US/Western rage for control of planet earth, its resources and populations.

Days earlier, a fake news London Guardian report turned truth on its head as follows, saying:

“Vladimir Putin personally authorized (sic) a secret spy agency operation to support a ‘mentally unstable’ Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council (sic), according to…leaked Kremlin documents (sic)” — that don’t exist.

No responsible editors would permit publication of the above claim no evidence suggests, made up rubbish alone with no credibility — part of longstanding US/UK Russia bashing.

Yet in true fake news Guardian tradition, it defied reality by claiming a Trump White House “would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them ‘social turmoil’ in the US (sic) and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position (sic).”

Not a shred of evidence was presented by the Guardian to support what it falsely called “genuine…documents.”

More bald-faced Big Lies followed, including by saying:

A so-called Kremlin “expert department recommended…’all possible force’ to ensure a Trump victory (sic).”

Time and again, phony claims like the above about Russia and other foreign nations are debunked as Big Lies that won’t die.

Throughout US history from inception to the present day, no credible evidence ever suggested foreign inference in its electoral process — what dark forces in Washington do repeatedly against other nations worldwide. 

Political scientist Dov Levin earlier documented over 80 times that US dark forces interfered in the electoral process of other nations from end of WW II to year-2000.

Since then, the US illegally tried to influence the outcome of elections or overall political process in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere. 

What could a foreign nation hope to achieve by meddling in so-called US elections?

Farcical when held, both right wings of the one-party state take turns running things — serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people at home and abroad.

US diabolical actions also include attempted color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, political assassinations — most recently against Haiti’s president — and wars by hot and/or other means against nations free from imperial control.

In response to the Guardian’s fake news, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “pulp fiction,” adding:

The report “is complete nonsense.”

It’s “the hallmark of an absolutely low-quality publication.” 

“Either (it’s) trying to increase its popularity or is sticking to a rabidly Russophobic line.”

Ill-conceived trash best describes what no evidence supports because none exists — just baseless accusations with nothing supporting them.

Time and again, Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and other nations free from US imperial control are falsely accused of all sorts of things they had nothing to do with.

Indisputable evidence reveals US high crimes of war, against humanity, and other dirty tricks against one nation after another, targeting ones named above and many others.

In his books and Anti-Empire reports, the late William Blum documented US high crimes.

Calling them “worse than you imagine,” he once explained the following:

“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out: invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and endless wars on humanity.”

That’s what the scourge of US hegemonic rage is all about.

Stressing it’s not a pretty picture, Blum said it’s “enough to give imperialism a bad name.” 

Millions of corpses attest to US ruthlessness, a rogue state exceeding history’s worst over a longer duration, operating globally, willing to risk destroying planet earth to own it, the human cost of its wars and other barbarism of no consequence.

Blum called democracy “America’s deadliest export,” the way it should be is abhorrent to the US and its imperial partners.

Directly and through its press agent media like the Guardian, Russia and other sovereign independent countries are bashed for not bending to higher powers in Washington, London and other Western capitals.

As for dubious Guardian claims about covert Russian support for Trump over Hillary in 2016, they’re not worth the (toilet) paper they’re written on.

A Final Comment

The Russiagate hoax throughout Trump’s tenure was all about delegitimizing his triumph over media darling Hillary — a Big Lie still refusing to die despite no evidence supporting it.

It remains one of the most shameful political chapters in US history, exceeding the worst of McCarthyism.

Ignored was House testimony by former US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010 – 2017), saying:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting (or) conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” adding:

“I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of” alleged Trump team-Russia collusion.

Congressional and Mueller probes were exercises in mass deception.

They found no evidence suggesting Russian meddling in the US political process because there was none.

The Mueller probe notably laid an egg, ending with a whimper, not a bang.

His 19-lawyer team, 40 FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff spent around $25 million.

They issued 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, over 230 orders for communication records, interviewed about 500 individuals, and made 34 politicized indictments on dubious charges unconnected to his mandate.

Despite all of the above from May 2017 – March 2019, it struck out, finding no evidence of Russian US election interference — because there was nothing to find.

Yet phony claims otherwise remain like a bad aftertaste — the fake news Guardian report the latest example of yellow journalism instead of the real thing.

Were Hezbollah Really Ruling Lebanon, Woes Would Never Plague It: Sayyed Safieddine

 July 16, 2021

Head of Hezbollah’s executive council Sayyed Hashem Safieddine stressed that the US policies are ruining Lebanon, adding that Washington intervenes in all the Lebanese domestic affairs.

Addressing Quranic ceremony, Sayyed Safieddine rejected all the claims that Hezbollah dominates over the Lebanese politics, saying: “Were Hezbollah really ruling Lebanon, woes Would never plague it”.

Sayyed Safieddine noted that the US tyranny targets Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, adding that the Umma has started following the path of victory since “Al-Quds Sword” battle.

Source: Al-Manar Eglish Website

Related Video

Moscow: Casting Doubts on Legitimacy of Presidential Elections in Syria Is a New Attempt to Interfere in Its Affairs”

April 30, 2021

Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian Foreign Ministry affirmed that statements of some countries about illegitimacy of upcoming presidential elections in Syria are a new attempt to interfere in its affairs, stressing that holding these elections fully complies with its constitution and resolutions of international legitimacy.

The ministry said in a statement on Friday that Moscow is closely following up preparations for upcoming Syrian presidential elections due to be held on May 26th.

It added that organization of these elections is a domestic affair of Syria and fully complies with the requirements of the Constitution which was adopted in 2012 and the local laws. These measures don’t contradict with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and other international resolutions based on respecting Syria’s sovereignty.

The statement noted that in this regard, we evaluate the recent statements by capitals of several foreign countries, which claim the illegitimacy of upcoming elections as part of a campaign of blatant political pressure on the Syrian state and a new attempt to interfere in its domestic affairs.

“No one has the right to dictate on the Syrian people timing and conditions that must be prepared for selecting a president for their state,” the statement stressed.

Holding elections comes in the light of the continued illegal foreign occupation to parts of the Syrian territory, the statement said, adding that in response to the demands of Syrian side, Moscow is ready to send Russian observers for these elections.

Source: SANA

Related Pictures 2014 Elections

This is what the Syrian election looks like in Lebanon

Thousands of Syrain nationals living in Lebanon arrive outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28 before voting in the upcoming presidential elections in Syria. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

Syrian nationals living in Lebanon gesture as they arrive outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28 before voting in the upcoming presidential elections. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

A fireman sprays water on Syrian expatriates living in Lebanon to keep them cool, as they arrive to cast their ballots in their country’s presidential elections, outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

A fireman sprays water on Syrian expatriates living in Lebanon to keep them cool as they arrive to cast their ballots outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarzeh.(Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

Lebanese Red Cross workers help Syrians who fainted while on their way to the Syrian Embassy to vote in the presidential election in Yarze, east of Beirut, Lebanon, on May 28. (Bilal Hussein/AP)

Syrian men cast their ballots in the Syrian presidential elections at a polling station set up in the Syrian embassy in the town of Yarzeh, east Beirut, Lebanon. (Nabil Mounzer/EPA)

Syrians who live in Lebanon chant slogans and carry portraits of President Bashar Assad and their national flags as they drive towards to the Syrian Embassy to vote in the presidential election in Yarze, east of Beirut. (Bilal Hussein/AP)

A Syrian man shows the photo of Syrian President al-Bashar Assad on the ballot paper as he prepares to vote in the Syrian presidential elections at a polling station set up in the Syrian Embassy in   Yarzeh. (Nabil  Mounzer/EPA)

Syrians waving flags drive to the Syrian Embassy in Yarzeh to cast their vote. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

• The Highly Anticipated Syrian Presidential Elections
• US Interfered in 81 Foreign Elections
• Syrian Elections Confirm West’s Worst Fears
• Syria’s parliamentary elections were a vote of confidence in the government
• Syria’s Elections Prove Again That Washington And Its Presstitutes Lie Through Their Teeth
• Syria Elections 2016: US-NATO’s Failed Attempt to Deny the Will of the Syrian People
• Al-Moallem: De Mistura Can’t Talk about Syria Presidential Elections
• Anis Naqash: Regional scene after the the Syrian and Egyptian elections
• ARTICLES AND INTERVIEWS ON SYRIA 2014 ELECTIONS
• Reading the results of the presidential elections in Syria
• Syria: Elections Are a Battle Won, But the War Goes On
• Elections in Syria: The People Say No to Foreign Intervention
• The Real Farce: Media Distortions on the Syrian Elections
• The Inference from Lebanon About the Syrian Presidential Elections

Maria Zakharova : weekly briefing with a US history

April 01, 2021

Sino-US Dialogue in Alaska: Outcomes.

March 23, 2021

by Zamir Awan for the Saker Blog

The first direct, high-level dialogue, under Joe Biden Administration, was held on 18-189 March 2021 in Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Chinese Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the dialogue.

After welcoming the Chinese guests, Secretary of state Mr. Blinken accused China of many issues, including Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyberattacks on the United States, and economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threatens the rules-based order that maintains global stability.

Director Yang responded that “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called rules-based international order. And the United States has its style — United States-style democracy –and China has the Chinese-style democracy. It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the World, to evaluate how the United States has advanced its own democracy. After decades of reform and opening up in China’s case, we have come a long way in various fields. In particular, we have engaged in tireless efforts to contribute to the peace and development of the World and to upholding the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter.”

“The wars in this World are launched by some other countries, which have resulted in massive casualties. But for China, what we have asked for, for other countries, is to follow a path of peaceful development, which is the purpose of our foreign policy. We do not believe in invading through the use of force, in toppling other regimes through various means, or massacring other countries’ people because all of those would only cause turmoil and instability in this World. And at the end of the day, all of those would not serve the United States well. So we believe that it is important for the United States to change its own image and stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the World. Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States, and they have various views regarding the government of the United States. In China, according to opinion polls, China’s leaders have the wide support of the Chinese people. So no attempt to — the opinion polls conducted in the United States show that China’s leaders have the support of the Chinese people. No attempt to smear China’s social system would get anywhere. Facts have shown that such practices would only lead the Chinese people to rally more closely around the Communist Party of China and work steadily towards the goals that we have set for ourselves.”

“Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan are an inalienable part of China’s territory. China is firmly opposed to U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs. We have expressed our staunch opposition to such interference, and we will take firm actions in response. On human rights, we hope that the United States will do better on human rights. China has made steady progress in human rights, and the fact is that there are many problems within the United States regarding human rights, which is admitted by the U.S. itself as well. The United States has also said that countries can’t rely on force in today’s World to resolve the challenges we face. And it is a failure to use various means to topple the so-called authoritarian states. And the challenges facing the United States in human rights are deep-seated. They did not just emerge over the past four years, such as Black Lives Matter. It did not come up only recently. So we do hope that for our two countries, it’s important that we manage our respective affairs well instead of deflecting the blame on somebody else in this World. We’ve had a confrontation in the past, and the result did not serve the United States well. China will pull through and has pulled through such confrontation.”

Outcomes:

China availing this opportunity has conveyed that China will not accept U.S. supremacy and will not accept dictation. China will not allow any country to interfere in its domestic issues. Generally speaking, the Chinese are well-mannered, polite, submissive, and friendly people. It seems that the U.S. has crossed all the limits where China have to take a firm and blunt stand and express their point of view so clearly. It is up to the U.S. administration to analyze the Chinese response and do their homework before meeting them again.

The World has conceived well that the U.S. can not sustain its hegemony anymore. It is no longer a unipolar world, and the U.S. is no longer a unique superpower. The U.S. needs to understand the emerging geopolitics and have to accept realities. It might need to share power with other rising nations and respect them. The U.S. must keep in mind the existence of other emerging nations’ potential while making any decision.

It is an established fact that the U.S., after enjoying the global leadership role for seven decades, may not sustain this status anymore. The U.S. is on the decline and, with every passing day, may decline further. Whereas China is a rising power and, with the passage of each day, may grow further. The time is on the Chinese side. If Americans are wise, they might give up confronting China and extend cooperation to be the beneficiary of Chinse rise. There exists enormous goodwill about America among the general public in China.

The American claim of promoting democracy and the law-based rule is no more trusted as the Americans are a supporter of all dictators in the oil-rich Gulf countries in the Middle-East. The U.S. was behind the toppling of the democratically elected legitimate Government of Mr. Adil Morsey in Egypt. Again, it was the U.S. who was among the first nations to support the dictator General Sissi in Egypt. American history is full of supporting dictators around the globe. Regarding law-based rule, it is just a joke. It was the U.S. that destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

Under the Trump Administration, America was deteriorated in respect of human rights violations, hate among various ethnicities in America. And official discriminatory laws were introduced against Muslims; immigration laws were biased. The pandemic was mismanaged, the economy was collapsed. President Trump harmed America so severely that it might take several decades to recover such losses. President Trump has offended some of his close allies too.

President Joe Biden’s remarks about President Putin were misconceived and may spoil the geopolitics further. More tensions between Russia and the U.S. are predictable visibly. It may cement China-Russia relations further.

Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).

US Interfered in 81 Foreign Elections

No Neocon bastard or pinhead is running around with pitchfork saying that the United States needs to be attacked for interfering in at least 81 countries.

By Jonas E. Alexis -March 23, 2021

…introduction by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor

Whenever you hear a Neocon or some political whore start talking about bombing or attacking another country because that country supposedly “hacked” the United States, then it is an infallible sign that you are in the presence of an ethnic cleansing, an ideologue, a political gangster, or liar who wants to drink the blood of other people.

Why? Well, it has been pointed out that the United States has interfered in at least 81 foreign elections. No Neocon bastard or pinhead is running around with pitchfork saying that the United States needs to be attacked for doing so. The eminent journalist and writer Stephen Kinzer has documented that the United States has been overthrowing one government after another for the last one hundred years.[1] Who’s going to tell them enough is enough?

Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered In 81 Foreign Elections

—by Claire Bernish

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed for the first time publicly that the bureau is officially investigating hotly contentious allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. election — but, even if proven true, such geopolitical escapades better characterize the routine behavior of accuser than of accused.

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president election,” the director announced, adding the bureau would conduct a probe to discern whether Trump’s associates had contact with Russian officials.

Despite that the U.S. has hypocritically exerted influence over foreign elections in all corners of the globe — in fact, it has arrogantly done so a whopping 81 times between 1946 and 2000, alone — with just one-third of those operations undertaken overtly.

For months, mainstream media parroted murky accusations hurled by politicians — keen to point a finger of blame for the apparently stultifying victory of a former reality television host on someone — that The Russians had somehow surreptitiously undermined the election-centric foundation of American Democracy.

While that has yet to prove true, this new Red Scare constitutes a duplicitous attempt by the pot to call the kettle … an election meddler.

Researcher Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy — an expert on the topic at hand — discussed the lengthy but incomplete list of times the U.S. government has interfered in other nations’ elections with NPR’s Ari Shapiro.

Listen to the NPR segment below:

Asked for examples where this tampering tangibly altered results, Levin stated,

One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn’t want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupt the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.

Levin reiterated the more blatant methods with which the U.S. asserts dominance — through the overt coups or all-out regime changes branding the nation a notorious interventionist — are not among the list of the 80-plus attempts to manipulate the electoral outcome.

As for the issue of pot versus kettle, Levin explained that — although Russia and other powerful nations indisputably employ similar tactics — the United States has been quite prodigious in its effort.

Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

As sanctimoniously as U.S. politicians cry foul about The Russians, it would behoove the new McCarthyites to reflect on the nation’s sticky imperialist fingerprints around the globe — like that time in 1996, when the United States undertook an extensive, secret operation to ensure the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

That is, of course, former President Boris Yeltsin — of the Russian Federation.

[1] Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Times Books, 2006).

BIOGRAPHYJonas E. Alexis

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

Logoswars1@gmail.com

Syria, Venezuela sanctions | The Communiqué with Richard Medhurst

Venezuela and Syria are both under siege warfare by the United States and its allies. Richard Medhurst speaks with Alena Douhan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on sanctions, about her preliminary report after recently returning from Venezuela.

The idea of ‘exceptionalism’ is deeply ingrained in our national DNA: American author

By Mohammad Mazhari

January 18, 2021 – 11:34

 TEHRAN – An American author says toppling governments around the world is one of Washington’s “specialties”. 

“Overthrowing governments is one of our specialties,” Stephen Kinzer tells the Tehran Times.   

Kinzer also criticizes U.S. exceptionalism. 

“The idea of ‘exceptionalism’ is deeply ingrained in our national DNA,” Kinzer tells the Tehran Times. 

“Last week gave us a glimpse, on a greatly reduced scale, of the havoc we have wreaked elsewhere.”

Kinzer, a former New York Times journalist, says no nation like the U.S. intervenes in others’ domestic issues. 

The following is the text of the interview: 

 Q: How do you assess the recent mob attack on the Capitol building by pro-Trump protesters? What is the message of this incident for the U.S and the world?

“In the U.S. as in most countries, politics often is more powerful than the law.”A: Over the last century, no nation has intervened as often as the United States in so many countries so far away from its own borders.  Overthrowing governments is one of our specialties.  Last week (January 7th) gave us a glimpse, on a greatly reduced scale, of the havoc we have wreaked elsewhere.

Q: U.S. administrations and institutes mostly back protests against governments all around the world but when it comes to the U.S., they rally around national integrity. Isn’t it a kind of double-standard?

A: The idea of “exceptionalism” is deeply ingrained in our national DNA.  Americans grow up presuming that, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously asserted, “We are the indispensable nation, we stand taller and we see further than other countries.”  Our leaders believe they know what is good for the world better than the world itself knows.  This has led the United States to incite rebellion and subversive violence in dozens of countries.  To replace the governments we overthrow, we often promote corrupt demagogues.  Now we face the same combination at home: insurrection and demagoguery.

Q: Why did you publish a tweet saying: “My friends abroad keep reassuring me:  There can never be a coup in the United States because there is no American embassy there?”

“Now the U.S. faces the same combination of ‘insurrection and demagoguery’ at home.” A: The joke is that coups in most countries happen not for domestic reasons, but because of intervention by covert agents who work from the U.S. embassy.  This is not completely true, but true enough so that everyone gets the joke.

Q: Is there any mechanism in the American constitution to prosecute a president who violates the law?

 A: We do have an impeachment procedure but it is political in nature, not legal.  In the U.S. as in most countries, politics often is more powerful than the law.

Q: The Democratic Party of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden succeeded to take control of the Senate. Do you expect the victory would lead to a change in U.S policies, especially in foreign policy areas?

A: Biden will make substantial changes to government policies relating to education, transportation, labor, energy, immigration, and other domestic issues.  There will be no major change in foreign policy.  The U.S. will continue seeing Russia and China as enemies and working more often to confront them than to compromise.  There will, however, be some change in policy toward Iran.  How substantial the change will remain unclear?  It is the subject of intense debate behind the scenes in Washington and the incoming Biden administration.

Q: How do you assess American police’s behavior after pro-Trump fans stormed the Capitol Hill in comparison with its reaction to the summer protests? Was the Insurrection Act applicable?

A: President Biden himself said it: “No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol.  We all know that’s true. And it is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view.”

 

RELATED NEWS

• American analyst censures social media double-standards in regard to U.S.

• Judges vote according to politics rather than law: American author

• Is Biden up to the challenge of wise governance? That’s now the question…

Democracies Don’t Start Wars. But Democrats Do

By Philip Giraldi, Ph.D.
Source: Strategic Culture

It may have been President Bill Clinton who once justified his wrecking of the Balkans by observing that liberal interventionism to bring about regime change is a good thing because “Democracies don’t start wars with other democracies.” Or it might have been George W. Bush talking about Iraq or even Barack Obama justifying his destruction of Libya or his interventions relating to Syria and Ukraine. The principle is the same when the world’s only superpower decides to throw its weight around.

The idea that pluralistic democracies are somehow less inclined to go to war has in fact been around for a couple of hundred years and was first elaborated by Immanuel Kant in an essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” that was published in 1795. Kant may have been engaging in some tongue in cheek as the French relatively liberal republic, the “Directory,” was at that time preparing to invade Italy to spread the revolution. The presumption that “democracies” are somehow more pacific than other forms of government is based on the principle that it is in theory more difficult to convince an entire nation of the desirability of initiating armed conflict compared to what happens in a monarchy where only one man or woman has to be persuaded.

The American Revolution, which preceded Kant, was clearly not fought on the principle that kings are prone to start wars while republics are not, and, indeed, the “republican” United States has nearly always been engaged in what most observers would consider to be wars throughout its history. And a review of the history of the European wars of the past two hundred years suggests that it is also overly simple to suggest that democracies eschew fighting each other. There are, after all, many different kinds of governments, most with constitutions, many of which are quite politically liberal even if they are headed by a monarch or oligarchy. They have found themselves on different sides in the conflicts that have troubled Europe since the time of Napoleon.

And wars are often popular, witness the lines of enthusiastic young men lining up to enlist when the Triple Entente took on the Germans and Austrians to begin the First World War. So, war might be less likely among established democracies, but it should be conceded that the same national interests that drive a dictatorship can equally impact on a more pluralistic form of government, particularly if the media “the territory of lies” is in on the game. One recalls how the Hearst newspaper chain created the false narrative that resulted in the U.S.’s first great overseas imperial venture, the Spanish-American War. More recently, the mainstream media in the United States has supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the regime change in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya.

So now we Americans have the ultimate liberal democratic regime about to resume power, possibly with a majority in both houses of Congress to back up the presidency. But something is missing in that the campaigning Democrats never talked about a peace dividend, and now that they are returning the airwaves are notable for Senators like Mark Warner asking if the alleged Russian hacking of U.S. computers is an “act of war?” Senator Dick Durbin has no doubts on the issue, having declared it “virtually a declaration of war.” And Joe Biden appears to be on board, considering punishment for Moscow. Are we about to experience Russiagate all over? In fact, belligerency is not unique to Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo.  War is in the air, and large majority of the Democratic Party recently voted for the pork-bloated National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), endorsing a policy of U.S. global military dominance for the foreseeable future. If you are an American who would like to see national health insurance, a large majority among Democrats, forget about it!

But more to the point, the Democrats have a worse track record than do the Republicans when it comes to starting unnecessary wars. Donald Trump made the point of denouncing “stupid wars” when he was running for office and has returned to that theme also in the past several weeks, though he did little enough to practice what he preached until it was too late and too little. Clinton notoriously intervened in the Balkans and bombed a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan and a cluster of tents in Afghanistan to draw attention away from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. His secretary of State Madeleine Albright thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions was “worth it.” Barack Obama tried to destroy Syria, interfered in Ukraine and succeeded in turning Libya into an ungovernable mess while compiling a “kill list” and assassinating U.S. citizens overseas using drones.

If you want to go back farther, Woodrow Wilson involved the U.S. in World War One while Franklin D. Roosevelt connived at America’s entry into the Second World War. FDR’s successor Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan, killing as many as 200,000. Japan was preparing to surrender, which was known to the White House and Pentagon, making the first use of nuclear weapons completely unnecessary and one might call it a “war crime.” Truman also got involved in Korea and John F. Kennedy started the intervention in Vietnam, though there are indications that he was planning to withdraw from it when he was killed. The only Democratic president who failed to start one or more wars was the much-denigrated Jimmy Carter.

So, it is Joe Biden’s turn at the wheel. One has to question the philosophy of government that he brings with him as he has never found a war that he didn’t support and several of his cabinet choices are undeniably hardliners on what they refer to as national security. The lobbies are also putting pressure on Biden to do the “right thing,” which for them is to continue an interventionist foreign policy. The Israeli connected Foundation for the Defense Democracies (FDD) has not surprisingly issued a collection of essays that carries the title “Defending Forward: Securing America by Projecting Military Power Abroad.” If one had to bet at this point “defending forward” will be what the Biden Administration is all about. And oh, by the way, as democracies don’t go to war with democracies, it will only be the designated bad guys who will be on the receiving end of America’s military might.Or at least that is how the tale will be told.

2021 is the year of politics par excellence 2021 عام السياسة بامتياز

2021 is the year of politics par excellence 2021

Nasser Qandil

–

There is no longer any doubt that U.S. President-elect Joe Biden will take office on January 20, and that the questions that accompanied the election phase and some of them are still present, will not find an opportunity for President Donald Trump to remain in the White House and refuse to recognize the results of the election to refrain from handing over power, and there is no doubt that President  Biden borrows the slogan that President Barack Obama and then President Donald Trump began as president, namely America First,  meaning To get out of the role of the global policeman and get involved in international and regional conflicts, which proved unresolved as proven to affect the decline of American prestige and damage to American interests, and retreat towards attention within the borders where the devastation is widening and the decline is magnified, and the need for restoration and maintenance politically, socially and economically, but they left it during practice to calculate the involvement in conflicts under the pressure of the interests of economic blocs, political blocs,  allies and financiers..

–

America was sinking more into ruin and getting more involved in failure, the more america’s slogan (America First) was left to become a valid slogan for a rival election campaign, on which Obama would win against Joe McCain, the legacy of George Bush  Jr.,and Trump’s victory against  Biden, carrying the legacy of Obama, and Biden’s victory over  Trump, carrying his own legacy, and america has reached a place where it has not been betrayed. As Biden’s article published in Foreign Affairs last spring, which decisively calls for the reconsideration of diplomacy, from the revitalisation of the United Nations, to the restoration of international conventions, to the revival of partnerships with Europe and with adversaries in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere, suggests that it is free to rebuild America and re-establish a new position capable of competing for world leadership, after the attempt to rule the world by force failed.

–

Observers inside and outside America agree that the Iranian nuclear file is the key to the transition from the policies of involvement to america’s first policies, a file that formed an agreement on it, was the first qualitative translation of the Obama era to the concept of returning to the American interior and withdrawing from involvement in the policy of interventions, and acknowledging the realities of the new balances that govern the world, by returning to the understanding on the nuclear file with Iran is restored America’s unity with Europe, which was shattered by the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement before any other reasons, and through return opens the door to the revival of NATO rift between The United States, European and Turkish wings, and through the return to understanding the level of tension with Russia and China, and most importantly, through this return Washington eases the burden of escalation in the Middle East, which is the biggest source of moral and material depletion of status and potential for Washington.

–

The positions of the Biden administration, particularly what he personally said and reaffirmed by his national security adviser, seem to be toward the priority of a return to nuclear understanding, under one condition is Iran’s commitment to its terms,and Iran seems clear in its declaration of readiness to abide by the terms of the agreement on one condition is the return of the Biden  administration to the understanding, which means that the first months of 2021 will be a date for the return. This means opening the wide door to a series of repercussions on the region’s files, from Syria to Yemen to Iraq and Lebanon except the conflict on Palestine, as well as opening the door to the return of international understandings from which Trump came out and  Biden will return to it, and open the door to negotiate from the site of the search for solutions to the outstanding problems with both Russia and China..

– 2021 is a year of politics with distinction

2021 عام السياسة بامتياز

ناصر قنديل

–

لم يعُد ثمّة شك بأن الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب جو بايدن سيتسلّم مقاليد الحكم في 20 كانون الثاني المقبل، وأن التساؤلات التي رافقت المرحلة الانتخابية ولا تزال ذيول بعضها حاضرة، لن تجد طريقها لخلق فرصة لتشبث الرئيس دونالد ترامب بالبقاء في البيت الأبيض ورفض الاعتراف بنتائج الانتخابات وصولاً للامتناع عن تسليم السلطة، كذلك لم يعُد هناك شك بأن الرئيس بايدن يستعير الشعار الذي بدأ به الرئيس باراك أوباما ومن بعده الرئيس دونالد ترامب رئاستيهما، وهو أميركا أولاً، يمعنى الخروج من دور الشرطي العالمي والتورط في النزاعات الدولية والإقليمية، التي ثبت العجز عن حسمها كما ثبت تأثيرها على تراجع الهيبة الأميركيّة وتضرّر المصالح الأميركيّة، والانكفاء نحو الاهتمام بداخل الحدود حيث الخراب يتّسع والتراجع يتضخّم، والحاجة للترميم والصيانة سياسياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً تتحوّل الى أولوية، لكنهما لم يلبثا خلال الممارسة أن تركاه لحساب التورط في الصراعات تحت ضغط مصالح تكتلات اقتصادية ولوبيات سياسيّة وحلفاء ومموّلين.

–

كانت أميركا تغرق أكثر في الخراب وتتورّط أكثر في الفشل، كلما تمّت مغادرة شعار أميركا أولاً لدرجة يعود ليصير شعاراً صالحاً لحملة انتخابية منافسة، فيفوز على أساسه أوباما بمواجهة جو ماكين حامل تركة جورج بوش الإبن، ويفوز على أساسه ترامب في مواجهة بايدن حاملاً تركة أوباما، ويفوز على أساسه مجدداً بايدن على ترامب حاملاً تركة نفسه، وقد بلغت أميركا مع الإمعان في خيانة هذا الشعار الى مكان لم يعُد يحتمل التلاعب به مجدداً، كما تقول مقالة بايدن المنشورة في مجلة الفورين أفيرز في الربيع الماضي، والتي تدعو بحسم لإعادة الاعتبار للدبلوماسية، من تنشيط الأمم المتحدة، الى العودة للاتفاقيات الدوليّة، إلى إحياء الشراكات مع أوروبا ومع الخصوم في روسيا والصين وإيران وسواها، للتفرغ لإعادة بناء أميركا وإعادة إنتاج موقع جديد لها قادر على المنافسة على زعامة العالم، بعدما فشلت محاولة حكم العالم بالقوة.

–

يُجمع المراقبون والمتابعون داخل أميركا وخارجها على أن الملف النوويّ الإيرانيّ يشكل مفتاح الانتقال من سياسات التورّط الى سياسات أميركا أولاً، وهو الملف الذي شكّل التوصّل الى اتفاق حوله، كان أول ترجمة نوعيّة في عهد أوباما لمفهوم العودة الى الداخل الأميركي والانسحاب من التورط في سياسة التدخلات، والإقرار بحقائق الموازين الجديدة التي تحكم العالم، فعبر العودة للتفاهم حول الملف النووي مع إيران تُستعاد وحدة أميركا مع أوروبا التي تصدّعت بفعل الانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق قبل اي أسباب أخرى، وعبر العودة يُفتح باب إحياء حلف الناتو المتصدّع بين أجنحة أميركية وأوروبية وتركية، وعبر العودة للتفاهم ينخفض سقف التوتر مع روسيا والصين، والأهم أنه عبر هذه العودة تتخفف واشنطن من أعباء التصعيد في الشرق الأوسط الذي يشكل أكبر مصدر للاستنزاف المعنوي والمادي للمكانة والإمكانات بالنسبة لواشنطن.

–

تبدو المواقف الصادرة عن إدارة بايدن، خصوصاً ما قاله هو شخصياً وأعاد تأكيده مستشاره للأمن القومي، باتجاه اولوية العودة للتفاهم النووي، ضمن شرط واحد هو التزام إيران بموجباتها، وتبدو إيران واضحة في إعلانها عن الاستعداد للالتزام بموجبات الإتفاق بشرط واحد هو عودة إدارة بايدن للتفاهم، ما يعني ان الشهور الأولى من العام 2021 ستكون موعداً للعودة للتفاهم، وهذا يعني فتح الباب الواسع لسلسلة من التداعيات على ملفات المنطقة، من سورية إلى اليمن إلى العراق ولبنان وصولاً لربط النزاع حول المواقف المتعارضة حول فلسطين، كما يعني فتح الباب واسعاً لعودة تفاهمات دولية خرج منها ترامب وسيعود إليها بايدن، وفتح الباب لتفاوض من موقع البحث عن حلول حول المشاكل العالقة مع كل من روسيا والصين.

–

عام 2021 هو عام للسياسة بامتياز

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei

November 27, 2020

Source

While this press conference contains a shorter Belarus update, it has a wider context and is posted to illustrate Foreign Minister Lavrov’s clear expression of irritation with the west, which he now covers in each of his routine press conferences.  In this one, he handles among other topics, protests across the world, Heiko Maas, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE), International agencies, including the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner being silent and not doing their jobs, as well as strategic stability.

Joint session of the collegiums of the Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries, November 26, 2020

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held a joint session of the collegiums of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry. By tradition, it took place in a confidential and truly friendly atmosphere.

Using this opportunity, I would like to thank again our Belarusian friends for their traditional hospitality and excellent organisation of work. We highly value these annual meetings in the format of members of the collegiums and other representatives of the two ministries’ top management. They allow us to discuss in detail the most urgent international issues that involve the interests of our countries and need to be addressed.

Despite the complicated epidemiological situation, we managed to meet offline and talk face to face. We had four items on our agenda: relations of our countries with the European Union, participation in UN peacekeeping missions (in part, in the context of the prospects of the CSTO’s involvement in the UN peacekeeping activities), cooperation in the EAEU on forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership and ways of ensuring international information security.

We achieved specific agreements on all of these issues. They are reflected in a resolution that we signed in addition to the plan of consultations between our foreign ministries in 2021. We also spoke about broader cooperation in international organisations, including the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, UN and OSCE.

We and our Belarusian colleagues had to state that unfortunately our US-led Western partners continue persistently promoting their narrow selfish interests in a bid to preserve their hegemony in the world arena. They are using the concept of the “rules-based” world order, setting it directly against universal, commonly recognised standards of international law, including the UN Charter.

We are concerned about the attempts by the Western countries to establish control over international organisations, up to and including privatisation of their secretariats. When this fails, they try to replace collective work in universal formats with private get-togethers where all those who agree with the Western policy make decisions that are later presented as multilateral and binding. It is hardly possible to make us follow these rules. The overwhelming majority of countries are firmly committed to the old, tried-and-tested principle – respect for international law, primarily the UN Charter.

We noted numerous facts of crude interference by the US and those who follow in its wake (I am referring to some European capitals) in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The dirty methods of colour revolutions continue to be used. These include manipulation of public opinion, instigation and support of overtly anti-government forces and contribution to their radicalisation. We are seeing how these methods are being applied to the Republic of Belarus. We spoke about this in detail today both with Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, who received us before this meeting.

We were informed in great detail about the current developments in Belarus. We are not indifferent to them. The Republic of Belarus is our ally and strategic partner and also a fraternal nation. We are interested in a calm and stable situation in that country. This will be facilitated by the Constitutional reform that was launched by the Belarusian leadership as a major transformation of the political, economic and legal systems.

We believe the Belarusian people are wise and always act in a balanced manner. They are capable of resolving their problems without any outside prompting or obtrusive proposals on unwanted mediation. It is obvious that attempts to jeopardise normalisation are being made. There are many examples of this: a desire to radicalise the protesters, encouraging people to engage in subversion and high treason, which are made, in part, from abroad.

Today we again reviewed in detail the entire range of our ties and ways of protecting the interests of each of our countries, as well as the interests of the Union State of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation.

I would like to emphasise again that we are content with our joint discussion. We will carry out everything we have agreed on today.

Question (addressed to both ministers): On November 18, 2020, your German counterpart Heiko Maas accused the authorities of Belarus of violently suppressing peaceful protests. Having said this, he urged the Council of Europe to use its instruments for monitoring the situation even in those European countries that do not want to join the organisation. Could you comment on this, please?

Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Vladimir Makei):  We took note of how Germany took over the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE). German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas first made a speech at a closed CMCE meeting and then held a news conference. His speech was unconventional for the presidency of this pan-European body because the main goal of the Council of Europe, which is recorded in its statute, is to promote greater unity of all European countries. By definition, the President, all the more so in the Council of Europe, must focus on enhancing unity in his future work rather than stir up confrontation.

It is no secret that at the CMCE meeting prior to that news conference, Heiko Maas presented his programme for the next sixth months in a politicised vein and unacceptable tone, in a crude, undiplomatic manner. He made a number of Russophobic statements. He had grievances not only as regards the Republic of Belarus but also made groundless Russophobic accusations in respect of Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and southeastern Ukraine. His opinion on the Nagorno-Karabakh agreement also sounded rather strange.

At the news conference Mr Maas urged everyone “to respect the rules-based order.” Our Western colleagues are not going to respect international law as a matter of principle. He did say that the principles of the Council of Europe must be imposed by using relevant instruments, including on those countries that are not members of the Council of Europe. I consider this absolutely unacceptable.

It is indeed strange that of all countries it is Germany that has recently decided to act as a driver of aggressive approaches to the countries that are not NATO or EU members.

Those who are objective and pay attention to double standards will note that neither Mr Maas, nor other Western representatives or UN human rights agencies have said a word about rather serious incidents in France and Germany. There were protests by yellow vests in France, demonstrations against COVID restrictions in Germany and some other countries, and protests against a ban on abortions in Poland. They were dispersed in a very tough manner.

International agencies, including the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner, stayed silent. Human rights champions in France covered the yellow vests protests in a completely different manner than they cover events in Russia and Belarus. Only in the beginning did they cautiously urge the sides to overcome their differences. But later the yellow vests began to encounter a tough police response. In the estimate of French human rights activists, almost 15,000 rubber bullets were shot at the protesters; 2,500 people were wounded and 12,000 detained, including 2,000 who were sentenced, in part, to real prison terms. But nobody speaks about this. This is considered normal because these are their compatriots. It is necessary to get rid of this attitude, especially for those who head the Council of Europe.

About a month ago, Council of Europe Secretary General Marija Pejcinovic Buric asked us in Moscow about our assessments of the events in the Republic of Belarus. She received our answers and inquired whether the Council of Europe can contribute to normalisation there in some way. We promised do convey her wish to those concerned. She emphasised that this will be possible only if the Republic of Belarus makes this request itself. But as you can see, the German Presidency has different plans in this respect. This is regrettable.

We will try to compel the Council of Europe, all the more so under the German Presidency, not to forget about the issues that the West is trying to hush up in many different ways. This applies to discrimination against Russian speakers in the Baltic states, the disgraceful lack of citizenship, and the so-called reforms in the field of education and language in Ukraine that are aimed only against the Russian language, as distinct from the languages of other national minorities because they are EU languages. We will not accept the efforts of the Council of Europe (or some of its members) to hush up the facts of the purposeful harassment of the Russian media, not to mention the glorification of Nazism. The German Presidency must remember all this and must not divert the Council of Europe to the discussion of issues that are more comfortable for the West and justify its positions, while ignoring the problems that have become chronic for our Western colleagues.

Question: What are the prospects for concluding new strategic stability treaties with the United States once the new administration is in office? Last year, President Trump mentioned a new trilateral document involving Russia, the United States and China. What will happen now?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a long-standing matter. True, the Trump administration was consumed (I can’t come up with any other word) by a desire to involve the People’s Republic of China in disarmament talks. Initially, they talked about the need to include the PRC in the START Treaty which is still in force, although this is impossible by definition. Then, they proposed creating a new treaty and not renewing the current one, because it’s outdated and bilateral, whereas they would like to take a step towards multilateral disarmament and arms control. Their position was erratic. As a result, they came up with a proposal to extend the treaty for another year, but on the condition that we recount each other’s warheads and put in overseers at the defence plants’ checkpoints. Counting warheads and ignoring carriers and innovative technologies that directly affect strategic stability is a frivolous and unprofessional approach.

Earlier this year, we made proposals to our US colleagues about structuring our future dialogue on arms control and non-proliferation. They stood their ground and insisted on warheads alone. They have long been interested in Russian tactical nuclear weapons, hence their interest in warheads at the expense of everything else. We say we will be ready to discuss non-strategic nuclear weapons, including warheads, when the Americans withdraw their tactical weapons from other countries. In Europe, these weapons are deployed in five NATO countries. Also, NATO structures conduct training in handling nuclear weapons for military personnel from non-nuclear countries in flagrant violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

With regard to the People’s Republic of China, President Putin has repeatedly stated that we have nothing against it, but the decision is up to the PRC. China has officially and publicly stated on several occasions that it is not going to join the talks with Russia and the United States, since its nuclear arsenal is an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding arsenals of Moscow and Washington. We respect this position. If and when the Americans persuade China to join multilateral talks, we will have no objection to that. We will be willing to participate in them if the PRC agrees to this of its own accord. But we are not going to persuade Beijing to do so just at the whim of the Americans. But if and when a multilateral format in disarmament and arms control talks is created, we will push for France and the United Kingdom to join it as well.

When we told the Americans about this, they told us that these counties are their allies and they vouch for them. Precisely because they are allies of the United States, we would like to see them at the negotiating table, if the talks become multilateral. Washington’s absolutely hostile doctrine towards Russia cannot but raise questions about the motives of the US allies, whether in Europe or Asia. When they enter into a military alliance with a country that declares us a hostile state, we must draw our own conclusions regarding these allies.

I don’t see how we can seriously discuss anything related to the continuation of the arms control process with the Trump administration. We do not know yet what kind of administration will move into the White House or what kind of policy it will conduct. The voting results have not yet been announced officially, but there’s already an understanding that the change-of-command process is underway. Let’s wait and see what kind of assessments will eventually form in the minds of those who will shape the US strategic stability policy after January 21, 2021.

Question (addressed to both ministers): Popular protests have been growing around the world for various reasons, including political ones. The law enforcement reaction is the same everywhere, going as far as the use of force and special equipment. At the same time, such events in Belarus are receiving heightened attention from foreign politicians. What do you think is the reason?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already cited examples of protests being suppressed in France. Those drastic figures are rarely revealed to the general public. Human rights agencies in the UN system, as well as numerous human rights rapporteurs are trying their best to avoid any topics that are uncomfortable for Western representatives.

Speaking of the protests in Paris, there is a huge wave of protest against the global security bill, which includes a ban on photographing, filming or otherwise identifying law enforcement officers. I can imagine the kind of racket a bill like that would have sparked if it were proposed in Russia or Belarus. The French public and human rights groups are concerned, yet we can see no reaction from international bodies. The police used water cannons and noise grenades during rallies against the bill. The protesters, too, provoked the police, using stones and sticks. One police officer was injured. And yet, I repeat, this does not prevent the West from lecturing anyone who is not their ally.

Voting processes in Russia and Belarus have been scrutinised through a magnifying glass. When a similar story happens in the United States, it is declared “normal, it’s democracy, and everything is just fine.” Though, even respected and influential think tanks in the United States openly write about “the problems with the US electoral system.” To put it mildly, that system does not fully comply with the principles of democracy or the rule of law. They write these things themselves, but our international partners prefer to ignore them and concentrate on the countries whose “regimes” they find undesirable.

When UN rapporteurs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, describe violent clashes in Western capitals, they urge everyone to find a solution through dialogue. When they criticise us or Belarus, they demand a change of the system. This difference is visible to the naked eye. We have long lost any illusions about what kind of standards the West is promoting and how they use double standards. We will fight, and will defend our position at the UN bodies, where these issues should be considered. We will not allow the vices that the Western community is demonstrating to be forgotten.

Question (addressed to both ministers): How can you comment on Pavel Latushko’s last interview, where he spoke about the possibility of unofficial contacts with Moscow?

Sergey Lavrov: Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has just shown me part of that interview. Not only did he mention the possibility of unofficial contacts with Moscow – he said such contacts were underway and were coordinated. He shamelessly declared he could not cite any names, but mentioned “contacts at a sufficiently high level.” He speculated whether I will be allowed to tell my Belarusian friends about it. I will answer briefly: this is a blatant lie, and it once again says something about those trying to make some kind of career with foreign handouts.

China’s Reaction to a US Unannounced visit to Taiwan – PressTV Interview

By Peter Koenig

Global Research, November 24, 2020

Background

China has reacted strongly to a senior US official’s unannounced visit to Taiwan, warning that it will take legitimate and necessary action according to circumstances.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman reiterated Beijing’s firm opposition to any official ties between Taiwan and the US. The reaction came after the media cited sources, including a Taiwanese official, as saying that US Navy’s Rear-Admiral Michael Studeman was on a trip to the self-ruled island. He’s the director of an agency which oversees intelligence at the US military’s Indo-Pacific Command. The administration of US President Donald Trump has recently ramped up support for Taiwan, including with the approval of new arms sales and high-level visits. Beijing has long warned against such moves. China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and maintains its sovereignty over the region under the One-China policy.

Interview of Peter Koenig with Press TV

***

PK

China has of course every right to protest against any visit and any US intervention in Taiwan, be it weapons sales, or provoking conflict over Taiwan self-declared “sovereignty” which it clearly has not, as it is but a breakaway part of Mainland China.

By and large this looks to me like one of Trump’s last Lame Duck movements to do whatever he can to ruin relations between the US and China.

In reality, it will have no impact of significance.
In fact, China’s approach to Taiwan over the past 70 years, has been one of non-aggression. With various attempts of rapprochement – which most of the times were actually disrupted by US interference – as Taiwan is used by the US, not because Washington has an interest in Taiwan’s “democracy’ – not at all – but Taiwan is a tool for Washington to seek destabilizing China – not dissimilar to what is going on in Hong Kong, or Xinjiang, the Uyghur Autonomous Region, or Tibet.

But China’s objectives are long-term and with patience – and not with force.

Just look at China’s recently signed Trade Agreement with 14 countries – the so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This agreement alone is the largest in significance and volume of its kind ever signed in recent history. It covers countries with some 2.2. billion people and controlling about one third of world GDP.

And the US is not part of it.
Worse, the US-dollar is not even a trading currency.
This must upset the US particularly – especially since the 2-year trade war Trump was waging against China resulted in absolutely zilch – nothing – for the US. To the contrary, it pushed China towards more independence and away from the US.

The same applied to Chinese partners, happy to have honest trading partners, not of the western, especially the Washington-type, that dish out sanctions when they please and when they don’t like sovereign countries’ behavior.

So – no worries for China, but geopolitically, of course, they must react to such acts against international rules of diplomacy.

——
PressTV:
What will change under President Biden?

PK

Most likely nothing. To the contrary, Biden’s likely Secretary of Defense, Michèle Flournoy, played an important behind the scene role in the Obama Administration. She has not changed the aggressive position of Obama’s “pivot to Asia” which essentially consisted in surrounding China with weapons systems and in particular stationing about 60% of the US navy fleet in the South China Sea.

Though at this point, it looks like China is but the target of an off-scale aggression by President Trump, in reality, China is part of a long-term policy of the US, not only to contain China, but to dominate China.

As we see, though, to no avail.

Interestingly, China does not respond with counter-aggression, instead she moves steadily forward with new creations, towards an objective that does not seek domination, but a multi-polar, multi-connected world, via, for example, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – not the type of globalization that especially the Biden camp – along with the corporatocracy behind the World Economic Forum (WEF) is seeking.

The US empire is on the decline and China, of course, is aware of it. Washington may be lashing around in its deteriorating times, to create as much damage as possible and to bring down as many nations as they can. Case in point is the constant aggression, sanctions and punishment against Iran and Venezuela – but here too, these two countries are moving gradually away from the west and into the peaceful orbit of China – pursuing after all a shared bright future for mankind.

---

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Peter is also co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.