One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Dearest
friends, Catherine and I wish you a very joyful Christmas and a Happy New
Year.The pix below are from our home photographed
today on Christmas Eve.
I haven’t
posted a blog since last Friday because I think that more Americans should first read that
one.Apropos, as a kid our teachers
would have drills where we would dive beneath our desks supposedly to save us from a
nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Fortunately Ronald Reagan, after having
termed the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” negotiated a truce based on “mutually
assured destruction.” This happy event was almost broken due to the Cuban
missile crisis, but it was solved by John Kennedy negotiating a deal with Nikita
Khrushchev, once again saving the world from nuclear annihilation.
Now the US
neocons that have full command of the US government have broken the
Kennedy-Khrushchev truce and are plotting to have a nuclear war with Russia
come hell or high water.Most of you won’t
believe this because you can't believe that our government lies about everything and that the “mainstream”
media repeat these lies in order to keep their jobs. For example, the mainstream media scares the pants off Americans thinking of coming to Mexico, whereas we have lived in Mexico for 10 years now and have made around 100 6-hour round trips on the north-south highway to the US without being once stopped by the police, much less being shot by a cop. It's being in the US that scares us...
In fact, the US has now become the “the evil
empire,” while Russia (1) has vastly superior nuclear and non-nuclear weapons
but (2) is ready to negotiate a truce with anyone thinking of having a nuclear war.While the mainstream media make Vladimir
Putin to be a monster, I’ve watched a 3-hour “state of the union” address to
his entire government plus members of the press whose questions he answered thoughtfully
in the last half hour.I was able to
follow Putin’s discussion thanks to a near simultaneous English translation,
which even if faked, contained no bluster by Putin, and both his government and
the press showed no signs of agitation.
Dave Tip: Once you have played Putin singing on the blog that I provide above, move past the bottom of that blog and find and click on the word "Home". This will return you to where you started. Then you may scroll down to my re-post of the previous Friday, which explains what would happen if the US should ever start a nuclear war with Russia.
Nobody needs to read Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski's 1997 opus
to know US foreign policy revolves around one single overarching theme:
prevent -- by all means necessary -- the emergence of a power, or
powers, capable of constraining Washington's unilateral swagger, not
only in Eurasia but across the world. The Pentagon carries the same message embedded in newspeak: the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.
Syria is leading all these assumptions to collapse like a house of
cards. So no wonder in a Beltway under no visible chain of command --
the Obama administration barely qualifies as lame duck -- angst is the
norm.
The Pentagon is now engaged in a Vietnam-style escalation
of boots on the ground across "Syraq." Fifty commandos are already in
northern Syria "advising" the YPG Syrian Kurds as well as a few
"moderate" Sunnis. Translation: telling them what Washington wants them
to do. The official White House spin is that these commandos "support
local forces" (Obama's words) in cutting off supply lines leading to the
fake "Caliphate" capital, Raqqa.
Another 200 Special Forces sent to Iraq will soon follow, allegedly
to "engage in direct combat" against the leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh,
which is now ensconced in Mosul.
These developments, billed as "efforts" to
"partially re-engage in Iraq and Syria" are leading US Think Tankland to
pen hilarious reports in search of "the perfect balance between
wide-scale invasion and complete disengagement" -- when everyone knows
Washington will never disengage from the Middle East's strategic oil
wealth.
All these American boots on the ground in
theory should be coordinating, soon, with a new, spectacularly
surrealist 34-country "Islamic" coalition (Iran was not invited), set up
to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh by no less than the ideological matrix of all
strands of Salafi-jihadism: Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.
Syria is now Coalition Central. There are at least four; the "4+1"
(Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah), which is actually fighting
Daesh; the US-led coalition, a sort of mini NATO-GCC combo, but with the
GCC doing nothing; the Russia-France direct military collaboration; and
the new Saudi-led "Islamic" charade. They are pitted against an
astonishing number of Salafi-jhadi coalitions and alliances of
convenience that last from a few months to a few hours.
And then there's Turkey, which under Sultan Erdogan plays a vicious double game.
Sarajevo All Over Again?
"Tense" does not even begin to describe the current Russia-Turkey
geopolitical tension, which shows no sign of abating. The Empire of
Chaos lavishly profits from it as a privileged spectator; as long as the
tension lasts, prospects of Eurasia integration are hampered.
Russian intel has certainly played all possible scenarios involving a
NATO Turkish army on the Turkish-Syrian border as well as the
possibility of Ankara closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the
Russian "Syria Express." Erdogan may not be foolish enough to offer
Russia yet another casus belli. But Moscow is taking no chances.
Russia has placed ships and submarines
capable of launching nuclear missiles in case Turkey under the cover of
NATO decides to strike out against the Russian position. President Putin
has been clear; Russia will use nuclear weapons if necessary if
conventional forces are threatened.
If Ankara opts for
a suicide mission of knocking out yet another Su-24, or Su-34, Russia
will simply clear the airspace all across the border via the S-400s. If
Ankara under the cover of NATO responds by launching the Turkish Army on
Russian positions, Russia will use nuclear missiles, drawing NATO into
war not only in Syria but potentially also in Europe. And this would
include using nuclear missiles to keep Russian strategic use of the
Bosphorus open.
That's how we can draw a parallel of Syria today as the equivalent of Sarajevo 1914.
Since mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war games -- as
many as 16 times, under different scenarios -- pitting NATO against
Russia. All scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations yielded
the same victor: Russia.
And that's why Erdogan's erratic behavior actually terrifies quite a few real players from Washington to Brussels.
Let Me Take You on a Missile Cruise
The Pentagon is very much aware of the tremendous heavy metal Russia
may unleash if provoked to the limit by someone like Erdogan. Let's roll
out an abridged list.
Russia can use the mighty SS-18 -- which NATO codenames "Satan"; each
"Satan" carries 10 warheads, with a yield of 750 to 1000 kilotons each,
enough to destroy an area the size of New York state.
The Topol M ICBM is the world's fastest missile at 21 Mach (16,000
miles an hour); against it, there's no defense. Launched from Moscow, it
hits New York City in 18 minutes, and L.A. in 22.8 minutes.
Russian submarines -- as well as Chinese submarines -- are able to
launch offshore the US, striking coastal targets within a minute.
Chinese submarines have surfaced next to US aircraft carriers
undetected, and Russian submarines can do the same.
The S-500 anti-missile system is capable of
sealing Russia off from ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Moscow will only
admit on the record that the S-500s will be rolled out in 2016; but the
fact the S-400s will soon be delivered to China implies the S-500s may
be already operational.)
The S-500 makes the Patriot missile look like a V-2 from WWII.
Here, a former adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations
essentially goes on the record saying the whole US missile defense
apparatus is worthless.
Russia has a supersonic bomber fleet of Tupolev Tu-160s; they can
take off from airbases deep in the heart of Russia, fly over the North
Pole, launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from safe distances over the
Atlantic, and return home to watch the whole thing on TV.
Russia can cripple virtually every forward NATO base with
tactical -- or battlefield -- small-yield nuclear weapons. It's not by
accident that Russia over the past few months tested NATO response times
in multiple occasions.
The Iskander missile travels at seven times the speed of sound with a
range of 400 km. It's deadly to airfields, logistics points and other
stationary infrastructure along a broad war theatre, for instance in
southern Turkey.
NATO would need to knock out all these Iskanders. But then they would
need to face the S-400s -- or, worse, S-500s -- which Russia can layer
in defense zones in nearly every conceivable theater of war. Positioning
the S-400s in Kaliningrad, for instance, would cripple all NATO air
operations deep inside Europe.
And presiding over military decisions, Russia privileges the use of
Reflexive Control (RC). This is a tactic that aims to convey selected
information to the enemy that forces him into making self-defeating
decisions; a sort of virus influencing and controlling his
decision-making process. Russia uses RC tactically, strategically and
geopolitically. A young Vladimir Putin learned all there is to know
about RC at the 401st KGB School and further on in his career as a
KGB/FSB officer.
All right, Erdogan and NATO; do you still wanna go to war?
Pepe Escobar is an independent
geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a
frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from
the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia
Times Online. Born in Brazil, he's been a foreign correspondent since
1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington,
Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the
arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on
Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of "Globalistan"
(2007), "Red Zone Blues" (2007), "Obama does Globalistan" (2009) and
"Empire of Chaos" (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book
is "2030", also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.
Would you be willing to defend your country against a foreign invasion?
That’s all Putin is doing in Syria. He’s just preempting the tidal wave of jihadis that’ll be coming his way once the current fracas is over. He figures it’s better to exterminate these US-backed maniacs in Syria now than face them in Chechnya, St Petersburg and Moscow sometime in the future. Can you blame him? After all, if Washington’s strategy works in Syria, then you can bet they’ll try the same thing in Beirut, Tehran and Moscow.
So what choice does Putin have?
None. He has no choice. His back is against the wall. He has to fight. No one in Washington seems to get this. They think Putin can throw in the towel and call it “quits” at the first sign of getting bogged down. But he can’t throw in the towel because Russia’s facing an existential crisis. If he loses, then Russia’s going to wind up on the same scrap heap as Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. You can bet on it. So the only thing he can do is win. Period. Victory isn’t an option, it’s a necessity.
Do you think that Putin and his advisors have had their heads in the sand for the last 15 years, that they haven’t noticed the US rampaging around the globe bumping off one country after the other leaving behind nothing but anarchy and ruin? Do you think they don’t know that Russia is on the top of Washington’s hit-list? Do you think they haven’t noticed NATO inching closer to Russia’s borders while foam-at-the-mouth politicians in Washington wave their fists and growl about Hitler Putin and evil Russia?
Of course they’ve noticed. Everyone’s noticed. Everyone knows Washington is on the warpath and its leaders have gone stark raving mad. How could they not notice?
But all that’s done is focus the mind on the task at hand, and the task at hand is to whoop the tar out of the terrorists, put an end to Washington’s sick little jihadi game, and go home. That’s Russia’s plan in a nutshell. No one is trying to cobble together the long-lost Soviet empire. That’s pure bunkum. Russia just wants to clean up this nest of vipers and call it a day. There’s nothing more to it than that.
But what if the going gets tough and Syria becomes a quagmire?
That doesn’t change anything, because Russia still has to win. If that means sending ground troops to Syria, then that’s what Putin will do. If that means asymmetrical warfare, like arming the Kurds or the Yemenis, or the Taliban or even disparate anti-regime Shiites in Saudi Arabia, then he’ll do that too. Whatever it takes. This isn’t a game, it’s a fight for survival; Russia’s survival as a sovereign country. That’s what the stakes are. That’s not something Putin takes lightly.
Keep in mind, that Russia’s situation is entirely different than that of the US. The US is engaged in a vast “pivot” project to remove secular regimes that are hostile towards Washington, control vital resources from North Africa through the Middle East and across Central Asia, establish military bases wherever necessary, maintain the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and redraw the map of the ME in a way that best suits the commercial and strategic interests of its core constituents; the banks, the multinational corporations and the big weapons manufacturers.
Russia doesn’t have any grandiose plans like that. Putin just wants to sell oil, make money, raise living standards in Russia, and get on with life. He figured that if he played by the rules– Washington’s rules– joined the WTO, then he’d be okay. But that’s not the way it works. The WTO’s rules, like the IMF’s rules are only upheld as long as they suit Washington’s strategic objectives. And when they don’t, well, then they’re dumped like a hot potato just like they were when the US implemented its economic sanctions on Russia or when the IMF allowed Ukraine to stiff Moscow for $3 billion in loans. The point is, it’s a free market when Washington says it’s a free market, otherwise all bets are off.
The same rule applies to terrorism. For example, On Saturday, a group of terrorists detonated a car bomb near a hospital in the Syrian city of Homs. 22 people were killed and more than 70 were injured. So the Syrian government asked the UN Security Council to condemn the attack. Naturally, the Security Council said “Yes”, right?
Wrong. In fact, the UNSC refused to make any statement at all about the attack because, to do so, would be seen as supportive of the Syrian government that the US wants to topple. The bottom line: Blowing up civilians with car bombs is hunky-dory as long as the US benefits from it.
By the way, the Security Council is currently chaired by the US who made sure the draft was never even put to a vote.
Does that sound like a country that’s seriously committed to fighting terrorism or a country that is run by hypocrites?
The reason I ask this now is because, on Tuesday [NBtwo days ago], Secretary of State John Kerry is [was] scheduled to attend an emergency meeting in Moscow with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss issues that are too sensitive to reveal to the public. There’s a lot of speculation about what the two men will talk about, but the urgency and the secrecy of the meeting suggests that the topic will be one of great importance. So allow me to make a guess about what the topic will be.
When Kerry arrive[d] in Moscow tomorrow [yesterday] he’ll be rushed to meeting room at the Kremlin where he’ll be joined by Lavrov, Putin, Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu and high-ranking members from military intelligence. Then, following the initial introductions, Kerry will be shown the evidence Russian intelligence has gathered on last Sunday’s attack on a Syrian military base east of Raqqa that killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded thirteen others. The Syrian government immediately condemned the attack and accused US warplanes of conducting the operation. Later in the day, Putin delivered an uncharacteristically-harsh and threatening statement that left no doubt that he thought the attack was a grave violation of the accepted rules of engagement and, perhaps, a declaration of war. Here’s what he said:
“Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.” This was followed shortly after by an equally disturbing statement by Putin to the Russian Defense Ministry Board:
Special attention must be paid to strengthening the combat potential of the strategic nuclear forces and implementing defense space programs. It is necessary, as outlined in our plans, to equip all components of the nuclear triad with new arms.
Why would an incident in the village of Ayyash in far-flung Deir Ezzor Province be so important that it would bring the two nuclear-armed adversaries to the brink of war?
I’ll tell you why: It’s because there were other incidents prior to the bombing in Ayyash that laid the groundwork for the current clash. There was the ISIS downing of the Russian airliner that killed 224 Russian civilians. Two weeks after that tragedy, Putin announced at the G-20 meetings that he had gathered intelligence proving that 40 countries –including some in the G-20 itself–were involved in the funding and supporting of ISIS. This story was completely blacked out in the western media and, so far, Russia has not revealed the names of any of the countries involved.
So, I ask you, dear reader, do you think the United States is on that list of ISIS supporters?
Then there was the downing of the Russian Su-24, a Russian bomber that was shot down by Turkish F-16s while it was carrying out its mission to exterminate terrorists in Syria. Many analysts do not believe that the Su-24 could have been destroyed without surveillance and logistical support provided by US AWACs or US satellites. Many others scoff at the idea that Turkey would engage in such a risky plan without the go-ahead from Washington. Either way, the belief that Washington was directly involved in the downing of a Russian warplane is widespread.
So, I ask you, dear reader, do you think Washington gave Turkey the greenlight?
Finally, we have the aerial attack on the Syrian military base in Deir Ezzor, an attack that was either executed by US warplanes or US-coalition warplanes. Not only does the attack constitute a direct assault on the Russian-led coalition (an act of war) but the bombing raid was also carried out in tandem with a “a full-scale ISIS offensive on the villages of Ayyash and Bgelia.” The coordination suggests that either the US or US allies were providing air-cover for ISIS terrorists to carry out their ground operations. Author Alexander Mercouris– who is certainly no conspiracy nut–expands on this idea in a recent piece at Russia Insider which provides more detail on the incident. The article begins like this:
Did Members of the US-Led Coalition Carry Out an Air Strike to Help ISIS? Russia Implies They Did. Russian statement appears to implicate aircraft from two member states of the US led coalition in the air strike on the Syrian military base in Deir az-Zor….This information – if it is true – begs a host of questions.
Firstly, the Syrian military base that was hit by the air strike was apparently the scene of a bitter battle between the Syrian military and the Islamic State. It seems that shortly after the air strike – and most probably as a result of it – the Islamic State’s fighters were able to storm it.
Inevitably, that begs the question of whether the aircraft that carried out the air strike were providing air support to the fighters of the Islamic State.
On the face of it, it looks like they were. After all, if what happened was simply a mistake, it might have been expected that the US and its allies would say as much. If so, it is an extremely serious and worrying development, suggesting that some members of the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition are actually in league with the Islamic State. (“Did Members of the US-Led Coalition Carry Out an Air Strike to Help ISIS?” Alexander Mercouris, Russia Insider)
So there it is in black and white. The Russians think someone in the US-led coalition is teaming up with ISIS. That should make for some interesting conversation when Kerry sashays into the Kremlin today.
Does Kerry have any clue that Putin and his lieutenants are probably going to produce evidence that coalition warplanes were involved in the bombing of the Syrian military base? How do you think he’ll respond to that news? Will he apologize or just stand there dumbstruck? And how will he react when Putin tells him that if a similar incident takes place in the future, Russian warplanes and anti-aircraft units are going to shoot the perpetrator down?
If I am not mistaken, Kerry is in for a big surprise on Tuesday. He’s about to learn that Putin takes war very seriously and is not going to let Washington sabotage his plans for success. If Kerry’s smart, he’ll pass along that message to Obama and tell him he needs to dial it down a notch if he wants to avoid a war with Russia.
As those of you who support this website know, the deal we made is
that this is your site, and it will remain up as long as you support it.
Many of you have kept our bargain.
Today this website alone has hundreds of thousands of readers, and
millions more from the many websites in the US and abroad that republish
my columns. But only a relatively few readers financially support the
website. The reluctance of Americans to support those who give them
truth is one reason Americans have so little of it.
Columns on the website created at your request are translated into
many languages: Chinese, Russian, Iranian, German, French, Italian,
Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Romanian, and perhaps others of which I am
unaware. Japanese readers tell me that my columns are discussed in
Japan.
Three books have originated from columns I have posted on this
website. One is The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism And Economic
Dissolution Of The West. This book has been pubished in German, English,
Czech, Chinese, and Korean.
Another book is How America Was Lost. This book has been pubished in German, English, French, and is forthcoming in Russian.
My most recent book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order:
Washington’s Perilous War For Hegemony. This book has been pubished in
English and in German.
Recently, former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama used my
articles about the alleged ISIL Paris attack to raise questions in
Japan’s parliament about the official story of the attack.
Also recently, a prominent French commentator, Philippe Grasset,
wrote about my warning that Washington has the planet on the road to
destruction in nuclear war. Grasset agrees about the road that we are
on, but hopes that Washington will collapse from economic and political
dysfunction before Washington can initiate nuclear war.
We must all pray that the French writer’s hopes are on the mark and
that the evil in Washington collapses before it can destroy life on
earth.
In the meantime we must face reality, which can be discouraging.
Yesterday, December 15, US Secretary of State John Kerry met in Moscow
with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Defense Minister,
Sergey Shoygu, followed by a meeting with President Putin. The day
before the meeting the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Washington of
failure to comply with the Russian-American agreement designed to avoid
conflict between Russia and NATO in Syria.
The combination of Russian diplomacy and the West’s presstitute media
makes it unlikely that we will learn what Lavrov, Shoygu, and Putin
told Kerry. It is likely that Kerry was presented with evidence that
Washington is the culprit that attacked a Syrian military base in the
area of Russian operations, and that the Russian government sees this as
a violation of the accepted rules of engagement, to which Washington
had agreed, and perhaps as an indication that the crazies in Washington
intend war against the Russian/Syrian coalition against ISIS.
In other words, Russia has Washington cold on Washington’s
involvement with, and support of, ISIS and Turkey’s act of war against
Russia.
We will not know if a confrontation occurred, but Kerry came out of
the Moscow meeting talking a different talk: “We see Syria fundamentally
very similarly, we want the same outcomes.” “The US stands ready to
work with Russia.” “Russia and the United States agree that you can’t
defeat Daesh (ISIL) without also deescalating the fight in Syria.” “Syrians will be making decisions on the future of Syria.” “We don’t
seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy.”
From the Russian side, things don’t sound as well. Today, according
to Reuters, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova said
that serious differences remain between Russia and the US. Still, it
is not completely clear that the Russian government and media understand
that behind the evil of ISIL is the greater evil of Washington. How
many more times will Russia be burned as a result of trusting
Washington?
Hopefully, the meeting in Moscow helped Kerry understand that the
Obama regime’s neoconservative policies have created a momentum toward
war that needs to be broken. As the Syrian drama unfolds, the Russian
government will learn whether Kerry’s words are for real or just more of
Washington’s dissembling.
Key statements following meeting between Putin, Lavrov, and Kerry in Moscow
The Kremlin website may have more substantial information, at least on what the Russian delegation said.
Hopefully, the Kremlin counted the silver before the US delegation
left. With Nuland, Tefft and company, no telling what they would lift as
souvenirs.
From Fort Russ
Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ 15th December, 2015
U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry confirmed to the President of
Russia Vladimir Putin that Washington is ready to work with Moscow to
defeat the terrorist organization ISIS.
The President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry after his talks in Moscow with Russian foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov.
In the meeting, which lasted more than three hours, the Russian
side was also attended by the Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, on
the American side assistant Secretary of state Victoria Nuland, special
assistant to the U.S. President for Russia Celeste Wallander and the US
Ambassador to Russia John Tefft.
On the situation in Syria:
The parties agreed to continue work on compiling the list of terrorist organizations operating in Syria.
We agreed to continue to work in terms
of compiling a unified list of terrorist organizations and to assist the
UN in forming the delegations of the opposition – Sergei Lavrov
We found some areas of agreement in the
classification of terrorist groups, but I can’t talk now about what we
have agreed on a bilateral basis, because, as he said Sergei (Lavrov),
the whole support Group Syria should participate in this discussion and
it is important that all contributed to the decision – John Kerry
U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry confirmed to the President of
Russia Vladimir Putin that the United States stands ready to work with
Russia to defeat Russia banned terrorist organization “Islamic state”
(is, formerly ISIS).
I confirmed to President Putin that U.S. ready to work with Russia to defeat the ISIL – John Kerry
Confirmed today the agreements that were
reached between the military of the Russian Federation and the United
States, and agreements that apply to the United States led a coalition
to combat “Islamic state” (ISIS is a terrorist group banned in Russia).
In practical terms agreed on some further steps that will help to make
the fight against terrorism more effective – Sergei Lavrov
The parties agreed that the agreements reached in Vienna on Syria was approved by a UN resolution.
We agreed to continue work on the
terrorist problem and on the organization of negotiations between the
government and the opposition, we nevertheless deemed it appropriate at
this stage to confirm the agreements that were reached in Vienna on
October 30 and November 14 in the form of a resolution of the UN
Security Council – Sergey Lavrov
During the negotiations was also affected by the military operation HQs of the Russian Federation in the SAR.
A recent report to the UN contained the
assertion that the Russian operation in Syria has led to increased
suffering of the civilian population. In these statements there were no
references to facts. We requested the UN present such facts – Sergei
Lavrov
Isolation of Russia is not included in the plans of the United States:
At the conclusion of the talks, Kerry said U.S. President Barack
Obama about Russia’s isolation and explained that they were caused by
the situation with the Crimea. Also the parties expressed unanimity in
commitment to the Minsk agreements on settling the situation in Ukraine.
We exchanged assessments regarding the
challenges to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. The Russian Federation and
the USA are building on the agreements in principle reached between
presidents Putin and Obama reaffirm their support of the Minsk
agreements, we support “Normandy format” and will use their
opportunities to achieve full implementation of the Minsk agreements
– Sergei Lavrov
The USA does not have a specific policy on the
isolation of the Russian Federation. We have a position related to the
fact that we defend our principles and values. But, like I said, it is
important for us to find areas of agreement and constructive behaviour
– John Kerry
While
assisting the prosecution of JPMorgan and Countrywide in Florida by the
Department of Justice, TRNN regular Bill Black was dismissed from the case by
the assistant US Attorney, who described him as a "Jihadist" - December 15, 2015
In this episode of teleSUR's Days of Revolt, Chris Hedges and author Vijay Prashad trace the acceleration of U.S. militarism since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and discuss the consequences of U.S. domination over global affairs. - December 15, 2015
The San Bernardino Shootings Were A Black Op US Government Operation.
Three separate eyewitnesses saw three tall male caucasians carry out the executions.
Syed Rizwan and Tashfeen Malik were chosen to be the patsies and
murdered so that they could not contradict the concocted accusation
against them.
As long as insoucient, the Boston Marathon Bombing, accept such implausible
oficial stories as 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and the San
Bernardino shootings, the American public will continue to be complicit
in official US black op murders of innocent people.
When Americans fell for the obviously false official 9/11 story, the
black op inhumans realized that they can get away with anything. These
murderers are enabled by the witless American public. Expect more such
operations. They are all a part of Fear On Demand.
Washington’s undeclared war on Russia (and China) is the greatest
threat to world peace, risking the unthinkable – possible nuclear war.
Both countries stand in the way of unchallenged US global
dominance – allied with NATO partners (mainly Britain, France, Germany
and Turkey), Israel and the Middle East regimes led by Saudi Arabia, a
metastasizing cancer masquerading as a nation-state.
Two major flashpoint areas risk igniting global war – Ukraine and Syria.
Washington transformed Kiev into a de facto Neo-Nazi regime (for
the first time in Europe since WW II) – used as a dagger targeting
Russia’s heartland, along with other Eastern European countries close to
its border.
Preserving Syrian sovereign independence is the lynchpin of
preventing Iran’s isolation and the entire region from becoming a
US/Israeli colony, partnered with ruling Saudi tyrants using ISIS and
other terrorist groups partnered with Washington to ravage Syria, Iraq
and Yemen, ahead of what increasingly looks like an inevitable US/Russia
clash.
On December 15, John Kerry will meet with Vladimir Putin and Sergey
Lavrov in Moscow. Ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine will be
discussed – both countries at odds on resolving them.
Russia’s supports nation-state sovereignty, America wants all
independent governments replaced by pro-Western ones it controls – using
ISIS and other terrorist groups to achieve its objectives.
Next week’s meeting between US and Russian officials will resolve
nothing, not as long as Washington’s hegemonic aims remain unchanged.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry called US/Moscow relations “difficult,”
citing Washington’s “confrontational steps…under the pretext of the
Ukrainian crisis.” They negatively “impacted cooperation between (both)
countries.”
US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and
elsewhere further exacerbated relations. Nothing in prospect suggests
positive change.
“…Russia has been consistently stressing the necessity to observe the
principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference into (the)
domestic affairs” of all nations, its Foreign Ministry said.
Moscow’s hope for better US/Russian relations furthered by Kerry’s upcoming visit is more pipe dream than reality.
Kerry heads to Moscow after a planned December 14 meeting in Paris
with European and Arab foreign ministers. They’ll discuss ongoing Middle
East conflicts, plotting strategy to continue them and ways to subvert
Russia’s war on terrorism.
Separately, interviewed by Spanish EFE news on Friday, Bashar
al-Assad stressed Washington, its NATO partners and regional allies
aren’t serious about fighting terrorism. They’re the problem, not the
solution.
Russia’s intervention alone achieved progress, Washington trying to
subvert it. The struggle for Syria’s soul continues, along with Putin’s
efforts to save humanity from the scourge of another global war. He
deserves universal support against US-led pure evil.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Since
Russia stepped up to the plate, suddenly western countries can’t wait
to bomb ISIS. Are they now there to get the job done? Or are they there
to stop Russia increasing its influence, and to make sure it doesn’t
succeed where they failed?
The world is falling over itself to bomb Syria.
The following statement from Reuters summarizes the situation:
“Most of the world’s powers are now
flying combat missions over Iraq and Syria against Islamic State. But
any consensus on how to proceed has been thwarted by opposing policies
over the 4-year-old civil war in Syria, which has killed 250,000 people,
driven 11 million from their homes, left swathes of territory in the
hands of jihadist fighters and defied all diplomatic efforts at a
solution.”
While
it may seem to the outside observer that this catalogue of mayhem is
the result of incompetence, to me – on the contrary – it is evidence of
things going to plan.
I have never, thus far, seen a war the ruling elite clearly wanted to happen not happen.
Here,
as in all other cases, there has been a bit of hand-wringing, some
crying, some protests, some moving speeches. But like the morality plays
of medieval times, after enjoying the sermon dressed as entertainment,
life has inevitably carried on as normal with the barons raping and
pillaging and everyone else having to put up with that reality.
Destruction of Syria is the plan
This time the plan – at least judging from the outcomes – is to destroy Syria.
Syria
has been anathema to the self-appointed arbiters of righteousness: the
‘international community’, that coterie of hypocrites which arrogates to
itself the monopoly on meting out death to those who won’t get with the
program.
This
group dislikes Syria which has had an uncompromising stance towards
Israel and an independent financial system, and is using the chance to
destroy it to flood Europe with refugees, thus further debasing the
makeup of its constituent nations, and simultaneously justifying a
lockdown in those countries.
Enter Putin
Everything was going swimmingly until Putin stepped in.
While
many in the West who have grown jaundiced at the obvious usurpation of
our governments by outside interests ascribe almost saint-like
motivations to Putin, I do not. He is a superb strategist. Exactly what
he is strategizing for is not clear yet.
What
is clear is that his move into Syria threw a spanner in the works of a
status quo the US was quite happy with: growing terrorism and mayhem in
Syria and spreading nicely to Europe.
Assad himself said
a few days ago to the BBC (courtesy of Czech Television) that ISIS was
growing smaller after Russian bombing intervention whereas moves by
other countries served only to strengthen ISIS and increase their
recruitment.
He added: “The facts are telling.”
So what do the facts tell?
They tell us that Russia is the only country involved to date which has the removal of ISIS as an actual goal.
Russia is also the only country with a legitimate mandate under international law.
In addition, ISIS was most eloquently outed by author and journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin on Russia Today as a US creation.
In
this scenario, the reason for further western efforts in the region is
looking increasingly like an attempt to prevent Russia from routing its
assets or achieving the informational coup that would follow.
France and Britain milking the crises
The propaganda war is hotting up, with western press issuing unsubstantiated and emotional surmise as news.
Meanwhile, the French and the British are now, of course, bombing Syria.
At home, the French government not only
voted to bomb but enacted ‘emergency’ powers at the same time. And
Holland wants to change the constitution to extend these powers.
The Telegraph states: “The
draft “Protection of the Nation” bill […] would extend the right to
strip French citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism
offences by also including people born in France.
It would also prolong certain powers after a state of emergency was lifted.
No
time limit will be inscribed in the constitution under the new
proposals. As is currently the case, parliament will decide how long a
given state of emergency should last.”
This all looks so like a dictator’s wet dream, it takes an effort of will to believe it has not been planned this way.
And a man no less respected than Dr.
Paul Craig Roberts, formerly Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has
raised legitimate questions about the official line on the Paris attacks.
He says:
“European peoples want to be French,
German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want
their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of
refugees from Washington’s wars.
To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.
Realizing its vulnerability, it is
entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to
protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the
Establishment to close France’s borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le
Pen of her main political issue.”
The same event, of course, justifies France’s bombing of Syria.
The British government for its part –
despite some theatrical hand-wringing – has got on the bandwagon and
opted to join in whatever further criminality the US has planned in
Syria.
As though to justify the decision, the Telegraph breathlessly informs us that ISIS (or ISIL as it calls it) is planning to attack the UK “next”.
It says: “There are unconfirmed reports that Isil has decided that the next target of an attack will be Britain.
European security agencies, citing
specific intelligence that had been obtained, stated that British Isil
operatives in Syria and Iraq were being tasked to return home to launch
an attack, CNN reported.”
This is the level of the propaganda now:
CNN reports security agencies who say that a terrorist group whose name
changes every five minutes might be sending members to Britain to do
harm.
But this is unconfirmed.
The real reason for this war
I’m
going to simplify things: the Plan for a New American Century – a
document which was created by neoconservative warmongers in or close to
power under George Bush Jr. – listed countries which it wanted the US to
attack, namely: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.
“[all were] pinpointed as enemies of
the U.S. well before the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, as well as the
illegal 2011 war in Libya and the ongoing proxy war in Syria.”
Retired US General Wesley Clark went on
record in 2007 stating that the fix was in: the U.S. had unilaterally
decided to destroy Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and
Iran.
This is not some wild-eyed conspiracy
theorist. Clark was a four-star general, and the man who commanded
Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme
Allied Commander in Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.
The pretense of choice
Any objective assessment of who benefits
from attacks upon the countries Clarke mentioned would not include any
European country – or even the U.S. for that matter.
But the subtext is clear: if Europeans
don’t want to take part, terrorist attacks will be allowed or contrived
until they acquiesce.
In
short: the ruling elite wants this war. Our pretend governments voted it
through on the nod. And we the people will have to deal with the
fallout and put up with random terrorist acts if we wake up and speak
out about how this charade is rigged.
At the same time, the people of Syria
are subject to bombing raids by the US, France and the UK – none of
which have any invitation from the legitimate government of that country
– actions which, properly speaking, are acts of war against the country
the perpetrators claim to want to help.
My prediction: the clean-up operation
Russia initiated and Assad approves of will be made to fail; terrorism
will increase and spread into Europe; and mass immigration from Syria
and that area to Europe will continue; and acts of terrorism on European
soil will magically justify endless war, internal lock-down, wholesale
surveillance, detention without trial, and troops on the street.
And this – in the absence of hard evidence based in action to the contrary – I can only see as the actual plan.
