Washington is moving inevitably on a global war plan. That’s the grim conclusion one has to draw from three unfolding war scenarios.
Ultimately, it’s about American imperialism trying to assert hegemony over the international order for the benefit of US capitalism. Russia and China are prime targets for this global assault.
The three unfolding war scenarios are seen in Syria, North Korea and Ukraine. These are not disparate, disassociated conflicts. They are inter-related expressions of the American war plans. War plans which involve the moving of strategic military power into position.
Last week’s massacre of over 100 Syrian government forces by American warplanes near Deir ez-Zor was an audacious overt assault by the US on the Syrian state. The US, along with other NATO allies, have been up to now waging a seven-year proxy war for regime change against Russia’s ally, President Assad. The massacre last week was certainly not the first time that US forces, illegally present in Syria, have attacked the Syrian army. But it seems clearer than ever now that American forces are operating on the overt agenda for regime change. US troops are transparently acting like an occupation army, challenging Russia and its legally mandated support for the Syrian state.
Heightening international concerns are multiple reports that Russian military contractors were among the casualties in the US-led air strike near Deir ez-Zor last week.
Regarding North Korea, Washington is brazenly sabotaging diplomatic efforts underway between the respective Korean leaderships in Pyongyang and Seoul. While this inter-Korean dialogue has been picking up positive momentum, the US has all the while been positioning nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers in the region, along with at least three aircraft carriers. The B-2s are also reportedly armed with 14-tonne bunker-buster bombs – the largest non-nuclear warhead in the American arsenal, designed to destroy North Korean underground missile silos and “decapitate” the Pyongyang leadership of Kim Jong-un.
American vice-president Mike Pence, while attending the Winter Olympics in South Korea, opening last week, delivered a blunt war message. He said that the recent detente between North Korea and US ally South Korea will come to an end as “soon as the Olympic flame is extinguished” – when the games close later this month. This US policy of belligerence completely upends Russia and China’s efforts to facilitate inter-Korean peace diplomacy.
Meanwhile, the situation in Eastern Ukraine looks decidedly grim for an imminent US-led invasion of the breakaway Donbas region. Pentagon military inspectors have in the past week reportedly arrived along the Contact Zone that separates the US-backed Kiev regime forces and the pro-Russian separatists of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Donetsk’s military commander Eduard Basurin warned that the arrival of Pentagon and other NATO military advisors from Britain and Canada indicate that US-armed Kiev forces are readying for a renewed assault on the Donbas ethnic Russian population.
Even the normally complacent observers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), charged with monitoring a nominal ceasefire along the Contact Zone, have lately begun reporting serious advancement of heavy weapons by the Kiev forces – in violation of the 2015 Minsk Peace Accord.
If the US-led Kiev forces proceed with the anticipated offensive next month in Donbas there are real fears for extreme civilian casualties. Such “ethnic cleansing” of Russian people by Kiev regime forces that openly espouse Neo-Nazi ideology would mostly likely precipitate a large-scale intervention by Moscow as a matter of humanitarian defense. Perhaps that is what the US planners are wagering on, which can then be portrayed by the dutiful Western news media as “another Russian aggression”.
US-based political analyst Randy Martin says: “It is undeniable that Washington is on a war footing in three global scenarios. Preparation for war is in fact war.”
He added: “You have to also consider the latest Nuclear Posture Review published by the Pentagon earlier this month. The Pentagon is openly declaring that it views Russia and China as targets, and that it is willing to use nuclear force to contest conventional wars and what the Pentagon deems to be asymmetric aggression.”
Martin says that it is not clear at this stage what Washington wants exactly.
“It is of course all about seeking global domination which is long-consistent with American imperialism as expressed for example in the Wolfowitz Doctrine following the end of the Cold War,” says the analyst.
“But what does Washington want specifically from Russia and China is the question. It is evidently using the threat of war and aggression as a lever. But it is not clear what would placate Washington. Perhaps regime change in Russia where President Putin is ousted by a deferential pro-Western figure. Perhaps Russia and China giving up their plans of Eurasian economic integration and abandoning their plans to drop the American dollar in trade relations.”
One thing, however, seems abundantly clear. The US is embarking on a global war plan, as can be discerned from the grave developments unfolding in Syria, the Korean Peninsula and Ukraine. Each scenario can be understood as a pressure point on Moscow or China to in some way acquiesce to American ambitions for global dominance.
To be sure, Washington is being reckless and criminal in its conduct, violating the UN Charter and countless other international laws. It is brazenly acting like a rogue regime without the slightest hint of shame.
Still, Russia and China are hardly likely to capitulate. Simply because the US ambition of unipolar hegemony is impossible to achieve. The post-Second World Order, which Washington was able to dominate for nearly seven decades, is becoming obsolete as the international order naturally transforms into a multipolar configuration.
When Washington accuses Moscow and Beijing of “trying to alter the international order to their advantage” what the American rulers are tacitly admitting is their anxiety that the days of US hegemony are on the wane. Russia and China are not doing anything illegitimate. It is simply a fact of historical evolution.
So, ultimately, Washington’s war plans are futile in what they are trying to achieve by criminal coercion. Those plans cannot reverse history. But, demonically, those plans could obliterate the future of the planet.
The world is again on a precipice as it was before on the eve of the First and Second World Wars. Capitalism, imperialism and fascism are again center stage.
As analyst Randy Martin puts it: “The American rulers are coming out of the closet to show their true naked nature of wanting to wage war on the world. Their supremacist, militarist ideology is, incontrovertibly, fascism in action.”
The video is so damning to the deep state establishment’s role in installing neo-nazis in Ukraine that it was blackballed for distribution. Now you can see why that is.
A full original English version of controversial director and documentary filmmaker Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” has finally been made available in the United States — after being blackballed for distribution in the US and Europe when released in 2016.
The film openly explores Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan, and in the process, uncovers some damning truths about the forces that propped up, and participated in, what eventually became a violent coup d’état that overthrew pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
What appeared on western corporate media to be a popular uprising, was, in fact, nothing more than a well-scripted coup attempt meant to install a pro-Western government in Ukraine.
The Euromaidan was used by the West as an opportunity to pull Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and into a pro-Western economic and security paradigm under the guise of supporting democratic freedom and fighting corruption. This resulted in an internal conflict of identities within Ukrainian society.
Over the course of the three months that the protests took place, conflict solidarity was seen rising on both sides, as well as clear indications of mobilization by both groups, with sporadic episodes of violence and occupation. After months of Independence Square being occupied by protestors, the tragic events of February 20, 2014, which left over 70 dead, drastically changed the trajectory of the conflict and served as a conflict trigger event that would begin a multilevel action, with the massacre eventually leading to the deposing of the Yanukovych government.
While there is almost wholesale acceptance amongst the Western academics, media, and governments, that the mass killing of protestors was undertaken by Berkut special police and government snipers, due to this narrative’s promotion by the post-Yanukovych government, the evidence underpinning these conclusions is scant at best.
A detailed academic investigation by Ivan Katchanovski revealed that these events were actually a false flag operation, which was planned and operationalized with the intent of overthrowing the Yanukovych government by an alliance of ultra-nationalist organizations, such as Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, specifically Fatherland.
Additional evidence indicates that the U.S. was already actively planning the creation of a new Ukrainian government as evidenced by the leaked audio of a conversation between Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
After Yanukovych was deposed, the eastern regions of Ukraine, with large Russian speaking populations, refused to recognize this illegitimate government and requested federalization as to maintain a semblance of autonomy from the pro-Western regime that took power.
However, the new pro-West government refused and instead sent in military forces and neo-Nazi militias to occupy the region. This precipitated local resistance and Russian assistance to the local Ukrainian forces fighting to defend their home from the newly installed regime in Kiev.
In 2014 and 2015, when Ukrainian soldiers and pro-government neo-Nazi battalions were engaging Ukrainian separatists in fierce door-to-door, house-to-house fighting, Russia didn’t back down – instead, they escalated and forcefully stepped up support – as they supplied not only personnel, but tanks, supplies, and reinforcements to stop Kiev’s advances.
While these moves were framed as “Russian aggression” in the western corporate media, Russia was simply working to protect a large Russian speaking population in eastern Ukraine, that largely supported the Yushchenko government that had been the subject of a covert regime change operation.
Stone’s film was originally released in 2016, but unsurprisingly, he was unable to find any Western distribution – although a Russian dubbed version was available almost immediately and was aired on TV in Russia.
Indicative of the preferred method of keeping Americans subservient, English speaking audiences were simply denied access to the film altogether.
The Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by providing Russia’s foe — Urkaine — with the largest lethal assistance to a country on its border.
(MPN) — Despite the mainstream media’s insistence that U.S. President Donald Trump is some sort of compromised Russian lackey, the fact is that at the end of last year, his administration approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014. This is a move that clearly infuriates and angers Russia, souring relations between the two countries even more so than they already had been under the Obama administration (and in various stages throughout Trump’s first year in office).
According to The Washington Post, administration officials confirmed that in December the State Department had approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and other associated parts and accessories to Ukraine — a package valued at $41.5 million.
At first, it was reported there had not yet been approval to export the heavier weaponry the Ukrainian government had been asking for, such as anti-tank missiles. However, by the end of December, reports began surfacing that the Trump administration was in fact going to provide 35 FGM-148 Javelin launchers and 210 anti-tank missiles. The Javelin is allegedly one of the most advanced anti-tank systems on the market. The total package is now valued at $47 million, and it wouldn’t be surprising if this figure continues to rise in the weeks to come.
Even under the 2014 Ukraine Freedom Support Act, the Obama administration never authorized large commercial or government arms sales, thereby making the recent announcement the first time that the U.S. will provide “lethal” weapons to the Ukraine military.
One senior congressional official said that he predicted this would be just the beginning, stating that the U.S. had “crossed the Rubicon; this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be coming,” according to the Post. Foreign Policy’s Michael Carpenter suggested that NATO countries should follow suit and also provide Ukraine with the arms it needs to counter the so-called threat of Russia. Considering that in September 2017 Russia proposed that UN peacekeepers be deployed to Ukraine, it should be clear that the U.S. is more bent on escalating this conflict than on resolving it.
Russia has already responded in kind, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stating that the U.S. has become an accomplice in the war and that these developments make it impossible for Russia to remain “indifferent,” thereby forcing Russia to consider retaliation measures in response.
The U.S. is the world’s largest arms dealer. The U.S. arms so many countries so much of the time that most of us barely blink. And yet, even taking at face value America’s stated goals of spreading democracy and promoting human rights, the facts on the ground appear to run contrary to those ideals and the U.S. is well aware of these contradictions.
This is a deal-breaker for Washington, which would rather support known neo-Nazis and anti-Semites in order to install a right-wing government capable of opposing Russia as close to the Russian border as one can get.
U.S. Installed a Puppet Government in Ukraine
On February 7, 2014, the BBC published a transcript of a bugged phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. In this phone call, the U.S. officials were openly discussing who should form Ukraine’s government even before the president, Viktor Yanukovych, had been successfully ousted from power. In other words, the U.S. was actively doing to Russia’s neighbour what the corporate media and various elements of the intelligence communities have accused Russia of doing to the U.S. during the 2016 elections. As The Nation explained:
“In the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert Stephen Cohen put it to Democracy Now, ‘plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.’” [emphasis added]
“Good. I don’t think Klitsch [opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea,” Nuland said in the call, as transcribed by the BBC.
“Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, an opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.”
“I think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.”
Oleh Tyahnybok, who had met with Senator John McCain one year prior, is the leader of the right-wing nationalist party Svoboda. When Svoboda was founded in 1995, the party had a swastika-like logo. As Business Insiderexplains, Tyahnybok is also a known anti-Semite:
“Tyahnybok himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in 2004 after giving a speech demanding that Ukrainians fight against a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ (he later clarified this by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and was only against to ‘a group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]’). In 2005 he wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt ‘criminal activities’ of ‘organized Jewry,’ and, even now, Svoboda openly calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto their passports.”
When the protests broke out in Ukraine in 2014, the entire movement was hijacked by these racist elements.
“You’d never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings,” reported Seumas Milne of The Guardian. Just days ago, thousands marched in Kiev to celebrate the anniversary of far-right nationalist Stepan Bandera’s birthday.
It is revealing that, when the U.S. decided to make a choice between a president they viewed as a Russian ally and the various ultra-right nationalist elements of Ukraine, Washington decided to help oust the former for the benefit of the latter.
The State Department Promoting Neo-Nazism in Ukraine
Eventually, it was reported that a man named Petro Poroshenko would be taking up the reins after Yanukovych’s abdication. According to a cable obtained by WikiLeaks, Poroshenko previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department. The State Department even referred to Poroshenko as “our Ukrainian insider.”
For those who truly believe the U.S. protects and promotes democracy while challenging tyranny and dictatorships across the globe, the truth about Washington’s support for puppet regimes that fail to garner the support of their own people is even worse than any anti-imperialist commentator could ever have imagined. In March last year, Foreign Affairs reported that Poroshenko had an approval rating as low as 17 percent. In September last year, the Japan Times reported that his approval rating had dropped to a single digit. Some reportssay it was as low as 2 percent. October last year saw his approval rating grow to its highest in recent times, reaching a stratospheric 14 percent.
In other words, the Trump administration is actively propping up a failed administration in Europe, which does not have the support of 15 percent of its people. Even the far-right militias in Ukraine seem to have more support than the current government. Meanwhile, the U.S. has done nothing but its utmost to tear apart the respective democratically elected governments in Syria and Iran, both of which have far greater approval ratings than do Poroshenko and his administration.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Washington’s recent decision to arm Ukraine will only make the conflict more deadly and suggested that Russia could be forced to respond. “[The U.S. is] not a mediator. It’s an accomplice in fueling the war,” Ryabkov said in a statement. Clearly, Russia has a vested interest in not seeing another NATO ally on its borders, capable of pointing American missiles in its face on a daily basis.
As The National Interestlearned at the end of last year from recently declassified material, the U.S. did indeed break a promise at the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward.” George Washington University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton wrote in the National Security Archives:
“The [recently declassified] documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991. That discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion, were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”
The documents appear to confirm Russia’s assertion that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the proposal for German reunification (which Gorbachev could have vetoed) only in reliance upon these assurances from its American counterparts that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. This history is reminiscent of how Russia was further duped out of using its veto power on a U.N. Security Council Resolution in Libya in 2011, after having received assurances that the coalition would not pursue regime change.
“I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding,” then-British Prime Minister John Major told Gorbachev, according to British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite’s diary entry of March 5, 1991:
“We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”
The documents also show that Russia had received these assurances from a number of other high-level officials. These officials included then-Secretary of State James Baker; President George H.W. Bush; West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher; West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl; former CIA Director Robert Gates; French leader Francois Mitterrand; Margaret Thatcher; British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd; and NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner.
Since that time, NATO has clearly expanded into Europe to the detriment of Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has grown to include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, and Montenegro.
These developments are crucial because, when one is honest about America’s infamous history since World War II, it is clear that NATO exists as an entity only to counter and contain Russian influence. Its sole purpose is to oppose Russia at every corner and this is no secret even in the corporate media.
According to the Telegraph, NATO was formed in “Washington on 4th April, 1949 after the end of the Second World War, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe.” This can be seen clearly in the complete rejection of the Soviets’ attempt to join NATO itself after Joseph Stalin’s death.
“…NATO was founded on the premise of preventing an attack by the Soviet Union in Central Europe, where the U.S. would have to come to the aid of Europe … For the first forty years, NATO focused on its greatest risk—the threat that the Soviet Union posed to Western European security.”
At the time the unrest broke out in 2014, then-NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that the proposed IMF-EU package presented to Ukraine would have been “a major boost for Euro-Atlantic security” suggested that NATO had set its sights on bringing Ukraine into the military alliance. In July of this year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Poroshenko in Kiev to further discuss this prospect, already pledging support to Ukraine on some level.
Now Ukraine’s bid to join NATO seems almost irrelevant, as the U.S. is formally involving itself deeper in the Ukrainian conflict and providing arms to a regime that has flirted with an approval rating lower than 10 percent, all the while provoking Russia to take further measures in response.
What could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, the Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by providing lethal assistance to a country on its border. Not only is Trump maintaining an Obama-era policy, he is aggravating and converting Obama’s Ukraine policy into a much more dangerous one — ultimately aimed at provoking an aggressive response from Russia in the weeks or months to come.
Three Ukrainian oligarchs traded part of around $1.5bn in illicit assets traced to cronies of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, an exclusive investigation by Al Jazeera revealed on Sunday.
They did so as the war-torn country struggled to return suspected misappropriated funds to its coffers.
An unsigned contract obtained by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit identifies Alexander Onyschenko – the gas tycoon, former member of parliament and currently one of Ukraine’s most-wanted men – and Pavel Fuchs, a real estate tycoon who made his fortune in Moscow, as the buyers in the illegal deal.
Other documents suggest the seller was Serhiy Kurchenko – a fugitive Ukrainian gas tycoon based in Moscow who was known as Yanukovich’s “family wallet”.
The contract obtained by Al Jazeera, revealed in The Oligarchs investigation, said Onyschenko and Fuchs paid $30m, including cash and a private jet, for the Cyprus-based company, Quickpace Limited.
That company held $160m-worth of bonds and cash, which was frozen by a Ukrainian judge as they were suspected of being proceeds of crime.
The findings were “unbelievable”, said Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (ANTAC).
“It sounds like an agreement between criminal bosses, you know? You can sign it with your blood.”
It is illegal in Ukraine and abroad to trade with frozen assets.
“The whole idea is I’ve frozen the asset because I think it’s the proceeds of crime,” said Jon Benton, former director of the International Corruption Unit at Britain’s National Crime Agency.
“It’s like trading in stolen goods that have been taken by the police. You’re putting the cash in the getaway car,” he told Al Jazeera.
The buyers aim to make a $130m profit by persuading a judge to unfreeze the assets.
Article 4.4 of the contract said that the buyers would cooperate in “taking action to remove the arrest from the accounts” held by Quickpace Limited.
Ukrainian authorities froze the assets in June 2014 across numerous companies in Cyprus, the UK, Panama, Belize and the British Virgin Islands totalling $1.5bn. It is estimated that that Yanukovich and his cronies stole far more.
Evidence found on Yanukovich’s abandoned property hidden outside Kiev showed one of his clan’s corporate networks. Documents obtained by Al Jazeera expose another.
They reveal how Yanukovich’s clan pumped stolen money into companies in Ukraine with bank accounts in Latvia and gradually passed it through dozens of offshore shell companies in Cyprus, Belize, British Virgin Islands and other money-laundering hotspots including the UK.
“The philosophy of money launderers is just to create a situation where the money has moved through so many different companies and so many different countries, in so many different accounts that it would be almost impossible to recreate the trail,” said Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital.
Yanukovich’s name never appeared on any of the paperwork.
The companies bear the names of nominee directors – cut-out characters who appear to be the owner of a company, but simply act on instruction by the real owner.
Ukraine’s new authorities started to look into the corrupt schemes after Yanukovich’s removal from office in 2014.
It began a series of reforms that included the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
But nothing important has been achieved in terms of the prosecution of the corrupt individuals or the recovery of the stolen assets.
“Resistance is very strong from the elites who are in power now and the more we investigate, the more we face this resistance,” Artem Sytnyk, NABU director, told Al Jazeera.
“Parliament is taking steps to sideline the management of the Anti-Corruption Agency and take control.”
Nazar Holodnitsky, Ukraine’s special anti-corruption prosecutor, refused Al Jazeera’s requests for information, saying: “Until this investigation is complete, any comments, assertions regarding the existence or absence of certain documents is premature.”
Onyschenko took the position that there was nothing wrong with buying a company holding frozen assets. “You can buy cheap and try to fix the problem to make money,” he told Al Jazeera.
Onyschenko confirmed Fuchs’ and Kurchneko’s role in the deal, but denied the deal went ahead.
“It was like normal business, but this has not happened. We didn’t buy.”
However, a Cypriot lawyer and the NABU, who worked on the deal, confirmed the sale of Quickpace went through and company documents record a transfer of ownership to one of Mr Fuchs’s companies.
Al Jazeera obtained a record of an initial payment of $2m from an account at Barclays Bank to another at a Russian-owned Latvian bank, Norvic Banka.
Currently, Quickpace is owned by Evermore Property Holdings Limited, a Cyprus company, which, in turn, is owned by Dorchester International Incorporated. Fuchs is its owner.
With 2018 not even a week old, we have a shiny, brand new western regime change operation unfolding in Iran.
When it comes to western sponsored regime change operations, Iran may very well be the biggest prize of them all. You have to hand it to the Deep State on this one…they are aiming to wreak havoc on regional power Iran, and deal a fatal blow to a rising New World Order.
For all its hubris and ambition, this western fueled regime change operation lacks much creativity, dusting off the same old playbook used in regime change operations of the past decade.
Two weeks ago a memo was leaked from inside the Trump administration showing how Secretary of State and DC neophyte Rex Tillerson was coached on how the US empire uses human rights as a pretense on which to attack and undermine noncompliant governments. Politicoreports:
The May 17 memo reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the U.S. should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. “Allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” argued the memo, written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook.
With what would be perfect comedic timing if it weren’t so frightening, Iran erupted in protests which have been ongoing for the last four days, and the western empire is suddenly expressing deep, bipartisan concern about the human rights of those protesters.So we all know what this song and dance is code for. Any evil can be justified in the name of “human rights”.
In October we learned from a former Qatari prime minister that there was a massive push from the US and its allies to topple the Syrian government from the very beginning of the protests which began in that country in 2011 as part of the so-called Arab Spring. This revelation came in the same week The Interceptfinally released NSA documents confirming that foreign governments were in direct control of the “rebels” who began attacking Syria following those 2011 protests. The fretting over human rights has occurred throughout the entirety of the Syrian war, even as the governments publicly decrying human rights abuses were secretly arming and training terrorist factions to murder, rape and pillage their way across the country.
In 2007 retired four-star General Wesley Clark appeared on Democracy Now and said that about ten days after 9/11 he learned that the Pentagon was already making plans for a completely unjustified invasion of Iraq, and that he was shown a memo featuring a plan to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
So it’s an established fact that the neocons have had Iran in their crosshairs for a good long time.
This is all coming off the back of the nonstop CIA/CNN narrative being advanced that Iran is a top perpetrator of state-sponsored terrorism, which is just plain false. I have a lot of Trump-supporting followers, and I would like to stress to them that the group of intelligence veterans who authored this memo about Iran is the same group who released a memo dismantling the bogus Russiagate narrative; these are good people and you can trust them. I encourage you to read it.
Trump is lying when he says Iran is “the Number One State of Sponsored Terror”. This is the same exact script they run over and over and over again, and people are falling for it again like Charlie Brown and the football. It is nonsensical to believe things asserted by the US intelligence and defense agencies on blind faith at this point, especially when they are clearly working to manufacture support for interventionism in a key strategic location. In a post-Iraq invasion world, nothing but the most intense skepticism of such behavior is acceptable.
Luckily, because a full scale invasion of Iran would be far more costly and deadly than the invasion of Iraq, support for this will need to be manufactured not just in America but within an entire coalition of its allies. This will be extremely difficult to do, but by God they are trying.
Please keep your skepticism cranked up to eleven on this Iran stuff, dear reader, and be very loudly vocal about it. My Trump-supporting readers especially, I implore you to think critically about all this and look closely at the similarities between the anti-Iran agenda and the other interventions I know you oppose. Together we can kill this narrative and spare ourselves another senseless middle eastern bloodbath.
Russia has warned the United States about the consequences of supplying arms to Ukraine, saying that the provision of weapons may cause new bloodshed in the country’s troubled east.
The Kremlin said on Thursday that the weapons would provoke “hotheads” among Ukrainian nationalists to seek to unleash new bloodshed in eastern Ukraine.
On Wednesday, the US State Department announced it had approved a license for US manufacturers to sell firearms and smaller weapons to Ukraine, including assault rifles, combat shotguns, silencers, military scopes, and flash suppressors.
Moscow has several times warned Washington against supplying Kiev with lethal weapons.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also said that by selling Kiev the sniper rifles and other arms, Washington was encouraging “massive bloodshed” in eastern Ukraine and becoming an “accomplice to murder.”
The sale of new US weapons to Ukraine could complicate hopes for new peace talks and lead to further casualties in the war, which has claimed more than 10,300 lives already.
Russia’s first deputy permanent representative to the UN, Pyotr Ilyichev had on Tuesday warned that shipments of US and Canadian weapons to Ukraine would encourage the country’s leadership to seeks new military adventures.
The government in Kiev has been engaged in an armed conflict with pro-Russia forces in eastern Ukraine since 2014.
The pro-Russians have turned the two regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the east — collectively known as the Donbass — into self-proclaimed republics.
The administration of former US president Barack Obama had refused to supply Ukraine with lethal weaponry and instead provided Kiev with 600 million dollars in military assistance, including training, equipment, and advice.
A recent survey of 2,000 Ukrainian citizens aged over 18 was conducted by the sociological group “Rating” via face-to-face interviews on November 22-30; the results were revealed on December, 21.
Thirty-eight percent of Ukrainian citizens advocate the immediate removal of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko from office, while only 13.8 percent of those who intend to vote in the 2019 presidential election said they would support his reelection, a report dubbed “Socio-Political Moods of the Population: November 2017” based on a survey of Ukrainians which was revealed Thursday.
“45% of those polled believe that P. Poroshenko needs to be allowed to finish his presidential term and furthermore, to be replaced as a result of the election. 38% support his immediate removal from the post of the President of Ukraine,” the Sociological Group Rating poll said.
The poll also found that Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of the Batkivshchyna Party and a former Ukrainian prime minister, topped the ratings.
Visa regime with Russia
More than 50 percent of Ukrainians oppose the idea of introducing visa requirements for travel between their country and Russia, according to the survey.
“In the case of a referendum on the introduction of a visa regime with Russia, this initiative would be supported by 32% of the respondents; 51% — stand against it, 4% — would not vote, 13% — have not decided on the answer,” the report published on the sociological group’s website said.
The report added that 42 percent of people living in the country’s western regions backed introducing visas between the two states, making it the highest share among all the macro-regions, however, the same number of respondents from Ukraine’s west opposed the move.A number of Ukrainian officials, including members of the parliament, have repeatedly called for the introduction of a visa regime with Russia, however, the Ukrainian authorities believe that it would have a negative impact on the country’s citizens. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow would adhere to the reciprocity principle in visa-related issues with Kiev.
Instead of a visa regime, Ukraine will introduce a biometric control system at checkpoints, including on the Russian border, from January 1.
A total of 47 percent of Ukrainians support early elections of the Verkhovna Rada, the national parliament, a poll showed Thursday.
“Pre-term elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are supported by 47% of the respondents, 41% stand against such an initiative, and 12% have not decided on this issue. 44% of those polled support the pre-term elections of the President of Ukraine, 46% do not support it, and 10% have not decided,” the statement issued by Ukraine’s Rating group reads.
The next elections to the country’s parliament are expected to take place in the fall of 2019, while the presidential election is set for March 31, 2019.
Political Parties’ Popularity
The Ukrainian Batkivshchyna party led by Yulia Timoshenko and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s bloc Solidarnist (Bloc Solidarity) have the leading positions among the country’s political parties.
16.8 percent of potential voters would cast their ballots for the Batkivshchyna party, while the Solidarity party would be supported by 14.5 percent. The Opposition Bloc ranks third with 9.4 percent, according to the poll.The poll specified that 8.9 percent of voters would support Za Zhyttia party (For Life), 7.7 percent would vote for the Radical Party, the Civic Position is likely to gain 6.8 percent, Samopomic (Self Reliance) — 6.5 percent and the Svoboda party would have 5.6 percent.
At the same time, 22.5 percent of potential voters said that they would not vote for Poroshenko’s party and 11.5 percent would not vote for the Opposition Bloc. Batkivshchyna ranks third in the so-called anti-rating with 6.2 percent.
The next presidential election in Ukraine is expected be held in autumn 2019.
As many as 47 percent of Ukrainians would support the country joining NATO, while support for the country’s EU membership has been expressed by 59 percent of Ukrainian citizens, a poll conducted by the sociological group showed Thursday.
“Ukraine joining NATO would be supported by 47% of the respondents in a referendum, 36% — would not support it, 13% — have not decided, and 4% would not take part in the referendum,” the survey said.
According to the poll, the Western regions of the country are more supportive of NATO accession (71 percent), while in eastern Ukraine the initiative is desired by only one-quarter of the population (25 percent). The same trend is being observed with respect to the country’s potential EU membership.
“Ukraine’s integration into the European Union is supported by 59% of the respondents, 26% — stand against it, 11% — have not decided, 4% — would not take part in a referendum on this issue. The highest level of support for the idea of EU membership is recorded among the western residents (81%), the lowest was recorded in the East (39%),” the survey found.
Ukraine began its cooperation with NATO soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it has long enjoyed a non-aligned status. Following the Euromaidan events and a snap presidential election, Ukraine renounced its non-aligned status in 2014. In June 2016, the Ukrainian authorities indicated that membership in NATO was an objective of country’s foreign policy, which, according to experts, it is not likely to be achieved in the next 20 years.Likewise, Kiev has long been seeking to receive the prospect of membership in the European Union. Ukraine demanded that the clause to be included in the EU-Ukraine association agreement, but that did not happen.
Forty-three percent of Ukrainians support returning the breakaway Donbass region to the country by political and diplomatic means, a poll, conducted by the Sociological Group Rating, said Thursday.
According to the poll, just 11 percent were in favor of “returning [the territories] by force,” and 8 percent were for the secession of these territories from Ukraine.
Another 13 percent of respondents called for giving the self-proclaimed Donbas republics the status of autonomy, but under the condition that they remain within Ukraine. A total of 17 percent supported freezing the military conflict and ceasing all hostilities.
In April 2014, Kiev launched a military operation against the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) that refused to recognize the new Ukrainian government. In February 2015, the conflicting parties signed a ceasefire agreement in the Belarusian capital city of Minsk, but the situation in the region has remained tense.