Archives du mot-clé Geostrategy

La Corée du Nord révèle la redoutable précision de ses missiles balistiques

Le missile balistique de portée intermédiaire de type Hwasong-12 (Mars-12) lancé hier par la Corée du Nord a démontré la redoutable précision des forces de la seconde artillerie nord-coréenne.

Le missile a parcouru une distance de 2700 kilomètres et à une altitude maximale de 550 kilomètres, suivant avec une précision inégalée une trajectoire passant délibérément au dessus d’un point précis (cible initiale choisie pour cet essai) jouxtant l’extrémité côtière méridionale de l’île nippone d’Hokkaido.

987

Ce tir est un message clair et se veut comme une réponse cinglante aux experts US qui doutaient encore des capacités balistiques de la Corée du Nord à atteindre l’île de Guam.

Selon un communiqué de la KCNA, l’agence nord-coréenne officielle d’information, Kim Jong-un était présent lors du tir du Hwasong-12.

« Kim Jong-un, Secrétaire du Parti des Travailleurs de Corée, Secrétaire de la Commission des Affaires de l’Etat et commandant suprême de l’Armée populaire de Corée, a supervisé sur place un tir de missile balistique stratégique de la force stratégique de l’Armée populaire de Corée…Les forces impliquées dans cet exercice appartiennent aux unités d’artillerie « MARS » (Hwasong) de la force stratégique de l’Armée populaire de Corée et dont la mission consiste à frapper les bases des forces de l’agresseur impérialiste Yankee situées dans le théâtre opérationnel de  l’océan pacifique avec un missile balistique Hwasong-12″

C’est probablement la première fois que Pyongyang révèle ses capacités à atteindre l’objectif avec une CEP (probabilité d’erreur circulaire au point d’impact) aussi réduite.

8228

Indéniablement, les missiles balistiques nord-coréens sont de loin plus précis que ce que les analystes occidentaux veulent croire selon un expert chinois qui a tenu à garder l’anonymat. Par dessus tout, ajoute-il, Pyongyang vient de démontrer de façon magistrale à Washington qu’il a non seulement la capacité de frapper les bases US d’une importance stratégique capitale à Guam mais de disposer d’une certaine maîtrise que l’on soupçonnait guère jusqu’ici. Il y a 2500 ans, Sun Tzu avait averti qu’il ne fallait jamais sous-estimer un adversaire.

Pyongyang vient d’ailleurs d’affirmer que ce tir était le prélude à une opération visant à contenir Guam, d’où décollent les bombardiers stratégiques US, emportant des dizaines de bombes nucléaires menaçant directement la Corée du Nord depuis plusieurs dizaines d’années.

 

On the Arrest of Two US Citizens in the DPRK and the Release of One

At the beginning of May 2017, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported the detention of two US citizens, both of Korean origin.

Initially, on May 3, KCNA announced that on April 22, the country’s “competent authorities” had arrested US citizen Kim Sang-duk because he had systematically committed “a hostile crime to overthrow the state” on more than one occasion. Although such a formulation may mean different things, it mostly serves as a euphemism for the secret distribution of banned anti-communist or Christian literature.

On May 6, another US citizen, Kim Hak-sun, was detained. The reason for the detention was also related to his “hostile acts”.

Both detainees have connections to the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST), which trains representatives of various engineering specialties. This is the only educational institution in North Korea that is funded by foreign investment. It was opened in 2010 by a Christian entrepreneur of Korean-American descent Professor Kim Chin Kyung. Classes are taught in English based on a European system of education by foreign teachers. Here, we note that a number of anti-Pyongyang propagandists have described this place as the main source of the penetration to the North of forbidden technologies, which should long have been put under wraps. Kim Sang-duk was invited there to teach accounting, and also engaged in charitable activities, providing food assistance to children. As for Kim Hak-sun, there is no information on what he was doing there.

With these developments, South Korean media has immediately gone on to remind the world that to date, four US citizens have been detained in the DPRK. In addition to the two Kims, in October 2015, the North sentenced Pastor Kim Dong Chul to ten years of penal labor for espionage, and Otto-Frederick Warmbier, a student, who is serving a 15-year sentence “for trying to take out a propaganda poster.”

As usual, the West interpreted the arrests as Pyongyang’s attempt to “send a signal” or blackmail Washington with people’s lives in order to lift sanctions. In response, on May 11, in an interview with KCNA, an unnamed spokesperson for the DPRK Foreign Ministry announced that North Korea had the right “to punish” ruthlessly citizens of the United States who were detained for crimes against the state, and there is no reason for political bargaining.

Since then, almost a month has passed, and a curious detail is begging for close attention. According to a US Foreign Ministry representative, as the Yonhap News Agency reports, although Washington is in the know about the detentions, this topic of the detainees is quite low-profile. This flies in the face that in other similar situations, the US State Department has openly stated that “attempts to unlawfully incriminate US citizens in foreign lands will not go unpunished, and in order to save their sons and daughters, the US was prepared to go to incredible lengths.” Perhaps the history of each of these detainees does not quite fit into the framework of the “unlawfully incriminated” paradigm.

In earlier articles, we touched on what happened to the US student. This is why we are not talking about an attempt to “take out a propaganda poster”, but about an unsuccessful theft of a big slogan that hung in the service room, which was stolen as a result of some drunken mischief. And during his last night in Pyongyang, Otto-Frederick tried to snatch the poster off and take it along with him to later hang it as a trophy in his own church. And although his detention was described as “a blatant example of total non-recognition of basic human rights and human dignity,” today, even the US media acknowledges that he was “attempting to take down a large propaganda sign”.

As for Kim Dong Chul, as soon as he was released, he held a press conference. The details of his speech, even with a correction for the love of the northerners of this kind of show, cannot be rejected as completely fabricated. In particular, Kim admitted that he had collected on behalf of the South Korean special services or for some “conservative elements” various information, including information of a military nature (“he took photographs of military secrets and scandalous moments”). To accomplish this goal, he bribed the locals and was caught “red-handed” during a meeting with his informant, a former North Korean soldier, to obtain a flash card that contained information about the military facilities of the country.

By the middle of June, nothing had been cleared up: The only available information was that Kim Sang-duk was being detained in a Pyongyang Airport departure lounge after taking a month-long course on international finance and management. Perhaps a book written by one of the professors from PUST describing how they conducted private worship services and “Bible studies” served as indirect evidence.

However, the news on the front pages was narrating the unexpected release of Otto-Frederick Warmbier on June 13, 2017, and the circumstances that preceded it. According to the Washington Post, referring to the student’s family, the DPRK authorities informed them that soon after the announcement of the verdict, Otto-Frederick became ill with botulism and was found in a coma after taking a sleeping pill. The latter is strange, since the usual symptoms of botulinum toxin poisoning do not include a loss of consciousness. On June 6, 2017, information about the patient’s condition was brought to Special Representative for North Korea Policy Ambassador Joseph Yun, whose efforts resulted in the northerners allowing Swedish diplomats to visit the detained US citizens. And when information about the coma was confirmed, Yun informed Tillerson, Tillerson did Trump, after which Yun was sent to Pyongyang along with some doctors and a special aircraft, and during the negotiations, the parties agreed on a release on humanitarian grounds. United States Secretary of State Chief Rex Tillerson confirmed the information and reiterated, “At the direction of the US President, the State Department has secured the release of Otto Warmbier from North Korea. Mr. Warmbier is en route to the United States, where he will be reunited with his family.”

Here, we will note that no former US President has managed to organize the release of a student, nor were there, say, any sudden indulgences in sanctions or deliveries of humanitarian aid. Therefore, the myth that North Korea “takes hostages” and seizes foreign citizens under fictitious pretexts to use their lives for political bargaining has once again been dispelled.

But one myth is replaced by another: rumors that the American student fell into a coma due to being subjected to sophisticated torture, or worse, medical experiments, began immediately. The media reported that “Warmbier experienced severe brain damage and extensive withering away of its tissues,” and Human Rights Watch demanded that Pyongyang be held accountable: Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch Asian Division Phil Robertson said that the DPRK inflicted irreparable damage on Mr. Warmbier and his relatives, and therefore, it is necessary to find out how Warmbier was treated during his imprisonment and by whom, and also demand that Pyongyang take measures to prevent the likelihood of similar events occurring in the future.

However, the truth is, no matter what North Korea does, with a certain skill, it can be turned into an illustration of how the DPRK is a country of total horror. The fanning of the story of the “medical experiments on prisoners” reinforces the idea that ​​the DPRK is a country ruled by a cruel and irrational regime from which one can expect virtually anything, and, accordingly, adds fuel to the beliefs of those who think that a “preemptive” military operation against such a regime is not only morally just, but also strategically apt.

Konstantin Asmolov

New Eastern Outlook

Direct Link to the source: http://journal-neo.org/2017/06/21/on-the-arrest-of-two-us-citizens-in-the-dprk-and-the-release-of-one/

 

Les militaires jordaniens s’opposent à toute aventure militaire en Syrie

Des généraux jordaniens ont exprimé pour la première fois leur totale opposition au Roi sur une éventuelle intervention en Syrie aux côtés des forces rebelles soutenues par des forces occidentales et arabes hostiles à la Syrie.

La fronde a débuté lorsque les chefs des divisions blindées ont refusé et c’est un fait rarissime,  de prendre part à des exercices conjoints avec des forces US et britanniques au Nord du Royaume, dans une région adjacente avec le Sud de la Syrie.

Cette opposition est partagée par les chefs des forces aériennes et ceux des redoutables forces spéciales, pour qui il est absolument hors de question que la Jordanie se batte pour Israël.

9.jpg

« Vous voulez vraiment sacrifier la Syrie pour le bénéfice exclusif d’Israël?! » se serait exclamé le Chef d’état-major des forces royales jordanienne en présence du souverain. Un autre responsable militaire a souligné qu’il lui est impossible d’avaliser l’envoi des unités blindées jordaniennes à l’abattoir en Syrie tandis qu’un autre s’est interrogé sur la finalité de sacrifier la Syrie pour Israël. « Qu’ils y aillent seuls [à propos des Anglo-Américains] dans cette aventure hasardeuse jouer aux Allenby (en référence au général Edmund Allenby) , ils s’enliseront cette fois dans un marécage sans fin! » a lancé le chef des opérations spéciales.

Cette attitude tranchée des chefs militaire du Royaume Hachémite affaiblit un peu plus la position d’un Roi accablé par d’énormes pressions internationales contradictoires, une terrible crise économique et faisant face à de formidables défis géopolitiques marqués par l’effondrement de l’ensemble des équilibres géostratégiques de la Mer Noire à la Mer Rouge et de l’Euphrate à la Méditerranée orientale.

L’affaiblissement du Roi de Jordanie inquiète au plus haut point Washington.

Les experts militaires jordaniens suivent avec attention les efforts israéliens visant à sécuriser la partie du Golan sous occupation israélienne, à travers notamment la construction, à un rythme effréné, d’un mur de défense avec la Syrie dans le but d’empêcher toute attaque du Hezbollah libanais ou de l’armée syrienne qui est en train de reconstituer ses unités décimées par la guerre.

Des informations rendues publiques ont évoqué une concentration inhabituelles de forces rebelles soutenues par des unités militaires US et britanniques à l’extrême Nord de la Jordanie et certains analystes ont interprété ces manœuvres comme le prélude à une nouvelle tentative d’invasion de la Syrie à partir de ses régions méridionales.

Damas a mis en garde Amman contre toute aventurisme militaire non-productif au profit de forces « ennemies » qui sera interprété comme un casus belli légitime susceptible d’entraîner une déclaration de guerre.

 

 

 

Damas se prépare à une double offensive sur deux axes

Les forces armées syriennes se préparent à contrer une solide offensive des forces rebelles mercenaires soutenues par les forces US et israéliennes en provenance des confins jordaniens et dont l’objectif serait la province sudiste de Deraa.

Des renforts de troupes et de blindés syriens encombrent depuis un peu plus de deux jours les axes entre Damas et Deraa.

Washington et ses alliés régionaux ont crée deux armées rebelles mercenaires: l’une basée en Jordanie et l’autre en Turquie. Le plan de guerre en élaboration prévoit au moins un scénario dans lequel les unités de l’armée syrienne seraient prises en tenailles par deux axes d’invasion solidement soutenus par un assaut aérien et balistique américain. Le Casus Belli cette fois-ci serait un « bombardement chimique aux conséquences horribles sur une des banlieues Sud de Damas, plus probablement Jobar ou la Ghouta ».

Plus au Nord, les forces syriennes soutenues par des factions armées palestiniennes, continuent d’avancer en territoire rebelle.

A Homs, l’armée syrienne a réussi  à dégager l’axe stratégique Homs-Damas avec l’aide des unités d’élite iraniennes.

Faisant face à une menace d’un double assaut sur deux fronts éloignés et soutenu par une campagne aérienne US, Damas n’a plus le choix que de transférer des milliers de combattants iraniens vers le Sud, dans la province de Deraa mais surtout au Golan. Le cauchemar absolu de Tel-Aviv. Car l’un des éléments du « Plan de la FIN » du haut commandement de l’armée syrienne est un passage en force sur les hauteurs du Golan en cas d’une invasion étrangère de type irakien. Un plan très longuement élaboré par Hafed Al-Assad, le père de l’actuel président syrien au fond d’un bunker de commandement souterrain protégé par 50 mètres d’acier et 200 mètres de rocs.

Les généraux russes en charge des opérations en Syrie rapportent que leurs homologues syriens sont très susceptibles et insistent sur leur autonomie. La première chose que l’on enseigne dans les académies militaires syriennes est la guerre contre l’ennemi sioniste. Après plus de 6 ans de guerre en Syrie, les forces armées syriennes sont dans un piètre état mais Damas a gardé intacte une division qu’elle n’a jamais utilisé jusque là. Economie des moyens ou dernière balle? Nul ne sait exactement ce que cette petite armée d’un pays du tiers-monde forgée par un pilote de chasse Alaouite avec l’aide de conseillers militaires Allemands ayant réussi à fuir l’Allemagne en 1946 est capable de faire.

700
Colonel Suhail, brillant commandant de la redoutable Brigade spéciale connue sous le nom du Tigre, pourrait prendre la relève du président Al-Assad dans un gouvernement dit de « la Fin » 

 

 

 

Direct Intelligence from Syria and Lebanon

America’s 3000 man contingent inside Iraq, is managing combat operations for ISIS and al Nusra in combination with Israeli forces.

CIA trained Chechens
CIA trained Chechens

The report below was received from Syria and Lebanon this morning.  I will bullet point what I believe are the salient points.

  • ISIS chief, al Baghdadi, was removed from his position 4 months ago because the CIA is putting command of ISIS in the hands of Chechen and Russian jihadists who are both trusted and better trained.
  • This move was resisted and the Chechen forces, numbering 15,000, withdrew to Mosul.
  • This is being done to resist Iranian and Russian involvement both directly and through the new Baghdad intelligence coordination center which is threatening to end the war, something the CIA and Mossad cannot allow.
  • US Special Forces, on the ground in both Syria and Iraq, working out of Deir Ezzur, al Mayaden and Ramadi and receiving logistic support from America’s 3000 man contingent inside Iraq, is managing combat operations for ISIS and al Nusra in combination with Israeli forces.
  • The American assault on Deir Ezzur to “capture” an imaginary “oil official” of ISIS was staged to exfiltrate an American field commander who had been identified by Syria and was about to be captured by Syrian Speznatz.
  • All CIA and Mossad operations with al Nusra (the real Free Syrian Army) and ISIS are directly tied at every level to operations, both military and political, in Ukraine.

Original Arabic text by Naheed Al-Hussainy from Damascus, Syria

   

ناهد الحسيني – دمشق

أكد السفير الدكتور هيثم بو سعيد أمين عام المنظمة الأوروبية للأمن والمعلومات انّ الاتحاد الاوروبي بات امام معضلة صعبة في القضية السورية ولا حلّ الا من خلال انتهاج نمط التهدئة في الخطاب السياسي الذي قد يوحي الى رغبة في اعادة الأمور الى طبيعتها تدريجياً مع الحكومة السورية، وهذا ما عَمِلت عليه وتعمل المنظمة الأوروبية للأمن والمعلومات منذ فترة مع الحكومات الاوروبية، نظراً لخطورة الوضع، مشيرا الى أن الغرب بدء بإرسال إشارات في عدّة اتجاهات، خصوصاً بعد دخول اسرائيل على المسرح السوري جراء قصفها لمواقع للجيش بعد بدء العمليات الجوية الروسية ضد تنظيم الإرهابي داعش. والتدخل الاسرائيلي يُعتبر بمثابة رسالة دعم للجماعات التكفيريةً  وخاصة جبهة النصرة ومتفرعاتها التي تلقى دعم علني من اسرائيل وغضب الأخيرة جراء قصف الطيران الروسي لمواقع داعش.

كما أعلن السفير بو سعيد انّ محاولة قصف موكب ابو بكر البغدادي في منطقة بيجي هو ادعاء صحيح، الاّ انّ البغدادي لم يكن من ضمن الأشخاص الذين أصيبوا جراء القصف الجوي للتحالف الدولي. والغرض من هذا السيناريو هو التحضير لإشاعة مقتله بعد ان تمّ الكشف عن إزاحته منذ اكثر من أربعة أشهر بعد ان كانت هناك مجموعة من الموساد الإسرائيلية ومجموعة أمنية تقوم بحمايته على رأسهم مسؤول اللجنة الأمنية للتنظيم أبي سعد الكربولي قبل حوالي خمسة أشهر، حيث مصيره منذ ذلك الحين بات لغزاً عجزه او وفاته لاحقاً.

وأوضح السفير ابو سعيد الى انّ الخلاف الذي أدّى الى إقصاء البغدادي عن منصبه جاء بعد خلاف بينه وبين القيادة الاستخباراتية الاميركية المحلية من اجل دفع الشيشانيين الى واجهة التنظيم الإرهابي الاَّ انه بقيت السيطرة العراقية على رأس هذا التنظيم مما أوجب صدع كبير في منطقة بيجي في حينها أدى الى خروج حوالي خمسة عشرة الف (١٥،٠٠٠) من الشيشانيين الى الموصل. مشيرا الى ان المعلومات المتوفرة تشير الى ان الهدف من تسلم واجهة القيادة لهذا التنظيم المحظور دوليا هو لاستعماله ورقة ضغط

أميركية على روسيا في الاحداث الجارية في أوكرانيا

وأوضح السفير ابو سعيد الى انّ الخلاف الذي أدّى الى إقصاء البغدادي عن منصبه جاء بعد خلاف بينه وبين القيادة الاستخباراتية الاميركية المحلية من اجل دفع الشيشانيين الى واجهة التنظيم الإرهابي الاَّ انه بقيت السيطرة العراقية على رأس هذا التنظيم مما أوجب صدع كبير في منطقة بيجي في حينها أدى الى خروج حوالي خمسة عشرة الف (١٥،٠٠٠) من الشيشانيين الى الموصل. مشيرا الى ان المعلومات المتوفرة تشير الى ان الهدف من تسلم واجهة القيادة لهذا التنظيم المحظور دوليا هو لاستعماله ورقة ضغط أميركية على روسيا في الاحداث الجارية في أوكرانيا.

وهناك معلومات  تفيد بانه يتم تحضير مجموعات من الأصول الاسلامية التكفيرية للقيام بأعمال أمنية وعسكرية ضد الجيش الروسي وحلفائهم بغية تحجيم الامتداد الروسي وهذه المجموعات موجودة حاليا في الموصل

US Baghdadi Scenario is scandalous 

Nahed al Husaini VT Bureau Chief,  Damascus

Secretary General of the European Department for Security and Information Haissam Bou Said stated that the European Union is facing a difficult dilemma visa-a-vie the Syrian issue, noting that there is no solution except through the adoption of a truce in the political discourse pattern which may suggest a desire to restore things to gradual normality with the Syrian government.

“This is what the Department has worked and is working on for a while with the European governments because of the seriousness of the situation,”  Bou Said commented.

He noted that the West begins to send off signals in several directions , especially after Israel entered the Syrian theater by bombing army positions in the wake of Russian air operations against the terrorist organizations, namely ISIS, Al- Nusra and subsidiaries , which are now overtly backed by Israel.

A reliable source told VT that the Israeli element in the Syrian scene was present from the outburst of the Syrian crisis, via aiding the insurgents with logistics to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad.

The Russians are coordinating now with the Israelis to avoid any collusion incidents in Syrian spaces, and the Syrian army moved now from defensive to offensive strategies, benefitting tremendously from the Russian air cover which is protecting the movements of Syrian military.

The European position is still confused on Syria, because of the Israeli lobby leverage exercised on Top-notch European politicians and governments.

Bou Said also said that the bombing attempt of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi procession in “Baiji” is true , but al-Baghdadi was not among the people who were injured during the aerial bombardment of the international coalition . The purpose of this scenario is to prepare for the rumor of his death after the revelation that he was removed from his position four months ago. A  group of Mossad, together with the security committee head of the organization Abu Saad al-Karbouli were guarding Al Baghdadi, whose fate since then has become a mystery.

Ambassador Bou Saeed explained that al-Baghdadi was excluded after the dispute which erupted between him and the local US intelligence command regarding pushing the Chechens to the forefront of the terrorist organization, but the Iraqi top control remained, leading to a crack in the organization in “Baiji.” About fifteen thousand ( 15,000 ) of Chechens left as a result and headed for Mosul .

Bou Said indicated that that the reason behind giving the Chechens the upper hand in the organization is to use them as a bargain chip against Russia in the ongoing events in Ukraine.  The intelligence available to the DESI clearly indicates that groups of extremists are being prepared now to take military actions against the Russian army and their allies in order to curtail the Russian sprawl . The groups are positioned in Mosul now, waiting for a signal to move ahead.

Source: Veterans Today

Bangkok Blast: Who Has Ax To Grind With Thailand?

The bombing on Monday evening, August 17, 2015, has killed up to 20 people, injured over 100 more, and stands as one of the worst single terrorist attacks in Thailand’s capital of Bangkok in recent memory. The attack targeted a religious shrine popular with Asian tourists – particularly from China – who now comprise the largest demographic group of visitors to Thailand.

It is clear the attack was a precision strike on Thailand’s economy, and specifically against a very precise segment of Thailand’s tourist market. Commentators have admitted that many other targets with higher concentrations of tourists exist throughout Bangkok. Terrorists specifically struck the Erawan Shrine in downtown Bangkok to target Thailand’s Asian tourists.

The Western media has already begun spinning theories as to who carried out the attack – focusing on separatists in Thailand’s southern most provinces who have been waging a low-level insurgency for years. Many note, however, that violence rarely unfolds outside of these provinces, and has never been carried out on this scale – especially in Bangkok.

Deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters have also been cited as possible suspects. While southern separatists have never visited violence upon Bangkok, Shinawatra’s followers have – and often. They carried out riots that left two shopkeepers dead in 2009. In 2010, they fielded some 300 heavily armed militants on Bangkok’s streets, triggering gun battles that left nearly 100 dead and culminated in city-wide arson. They again fielded these same terrorists throughout 2013-2014 to target protests aimed at Shinawatra’s regime. This latest episode left nearly 30 dead and hundreds injured.

While no single attack by Shinawatra’s followers has rivaled Monday’s blast, the total death toll and carnage carried out by his militants in 2010, and again in 2013-2014 certainly exceeded it.

The foreign media also speculated terrorists linked to either China’s Xinjiang province or even the so-called « Islamic State » (ISIS) may have potentially been involved – perhaps because of the large number of Chinese tourists hit in the attack, and because terrorists from China’s Xinjiang province have been trafficked by NATO to Syria to fight along side ISIS.

It has been previously reported how the US and its allies have supported both Shinawatra’s regime over the past decade Also reported were US-Saudi ties with Thailand’s southern separatists and US-Turkish ties with China’s Uyghur separatists.

With US foreign policy serving as the singular common denominator between all possible suspects, one may be led to ask, « why Thailand? » What ax has the US to grind against Thailand?

Thailand’s Deadly Sins

While Thailand is perceived by many to be a stanch US ally, this originates in Cold War history, not modern reality. During the Vietnam War, Thailand found itself in the middle of a deadly regional conflict and opted to make concessions with the US rather than array itself against it. Thailand had previously used a similar strategy during World War II to mitigate war with Japan at the temporary cost of its sovereignty.

However, recently Thailand has drifted from Washington – and not just in terms of US-Thai relations alone, but within the greater context of US ambitions in Asia and in particular, in regards to its long-laid plans to encircle, contain, and « integrate » China in its American-made « international order. »

In understanding this drift, one can clearly see the means, motivation, and opportunity implicating the US in the recent terrorist attack.

(1.) Thailand’s ruling establishment has steadily resisted, eroded, and finally has ousted the US-backed client regime of Thaksin Shinawatra over a decade of political chaos. 

In the late 1990’s Shinawatra was an adviser to notorious US private equity firm, the Carlyle Group and described himself as a personal friend of the Bush political dynasty. He pledged upon taking political office that he would continue to serve as « matchmaker » between US interests and Thailand’s resources. In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT – which was sold off to foreign interests including Western oil companies, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.

In 2003, Shinawatra would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Shinawatra would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

In 2004, Shinawatra attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Shinawatra’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of his « red shirt » « United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship » (UDD) in Washington DC.

Since the first coup in 2006 aimed at his regime, Shinawatra has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here) and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners (Chatham House).
And from 2006 until now, both Western political and media circles have continuously provided favorable spin for Shinawatra and his political proxies. This includes the use of the above mentioned Freedom House and its umbrella organization, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund and back nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and academics in Thailand to provide rhetorical and operation support for Shinawatra and serve as a constant source of sociopolitical subversion aimed at Thailand’s ruling establishment.

Recently, with the appointment of Glyn Davies as US Ambassador to Thailand, a War College graduate specializing in nonmilitary use of force to upturn the sociopolitical order of a targeted nation, it is clear that America is still committed to installing Shinawara into power.

(2.) Thailand’s ruling establishment, in the wake of ousting Shinawatra from power, has pursued its own foreign policy, and in particular is seen as aligning closer to China. 

Since the 2006 coup which sent Shinawatra fleeing, and the 2014 coup which finally began the process of fully uprooting his entire political network, Thailand has moved steadily away from the « American Pacific Century » and toward the rise of China.

In terms of military cooperation, Thailand has invited China to participate for the first time in its long running annual Cobra Gold military exercise. Once solely a joint US-Thai exercise, it has evolved over the years to reflect Thailand’s shifting foreign policy – with China’s inclusion indicating Bangkok’s recognition of Beijing’s growing regional clout.

And while Thailand is often accused of having an all-American made military arsenal, most of its US-made weapons are antiquated, including aging M60 tanks. Before the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine, Thailand had attempted to procure T-84 main battle tanks from Kiev. It also possesses nearly 400 Type-85 armored personal carries from China and over 200 Ukrainian BTR-3 armored personal carriers to complement its aging US-made M113 carriers.

Perhaps most significant of all is Thailand’s plans to procure a small fleet of Chinese Type 039A diesel-electric attack submarines. Defense News in its article, « Thai Chinese Sub Buy Challenges US Pivot, » would claim:

Thailand’s move to purchase Chinese submarines has exacerbated tensions with the US and poses a challenge to Washington’s « pivot » to the Pacific. 

The military junta, which declared a coup in May 2014 and created the National Council for Peace and Order, could turn to China for political and military support and cooperation, analysts said. The junta-led Cabinet approved the purchase of three Type 039A (Yuan) attack submarines in early July.

It is clear that Thailand has been in the process of gradually escaping out from under American hegemony for years, with the recent ousting of Thaksin Shinawatra and his regime, along with strengthening ties with China creating an almost palpable desperation for American hegemony in Asia.

(3.) Thailand’s ruling establishment refuses to take part in America’s South China Sea strategy of tension. 

Part of America’s « pivot toward Asia » was creating conflict in the South China Sea between Beijing and the nations of Southeast Asia. By creating a security crisis Southeast Asia would be unable to solve alone, the US anticipated it would accentuate military and political dependence on the West. Nations including Japan and the Philippines have elected to walk into this conflict fully, expending themselves politically, militarily, and economically to confront and contain China while maintaining America’s current regional hegemony.

Other nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have asserted themselves amid the conflict, but often with a much more balanced stance between Beijing and Washington. Thailand too has attempted to avoid the conflict. The Nation in their article, « Thailand walks a tightrope on South China Sea, » would report:

The high-power visit from all branches of Thai military top brasses to China recently – first in 15 years – was a show-case sending a strong message to the US and the region, Cambodia in particular, that the Thai-China defense and security ties are rock solid and must not be the [subject] of speculations.  

In essence, Thailand serves as a speed bump within ASEAN preventing the supranational bloc from adopting a more belligerent stance toward China regarding South China Sea tensions. This has forced America’s proxies to act more unilaterally toward China than with the collective US-backed ASEAN front envisioned throughout decades of US policy papers.

Thailand: A Hole in America’s Great ASEAN Wall 

Since the Vietnam War, it was clear that American foreign policy in Asia hinged on containing the rise of China and « integrating » it into an « international order » US policymakers admit is an order created by the West, for the West. It was amid the leaked « Pentagon Papers » that this was unequivocally laid out – setting the stage for decades of foreign policy to come.

The papers contained three important quotes regarding this, the first stating:

…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.

It also claims:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

…there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.

The conspiracy to encircle and contain China originating in the 1967 Pentagon Papers would be reaffirmed throughout the decades within various successive US policy papers.

In 1997, key US policymaker Robert Kagan – co-author of multiple war plans featuring extraterritorial US aggression – would pen a piece in the Weekly Standard titled, « What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment. » In it, Kagan reveals the US is still pursuing a China-containment strategy and claims (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

He continues on by explaining how the Chinese correctly perceive America as using Southeast Asia as a united front against Beijing (emphasis added):

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will « play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes. »

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call « international norms » of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider « complaints about China’s violations of international norms » to be part of « an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.

Kagan’s column represented more than merely his own observations. The policy of containing China by projecting American power and influence across China’s peripheries – including Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, and Korea would be a reoccurring theme in the 2006 « String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral, » report put out by the Strategic Studies Institute.

It featured a map indicating China’s « String of Pearls, » a geostrategic corridor the United States would need to disrupt in order to control China’s development.

Beyond Thailand, political subversion funded by the US State Department and low-intensity terrorism can be found throughout this corridor, with NED-funded political fronts and their terrorist wings attempting to disrupt China’s Gwadar Port in Baluchistan, Pakistan, to NED-funded supporters of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi attempting to overthrow the Sino-aligned government there, to Malaysia and NED-backed street mob Bersih and its leader Anwar Ibrahim, to the South China Sea where US Pacific Command is directly agitating relations across the region.

The most recent affirmation of US designs versus China come in the form of a paper co-authored by the above mentioned Robert Blackwill – a Bush-era administrator and lobbyists of Thaksin Shinawatra. In his CFR paper titled, « Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, » it states:

Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

It is no coincidence that US policymakers charged with devising containment strategies for China are also serving as « lobbyists » for US client regimes in Southeast Asia meant to assist in the implementation of this « grand strategy. »
Thailand’s Bombing Amid a Larger Struggle 

Thus, the bombing in Bangkok, whether it was carried out by the US-backed regime of Shinawatra itself, US-Saudi linked terrorists from the south, or terrorists the US imported from Chechnya, the Middle East or China’s Xinjiang where the US is currently trying to foment yet another violent insurrection, was an act of coercion to steer Thailand away from its own foreign policy, and back toward serving American foreign policy.

In terms of military cooperation, economic trade, and political ties, Thailand is not the only nation attempting to escape out from under American hegemony. Malaysia and Myanmar have been fighting very visible battles against US-backed proxies. Should one or more of these states fully escape, it will create a cascading effect that will topple all of America’s « Great ASEAN Wall. »

For BRICS – a geopolitical alliance promoting the emergence of a multipolar world – they must recognize ASEAN’s struggle out from under Western hegemony and assist them if even only through the media – exposing to the world the ties between the US and various regional political factions and ties between the US, its allies, and regional terrorist organizations used when staged protests are impossible.

For ASEAN states themselves, they must resist the urge to capitulate in the face of terrorism and support neighboring nations in their bid to preserve national sovereignty.

It is clear who has an « ax to grind » against Thailand. The only question that remains is how big that ax is, and how many times it will fall upon Thailand before those wielding it can be disarmed.

Tony Cartalucci

TIME Admits ISIS Bringing Arms, Fighters in From NATO Territory

Late last year, Germany’s broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) investigated what turned out to be hundreds of trucks a day carrying billions of dollars in supplies, flowing across the Turkish border into Syria and directly into the hands of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

The border crossing near the Turkish city of Oncupinar, approximately 100km west of the Syrian city of Kobani, is apparently only one of many such crossings where ISIS fighters, weapons, and materiel move directly under the watch and apparent assistance of NATO.

Image: The summation of ISIS' supplies come from NATO and US-allied territory, primarily Turkey and Jordan. Turkey in addition to being a NATO member since the 1950's also hosts a US air base. No efforts have been made, nor any calls even, to secure Turkey's border and deny what is alleged to be an implacable enemy of the West billions in supplies passing through the West's own territory and into the theater of conflict ISIS is operating in.
Image: The summation of ISIS’ supplies come from NATO and US-allied territory, primarily Turkey and Jordan. Turkey in addition to being a NATO member since the 1950’s also hosts a US air base. No efforts have been made, nor any calls even, to secure Turkey’s border and deny what is alleged to be an implacable enemy of the West billions in supplies passing through the West’s own territory and into the theater of conflict ISIS is operating in.

TIME in their recent article titled, « ISIS Fighters Kill 200 Civilians in Syrian Town, » reported that:

The attacks also came after the group [ISIS] suffered a series of setbacks over the past two weeks, including the loss last week of the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad — one of the group’s main points for bringing in foreign fighters and supplies.

Tal Abyad, a Turkish-Syrian border crossing east of Kobani, is now a second, confirmed point of entry into Syria used by ISIS to supply its ongoing campaign within the country.

Reports of confirmed, extensive logistical networks passing through NATO and US-ally territory, into Syria, contradict the current prevailing narrative that ISIS is an « indigenous » terrorist organization, funded and self-sustaining within the territory it currently holds in both Syria and Iraq. The Western media has attempted to claim with little evidence that ISIS’ immense, global operations are somehow underwritten by « ransom payments » and « black market oil » it has seized in eastern Syria.

Clearly, not only are these reports as untenable as they are untrue, the Western media itself has reported precisely how ISIS has been sustaining its impressive fighting capacity – with billions of dollars of state-sponsored aid flowing through NATO territory, directly to their front lines.

Were the supplies flowing over the Syrian-Iraqi border, it may be possible to argue plausible deniability – with the governments of either nation unable to control either side of the border. However, Turkey, a NATO member since 1952 and host of the United States Air Force’s Incirlik Air Base, has full control of its borders meaning that ISIS-bound convoys not only pass over its borders with the apparent approval of Turkish border guards, but are assembled somewhere within Turkey itself before arriving at the edge of Syrian territory.

No effort has been made to stem the flow of supplies to ISIS from NATO territory, with the Turkish government officially denying the trucks DW videotaped and reported on even exist. This indicates clear NATO complicity in the arming and supplying of ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates who are in fact invading Syria from NATO-territory, as well as from US-ally Jordan.

For the West, which feigns indignation in the wake of recent ISIS attacks on France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, while posing as the primary force engaged in war with ISIS directly, it would be a simple matter to close the Turkish-Syrian border with NATO troops to ensure ISIS was shut off completely from the supplies it depends on to maintain its fighting capacity. That the borders are intentionally left open for this extensive daily torrent of supplies, weapons, and fighters to pass over unopposed, is proof positive that ISIS is and has been from the beginning a proxy force intentionally created to stoke fear and support at home for unending war abroad.

Without the threat of ISIS and the chaos it is creating across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the ability for the West to wage war on its enemies and justify extraterritorial meddling would be severely limited. In fact, the very ISIS forces clearly being armed and supplied by NATO directly, are being used as a pretext by US policymakers to execute recently laid plans to incrementally invade and occupy Syria with US military forces.

The Brookings Institute from which these plans originated, recently used an ISIS assault on Kobani to call for « US boots on the ground » in Syria, an assault which would have been logistically impossible were it not for the daily torrent of supplies the US and its NATO-ally Turkey have themselves intentionally enabled for years to cross into Syria.

To defeat ISIS, its supply lines must be cut – a simple matter to perform that requires only Turkish and other NATO troops to move in and disrupt overt ISIS logistical networks running within their own territory. Instead, the US State Department and US-operated NGOs have even gone as far as condemning what little attempts have been made to control Turkey’s border with Syria. The US State Department’s Voice of America in their article, « Turkish Border Crackdown Imperils Syrian Refugees, » used the pretext of « human rights » to condemn Turkey for what meager control measures it has attempted to put in place.

The fact that the US, with a military base in Turkey itself, has elected not to call for or attempt to implement stricter border security to stem the flow of ISIS supplies, and instead has gone as far as bombing Syrian territory in feigned efforts to « fight ISIS, » proves that the terrorist organization is both a proxy and a pretext. No serious military campaign would be launched against an enemy without identifying and cutting off its supply lines, especially when those supply lines run through that military’s own territory.

The general public across the West, if they truly desire an end to ISIS and its atrocities, will demand what least the West can do – shutting the borders of Turkey and Jordan and ending the flow of supplies to ISIS. This will never happen, thanks to both elementary but effective « divide and conquer » rhetoric miring the Western public in endless circular debate, and the fact that the average Westerner’s understanding of modern warfare and military logistics is derived from Hollywood and television, not maps, history, and basic knowledge.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Direct link to the article: Land Destroyer

Facebook is extremely Zionist…Facebook, un réseau très sioniste

antifacebookTechnically, the dual colors (white and blue) used by Facebook are exactly those of the Israeli flag.

Techniquement, les couleurs bichromatiques (blanc-bleu) utilisés par Facebook sont exactement celles du drapeau israélien.

Officially, Facebook is a popular social networking site Facebook, launched in February 2004. Actually, it is one of the most widespread spying tool ever created. It is not neutral. Any real attempt to criticize International Zionism could lead to a heavy censorship. In some well documented cases, Facebook « moderators » lost their temper and threatened users with very arrogant and ethnocentric messages before preventing them to get logged into their account.

Officiellement, Facebook est un réseau social populaire, crée en février 2004. En réalité, c’est l’un des plus vastes outils d’espionnage jamais crées. Il n’est pas neutre: toute tentative sérieuse visant à critiquer le sionisme international est susceptible d’entraîner la censure. Dans des cas bien documentés, les « modérateurs » de Facebook ont totalement perdu leur sang-froid et se sont mis à menacer des utilisateurs avec des messages très arrogants et ethnocentistes avant de leur interdire l’accès à leurs comptes.

The Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ (the Land) noted that “Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, a Jewish former Harvard University student.” This story is a new myth.

Le journal Israélien « Haaretz » (la Terre) asouligné que « Facebook a été fondé par Mark Zuckerberg, un ancien étudiant juif de Harvard ». Cette histoire est un mythe.

According to an Iranian Special Investigation team, Facebook was created by Units 8001, 8002 and 8003 of the Electronic Israeli Intel branch of the Mossad. Marc Zuckerberg was the Public Relations smoke screen of this operation.

Selon une équipe d’investigation iranienne, Facebook a été crée par les unités 8001, 8002 et 8003 de la branche du renseignement électronique du Mossad israélien. Marc Zuckerberg étant l’écran de fumée en matière de relations publiques de cette opération.

Marc Zuckerberg and his Facebook co-founders Dustin Moskowitz and Eduardo Saverin, were all members of the Jewish college fraternity group Alpha Epsilon Pi at Harvard. Officially this closed fraternity was founded ‘to provide opportunities for Jewish men seeking the best possible college and fraternity experience’ but, in fact, has a very long and rich experience dealing with Zionist organizations and supporting Israel in North America.

Marc Zuckerberg (un patronyme emprunté) avec le président israélien Shimon Perez, né sous le nom de Szymon Perski (ancien terroriste de la Haganah) en mai 2012.
Marc Zuckerberg (un prénom et patronyme empruntés) avec le président israélien Shimon Perez, né sous le nom de Szymon Perski (ancien terroriste de la Haganah) en mai 2012.

Above all, Alpha Epsilon Pi is also official partner to B’nai B’rith, the Jewish masonic order which in turn runs the hysterical ADL (Anti-Defamation League).

Marc Zuckerberg et les deux cofondateurs de Facebook, Dustin Msokowitz et Eduardo Saverin, étaient tous membres de Alpha Epsilon Pi, une fraternité de Harvard. Officiellement, ce club fermé a été fondée pour « offrir des opportunités aux hommes juifs cherchant les meilleurs facultés et l’expérience d’une fraternité ». Cependant, ce club possède une très longue et riche expérience avec les organisations zionistes et le soutien à Israël en Amérique du Nord.

Par dessus tout, Alpha Epsilon Pi est également le partenaire officiel de Bnai Brith, un ordre maçonnique juif, lequel est derrière la très hystérique et virulente Ligue de l’anti-difamation juive (ADL)

The concept of Facebook was stolen from other non-Jewish persons who had been threatened to be killed or properly terminated.  The little gang officially behind Facebook got their funding from a well known German-born Zionist named Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal.

L’idée de Facebook a  été volée à d’autres personnes non-juives, qui ont été menacés d’assassinat ou de liquidation physique. Le petit gang officiellement derrière Facebook ont reçu leur premier financement d’un Sioniste notoire né en Allemagne, Peter Thiel, qui est aussi l’un des fondateurs de PayPal.

The Jewish-Russian billionaire and Internet investor Yuri Milner, a public enemy in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, has since 2009 invested in Facebook, along with investments in Twitter. Yuri Milner is known to have some close deals with the Russian Jewish and Arch-Zionist Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the public enemy number One in Russian Federation and the responsible of the chaos that struck this country when Boris Eltsine was President.

Youri Milner, un juif russe milliardaire, considéré comme ennemi public dans la Russie de Vladimir Poutine, a investi depuis l’année 2009 dans Facebook (et également Twitter). Milner est connu pour avoir des rapports étroit avec l’oligarque russe Archi-sioniste et multimilliardaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, l’ennemi public numéo 1 en Fédération  de Russie et l’un des responsables du chaos qui s’était abattu sur ce pays du temps de la présidence de Boris Eltsine.

All the Russian Oligarchs are either staunch Zionists supporting Israel or Israelis working abroad as a sleeping sabotaging cells for the strategic interests of Israel.  Their primary mission: ruin and destroy other Nation-Sates economies and creating failed States.

Tous les oligarques russes sont soit de fervents supporters du sionisme ou carrément des israéliens travaillant à l’étranger comme des éléments de cellules dormantes oeuvrant pour les intérêts stratégiques d’Israël. Leur mission première: ruiner et détruire les économies des autres Etats-Nations et la création d’Etats en faillite.

In 2014 Facebook bought the influential internet messaging service WhatsApp, a messaging platform for smartphone users, one of its founders and present CEO being the Ukrainian Zionist Jew Jan Koum, who is actively funding and backing the Kiev Regime against Novorossia Republics and pushing for a global war with Russia. Koum is a personal friend with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Gerogian president Mikhail Saakachvili.

Le dictateur en titre de l'Etat d'Israël Benjamin Netanyahu avec le sioniste ukrainien Jan Koum (Whatsapp) en 2014.
Le dictateur en titre de l’Etat sioniste d’Israël Benjamin Netanyahu avec le sioniste ukrainien Jan Koum (Whatsapp) en 2014.

En 2014, Facebook a procédé à l’acquisition de Whatsapp, un influent service de messagerie Internet pour les utilisateurs de Smartphones. L’un des fondateurs de Whatsapp est le juif ukrainien Jan Koum, qui finance et soutient activement le régime de Kiev contre les républiques populaires de Novorossia et pousse à la guerre globale contre la Russie.

Thoug Israel Armed Forces have created Viber and tried all their best to hide its connection with Israel, declaring the three military officers who created Viber left the Army and sold their product to another company based in Cyprus (not very far from Tel-Aviv), they still need other applications to extend their spying net over vast zones.

Bien que les forces armées israéliennes ont crée Viber et essayé de cacher les liens qui lient cette application pour téléphones mobiles avec Israël, en déclarant que les trois officiers israéliens qui ont conçu Viber ont quitté l’armée et vendu leur produit à une compagnie basée à Chypre (pas très loin de Tel-Aviv au demeurant), Israël a encore besoin d’autres applications pour étendre son réseau d’espionnage électronique sur de vastes zones.

Since 6 months, Facebook is behaving very weirdly with its users. It turns out Facebook is more and more « nervous » and even hysterical when it comes to some issues like using nicknames and criticizing international Zionism.

Depuis 6 mois, Facebook agit très bizarrement avec ses utilisateurs. Il s’avère que Facebook devient de plus en plus « nerveux » et même hystérique quand il s’agit de certains sujets comme l’utilisation de pseudonymes au lieu de vrais patronymes et à l’égard de critique envers le sionisme international.

This erratic behavior can be dubbed « antisocial ». Ironically, the social network has turned into an antisocial nightmare for every individual who got involved with it. But this is not a real issue. the real issue is how come a social media comes to ask you to submit your identification credentials or else it closes your account. This is a typical Zionist hysterical threat and spying behavior.

Ce comportement erratique peut être considéré comme antisocial. Bien ironique quand il s’agit d’un réseau social qui s’est transformé en un véritable cauchemar pour toute personne qui s’est retrouvée dedans. Mais le problème n’est pas là. Le véritable problème est comment un réseau social en vient à exiger de vous de lui soumettre des preuves physiques de votre identification sous peine de suspendre ou de supprimer votre compte. Ceci est un comportement sioniste typique caractérisé par la menace et l’espionnage hystérique.

Do you want to be a friend with the extremist Zionists of Israel? Then sign up to Facebook. This rotten network is regarding humans as sheep generating data and money (each like generates money to fund the so-called Israeli Defence Forces and even ISIS! )

Voulez-vous devenir amis avec les extrémistes sionistes d’Israël? Vous n’avez qu’à rejoindre Facebook. Ce réseau pourri considère les gens comme des moutons générant de l’information et de l’argent (chaque « j’aime » génère de l’argent qui sert à financer les soit-disant forces d’auto-défense d’Israël et même l’organisation de l’Etat Islamique)

Are you still on Facebook?

Êtes-vous encore sur Facebook?

The Prosecution of Zionist Torturers

Top U.N. officials have recently said that “All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush’s national security policy must be prosecuted.”

Wouldn’t it be nice to see people like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, among others, in the court room?

Wouldn’t it be entertaining to hear their defense as to why they water-boarded “suspected terrorists”—a practice that was unknown to the American psyche prior to the Neo-Bolsheviks taking over the U.S. foreign policy?[1] Didn’t we execute Japanese war criminals for water-boarding American POWs?[2]

Even John McCain, the “founding father of ISIS,” as Gordon Duff rightly put it last month, declared explicitly,

“The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”[3]

The Zionist puppet moved on to say, “I know from personal experience that torture doesn’t work.”

If we executed the Japanese who water-boarded American POWs, what is the fate of those who practiced the same thing during the Bush administration? And what if those Neo-Bolsheviks—both members of the Dreadful Few and some Goyim—turn out be guilty of committing what Seumas Milne of the Guardian has called “torture orgy”[4]?

That would be really fun to watch because prior to the invasion in Iraq, Bush was postulating that Saddam was torturing his own people. As Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, while Bush was trying to shape public opinion with lies like this, he was setting up his own torture chambers, buying his time to electrify so-called terrorist.

We know that there are some damning things about the recent torture report and the Dreadful Few and their puppets do not want the average American to know.  And we know that even prior to the report, the CIA destroyed at least 92 videotapes documenting water-boarding.[5]

If water-boarding was not torture, as Cheney keeps mouthing, why would the CIA go to great length to destroy evidence? And how about torturing people who had absolutely and positively nothing to do with terrorist organizations? You remember Khaled el Marsi?

The C.I.A. kept him for months after realizing that he was the wrong man, and then dumped him by the side of the road. When he got home, he found that his wife had moved away. Apart from the ethical issues, the incident created diplomatic difficulties with Germany.”[6]

Here are at least sixteen of the terrible things that most Americans do not know about torture:

  1. Torture did not lead the CIA to the courier who ultimately helped capture Osama bin Laden.
  2. CIA personnel objected to torture techniques, but were “instructed” by the CIA headquarters to continue.
  3. Colin Powell was not briefed on CIA interrogation methods because he would “blow his stack”.
  4. The CIA used rectal feeding on detainees.
  5. CIA leadership refused to punish an officer who killed a detainee during torture session.
  6. The CIA tortured innocent people.
  7. The CIA held an “intellectually challenged man” to use as leverage against his family.
  8. The CIA intentionally mislead the media to “shape public opinion.”
  9. CIA officers threatened to kill and rape detainees’ mothers.
  10. The CIA dismissed information that wasn’t obtained through torture, even though it proved to be true.
  11. CIA torture techniques included mock burials and use of insects.
  12. Some interrogators had previously admitted to sexual assault.
  13. One interrogator played Russian roulette.
  14. The CIA tortured its own informants by accident.
  15. The CIA tortured detainees in a dungeon.
  16. The CIA spent hundreds of millions of [taxpayer] dollars on the torture program.

So, let us ask some basic questions. What did we get from torturing at least 100 people “in U.S. detention?”[7] Nothing.  In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted that the torture program was unnecessary.[8]

Yet even President Obama, despite his Zionist leanings and despite the fact that he is withholdings “hundreds, perhaps even thousands of photographs showing the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of detainees,”[9] admitted that “some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values.”[10]

And where did the CIA learn their techniques? Well, take it from the Jerusalem Post:

“On November 26, 2001, soon after the September 11 attacks on the US, the CIA general counsel wrote that ‘the Israeli example’ could serve as ‘a possible basis for arguing… regarding terrorist detainees that ‘torture was necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons, where there is no other available means to prevent the harm.’”[11]

If you think that the CIA officials were kidding, keep in mind that this is not new at all. As the noted British journalist Robert Fisk meticulously pointed out a few years ago, “Abu Ghraib torture trail leads to Israel.” Fisk wrote then:

“The actual interrogators accused of encouraging U.S. troops to abuse Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one company with extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel.

“The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures, it now turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.

“According to J.P. London’s company, CACI International, the visit of London — sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors — was “to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security agencies.

“The Pentagon and the occupation powers in Iraq insist that only U.S. citizens have been allowed to question prisoners in Abu Ghraib but this takes no account of Americans who may also hold double citizenship.

“The once secret torture report by U.S. Gen. Antonio Taguba refers to “third country nationals” involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.

“Taguba mentions Steven Staphanovic and John Israel as involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Staphanovic, who worked for CACI — known to the U.S. military as ‘Khaki’ — was said by Taguba to have ‘allowed and/or instructed MPs (military police), who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ … he clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.’

“One of Staphanovic’s co-workers, Joe Ryan — who was not named in the Taguba report — now says he underwent an ‘Israeli interrogation course’ before going to Iraq.

“We know the Pentagon asked Israel for its ‘rules of engagement’ in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officers have briefed their U.S. opposite numbers and, according to The Associated Press, ‘in January and February of 2003, Israeli and American troops trained together in southern Israel’s Negev desert …

“Israel has also hosted senior law enforcement officials from the United States for a seminar on counter-terrorism.’”[12]

Fisk concluded the article by saying that

“it is clear the torture trail at Abu Ghraib has to run much further than a group of brutal U.S. military cops, all of whom claim ‘intelligence officers’ told them to ‘soften up’ their prisoners for questioning. Were they Israeli? Or South African? Or British? Are we going to let the story go?”[13]

Now here is the thing—and you may want to hold on to something: the Zionist regime is now telling us that torture never worked, despite the fact that Zionist films such as Zero Dark Thirty literally sanitized torture in 2012.[14]

Think about that for a moment. If torture never worked, why did we spend billions of dollars at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and other slaughter houses? Why did a U.S. officer end up “fucking a kid” and committing literal sodomy at Abu Ghraib?

And here is the vital contradiction: you remember how the Zionist empire initiated the NSA and how they wanted to know everything about you and your family—including your grandmother’s underwear? And you remember how the neoconservative Looney Tunes defended the NSA program, despite the fact that it was against the U.S. Constitution?

Now the Zionist kingdom is furious because they do not want the public to know about the torture reports. The report explicitly declared that waterboarding

“was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. During one session, Abu Zubaydah—’a Saudi Arabian who is still being held at Guantánamo Bay—”became ‘completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.’ Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a ‘series of near drownings.’

“In addition to waterboarding, the report says, the C.I.A. used a variety of aggressive techniques on its prisoners, including isolating them, depriving them of sleep, stripping them of their clothes and keeping them naked, subjecting them to loud music, and pinning their arms above their heads.

“The report also says that the C.I.A. “placed detainees in ice water ‘baths.’ The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box.

“One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because, ‘we can never let the world know what I have done to you.’ CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families.

“According to the report, one prisoner, Ridha al-Najjar, identified as a former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, was ‘left hanging—which involved handcuffing one or both wrists to an overhead bar which would not allow him to lower his arms—for 22 hours each day for two consecutive days, in order to ‘break’ his resistance.’”[15]

Fire-breathing dragon Dick Cheney continues to declare that there was no such thing as torture at all. None whatsoever!  In fact, Cheney said, “I’m perfectly comfortable that they [torturers] should be praised, they should be decorated.” The torture report, Cheney continued, is “full of crap.”

According to this Zionist dragon, he  “would do it again [torturing people] in a minute”!

In a similar vein, Thomas Sowell continues to insult reason and facts when he keeps using just stupid arguments to marshal the idea that one has to succumb to the Jewish way of torturing people in order to get so-called information.  Listen to Sowell here:

“If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City — set to go off today — and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when?

“Would you pause to look up the definition of ‘torture’? Would you even care what the definition of ‘torture’ was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?”[16]

Why does Sowell have to stop there? Does he mean to tell us that George Washington did not have enough legitimate reasons to torture his enemies? Didn’t he uphold the moral law on that issue? And if Sowell is implicitly trying to make a case for torture here, why did we have to hang some Japanese after World War II for waterboarding Americans? Can Sowell be serious here?

 As we have already seen, the C.I.A. gained no serious information from torturing “terrorists.” Sowell indeed has the intellectual and political sophistication to analyze this, but since he has been bamboozled by the neoconservative agenda for much of his entire academic career, he simply has no other choice but to support his neocon brethren. After all, he writes for “Jewish World Review.”

While Cheney is mouthing nonsense, the man who crafted the legal rational for the torture program, John Yoo, admitted that the C.I.A. went too far. He said,

“If these things happened as they’re described in the report … they were not supposed to be done. And the people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders.”

Let it be known that Yoo is moving to this new position because it seems that his own craftiness is getting him into trouble, not because he did not know what he was doing. A man of his statue cannot be that stupid.

The simple fact is that torture, as Sam Husseini rightly says, provided some political leverage and stupid justification for the war in Iraq:

“The truth is that torture did work, but not the way its defenders claim. It worked to produce justifications for policies the establishment wanted, like the Iraq war.”

Paul Craig Roberts declares almost the same thing:

“One purpose of the torture program was to produce self-incriminated ‘terrorists’ to justify and feed the hoax ‘war on terror.’ The ‘war on terror’ was public cover for secret agendas that the American people would have rejected. This is disturbing enough.

“Even more disturbing, the torture program shows that no one in the US and European governments who knew of the program and participated in torture has an ounce of humanity, integrity, compassion, and morality. They are evil people, and the ones who inflicted the torture enjoyed the pain and suffering that they inflicted on others.”

Both Husseini and Roberts are quite right, for we know that the

The CIA tortured al-Qaeda suspects because it wanted evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“The agency was under intense pressure from the White House and senior figures in the Bush administration to extract confessions confirming co-operation between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda, although no significant evidence was ever found.”[17]

Noted journalist Patrick Cockburn points out that torture “probably killed more Americans than 9/11.” How?

“‘The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa’ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology,’ says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq.

“It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

“Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.

“In his compelling book How to Break a Terrorist, Major Alexander explains that prisoners subjected to abuse usually clam up, say nothing, or provide misleading information.

“In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the ‘ticking bomb’ argument often used in the justification of torture. This supposes that there is a bomb timed to explode on a bus or in the street which will kill many civilians.

“The authorities hold a prisoner who knows where the bomb is. Should they not torture him to find out in time where the bomb is before it explodes?

“Major Alexander says he faced the ‘ticking time bomb’ every day in Iraq because ‘we held people who knew about future suicide bombings.’ Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. ‘It hardens their resolve. They shut up.’

“He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, ‘even if my mother was on a bus’ with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.

“A career officer, Major Alexander spent 14 years in the US air force, beginning by flying helicopters for special operations. He saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, was an air force counter-intelligence agent and criminal interrogator, and was stationed in Saudi Arabia, with an anti-terrorist role, during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some years later, the US army was short of interrogators. He wanted to help shape developments in Iraq and volunteered.

“Arriving in Iraq in early 2006 he found that the team he was working with were mostly dedicated, but young, men between 18 and 24. ‘Many of them had never been out of the States before,’ he recalls. ‘When they sat down to interrogate somebody it was often the first time they had met a Muslim.’

“In addition to these inexperienced officers, Major Alexander says there was ‘an old guard’ of interrogators using the methods employed at Guantanamo. He could not say exactly what they had been doing for legal reasons, though in the rest of the interview he left little doubt that prisoners were being tortured and abused. The ‘old guard’s’ methods, he says, were based on instilling ‘fear and control’ in a prisoner.

“He refused to take part in torture and abuse, and forbade the team he commanded to use such methods. Instead, he says, he used normal US police interrogation techniques which are ‘based on relationship building and a degree of deception.’ He adds that the deception was often of a simple kind such as saying untruthfully that another prisoner has already told all.

“Before he started interrogating insurgent prisoners in Iraq, he had been told that they were highly ideological and committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Major Alexander says.

“In the course of the hundreds of interrogations carried out by himself, as well as more than 1,000 that he supervised, he found that the motives of both foreign fighters joining al-Qa’ida in Iraq and Iraqi-born members were very different from the official stereotype.”[18]

I must take my hat off and salute Major Alexander for his decent work. You see, in the American psyche, torture is still a wicked thing. But since the Dreadful Few exert an enormously powerful influence in the media, some Americans, with the help of Goyim such as Cheney, began to believe that torture is the way to go.


 What, then, should be done? Simple: prosecute the torturers. Show them we mean business. If Peter Beinart is right, that “torture is who we [Americans] are,”[19] then there is a way we can turn things around: uphold the rule of law by prosecuting the Zionist torturers.  Bush should not be going around and doing interviews at this present moment; he should be in the court room with his tailor-made uniform.

We lied about torture,[20] we lied about Iraq, we lied about Guantanamo, we lied about Syria, we lied about Afghanistan, we lied about Libya, we lied virtually about anything serious.

America has progressively become a nation of lies precisely because we have been following the Dreadful Few for quite awhile. Christ had some damning things to say about those liars and the lies they continue to produce:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).

Jonas E. Alexis

Source: Veteranstoday


[1] See for example David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

[2] See for example Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009; Nick Turse, “The Hidden History of Waterboarding,” Mother Jones, February 23, 2013; Paul Begala, “Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2009.

[3] Quoted in Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009.

[4] Seumas Milne, “Sending troops to protect dictators threatens all of us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.

[5] Amy Davidson, “The Torture’s Report: Inhumane Scenes from the C.I.A.’s Prisons,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Seumas Milne, “Sending Troops to Protect Dictators Threaten All of Us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.

[8] Taylor Wofford, “What CIA Torturers Did to Their Captives,” Newsweek, December 9, 2014.

[9] Noah Schachtman, “The Detainee Abuse Photos Obama Didn’t Want You To See,” Daily Beast, December 14, 2014.

[10] Quoted in Kathy Gilsinan, “America Trades Torture for Drones,” Atlantic, December 9, 2014.

[11] Yonah Jeremy Bob, “US Senate Report: CIA Used Israeli Courts as Precedent to Justify Torture,” Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2014.

[12] Robert Fisk, “Abu Ghraib Torture Trail Leads to Israel,” The Independent, May 26, 2004.

[13] Ibid.

[14] See Peter Van Buren, “How Zero Dark Thirty Sanitizes Torture,” Mother Jones, January 2, 2013; Kevin Drum, “Lying About Torture, Hollywood Style,” Mother Jones, December 10, 2012.

[15] John Cassidy, “America’s Shame: What’s in the Senate Torture Report?,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.

[16] Thomas Sowell, “Tortured Reasoning,” Jewish World Review, December 16, 2014.

[17] Patrick Cockburn, “CIA ‘torture report’: Agency conduct was driven by pressure to link Iraq to al-Qaeda following 9/11,” The Independent, December 14, 2014.

[18] Patrick Cocburn, “Torture? It Probably Killed More Americans Than 9/11,” Counter Punch, April 7, 2009.

[19] Peter Beinart, “Torture is Who We Are,” Atlantic, December 11, 2014.

[20] Kevin Drum, “Senate Report: We Tortured Prisoners, It Didn’t Work, and We Lied About It,” Mother Jones, December 9, 2014.

The birth of a Eurasian century: Russia and China do Pipelineistan by Pepe Escobar

A specter is haunting Washington, an unnerving vision of a Sino-Russian alliance wedded to an expansive symbiosis of trade and commerce across much of the Eurasian land mass – at the expense of the United States.

And no wonder Washington is anxious. That alliance is already a done deal in a variety of ways: through the BRICS group of emerging powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asian counterweight to NATO; inside the G20; and via the 120-member-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Trade and commerce are just part of the future bargain. Synergies in the development of new military technologies beckon as well. After Russia’s Star Wars-style, ultra-sophisticated S-500 air defense anti-missile system comes online in 2018, Beijing is sure to want a version of it. Meanwhile, Russia is about to sell dozens of state-of-the-art Sukhoi Su-35 jet fighters to the Chinese as Beijing and Moscow move to seal an aviation-industrial partnership.

This week should provide the first real fireworks in the celebration of a new Eurasian century-in-the-making with Russian President Vladimir Putin visiting Xi in Shanghai this Tuesday and Wednesday. You remember Pipelineistan,” all those crucial oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing Eurasia that make up the true circulatory system for the life of the region. Now, it looks like the ultimate Pipelineistan deal, worth $1 trillion and 10 years in the making, will be inked as well. In it, the giant, state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom will agree to supply the giant state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) with 3.75 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day for no less than 30 years, starting in 2018. That’s the equivalent of a quarter of Russia’s massive gas exports to all of Europe. China’s current daily gas demand is around 16 billion cubic feet a day, and imports account for 31.6% of total consumption.

Gazprom may still collect the bulk of its profits from Europe, but Asia could turn out to be its Everest. The company will use this mega-deal to boost investment in Eastern Siberia and the whole region will be reconfigured as a privileged gas hub for Japan and South Korea as well. If you want to know why no key country in Asia has been willing to isolate Russia in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis – and in defiance of the Obama administration – look no further than Pipelineistan.

Exit the Petrodollar, Enter the Gas-o-Yuan

And then, talking about anxiety in Washington, there’s the fate of the petrodollar to consider, or rather the “thermonuclear” possibility that Moscow and Beijing will agree on payment for the Gazprom-CNPC deal not in petrodollars but in Chinese yuan. One can hardly imagine a more tectonic shift, with Pipelineistan intersecting with a growing Sino-Russian political-economic-energy partnership. Along with it goes the future possibility of a push, led again by China and Russia, toward a new international reserve currency — actually a basket of currencies — that would supersede the dollar (at least in the optimistic dreams of BRICS members).

Right after the potentially game-changing Sino-Russian summit comes a BRICS summit in Brazil in July. That’s when a $100 billion BRICS development bank, announced in 2012, will officially be born as a potential alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as a source of project financing for the developing world.

More BRICS cooperation meant to bypass the dollar is reflected in the Gas-o-yuan,” as in natural gas bought and paid for in Chinese currency. Gazprom is even considering marketing bonds in yuan as part of the financial planning for its expansion. Yuan-backed bonds are already trading in Hong Kong, Singapore, London, and most recently Frankfurt.

Nothing could be more sensible for the new Pipelineistan deal than to have it settled in yuan. Beijing would pay Gazprom in that currency (convertible into rubles); Gazprom would accumulate the yuan; and Russia would then buy myriad made-in-China goods and services in yuan convertible into rubles.

It’s common knowledge that banks in Hong Kong, from Standard Chartered to HSBC – as well as others closely linked to China via trade deals – have been diversifying into the yuan, which implies that it could become one of the de facto global reserve currencies even before it’s fully convertible. (Beijing is unofficially working for a fully convertible yuan by 2018.)

The Russia-China gas deal is inextricably tied up with the energy relationship between the European Union (EU) and Russia. After all, the bulk of Russia’s gross domestic product comes from oil and gas sales, as does much of its leverage in the Ukraine crisis. In turn, Germany depends on Russia for a hefty 30% of its natural gas supplies. Yet Washington’s geopolitical imperatives – spiced up with Polish hysteria – have meant pushing Brussels to find ways to “punish” Moscow in the future energy sphere (while not imperiling present day energy relationships).

There’s a consistent rumble in Brussels these days about the possible cancellation of the projected 16 billion euro South Stream pipeline, whose construction is to start in June. On completion, it would pump yet more Russian natural gas to Europe – in this case, underneath the Black Sea (bypassing Ukraine) to Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Italy, and Austria.

Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have already made it clear that they are firmly opposed to any cancellation. And cancellation is probably not in the cards. After all, the only obvious alternative is Caspian Sea gas from Azerbaijan, and that isn’t likely to happen unless the EU can suddenly muster the will and funds for a crash schedule to construct the fabled Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, conceived during the Clinton years expressly to bypass Russia and Iran.

In any case, Azerbaijan doesn’t have enough capacity to supply the levels of natural gas needed, and other actors like Kazakhstan, plagued with infrastructure problems, or unreliable Turkmenistan, which prefers to sell its gas to China, are already largely out of the picture. And don’t forget that South Stream, coupled with subsidiary energy projects, will create a lot of jobs and investment in many of the most economically devastated EU nations.

Nonetheless, such EU threats, however unrealistic, only serve to accelerate Russia’s increasing symbiosis with Asian markets. For Beijing especially, it’s a win-win situation. After all, between energy supplied across seas policed and controlled by the US Navy and steady, stable land routes out of Siberia, it’s no contest.

Pick Your Own Silk Road

Of course, the US dollar remains the top global reserve currency, involving 33% of global foreign exchange holdings at the end of 2013, according to the IMF. It was, however, at 55% in 2000. Nobody knows the percentage in yuan (and Beijing isn’t talking), but the IMF notes that reserves in “other currencies” in emerging markets have been up 400% since 2003.

The Fed is arguably monetizing 70% of the US government debt in an attempt to keep interest rates from heading skywards. Pentagon adviser Jim Rickards, as well as every Hong Kong-based banker, tends to believe that the Fed is bust (though they won’t say it on the record). No one can even imagine the extent of the possible future deluge the US dollar might experience amid a $1.4 quadrillion Mount Ararat of financial derivatives. Don’t think that this is the death knell of Western capitalism, however, just the faltering of that reigning economic faith, neoliberalism, still the official ideology of the United States, the overwhelming majority of the European Union, and parts of Asia and South America.

As far as what might be called the “authoritarian neoliberalism” of the Middle Kingdom, what’s not to like at the moment? China has proven that there is a result-oriented alternative to the Western“democratic” capitalist model for nations aiming to be successful. It’s building not one, but myriad new Silk Roads, massive webs of high-speed railways, highways, pipelines, ports, and fiber optic networks across huge parts of Eurasia. These include a Southeast Asian road, a Central Asian road, an Indian Ocean “maritime highway” and even a high-speed rail line through Iran and Turkey reaching all the way to Germany.

In April, when President Xi Jinping visited the city of Duisburg on the Rhine River, with the largest inland harbor in the world and right in the heartland of Germany’s Ruhr steel industry, he made an audacious proposal: a new “economic Silk Road” should be built between China and Europe, on the basis of the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe railway, which already runs from China to Kazakhstan, then through Russia, Belarus, Poland, and finally Germany. That’s 15 days by train, 20 less than for cargo ships sailing from China’s eastern seaboard. Now that would represent the ultimate geopolitical earthquake in terms of integrating economic growth across Eurasia.

Keep in mind that, if no bubbles burst, China is about to become – and remain – the number one global economic power, a position it enjoyed for 18 of the past 20 centuries. But don’t tell London hagiographers; they still believe that US hegemony will last, well, forever.

Take Me to Cold War 2.0

Despite recent serious financial struggles, the BRICS countries have been consciously working to become a counterforce to the original and – having tossed Russia out in March – once again Group of 7, or G7. They are eager to create a new global architecture to replace the one first imposed in the wake of World War II, and they see themselves as a potential challenge to the exceptionalist and unipolar world that Washington imagines for our future (with itself as the global robocop and NATO as its robo-police force). Historian and imperialist cheerleader Ian Morris, in his book War! What is it Good For?, defines the US as the ultimate “globocop” and “the last best hope of Earth.” If that globocop“wearies of its role,” he writes, “there is no plan B.”

Well, there is a plan BRICS – or so the BRICS nations would like to think, at least. And when the BRICS do act in this spirit on the global stage, they quickly conjure up a curious mix of fear, hysteria, and pugnaciousness in the Washington establishment. Take Christopher Hill as an example. The former assistant secretary of state for East Asia and US ambassador to Iraq is now an advisor with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm deeply connected to the White House and the State Department. When Russia was down and out, Hill used to dream of a hegemonic American “new world order.” Now that the ungrateful Russians have spurned what “the West has been offering” – that is, “special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavors” – they are, in his view, busy trying to revive the Soviet empire. Translation: if you’re not our vassals, you’re against us. Welcome to Cold War 2.0.

The Pentagon has its own version of this directed not so much at Russia as at China, which, its think tank on future warfare claims, is already at war with Washington in a number of ways. So if it’s not apocalypse now, it’s Armageddon tomorrow. And it goes without saying that whatever’s going wrong, as the Obama administration very publicly “pivots” to Asia and the American media fills with talk about a revival of Cold War-era “containment policy” in the Pacific, it’s all China’s fault.

Embedded in the mad dash toward Cold War 2.0 are some ludicrous facts-on-the-ground: the US government, with $17.5 trillion in national debt and counting, is contemplating a financial showdown with Russia, the largest global energy producer and a major nuclear power, just as it’s also promoting an economically unsustainable military encirclement of its largest creditor, China.

Russia runs a sizeable trade surplus. Humongous Chinese banks will have no trouble helping Russian banks out if Western funds dry up. In terms of inter-BRICS cooperation, few projects beat a $30 billion oil pipeline in the planning stages that will stretch from Russia to India via Northwest China. Chinese companies are already eagerly discussing the possibility of taking part in the creation of a transport corridor from Russia into Crimea, as well as an airport, shipyard, and liquid natural gas terminal there. And there’s another “thermonuclear” gambit in the making: the birth of a natural gas equivalent to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that would include Russia, Iran, and reportedlydisgruntled US ally Qatar.

The (unstated) BRICS long-term plan involves the creation of an alternative economic system featuring a basket of gold-backed currencies that would bypass the present America-centric global financial system. (No wonder Russia and China are amassing as much gold as they can.) The euro – a sound currency backed by large liquid bond markets and huge gold reserves – would be welcomed in as well.

It’s no secret in Hong Kong that the Bank of China has been using a parallel SWIFT network to conduct every kind of trade with Tehran, which is under a heavy US sanctions regime. With Washington wielding Visa and Mastercard as weapons in a growing Cold War-style economic campaign against Russia, Moscow is about to implement an alternative payment and credit card system not controlled by Western finance. An even easier route would be to adopt the Chinese Union Pay system, whose operations have already overtaken American Express in global volume.

I’m Just Pivoting With Myself

No amount of Obama administration “pivoting” to Asia to contain China (and threaten it with US Navy control of the energy sea lanes to that country) is likely to push Beijing far from its Deng Xiaoping-inspired, self-described peaceful development strategy meant to turn it into a global powerhouse of trade. Nor are the forward deployment of US or NATO troops in Eastern Europe or other such Cold-War-ish acts likely to deter Moscow from a careful balancing act: ensuring that Russia’s sphere of influence in Ukraine remains strong without compromising trade and commercial, as well as political, ties with the European Union – above all, with strategic partner Germany. This is Moscow’s Holy Grail; afree-trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which (not by accident) is mirrored in China’s dream of a new Silk Road to Germany.

Increasingly wary of Washington, Berlin for its part abhors the notion of Europe being caught in the grips of a Cold War 2.0. German leaders have more important fish to fry, including trying to stabilize a wobbly EU while warding off an economic collapse in southern and central Europe and the advance of ever more extreme right-wing parties.

On the other side of the Atlantic, President Obama and his top officials show every sign of becoming entangled in their own pivoting – to Iran, to China, to Russia’s eastern borderlands, and (under the radar) to Africa. The irony of all these military-first maneuvers is that they are actually helping Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing build up their own strategic depth in Eurasia and elsewhere, as reflected in Syria, or crucially in ever more energy deals. They are also helping cement the growing strategic partnership between China and Iran. The unrelenting Ministry of Truth narrative out of Washington about all these developments now carefully ignores the fact that, without Moscow, the “West” would never have sat down to discuss a final nuclear deal with Iran or gotten a chemical disarmament agreement out of Damascus.

When the disputes between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea and between that country and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyou islands meet the Ukraine crisis, the inevitable conclusion will be that both Russia and China consider their borderlands and sea lanes private property and aren’t going to take challenges quietly – be it via NATO expansion, US military encirclement, or missile shields. Neither Beijing nor Moscow is bent on the usual form of imperialist expansion, despite the version of events now being fed to Western publics. Their “red lines” remain essentially defensive in nature, no matter the bluster sometimes involved in securing them.

Whatever Washington may want or fear or try to prevent, the facts on the ground suggest that, in the years ahead, Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran will only grow closer, slowly but surely creating a new geopolitical axis in Eurasia. Meanwhile, a discombobulated America seems to be aiding and abetting the deconstruction of its own unipolar world order, while offering the BRICS a genuine window of opportunity to try to change the rules of the game.

Russia and China in Pivot Mode

In Washington’s think-tank land, the conviction that the Obama administration should be focused on replaying the Cold War via a new version of containment policy to “limit the development of Russia as a hegemonic power” has taken hold. The recipe: weaponize the neighbors from the Baltic states to Azerbaijan to “contain” Russia. Cold War 2.0 is on because, from the point of view of Washington’s elites, the first one never really left town.

Yet as much as the US may fight the emergence of a multipolar, multi-powered world, economic facts on the ground regularly point to such developments. The question remains: Will the decline of the hegemon be slow and reasonably dignified, or will the whole world be dragged down with it in what has been called “the Samson option”?

While we watch the spectacle unfold, with no end game in sight, keep in mind that a new force is growing in Eurasia, with the Sino-Russian strategic alliance threatening to dominate its heartland along with great stretches of its inner rim. Now, that’s a nightmare of Mackinderesque proportions from Washington’s point of view. Think, for instance, of how Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser who became a mentor on global politics to President Obama, would see it.

In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that “the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played” on the Eurasian “chessboard,” of which “Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot.” “If Moscow regains control over Ukraine,” he wrote at the time, Russia would “automatically regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

That remains most of the rationale behind the American imperial containment policy – from Russia’s European “near abroad” to the South China Sea. Still, with no endgame in sight, keep your eye on Russia pivoting to Asia, China pivoting across the world, and the BRICS hard at work trying to bring about the new Eurasian Century.

Pepe Escobar

 

 

Putin displays Ukraine chess mastery…by Pepe Escobar

Russia’s celebrations of the 69th anniversary of the defeat of fascism in World War II come just days after Ukrainian neo-fascists enacted an appalling Odessa massacre. For those who know their history, the graphic symbolism speaks for itself. 

And then a geopolitical chess gambit added outright puzzlement to the trademark hypocrisy displayed by the self-proclaimed representatives of « Western civilization ». 

The gambit comes from – who else – Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is now actively mixing chess moves with Sun Tzu’s Art of War and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. No wonder all those American PR shills, helpless State Department spokespersons and NATOstan generals are clueless. 

Unlike the Obama administration’s juvenile delinquent school of diplomacy – which wants to « isolate » Putin and Russia – a truce and possible deal in the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy has been negotiated between adults on speaking terms, Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then discussed and finally announced in a press conference by the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Didier Burghalter. 

The deal will hold as long as the regime changers in Kiev – which should be described as the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta – abandon their ongoing « anti-terrorist operation » and are ready to negotiate with the federalists in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. [1]

Putin’s gambit has been to sacrifice not one but two pieces; he’d rather have the referendums this Sunday in Eastern Ukraine be postponed. At the same time, changing the Kremlin’s position, he said the presidential elections on May 25 might be a step in the right direction. 

Moscow knows the referendums will be erroneously interpreted by the misinformed NATOstan combo as an argument for Eastern Ukraine to join Russia, as in Crimea. They could be used as pretext for more sanctions. And most of all Moscow is keen to prevent any possible false flags. [2] 

Yet Moscow has not abandoned its firm position from the start; before a presidential election there should be constitutional changes towards federalization and more power for largely autonomous provinces. It’s not happening anytime soon – if at all. 

With the Kiev NATO junta making an absolute mess of « governing »; the International Monetary Fund already running thedisaster capitalism show, Russia cutting off trade and energy subsidies, and the federalist movement growing by the minute after the Odessa massacre, Ukraine is so absolutely toxic that Moscow has all the time in the world on its side. Putin’s strategy is indeed Tao Te Ching meets Art of War: watch the river flow while giving enough rope for your enemy to hang himself. 

You’re with us or against us
Putin asking the people in the Donbass region to postpone the referendum – which will take place anyway [3] – unleashed a fierce debate, in eastern Ukraine and across Russia, over a possible Russian betrayal of Russian speakers in Ukraine. 

After all, the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta has unleashed an « anti-terrorist operation » against average Ukrainians where even the terminology comes straight from the « you’re with us or against us » Cheney regime. 

And once again the Disinformer-in-Chief is – who else – US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is « very concerned about efforts of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, in Lugansk to organize, frankly, a contrived, bogus independence referendum on May 11 ». It’s « the Crimea playbook all over again and no civilized nation is going to recognize the results of such a bogus effort ». 

It’s hopeless to expect Kerry to know what he’s talking about, but still: the people in Donbass are not separatists. These are average Ukrainians – factory workers, miners, store clerks, farmers – who are pro-democracy, anti-NATO junta and – oh, the capital crime – Russian speakers. 

And by the way, you don’t need to be Thomas Piketty to identify this as classic class struggle; workers and peasants against oligarchs – the oligarchs currently aligned with the NATO junta, some deployed as regional governors, and all planning to remain in charge after the May 25 elections. 

The people in Donbass want federalism, and strong autonomy in their provinces. They don’t want to split from Ukraine. Against the US-prescribed, Kiev-enforced « anti-terrorism » onslaught, they have their popular defense committees, local associations and yes, militias, to defend themselves. And most of all « bogus » referendums to make it absolutely clear they won’t submit to a centralized, oligarch-infested junta. 

So the referendums will go ahead – and will be duly ignored by the NATOstan combo. The May 25 presidential election will go ahead – right in the middle of an « anti-terrorist operation » against almost half of the population – and will be recognized as « legitimate » by the NATOstan combo. 

Way beyond this cosmically shameful behavior of the « civilized » West, what next? 

Nothing will make the ironclad hatred the NATO neo-liberal neo-fascist junta with its Western Ukraine neo-nazi Banderastan supporters feel against the eastern Donbass go away. But then, in a few months, all Ukrainians will feel in their skins what the IMF has in store for them, irrespective of location. And wait if the new president – be it chocolate billionaire Petro Porashenko or holy corrupt « Saint Yulia » Timoschenko – doesn’t pay Gazprom’s US$2.7 billion energy bill. 

Once again, Putin does not need to « invade » anything. He knows this is not the way to « rescue » eastern and southern Ukraine. He knows the people in the Donbass will make life miserable for the NATO junta and its May 25 offspring. He knows when Kiev needs real cash – not the current IMF self-serving Mob-style loans – nobody in his right mind in the political midget EU will be forthcoming. Nobody will want to rescue a failed state. And Kiev will have to beg, once again, for Moscow’s help, the lender of first and last resort. 

Lao Tzu Putin is far from going to checkmate. He may – and will – wait. The exceptionalist empire will keep doing what it does best – foment chaos – even as sensible Europeans, Merkel included, try somewhat for appeasement. Well, at least Washington’s prayers have been answered. It took a while, but they finally found the new bogeyman: Osama Bin Putin. 

Pepe Escobar

Asia Times

 

Notes:

1. Putin-Burkhalter talks: an elusive chance for Ukraine, Oriental Review, May 8, 2014.
2. Ukrainian forces prepare provocation against Russia in Donetsk, Voice of America, May 6, 2014.
3. 2 southeast Ukrainian regions to hold referendum May 11 as planned, RT, May 8, 2014.