We had written before about the boondoggle of US LNG sales to Poland. Now that Poland has its LNG terminal set up, they are trying to sell the world the fairy tale that this US gas, which is produced, stored and shipped at exorbitant prices, is cheaper than gas delivered by pipeline from Russia without special fracking or cryogenic treatment and storage in expensive terminals. Yeah right.
Below is our translation of the story from a Russian online news site.
The prices of American LNG and Russian gas were compared in Poland
Poland will buy gas from the United States. The contract for the supply of American LNG was signed the day before. The annual volume of gas supplied to Poland will amount to 2 million tons. The contract is for 20 years. The head of oil and gas company PGNiG, Piotr Woźniak meanwhile compared gas prices from the United States and Russia and came to the following conclusion.
The supply of American liquefied gas will cost the country less than Russian gas. The purchase price of gas from the United States is almost 30% lower than in Russia.
There are three possible explanations for the report that US LNG shipped to Poland is cheaper than Russian gas.
1.— Without mentining it, Woźniak was in fact slyly comparing Russian LNG and US LNG, rather than Russian gas delivered by pipeline and US LNG. This would be an irrelevant comparison because Poland had been buying the very cheap Russian gas delivered by pipeline, with which US LNG cannot possibly compete – unless, of course, it is subsidized by the US, in violation of WTO rules. And that is a very real possibility thanks to the new tax reform.
2.— Piotr Woźniak is lying to induce other suckers in Europe to buy US LNG, as part of a secret deal with the US.
3.— The tax credits to gas companies under the 2017 “tax reform,” initially giving one-time tax credits to the CEOs of gas companies thanks to taxpayer generosity will be extended so that the US can be Great Again at taxpayer expense for at least the next 20 years. If this is the case, then the inherently extravagantly expensive LNG will be sold at a permanent discount and the taxpayer will simply stay on the hook for the price difference. This rotten scheme is not the way to grow an economy. It can only serve the purpose of putting Russia out of business and making Americans poorer. But since it violates the WTO rule banning subsidization of exports, it can easily be challenged in court.
Every single one of the reader comments on this article expressed disbelief with this report, showing that ordinary Russians are smarter than Polish officials. Here is a translation of my comment posted at the site:
There are several processes that make American LNG much more expensive than Russian pipeline gas, and this is a constant that cannot be changed.
One: this gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing, which is more costly, because 1. it requires an expensive additional process and 2. the gas field lasts a very short time, requiring frequent opening of new fields and redrilling.
Then, after the gas is extracted, it must be processed cryogenically and compressed into a giant storage terminal.
After that, it must be transferred to a vessel equipped with giant storage domes, and sent abroad to a similar storage terminal. The gas must then be regassified by heat exchange, usually against sea water, and injected into the transport network.
The only reason why this gas could possibly cheaper is that the US government subsidizes it. This subsidy is indirect and based on a 2017 tax reform, which gives tax breaks to gas companies that show low or zero profits. Of course, the taxpayer pays for it. In fact, the WTO (World Trade Organization) does not allow subsidization of exports, and Russia can therefore sue the United States for the unfair loss of its market share.
Now that the Trump Effect has worn off sufficiently to give the Congressional elections to the Democrats, many Trump fans are despondent. Paul Craig Roberts has written a commentary commiserating with them. However, PCR seems a little confused. He declares that Trump was originally an anti-Establishment candidate but then when elected, was pulled off course by his opposition. True, Trump sounded, for example, like he wanted to stop illegal immigration, but he never implemented plans to build the promised wall. And he presented as anti-Muslim and said he would keep Muslims from entering the country, but if you looked at the final version of his no-visa list, it exempts, and hence, welcomes, the most dangerous groups, such as Wahhabists from Saudi Arabia, while blocking the more harmless Christians and Shiites from Syria. It was not anti-Muslim, it was anti-moderate Muslim! Not what the voters had in mind, but most did not read the details because of their implicit trust in their hero. But because Trump put up a good talk, he was seen as infallible and his decisions became the new conservatism. Well, Neoconservative means new conservative. Why be surprised? He was a Neocon all along.
If you had listened closely to Trump, you would have seen that he was never anti-Establishment at all, although he spoke against the Establishment to garner votes during his campaign.
The big give-away was his anti-Iran rhetoric, which, as even PCR admits, was warlike and pleasing to the Neocons.
To understand why Trump could never have been deemed anti-Establishment by a wide awake observer, we need to look at the 4 most important markers, which are simultaneously the drivers, of Establishment policy, ie:
the arms manufacturers
Let’s examine these one by one:
Trump ran to Saudi Arabia as his first foreign visit as president and danced a fiendish looking sword dance with them. And he promised to sell them $400 billion worth of arms. The terror-sponsoring Saudis have been the most dangerous enemy of the American people — while also being the best friends of the US oligarchs. Trump was solidly pro-Establishment in this point, more so than most other presidents.
During his campaign, Trump spoke before AIPAC and told them he would always side with Israel. He kept that promise. Even though Israel fired 800 missiles into Syria in 2018 alone, killing soldiers who were fighting ISIS, and destroying infrastructure belonging to their anti-terror military. Worse, while Israel murdered hundreds of Palestinian protesters, Trump cheerfully moved the US embassy there to Jerusalem, tacitly supporting and even endorsing this murder and terror support.
In fact, Trump was solidly pro-Establishment in points 1, 2 and 3 because both Saudi and Israel hate Iran viscerally and would love to see the US attack the country. The dissolution of the Iran nuclear deal by Trump pleased both of these states, but it hurt the US because as a result of Trump's rupture, Russia, China and the EU, who wish to continue the deal, are now seeking ways to skirt the sanctions and the denial of SWIFT payment transfer rights to Iran. As a result they have come up with an agreement to create and use a SWIFT alternative, ie, the Special Purpose Vehicle. If this alternative can be implemented, all or most transactions with Iran and many other countries will be denominated in non-dollar currencies, which will tend to reduce the value of the US dollar. Other countries also have an interest in skirting US sanctions, including India, which just signed a deal with Russia to buy the banned S-400 air defence system. Payment will be in rupees.
The reader may ask why the Obama administration entered into the Iran deal that Trump and his supporters vehemently oppose. This is a question worthwhile looking into, but briefly we can state that while both Israel and Saudi hate Iran, the Democrat grassroots, though generally toeing the line on the bipartisan pro-Israel position, are also generally less Evangelical in their theology and not as inclined to accept dogmatic “Christian” Zionism. Therefore the Jews, while being loyal Democrat team mates, do not represent for the Democrats a sacred people anointed by God.
There is a great irony here in that while the Democrats base their platform on a less-Biblical view, and the Republicans tend to blindly support Israel, the fact is, a more-strict Biblical viewpoint would match the Democrat position better in real world terms than the Evangelical “Zionist” view, which is based on several misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the scripture, as explained here. Thus an atheist view is in fact closer to Biblical teachings than the stereotypical Evangelical view.
3.--The arms manufacturers
As for point 3, Trump’s sanctions on all Russian weapons sales are expected initially to foster their interests. What actually happens may, however, defeat their purposes, as the de-dollarization campaign gains traction and US arms are forced to compete with the often superior and cheaper Russian ones. But never expect the US to think long-term.
4.--The Federal Reserve
The sanctions mentioned above also benefit the Fed short-term. Further, Trump’s extremely pro-Saudi position benefits the Fed by implementing the US policy of propping up the USD under the petrodollar agreement concluded in 1973 between President Nixon and King Faisal. The myth of how this agreement supposedly benefits the dollar but may in fact be less beneficial than expected is explained here.
Thus in all 4 of these cardinal points, Trump has been the perfect Establishment candidate.
Paul Craig Roberts ends his commentary on a dour note, saying “My conclusion is that America is doomed. The people, with few exceptions, are not smart enough to continue to exist.”
He is right that Americans lack the intelligence to analyse their situation accurately and thus make rational decisions. For over a century, they have failed to seek solutions outside the established framework of the two-party system that keeps failing them colossally.
Yet while the US lacks the potential will and intelligence to solve its problems internally, it does not need to do anything on its own to make major changes in US foreign and military policy because Russia and China are changing the world’s political architecture drastically and bending international will to their own, and not through trickery, subterfuge or propaganda but by offering a better deal to their clients. In the 3 years since Russia entered the war in Syria, most terrorists have already been routed and the only terrorists still in the game are the ones enjoying US protection, eg, near the US bases at Deir Ezzor and Al-Tanf, near the Turkish border north of Manbij and in Idlib, where the US insisted on freezing a bad situation in place, although the Russians are prepared to defeat the terrorists there despite US efforts to protect their pals. De facto, Russia is well on the way to controlling the Middle East (with its eye on Lebanon next), and that means less war and more fruitful negotiations between factions, restoration of the will of the people in national politics and better guarantees of sovereignty for the nations there. As for China, it will continue to make loans and investments that target the prosperity of the nations of the region.
None of these positive changes will require input from the US people.
NSS translation with a foreword by Vince Dhimos
Remember when Trump pleaded to maintain good relations with a country that tortured a US resident to death because of jobs?
Do you think a multibillion dollar contract with Boeing would have created a few jobs for Americans?
President Trump ripped up a deal between Iran and Boeing worth $16.6 billion. Forced to look elsewhere for planes to modernize its fleet, Iran turned to Russia. I leave it up to the reader to savour the irony of the US throwing away billions by sending a client to Russia for a lucrative deal.
Sometimes it almost seems as If the US is intentionally weakening its economy. For instance, the government is promoting fracking even though almost all oil and gas companies are losing money in this field due to the expensive processes involved and the short lifespans of the energy fields. To artificially float these energy companies, a bill was passed in 2017 that actually gave the most hard-hit companies tax credits that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Yet, as we showed here, fracking is inherently a losing proposition and barring a miracle, will never pay for itself.
“While [fracked] shale gas wells have a long life, they drop down to about 10% of their initial production after about 5 years or so.”
Jacqueline George, Author of Fracking 101 A Beginner's Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing
Answered Oct 16, 2016
“… I can say that the production flush for a new shale well is very short lived and by two years the wells are typically limping along.”
This real-world science-based info on fracking is why the purely economic picture looks so dismal, with most US oil operations running in the red or showing near-negligible profits, as reported, for example, here.
Further, the trade war with China and the sanctions on Russian oil and gas trade, and the sanctions intended for the EU are tempting these countries to create a method to circumvent the sanctions, notably the Special Purpose Vehicle that substitutes for SWIFT. The upshot will be less use of the dollar in world trade settlements. Iran and Venezuela have already virtually halted dollar use in trade settlements, and Russia recently sold its S-400 to India with payment specified in rupees.
The endless wars costing trillions of dollars and trashing the confidence of US allies are another example of how the US is shooting itself in the foot.
Either Washington officials are brain dead or they are stealthily seeking to destroy their country for some unknown reason.
And then there is the irresponsible debt exceeding GDP, with no hope of ever paying it down, and the endless arms boondoggles, as described here.
The US could actually be prosperous again it if swallowed its pride and joined China in its lucrative investments related to One Belt One Road, and if it stopped investing in trillions in weapons to use against Russia, and simply admitted to itself that neither China nor Russia is a real enemy of the US people. Nor is Iran, which, BTW, never cut the limbs off a living, screaming human being.
I guess you have to be an extreme torturer and murderer to give jobs to Americans.
Below is our translation from Russian of an article appearing in EADaily.
After breakdown of contracts with Boeing and Airbus, Iran turns to Russian SSJ-100
Iran's national airline, Iran Air, is seeking opportunities to replenish its fleet of passenger liners with the purchase of aircraft from foreign manufacturers outside the US and Europe. The Russian side with its short-haul Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ-100) is considered the most suitable partner in this deal. According to Reuters, this was reported on Saturday, November 3, by the executive director of Iran Air Farzane Sharafbafi.
According to her, Tehran needs to establish commercial relations with those aircraft manufacturers that are not dependent on the supply of components from the United States and the granting of licenses by the US government. “We will be happy for those (foreign) companies that can supply the necessary aircraft for Iran Air. We are ready to purchase (Russian) SSJ-100 or other liners produced not in European countries,” said Sharafbafi.
Recall that on May 8, when US President Donald Trump announced his country's withdrawal from the international agreement on the Iranian nuclear program*, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the revocation of licenses to supply Boeing and Airbus aircraft to Iran. Thus, the United States imposed a ban on deliveries to Iran of European Airbus liners, which is based in Toulouse, France, due to the fact that most of the components are made in the United States.
In January 2016, Iranian authorities announced plans to purchase more than 200 Boeing and Airbus aircraft. This decision was associated with the lifting of the US and European Union sanctions as a result of the conclusion of a nuclear deal in 2015, which did not allow the Islamic Republic to purchase passenger liners, or spare parts for them, in order to modernize its heavily worn air fleet. In December of the same year, it became aware of the conclusion of a contract for the purchase of 80 aircraft between the national carrier Iran Air and Boeing. The amount of the transaction was about $ 16.6 billion.
Iran is interested in purchasing aircraft SSJ-100 and intends to proceed to procurement after the resolution of issues regarding the supply of components. This was reported on October 22 by the Iranian ambassador to Russia, Mehdi Sanai, in an interview with Izvestia. “With regard to the SSJ-100, Iran is interested in acquiring planes like these. We need smaller aircraft, as Iranian airports in the provinces cannot accommodate large planes, ”the diplomat told the publication, adding that for three years Iranian airlines had been sending requests to the manufacturer of the SSJ-100 pursuant to purchasing the aircraft.
However, for the implementation of the supply, the company must obtain permission from an American supplier of some components. “I really hope that this issue will be resolved. In any case, now we are talking about reducing dependence on US components. The Iranian side is waiting for this issue to be finally resolved making it possible to proceed with the procurement,” the Iranian ambassador said.
According to him, two memoranda of understanding have already been signed with the manufacturer Sukhoi Superjet. In addition, Sanai noted that Iran has the most serious intentions of developing cooperation with Russia in the fields of aviation, space, construction of power plants, railway transport and others.
* Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) - agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, concluded in July 2015 between the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Iran.
Read more: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/11/03/posle-sryva-kontraktov-s-boeing-i-airbus-iran-vernulsya-k-rossiyskim-ssj-100
This contribution is a commentary on our translation of “Intentional ‘mistakes’ of the United States in Syria,” an analysis of the “mistakes” in Syria designed to enable the US to achieve its true mission of sowing chaos and raining down death in Syria in order to perpetuate its presence there. As long as the US public swallows the absurd story that the frequent killing of warriors sincerely engaged in killing terrorists is done only “by mistake,” this integral part of US policy will be accepted and perpetuated. Peace in Syria, and in the long run, peace on earth, depends on your challenging it. The writer is Russian politician and intellectual Nikolai Starikov. (Linked here is a video of a speech of Starikov’s explaining the fundamental differences between the Russian and US mentalities).
In this article, Starikov mentions repeated US “mistakes” made at Deir Ezzor in numerous instances. I remember reading back in 2016 about a “mistaken” US air strike near Deir Ezzor that killed an estimated 60 Syrian service men in the Obama administration (NYT Report here). Later, the US built a military base at Deir Ezzor, and still later, similar “mistakes” also happened there, as discussed below, with more legitimate anti-terrorist warriors killed. After the 2016 attack, I decided to see what was special about Deir Ezzor. It turns out to be the site of the Omar field, the richest oil deposit in Syria.
But not mentioned by Starikov is the attack on Russian mercenaries and Syria troops near Deir Ezzor that was not claimed as a mistake. According to reports by eye witnesses, this was an actual battle against Syrians, the actual owners of the land, along with their hired mercenaries thought to be from the well-known Wagner group. The US reportedly killed several hundred Russians and presumably Syrian fighters to protect the illegal base the US had built there. What Westerners need to understand is that just because the US at the moment has greater forces, it does not have the right to squat on other people’s land, and Russia will not close its eyes to this flagrant violation forever. The Russians did not make a major issue of this battle because the Russian mercenaries did not officially belong to their military. But the mercenaries were fighting terrorists, the very ones that the US was protecting, and the Syrian people had given them permission to fight alongside their troops. Thus from the standpoint of international law, they were in fact legitimately in Syria. It was reported as a scandal for the Russians, but the real scandal was the fact that the US repeatedly kills people who fight terror – an old habit of theirs. So, just to set the record straight, it was murder. When the US commanders saw the Syrians and their allies coming their way, the only legally permissible, and sensible, thing to do was to simply leave, the same way they got there. But their actions, and the fact that they decided to build a base near Deir Ezzor, clearly shows that their underlying mission was to protect ISIS, even though they occasionally kill ISIS fighters when they get in the way of US – and Saudi Arabian – plans. The author below further confirms this by listing all the instances of US “accidental” killings of fighters actually engaged in combatting terror.
And now, we need to remind the reader of a brutal truth. Many Americans voted for Trump because he had promised to pull out of Syria. He tried to establish that he was different from Obama in this and other ways, but in fact, his foreign policies illustrate perfectly that the White House is incapable of making and executing decisions on behalf of the electorate. Putin was once asked during the 2016 US electoral campaigns, which candidate he favoured, and he said it didn’t matter who won because America is ruled by the “men in dark suits” (quote is at 3:04 here), meaning bureaucrats, not by the people elected by the people.Perhaps next election, a significant percentage of Americans will remember Putin’s immortal words and how perfectly Trump’s behaviour bore them out.
But most likely, the average US voter will continue thinking along the same disastrous lines as it always has. The “conservative” bloc is led largely by religious leaders based on Old Testament prophecy and narrative. While liberals often complain about conservatives taking the Bible too literally, we have shown here that what passes for “Christianity” in the US is based on skewed scriptural interpretations that depart radically from the actual text of the Bible and has been reduced to the kind of pedantic legalism that Christ spent most of his lifetime opposing. US pastors are nothing more than carbon copies of the very Pharisees who crucified Jesus.
It is interesting to note that while run-of-the mill Evangelicals would have no second thoughts about hiring an architect with a sound technical background – but with no theological credentials – to design a house, or a surgeon with a solid medical education and training – even if it were an atheist – to perform an operation on him/her or their child, they insist that when it comes to foreign and military policy, which arguably requires considerably more skill and knowledge than any other profession because of the myriad ever-changing variables involved – these same Evangelicals do not require a US candidate for higher office, especially the presidency, to have any special skill or knowledge of foreign affairs at all or any knowledge of foreign affairs or cultures to aid in making intelligent decisions, but only some imagined connection to God (even if, like Trump, the candidate was never known to be a believer, or again, like Trump, had highly questionable morality issues in his past). Once the candidate or politician has passed the religious test (every candidate perceived as conservative passes, though sometimes with a big shove, ie, lots of rationalization), the Evangelical leadership, imagining itself to be influential, tries to reshape the politician in question by rationalization (making excuses for him) or by pressuring him somewhat once he is elected. Trump’s slavish acquiescence to the Israeli warlike policies and his tolerance for the inhuman treatment of Palestinians has found favour with most Evangelicals. His moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem made him a veritable saint in the eyes of many of them and cleared the way for Israel to continue the slaughter of unarmed protesters in Palestine, the killing of warriors fighting terror in Syria (as the Israeli leadership admitted here) and the unprecedented introduction of an apartheid system that mimics South Africa at the zenith of its racist polices.
Thus, I have received from a conservative group individual emails postulating that Trump was, variously, a “type” of this or that prophet or Old Testament figure. The first theory I learned of was that Trump was “a Nebuchadnezzar” (which made some sense because the Babylonian king was originally not a believer in the Jewish God but underwent subsequent changes in theology and eventually accepted Jehovah and became a wishy-washy worshipper of Judaism). The second theory I have heard is that Trump is “a Joshua,” which would lend legitimacy to his unwillingness to pull the military out of Syria and his warlike statements, for example, referencing Iran. Evangelicals eschew the idea of peace on earth good will to men. The third theory came from a pro-life Evangelical politician who firmly believed Trump to be a “type” of Cyrus, who also was not Hebrew but was the Persian king who liberated the Judeans following their captivity in Babylon. Trump’s fawning over Netanyahu makes this the favourite theory so far. But the point is, now that Trump has accepted the theological tenets of “Christian” Zionism, he really can do no wrong, and there is less pressure on him to hold to his campaign promises or to do anything consistent or rational – as long as he makes strong enough statements (actions are irrelevant) about illegal immigration. For instance, if he leads his trusting followers into a war with Iran, he will meet precious little resistance from his Evangelical acolytes.
The point is that while we naturally would choose a physician or an architect based on the candidate’s technical knowledge and skill, there is an assumption among an alarming percentage of US citizens that no technical or mental skills or knowledge at all are needed to shape foreign and military policy as long as the one making the policy is in touch with popular Old Testament beliefs, particularly those based on the Scofield Reference Bible. Yet the most dangerous and obviously erroneous teaching in that commentary is the teaching that Russia will some day attack Israel. It is important to recall that Scofield’s first edition was written in or before 1909, long before the Third Reich and the Holocaust. Thus, commenting about Ezekiel’s prophecy of Gog and (or “of”) Magog, a world power that would attack Israel in some unknown future period, Scofield’s comments reflected the popular theology at that time when Russia was thought of as a generally anti-Semitic nation, he wrote, in a footnote referencing the anti-Semitic warlike Gog of Magog mentioned in Ezekiel 38
“That the primary reference is to the northern (European) powers, headed up by Russia, all agree. (!)… He explains a few lines later: “The reference to Meshech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk) is a clear mark of identification. Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel [Scofield was a devout Zionist], and it is congruous both with divine justice and with the covenants … that destruction should fall at the climax of the last mad attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem…”
Firstly, if God had wanted readers of prophecy to know that He was referencing Russia, he would not have chosen Tubal – supposedly Tobolsk – as a marker because no one has ever thought of the politically insignificant Tobolsk as representative of Russia, and further, the word Meshech is in no way reminiscent of the word Moscow or the Russian Moskva. Scofield was clearly tweaking the Bible to make it say what he believed.
Secondly, the most anti-Semitic European country of all time was not Russia but Spain, which ordered all of its practicing Jews expelled in 1492. And if Scofield had written his footnote after WW II, he would not have been able so glibly to claim that Russia – whose army liberated Auschwitz – was among the worst “persecutors” of the Jews. Most of the Bolsheviks and notably the tsar’s murderers were Jews. Further, Assyrian court documents, discovered more recently, show that Magog was in fact a place in what is now Turkey. It was pure fantasy based on the anti-Russian sentiment that had existed for centuries in Europe, particularly England, where Russia bashing has never gone out of fashion.
If Americans chose other professionals primarily along religious guidelines, as they choose the authorities responsible for their foreign policy, the bridges would collapse shortly after they were constructed and patients, even those with minor disorders not deemed life-threatening would typically die on the operating tables, whereupon the doctors would proclaim that the death was God’s will. The main reason utter incompetents are entrusted with Western foreign policy is based almost exclusively on their support for popular misreadings of the Bible and their undisguised hatred of Russia (Trump the candidate was somewhat of an exception), the one world power that turned the near defeat of the Syrian nation around and won back territory for the Syrian people. Not for Assad, for the Syrians. To say that Putin is supporting Assad is to miss the point.
And look at America today: nothing but endless senseless wars against people that are not enemies of the US people, and a debt that can only be serviced – barely at that – by printing dollars. Meanwhile, Russia’s war against terror is real and genuine, aimed at actually defeating terrorists, not flirting with them. And its defence is real, not a constant windfall for arms manufacturers whose lobbies funnel money to candidates for higher office in hopes of gaining profits for themselves.
What I am discussing here is one of the key elements in Western thinking – the firm belief that all foreign policy must be theological in nature, ie, Israel-centred and America-centred, at the expense of technical considerations and of attention to the culture and history of the nations with which diplomatic relations are managed. And that theology may not be Christian. Not one word of it may be related to anything that Jesus said. It must be based on obscure and opaque Old Testament prophecies and grossly erroneous interpretations thereof by American theologians who assume that every word of prophecy was about a godly USA teamed up with a disobedient and secular but somehow God-blessed nation called Israel, at war with heretical foreigners who refuse to obey and worship them. You become aware of the importance of the actual technical considerations in foreign policy when you read or hear an analysis written by adults, eg, by Russian specialists like Nikolai Starikov, foreign minister Sergey Lavrov or President Putin. And if you think it through, you come to the realization that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between Western (notably US) thinking and Eastern (notably Russian) thinking. One is doomed to failure and the other is the world’s only hope for the future.
Russian “propaganda,” if one can call it that, is quite the opposite of US propaganda. Much of the propagandistic language used in the US press comes from the government and is aimed at making Americans hate and fear Russia (and also China), not just their government, but their people, whereas no statements by Russian officials or msm even remotely suggest that Russians should hate the American people or attack US interests unprovoked. Based on this naked US propaganda, both the Russians and the Chinese are now seriously concerned that there will be a nuclear confrontation very soon. A poll taken by Military Times shows that now in 2018, 46% of US service members believe a war is coming, versus only 5% who thought so in 2017. Clearly, US war propaganda is powerful, and it comes from the military, the political class and the msm. We can only hope that the increased hype is intended only to influence the midterm elections on November 6 and will subside thereafter.
Firstly, what is generally called Russian propaganda by Western politicians and their mouthpieces in the msm is the statements by prominent Russian figures like Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, as well as reports and analyses from Sputnik, RT and the like English-language publications aimed at Western audiences. The analyses of events found in these outlets actually differ little from those found in alternative news sites, so they are not specifically Russian and if we were honest with each other, we would admit they are not propaganda at all but an honest assessment of the world situation, notably the disingenuous and biased reporting of a Western press intent on drawing their audiences into a war that no one can win. Russia’s official position is that they will fight only if provoked. The US position is to provoke constantly, keeping troops in Syria uninvited and with no clear purpose, imposing sanctions on Russia with no clear rationale and jarring provocations by officials like US ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who in October told Russia to stop developing a certain allegedly banned missile “or we would look into the possibility of taking it out” or in other words, invading Russia and destroying it! Such a move would guarantee the breakout of a nuclear war that would destroy the US and much of the planet. It’s not that the US would do anything that insane, but these belligerent words have put the US public on tenterhooks, expecting a war at any moment. What's worse, the US is also developing a missile of this "banned" type.
On the other hand, much of the information the Russians provide relating to war news, especially from Syria, cannot be found at all in the most prominent Western msm. The sources may be Al-Masdar, Al-Manar, EJ Magnier, a Middle Eastern national newspaper or even an Israeli newspaper. Here again, there is no specifically Russian viewpoint represented, just facts that the Western authorities do not want to be exposed because they are embarrassing to the US military and political class. And censorship too is a subtle form of propaganda. An example of a news item that is either banned or buried in the Western msm is the Israeli confession that they have performed 200 attacks on Syrian targets this year alone, firing over 800 missiles at a country that is not at war with their country. A Google search of mine turned up this report, on the first search page, in one Middle Eastern site (Al-Masdar, headquartered in Israel) 8 other Israeli sites, and only one Western site, ie, Reuters). Thus, thanks to this quasi censorship, most Americans never knew this. Censorship, even voluntary, is a potent form of propaganda.
What I said about US propaganda being designed to make Westerners hate and fear Russia is based in part on the vicious, mindless, racist words of Nikki Haley, the recently-retired ambassador to the UN, who told Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody:
“We don’t trust Russia. We don’t trust Putin. We never will. They’re never going to be our friend. That’s just a fact.”
This statement goes far beyond any definition of objectivity or diplomatic protocol and is blatantly racist. And BTW, US common usage allows us to refer to hatred of an ethnic group as “racism” even if the target ethnicity is not strictly speaking a race. To see how prevalent this tendency is, try Googling
It is one thing to say you don’t trust a foreign government, but Haley apparently slipped and exposed her personal feelings about an entire people, an entire nation. This was not objective fact, it was propaganda aimed at making Americans hate and mistrust the Russian people. However, if it is true that they, the Russians, “will never be our friend,” then that is a function of US policy and not the fault of the Russian people. It means that, in the official view of Nikki Haley as the spokesperson of the White House, no matter if Russia changes and does things to the liking of the US government, US officials will still never allow them to be the friend of America, and judging by the military build-up and NATO drills happening now right at Russia’s doorstep, it is clear that the West is ready to go to war, based in large part on this irrational propaganda – but on the flimsiest of pretexts, based on the Russia hate expressed by Haley, not on anything the Russians have done. After all, the US has imposed economic sanctions on Russia based on Theresa May’s accusation that it was the Russian government that ordered the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia, even though the accusation was first hastily levelled without any investigation, simply because the poison used, of the Novichok class, was first used in Russia. That too was pure crude, ugly Russia hate, Russia bashing, based on emotion and with no pretence of objectivity. The president of the Czech Republic later disclosed that his country also possessed samples of the same poison, discrediting the story that the Russians had to be the culprits, but it didn’t matter to US politicians, who imposed sanctions on Russia on the basis of the UK’s accusations. We must punish Russia for being Russia, and frankly, for telling the truth about the out-of-control West. This use of truth by Russia is the most dangerous propaganda of all. It is like an acid that slowly dissolves the lies and hypocrisy of the Western political class and media.
Haley’s shocking racial slur reveals a tyranny that has no place in a “democracy,” because in a democracy, the people decide who their friends are and the government must accept their decision. Haley slipped into an authoritarian rant that revealed her, and her government’s willingness to incite anti-Russian hate among Americans, even insisting that “we” (meaning Americans) are russophobes. Trump, by his naming of an embarrassingly incompetent, inexperienced and racist bumpkin as his UN ambassador, has foolishly tried to please his Russophobic enemies by pretending to go after the Russians with a vengeance even after promising his voters that he would get along with Putin. Consequently, he is now seen as a warmonger and sadly, as a result, no one knows what the real Donald Trump thinks.
Now I read the Russian press daily in the Russian language and I have never seen – nor expect to see – any statements by Russian officials or msm representatives saying anything remotely resembling this kind of unprofessionalism, and let’s be frank, stupidity, aimed at Westerners by Russians. Yet there are Americans who pretend that Russian propaganda is the same as Western propaganda. But these people do not read the Russian press and they don’t know what they are talking about.
There are several other blatant examples of propaganda that we see every day in the US-influenced Western press and they are all aimed at making Westerners accept as a matter of course the possible war against Bashar al-Assad.
US politicians routinely call Assad a “bloody dictator,” blaming him and him alone for the barbarity and murder committed by US-backed terrorists, despite the lack of supporting evidence that Assad has ordered any brutality. Yet at the same time, until the Khashoggi killing, no US politician had been quoted calling MBS a bloody dictator, even though the Yemeni casualty count, mostly civilians, was reported as 16,200 as of October 2018, and to top it off, the evidence in the Khashoggi case points straight to MBS. Thus, we know that the Saudis are brutal dictators, but in US propaganda, only Assad is a brutal dictator while MBS – at least until the Khashoggi bloody torture and killing – was never called brutal or a dictator in the msm.
The most convincing piece of evidence indicating that the anti-Assad reports are pure propaganda and are false is the testimony of several Syrians who were involuntarily caught up in the false flag event in Douma that purported to be a gas attack by Assad. These witnesses appeared at the OPCW in Hague and declared that they had been in a perfectly healthy condition when they were approached by members of the US- and UK-funded anti-Assad White Helmets, who doused them with water – simulating the prescribed treatment of poisonous gas inhalation – and persuaded them to rush to the nearby hospital, where they filmed them being doused with more water. The resulting staged propaganda video was then sent to news outlets and served as the “evidence” on which Trump fired over 100 Tomahawks into Syria.
The fact that Trump hastily attacked without awaiting the results of an investigation is evidence in itself that the US knew this was a fake gas attack or that it didn’t happen at all.
Propaganda gave the US an excuse for war. It always does.
First posted at Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-US-and-Wests-interests-for-the-removal-of-Mr-Bashar-al-Assad-and-the-funding-and-arming-of-the-groups-that-opposed-him
By Vince Dhimos
The US government is not only a force working in the hire of the Saudis but also, incredibly, a missionary for the gospel of Wahhabism. I am amazed that there is anyone on this planet who has not come to this same conclusion.
Let’s look at the facts.
Bloomberg recently published some details of a secretive agreement signed between President Nixon and King Faisal in the early 70s which is sometimes called the petrodollar agreement. Nixon did this out of desperation because he had just taken the US off the gold standard, which had existed since the Bretton Woods agreement that made the US dollar the world reserve currency. It was a breach of a sacred promise to back the dollar with gold at a standard price per ounce. The trouble is, foreign governments were demanding that the US actually provide them with the physical gold instead of the dollar denominated paper, eventually making it infeasible to continue keeping this promise.
Now whenever you make a deal with someone out of desperation, you lose big time. But Nixon felt cornered. What if the dollar collapsed on his watch? We have long known that the petrodollar agreement with the Saudis was a promise that the US would defend the Saudi royal family in exchange for their accepting only payments in dollars for their oil. This was intended to peg the dollar to the oil price, hopefully keeping it stable.
But the hitch was that this enabled the Saudis to blackmail the US, and judging by US military and foreign policies since then, it ought to be clear to anyone that this is exactly what happened. Contrary to reports, the US military is not just defending the royal family from their enemies. They are involved in some sinister machinations and it is obvious.
The document published by Bloomberg was harmless enough. After all, if the Saudis were willing to backstop our unbacked dollar, the US should be willing to protect them and defend their oil fields. But there was nothing stopping them from going much further and demanding of an amoral government that they betray their own people. They went further. A lot further. And the US became their vassal. And so did the rest of the West, as pointed out here.
Thus the amoral clique in Washington and Wall Street did the unthinkable. All evidence shows that they secretly agreed to help the Saudis export Sunni Wahhabism (Salafism), the most vicious, intolerant and dangerous religious sect on the planet in exchange for propping up the dollar. The evidence is everywhere. It’s been hiding out in the open for over 40 years. Yet people everywhere have been pulling theories out of their hats that ignored the evidence. No one had the heart to confront the truth head on, even if they had the grey matter needed for the task.
Now, of course, Obama’s foreign policy was a mess – because, like Nixon, he was at the mercy of the Saudis – and Americans expected Trump to fix it. But his supporters had no idea that Trump was over the same barrel as all previous presidents and for the same reasons. Trump has no policy whatsoever, and this is all understandable if you realize that the Saudis have the US by the short hairs over this petrodollar agreement. Thus no US president would ever dream of telling Christian America the truth: “Fellow Americans, sorry but the Saudis control our money. We are therefore obliged to support Wahhabist terrorism to keep the dollar from crashing. Thank you for understanding.”
So each president must think up a new excuse for supporting the Saudis, who have, as we know, founded and funded all three of the world’s most dangerous terror groups, all Wahhabists, every single one. Each president must pretend to fight terror to keep the public on the string, but at the same time, support the Saudis’ Frankenstein. After all, no one wants to preside over a collapse of the currency that would make the fall of the Soviet Union look like a dress rehearsal.
And American citizens wanted to do their part, so they made up theories (oil for blood, etc.).
However, ever since Bloomberg uncovered details of the Nixon-Faisal agreement, forums and web sites have started chattering about the petrodollar agreement as the real motivator for war, theorizing that the US has been fighting proxy wars for the Saudis in exchange for the Saudis charging only dollars for their oil and also investing the profits in US sovereign bonds to maintain the value of the USD. Indeed, such a conclusion is compelling and judging by the opinions appearing on news and financial web sites, a growing number of knowledgeable Americans now accept it. Those who take an interest in world politics also note that the theory is gaining ascendency in Europe and elsewhere as well. They are now a step closer to the ugly truth. But until now, no one has taken the last step.
As accurate as these theories are, they miss the astounding and sickening fact that the US is a mercenary and a missionary for Wahhabism.
To understand that every war (outside the New World) waged by the US since the conclusion of the Nixon-Faisal petrodollar agreement has only benefitted the Saudis and not the US people (it brought on unpayable debt and endless wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and also US service men and women) and their intolerant Wahhabism/Salafism, we need to know what kind of states and leaders, particularly in the Muslim world, the Saudis cannot tolerate. Remember that the two main branches of Islam are Shiite and Sunni, and there are also sects that to the Saudis are important, notably the Wahhabist (also called Salafist) sect that the Saudis support. This Saudi sect is the most brutal, intolerant, warlike, and anti-Christian sect of Islam and, ironically, the once-Christian (but now “Christian” Zionist) US has pledged to help spread this anti-Christian poison, thereby becoming the enemy of its own people.
To understand how we can confidently state that the US is a mercenary on behalf of the Saudis, we need to know what kind of states and national leaders the Saudis cannot tolerate, either because of their own deeply held beliefs, or more likely, because they need to please their intolerant and fanatical populace.
Firstly, being Sunnis, they hate Shiites, and since Iran is a Shiite-majority state with a Shiite style government, Iran is at the top of their enemy list. (BTW, since Iran also officially does not recognize Israel, Saudi is also a de facto ally of Israel).
Secondly, given the religious fanaticism of the Saudi regime, they also are generally opposed to secular governments, although note that this depends on how powerful the state is and whether or not it is supported by the US. Turkey, for example, is off limits because it has a powerful military and is part of NATO. Egypt is also too powerful for Saudi to oppose.
Thirdly, because the Saudis have made a pact with the US to protect the dollar, they also rabidly attack governments, like Ghadaffi’s, that threaten the dollar and the US by promoting the use of non-dollar currencies in international trade.
Fourthly, the Saudi royals (but not the Saudi grassroots) hate states that oppose Israel, for two reasons: Their unholy alliance with the US, and the fact that Israel also opposes Iran and is willing to collaborate with the Saudi royals.
Fifthly, the Saudi royals fear those who oppose them. This is why they cooperated – cautiously -- with the US in opposing Osama bin Laden, who hated the royals for cooperating with the US.
I said above that the US involvement in its wars was due in large part to its obligations to its Saudi allies, and that the petrodollar agreement went far beyond what was set forth on paper.
I say that because it is obvious that the Saudis and only the Saudis benefitted from those wars (outside the New World, that is, ie, excluding Granada and Panama). Let’s look how the leaders the US attacked meet the criteria detailed above:
The wars against Saddam Hussein. Saddam’s government was secular (no. 2 above), with both Sunnis and Shiites roughly equally represented in his government, and even one Christian in his cabinet. It was also anti-Israel (no. 4 above) and was opposed to the Saudi dictatorship (no. 5 above).
The Taliban in Afghanistan. The Saudis cut ties with the Osama bin Laden-led Taliban in 2001 claiming the groups terrorized “the innocent,” but underlying reason was that Osama and his group were intent on bringing down the Saudi royals (no. 5 above). The Taliban also is rabidly anti-Jewish (no. 4 above).
Assad’s Syria. The US was the instigator of the Syrian Spring movement to replace Assad with an Islamic government satisfactory to the Saudi Kingdom and has been working feverishly from the start. The US was even involved in a pseudo-government, a certain “National Salvation Fron” in Syria back in 2007, which was supposed to save the Syrians from the "bloody Bashar Assad”! Assad meets several of the above-listed criteria. He is Shiite (no. 1 above) (his Alawite sect is generally recognized as Shiite, but is even more tolerant of other religions than most Shiites, and that infuriates the Saudis). He also runs a secular government (no. 2 above) based on Western-style laws and justice. Further, he does not recognize Israel’s claim to the land they occupy (no. 4 above). Finally, his alliance with Russia means that he opposes the dollar and the US hegemony (no. 3 above).
Iran. Iran is not only majority Shiite, with a Shiite oriented religious government, but is also anti-Israel (no. 4) and anti-Saudi (no. 5). It also is currently engaged in the Russian/Chinese led de-dollarization movement and charges currencies other than the dollar for its oil (no. 3). Although the US is not yet at war with Iran, Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric is preparing for a possible confrontation with the country. On behalf of the Saudi dictatorship.
Libya’s Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi led what’s been called the most prosperous state in Africa and was the driver of the African Union and worked toward a gold-backed currency intended to challenge the US dollar (no. 3 above). Ghadaffi was at times anti-Israel, at times friendly with Israel. Further, though he had promised to introduce Sharia law, his rule favoured Western-style justice (no.2).
Egypt’s Mubarak. Mubarak was generally considered a secular leader (though some contest that) (no. 2 above), and he banned the Muslim Brotherhood, considering them terrorists. So of course, the Saudis wanted him gone. They wrote the policy, the US enforced it.
Clearly, from the above, we can see that US military policy has done more to support the Saudis and their repressive Wahhabism than it did to support the security and way of life of Americans, who paid for the wars with their blood and treasure while the Saudi royals sat on their comfy thrones.
But the Saudi grassroots is restless. And the free money is running low. And the Jamal Khashoggi case is not going away.
Below is our translation of an aticle from TASS.
Israel is perhaps the most polarizing element of US politics.
The Left is more likely than the Right to reject the religious views that provide uncritical support for Israeli policies, including the very un-Christian policy of shooting unarmed protesters to kill, or the IDF’s habit of firing rockets into Syria that kill people engaged in fighting terrorists.
As a result, Americans who are reluctant to support Israel are automatically called liberals (in the pejorative sense) or anti-Semites without any further analysis of the underlying facts.
And those who do support Israel are often considered religious fanatics who take the Bible too literally. This too misses the mark.
There are precious few in between who see that the “Christian” Zionist view is actually based on a very non-literal un-Biblical view. Yet that is in fact the case. “Christian” Zionists base their cult-like beliefs on the prophecy of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37, where the prophet tells us of his dream of dry bones suddenly coming together to form a resurrected Israel. None of these cultists ever mention verse 24 of that chapter, which says that David will be the king of the new Israel, which will be obedient to God’s decrees.
What the cultists fail to see is that the modern secular state that goes by the name “Israel” does not meet this description in any way. A Reuters poll has shown that about 60% of Israelis self-describe as “irreligious.” They do not believe in the God of Abraham and therefore could not be seen as “obedient” to Him. They are not Ezekiel’s Israel. Further, the Old Testament tells us that King David is dead and not in any condition to be the king of Israel today in the 21st Century. It’s not Ezekiel’s Israel. As for the descriptor “Christian” Zionism, to which over 80% of Evangelicals subscribe, it would imply that Christ has in some way blessed his follower’s support for the secular state of Israel. Yet Christ never once was quoted saying anything remotely similar to that. His Great Commission to the disciples was to go into the world and preach the Gospel of the crucified Christ who gave himself to save humanity from its sins. And as for the Jews in particular, He let His disciples know in unequivocal terms what they needed to do, and yet the “Christian” world thoroughly rejected this commission to the Jews, which was stated as plain as day in Matthew 23:39, where Jesus stood before the temple in Jerusalem and addressed the Jews saying:
For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'
This was a message to His disciples more than to anyone else. He was plainly stating that He could come to earth again only once the Jews had accepted Him.
In their feeble way, “Christian” Zionists have been digging in the Old and New Testament for obscure clues as to when Christ will return. In their feeble way, they have devised the most convoluted and far-fetched possible hocus-pocus system to make Jesus return, even advocating, based on obscure passages, that in order for Jesus to return, Jerusalem must be made the capital of a secular Israel that, in the eyes of Evangelicals, have rejected their Messiah. Even though the passage on which this is based says that the anti-Christ will sit in this temple. Thus they have gone so far as to advocate assisting the Anti-Christ to sit in the temple and do his evil deeds. Christians in the service of evil, vainly thinking they are somehow serving God, when in Matthew 23, Jesus had told them exactly what to do to hasten His return!
The US policy is based on ignorance and fear. It shows no love whatsoever of the people who Jesus wept for in Jerusalem. US politicians are afraid of Israel and what it can do to their career. "Christian" Zionists refuse to evangelize among the Jews because they fear the label "anti-Semite." This is a far cry from a loving approach to Israel, which Jesus said needed Him. It too is cowardly.
By contrast, the Russians do not fear Israel. They love the Jews, just as Jesus commanded us all to do, and they treat Israel like a loving parent treats a wayward child. With tough love.
Haaretz: Russia has shown the world how to speak to Israel in the language of power.
Permanent author Gideon Levy believes that the air force of the Jewish state "will now think twice, and perhaps even much more," before the next bombardment of objects in Syria.
TEL-AVIV, September 28th. / Tass /. Russia has shown the whole world how to deal with Israel and how to speak with it in the language of power. This opinion was expressed in a column titled "Opinions" on Friday under the heading "Finally, someone has shown Israel its limits" by Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy.
Levy claims that Israel starts to change something only when it has to pay for its actions. The air forces of the Jewish state "will now think twice, and perhaps even much more," before the next bombardment of objects in Syria, "about which no one knows exactly how important and necessary it is," the author writes. According to Levy, Israel believes that "it can behave in the region at its own discretion, without paying any price for it in the name of either real or imaginary security interests." That is why Tel Aviv needs this “no”, which has immediately “cut it down to size,” he points out.
According to Levi, recently, especially with the administration of Donald Trump in office in the United States, Israel began to feel "unhealthy and corrupting support," expressed, in particular, in the transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and in Washington’s refusal to finance United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He notes that the "red flags" on the part of the Russian Federation "may have somewhat dampened the power intoxication that has swept Israel in recent years," and this may turn out to be "much more useful than thoughtless support from the current and previous US administrations."
The following is our translation of an article by a Russian analyst, who is also a well-known politician. The information provided on Syria can be found in the Western msm.
Column by Nikolai Starikov
To err is human. Sometimes whole states are mistaken, but when mistakes happen too often, they start to look quite something else. One of the hallmarks of the US Air Force and their stay in Syria has been constant "mistakes": American pilots constantly bombed "by mistake" the ones they were supposed to help. At the same time, they actually helped the ones they were supposed to bomb.
Just the other day in the area of the city of Hajin [Deir Ezzor Governate, where so many of these “mistakes” are made], as the media reported, "due to unprofessional actions" two F-15 fighters delivered a bomb strike. “By mistake," the Americans bombed allied Kurds. As a result, six Kurdish soldiers were killed and another 15 were injured.
While the Middle Eastern and Russian press did justice to this story, it was very hard to find a Western msm source, but we finally found it here.
“Today’s incident in the settlement of Hajin is a good example of that. Because of unprofessional actions of US Air Force, a Kurdish unit that was trying to launch an offensive at ISIS, was subjected to airstrikes from two F-15 fighter jets from the coalition forces. Six Kurdish fighters died, and 15 more sustained serious injuries,” the source added.]
But the main result of the “error” was not just the stopping of the offensive, but the massive desertion of Kurds from the area they had occupied. As a result, terrorist fighters expanded their zone of control and were even able to take many more hostages. That in turn gave them a trump card for blackmailing opponents: after all, ISIS (a banned organization in Russia) simply shoots prisoners.
And this isn’t the first time that’s happened. Here are just a few recent facts.
10-3-2018 “On the first Monday of October, after a thorough preliminary reconnaissance by the US Air Force, several air strikes were carried out against the Syrian settlement of Marea [Aleppo Governate], as well as against opposition detachments of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), despite the fact that the strikes were originally intended only for the terrorist group ISIS (banned in Russia and a number of other states),” reported polit.info.
In this situation, the US Air Force "mistakenly" hit the pro-Turkish "infantry" of the Free Syrian Army and again helped the bearded men with black flags. February 7, 2018 - US Air Force strike on the positions of the Syrian army; in April 2017 - the US simply attack Syria with cruise missiles. When American planes bomb those who kill terrorists, the question of whom Washington is helping is not rhetorical: terrorists! And if this blow is not even disguised as an “error,” then it all becomes even more obvious.
In addition to the “mistakes” of the US Air Force bombing the ones it is supposed to “help,” and help the ones it’s supposed to bomb, and launches naked attacks on the Syrian armed forces, there is also a third kind of US participation in the civil war in Syria, and that is the “erroneous” bombardment of peaceful objects.
8-1-2017 “Today, in Syria, at least 60 people were killed when a coalition led by the United States attacked them — several areas of Deir Ezzor province were attacked at once: Qashmah, Shavit, David and Al-Asharah. This attack was the fifth one last month alone - on July 30, the Syrian media reported six victims of a coalition bombing. It was noted that the Air Force was supposed to be attacking the positions of militants of the terrorist group ISIS, but the attack fell on Aish hospital and a sports club in the province of Deir Ezzor,” writes mediarepost.ru.
9-29-2017 “We are remedying a humanitarian catastrophe in Raqqa [Syria], and before that in Mosul [Iraq], caused by the lack of effective urgent measures to bring humanitarian aid and create corridors to evacuate the civilian population, not to mention numerous “chronic” mistakes of US aviation, including strikes against civilian targets,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
03-22-2017 “The Anti-ISIS coalition led by the United States again came under suspicion of launching air strikes against civilians in Syria. This time, Air Force bombs hit the Badia Dakhiliya school west of the city of Raqqa. SANA news agency sources report that at least 33 people were killed, most of them women and children. The airstrike almost completely destroyed the building, which housed 50 families from the provinces of Aleppo, Raqqa and Homs. This kind of report causes a variety of suspicions among experts. "
March 2017 “In the north of Syria in the province of Aleppo, the US military bombed a mosque during evening prayers, resulting in the death of more than 40 civilians. As is usual in such situations, the US Department of Defence claims that they do not have reliable information about civilian casualties. But the Department says that an investigation has begun, which “will try to establish more precisely what exactly happened.” At the same time, the American Central Command reported that the air strike was planned for another building located 15 meters from the mosque, where, according to some information, a meeting of militants was taking place,” reports e-news.su.
[Reported here in msm: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/17/syria-mosque-airstrike-kills-dozens-of-civilians-near-aleppo]
What is the meaning US Air Force strikes on civilians? In the promotion of war, hatred, ie, the desire to push people to leave their places of permanent residence. And then they have little choice: either fight, or become refugees. In any case, the chaos and war that ensue only increase.
The last thing that was supposed to be noticed. The destruction and devastation in Syria due to the outbreak of war were planned in advance. Let me remind the reader that the state of civil conflict, nurtured from abroad, has been going on in Syria since March 2011. At the same time, the first structure of the Syrian opposition, which the West recognized as the legitimate government (but created it itself), was the Syrian National Council. Hillary Clinton (US politician, presidential candidate in the elections of 2016. - FAN) even met with them twice. But soon this “council” disappeared from the news, and in its stead a new structure with zero legitimacy appeared, which the West was ready to work with. A coalition of the Syrian opposition and revolution was established in Doha in November 2012. Then it too disappeared.
However, the earliest structure on the basis of which the US planned to create a "legitimate government of Syria," was a certain "National Salvation Front" (NSF), which was supposed to save the Syrians from the "bloody Bashar Assad" (the current president of Syria) back in 2007! The principle here is this: if you want to unleash a civil war, create two centres of power. That is why the US constantly tried to create an authority alternative to Assad, at the same time allocating money to create armed terrorist structures with army templates.
The US goals in the Middle East region have not been achieved: the US is there not for peace, but for war and chaos. Therefore, when their wards are cornered and the terrorists find themselves in a difficult situation, either Bashar Assad immediately “uses chemical weapons” and Washington “punishes” him, or “a mistake by the US Air Force” follows.
Let's call a spade a spade.
The United States and the entire West are interested in the war in Syria continuing. Why? Because only this war can explain the presence of the military contingents of the United States and other countries on the territory of the sovereign Syrian state. Americans and a variety of French and Turks are on the ground in Syria without an invitation from the leadership of the SAR (Syrian Arab Army). In essence, this is military invasion, occupation, aggression. The only fact that helps Americans conceal this in the media is “the fight against terrorists.” Without ISIS, there would be no explanations or reasons for being here. This means that the possibilities for further loosening the situation and igniting the big war in the Middle East would decrease drastically for Washington.
If you understand this, the true background of the events in the area of the settlement of Hajin immediately becomes clear. There now follows another unsuccessful (who would have thought it!) attack on the terrorists of the ISIS by the Kurdish formations. The Kurds are helped by the Americans, the US-led so-called "coalition forces.” This is just a collection of militaries of different countries, all of which are illegally stationed on Syrian territory and fly in its airspace. In order not to let the “bearded men” be beaten, the Americans mimic “operations” to combat ISIS. When this does not help, and their "wards" find themselves in a difficult situation, a “mistake” is implemented.
And this strategy will continue to allow them to commit savagery and crimes. For example, on October 13, 2018, ISIS terrorists attacked a refugee camp in the Al-Bahra area. They took hostages and took about 130 Arab families to Hajin, which is under their control. Now the gangsters are already holding over 700 people hostage, including citizens of Western European and other states. Having hostages, the terrorists begin to dictate conditions to the Kurds, demanding the immediate release of all their supporters held in special camps, and the transfer of control over new territories east of the Euphrates.
To confirm the seriousness of their intentions, the ISIS terrorists shoot some of their captives every day. When the Kurds wanted to free the prisoners and crush the terrorists, the “mistakes” on the part of the United States immediately began. [NSS emphasis added]
This situation once again demonstrates to us who is fighting for what in Syria and who supports whom. And who cannot be trusted under any circumstances....
To summarize: the presence of US troops and the "coalition" in Syria is not a means of ending the war, but a way to fan it, not a way to eliminate problems, but an instrument for creating them.
On Oct. 13, I answered the following question at Quora:
What happens on the world stage if Turkey's claims are true in that they have proof that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate? What does the US do? What does the UN do?
START OF QUORA ANSWER
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered Sun Oct. 13, 2018
I do not expect the US to do anything meaningful. If Trump does anything at all, it will be aimed at getting votes for the GOP in the Nov 6 midterms. The UN is toothless. It will do nothing meaningful.
The only person who may do something meaningful is Turkish president Erdoğan. Unlike Trump, who is a man of words, Erdoğan is more a man of actions. All eyes should be on him at this time. I have no predictions for what he will do. However, we know that he differs sharply with the Saudis, particularly on the Palestine issue. The Saudis are de facto allies of Israel and tacitly approve of everything they do. Erdoğan is incensed at the wanton slaughter of unarmed protesters and the aerial bombings in Gaza. Of all world leaders who oppose this, he is the strongest and is capable, at some point, of acting. No Western leader or group will act. The US constantly issues condemnations of Israel’s slaughter of civilians, missile attacks on Syria and occupation of Arab territories and Netanyahu laughs it off.
END OF ANSWER
For those who missed the news this AM, the Turkish investigation turned up body parts presumably belonging to Jamal Khashoggi, in the garden of the Saudi consul in Istanbul. Now there is no way MBS can distance himself from the murder. The investigation was elegant, with Erdoğan simply asking the Saudis for permission to interrogate consulate employees and dig up the consul’s yard. Any hesitation or refusal would have been damaging, and besides, the Saudis knew Ergogan would have simply sent in the amy, so the answer was yes.
Why I guessed that Erdoğan would be the only national leader to do something meaningful.
First off, I did not count blood moons or consult Revelation or Ezekiel for this one.
Right from the start, Trump tried to show toughness by saying the punishment would be “severe” if he found out the Saudi government was involved in a murder. But he immediately negated this by saying we had to think about all the jobs that would be lost if Saudi decided to stop buying US weapons with which to murder Houthis. (He didn’t say it exactly that way of course). So Trump was blowing smoke as usual, trying to please both sides but annoying almost everyone.
I knew that Russia, though deemed a candidate for intervention in Saudi, would do nothing because, as any student of Putinology knews, Russia has an iron clad policy of respecting the sovereignty of all nations. Therefore, Russia is bound by its own policy to refrain from influencing the internal policies of other nations.
I knew that Egypt would try to stay in line with Saudi, so even if Sisi was annoyed with MBS, he would neither say nor do anything substantive. The rest of the Middle East would keep mum because everyone there fears the US and the keeper of the Holy Shrine. Israel is not averse to bloodshed and would sympathize more with MBS than with Khashoggi. Germany would condemn Saudi and maybe slap them on the wrist but had always sold arms to the dictatorial kingdom. (In fact, they have momentarily suspended arms sales to Riyadh. Don’t worry. It won’t last).
But then there was Erdoğan.
Aside from the fact that I knew Erdoğan was in sharp disagreement with Saudi on Israeli protester murder and aparthed, I had read the Turkish president’s first reaction to what appeared to be a murder in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. He spoke firmly but did not mention any “severe” punishment or the like as Trump had. He was professional about it, would speak softly but after all, he was in control of the investigation and would not spare anyone. I also knew him to be a serious enough leader that he would not tolerate any country committing a crime in a diplomatic mission in Turkey, even though embassies and consulates are, strictly speaking, sovereign territories of the nations that establish them.
Erdoğan had already been the target of a failed coup, which Putin had told him was tied to the CIA. Momma Merkel had also sullied him on one occasion, banning Turkish candidates from campaigning in Germany. Further, the US just recently tried to slap economic sanctions on Turkey for buying the Russian S-400 air defence system. The Turkish president might even be resentful of the US attempt to kill the joint Russian-Turkish TurkStream gas pipeline project that promised to be lucrative for Turkey. So he has had every reason to bear a grudge against Western powers for some time and would be motivated to embroil them, especially the US, in a scandal. And let’s make no mistake about it, Erdoğan knows that any scandal that stains Saudi Arabia touches the US as well. After all, the world has been generally sceptical about the liberal supply of lethal weapons to a bloody dictatorship, especially from a nation that constantly levels proofless accusations of inhuman behaviour against nations like Iran, Syria, Serbia, Libya and Iraq to gain undue influence in those nations, generally by simply dropping countless bombs on civilians. And no regime has been more inhuman than the Saudi one.
So Erdoğan was my pick, and of course, I was right. It will be interesting to see what’s next.
QUORA: HOW TRUE IS THE ASSERTION THAT THE US IS USING RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT TO TIE DOWN RUSSIA MILITARILY AND ECONOMICALLY?
I gave a short and sweet response as appears below, but a more detailed explanation of the US interference in Ukraine since the illegal Maidan coup was not mine. It was given by Constantine Petrenko (see below my response).
How true is the assertion that the U.S. is using the Russia- Ukraine conflict to tie down Russia militarily and economically and further its position in Europe?
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered 2h ago
The US is less focused on long-term goals than it is on politics. Midterm elections are coming up, on Nov 6. Whatever the US does with its military now is Trump’s attempt to get votes for the GOP.
Wait until after the elections and then see what the US is doing in Ukraine. Perhaps nothing…?
Constantine Petrenko, Business Manager
American foreign policy strategist Zbigniew Brzezinki famously argued, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” The idea that the West needs to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Russia in order to contain Russian ambition goes back to the 1950s, and at this point it isn’t a secret.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict, however, is not exactly what the United States was hoping for, and the scenario is not turning out the way they would like. The original plan, first attempted during the 2005 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and then repeated in the 2014 Maidan, was to encourage mass protests against pro-Russian political governments in Ukraine in order to bring pro-Western politicians to power and gradually destroy most political, economic and cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine. The end game was to plant Ukraine squarely in the Western sphere of influence.
The first attempt in 2005 largely failed. Viktor Yushchenko, who was elected President of Ukraine in 2005 with Western support after mass protests, quickly lost popularity and did not even attempt to run for re-election. Instead Ukrainians chose the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych as their next President, and Ukraine was quickly falling back into Russian arms. So a follow-up plan was devised. This time not through a democratic election, but through an Arab Spring [colour revolution] style coup. Protesters started occupying government buildings and eventually seized power and forced Yanukovych to run.
This time around, however, Russia was not willing to sit back and watch. Putin had a plan of his own. As Ukraine descended into political chaos, Russia quickly blocked Ukrainian military units in Crimea, helped organize a referendum, and snatched Crimea without a fight. Most Ukrainian military stationed on the peninsula simply switched to the Russian side. Russia also helped two other Ukrainian cities, Donetsk and Lugansk, proclaim their independence from Ukraine. This was not part of the American plan. These developments meant Ukraine would be a much weaker, embarrassed country, and its new pro-Western leadership would be viewed as losers by their own people. Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s current president, has a dismally low approval rating, while political parties which call for a restoration of good relations with Russia are on the rise. This could turn into a nightmare scenario for Ukraine’s current leadership and its Western allies, and certainly this isn’t what the United States was looking for.