S400 to Syria – Putin seals Syria’s airspace

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
25th November, 2015

Russia will transfer to Syria the S-400 air defence system. This was stated by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. The anti-aircraft missile system S-400 will be transferred to the Hmeymim air base in Syria” – Shoigu said at the board meeting of the military department of the Russian Federation.
S-400 “Triumph” is an anti-aircraft missile system which is also a large and medium-range air defense missile system of a new generation. It is designed to destroy air and space attacks. This anti-aircraft missile system can simultaneously attack up to 36 objectives, launching 72 missiles in total.
S-400 “Triumph” was put into service in April 2007.
[Note: Shoigu also stated that the S300 will also be traveling to Syria, the slightly older brother to the S400.]

Russia destroys Turkish truck convoy headed for Syrian militants

From Fort Russ

Cassad News
November 26, 2015

Translated from Russian by Tom Winter
With additional photos supplied by Fort Russ

Last night (November 25) the first photos and video came up of the destroyed Turkish convoy that arrived in the militant-controlled city of Azaz. First, some photos:

 
Well, all in the same spirit, some information about what kind of city is this, and why is this news you need to focus on. The town Azaz is located in the north of Syria, almost on the border with Turkey. The city is a hub, where Turkish aid (weapons, ammunition, drugs, rations etc.) are dumped off. Then with all his “help” they begin to disperse it to other cities under militant control, as well as camps and fortified places. 
Map. Azaz is circled in red:
 As you can see, it’s about five km from the Turkish border. Speaking of buffer zones, Turkey was expecting to make this city an absolute springboard, out of reach of Syrian army strikes. It did not happen. But until today, due to the remoteness of the Syrian army from it, as well as a number of geopolitical reasons, attacks were not mounted on this city.
But today the Russian air force eliminated an entire column of trucks loaded with supplies intended for the militants, there since yesterday. In any other comparable situation, the Turkish government and Erdogan in person, would have complained of Russia bombing trucks laden with Humanitarian Aid, but now, they can’t afford to.
 
Thus Russia continues wiping out all objectives near the Turkish border, utterly ignoring the interests of Turkey (previously observed). It can now be affirmed that Turkey no longer is getting cheap oil, the militants can’t get normal supplies, and border crossings by Turkish vehicles will be stopped by strikes from the Russian Air Force. 
 
Since yesterday, Russia has been mounting massive air and artillery strikes (with the Syrian army) in the border areas with Turkey. And it means the destruction of the supply infrastructure, which was established by Turkey in these years of the war in Syria.
P.S. We learn from the Turkish press that 20 trucks were destroyed, seven killed, and 10 were injured by the strikes and the consequent fires.


Syrian Army General Command: Turkish government increases arms supplies to terrorists in exchange for oil and antiquities

From Syrian-Arab News Agency — SANA

القيادة العامة

Damascus, SANA- General Command of the Army and Armed Forces stressed that the Turkish government is providing terrorists with arms and ammunition in exchange for oil and artifacts robbed from Syria and Iraq at low prices.

The General Command said in statement: “We have certain information that the Turkish government recently increased support for terrorists and the level of supplying them with arms, ammunition and munitions to continue their criminal acts in exchange for oil and antiquities stolen from Syria and Iraq at low prices, taking advantage of the presence of terrorists whom it enabled to control border areas”.

The General Command of the Army pointed out that information shows that transportation move among areas controlled by terrorists unhindered and pass through border crossings without being subjected to any inspection at all.

The General Command added that what the Turkish government claims about convoys of humanitarian aid is nothing but a myth since these convoys are loads of arms and ammunition for terrorists and they are also used to evacuate the injured terrorists to the Turkish health centers.

The Turkish authorities deliberately fomented a state of chaos on the Syrian-Turkish border which facilitated the movements of terrorists from Syria to Europe to carry out terrorist acts, the statement said.

“The Turkish side went too far in the aggression last night when they fired several mortar shells from al-Aqra’a Mountain towards our positions,” the statement added.
The General Command warned of the threats posed by such actions, calling on the international community to press the Turkish government to force it to stop its overt or covert support for global terrorism.

Qabas/ Manal

http://sana.sy/en/?p=62873

Azerbaijan recalls Consul General from Turkey

 

Azerbaijan’s President recalled several high-level officials. This is extremely significant.

From Fort Russ

November 26, 2015
Haqqin.az
Translated by Kristina Rus

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has signed a decree to recall the Consul General of Azerbaijan in Istanbul and at the same time the permanent representative of Azerbaijan in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization, Hasan Zeynalov, reports the official website of the President.

Another decree of the President recalled from office the permanent representative of Azerbaijan to the UN office at Geneva and other international organizations, Murad Najafbeyli.

***
KR: Azerbaijan’s two big brothers traditionally have been Russia and Turkey. However, this proud small resource rich nation was not eager to become a Western vassal as it has been pressured to. It has always honored the age old ties with Russia and prefers  Russia’s approach of mutual cooperation (and its meticulous balancing act in Nagorny Karabah dispute with Armenia)  rather then Western approach of domination. 
Ilham Aliev’s latest gesture is a strong move which shows whose side Azerbaijan is on. 

Turkish intelligence chief wants ISIS consulate, says ISIS is a reality and we must stop Putin from crushing the Islamic revolution

From Fort Russ

Hakan Fidan

November 24, 2015
AWD News
Posted October 18, 2015

Turkish intelligence chief: Putin’s intervention in Syria is against Islam and international law, ISIS is a reality and we are optimistic about the future


Ankara— Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, known by the MİT acronym, has drawn a lot of attention and criticism for his controversial comments about ISIS.

Mr. Hakan Fidan, Turkish President’s staunchest ally, condemned Russian military intervention in Syria, accusing Moscow of trying to ‘smother’ Syria’s Islamist revolution and serious breach of United Nations law.

ISIS is a reality and we have to accept that we cannot eradicate a well-organized and popular establishment such as the Islamic State; therefore I urge my western colleagues to revise their mindset about Islamic political currents, put aside their cynical mentalité and thwart Vladimir Putin’s plans to crush Syrian Islamist revolutionaries,” – Anadolu News Agency quoted Mr. Fidan as saying on Sunday.

Fidan further added that in order to deal with the vast number of foreign Jihadists craving to travel to Syria, it is imperative that ISIS must set up a consulate or at least a political office in Istanbul. He underlined that it is Turkey’s firm belief to provide medical care for all injured people fleeing Russian ruthless airstrikes regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

Recently as the fierce clashes between Russian army and ISIS terrorists are raging across the war-torn Syria, countless number of ISIS injured fighters enter the Turkish territory and are being admitted in the military hospitals namely those in Hatay Province. Over the last few days, the Syrian army with the support of Russian air cover could fend off ISIS forces in strategic provinces of Homs and Hama.

Emile Hokayem, a Washington-based Middle East analyst said that Turkey’s Erdoğan and his oil-rich Arab allies have dual agendas in the war on terror and as a matter of fact they are supplying the Islamist militants with weapons and money, thus Russian intervention is considered a devastating setback for their efforts to overthrow Syrian secular President Assad.

Hokayem who was speaking via Skype from Washington, D.C. highlighted the danger of Turkish-backed terrorist groups and added that what is happening in Syria cannot be categorized as a genuine and popular revolution against dictatorship but rather it is a chaos orchestrated by Erdoğan who is dreaming to revive this ancestor’s infamous Ottoman Empire.

***

Wiki: 

In 2014, voice recordings, where Hakan Fidan, foreign minister Davutoğlu, Deputy Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Yasar Güler, and other military personnel discusses a potential false flag incursion into Syria, was leaked to YouTube and shared across Twitter. The event resulted in the Turkish government blocking access to Twitter, then YouTube, and finally the DNS servers of Google DNS and OpenDNS.[10] In the voice recording, he is heard saying, to a military personnel, “… [i]f legitimacy [of a possible incursion into Syria] is an issue, I can simply send a few men there [across the Syria-Turkey border] and have them launch missiles over to us. Legitimacy is not a problem. Legitimacy can be manufactured.” Seymour Hersh later linked what was said in this leaked meeting with CIA-Erdoğan dealings on Syria

***

Update. This story had such a huge global resonance that Anadolu Agency issued a statement:

Statement from Anadolu Agency

20.10.2015 Turkey


ANKARA

We hereby state that the recent stories on some foreign media outlets claiming that Anadolu Agency did an interview with Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan and published it are totally false.


It is known that the MIT has no such practice of speaking to media.

These fabricated stories by foreign sources are regarded as part of an international psychological campaign against Turkey.

Necessary steps have been taken to have such fabricated stories removed, with legal rights being reserved.
Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Between a terrorist Duke, SREL, MI-6, and sanctions: the anti-Atlanticist Jean-Claude Juncker stands

From Fort Russ

November 28, 2015 –
crimson alter, PolitRussia – 

Translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski 

“Supreme Juncker in the black boot”  

A new president of the European Commission has appeared. Jean-Claude Juncker has replaced the Russophobe Barroso. I have decided to inform readers of what can be expected from this player on the European political scene. Compared with Barroso, he’s a darling.  And the fact that Cameron (the faithful poodle of Washington) fiercely hates him adds dramatically do his points.
 
It is worth recalling that each politician has his own price and his own vulnerability, so the new leader of the Eurocommission could “raise someone else’s flag” at any time, but at the present moment Juncker is from the flesh of “old European business,” i.e., it is most likely that his only true loyalty (insofar as he is capable of loyalty) belongs to the holders of offshore accounts in Luxembourg (for those who understand what it means to have accounts in Luxembourg, not the British Virgin Islands, Zurich, or Zug). 
 
Now he is strongly supported by Merkel, but their relationship should not be considered cloudless. Merkel (to some extent and with serious limitations) is a representative of German business, while Juncker represents European business. Their interests do not completely coincide.
 
Answering the question “What is he like as a politician?” is quite difficult, but I will try to show him from the point of view which the European and American press don’t see, even though the information is well known. I’ll be silent about Russian media, as it (with rare exceptions) generally doesn’t understand anything in European politics.
 
Juncker is known for “pathologically good as considering money.” Being a minister of finance in Luxembourg for many years and then the prime minister of Luxembourg – the largest EU offshore -, we are not dealing with any “petty theft” as with Navalny and Kirovles.  
 
He’s also known for being one of the architects of the Eurozone and if his ideas were to be considered, then the Eurozone would be much healthier now, but the most interesting thing is that he has a huge stain of terrorist and spy scandals, and he prefers not to remember the truth of this aspect of his career. 
 
In order to understand Juncker, one needs to know the history of how he lost premiership. A complete retelling of this story would lead to a novel, so I will restrict myself to very brief explanation. 
 
In 2012, the press leaked a record of wiretapping on a conversation between Juncker and the then head of the Luxembourg secret services de ITA Intelligence Service (SREL), Marco Mille, in 2008. It should be noted that Juncker was actually Mille’s boss in the sense that, according to domestic laws, the prime minister automatically heads SREL.
 
In the conversation which to a large extent was more of a report, Mille mentioned many interesting aspects which allow one to understand the disposition of forces inside Luxembourg and Europe as a whole:
 
It turns out that SREL actively followed the Duke of Luxembourg, i.e., spied on the head of state.
 
The Duke of Luxembourg, Henry, was a puppet of the MI-6 and this is a family tradition.
 
The Duke of Luxembourg attempted to use MI-6 as his own unofficial intelligence service in order to listen in and monitor key figures of SREL. 
 
The fact that SREL actively spied on the political opponents of Juncker was casually mentioned.
 
Luxembourg intelligence services engaged in financial work in Cuba, Libya, and Iraq and made a lot of money in bypassing sanctions.
 
In general, a picture emerges of a rigid confrontation between MI-6 and the local “security forces” which governed financial flows and the banking sector.
 
In the conversation,  connection was revealed between the family of the Duke and “Bommelee r” affair, a series of terrorist acts in the ’80’s which the authorities “blamed” on the communists and socialists and used to promote their political interests. Based on what Mille said, the conclusion can be drawn the SREL has evidence that these terrorist attacks were done on the order of the ruling Duke’s family. 
 
In this conversation and from subsequent events it become clearly apparent that Juncker and Mille, despite the fact that they worked on the same side of the barricade, have very different ideas on how to achieve their goals. Mille is a radical who was interested in “blowing up” the “Bommelee r” scandal and in general acting to maximally aggravate existing conflicts. Juncker resembles more of a German-French version of Machiavelle who would prefer behind-the-scenes intrigue without fireworks. Personal conflicts (and some would assert clan conflicts) between Juncker and Mille ultimately led to Mille leaving SREL and…he was immediately taken to work at the post of director at the company Siemens. In fact, when liberal say that “security forces can only rule in business in Rashka,” you can freely laugh in their face and recall the story of the chief security office of Luxembourg. Such as successful “landing” of Mille in this post at one of the top German companies can serve as indirect proof of the correctness of the analysts who believed that Berlin wanted to use SREL as a battering ram against English interests in Europe, and Juncker simply didn’t want to expose himself for the sake of German interests. 
 
Let’s fast forward to 2012. The leaked wiretaps of Juncker provoked  a huge scandal, and the scandal clearly bore the handwriting of  British intelligence. A parliamentary commission for investigating the activities of Juncker was not interested in the evidence that the Duke was an agent of British influence. It was equally uninterested in the participation of the Duke in terrorist acts. The prime minister indicated that he did not “ditch”  Mille and that he did not inform the parliament of the “illegal actions of SREL” including the surveillance of the monarch, action against the opposition, and illegal operations in Cuba, Libya, and Iraq. Parliamentary debates on the topic recalled only the statement of Juncker in which he said that it was absolutely normal for the security services to violate sanctions and earn money in illegal financial transactions. It should be noted that the former prime minister of Luxembourg in was generally characterized by public cynicism and complete disdain for “sacred European cows”: democracy, the rule of law, transparency, etc. The result of the “investigation” was predictable. Juncker lost the post of prime minister and along with all positions in the official structures within the European Union, and the positions of Germany were greatly weakened in the context of its fight against Anglo-American influence in the EU.
 
Based on the considerations mentioned above, it is easy to understand that the election of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission is a savory spit in the face of London and Washington. The new leader of the main EU organ is not a Russophobe and does not have an “ideological charge” of Euro-Atlantic values, but has serious support from Germany, is a lover of European business, a veteran of the struggle against Anglo-American influence in the EU, and has serious, long-standing and personal scores to settle with London and Washington. If we look at things realistically, then it is difficult to imagine a more comfortable policy in terms of negotiations with Russia. I am inclined to think that Putin is a pragmatist and the cynic Juncker has all the chances to negotiate and bring EU-Russian cooperation to a whole new level. Of course, no one can guarantee this, but there are reasons to be optimistic.

US-NATO launch new proxy war front in Crimea: Neo-Nazis bomb electrical grid causing national blackouts

Global Research, November 26, 2015
21st Century Wire 26 November 2015
140227-map-crimea-1250_5f00f6012cf34480d5b588e14677df11 (1)

In 2014, US and EU installed its own hand-picked puppet regime in Kiev, Ukraine. This caused a chain of epic failures that have made many ardent cheerleaders for ‘regime change’ to question whether or not tipping over the elected government in 2014 was a very good idea.

The worst part of the whole operation was that US and EU central planners thought it prudent to activate and partner with NeoNazis and proto-fascist militants in order to achieve their short-term regime change goals. Once the coup d’etat had taken place in February 2014, western agents of change were stuck with a horrific political Frankenstein they had created.

While the battles have been raging in Syria and elsewhere, few in the west have been aware that the architects of instability have been busy opening up a new front for proxy, asymmetric warfare – in Crimea. To add to the shock and awe, western agents have brought together two of the worst groups of miscreants the world has ever known.

ukraine-crimea-V3
Counterpunch
reports on the western media and government collusion in recent attacks on Crimea:

“Ever since the Maidan coup of February 2014, Western media and governments have all but incited violent actions by extremists against the Crimean people. Unknown to people in the West is the aforementioned, food transport blockade, ongoing since September 20. Western media has self-censored reports of that, including the central role played by the neo-Nazi Right Sector group.”

That’s not all…

Ever since then, Crimea has been the focal point of the NATO strategic offensive against Russia in the region. Most disturbingly recently, a GLADIO-style terror campaign seems to have targeted Crimea, and like clock-work, western media outlets in the process of inventing a tidy narrative in order to package what is clearly new campaign of terror that’s currently being unleashed in the region.


WASHINGTON’S PROXY: US planners would refer to working with Ukraine’s Nazis as a ‘necessary evil’ in order to achieve geopolitical objectives in the region.

After putting NeoNazi paramilitary groups to work terrorizing the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, even Kiev struggled to get them back under control. It seems someone has decided to put them to work doing another ‘off-the-books’ operation which requires a lot of deniability – terrorizing the population of newly independent Crimea peninsula.

On Monday,the Crimea government declared a “State of Emergency” this week when Kiev-backed ‘nationalists’ blew up the country’s electrical infrastructure causing mass blackouts, with “Crimea is completely cut off,” says Director of Crimea Energy, Viktor Plakida, .

In what appears to be a true-to-form, classic false flag attack – a ‘Crimean Tatar’ flag was placed at the site of explosion. It’s more likely that the guiding hand of NATO Intelligence is active behind the scenes to intensify the situation.

Naturally, western media outlets are trying to frame the narrative as a ‘internal dispute’ between ethnic Tartars and ‘Russian speakers in Crimea’ (as part of the western media’s ongoing effort to isolate and demonize Russia at every turn). Still, a number of likely CIA-run editorial desks, and Mockingbird-type media outlets still refer to the Crimean referendum in winter of 2014 as “Russia’s bloodless invasion in February and March 2014”.

The reality on the ground is everyone’s worst nightmare come true: fighting has now begun between US-backed proxy militants and ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking forces as Washington and NATO continues to arm-up a flagging Ukrainian military, and supply their new ‘deniability brigades’, NeoNazis paramilitary platoons, Right Sector and Tatar militias, some of whom have been implicated in terrorist attacks in recent months.

CIA-NATO Dream Team: Nazis and ISIS Fighting Side-By-Side in Ukraine

Other US State Department-aligned foreign policy blogs have even admitted that US military Special Forces have been training new Ukrainian special forces, and seem to be ramping-up the rhetoric in the hopes of trigger more instability in the region.

Another disturbing development which has been all but blacked-out by US TV media, is that either CIA or NATO Intelligence (or both) appear to have drafted in Islamic Battalions, stocked with militant Chechens (likely many of the same fighters rotating through Syria fighting for ISIS), to help the US-backed regime in Kiev defeat Russian-speaking Rebels in eastern Ukraine.

So it’s another US-NATO proxy war beginning in Crimea.

As the US hasn’t done enough damage by funding and creating ISIS and other Jihadist terrorists in Syria.

Looks like Washington is really keeping busy these days…

Robert Legvold vs. Valdai Club – goals in conflict

Russians cannot afford to be naïve about Americans. The Americans who control power and policy in the United States have goals in conflict with most of the world, including Russia. The organizations that formulate and maintain the current iterations of the “America pre-eminent” philosophy, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, exist in a reality-less vacuum. They live to further their agenda and nothing else. There is no compromise, no room for discussion with opposing views. They have no mirrors for self-reflection and humility. These individuals are not just misguided; they are very, very dangerous to the rest of the world.

There are other Americans who make excellent choices to speak or moderate at international symposiums for peace due to their commitment to building peace and harmonious world community, respecting national sovereignty, multi-polarity, and speaking truth. They view other people as neighbors, not threats or competitors. They are humble, honest, reality-based, and well aware of America’s faults. They are not bound by prejudice or narrow interest. It is possible to collaborate with them to move our world towards peace and understanding.

Robert Legvold is not one of them. Robert Legvold’s background is with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Harriman Institute. He and his compatriots have absolutely nothing to do with the goals of Valdai. CFR’s recent report on China is one example of their supremacist philosophy.

Legvold was given the powerful and important role of moderating the final session at the Valdai Club with President Vladimir Putin in October. Why?

Below is the transcript of his long 11-minute speech, followed by the responses of President Putin and Jack Matlock.

Legvold refused to deal with the facts about American imperialism and foreign intervention. He wrote off American history as a distortion in other people’s perspective. That shows Legvold is a liar and a fool. Any school child can find reams of evidence and testimony from official government reports and think tank documents on American objectives, including from the CFR itself. Legvold’s stance also indicates pathology. Unfortunately, he is not alone.

Here is Legvold out of context:

“…it is not just misguided policy, but it is malevolent policy. The US foreign policy today is designed, in the case of Russia, to do genuine harm to Russia’s foreign policy interests, to contain Russia, to roll Russia back, to reduce its influence and to damage its strategic interests and stakes, both more broadly and within the immediate neighborhood. But even beyond that, that it is now a case of a US policy committed to regime change within Russia itself…”

If he had said this, he would have spoken the truth. Instead, he lied to the audience, and he did it with clever words.

In addition, he rudely and inappropriately excluded Mr. Larijani and Mr. Klaus in his remarks, choosing to focus on the United States-Russia relationship which he called the most important. The “me, me, me” focus was immature and embarrassing. And it was such a waste of time for those two men.

Why was he chosen to moderate? Was this an attempt at bridge-building by Valdai members? Instead of facilitating a productive back-and-forth discussion between panel members and the audience, Legvold hijacked the meeting. That’s inexcusable.

Russians and others must understand that these Americans smile, they have impressive titles and CVs, they know exactly what words to say to appeal to people or confuse them (“if you will forgive me and if you will indulge me”), but they will walk right over or through anyone. To understand these people, look at American history. Their friends are coup d’etat agents and financiers. They have an inflexible agenda, and they’re very self-focused.

There is no conceivable reason for having someone like Robert Legvold speak at Valdai. To do so interrupts Valdai’s important work.

Here are links to the video
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548/videos
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

The other speakers on the panel were:

  • Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
  • Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Council (parliament) of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic
  • Jack Matlock, last US Ambassador to the USSR, Professor of Princeton University
  • Andrey Bystritsky, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club

Complete transcript of  President Putin’s remarks with some of Jack Matlock and Robert Legvold’s remarks https://freeukrainenow.org/2015/11/17/valdai-club-october-22-2015-president-putins-full-remarks/

Transcript at 1:24:06

Robert Legvold: Thank you, Ambassador Matlock. Thank you for reminding us of what was necessary and what worked in ending the Cold War and in many respects, what’s missing in our own day at this point.

Continue reading

Council on Foreign Relations’ grand strategy: China must be defeated, the TPP is essential to undermine China

In examining the CFR report on China, this excellent article provides possible background into the recent terrorist attack in Mali. It also gives perspective on Robert Legvold, invited by the Valdai Club to moderate the final key session with President Putin at its recent symposium. Legvold is connected with CFR and the Rockefeller-founded Harriman Institute.
Global Research, May 05, 2015
china-us

Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

This report, which is titled Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.” He says that the report he is publishing argues that “strategic rivalry is highly likely if not inevitable between the existing major power of the day and the principal rising power.” Haass says that the authors “also argue that China has not evolved into the ‘responsible stakeholder’ that many in the United States hoped it would.” In other words: “cooperation” with China will probably need to become replaced by, as the report’s authors put it, “intense U.S.-China strategic competition.

Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance:

“The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.”

The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context:

 ”in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

“China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

This report urges:

“The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

“Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ’strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

Furthermore, here is what President Obama himself told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014:

“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.”

He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

His speech also asserted:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.”

(That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

However, there is a difference between Obama and the CFR on one important thing: Obama sees Russia as the chief country over which the U.S. must dominate militarily, and China as the chief country to dominate economically. But in that regard, he is actually old-line Republican, just like his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney is. The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, two days later, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Mali: Targeted assassination? Chinese and Russian victims. Possible motive

Terror in Mali: An attack on Russia and China?
Global Research, November 27, 2015
New Eastern Outlook 28 November 2015

Coming on the heels of the terrorist attack in Paris, the mass shooting and siege at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako, the capital of the African nation of Mali, is still further evidence of the escalation of terrorism throughout the world. While there has already been much written about the incident in both western and non-western media, one critical angle on this story has been entirely ignored: the motive.

For although it is true that most people think of terrorism as entirely ideologically driven, with motives being religious or cultural, it is equally true that much of what gets defined as “terrorism” is in fact politically motivated violence that is intended to send a message to the targeted group or nation. So it seems that the attack in Mali could very well have been just such an action as news of the victims has raised very serious questions about just what the motive for this heinous crime might have been.

International media have now confirmed that at least nine of the 27 killed in the attack were Chinese and Russian. While this alone would indeed be curious, it is the identities and positions of those killed that is particularly striking. The three Chinese victims were important figures in China’s China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC), while the Russians were employees of Russian airline Volga-Dnepr. That it was these individuals who were killed at the very outset of the attack suggests that they were the likely targets of what could perhaps rightly be called a terrorist assassination operation.

But why these men? And why now?

To answer these questions, one must have an understanding of the roles of both these companies in Mali and, at the larger level, the activities of China and Russia in Mali. Moreover, the targeted killing should be seen in light of the growing assertiveness of both countries against terrorism in Syria and internationally. Considering the strategic partnership between the two countries – a partnership that is expanding seemingly every day – it seems that the fight against terrorism has become yet another point of convergence between Moscow and Beijing. In addition, it must be recalled that both countries have had their share of terror attacks in recent years, with each having made counter-terrorism a central element in their national security strategies, as well as their foreign policy.

And so, given these basic facts, it becomes clear that the attack in Mali was no random act of terrorism, but a carefully planned and executed operation designed to send a clear message to Russia and China.

The Attack, the Victims, and the Significance

On Friday November 20, 2015 a team of reportedly “heavily armed and well-trained gunmen” attacked a well known international hotel in Bamako, Mali. While the initial reports were somewhat sketchy and contradictory, in the days since the attack and siege that followed, new details have emerged that are undeniably worrying as they provide a potential motive for the terrorists.

It is has since been announced that three Chinese nationals were killed at the outset of the attack: Zhou Tianxiang, Wang Xuanshang, and Chang Xuehui.

Aside from the obviously tragic fact that these men were murdered in cold blood, one must examine carefully who they were in order to get a full sense of the importance of their killings. Mr. Zhou was the General Manager of the China Railway Construction Corporation’s (CRCC) international group, Mr. Wang was the Deputy General Manager of CRCC’s international group, and Mr. Chang was General Manager of the CRCC’s West Africa division. The significance should become immediately apparent as these men were the principal liaisons between Beijing and the Malian government in the major railway investments that China has made in Mali. With railway construction being one of the key infrastructure and economic development programs in landlocked Mali, the deaths of these three Chinese nationals is clearly both a symbolic and very tangible attack on China’s partnership with Mali.

In late 2014, Mali’s President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita traveled to China to attend the World Economic Forum in Tianjin. On the sidelines of the forum the Malian president sealed a number of critical development deals with the Chinese government, the most high-profile of which were railway construction and improvement agreements. Chief among the projects is the construction of an $8 billion, 900km railway linking Mali’s capital of Bamako with the Atlantic port and capital of neighboring Guinea, Conakry. The project, seen by many experts as essential for bringing Malian mineral wealth to world markets, is critical to the economic development of the country. Additionally, CRCC was also tapped to renovate the railway connecting Bamako with Senegal’s capital of Dakar, with the project carrying a price tag of nearly $1.5 billion.

These two projects alone were worth nearly $10 billion, while a number of other projects, including road construction throughout the conflict-ridden north of the country, as well as construction of a much needed new bridge in gridlock-plagued Bamako, brought the cumulative worth of the Chinese investments to near (or above) the total GDP for Mali ($12 billion in 2014). Such massive investments in the country were obviously of great significance to the Malian government both because of their economically transformative qualities, and also because they had solidified China as perhaps the single most dominant investor in Mali, a country long since under the post-colonial economic yoke of France, and military yoke of the United States.

It seems highly implausible, to say the least, that a random terror attack solely interested in killing as many civilians as possible would have as its first three victims these three men, perhaps three of the most important men in the country at the time. But the implausible coincidences don’t stop there.

Among the dead are also six Russians, all of whom are said to have been employees of the Russian commercial cargo airline Volga-Dnepr. While at first glance it may seem irrelevant that the Russian victims worked for an airline, it is in fact very telling as it indicates a similar motive to the killing of the Chinese nationals; specifically, Volga-Dnepr is, according to its Wikipedia page, “a world leader in the global market for the movement of oversize, unique and heavy air cargo…[It] serves governmental and commercial organizations, including leading global businesses in the oil and gas, energy, aerospace, agriculture and telecommunications industries as well as the humanitarian and emergency services sectors.” The company has transported everything from gigantic excavators to airplanes, helicopters, mini-factories, and power plants, not to mention heavy machines used in energy extraction.

This fact is significant because it is quite likely, indeed probable, that the airline has been transporting much of the heavy, oversized equipment being used by the Chinese and other developers throughout the country. In effect, the Russian crew was part of the ongoing economic development and foreign investment in the country. And so, their killing, like that of the CRCC executives, is a symbolic strike against Chinese and Russian investment in the country. And perhaps even more importantly, the attack was a symbolic attack upon the very nature of Sino-Russian collaboration and partnership, especially in the context of economic development in Africa and the Global South.

It would be worthwhile to add that Volga-Dnepr has also been involved in military transport services for NATO and the US until at least the beginning of the Ukraine conflict and Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Whether this fact has any bearing on the employees being targeted, that would be pure conjecture. Suffice to say though that Volga-Dnepr was no ordinary airline, but one that was integral to the entire economic development initiative in Mali. And this is really the key point: China and Russia are development partners for the former French colonial possession and US puppet state.

China, Russia, and Mali’s Future

China and, to a lesser extent, Russia have become major trading and development partners for Mali in recent years. Aside from the lucrative railroad and road construction projects mentioned above, China has expanded its partnerships with Mali in many other areas. For instance, in 2014 China gifted Mali a grant of 18 billion CFA (nearly $30 million) and an interest-free loan of 8 billion CFA (nearly $13 million). Additionally, China established a program that offers 600 scholarships to Malian students over the 2015-2017 period. Also, the Chinese government announced the construction of a training and educational center focused on engineering and the construction industry, as well as the completion of the Agricultural Technical Center in the city of Baguineda in Southern Mali, not far from the capital and population center of Bamako.

Of course, these sorts of Chinese offerings are only the tip of the iceberg as Beijing has also expanded its contracts with Mali in the transportation, construction, energy, mining, and other important sectors, including an agreement for China to construct at least 24,000 affordable housing units, making ownership of a decent home possible for many who would otherwise never have such an opportunity. Going further, as African Leadership Magazine reported in 2014:

Mali also relies on China to invest in new power plants to break the electricity crisis that is affecting the country. This is supposed to make available cheaper electricity for the industrial development…A hydroelectric dam will be built in the area of Dire in the North of the country; a hybrid power plant in Kidal in the North-East and another one in Timbuktu, which is in the North as well. Solar power plants will also be created in other parts of the country and all those infrastructures will be connected to the national grid of electricity… A factory of medicine production that is being constructed in the outskirts of the capital will be enlarged to be the largest in West Africa…More than 95 percent of the factory has been completed and it will be operating on January, 2015…Chinese banks that are not yet present in Mali are supposed to contribute to create small-scaled companies and industries.

To be sure, China is not offering such deals to Mali solely out of altruism and in the spirit of generosity; naturally China expects to enrich itself and ensure access to raw materials, resources, and markets in Mali now and in the future. This is the sort of “win-win” partnership forever being touted by China as the cornerstone of its aid and investment throughout Africa. Indeed, in many ways, Mali is a prime example of just how China operates on the continent. Rather than a purely exploitative investment model (the IMF and World Bank examples come to mind), China is engaging in true partnership. And, contrary to what many have argued (that China is merely a rival imperialist power in Africa), China’s activities in Africa are by and large productive for the whole of the countries where China invests, a few egregious bad examples aside.

China is a friend of Africa, and it has demonstrated that repeatedly throughout the last decade. And perhaps it is just this sort of friendship that was under attack in the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako.

Likewise Russia has been engaged in Mali, though certainly nowhere near the extent that China has. Russia was one of the principal contributors to the humanitarian relief effort in Mali after the 2012 coup and subsequent war against terror groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Russia provided much needed food, clothing, and basic medical aid, while also supplying more advanced, and essential, medical equipment to Malian hospitals desperately trying to cope with the flood of wounded and displaced people.

Additionally, Moscow became one of the major suppliers of weapons and other military materiel to Mali’s government in its war against terrorism in 2013. According Business Insider in 2013, Anatoly Isaikin, head of Russia’s state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport, “revealed that Moscow had recent military contacts with the government of Mali…He said small amounts of light weapons were already being delivered to Mali and that new sales were under discussion. ‘We have delivered firearms. Literally two weeks ago another consignment was sent. These are completely legal deliveries…We are in talks about sending more, in small quantities.’”

Finally, Mali has a longstanding cultural connection with Russia through the Soviet Union’s sponsorship of thousands of Malian students who studied in Soviet universities from the early 1960s through the 1980s. As Yevgeny Korendyasov of the Center for Russian-African Relations at the Russian Academy of Sciences explained, “We have had very close ties to Mali throughout recent history…Though overall financial estimates of Soviet aid received by Mali are hard to come by, Moscow’s involvement with the country was all-encompassing.” Indeed, the Soviets educated Malian officials and intelligentsia, as well as their children, developed local infrastructure, and mapped the country’s abundant natural resources. Such long-standing ties, moribund though they may seem today, still have a lasting legacy in the country.

While the world has been transfixed by terrorism from the downing of the Russian airliner in Egypt, to the inhuman attacks in Paris and Beirut, not nearly enough attention has been paid to the attack in Mali. Perhaps one of the reasons the episode has not gotten the necessary scrutiny and investigation is the seemingly endless series of terror attacks that have transfixed news consumers worldwide. Perhaps it is simply good old fashioned racism that sees Africa as little more than a collection of chaotic states constantly in conflict, with violence and death being the norm.

Or maybe the real reason almost no one has shined a light on this episode is because of the global implications of the killings, and the obvious message they sent. While media organizations seem to have deliberately ignored the implication of the attacks of November 20th in Mali, one can rest assured that Beijing and Moscow got the message loud and clear. And one can also rest assured that the Chinese and Russians are well aware of the true motives of the attack. The question remains: how will these countries respond?

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Terror in Mali: An Attack on China and Russia? One Third of the Victims were Russians and Chinese