May 21, 2016 Zavtra
Expert commentary by Leonid Ivashov Translated by Kristina Kharlova
British retired general, who in 2014 held the post of deputy supreme commander of the allied NATO forces in Europe, sir Richard Shirreff said that a nuclear war could begin between NATO and Russia within a year if the alliance does not strengthen its defenses in the Baltic states.
According to Shirreff, it is likely that the target of the attack will be Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia, where Russia can justify a possible invasion with “protection of Russian-speaking population”. British general believes that “Russia is confident in NATO’s weakness” and, on this basis, the West needs “to prevent a possible catastrophe.” He is convinced that the confrontation will certainly be nuclear, since this is allegedly woven into the Russian military doctrine.
Earlier this week, the general published a book “2017: The War With Russia”, about fictional events, which are, as the author claims, “very likely to happen” in reality.
On February 3 the British broadcasting company BBC introduced the film “World War Three: Inside the War Room”, which presents a fictional scenario of potential conflict between Russia and NATO: after the capture of Latvian Daugavpils by pro-Russian rebels and intervention of the US-British coalition the world is on the brink of a major nuclear war from which humanity is rescued by the members of British Cabinet.
In early May, the Pentagon said that NATO could deploy four battalions in the Baltic States and Poland. On Wednesday, May 18, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that alliance command wants to deploy multi-ethnic battalions in several countries in Eastern Europe, first of all in the Baltic States.
***
Comment by Leonid Ivashov (General-Colonel, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, International Journalism professor at MGIMO) :
Leonid Ivashov
One of the most important questions of our time is whether NATO is really preparing for an open war with Russia, and the alliance has already found the place where it starts, or is it a game of nerves, verbal and declarative, but, in fact, not dangerous fuss?
This isn’t horseplay, but serious preparations for war. And not only in the region of our North-Western borders, but along the entire perimeter of Russia. And the start of active preparation for the military phase was triggered by the “National Security Strategy of the USA”, which was adopted in February last year. It stated that there is no multi-polar world, because there is no alternative to American leadership. This whole “Strategy” is riddled with phrases like:
We will defend our interests from a position of strength
We will conduct combat operations anywhere in the world
We will act outside of international law and so on…
And the main target of these military preparations is Russia. And all because Russia is slowly but consistently changing the world. Turned Eurasia towards itself, began to develop relationships in Eurasian, and other regions. The Shanghai cooperation organization, CSTO, Eurasian economic union, the group of BRICS countries – all this is created on the initiative of Russia. That is, the Americans are loosing the lead. Their global domination today in fact is melting. And the goal of the United States – to pin down, and even to crush Russia, as they do with those smaller countries that try to resist. That’s all: the goal of global West is to stop the independent foreign policy of Russia.
With regard to Russian threat. I would advise NATO generals to calculate the ratio of personnel of the armed forces of NATO countries, equipment and qualitative characteristics. They clearly show that it is NATO that is creating shock troops, which threaten Russia, conducting exercises: military-air, naval, ground. Regularly in the Baltic sea area BALTOPS exercises are conducted, during which they practice strategic airlift of US troops from American territory. And that the Baltic States scream that Russia is going to conquer them – first, we don’t need them. And even if they beg to join Russia or for the rapprochement with Russia, there is no need to hurry, they should not be accepted. Such countries are always better to have as an enemy than an ally or part of Russia. However, we must defend the Kaliningrad region, and not only by military means, but also with soft power. There, unfortunately, Germans and Poles are more active than our officials from Russia.
Lets look were around our borders NATO is now most active? Eastern European countries, which joined
NATO and the EU, became the weakest European link. Americans are now using them against Europe and against Russia. The same Poles: whatever the Americans tell them – they salute, and say: “Yes, sir!”. This also applies to missile defense system, and strengthening of the naval component of Poland in the Baltic sea region. Now supposedly the Poles are asking the Americans to open a military base.
Look at Romania: Americans patched the holes on the old Romanian ships, and now actively use them in the Black sea region, deployed some F-22s, modern combat aircraft.
The Balts have nowhere to go: they say yes to everything, as long as America supports the current political elite in power, and fills its pockets.
These are completely dependent countries – the countries of Eastern Europe. Sometimes Hungary, the Czech Republic try to resist, particularly in relation to anti-Russian sanctions, but they are immediately threatened with a coup, anti-government rallies, accused of corruption… The Americans got a strong hold over Europe, including Western, through the instrument of weak Eastern Europe. South-East Europe is also pitted against Russia. The Balkans have always been the military fuse of Europe, and today Americans are trying to turn it into a powder keg. In fact, the accession of Montenegro to NATO has already been decided, however, God help if the whole of Montenegro collects two battalions. So there is no military gain here, but Montenegrians are the destroyers of the Orthodox Slavic world. Milo Djukanovic is, in fact, the Western, Pro-American agent, and the task of the West is to destabilize not just the Balkan region but the entire Orthodox Slavic space. The people of Montenegro, of course, are against NATO, against quarrel with Russia, with Serbia, but no one asks the people, and demands for a referendum are just rejected. The same difficult situation, on the brink of civil war, is in Macedonia.Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina is subjected to coup attempts for elimination from political arena of the popular president Milorad Dodik.
And Serbia itself is stretched, either you join NATO and then the EU, or you will live in a blockade, as today. For Serbia to apply for EU membership, it is necessary to recognize Kosovo’s independence, and in the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia Kosovo is its integral part, but it is forced to do so.
In a prosperous at first glance Croatia we see growing social tension: rallies and protests are commonplace. So the Balkans are again on the brink of internal turmoil with a threat of external military intervention.
Will the Balkans become the stage for a local conflict, which will eventually grow into global? It is unlikely to turn into a global conflict, because today’s Russia will not militarily interfere. The West will just break the Serbs, so that the Serbs, as Bulgarians now, will unquestioningly obey their masters from Washington and Brussels.
Today we are observing an attempt to transform the Orthodox-Slavic world into some semblance of present-day Ukraine.
World
In recent years, the geopolitical situation and the military-strategic balance of forces in the world is of ever growing concern. It increasingly sounds like the situation of 1939. There’s a smell in the air of a great war.
In the 90s, many representatives of the Russian ruling circles had the impression that the confrontation with the West was finally over. There was even talk about Russia’s accession into NATO, “the end of history” and so on. However, all that was just so long as the elite overseas powers felt that the destructive processes generated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, would be irreversible for Russia. Do not forget that the policy of destroying Russia still continued, but was veiled in the sweet voice of friendship and cooperation.
Vladimir Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was the first signal to the West to debunk the illusion of a weak Russia, the illusion it generated on its own through inertia beginning in 1991. The conflict in South Ossetia a year later came as a shock, after which Western powers took military confrontation “in a serious way.”
Today we see how disturbed the parity of forces in Europe has gotten in connection with the deployment of missile defense systems in Romania and Poland: in a few years Russia will not be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.
What should be the asymmetric response of Russia to the new threats and challenges of the modern world? The president of the International Center for Geopolitical Analysis, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Colonel-General, ex-chairman of the “Union of Russian People,” Leonid Ivashov spoke to Pravda.Ru on these subjects.
“You have to understand that in the situation in Europe, that Europe is militarily colonized by the Americans. The Americans have advanced pro-American regimes in the Western European countries and have completely subjugated Eastern Europe. And there, with a base in Eastern Europe there is pressure on Germany, France, as well as, to a lesser extent, Britain. On the other side, the Turks are working on a flank against Europe; they, in concert with the Americans started this process with migrants of Muslim origin. And so Europe today is the victim of US policy, of transnational corporations, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers. That is what is happening in Europe today.
Europe needs the threat of a bogeyman. And here they’ve made one up, Russia. And besides that, they lie so shamelessly, without paying the slightest attention to the balance of power. How could a country threaten NATO, that has several times less military capability? Especially in the western strategic direction. And in size of defense forces, and on the composition of military equipment, we are disadvantaged three or four times over, as well as in overall military equipment. Therefore, we can only be on the defensive, defend ourselves somehow, but as for offensive and striking groups, we have virtually none. But anything else is just false information and propaganda.
Our attempts to create something in the image of the Warsaw Pact have nothing to work on. We have no such countries in Eastern Europe ready to go to close military and military-technical cooperation. The Americans hold them all by the throat. But we have no need for allies like Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. It’s better they will be enemies.
Screen capture from video at site. Text at top: “Only a new Warsaw Pact could stop NATO aggression” Not the view of Ivashov: “We have no need for allies like Poland…”
What we need to do in this area?
“First: strengthen our military power, to bring it to the required level of defense.
“Second: become closer friends with Belarus and, of course, create a single defense space with Belarus. In addition, there must be political and diplomatic work. It is needful to discuss with Europeans what awaits them. We are not going to free them any more from their occupation, with any military support, not from the migrants, nor from the States, nor from the Turks, they shouldn’t expect it. And, of course, work actively with the Serbs, continue to work with the Bulgarians. Throughout the Balkans we should work actively through political, diplomatic, and economic means.
“Third: it is necessary to understand that it’s the Americans who are behind the whole process, the anti-Russian hysteria, and the process of increasing the power of NATO. So we need to create a military group that is capable to work on the territory of United States. The States are actively developing the missile defense system to neutralize our intercontinental ballistic missiles. So you need to create a bundle of high-precision tools. Cruise missiles to be based within reach of the United States. So it becomes possible to neutralize the US missile defense. We need a real threat to the United States, the foundation of all these processes.
“When Americans feel threatened, as in 1962, then they themselves will be send invitations to the negotiating table and begin to negotiate.”
Editor: This partially explains the soft coups underway in Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and the overtures to Cuba. The US government wants to put these countries under its control so there is no possibility of Russian bases or weapons a la NATO.
A weapon that also must be used is simply the truth about all the West has done and is doing — US, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, etc. Name the names, expose the deeds. Showing the Western soldiers who and what they are really fighting for may encourage them to stand down and stop this insanity. It may be that many soldiers want to be warriors for truth, freedom, and goodness.
When US President Barack Obama perpetrated his coup d’état in Ukraine in February 2014, and even had his agent Victoria Nuland select the person who was to rule Ukraine after the coup, it was with the expectation that the new government would renegotiate, and soon end, the Russian lease of the naval base at Sebastopol in Crimea, which wasn’t due to expire until 2042. (Up until 1954, that base had been in Russian territory because Crimea was part of Russia; but, after the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954 arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine, and then the Soviet Union itself broke up in 1991, Russia was keeping its navy there by paying a lease on it from Ukraine.)
However, instead of the US winning control of Crimea as had been planned, the racist-fascist anti-Russian «Right Sector» forces, which Obama’s people had hired to carry out the coup in Kiev under the cover of ‘democratic’ demonstrations against the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych (who had received over 75% of Crimeans’ votes in the Presidential election, prior to being overthrown), terrorized Crimeans during the coup, and this terrorizing of them, simply added insult to their injury. On February 20th, Right Sector forces massacred Crimeans who were escaping from Ukraine’s capital, fleeing the rabid sentiments in Kiev against supporters of Yanukovych. Right Sector caught up with them at the town of Korsun, burned some of their buses, and murdered some of the escaping Crimeans, though most survived — some of them severely injured.
Also, early in March of 2014, shortly prior to Crimea’s referendum on whether to remain within Ukraine, a Crimean who had served in Kiev as a prosecutor in the democratically elected Ukrainian national government that had just been overthrown, and who had likewise escaped from Kiev, was now safely back home in Crimea, and did a Crimean TV interview.
This former prosecutor, Natalya Poklonskaya, took questions from the live TV audience. The interview was posted to YouTube on 12 April 2014, and, as I described it, linking to the YouTube, she proceeded there to «inform her fellow Crimeans what she had seen happen during the overthrow, and why she couldn’t, in good conscience, remain as a Ukrainian official in Kiev, and swear loyalty to the new Ukrainian Government.
She had heard the chants of the Maidan protesters and smelled their piles of burning tires, and seen their marches in Kiev with Nazi symbols and salutes, and she didn’t want to become any part of that. So, she quit and was now unemployed back home in Crimea at the time of this interview».
The Obama Administration, in planning for the coup, had polling done throughout Ukraine, and supplemented the sample in Crimea because, naturally, taking control of the Sebastopol naval base was of particular concern to Obama.
USAID and the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party (not the National Democratic Institute, because funding from them might have suggested the White House’s backing) polled 500 Crimeans, during 16-30 May 2013. As I have reported elsewhere, the first stage of preparation for the upcoming coup was already active inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013; and so, this was a very coordinated Obama Administration operation. (Most Washington-based accounts of the overthrow allege that it was ‘democratic’ and started after Yanukovych rejected the EU’s offer on 21 November 2013.)
On 27 December 2014, I compared the results of that Crimean poll versus the results of a poll covering all areas of the former Ukraine, which was taken, also, for the US government, but, to Obama’s inevitable disappointment, neither poll found a US-friendly, Ukraine-friendly, Russia-hostile, Crimea.
During the intervening year, Crimeans’ favorability toward America had plunged down to 2.8%, from its year-earlier 6%. Clearly, what Obama had done in Ukraine (his violent coup in Kiev) had antagonized the Crimeans. And, as if that weren’t enough, the 2014 poll provided yet more evidence: «The 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked [and this is crucial] ‘Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [whether to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.’ 82.8% said ‘Agree.’ 6.7% said ‘Disagree.’»
In the hearts of the local residents, Crimea was still Russian territory, after an involuntary hiatus of 60 years; and so the Russian Government accepted them back again, into Russia – this was not as Corey Flintoff droned, «Russia’s seizure of Crimea». It was Russia’s protection of them from the invasion of Ukraine by the United States in a bloody coup.
On 20 March 2015, even Kenneth Rapoza at the anti-Russian magazine Forbes, headlined, «One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev», and he concluded that, «Despite huge efforts on the part of Kiev, Brussels, Washington and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit. At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea’s right to self-rule».
However, Barack Obama refuses to accept this. After all, if he were to accept it, then he would have to terminate the anti-Russia economic sanctions he initiated on the basis of Russia’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea, and he would have to acknowledge that the massive US-led military buildup of NATO forces on Russia’s borders in order to protect against ‘Russia’s aggression’ needs to stop and, indeed, be withdrawn. But Obama doesn’t accept any of this; to do that would negate the whole purpose of his coup, and even his anti-Russian policy, including, perhaps, his refusal to cooperate with Russian forces that are trying to stamp out jihadist groups in Syria.
On 6 February 2016, I headlined «US Now Overtly at War Against Russia» and reported that both US ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had announced the US was initiating a quadrupling of US troops and weaponry on Russia’s northwestern borders.
On 4 May 2016, Dmitriy Sedov headlined at Strategic Culture, «NATO to Form Allied Fleet in the Black Sea: Plans Fraught with Great Risks» and he opened: «Finally, it has become clear what the world has been set to expect from the NATO summit to be held in Warsaw on July 8-9. Summing things up, it is clear that the Alliance is moving to the east. It plans to create a Black Sea «allied fleet». It should be done quickly – the standing force should be formed by July».
Sedov closed by saying that Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko «is impatiently waiting for the July NATO summit. The event can ultimately do away with whatever is left of ‘détente’, ‘reset’ etc. and bring the world back to the days of uncompromised mutual assured destruction».
There is a backstory to that, and, naturally, it goes back to Barack Obama:
As I have previously explained, US Secretary of State John Kerry had told Poroshenko, on 12 May 2015, to stop saying that Ukraine would restart its war against the separatist Donbass region and would invade Crimea and retake that too; but, Kerry’s subordinate, Hillary Clinton’s friend Victoria Nuland, told Poroshenko to ignore her boss on that, and then US President Obama sided with Nuland and sidelined Kerry on Ukraine policy by making clear that he thought Poroshenko was right to insist upon retaking Crimea and re-invading Donbass.
In other words, the Minsk peace process for Ukraine, that had been initiated by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, was grudgingly accepted by Obama but he really had no intention of its being anything more than a pause in the war, after which NATO itself would become engaged in facing-down Russia over its ‘aggressive invasion’ and ‘seizure’ of Crimea.
Game’s on for World War III, is Obama’s message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. At some point, either the American side or the Russian-NATO-EU side will have to back down on the Crimea matter, or else the bombs will be release against the other. Kerry has been trying negotiation, but his real enemy is his own boss.
There is every indication that, if Hillary Clinton, a super-hawk against Russia, becomes the next US President, then the policies that Obama has been implementing will be carried out. 2016 could thus turn out to be a very fateful election in the US, and not only for the US but for the entire world.
I would like to point out something, if you open the trending section in Facebook you will see that Aleppo, Syria is trending. They say the Syrian government is continuing air-strikes on Aleppo. The funny thing is we don’t see or hear any planes.” ~ Marianne R Bedoun, Aleppo
The following photo was taken from US funded ANA Press director, Deiaa Dughmoch’s Facebook page. Translated as Aleppo citizens searching the skies for war-planes. According to Marianne Bedoun, they might be there some time.
Marianne was immediately targeted by hate speech from the followers of mainstream media and the US NATO governed propaganda outlets who are controlling the Aleppo narrative. This from one UK based Facebook responder:
“Its about hiding the truth that Assad is massacring the Syrian people to keep himself in power and the US and NATO are backing him up rather than engaging in any Wahhabi terrorist support operation. Its really quite racist to call those defending their homes and lives NATO backed terrorists but I guess you are so deep in this shit you cant see.”
Dick Gregory. [Juggler, also available for children’s parties]
Marianne responded from inside Aleppo:
“You are right I am so deep in this I cant exit because I am a Syrian living in Aleppo. And please tell me where did you get your facts? Your brain-washing western media? I am telling you what I see every minute. Racist? We are the ones defending our homes against their brutal ways…hell cannons, hand-made missiles etc every day since day one”
This social media exchange exemplifies the ever widening chasm between the reports from the Syrian people living in areas under siege or occupied by US NATO backed terrorists and the blatant bias from western and gulf funded journalists.
“The Pentagon has now designated “information operations” as its fifth “core competency” alongside land, sea, air and special forces. Since October 2006, every brigade, division and corps in the US military has had its own “psyop” element producing output for local media.
This military activity is linked to the State Department’s campaign of “public diplomacy” which includes funding radio stations and news websites. InBritain, the Directorate of Targeting and Information Operations in the Ministry of Defence works with specialists from 15 UK psyops, based at the Defence Intelligence and Security School at Chicksands in Bedfordshire.
In the case of British intelligence, you can see this combination of reckless propaganda and failure of oversight at work in the case of Operation Mass Appeal.
This was exposed by the former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, who describes in his book, Iraq Confidential, how, in London in June 1998, he was introduced to two “black propaganda specialists” from MI6 who wanted him to give them material which they could spread through “editors and writers who work with us from time to time”.
The Aleppo Spin
A very quick look at who has rapidly generated the #AleppoIsBurning campaign that has made red the new black on Facebook and Twitter brings us rapidly to the Purpose Manhattan PR company and their Syria cohorts. Syria Campaign, the White Helmets are implicated and the actual event has been created by none other than Rami Jarrah of Soros funded ANA Press based in Southern Turkey and operating with the explicit approval of chief terrorism supporter, Sultan Erdogan.
Deiaa Dughmoch and Rami Jarrah are co-founders of ANA Press. Sarah Dadouch works for ANA Press and is based in Istanbul, Turkey according to her Facebook page.
Co-initiator of the #AleppoIsBurning campaign is Lilah Khoja who has been instrumental in promoting the “Worldwide Red Protest”. Khoja is on the team of the Karam Foundation as their advocacy co-ordinator. While there is minimal financial information on the Karam Foundation, set up in 2007 by co-founder and CEO, Lina Sergie Attar, Attar is on the board of the Muslim Brotherhood Syrian American Council.
“The Syrian American Council is one of the largest American based Syrian lobbying organizations and key SAC leaders are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood in the US:
The last known SAC President was Talal Sunbulli (aka Talal Sunulle ) who was listed as the Syrian coordinator in the international phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members seized by federal investigators during the Holy Land Foundation investigation.
The last known SAC Chairman was Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of the California office of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a part of the Us Muslim Brotherhood.
US Muslim Brotherhood figure Louay Safi is known to have been a leading member of the SAC.”
Attar is in fact Chair of the Humanitarian Committee as well as being on the National Board of Directors under one of her many name variations, Lina Segie.
According to Attar’s biography on the Karam Foundation site, she is a Syrian-American architect and writer from Aleppo.
“Sergie Attar frequently travels to the Syrian border in southern Turkey to run Karam’s Smart Aid programs.”
Perhaps of even greater interest, Attar “serves on the board of directors” of the Avaaz/Purpose created Syria Campaign.
“Heimans, the Avaaz front man of Purpose, is a darling of the high-finance corporate world. “In 2011, Jeremy received the Ford Foundation’s 75th anniversary Visionaries Award. The World Economic Forum at Davos has named him a Young Global Leader, and the World e-Government Forum has named Jeremy and Purpose co-founder David Madden among the “Top 10 People Who Are Changing the World of the Internet and Politics.” [Source]
In February 2016 Attar appeared with alleged death squad creator and ex US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford at the “War on the Innocents: The Syrian Humanitarian Crisis” conference held at Phillips Exeter Academy. Ford has been singularly involved in the creation of the so called “moderate rebels” in Syria, a euphemism that is rapidly losing all credibility despite his best efforts to shore up their crumbling facade of respectability.
The final member of the #AleppoIsBurning marketing team we will discuss is Noha Kamseh, based in Gazientep, Turkey. Kamseh works for the Syrian Forum.
According to their website, the Syrian Forum is registered in Turkey, Austria and the US. It supports “Local Administration Councils as an utmost priority” and “Aspires to contribute to the rebuilding of a democratic Syria under the Rule of Law.”
“Local Administrative Councils (LACs) are well positioned to take the place of government municipalities, especially in the areas of the north devoid of government services. The SOC [Syrian Opposition Council] should provision funding and resources to the identification, development, and training of civil society groups in watchdog functions so that they can monitor the LACs for transparency and accountability where appropriate.”
Are we seeing a US NATO funded Syrian Shadow State creation supported by the Syria Forum? They aspire to “rebuilding a democratic Syria under the rule of Law”, one wonders which law they are talking about as there is no mention of the existing Syrian constitution, nor any reference to the recent widely accepted, reformed and democratic elections.
“The Syrian Forum operates with institutionalized, yet dynamic processes that seek out unique and creative initiatives. Its work is supported through private donations from Syrians, and international partnerships with governments, foundations, academic institutions, and other non-profit organizations”
The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs, various UN Agencies and a few other organisations heavily invested economically and geopolitically in “regime change” in Syria.
Qatar has defended Riyadh funded and Al Qaeda affiliate Ahrar Al Sham currently besieging and daily shelling or sniping the Idlib villages of Kafarya and Foua among many others across Syria including the village of Madaya where Ahrar Al Sham terrorist factions are occupying the village and stockpiling humanitarian aid before selling it at extortionate prices to the civilians. This narrative was naturally distorted by many members of the same team, now generating the #AleppoIsBurning reports.
“I am telling you that Ahrar al Sham is a Syrian group, they look for their liberation, and they are working among other moderate groups,” ~ Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al Attiyah
As Canadian peace campaigner and writer, Ken Stone said in 2013, Canada has also been pivotal in the war against Syria and the “regime change” objectives of the US and NATO alliance.
“1. Organizing the covert mercenary war against Syria through the Group of Friends of the Syrian People (“Friends of Syria Group”);
2. Establishing a regime of economic sanctions against Syria and hosting, in Ottawa, the Friends of Syria Group’s International Working Group on Sanctions;
3. Funding and supporting the so-called “rebel” side;
4. Planning for an overt western military action against Syria;
5. Working with Syrian-Canadians antagonistic to the Assad government;
6. Contributing to the demonization of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and to the de-legitimation and isolation of his government.”
The Aleppo Narrative from Doctors in Government Held Areas
On the 30th April we received an exclusive report from Dr Nabil Antaki also based in western Aleppo, in which he stated the following facts:
1: The majority of Aleppo civilians are living in the Syrian government held sectors of western Aleppo. Over 1.5 million in these areas compared to 300,000 in the primarily Al Nusra occupied eastern sectors.
2: The western media lies and distorts the truth. They do not mention the terrorist blockade of western Aleppo or the constant food, water and electricity shortages.
3: Terrorist bombardment of civilians in western Aleppo is relentless and unreported. Mosques and hospitals are regularly targeted. No sector is spared the onslaught.
We also asked Dr Antaki to verify the existence of the MSF “supported” Al Quds hospital allegedly bombed by Syrian or Russian air-strikes, consistently denied by both governments. We sent him the Channel 4 video allegedly taken from the hospital CCTV recording of the last moments before the attack. This was his response:
“This hospital [Al Quds] did not exist before the war started. It must have been installed in a building after the war began. I dont know anyone in the East of Aleppo who could confirm this hospital is Al Quds.”
Dr Zaher Hajo who is head of Forensic Medicine in Aleppo also confirmed the deaths of 90 civilians of whom 30 were children from the US and NATO backed terrorist hell cannon and mortar fired into western Aleppo sectors over the last week. 8 of those murdered were targeted as they left the Mosque in the Bab al Faraj area after Friday prayers on the 30th April 2016.
Dr Hajo reported over 500 civilians injured in the ongoing terrorist attacks.
The following report has just come in from Al Masdar News on Tuesday 3rd May 2016:
“The jihadist rebels from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda group) fired several rockets at the Dubayt Hospital in government controlled Aleppo City on Tuesday, killing and wounding several patients and staff members.
According to local reports from Aleppo City, the Jihadist rebel forces were seen targeting the Dubayt Hospital with multiple rockets; these fighters were from the Free Syrian Army and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The total death toll is unknown at the moment; however, local activists stated the dead and wounded are still being rescued from the burning hospital.”
“Terrorists targeted al-Razi Hospital with rocket shells and fired others on al-Jamiliyeh and al-Mohafaza (governorate) neighborhoods, leaving 4 people dead and 38 others injured and causing material damage to the hospital and the locals’ houses.”
Aleppo Christian Community Responds to Western Media Lies
“We have been under continuous bombardment over the past few days in Aleppo with civilian deaths, injuries and destruction.” Last night “in our neighborhoods we had four dead and over 15 injured, in addition to homes and buildings damaged. And these attacks are being carried out by the so-called “moderate opposition groups”. ~ Vicar of Aleppo: Msgr. Georges Abou Khazen
The Vicar went on to say that “foreign jihadists have been given the green light to intensify the bombing of civilians” by the US and NATO in response to recent Syrian Arab Army advances towards the liberation of Aleppo from the occupying and surrounding terrorist factions.
On a recent trip to Canada, Archbishop Jean-Clément Jeanbart, Melkite Catholic archbishop of Aleppo, Syria spoke about one Christian neighbourhood targeted by the US NATO “moderate rebels”. The 13 year old son of one family, Fouad Banna, was killed instantly in the attack:
“It was awful: a bomb that the rebels deliberately launched on a Christian neighbourhood, on a popular borough. It has blown everything apart, destroyed countless houses. Such was the case of Fouad’s home” ~ Catholic Herald
Where are the Syria White Helmets and Western Media?
One can be forgiven for asking where the neutral and unarmed saviours of all Syrians are when the US NATO terrorists rain missiles down upon Syrian people living in the government held western sectors of Aleppo. While photos circulating in western media are entirely of White Helmet “first responders” during the bombing of known Al Nusra terrorist zones, they are conspicuously absent from photos & scant reports covering the “moderate rebel” murderous excesses.
However one video released by the Syria White Helmets during the massacres of the Syrian people and targeting of civilian facilities in Aleppo, reveals what they were doing, while on the other side of the demarcation line, Syrians were dying.
The White Helmets are embedded in the eastern, terrorist held sectors of Aleppo. While the western media runs unquestioningly with the US NATO narrative of Syrian and Russian aggression against terrorists portrayed as civilians we have to ask the question, where is their objective reporting? Why are the massacres of Syrian civilians in western Aleppo being ignored?
Why are the White Helmets, icons and heroes for the misled and deceived, busy filming a promo video for the Soros “turn the world red” campaign when the Syrian people they claim to defend and cherish are being maimed and murdered a few blocks away?
As Doctor Nabil Antaki said on the 30th April:
“With regards to recent events in Aleppo, I state very clearly that the mainstream media are lying by omission. Since the beginning of the war in Aleppo that began 4 years ago, they have consistently failed to report all the facts.”
In 2013 Al Kindi hospital in Aleppo was targeted by the US NATO “moderate rebels”. Al Kindi was the 4th biggest hospital, specialising in cancer treatment, in the Middle East.
After days of heavy shelling, the terrrorists drove a truck up to the front of the hospital and detonated it. The remaining Syrian Arab Army soldiers defending Al Kindi were executed and this horrific execution was filmed by the US and NATO terrorists. Their videos are still available but are graphic and not for the faint hearted.
A Syrian tragedy ignored by a western media in the midst of fomenting anti Assad fervour.
The US NATO Media Campaign Objectives
The US NATO campaign driven by this team of Soros funded agents of change depends entirely upon unproven accusations levied against the Syrian & Russian governments of bombing civilians in Aleppo and the alleged bombing of an MSF “supported” hospital in eastern Aleppo, the Al Quds.
[Germany conducts aerial reconnaissance of Syria with Tornado units and they survey airspace]
“It is not very likely, but we cannot completely rule out the possibility that the anti-ISIS coalition [US NATO] has been responsible for the attack on the MSF hospital.”
We have come full circle from the early “No Fly Zone” to the “Safe Zone” and finally to the “No Bomb Zone”. The objective is clear. This campaign like so many before it,is attempting to re-generate public outrage and support of the implementation of a No Fly Zone in Syria. A No Fly Zone that would ensure the unmitigated devastation of Syria and its reduction to a Libya style failed state in preparation for Imperialist looting and pillaging.
So our media are working as a megaphone for US and NATO propaganda, the Humanitarian NGOs in Syria are embedded in terrorist areas and are not saving lives, rather they are prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.
The humanitarians who are calling Syrians “racist” for telling the truth should perhaps have more respect for those who are living through hell because they have consciously chosen to remain ignorant of the facts.
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall.
Translated from German by Tom Winter, May 2, 2016. News items based on this interview are showing up on the web. We found the original. Marcel Joppa, for Sputnik.de, interviews Dr. Alexander Neu, Bundestag member from Die Linke. The US wants to strengthen its presence in Eastern Europe with soldiers, tanks and heavy military equipment. The federal government is silent officially, but many government politicians are openly standing behind Washington. “CDU, SPD and Greens go along with brainless compliance,” criticizes Dr. Alexander Neu, who represents the Left Party Defense Committee.
MJ: Dr. Neu, the USA is locating an entire brigade of its soldiers in the east of Europe. They are supposed to rotate between different States. How do you rate this project?
AN: According to media reports the transfer is supposed to take place in early 2017 to 2018. That is, if Russia is so provocative as the Americans claim, it rather surprises me that they can let it go till February 2017. Given such a big Russian threat, as suggested by the Americans, I would have thought that it would have to be more immediate. That shows me that Russian aggression is not the basis, but that they are propounding a risk that isn’t there. They are trying to generate Russophobia in Europe.
In a statement by the Defense Department in Washington, this redeployment was a reaction to the “aggressive course Russia is on.” That sounds like an argument straight out of the Cold War.
I do not see where the aggressiveness of Russia is. One can of course argue about the Crimea, as you can create different assessments of international law. I have my own assessment, in light of the destruction of Yugoslavia by the West and the recognition of the Yugoslav states and Kosovo. After all, one can not argue one way in Crimea and another way in Yugoslavia.
The West has created this precedent itself. Also in the eastern Ukraine one has to admit: The coup did not come out of Russia, but from the West – as the elected government of Yanukovych did not want to sign the EU Association Agreement. So I do not see that the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland are territorially harassed or threatened in any way. So this is a very abstract and fictitious threat. One has the feeling that certain Eastern European countries and their elites, and American elites, are all of them sowing and fertilizing threat scenarios. And thus, a Russian policy of aggression Russia is suggested, but has no material basis.
MJ: The planned US troop redeployment is to include 4200 soldiers, 250 tanks and other military equipment. The upgrade in Eastern Europe will begin in early 2017. President Obama has also announced an increase in US defense spending for Europe. Where is United States foreign policy headed?
AN: The Americans obviously want to keep their anti-Russian brew simmering in Eastern Europe and Central Europe. Somehow, it is believed that you have to keep Russia at bay, because Russia will not submit itself to Western ideas. They consider that they have to keep Russia in a period of conflict, under a military conflict. For this you need obedient vassals in Europe – and they have them.
With Poland and the Baltic states, one could of course, argue that they have their own history which has shaped their views. But this justification is no longer true at the present time. And with Bulgaria and Romania it doesn’t hold at all. Those who will suffer alongside the Russians include – and Russia will naturally react militarily – will be the Bulgarian, Romanian, or even the Polish taxpayers.
MJ: The whole thing is in any case a step against disarmament in Europe. There has not been an official response of the federal government. But can you imagine how the reaction will turn out?
AN: It will not be negative. The federal government is on board in the escalation policy of US-led NATO, always. And the federal government with its Bundeswehr are an essential element of NATO’s spearhead in Eastern Europe. Here is where an escalation takes place, which Europe does not need, that also Eastern Europe de facto does not need, that Russia does not need – but that obviously our “big brother” on the other side of the pond needs.
MJ: You yourself are a member of the Defence Committee of the German Bundestag. How do they look upon the development of US foreign policy? Are they completely in agreement, or there is some concern behind closed doors?
AN: So within the other parties – the SPD plus the CDU and the Greens – I see no objections. Even amog the Greens, I see no vociferous concerns. In the CDU and the SPD they think it’s all good, what the US says. This is a transatlanticist-grouping within the policy in Berlin, and only those with a strong transatlanticist bent, can sit in the Defense and the Foreign Affairs Committee. That leaves the Left as the only party, the only fraction that represents an entirely different view. But all the other parties go there somehow with mindless conformity.
Die Meldung über eine mögliche Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten nach Litauen zur „Eindämmung“ Russlands hat in den Medien und den sozialen Netzwerken in Deutschland für großes Aufsehen gesorgt.
Dabei gehen die Meinungen oft weit auseinander. Aus Sicht der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“ steht Berlin vor einem Dilemma. Wenn Deutschland die Entsendung der Truppen verweigern würde, wäre das unsolidarisch gegenüber den baltischen Staaten. Sollte es einwilligen, würde das die Beziehungen zu Russland belasten. Der Deutschlandfunk gibt diesen Plänen allerdings recht: Die Nato müsse die „territoriale Integrität der Länder garantieren“, die sich in der Nähe Russland „unsicher“ fühlen.
Doch diese Begründung, die Staaten fühlten sich durch Russland bedroht, hält der Linken-Politiker Gregor Gysi für wenig überzeugend. „Erstens geht es nicht um Gefühle, sondern um die Frage, ob eine wirkliche Bedrohung vorliegt. Zweitens wären diese 250 Soldaten im Falles eines wirklichen Krieges mehr als überflüssig“, so Gysi auf seiner Facebook-Seite. Um seinen Gesichtspunkt noch deutlicher zu machen, erinnert der Politiker an die Geschichte: „Deshalb ist es geschichtsvergessen und eskalierend, jetzt Truppen an die russische Grenze zu schicken.“
Die Bundestagsabgeordnete Sahra Wagenknecht unterstützt ihren Parteigenossen: „Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel begeht eine unverantwortliche Provokation, wenn sie 75 Jahre nach dem Überfall Deutschlands auf die Sowjetunion die Bundeswehr zur russischen Grenze schickt.“
In den Kommentaren im Internet haben viele Leser ihrem Unmut über das Vorhaben der Bundesregierung Luft gemacht. „Die Grenze nach Afrika / Türkei / Syrien ist offen, aber die Gefahr kommt aus Russland. Einfach nur verrückt“, schrieb ein Nutzer in den Kommentaren zu einem „Welt“-Artikel. Ein anderer Leser, J89, wies darauf hin, dass ein Nato-Bataillon an der Grenze zu Russland keine beachtenswerte Gefahr darstelle: Das sei „Symbolpolitik“.
Auch andere Internet-Nutzer sind von der Aussicht, deutsche Soldaten in Richtung Russland zu schicken, wenig begeistert:
„Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel begeht eine unverantwortliche Provokation, wenn sie 75 Jahre nach dem Überfall Deutschlands auf die Sowjetunion die Bundeswehr zur russischen Grenze schickt“, erklärt Sahra Wagenknecht, Vorsitzende der Fraktion DIE LINKE. Wagenknecht weiter:
„Die Bundesregierung handelt brandgefährlich, wenn sie das aggressive Spiel der NATO blind unterstützt. Eine dauerhafte Präsenz von NATO-Kampftruppen an der russischen Grenze widerspricht den bestehenden Vereinbarungen mit Russland. EU-Osterweiterungen und NATO-Truppenaufmärsche sind Gift für Frieden und Stabilität in Europa. Die Entsendung von Kampfeinheiten der Bundeswehr an die russische Grenze gefährdet die vitalen Interessen der deutschen Bevölkerung. Der Deutsche Bundestag muss darüber beraten.“
“Chancellor Angela Merkel is committing an irresponsible provocation, when, 75 years after the attack on the Soviet Union, she is sending the Bundeswehr to the Russian border,” said Sahra Wagenknecht, Chairman of DIE LINKE.
Wagenknecht further: “The federal government is playing with fire if they blindly support NATO’s aggressive game. A permanent presence of NATO combat troops on the Russian border is contrary to the existing agreements with Russia.
EU eastward expansion and the NATO troop parades are poison for peace and stability in Europe. The deployment of combat units of the Bundeswehr to the Russian border threatens the vital interests of the German population. The German Bundestag must debate it.”
_____________________________
On the same subject, click “Forgetting History”
Washington and NATO governments lose patience at Russia and Syria wins in the public polls. The West pushes to achieve their ends by any means possible, and they will do it over the public’s dead bodies, if need be. Despite the high-sounding patriotic rhetoric, their ends were never for the public. Those who believe the fear-mongering and the lies are fools. Those driving Western federal policies and in the Pentagon and military establishment are truly mad.
Furthermore, DWN reports that on April 25th, the U.S. President will hold a “summit meeting” in Hannover Germany with the leaders of Germany (Angela Merkel), Italy (Matteo Renzi), France (Francois Hollande), and Britain (David Cameron). The presumed objective of this meeting is to establish in NATO’s countries bordering on Russia, a military force of all five countries that are headed by these leaders, a force threatening Russia with an invasion, if NATO subsequently decides that the ‘threat from Russia’ be ‘responded to’ militarily.
NATO’s surrounding Russia with hostile forces is supposedly defensive against Russia — not an offensive operation. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, America’s President JFK didn’t consider Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev’s plan to base nuclear missiles in Cuba to be ‘defensive’ on the USSR’s part — and neither does Russia’s President Vladimir Putin consider America’s far bigger operation, of surrounding Russia with such weapons, to be ‘defensive’ and not offensive. The U.S. Government, and NATO, act as if Russia is surrounding them, instead of them surrounding Russia — and their ‘news’ media transmit this lie as if it should be taken seriously, not as its being a lie; but, in actual fact, NATO has already expanded right up to Russia’s western borders.
Obama is thus now adding to the economic sanctions against Russia that he had imposed allegedly because of Russia’s alleged ‘seizure’ of Crimea from Ukraine after Obama’s coup overthrew Russia’s ally Viktor Yanukovych who led Ukraine until the coup in February 2014.
Right after Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, Obama slapped sanctions against Russia (even though Western-sponsored polls in Crimea, both before and after the coup, had shown higher than 90% support by Crimeans for rejoining with Russia), and nuclear weapons were prepared, both on the U.S.-EU side and on the Russian side, for a possible nuclear war.
This is no mere restoration of the Cold War (which was based upon the capitalist-communist ideological disagreement); it’s instead getting forces into position for a possible invasion of Russia, pure-and-simple — raw conquest — though no major news-media in the West are reporting it as beingsuch.
That preparation doesn’t necessarily mean a nuclear war will result. Russia might accept whatever the demands of ‘the West’ are, and thus lose its national sovereignty. Otherwise, ‘the West’ (the U.S.leadership, and the leaderships in its allied countries) might quit their evermore-ominous threats, and simply withdraw from Russia’s borders, if Russia stands-its-ground and refuses to yield up its national sovereignty.
Back in January, Russian President Vladimir Putin called-out American President Barack Obama on Obama’s big lie, that America’s “ABM” weapons to disable in-flight nuclear missiles were being installed in Europe in order to protect Europe against Iranian nuclear missiles, but now the U.S. acknowledges that Iran doesn’t have, and won’t have, any nuclear missiles, and yet Obama is stepping up (instead of ending) those ABM installations — even though the alleged anti-Iranian reason for them is gone. The only actual reason they have been installed, Putin argues, is in order to enable a blitz nuclear attack against Russia, which will include disabling Russia’s retaliatory capacity.
Any in-depth news-report about Obama’s organizing for a possible invasion of Russia, needs to deal, therefore, with the key question: What basis of ‘the West’s’ aggressive actions threatening Russia’s national security is there, other than such lies by ‘the West’? And, if there is no honest answer to it, then the only rational response by Western publics, to what Obama and his foreign allies are doing, is to recognize what is actually happening and to take action against their own leaders, before this increasingly high-stakes confrontation — of no benefit but only extremely high costs, to publics around the world — becomes terminal. In that instance, Western publics need to defend themselves against their own nation’s leaders. This is a situation that is frequently encountered in dictatorships.
The key questions are not being asked in the Western press; they are being ignored by it. Unless these questions are publicly dealt with — and soon — the answer, to them all, could well be terminal. Consequently, any ‘news’ medium that fails to address them is less than worthless; it is sheer propaganda that merely parades in the mask of being a ‘news medium’: the potentially terminal questions are then being ignored, and lies are promoted instead, which distract the public from the most urgent public-affairs issue of them all, in our era, not draw the public’s attention to that overriding international-affairs issue.
The closer that things are getting to a nuclear war, the more difficult becomes either side’s backing down from it — and this is especially the case with the aggressor (most especially when it falsely claims that it is being aggressed-against, and this is the reason why the lies urgently need to be exposed).
Eyewitness to German RT: Military column of about 50 unmarked heavy trucks under way near Dresden A motorist traveling on business on the A4 towards Görlitz has turned to RT to report that he had spotted a military convoy February 20, consisting of 50 trucks, all covered with tarpaulins and without any military badges.
According to his statements, the tires of military transport vehicles were pressed, indicating heavy loading. At the same time, the US Army has announced that it is providing 5000 tons of ammunition to Germany in February.
The eyewitness, who turned to German RT and reported his observation with documenting photographs, introduced himself as a former NVA officer and was noticeably distressed when talking to RT: “I am contacting you because I am afraid for the future of my children, I have two sons of military service age, and when I watch a NATO transport of this scale in eastern Germany, it makes me enormously worried.”
He also stressed that he in contrast to the “ongoing campaign against Russia,” his circle of acquaintances rather have an attitude of friendship towards Russia.
The fact that the lead vehicle is a Humvee points to the US Army. However, it is uncommon for US military transport to drive without any form of identification across German territory.
One motivation for the complete absence of any military badging could may lie in circumventing Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Two Plus Four Treaty. This Article provides, “that foreign military forces and atomic weapons or their carriers, can not be stationed nor conveyed in this part of Germany” (the five new federal states)
The observation of the eye-witness, whose name and contact information we have at German RT, and that he, for understandable cause does not want published, coincides with the statement of US Army-Europe of February 20: “In the largest single supply of ammunition of the decade, the 21st Logistics Command has delivered more than 5,000 tons of ammunition to the ‘European ammunition depot’ in Miesau [Germany] between 17-18 February.” Thus the announcement on the official website of the US Army. The Chief of Staff of the US Logistics Command, Colonel Matthew Redding, continues in a presser: “This vital supply will help us continue to support the NATO alliance. The fact that this is the largest single delivery of the last decade, demonstrates our undiminished commitment to the defense of our allies.” Redding explained also that the storage of such a large amount of ammunition will allow the US and NATO “to provide ammunition for NATO operations on very short notice.” The Chief of Staff concluded by saying: “All these efforts pay off, if it comes to units needing ammunition right now, and we are able to deliver immediately” The ammunition was loaded in a total of 415 shipping containers and initially stored in Rhineland-Palatinate Miesau. The US military maintains near Miesau (“Miesau Am Panzergraben”*) the Miesau Army Depot, the largest ammunition depot outside the United States and the largest in Germany.
Ammunition should be available, among other things, for the upcoming 2016 NATO-United maneuvers “Anaconda” scheduled for June.
‘”Road to ANACONDA” Preparations base for the grand NATO manoeuvres in Poland for June, 2016’ Photo credit: US-Army Europe
At the military exercise over 25,000 soldiers from 24 countries will take part, including the USA, Germany, Great Britain, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Hungary, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. Since the merger by referendum of Crimea with Russia in 2014, NATO has greatly expanded its military maneuver activities in Europe. The biggest NATO exercises in 2015, called “Trident Juncture,” included 36,000 soldiers, 60 warships and 200 warplanes from 30 different countries. Moscow has repeatedly asked NATO to stop its expansion into Eastern Europe as once agreed and has repeatedly stressed that such steps have the potential to undermine the security of all of Europe.
______________________ *The name of a German town is often specified by naming the river alongside it, i.e. “Aldingen Am Neckar,” Aldingen-on-the-Neckar. Here it is Miesau, humorously called “Miesau on the tank graveyard.”
