North Korea in the crosshairs: lively input from James Bradley, Ken O’Keefe, Mohammad Marandi (VIDEO)

From CrossTalk, RT

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/video/

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un © KCNA / Reuters

We have heard it all before – all options are on the table – and of course, that means using force. This time, North Korea is in the crosshairs, with the usual bellicose language and threats being meted out. What is completely absent, however, is diplomacy.

CrossTalking with James Bradley, Ken O’Keefe, and Mohammad Marandi.

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/

Advertisements

Syrian ambassador’s excellent speech to the UN Security Council, April 7 — transcript (VIDEO)

UN Security Council meeting
April 7, 2017

Video from C-SPAN

https://www.c-span.org/video/?426668-1/un-security-council-holds-emergency-meeting-us-airstrikes-syria

1:45:50 – 1:57:26

Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar al Ja’Afari

At the outset, my delegation wishes to thank both the Russian Federation and Bolivia that joined us in calling for the convening of this urgent meeting.

I have a question at the very outset to the under-Secretary General who stated that Syrian Arab Republic perpetrated an act of aggression without defining that act by the terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States at 3:42 at dawn today, April 7, 2017, waged a barbaric, flagrant act of aggression against a base of the Syrian Arab Air Force in the central area of the country using a number of missiles which led to a number of martyrs, many injured, including women and children, and wide-ranging material damage.

This treacherous act of aggression is a grave violation of the Charter of the United Nations as well as all international norms and laws.

The United States attempted to justify it with empty pretexts, fabricated arguments, claiming that the Syrian Arab Army had used the chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun, without genuine knowledge of what happened, without identifying who was responsible, the very same pretexts shouted out by terrorist organizations as well as their handlers in Washington and in ___Riyadh, ____Tex Aviv, London, and Paris, as well as their media.

The Syrian Arab Republic has stressed that the Syrian Arab Army does not have chemical weapons in the first place, and that it would never use such weapons in any of its operations against armed terrorist groups, that it condemns the use of such weapons as being unjustified under any conditions.

Let me stress that it is well-known that those weapons had been used and stockpiled in many parts of Syria by terrorist armed organizations in cooperation, or rather with a wink and a nudge, by some ruling regimes in the region and outside, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and some European states.

They completely ignore all the facts and documented information on the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in many parts of the Syrian Arab Republic.

This aggression would surely send erroneous messages to these terrorist groups, emboldening them to use chemical weapons in the future and to continue perpetrating terrorist acts against the Syrian civilians. Jabhat al Nusra and ISIL, both terrorist organizations, and associated terrorist organizations, following this aggression, did wage many attacks on many parts of Syria. The Syrian Arab Army and its allies in the war against terrorism are confronting them, despite attempts to support them. The American aggression is under this umbrella.

This condemnable aggression is a grave extrapolation of the same erroneous American strategy that began six years ago: one of providing all forms of assistance to what the United States called moderate armed opposition groups. This strategy harms counterterrorism by the Syrian Arab Army and its partners. It makes the United States of America a partner of ISIL and Jabhat al Nusra and other terrorist groups that since day one of the unjust war against Syria have attacked army positions and military bases as well as the infrastructure.

Let me recall in this Council that the United States of America leads a purported alliance against ISIL. However, the real achievements of that coalition is to kill civilians and to strike at infrastructure in Syria. Its real objective is to weaken the Syrian Arab Army and its allies when confronting terrorist groups. In this regard, we see the air strike by the aircraft of this coalition illegally against the Syrian Arab Army in the Jabal Tharda in the city of Deir Ezzor on 17 September 2016 in an attempt to protect ISIL elements falling between Syrian and Iraqi territory and opening a corridor for them.

Today’s aggression aimed at saving the Jabhat al Nusra following the grave damage that was done to them by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies in the center of the country following their attack on cities and peaceful villages in the region.

Let me also stress that media reports tell us that the U.S. Congress some time ago approved a law allowing the U.S. administration to send manpads to armed terrorist groups in Syria.

We have warned only two days ago in this very Council that these colonialists, permanent member states in the Security Council, the three colonialists have a renewed appetite to renew their lies and their stories that have been spread by the United States and the United Kingdom 14 years ago in this very hall to justify the destruction and occupation of Iraq using a major lie – being WMDs. Perhaps history has come full circle now in a regrettable scenario when we saw Secretary of State Colin Powell at the time trying to delude the international community and the United Nations to justify the aggression of his country against Iraq by talking about highly credible information.

Today the United States of America in its policy, in an attempt to justify its aggression against Syria, is using fabricated information provided by the Jabhat al Nusra terrorists.

This aggression incontrovertibly proves that Syria has been correct: that successive American administrations will not change their sterile policies, which is to target states to make peoples kneel to their will and spread hegemony around the world.

International public opinion, the people of the free world, have no doubt that the successive United States, UK, and French administrations for decades have not cared for democracy or freedom or human rights, indeed, let alone the welfare of people or their security and stability. These are just pretexts to wage war, to occupy other states, to divide them, to control their wealth and energy resources.

What is truly disgusting today is that these governments that supported the Wahhabi thinking, the terrorist extremist ideology of the House of Saud since its creation, is today orchestrating terrorism and investing in it without any care for the lives of people, even their own peoples when terrorism reaches their own threshold because of these wrong and hypocritical policies.

The Syrian Arab Republic strongly condemns the active aggression by the United States of America which is counter to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, indeed with the status of the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Let alone that these aggressions really promise total chaos in many parts of the world and will make the law of the jungle the only way to deal with the regional and economic crises without any heed to the Charter of the United Nations.

When you kill millions of innocents starting in South Asia all the way through Latin America, what was your position? A member from France spoke on the issue and spoke about exceptions.

You should not be the exception.

You should be made accountable for the killings in July of 2017 [2016?] of hundreds by your war planes.

You in the international coalition must be held accountable for the killing of 800 civilians in Syria at the beginning of 2017.

You must be made accountable for your support of armed terrorist groups and their political cover there, too, as they continue their terrorist acts.

The government of the Syrian Arab Republic, proceeding from its belief that all efforts must be mobilized to counteract terrorism, as it respects the rules of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, calls on the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities according to the Charter to condemn this act of aggression and to ensure that it shall not be repeated.

It is an act that threatens peace and security in the region and the world.”

America’s “Humanitarian War” against the World

Global Research, August 14, 2016

The following  text is a point by point thematic summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky‘s presentation at the Science for Peace Conference, Academy of Sciences, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, 15-16 August 2016

Introduction

Historically, science has supported the development of the weapons industry and the war economy. “Science for Peace” indelibly requires reversing the logic whereby commissioned  scientific endeavors are directed towards supporting what President Eisenhower called “The Military Industrial Complex”.

What is consequently required is a massive redirection of science and technology towards the pursuit of broad societal objectives. In turn, this requires a major shift in what is euphemistically called “US Foreign Policy”, namely America’s global military agenda.

Military Affairs: The Current Global Context 

The world is at a dangerous crossroads.  The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific region.

The current situation is all the more critical inasmuch as a US-NATO war on Russia, China and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate. It is presented as a political and military option to Western public opinion.

The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.

U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Poland and Ukraine. In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to confrontation with the Russian Federation.

The U.S. and its allies are also threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

The U.S. led airstrikes initiated in August 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

*         *        *

THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WAR AND “COLLATERAL DAMAGE”  

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

(Listen to Excerpt of his speech, Hiroshima audio video)

For the full article, charts, and photographs:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-humanitarian-war-against-the-world/5539814

 

Islamic State (ISIL) based in Northern Syria: A Wahhabi colony of Saudi Arabia?

Al Nusra and ISIS’ rise to prominence was not the result of US foreign policy backfiring in Syria, it was the result of US foreign policy working precisely as planned.
Global Research, December 16, 2015
New Eastern Outlook 16 December 2015
terror jihad mi5 cops

ISIS’ ideological source code can be found among America’s allies in Riyadh.  A recent confab of so-called “Syrian rebels” took place recently in Saudi Arabia. Those attending included a collection of dysfunctional expatriate “opposition” leaders as well as commanders from various militant groups operating in Syria including Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam – both affiliates of Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front – a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organization since 2012.

The BBC in its article, “Syria conflict: Divided opposition begins unity talks in Riyadh,” would report:

More than 100 Syrian rebels and opposition politicians are meeting in Riyadh in an attempt to come up with a united front for possible peace talks.

As the conference in the Saudi capital began, one of the most powerful rebel groups struck an uncompromising tone.

Ahrar al-Sham insisted President Bashar al-Assad would have to face justice.

It also criticised the presence of Syria-based opposition figures tolerated by Mr Assad and the absence of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the country.

In other words, Ahrar al-Sham openly wanted Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front in Riyadh as well – and along with Jaysh al-Islam, the only other militant group mentioned by name by the BBC as attending the confab – reveals that the entire so-called “opposition” are all direct affiliates of Al Qaeda – fighting alongside Al Qaeda on the battlefield and supporting them politically off of it.

Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam are part of the US and Saudi Arabia’s wider shell game in which they train, fund, arm, and back Al Qaeda terrorists under a myriad of varying and constantly shifting aliases and front groups. The result has been Al Qaeda and ISIS’ otherwise inexplicable rise upon and domination of the battlefield, not to mention a large and steady stream of US-provided weaponry and vehicles “falling into” Al Qaeda’s hands.

Al Qaeda’s Rise in Syria was the Plan All Along 

Al Qaeda’s original inception itself was a joint product of US-Saudi geopolitical ambitions. The Muslim Brotherhood, destroyed and scattered in Syria by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s father, President Hafez Al Assad, was reorganized and sent to Afghanistan by the US and Saudi Arabia to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Since then, the group has serendipitously found itself engaged on every battlefield and in every region the US has sought to influence, whether it was in the Balkans and Chechnya, across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), or even as far flung as Southeast Asia.

During the US occupation of Iraq, Al Qaeda would find itself playing a pivotal role dividing Iraqis against one another and confounding what was at first a unified Shia’a-Sunni front against the occupation. Terrorists were funded by Saudi Arabia and brought in from across the MENA region, including from the now infamous terror capital of Benghazi Libya, through NATO-member Turkey, and with the help of Syria’s future opposition, through Syrian territory and finally into Iraq.

In 2007, it would be revealed that the US and Saudi Arabia were openly conspiring to use these terrorists again, this time to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007, 9 page report, “The Redirection,” would spell out in great detail not only how this was being planned, but the sectarian bloodbath it would almost certainly precipitate.

Come 2011, when the first shots were fired in the Syrian conflict, those who have been paying close attention to Al Qaeda knew that from the very beginning, Hersh’s prophetic report was finally being fulfilled. The sectarian bloodbath he predicted in 2007, became a horrific reality from 2011 onward, and there was no question that after the West’s intentionally deceptive spin regarding just who the opposition was faded, it would emerge that it was Al Qaeda all along.

In fact, the US State Department’s own statement designating Al Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization admits that even from the beginning, it was conducting nationwide operations.

The statement would claim:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes.

The last point is particularly interesting, since not only did the US State Department claim Al Nusra sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition, groups the US claims are the legitimate opposition have also attempted to portray Al Nusra as such.

Al Nusra and ISIS’ rise to prominence was not the result of US foreign policy backfiring in Syria, it was the result of US foreign policy working precisely as planned.

Hersh’s article would claim that US and and Saudi efforts to create an armed opposition with which to overthrow the Syrian government would have the predictable consequence of “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

And that is precisely what happened.

ISIS is a Wahhabi Colony 

Having failed to overwhelm Syria in the opening phases of the proxy war in 2011, “deconstructing Syria” is the secondary objective. Carving out a region influenced by Washington’s principle Kurdish proxy, Masoud Barzani, and a Saudi-Qatari-Turkish sphere of influence dominated by Al Qaeda appear to be the current focus of Western ambitions in the region. A divided, weakened Syria still serves the purpose of further isolating and weakening Iran in the region.

Saudi Arabia has proved over the decades to be an extremely pliable client state. Attempts to replicate this, even on a smaller scale in Syria and Iraq would be ideal. Having a Saudi-Qatari-Turkish arc of influence from the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf would be as ideal for Washington as a Shia’a arc of influence would be to Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia.

ISIS then, serves as a means to “colonize” parts of Iraq and Syria with the very same toxic ideology that has prevailed for so long in Riyadh – Wahhabism – an extreme perversion of Islam created to serve the House of Saud’s own interests as far back as the 1700s.

Wahhabism was a means to indoctrinate and differentiate followers from mainstream Islam. This was necessary because its primary sponsors, the House of Saud, sought to use it as a means of achieving regional conquests and long-term regional domination. It green-lighted forms of barbarism, violence, and war strictly prohibited under Islam and relatively absent among the Saudis’ neighbors.

It has been used ever since as a means of filling the House of Saud’s rank and file with obedient, eager extremists ready to fight unquestionably for Saudi Arabia’s self-serving interests, and constitutes the cornerstone upon which the Saudis and their sponsors on Wall Street and in Washington maintain their grip on power within their borders, and influence the world beyond them. ISIS then, represents the export of this toxic ideology, not in the form of a shadowy terrorist group, but as a full-fledged army and “state.” The similarities between ISIS and the House of Saud, even superficially, are difficult to ignore.

Saudi Arabia beheads offenders of all kinds, ISIS beheads offenders of all kinds. Saudi Arabia does not tolerate opposition of any kind, ISIS doesn’t tolerate opposition of any kind. Women, minorities, and political enemies are stripped of anything resembling human rights in Saudi Arabia, and likewise by ISIS. In fact, besides geographical location, it is difficult to make and distinction at all between the two. That the two are inexorably linked politically, financially, ideologically, and strategically makes the case that the so-called “Islamic State” is actually nothing more than a Wahhabi colony, all the more compelling.

What is perhaps more damning than this superficial examination, or even deductions made regarding ISIS’ obvious logistical lines leading to NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia itself, is the fact  that official documents from the US Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA), drafted in 2012 (.pdf) quite literally admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify just who these “supporting powers” were that sought the creation of a “Salafist principality,” the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

It is clear that – just as was planned since 2007 regarding the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria – the rise of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) was planned and pursued by the United States and its allies, including, and specifically Turkey and Saudi Arabia – with Turkey supplying logistical support, and Saudi Arabia supplying the ideological source code.

For those wondering why the United States has spent over a year bombing Syria allegedly to “fight ISIS” but has yet to make any progress, the fact that the US intentionally created the organization to gut Syria and would like to delay the liquidation of the terrorist army as long as possible until that occurs may provide a viable explanation.

For those wondering why Russia and the regime in Ankara are on the brink of war just as ISIS’ supply lines near the Turkish border with Syria are threatened, the fact that Turkey created and has gone through extraordinary measures to ensure those lines are maintained may also be a viable explanation.

And for those wondering why Saudi Arabia is inviting obvious accomplices of Al Qaeda to its capital, Riyadh, for a confab about Syria’s future, it is precisely because Saudi Arabia played a leading role in creating Al Qaeda as a means of influencing Syria’s future to begin with – a conspiracy it is still very much, clearly involved in and a conspiracy the United States doesn’t seem troubled leading along.

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

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

Will Europe follow the US all the way to Hades?

From Fort Russ

The Marine salutes. Should Europe?
“And all these US wars create chaos that spills over ‘good friend’ Europe”
 
RT en Français
September 15, 2015

Translated from French by Tom Winter

Obama fears a conflict with Russia or China. Surprised? Of course not! But with Europe? This friendship, “value-based” as we are told, is forever, right? The writer Michel Collon answers.

Obama warns the neocons who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran: “Our closest allies in Europe aren’t accepting more sanctions. A war would strengthen Iran and isolate the United States.” A senior diplomat in Washington confirmed “If the US Congress rejects the agreement, it would be a nightmare and disaster.” 

Of course! And immediately after the agreement German firms were rushing to Tehran to sign the contracts that had been blocked by Washington for years! In fact, the principle “The great powers have no principles, only interests” applies equally to alliances: an eternal “friendship” can quickly transform itself into an acute conflict.

To control Eurasia, Brzezinzki proposed controlling Europe, back in 1997: “The central problem for America is to build a Europe based on Franco-German relations, viable, linked to the United States, and that expands the system of international democratic cooperation that America’s exercise of global hegemony depends on.

“Democratic” meaning “subject to the USA” — Brzezinski employs the EU to prevent a Berlin-Moscow alliance. Russia being geographically the “natural” partner for German companies, the US policy is thus to sow discord. Ukraine is getting used for that. When the EU in Kiev won an agreement between all parties for early elections, Washington organized a coup the day after by relying on neo-Nazi groups! The US special envoy Nuland summarizing it all with class: “Fuck the EU.” 

New? No. Already in 1997, Brzezinski announced: “Europe must be a springboard for the further breakthrough of democracy in Eurasia. Between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine should be ready for serious discussions with NATO.” Brzezinski wanted to center Europe an a Paris. – Berlin – Warsaw – Kiev axis. Against Moscow. He feared that European unification would collapse (Is the collapse coming?) and that Berlin would turn  to the East. “The three major geostrategic imperatives can be summed up as follows:

  1. “avoid collusion between the vassals (sic!) and 
  2. keep them in the state of dependence (…),  
  3. cultivate docility (sic) of the protected subjects; 
  4. prevent the barbarians (sic) forming offensive coalitions.

Is this strategy passé? No. Recently, the influential US analyst George Friedman, when asked “Is Daesh a threat to the United States,” responded with these surprising words: “This is not an existential threat. We must take care of it suitably, but we have other interests in international politics. The main interest (…) is the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they could threaten us. Our main goal is to ensure that this will never happen.” To prevent European multinationals turning to the New Silk Road proposed by Beijing, the key is to prevent any agreement between Berlin and Moscow. And divert the EU from Russian energy. In short, behind the official smiles on TV, the “friends” in the west don’t love anyone at all. NSA Spying has confirmed it: there are no friends in the business.

The US relationship with the EU has two aspects: unity and rivalry. The European multinationals need US police to intimidate the third world and keep China at bay. But the US multinationals are taking advantage of every war to steal market share from their European rivals. And Washington is very strong about getting paid by its “friends” for the wars that serve its interests at the expense of  the “friends.”

All of these US wars create chaos that spill over “friend” Europe.

In fact, behind the direct and declared foe, every war has a second level of conflict:

  1. In ’91, Bush attacked Iraq in order also to undermine French and Russian contracts. 
  2. In Yugoslavia, Clinton wanted to neutralize France and especially prevent the formation of a Euro-army. 
  3. In Libya, Obama (with Sarkozy) undermined the German and Italian contracts with Gaddafi. 
  4. In Syria, Obama (with Holland) is still working against Germany. 
  5. In Ukraine, ditto. 

And all these US wars create chaos that spills over “good friend” Europe (migration crisis, terrorist attacks, loss of business partners…).

Ultimately, NATO is for Europe a suicide. Will Europe follow the US all the way to the Inferno? The world’s future is in the balance.