Archive | April 3rd, 2018

An Oil Price Rally Is Likely?


Oil prices seesawed at the start of the week before jumping close to multi-year highs on geopolitical concerns, with Brent hitting $70 and WTI at $65. However, geopolitical pressure is only able to influence oil prices to such a degree because the market is fundamentally getting tighter.

Ongoing declines in Venezuela and concerns about heightened tension between the U.S. and Iran have significantly raised the risk premium for oil, even as some short-term factors recently pushed up prices.

The weekly EIA report was a bit mixed. U.S. oil production jumped again by 26,000 bpd in the week ending on March 23, putting output at 10.433 million barrels per day (mb/d), yet another record high. Still, the report wasn’t exactly bearish. Although crude stocks rose, they increased by a modest 1.6 million barrels, and much of that is largely the result of a big jump in imports. More glaringly, gasoline stocks fell sharply by 3.5 million barrels.

In other words, U.S. production is indeed soaring, but it doesn’t appear to be swamping the market, at least as of now. A variety of analysts have argued that oil demand is so strong that the market will continue to tighten, even after considering the explosive growth of U.S. shale.

“This year will be the eighth year of continuous growth since the Great Financial Crisis; and the seventh consecutive year of annual growth of more than 1 million b/d,” Wood Mackenzie said in a note. “Our latest forecast suggests that demand will grow by 1.7 million b/d in 2018, the fifth-highest this century.”

In fact, some of the recent weakness in oil prices lately can be chalked up to fears of a trade war, which could upset economic growth projections.

“The biggest risk to oil demand’s winning growth streak is a trade war undermining the global economy,” Wood Mackenzie said.

However, the uptick in oil prices at the end of this past week, some analysts say, are at least in part a result of those trade fears subsiding.

“Worries about demand being affected by a possible trade war kind of receded,” Gene McGillian manager of market research at Tradition Energy, told Reuters.

At the same time, some attribution for the oil price increase belongs to a rebound in global financial stocks after a recent selloff.

“The equities market is rallying and that’s lending support to oil,” Philip Streible, senior market strategist at RJO Futures, told Reuters.

The flat dollar also lent some support to crude.

With trade war concerns on the wane, and global equities on the rise, oil prices rebounded. While these short-term factors no doubt played a role in pushing up crude benchmarks, they are occurring against a backdrop of a tighter oil market. The surplus of OECD inventories is now below 50 million barrels, whereas it was above 300 million barrels a year ago.

Indeed, the IEA sees the oil market tipping into a supply deficit as soon as this quarter, and inventory drawdowns will pick up pace in the second half of the year.

“The voluntary production cuts are only playing one part in this,” Commerzbank said in a note. “The involuntary production outages in Venezuela are weighing more heavily, as they mean that OPEC is reducing its output by considerably more than originally intended.”

As long as OPEC keeps the current production limits in place, the oil market will continue to tighten, even after taking into account U.S. shale growth. And OPEC has even signaled that it is considering extending the cuts for another six months, pushing the expiration date to mid-2019. If they follow through on that, there is a pretty decent chance that there is a lot more room on the upside for oil prices.

Still, there are a handful of uncertainties that would completely upend any reasonable oil forecast. On the bearish side, if OPEC somehow abandons its cuts, begins a phase out sooner than expected, revised the deal to account for sharp declines in Venezuela, or members simply started cheating, then oil prices could slide significantly.

But, arguably, there are more upside risks. The most dangerous is the likely return of sanctions on Iran from the U.S., which could curtail a significant chunk of supply. Worse, the Trump administration could head down a dangerous road that ends in war. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s oil production continues to fall off a cliff.

In short, because U.S. shale growth is already baked into the current oil market projections, the risk to oil prices is probably skewed more towards the upside due to the variety of geopolitical ticking time bombs.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on An Oil Price Rally Is Likely?

Trump Freezing Money for Syria that Nobody Knew About


Recent news reports claim that US President Donald J. Trump has frozen more than $200 million in funds “earmarked for Syria recovery efforts” that nobody seems to have known about until this freezing  announcement.  Ostensibly, recently fired SoS Tillerson had mentioned — at some ‘aid’ conference in Kuwait — such money would be given to Syria through the State Department for infrastructure projects like power, water, and roads.  In what galaxy would a pissant $200 million make a dent in the billions of dollars of Syrian infrastructure destroyed by the Obama and Trump regimes is unknown.  

What is known is that the 59 Tomahawk missiles Trump used to slaughter Syrian soldiers and collateral damage civilians on 7 April 2017, cost the US taxpayer $93,810,000.  These monies were spent at the expense of collapsing US infrastructure because a British terrorist illegal– whose medical license was permanently by Britain —  in Syria had told CNN that Syria had bombed Syria with GB.

rogue-us-regimeTerrorist UK national illegally in Syria was source of GB hoax in Khan Sheikhoun


Syria-hating msm did not notice that British Nusra spokesman Shajul Islam had his medical license permanently revoked.

The news of the previously unknown till frozen monies came as part of headline news on Thursday when the leader of the free world spoke before a group of union workers in Ohio.  In uniquely incoherent, adverbian-trumpian language, the president noted:

We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon.  Very soon, we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100 percent of the caliphate, as they call it — sometimes referred to  as ‘land.’  We’re taking it all back quickly.  Quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of there real soon.  We’re going to get back to our country, where we belong, where we want to be.”

For the record, Syria is a republic. The only people who wish to degrade it into a “caliphate” are Trump’s dear terrorist friends, such as Erdogan, the Saudi ‘royals,’ and Saudi terrorist/illegal Muhaysini, still on the SDN list, despite having much in common with Heather Nauert.


Nauert has yet explain the anomaly of being on the side of Saudi alQaeda terrorist Muhaysini, who is on the SDN ‘kill list.’

For the record:  In October 2015, Ambassador Jaafari emphatically stated that were the world to stop dumping its human garbage into  Syria, were the arming of terrorists to stop, were the facilitation of transit of terrorists halted, the Syrian Arab Army could destroy ISIS in three days.

Trump offered no explanation as to why he deviated from his acceptance speech — unprecedented in 30 years of presidential elections, in its promise of entente for the world, of being a good neighbor.  He had every opportunity to drain that swamp, instead of swallowing it, completely.  He could have ended the sanctions against Syria, apologized for the US’ war crimes against it, offered to make reparations, reopened diplomatic channels.

Instead, he chose to accelerate Obama’s war crimes — as Obama accelerated the war crimes of Bush/Cheneyac/Halliburton.

Less than two weeks after his inauguration, Trump bombed two bridges in Syria.  His coalition bombings — which included the use of white phosphorus — did not liberate Raqqa, but obliterated it.  He increased Obama’s foreign mercenary militia, the ‘SDF,’ and continued the pretense that this gang led by US, Swedish, British, French illegals were simply a gang of separatist, traitorous ZioKurds that the US merely gave assistance to.

How was this paltry sum of money to have been spent, without reopening diplomatic channels with Syria?  We know that the US history is to destroy sovereign nations, not to assist them with reconstruction.  We remember Bush’s destruction of Iraq, Obama’s destruction of Libya, and the attempt by both Obama and Trump to bomb Syria back to the stone age, or into bantustans run by corrupt chieftains under American ‘guidance.’

How many bridges, how many roads, how many power stations has the US-led coalition of war criminals destroyed in Syria?  How many Syrians have been slaughtered with weapons sent to terrorists, by the coalition gang?

How many schools and hospitals have been  destroyed by suicide bombers, missiles and mortars supplied by the US? How many industrial towns have been turned to dust, how much Syrian oil has been stolen, how many artifacts stolen, how many factories have been disassembled and stolen by Turkey and Qatar?  That NATO leader, Erdogan, opened his country’s borders with Syria.  Most of the 350,000 foreign terrorists to invade came via the Turkish border, and not a single terrorist — including McCainWard, CNN, and various mercenaries — ever stepped on any of the almost 200k land mines that Turkey was supposed to have cleared by almost 10 years ago.

US ally Erdogan welcomed this announcement by Trump, incoherent as it was.  If there is any truth that the US illegal troops (surrounded by Syrians, some patriots have called them “hostages,” not ”invaders”) are going to leave, and let the other people take care of it, “it” is likely another illicit agreement made among criminals to “let” one steal more.  Erdogan is the one who wants to be Caliph; President al Assad stated this, years ago.  Erdogan wants to recreate the genocidal Ottoman empire, wants to annex more of Syria and more of Iraq.

The wahhabi Saudis and zionist Israel are pretending to worry about this new stance of President Trump.  The Saudis dump their death row inmates into Syria, some of whom subsequently receive free state of the art trauma care from Israel, on the occupied Golan.

These cousin terrorists complain that Iran’s alliance with Syria, and its presence in Syria are somehow a threat to the existence of the terrorists countries.  Both have done much to force a final solution against Syria, which remains the center of the resistance against imperialism in the region.  Both the murderous dictatorship and the murderous ‘democracy’ have wanted to topple President Assad since the beginning of the foreign created crisis in 2011.  But Dr.. Assad is the leader who will never abandon his country, who will never abandon the Syrian Arab Army, and who will never abandon the resistance axis.

This is the American strategy in perpetual wars, for 15 years:

  • To send troops wherever the US chooses; international law does not matter.
  • US kills or gets killed and uses dead cannon fodder troops for more propaganda.
  • US seeks unstable, colonialist political settlements to problems it created.
  • US watches political settlements collapse.
  • US withdrawals troops.
  • US returns troops to create more instability.   Remember that Obama “withdrew” from Iraq, but only a few troops, and then he later returned more troops, then also destroyed Libya, and began the illegal coalition bombings against Syria.

We can hope, but never trust the enemy.

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump Freezing Money for Syria that Nobody Knew About

National Security Adviser John Bolton: A ‘Bolt’ From the Past

National Security Adviser John Bolton: A ‘Bolt’ From the Past

As most people now know, Trump picked John Bolton to be his new National Security Advisor. Many progressive and libertarian outlets have already lambasted Bolton for his Neo Con credentials and agenda. With that nasty smirk on his face, Bolton actually publically has come out for the pre-emptive attacking of both Iran and North Korea… going on years now. Well, this writer wants to focus on another aspect of this ‘Make believe tough guy’ as Billy Bats in the film Goodfellas referred to the Joe Pesci character Tommy DeVito. And Bolton is just that, as was Junior Bush, Cheney and a host of others from that administration. The following is right out of Wikipedia:

During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers corresponded to birth dates.) [30] As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War.[31] Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard in 1970 rather than wait to find out if his draft number would be called.[32] (The highest number called to military service was 195.)[33] After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later.[1] He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.”[34] In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because “by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from.”

What a load of horses**t! Oh yeah John, you would have enlisted in the real army and not the ‘Guaranteed to never be sent to the Nam National Guard‘ if you felt the ( so called ) war was winnable in 1970. Guess what John, I got this nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale. In Yale, you know you were ‘gung ho’ to kill those Commies and stop the spread of Asian style Bolshevism ‘. You know that! Just like Junior Bush, two years your elder, who felt the same way and took a similar route (thanks to his dad) in the Texas Air National Guard. One wonders if you were a few years older and around DC politics in 1961, if you would have agreed with the unanimous suggestion by the Joints Chiefs to do a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union; or in fall of ’62 to ditto that upon Cuba. It seems you love WAR John, so long as it’s not YOU doing the fighting! Oh yes, and what about Trump, your new boss? He too must have banged the bongos for our (so called) Vietnam War… so long as he remained safe in his college deferment.

Folks, you all out there who decided to support and vote for either Trump or Clinton in 2016, sure did your homework. She being the classic warmonger, and he the phony demagogue populist. Either way, we get the Neo Cons running our government as the rest of we working stiffs go down the drain.

Posted in USAComments Off on National Security Adviser John Bolton: A ‘Bolt’ From the Past

Americans Trust ‘Our’ Intelligence Agencies. Should We? Government by Deceit Cannot be Democracy


The record is clear that ‘our’ (that is, the ruling Establishment’s) intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, have lied to the public many times, and actually lie routinely — but these lies are always revealed only decades later, by historians, when it’s decades too late, because the damage was already done, decades before.

Think, for example, of just two now-famous cases, Iran 1953, and Chile 1973, in both of which instances the U.S. Government ended a democracy abroad, and established a brutal dictatorship there (the Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Chile) — but what good can a historian do, when the Government and its ‘news’-media were persistently lying, and they had fooled the U.S. public, at the time — which is all that really counted (and ever will count)? Can a historian undo the damage that the Government and its propaganda-agencies had perpetrated, by means of their lies, and coups, and invasions? Never. But this Government, and its propaganda-agents, claim to defend democracies, not to end them. Can it actually be a democracy, if it’s doing such things, and doing it time after time? 

Something’s deeply wrong here. Government by deceit, cannot be a democracy. And, yet, the public still don’t get the message, that we don’t live in a democracy, even after it has (though only by implication) been delivered to us in history-books. By then, it’s no longer in the news, and so only few people really care about it. The message of history is thus not learned. The public still accepts the ongoing lies — the new lies, in the new ‘news’, to justify the new atrocities. One reason why, is that America’s historians fail their obligations: America’s historians have an obligation to the American public to state clearly that the U.S. is now a dictatorship. This is the current reality. But the myth, that this country is a democracy, continues to be spread, even by historians, who should, by now, know better.

During the period after the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, all ended in 1991, the historical record of the U.S. and its allies (all now after the Cold War has supposedly been over) has become even worse than it was during the Cold War, and is even more clearly evil, because the ideological excuse that had formerly existed (and which was only the excuse, in most cases, such as in the cases of Iran, and of Chile) is gone. Though the ideological excuse is gone, the bad behavior has become even worse. Today’s U.S. regime is, to be frank, bloodthirsty.

Iraq in 2003 was a particularly blatant demonstration of today’s U.S.-Government’s psychopathy regarding foreign affairs. So: let’s consider this unusually clear example (hopefully, to learn a lesson from it — which still hasn’t yet been learnt):

Bill Clinton’s CIA chief George Tenet told President George W. Bush, on 21 December 2002, that convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction, was “a slam-dunk.” His job wasn’t to find the truth, but to authenticate the ‘evidence’ to back up the President, and Tenet did just that. The American people went for it, even though no WMD actually remained in Iraq, because the U.N. inspectors in 1998 had destroyed all of them, and because there was no indication (other than hired and coerced testimony, and especially fabrications from CIA-partnered anti-Saddam Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi) that there had been restored in Iraq any WMD program. A crucial date was 7 September 2002, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair both said that a new report had just been issued by the IAEA saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon. The IAEA promptly denied that it had issued any such “new report” at all, and the ‘news’ media simply ignored the denial, which the IAEA then repeated weeks later, and it again was ignored; so, the false impression, that such an IAEA report had been issued, remained in the publics’ minds, and they favored invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein before there would be, as Condoleezza Rice warned the next day following Bush-Blair, on September 8th, a “mushroom cloud”. It was all just lies — lies that were believed by the public, at the time, and even believed by many for a long time after we invaded. 

Some of these lies were derived from torturing detainees — torturing them to say what the U.S. and British regimes wanted them to say.

On 25 April 2007, Tenet told CBS “60 Minutes” that

“We don’t torture people. Okay?” Tenet says.

“Come on, George,” Pelley says.

“We don’t torture people,” Tenet maintains.

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?” Pelley asks.

“We don’t torture people,” Tenet says.

“Water boarding?” Pelley asks.

“We do not – I don’t talk about techniques,” Tenet replies.

“It’s torture,” Pelley says.

“And we don’t torture people.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has now appointed to lead the CIA the very same woman, Gina Haspel, who had operated, under Tenet, under Bush, the CIA “black site” in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydeh was waterboarded 83 times and otherwise tortured so that he lost his left eye. The reason why he was being tortured was in order to extract from him testimony that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, but Zubaydeh didn’t even know anything about any such matter, and tried desperately to say what he thought his torturers wanted him to say, so as to stop these tortures, but he didn’t know that they were intending to torture him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein in causing the 9/11 attacks. And so the torturing just went on and on.

The CIA’s Haspel finally gave up, after deciding that he’d die if they continued any further. The problem then became to hide him from the public. So, Zubaydeh subsequently has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo since 2001, so that he can’t communicate with anyone in the outside world, and thus the crimes of George Bush and his employee George Tenet and his employee Gina Haspel, can’t be prosecuted. And, now, Trump appoints her to Tenet’s old spot, as the CIA Director. So: Bush had hired her, then protected her. Obama then protected instead of prosecuted her. And, finally, Trump now promotes her, to be the CIA’s new chief. She has demonstrated herself to be a reliable liar for whomever is her boss. Trump therefore can trust her to vouch for whatever he wants her to ‘prove’, to whatever American suckers still remain, as being suckers. 

This isn’t new, but maybe it’s just worse. Think JFK assassination. Think RFK assassination. Think MLK assassination. And, even think about the CIA’s Gladio operation, which since the very start of the CIA, has been setting up atrocities designed to deceive their publics, so as to blame, first, the USSR’s Government, and then, now, Russia’s Government. (And, also, Iran’s Government, and Iraq’s Government, and Syria’s Government, and Libya’s Government, and Ukraine’s Government — any Government that’s friendly toward Russia — all for the purpose of “regime-change,” so as to pump up the sales of corporations such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, and to extend the properties of oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil. Lying to the public, in order to back up what the President wants, is what the American ‘intelligence’ community is designed to do. And, things aren’t much better in UK. (But Seymour Hersh reported that, at least one time, they were somewhat better.)

Is this type of government really in service to the public, anywhere? It is in service to the allied aristocracies — those of U.S. & Israel & Sauds & British & etc. — who own those weapons-making firms. The military tail wags this ‘democratic’ dog. For example, on March 21st, 2018 the New York Times documented how intermediaries between the U.S. and Saudi regimes secretly became enriched by lobbying which succeeded in getting Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster replaced by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, whom the Sauds (the world’s largest foreign buyers of U.S.-made weaponry) preferred. But even there, the Sauds were’t referred to as America’s enemies, but as “close American allies.” They’re allies of America’s aristocracy, but enemies of the American people.

Globally, there is a competition between aristocracies, and they are contending gangs. That’s no different than was the case leading up to WW I. But WW III will end it all — and end us — unless the public wises up, and fast, and recognizes whom our real enemies are (which are mainly internal, not external). Without cooperation from the news-media (owned by those aristocracies), to expose (instead of spread) the frauds, WW III — the end of everything — is in the cards. It’s in the cards, right now. And, this time, it’s not a mistake. It won’t need any wild assassin to spark the conflagration. Instead, it’s the plan. It has actually been building ever since 24 February 1990. And this has been even more confirmed now

So, should we trust ‘our’ intelligence agencies to tell us how they’re carrying out the plan? Are we idiots? Or is it just that the ‘news’ media are an arm of the CIA? In fact, “America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia”, but did you read about that in the New York Times, or Washington Post, or UK’s Guardian, or at all?

On March 27, 2018, Ghassan Kadi, at The Saker’s blog, wrote:

When Westerners watch TV news, they hear lies. When they go to their ballot boxes, they hear false promises. When they are told that their sons and daughters are sent to fight a war in a distant country in order to protect the homeland, they are hearing fabricated stories of lies and deception.

Their politicians lie, and their media dance to the tunes of the lies of their politicians. 

Who can deny any of that, without publicly becoming recognized as being a fool?

Patriotism is to the public, not to the rulers. Any rulers who expect it to be to them, instead of to the public, are simply tyrants — they are traitors, who happen to rule the public. Do we live in a dictatorship, or in a democracy? If it’s a dictatorship (such as the best available evidence shows that America is), then this, which we are now experiencing, is simply par for the course. But will we continue to accept it? Or, will we, finally, learn from history? (And, if so, then will we do it fast enough, under the prevailing circumstances?) The time to decide, and to act, could be short

Have we had enough now, of that lying? Because, accepting just a little bit more of it, could mean the end of everything. If it’s not going to be the end of the liars, it will probably soon be the end of everything. Because this is the path that we now are on.

Even the former conservative, David Stockman, is alarmed that the U.S. regime is going insane, with its war-fever. This is not a government that represents the American public, but it does represent the people who control corporations such as Lockheed Martin.

Recently, I headlined “How the Military Controls America”, and explained the root cause behind this potentially world-ending problem. Everything is unfortunately coming together in the worst possible way. It has happened before, but never during the nuclear era — this is far worse even than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, because, at that time, both superpower leaders were intelligently self-interested, and each also had authentic interest in the general welfare. That’s not true today — certainly not on the American side. But the problem isn’t only Donald Trump. Maybe he will culminate it, but he represents America’s aristocracy. That’s the source of the problem, and he is determined to be their leader. He has assembled their dream-team, which, prior to his becoming President, no one had had the nerve to place so fully in charge.

Posted in USAComments Off on Americans Trust ‘Our’ Intelligence Agencies. Should We? Government by Deceit Cannot be Democracy

Tsarist Russia and the Balkans: A Brief Historical Overview

The Balkan Peninsula, together with the region of South-East Europe, historically has been one of the most important focal points of Russian foreign policy, cultural influences and attempts to spread an ideology of the Orthodox solidarity and the Slavic reciprocity.[1] These ideas are common to almost all trends of Russian public life in the past and very much today too.

After Russia lost the Great Crimean War of 1853–1856 she intensified its cultural influence in the region of South-East Europe for the purposes of beating Habsburg (Roman-Catholic) rivalry and to spread the idea of Pan-Slavism in that part of Europe.[2] However, the Great Crimean War was, in essence, the British war against Russia (Figes, 2010; Lambert, 2011; Small, 2014) in order to stop further Russian victories against Ottoman Empire (Isaacs, 2001, 156; Anisimov, 298−299). After this war, it became obvious for Russia that Western European Great Powers[3] are her enemies, especially United Kingdom, like with the current case of an extreme Russophobic Cabinet of Theresa May and Boris Johnson. It will take even 50 years for Russia to sign a military-political agreement with United Kingdom (in 1907) only after a final sharing the spheres of influence in Persia (Hans-Erich, 1985, 134).[4]

The political and economic rivalry between Russia, on one hand, and the Habsburg Monarchy (Austria-Hungary from 1867) and the German Empire (from 1871), on other, over the dominance at the Balkans[5] was strongly affected in Russia by the growth of Pan-Slavic sentiment, based on the common Slavic origin, mutual Paleoslavonic language, and above all it was grounded in emotional sentiment to liberate those South Slavs who were under Ottoman yoke (Jelavich, 1991).[6]Historically, Russia had three pivotal interests in both the Balkans and South-East Europe: 1) Strategic; 2) Cultural; and 3) Religious (Castellan, 1992). It is important to stress a fact that Russia, together with Western European states, participated in the process of modernization and Europeanization of Eastern Balkan nations and states from the beginning of the 19th century till the WWI (Black, 1974).[7]


Flags of states with Slavic population

From a strategic point of view, Russian diplomacy considered the Balkans and South-East Europe as essential for Russian state security and above all for the stability of Russian state’s frontiers.[8] Russia’s intention was to obtain a favorable frontier in Bessarabia (today’s the independent Republic of Moldova) and to have a control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which became very important to Russian commercial and economic development and geopolitical projects; in particular for the shipment of surplus grain from today’ Ukraine or a Little Russia/Russia Minor (Pryzhov, 1869; Solovyev, 1947)[9] to the world markets.

The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles became a part of Russia’s “security zone” in both economic and political terms. Russia’s  main concern was to safeguard free passage through the Bosporus Straits to the Mediterranean Sea (Jelavich, 1973). Simultaneously, Russia intended to block the expansion of other European Great Powers, particularly of Austria-Hungary and Germany, into the region[10] but especially in its eastern part.

Taking religious and cultural aspects of Russian interests in the Balkans and South-East Europe into account, largely due to Russian Pan-Slavic agitation, Russia succeeded to develop from 1870 onwards a strong interest in the fate of the Balkan Slavs and South-East European Orthodox Christians.

Pan-Slavism, based on the myth of Slavic solidarity and primarily on Orthodox Slavic reciprocity, which created a strong ethnic, religious and cultural sentiments among Slavic Orthodox population (but not among Roman Catholic Slavs), became at the end of the 19thcentury one of the dominant driving forces behind Russian policy in the Balkans and South-East Europe. The myth of Slavic solidarity and brotherhood exerted a considerable influence on many intellectuals and found support in official circles in Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria[11] especially after Russia’s liberation of Bulgarians in 1878.

Tsarist Russia was sincerely trying all the time to reconcile Slavic nations in conflict, especially those of the Christian Orthodox faith for the sake of Pan-Slavic ideals of intra-Slavic solidarity, reciprocity, and brotherhood.

Probably the case of the Serbian-Bulgarian conflict in 1912−1915 over the Macedonian Question is the best example of such Russian policy of Panslavism. In other words, Russia became the creator of the 1912 Serbian−Bulgarian treaty and recognized arbiter in the 1912−1913 diplomatic conflict between Serbia and Bulgaria over the destiny of Macedonia during the Balkan Wars (Ćorović, 1990а, 20−24).

Russian Balkan policy, in this case, was a real Panslavonic as St. Petersburg wanted to satisfy territorial claims of both sides by negotiations and diplomatic agreement between Sofia and Belgrade.[12] When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 23rd, 1914 all Entente member states, including Russia,[13] were making pressure on Serbia to give territorial compensation (Vardar Macedonia) to Bulgaria for Bulgarian participation in the war against the Central Powers.

Serbia was promised, like in the secret 1915 London Treaty, territorial concessions in Western Balkans populated by the ethnic Serbs living in Dual Monarchy (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slavonia, and South Dalmatia). Diplomatic pressure on Serbia to cede certain territories to Bulgaria (Vardar Macedonia) continued up to the autumn of 1915. For instance, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey D. Sazonov, on August 5th, 1914 urged Serbian Government to give to Bulgaria Macedonian territories up to the line Kriva Palanka−Ohrid with Struga for Bulgarian active participation in the war against Austria-Hungary and towns of Shtip, Radovishte and the lands up to the Vardar River for Bulgarian “friendly neutrality”. For such Serbia’s sacrifice, Russia promised Belgrade to support Serbia at the end of the war in the realization of her “national ideals” (annexation of Serb-populated lands of Austria-Hungary). However, Sazonov was clear in this case that Serbia by giving such territorial sacrifice is going to very contributing to Russian “life’s wish” to establish Panslavonic fraternity and eternal friendship between Serbs and Bulgarians (Радојевић, Димић, 2014, 138). The same territorial requirements to Serbia were vainly repeated once again by the Entente member states in 1915 before Bulgaria finally joined the war on the side of the Central Powers in October of the same year (Avramovski, 1985, 55−172; Trubetski, 1994, 21−158).

Unfortunately, Serbia rejected such friendly Russia’s proposals and as a consequence lost 25% of its population during the WWI, 50% of industry and the most important – the statehood. Instead of a strong and efficient United Serbia there was created loose, destructive and above all anti-Serbian Yugoslavia with the Roman Catholic Croats and Slovenes as the clients and a „fifth column“ of Vatican.


Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Director of the Private Research Centre “The Global Politics” (, Ovsishte, Serbia. Personal web platform: Contact:


Anisimov, J. (2014). Rusijos istorija nuo Riuriko iki Putino: Žmonės. Įvykiai. Datos. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

Avramovski, Ž. (1985). Ratni ciljevi Bugarske i Centralne sile 1914−1918. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju.

Black, E. C. (1974). “Russia and the Modernization of the Balkans”. Jelavich, Ch. & Jelavich, B. (eds.). The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth century, Archon Books.

Bјелајац, М. (2014). 1914−2014: Zasto reviziја? Stare i nove kontroverze о uzrocima Prvog svetskog rata. Beograd: Medijski centar Odbrana.  

Castellan, G. (1992). History of the Balkans: From Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin. New York: Columbia University Press, East European Monographs, Boulder.

Cooper, F. A., Heine, J., Thakur, R. (eds.) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press.

Figes, O. (2010). The Crimean War: A History. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Gvosdev, K. N., & Marsh, Ch. (2014). Russian Foreign Policy: Interests, Vectors, and Sectors. Thousand Oaks: CoPress.

Hans-Erich, S., & et al (eds.) (1985). Westerman Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte. Braunsschweig: C. A. Koch’s Verlag Nachf.

Hrabak, B. (1990). Sile Antante i Sjedinjene Američke Države prema Bugarskoj 1915−1918. Vranje: Narodni muzej u Vranju.

Isaacs, A., Alexander, F., Law, J., Martin, E. (eds.) (2001). Oxford Dictionary of World History. Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press.

Jelavich, B. (1973). The Ottoman Empire, the Great Powers, and the Straits Question, 1870−1887, Indiana University Press.

Jelavich, B. (1991). Russia’s Balkan Entanglements, 1806−1914. Bloomington.

Kohn, H. (1960). Pan-Slavism: Its History and Ideology. Vintage.

Lambert, A. (2011). The Crimean War: British Grand Strategy Against Russia, 1853−56. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Mansbach, W. R., Taylor, L. K. (2012). Introduction to Global Politics. London−New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Narochnitskaya, A. N. (1998). “Spiritual and geopolitical rivalry in the Balkans at the brink of the XXI century”. Eurobalkans, autumn. 18–23.

Palmowski, J. (2004). A Dictionary of Contemporary World History from 1900 to the Present Day. Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press.

Plokhy, S. (2008). Ukraine & Russia: Representations of the Past. Toronto−Buffalo−London: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

Plokhy, S. (2010). The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Riasanovsky, V. N. (2006). A History of Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Small, H. (2014). The Crimean War: Queen Victoria’s War with the Russian Tsars. London: Tempus Publishing.

Tsygankov, P. A. (2013). Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity. Lanham, Mar.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Popov, N. (1870). Srbiја i Rusiја: Od Kocine kraјine do Sv. Andreјеvske skupstine. Beograd: Drzavna stampariја.

Pryzhov, I. G. (1869). Little Russia (South Rus) in the history of its literature from XItill XVIII cen., Voronezh.

Popovic, V. (1940). Evropa i srpsko pitanje. Beograd.

Radoјеvic, M., Dimic, Lj. (2014). Srbija u Velikom ratu 1914−1918. Kratka istorija. Beograd: Srpska knjizevna zadruga−Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih.

Соловьев, А. В. (1947). „Великая, Малая и Белая Русь“. Вопросы истории. Москва: Академия наук СССР. 7. 24−38.

Трубецки, Н. Г. (1994). Рат на Балкану 1914−1917. и руска дипломатија. Београд: Просвета.

Шушић, Б. С. (2004). Геополитички кошмар балкана. Београд: Војноиздавачки завод.


[1] The Balkans is a peninsula in South-East Europe that today includes Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Albania, Macedonia (the FYROM), Bulgaria and the European portion of Turkey. The South-East Europe is enlarged Balkans with Romania and Moldova.

[2] The Balkans was all the time a peninsula of a clash of civilizations. According to Samuel P. Huntington, a civilization is a cultural entity and he identified eight such civilizations. One of them was Slavic-Orthodox. Civilizations differ in terms of history, language, culture, tradition but above all of religion. Huntington argued that every civilization had and has a protector core state as, for instance, Russia historically was and today is a protector of Slavic-Orthodox civilization (Mansbach, Taylor, 2012, 447).

[3] A Great Power was originally in the 18th century the term for a European state which could not be conquered by any other state or even by several of them. After the WWII this term is applied to a country that is regarded as among the most powerful in the global system and global politics (Mansbach, Taylor, 2012, 578).

[4] British-Russian convention over Persia in 1907 divided the country into a northern section under Russian influence, a neutral part in the middle, and a southern zone under UK’s influence (Palmowski, 2004, 304).

[5] About the importance of geopolitical position of the Balkans, see in (Шушић 2004, 9−88).

[6] About Pan-Slavism, see in (Kohn, 1960).

[7] About Russian history, see in (Riasanovsky, 2006).

[8] About Russia’s foreign policy interests, see in (Tsygankov, 2013; Gvosdev, 2014).

[9] About Ukraine-Russian identity relations, see in (Plokhy, 2008; Plokhy, 2010).

[10] About the spiritual and geopolitical rivalry in the Balkans by the Great European Powers, see in (Поповић, 1940; Narochnitskaya, 1998). According to Lord Palmerston, the nations (states) have no permanent enemies and allies; they have only permanent interests (Cooper, Heine, Thakur, 2015, 72).

[11] For instance, about Russia’s influence in Serbia from the end of the 18th century to the mid-19th century, see in (Попов, 1870).

[12] Serbian-Bulgarian conflict over Macedonia continued during the WWI. On Bulgarian war aims and diplomacy from 1914 to 1918, see in (Avramovski1985; Hrabak 1990).

[13] About Russia’s policy on Serbia after delivering of Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Belgrade, see in (Бјелајац 2014, 183−196).

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Tsarist Russia and the Balkans: A Brief Historical Overview

France Risks War with Fellow NATO Member Turkey in Effort to Prop Up Syrian Rebels


U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent surprise announcement that he plans to withdraw the United States military from Syria “very soon” and that he will let “the other people take care of it now” may be more telling of what’s to come than the mainstream media would have us believe.

The indication that Trump may let the “other people take care of it now” might appear, on the face of it, to refer to regional players and prominent backers like Russia and Iran, which have helped guide the course of the Syrian conflict to an almost certain victory for the Syrian government.

But what if Trump is actually opening the door for another Western imperial power to try its hand at taking on Syria for itself?

According to Reuters, France is looking to increase its military presence in Syria to help the U.S.-backed coalition in its so-called fight against ISIS. France has warned that a planned Turkish assault on these U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Manbij would be “unacceptable,” according to a presidential source.

On Thursday of last week (incidentally, the same day as Donald Trump’s surprise announcement), French President Emmanuel Macron met with a Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) delegation that included the YPG militia, which Turkey has expressly designated a terrorist entity. According to Reuters, a senior Kurdish official said Macron had promised to send more troops to the area as part of the U.S.-backed coalition’s efforts and, in essence, to present a buffer between the Kurds and Turkey.

“France doesn’t foresee any new military operation on the ground in northern Syria outside of the international coalition,” Reuters’ source said.

“(But) if the president felt that, in order to achieve our goals against Islamic State, we needed a moment to bolster our military intervention, then we should do it, but it would be within the existing framework,” the source said, without elaborating further, according to Reuters.

Some local reports are alleging that France was even contemplating sending French special forces to the Syrian city of Manbij, where Turkey is currently gearing up for an invasion of its own.

France has reportedly denied that it is planning a military build-up in Syria but has still offered to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey, an offer Ankara instantly rejected.

Interestingly enough, no media reports on these issues ask the much-needed questions regarding France’s legal basis for sending troops into Syrian territory in the first place. Never mind that Turkey has warned sternly against the move, threatening that France could become a target for the Turkish military; it bears reminding that the territory doesn’t belong to France or Turkey, anyway. Any additional military presence should at the very least be initiated in accordance with international legal norms and principles.

While much of the discourse in Syria has focused on what the Assad government is allegedly doing, no one has really bothered to question the extent of France’s involvement in Syria already to date. Last week, Turkish press agency Anadolu published a map purportedly showing French military positions in Syria, including five military bases in northeastern Syria where close to 70 French soldiers may be operating.

Anadolu also reported in mid-March that France’s top military official had already warned that France had the means to intervene in Syria independently of the U.S. and its allies, specifically in relation to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.While it still remains to be seen, it seems more than possible that if the Trump administration decides to take a backseat in this next phase of the Syrian conflict, the driver’s seat may be passed on to France, instead, which is reportedly looking to take the reins and involve itself even further in the country despite having any legal basis to do so.

Posted in FranceComments Off on France Risks War with Fellow NATO Member Turkey in Effort to Prop Up Syrian Rebels

Workers Rights: Major Strikes in France Challenge Macron’s Right-wing Reforms


Many different sectors of the working class in France began massive strikes this morning, after railroad workers stopped work last night. Rail workers opposed to French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to privatize the state-owned rail company SNCF are leading what has been called the biggest test of strength to date between Macron and the French working class.

Le Figaro labelled the strike “the railroad battle,” while Le Monde wrote in worried tones that

“Train, airplane, and garbage workers once again have energy.” It continued: “A number of sectors have been affected by a strike movement launched Tuesday, April 3. Their grievances are numerous within each category: Reform of the SNCF for railroad workers, demands for wage increases for Air France workers.”

The SNCF expects the strike call to be followed widely. It anticipates that only one in eight high-speed TGV trains will run across France and only one in five regional trains. Initial reports indicate that eight in ten conductors are following the strike. Up to a third of flights will be cancelled today and electricity maintenance and garbage pickup will be limited as sanitation workers, electricians and gas workers halt work.

Le Parisien is concerned that the strike “will be very widely followed.” There are increasing concerns within the trade unions and the bourgeois parties that the strike movement will link up with on-going strikes of postal workers in Hauts-de-Seine, the Gironde and Rennes. Workers at the retailer Carrefour also struck last weekend against job cuts.

Four trade unions—the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the National Union of Autonomous Unions (Unsa), the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the Solidaires Unitaires Démocratiques (SUD)—have called for job actions against privatization proposals. Under immense pressure from their members, the unions, though refusing to call an outright indefinite strike, will alternate between two days of strike action and three days of work at SNCF until 28 June. The trade unions are portraying this as an attrition tactic and a means to protect strikers, who in France receive no strike pay.

Image result for rally against macron

Source: Front News International

The strike has raised concerns across Europe, where the German, English and Spanish bourgeoisie face increased strike activity. In Germany, home to a series of late-winter “warning strikes” by industrial workers, the weekly Die Zeit wrote that the French strike will decide “if [railroad privatization plans] go no further than mere intentions and Macron bows in the face of resistance from the streets, like many of his predecessors, or, if France will in fact change.”

Germany’s Handelsblatt commented that at stake “in the coming days is much more than the reform of the railway company.” The strikers hope that “a less radical version or a complete halt to the reform of the railway will spell the end of Macron’s other projects, including a comprehensive reform of the pension system. By contrast, if the strike collapses after a few days, the way will be paved for Macron to modernize France.”

In the United Kingdom, where teachers are preparing a national strike vote and university lecturers have been on strike for weeks, the Financial Times called the French strike wave “the strongest test yet for President Emmanuel Macron’s reform agenda.”

Macron’s “reform” and “modernisation” plans mean the elimination of social programs and rights won by the French working class over decades of bitter struggle.

Last year, the Macron government passed a labour market reform that paves the way for mass layoffs and expands precarious working conditions. Macron and the other bourgeois parties demobilised and suppressed the mass opposition to this law with the assistance of the trade unions and attacks by the police.

Macron’s latest privatization efforts are the most ruthless yet. The key project is the restructuring of SNCF. The French ruling class seeks to eliminate the “employee statute” that provides workers with layoff protection and the option of early retirement—a high water mark of the class struggle in Europe in the course of the 20th century.

The government wants to divide the state railway company into three shareholder companies—network, rail operations and railway stations—and open it up to international competition. SNCF’s expenditure is to be cut by 27 percent on the backs of the employees, and its debt of €50 billion ($61 billion) reduced.

The strike recalls the events of 1995, when railway workers shut down the country for three weeks and compelled conservative Prime Minister Alain Juppe to withdraw a proposed pension reform. This time around, salaried employees are involved in the strike alongside the workers.

Simultaneously with his attack on railway workers, Macron is planning to substantially cut public-sector jobs and reform unemployment insurance, forcing jobless workers to accept new employment under the threat of severe financial penalties. The government also proposes an education and training reform that will make university education more expensive and more difficult to obtain.

On 22 March, several hundred thousand people took to the streets to protest Macron’s plans.

Strike action is also taking place at the airline Air France for a 6 percent pay increase. After a one-day strike on Good Friday, the trade unions called for further strikes today and on April 7, 10 and 11.

Air France expects that a third of long- and mid-distance flights will be cancelled today, as well as 15 percent of short-distance flights. Since the rail system will also largely grind to a halt, chaos and traffic jams are expected on the roads.

Macron, his government, and his party La Republique en Marche (LRM) have thus far shown their determination to resist the strike movement.

“We expect a very wide-ranging, strong social movement with tough consequences for rail customers,” stated a government source, according to Le Point magazine. “That makes it all the more important that we hold fast to our chosen course.”

On 14 March, the government adopted an enabling law that permits it to implement the reform of the SNCF swiftly and, if necessary, by decree. It will first be passed in parliament, where the government party enjoys a majority.

The government is relying above all on the trade unions to carry through its attacks. The unions have no interest in causing trouble for President Macron, whom they supported in last year’s election. They assisted in the passage of the labour market reform and have decades of experience in dividing and demobilising militant working-class struggles.

However, some commentators doubt whether Macron is strong enough to resist the growing movement. The article already cited in Die Zeit pointed out that “the backing for his agenda in the population is not as strong as his election result would suggest.”

In the first round of the 2017 presidential election, “75 percent voted for other candidates,” the newspaper noted, and in the subsequent parliamentary elections, “his party, La Republique en Marche ,” required “support from just 13 percent of eligible voters for an absolute majority due to the French majoritarian electoral system and low voter turnout.”

It is also by no means certain that the trade unions will succeed in holding the workers’ anger in check. The strike movement in France is part of an international offensive by the working class—teachers in the United States, lecturers at universities in Britain, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Tunisia and Kenya, industrial and public-sector workers in Germany, Amazon workers in Spain, and other sections of workers internationally.

The pseudo-left plays the chief role in directing the growth of social opposition into the safe channels of the bourgeois political establishment. In France, the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) issued a public statement on March 19 demanding that workers “unite” behind the former leadership of the Socialist Party (PS), the very party that under President Francois Hollande carried out the attacks on wages and social programs that set the stage for Macron’s round of attacks. The NPA’s Léon Crémieux praised his party for taking “the initiative of a political appeal…bringing together forces ranging from [anarchist] Libertarian Alternative to [2017 Socialist Party presidential candidate] Benoit Hamon, via [Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s] Unsubmissive France.”

This is a death sentence for the growing strike movement by workers. The demands of workers everywhere will be met only when they overcome the restrictive nationalist perspective of the trade unions and bourgeois parties and construct rank-and-file committees to link their struggles in an international movement for socialism.

Posted in FranceComments Off on Workers Rights: Major Strikes in France Challenge Macron’s Right-wing Reforms

Brexit Talks Turn Ugly on Gibraltar: UK Prepared to “Go to War With Spain”? Former Tory Leader


Featured image: Royal Gibraltar Regiment on parade outside Buckingham Palace in London (Photo: Defence Images)

Britain has said Spain can have no new powers over Gibraltar, as Brexit prompts hard talk on sovereignty, security, and borders.

“We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes”, the British prime minister’s office said in a statement on Sunday (2 April).

The British defence minister, foreign minister, and the chief minister of Gibraltar issued similar comments in a debate prompted by the start of Brexit talks last week.

“Gibraltar is going to be protected all the way,” Michael Fallon, the defence chief, told the BBC on Sunday.

Boris Johnson, the foreign minister, said on Facebook:

“The UK remains implacable and rock-like in our support for Gibraltar.”

Fabian Picardo, the Gibraltar chief, told the BBC that life under Spain would be “absolutely ­awful”. He told the Financial Times newspaper that the UK should stand up to EU “bullies” and “blackmail”.

The Gibraltar issue came up after the EU published its draft guidelines for Brexit talks last Friday.

The draft said “no agreement” on a future EU-UK trade deal “may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.

The text indicates that Spain would have a veto over Gibraltar’s economic future.

It might amount to little more than trying to force the British outpost to change its super-low corporate tax rate.

Hard talk

But the rock, which Britain seized from Spain in 1704, has a history of provoking tensions over status and territorial zones.

Michael Howard, a former leader of the ruling Conservative Party in the UK, told the Sky News broadcaster on Sunday that Britain would go to war with Spain over Gibraltar the same way it did with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1983.

“Thirty-five years ago this week, another woman prime minister sent a taskforce halfway across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country, and I’m absolutely certain that our current prime minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar,” he said.

“I can see no harm in reminding them [the EU] what kind of people we are,” he said.

British anti-EU tabloids, such as The Sun and The Express, also cited a former British military commander in saying the UK could crush the Spanish navy.

The Brexit talks will have to deal with other thorny questions on Scotland, Ireland, and security cooperation as well as trade and freedom of movement for EU workers.

Scotland has said it wants to hold a second referendum on independence in order to remain in the EU.

Irish politicians have said there should be a referendum on Irish unification with Northern Ireland to prevent the reimposition of a hard border.

The UK, last week, also indicated it might hold back on security cooperation with the EU if the trade talks went badly.

Scottish question

The Scottish question risks enflaming tensions with Spain after Madrid said at the weekend that it would not stand in the way of an independent Scotland joining the EU.

Alfonso Dastis, the Spanish foreign minister, told the El Pais newspaper on Saturday that he did “not foresee that we would block” Scottish membership.

Spain had previously indicated it would block Scotland in order not to create a precedent for separatists in the Spanish region of Catalonia, but Dastis said the two cases were “not comparable” on constitutional grounds.

Fallon, the British defence chief, indicated on Sunday that the UK wanted to maintain security cooperation with Europe.

“What we’re now looking for is a deep and special partnership which covers both economic and security cooperation,” he told the BBC.

“We need to make sure that cooperation continues because Europe faces threats not only from Russian aggression but, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, from terrorism as well,” he said, referring to last month’s terrorist attack in London.

Posted in Europe, UKComments Off on Brexit Talks Turn Ugly on Gibraltar: UK Prepared to “Go to War With Spain”? Former Tory Leader

America’s Search for the “Big War”


By Global Research News
Global Research

Url of this article:

We thank readers who have contributed to Global Research. If you have the means to make a small or large donation in support of our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will be much appreciated.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

We likewise encourage you to re-post this selection of articles. Share through social media and discuss with your colleagues and friends.

The US Has Run Amok in the Pursuit of Global Domination

*     *     *

U.S. Regime Has Killed 20-30 Million People Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, March 22, 2018

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.

Pentagon Officials Searching for a “Big War” against Russia and China. A World War Might Sound Crazy, But It Could be America’s Last Act of Desperation

            By Darius Shahtahmasebi, March 22, 2018

Though some have been warning about the catastrophic potential for a third global conflict for years, it wasn’t until recently that these warnings became more mainstream. The calamitous nature of the violence in Syria — which has one nuclear power defending a government that has been the target of a regime change operation led by the world’s superpower — combined with 2017’s threats of “fire and fury” against another state intently pursuing a nuclear weapons supply of its own, has pushed the issue of a third world war directly into the public discourse.

Video: The Ultimate War Crime: America’s “Global War on Terrorism”. “The Criminalization of War” is The Avenue to Reaching World Peace

            By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 22, 2018

This military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously, resulting in millions of civilian deaths and countless atrocities.

Syrians Have Names and Faces

By Mark Taliano, March 21, 2018

NATO terrorists have murdered about 10,000 civilians in Damascus, in addition to the 40 + civilians that they murdered in SE Damascus on March 20, 2018. Meanwhile, the SAA and allies have lost about 545 soldiers in the last ten weeks trying to liberate East Ghouta, the area from which the terrorists fire missiles at students, men, women, children. And Canadians think Assad is the bad guy.

The Cliff of Nuclear Annihilation: Humanity is on the Brink of Extinction! Thirty Seconds to Midnight

By Regis TremblayHelen CaldicottRay McGovernDavid VineChris Hedges, and Colonel Ann Wright, March 21, 2018

Humanity is on the brink of extinction! Nuclear power is not safe. 48 of America’s nuclear power plants are leaking and there is no way to get rid of nuclear waste.


Posted in USAComments Off on America’s Search for the “Big War”

2016 US Elections: Evidence for “Israelgate”? Russia Was a Scapegoat?


By Global Research News
Global Research
Url of this article:

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Truth in media is a powerful instrument. As long as we keep probing, asking questions, challenging media disinformation to find real understanding, then we are in a better position to participate in creating a better world in which truth and accountability trump greed and corruption.

*     *     *

Iraq and the “Gulf War”: Remembering the 1991 Al-Amiriyah Bombing by the US Air Force

By Felicity Arbuthnot and Radio Islam, March 21, 2018

According to Arbuthnot, the nuclear shelter was built during the Iran-Iraq War by a Finnish company which allegedly shared the map and the design with the United States who later on bombed the shelter through its only vulnerable place which was the ventilation shaft.

The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Could Provide Hard Evidence of “Israeli” Meddling in Trump Election

            By Adam Garrie, March 21, 2018

During a statement before a hidden camera, the CEO of the data harvesting firm Cambridge Analytica Alexander Nix boasted of his ability to employ “Israeli companies” to gather intelligence on politicians that the firm is paid to slander, defame and entrap. Nix then went on to praise the ability of “Israeli” intelligence personnel in what can only be described as a power sales pitch to a would-be client.

Another Reason Why Imperialism Wanted Libya Overthrown

By Abayomi Azikiwe, March 21, 2018

Sarkozy wanted the Libyan state eviscerated and Gaddafi assassinated because he had borrowed millions of dollars from the African leader in 2007 to finance his presidential campaign. Rumors and later documented proof surfaced to substantiate these claims.

44 Senators Made History by Voting to End Illegal US War in Yemen

By Kate Gould, March 21, 2018

In first-ever vote on withdrawing U.S. armed forces from an unauthorized war, 44 Senators voted to withdraw U.S. troops from the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

State Power Routinely Shielded From Public Eyes

            By Shane Quinn, March 21, 2018

Obama led the way with his March 2011 intervention in Libya, flanked by Britain and France, under the shield of NATO. Gaddafi’s Libya had been the wealthiest nation in Africa, boasting the highest life expectancy on the continent. In the time since, the country has descended into chaos and ruin.

The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report: The 9/11 Document that Launched US-NATO’s “War on Terrorism” in the Middle East

            By Prof. Niels Harrit, March 21, 2018

The legal foundation for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been challenged in several countries. The best known is the Chilcot Inquiry in the UK, which began in 2009 and concluded in a report in 2016. The inquiry was not about the legality of military action, but the British government was strongly criticised for not having provided a legal basis for the attack.

Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia

By Prof. James Petras, March 21, 2018

Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military leaders seek to undermine Russia’s defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin’s government?

Posted in USAComments Off on 2016 US Elections: Evidence for “Israelgate”? Russia Was a Scapegoat?

Shoah’s pages


April 2018
« Mar   May »