Archive | October 6th, 2018

Power and Money Are Driving the Ukrainian Church Crisis

One of the most contentious and significant controversies in the world today is also one of the least-well understood.

In part, this is because it involves matters of faith and church governance, the importance of which many people, especially some of a secular mind who scorn mere “religion,” tend to underestimate.

That is a mistake, certainly with respect to the storm that seems on the verge of plunging Ukraine into a new cycle of violence. That may happen if, as seems quite possible, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople recognizes an “autocephalous” (completely self-ruling) Orthodox Church in Ukraine over the objections of the Russian Orthodox Church, of which the Ukrainian Church is an integral part.

The head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate Metropolitan Filaret, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his wife Maryna © Mykola Lazarenko/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/ / Reuters

This question is often misreported in the Western media as Constantinople’s response to a request from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for autocephaly. This is inaccurate. The only Ukrainian Orthodox body recognized as canonical by the rest of the Orthodox Christian world – even including Constantinople at this point – is the autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church under the authority of Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev, which is not asking for autocephaly.

So who is making such a request? People who have no authority to do so. This means first of all Ukrainian politicians, starting with President Petro Poroshenko (whose own Orthodox affiliation is subject to question), who evidently calculates that midwifing an independent Ukrainian national church completely divorced from Russia will enhance his re-election prospects next year. Not to be outdone, his rival, Yulia Tymoshenko also is in favor. These proponents of autocephaly are explicit that their goals are political. “Shortly, we will have an independent Ukrainian church as part of an independent Ukraine. This will create a spiritual independence from Russia,” Poroshenko told the Washington Post.

Also asking for autocephaly is so-called “Patriarch Filaret” Denysenko and his supposed Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the “Kiev Patriarchate,” which is recognized as canonical by exactly nobody. Denysenko, who was excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997, hopes that will change soon. Patriarch Bartholomew has dispatched to Ukraine two envoys (“exarchs”), one each from the US and Canada, to meet with Denysenko, possibly even to consecrate his “bishops” to give them supposedly valid status.

Unfortunately, there is also involvement from another direction by people whose agenda is entirely political. Western governments see a geopolitical opportunity in exacerbating an ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine and pitting Constantinople against Moscow. Doing so, they believe, will undermine Russia’s geopolitical “soft power” through the Orthodox Church and further alienate Russians and Ukrainians from one another.

As explained by Valeria Z. Nollan, professor emerita of Russian Studies at Rhodes College, “The real goal of the quest for autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a de facto coup: a political coup already took place in 2014, poisoning the relations between western Ukraine and Russia, and thus another type of coup – a religious one – similarly seeks to undermine the canonical relationship between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Moscow. ”

The Western proponents are as crassly honest about the political aspects as the Ukrainian politicians. The German ambassador in Kiev, not known to have any particular theological acuity, opined in July, that autocephaly would strengthen Ukrainian statehood. The hyper-establishment Atlantic Council, which hosted Denysenko on a recent visit to Washington, notes“With the Russian Orthodox Church as the last source of Putin’s soft power now gone, Ukraine’s movement out of Russia’s orbit is irreversible.”

Likewise the US State Department, after a short period of appropriately declaring that “any decision on autocephaly is an internal church matter,” last week reversed its position and issued a formal statement“The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch as a voice of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”

While avoiding a direct call for autocephaly, the statement gives the unmistakable impression of such endorsement, which is exactly how it was reported in the media, for example“US backs Ukrainian Church bid for autocephaly.” The State Department’s praise for the Ecumenical Patriarchate reinforces that clearly intended impression.

There may be more to the State Department’s position than meets the eye, however. According to an unconfirmed reportoriginating with the members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (an autonomous New York-based jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), in July of this year State Department officials (possibly including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally) warned the Greek Orthodox archdiocese (also based in New York but part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) that the US government is aware of the theft of a large amount of money, about $10 million, from the budget for the construction of the Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in New York (This is explained further below).

The warning also reportedly noted that federal prosecutors have documentary evidence confirming the withdrawal of these funds abroad on the orders of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was suggested that Secretary Pompeo would “close his eyes” to this theft in exchange for movement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in favor of Ukrainian autocephaly, which helped set Patriarch Bartholomew on his current course.

Again, it must be emphasized that this report is unconfirmed, though one doesn’t see mainstream American media falling over themselves trying to track down the facts. The official statement of the Greek archdiocese does not report a personal one-on-one meeting between Pompeo and Archbishop Demetrios, but the message could have been communicated between subordinate personnel on both sides.

What lends the report an air of believability, however, is the depth of the scandal to which it refers. As few outside the Orthodox Christian community may recall, only one place of worship of any faith was destroyed on September 11, 2001, and only one building not part of the World Trade Center complex was completely destroyed in the attack. That was St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a small urban parish church established at the end of World War I and dedicated to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, who is very popular with Greeks as the patron of sailors. The humble little church reportedly housed icons and relics donated to the parish by Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II, none of which were recovered.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, and following a lengthy legal battle with the Port Authority, which opposed rebuilding the church, in 2011 the archdiocese launched an extensive campaign to raise funds for a brilliant innovative design by the renowned Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava based on traditional Byzantine forms. Wealthy donors and those of modest means alike enthusiastically contributed to the effort. A major role was played by the archdiocesan women’s organization, the Ladies Philoptochos, who undertook it as a “sacred mission”“Together let us rebuild Saint Nicholas for all future generations, and for the many millions of people who will visit every year the new World Trade Center, the National September 11 Memorial Museum and our National Shrine, the only house of worship at Ground Zero.” By the end of 2017, almost $37 million had been raised and construction on this unique Orthodox Christian presence was proceeding apace.

Then – poof! – in December 2017 suddenly all construction was halted for lack of funds. Resumption would require on-hand an estimated $2 million. Despite the archdiocese calling in an audit by a major accounting firm, there’s been no clear answer to what happened to the money. Both the US Attorney and New York state authorities are investigating. There have been calls for Archbishop Demetrios’s resignation.

This is where we get back to Ukraine. If the State Department wanted to find the right button to push to spur Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to move on the question of autocephaly, the Greek archdiocese in the US is it. Let’s keep in mind that in his home country, Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew has virtually no local flock – only a few hundred mostly elderly Greeks left huddled in Istanbul’s Fener district. Whatever funds the Patriarchate derives from other sources (the Greek government, the Vatican, the World Council of Churches), the financial lifeline is Greeks (including this writer) in what is still quaintly called the “Diaspora” in places like America, Australia, and New Zealand. And of these, the biggest cash cow is the Greek-Americans.

That’s why, when Patriarch Bartholomew issued a call in 2016 for what was billed as an Orthodox “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (the first one since the year 787!), the funds largely came from America, to the tune of up to $8 million according to this writer’s sources. Intended by some as a modernizing Orthodox Vatican II,” the event was doomed to failure by a boycott organized by Moscow over what the latter saw as Patriarch Bartholomew’s adopting papal or even imperial prerogatives – now sadly coming to bear in Ukraine.

It’s an open question how much the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s shaking down the Greeks in the US to pay for extravagant boondoggles like the 2016 “Council” contributed to the financial mess at the New York archdiocese, which in turn may have opened them up to pressure from the State Department to get moving on Ukraine.

Finally, while the Ukraine controversy does largely involve politicians’ agendas and a struggle for supremacy between Constantinople and Moscow, it is not entirely devoid of moral and spiritual significance. It should be noted that among the most ardent nominally Orthodox advocates of Ukrainian autocephaly are groups of American academics like the purveyors of moral and sexual LGBT and genderqueer ideology “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” and the hardly less revolutionary “Orthodox Christian Studies Center at New York’s Fordham University.

Orthodoxy in Dialogue recently issued a call – accompanied by a pairing of an Orthodox cross with LGBT rainbow symbolism – to bishops in all US Orthodox jurisdictions to curtail their anti-abortion witness and adopt the immoral sexual agendas that have wrought havoc in the Western confessions, a call that should receive a sharp condemnation from the hierarchs.

No one – and certainly not this writer – should accuse Patriarch Bartholomew, most Ukrainian politicians, or even the fake patriarch Denysenko of sympathizing with such anti-Orthodox values. But the converse is not true. These advocates know they cannot advance their goals if the conciliar and traditional structure of Orthodoxy remains intact. Thus they welcome efforts by Constantinople to centralize power while throwing the Church into discord, especially the Russian Church, which is vilified in some Western circles precisely because it is a global beacon of traditional Christian moral witness.

This aspect points to another reason for Western governments to support Ukrainian autocephaly as a spiritual offensiveagainst Russia and Orthodoxy. The post-Maidan leadership harp on the “European choice the people of Ukraine supposedly made in 2014, but they soft-pedal the accompanying moral baggage the West demands, symbolized by “gay”marches organized over Christian objections in Orthodox cities like Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, Kiev, Odessa, Podgorica, Sofia, and Tbilisi. Even under the Trump administration, the US is in lockstep with our European Union friends in pressuring countries liberated from communism to adopt such “European values.”

Ukrainians especially need to ask themselves why Western governments are so happy to cheer on developments that could plunge the Orthodox Church into worldwide schism, and Ukraine into another round of fratricidal violence. The unedifying behind-the-scenes machinations, many details of which remain under wraps, should give them further pause.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Power and Money Are Driving the Ukrainian Church Crisis

The Skripals Are an MI6 Hoax – ‘Not Worthy of Ladies’ Detective Novels’ – Israeli Expert Demolishes UK Case

Very convincing. This Israeli expert blows up the UK’s narrative in a few well-chosen one-liners.

“If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come to the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, ​​leave their fingerprints there, get a visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies’ detective novels.”

An Israeli expert on international terrorism, writer Alexander Brass, shared his view on the case of the Skripals poisoning in Salisbury. Brass draws parallels between the work of the special services of Israel and Russia – he believes that if to compare the British version with the practice of the special agents, then the absurdity becomes obvious.

“Alexander, so what, in your opinion, happened in Salisbury?”

-There was a rough provocation by the British special services. In my opinion, this is obvious.

– Why do you think so?

“There’s a lot of stupidity on stupidity.” The story with Petrov and Boshirov does not hold up any professional peer review. According to the Brits, the Skripals were poisoned by GRU agents (this is what the department is called, although this is now the Main Directorate of the RF General Staff).

I want to explain how the special services work. If you need someone to eliminate, then this is a very serious operation, which is being prepared for a long time. A very significant material and human resource is allocated. We are talking about dozens of employees. On the territory of this state, an “advanced command post” is being created.

In the operation, a technical support group, a logistic group, a cover group, an external surveillance group and a group of performers are involved.

The performers themselves appear at the very last moment. They do not go anywhere, lighting up on cameras, do not use public transport, but move on rented cars, which they do not rent themselves. And the more they will not stop in hotels, but will live on safe houses provided by the logistics group.

Such groups do not come under the passport of their country, do not go to the embassy for obtaining a visa, leaving fingerprints. This is complete nonsense. Professionals do not work that way.

If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come to the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, ​​leave their fingerprints there, get a visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies’ detective novels.

– Maybe it is unprofessionalism associated with the degradation and decay, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union took place in all structures and institutions of society, including in the special services? Lost skills, methods, no one to teach young people. There is such an opinion.

– This is an opinion at the level of kitchen conversations. Where did the armed forces and the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation manage to raise such a “bardak” to such a level as they could organize the World Cup and the Olympics at such a high level? The GRU has always been and remains one of the most professional and most intelligent intelligence agencies in the world.

If the GRU decided to eliminate Skripal, then I have a question: why was the “Novichok” used? This is not a remedy, it’s a chemical weapon of mass destruction. It’s like dropping an atomic bomb on a city to kill one criminal. When special services eliminate an object, they always try to do it so that no autopsy shows that he was poisoned.

– Can you give examples?

– I can give many examples. In 1978, the well-known international terrorist Vadia Haddad, one of the founders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was killed. “Mossad” did not take responsibility for this, but sewed in a bag you can not hide. A potent biological poison was mixed with chocolate. Within three months he died of a painful and incomprehensible illness in the GDR clinic. His autopsy was conducted at the University of East Berlin. No trace of poison was found. The doctors assumed that he died of leukemia.

– How did you know that he was killed by Mossad?

– Information about this began to leak a few years ago. It came from Algeria. One of the former Mossad agents during another trial gave evidence that he witnessed how this happened, calling the specific names of the performers. This man also confirmed that he was a participant in this operation. This information was also confirmed by other, non-overlapping sources.

– Were there any cases when the Mossad operation ended unsuccessfully and the enemies of Israel were still alive?

– Take the last unsuccessful attempt of the Israelis to kill Khaled Mashaal, one of the leaders of the terrorist organization Hamas. He would have been killd if he had not been given an antidote at the last minute.

Everything happened on September 25, 1997 on one of the streets of Amman – the capital of Jordan. Just some passer-by, who was next to Mashaal, “accidentally” stumbled and splashed the liquid from the can of Coke to his neck. The next day Mashal would have died of a heart attack, and no traces. But the performers were seized on the spot. After that, the King of Jordan Hussein demanded that Israel provide an antidote, and in return promised to release Israeli agents.

– That is, substances that leave no traces are not detected by expertise and imitate death from the disease, the secret services have long been known?

– That’s it. Could the GRU not have been able to use some other poison, and not the “Novichok”, which leaves traces everywhere? If such technologies were in the special services already in the 1950s, do not the GRU have them today?

Let’s talk about the cameras. The UK on this some kind of fad. In no country in the world there is such a number of surveillance cameras per capita.

If I’m not mistaken, about one camera for 15 people. Literally every meter is looked through. MI5, the British counterintelligence service, is considered one of the best in the world. And if Britain took care of Skripal, he was very well guarded. At least his house was hung with all the cameras, which are only possible.

If, according to MI5, these agents visited Salisbury, they came to the house of Skripal and coated the door handle with this substance – so show the records from the cameras! How can it be that it was at this point that the cameras suddenly turned off?

“But maybe these agents found the cameras and turned them off?”

“If you say that the GRU has deteriorated so badly that it has lit up everywhere and left its mark, why did this degraded intelligence agency manage to turn off the surveillance cameras near the Skripal house at the right time?” Where is the logic?

– When our agents killed the Chechen terrorist Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev in Qatar, they got caught and were captured by the local police. True, they carried out the task …

“And how many Israeli agents were arrested?” This does not mean degradation. I do not know what happened after the collapse of the USSR in the GRU, but I know what happened in the Foreign Intelligence Service, since I had been friends with one of the very high-ranking officers of this service for many years in retirement. We had very close, friendly relations with him for many years. Unfortunately, he died a few years ago.

He told me that the degradation of the special services is only an appearance. He retired, because he already had years of service and he did not agree with the mess that was going on in the country. But there was no mess in the secret services! Who wanted to – left. But was there a leak of information? Have they discovered an agent network? Agents of Soviet special services worked all over the world. Have any of them suffered? No one. The mess can be anywhere, but not in the special services.

– Let’s admit. All this really looks strange – first let out Skripal, then kill him. Would not it be easier to just leave him in jail?

– Now about the personality of Sergei Skripal himself. The main version, which is voiced by the British side, is revenge. But in special services there is no such thing as revenge. Neither the Israelis, nor the Russians. Only the Cubans had it. We must understand that the special services are a very practical organization. Why revenge? A person is eliminated only when he can cause real harm. The Skripal has already done harm. He could not do more harm.

– For example, as a lesson to other potential traitors, no?

– No. I once asked my acquaintances who worked in your special services (I have never had any contact with active staff, only with retirees): “Why did not Kalugin be killed?” And they answered me with a counter question: “Why haven’t you eliminated the defector? “I said: he has already done harm. To eliminate him, it is necessary to develop a very serious operation, to send people, people should risk their lives. For the sake of what – for the sake of revenge? They say: “For the same reason, we do not touch Kalugin and do not touch anyone.” Israelis are not even exterminated by former terrorists. At the moment when the terrorist stops terrorist activities, regardless of what he did before, he is left alone. The only ones who were persecuted to the end were Nazi criminals.

– There is an opinion that he was eliminated because he taught at the counterintelligence school and taught young employees how to deal with the GRU.

– And what, in MI5, except for Skripal, no one knows how to do it? I think they know it better than him.

– In such cases, there is a very simple practice. When Skripal was taken on treason, he probably was intelligibly explained: either you go to life imprisonment and you will be in solitary confinement somewhere beyond the Arctic Circle, or you will receive 12 years of strict regime in the European part of Russia. But for this, you must fully tell what you have handed over, and give evidence. To cooperate with the investigation.

Similarly, when the former colonel of the Defense Intelligence of Israel’s Defense Intelligence Department, I did not name him, went into business and got into debt.

He went to Lebanon to buy heroin and conduct a drug deal, and was captured by Hezbollah. He told everything he knew, inflicting enormous damage to Israel’s defense capability. Because he was an officer on this site, he worked for Lebanon.

The Israelis exchanged him, they pulled him out. He was told: let’s make a deal. You will not be prosecuted. But you must thoroughly, in every detail, tell what you told them. We need to know what they know. The same was with Skripal. And there was simply no need to eliminate him.

– So there was no motive for Russian special services?

– There was no motive. Then, imagine: they used “Novichok”, they carried it with them in a bottle from under the perfume. In the practice of special services this does not exist. Performers go light, with other people’s passports. They receive weapons on the spot. And when such a group of liquidators works, it works autonomously, without affecting the local residency. In case of failure, do not harm the residence. When the surveillance is working and the capture team is working, they do not know each other in person, they communicate only through certain communication channels.

– The question is also why the poison did not act instantly, and Skripal was still wandering about for a few hours.

– It’s a different matter. The British are so disrespectful to Russia that even provocation can not be done at a decent level. It’s even humiliating. Therefore, Russia does not comment on this in any way. And why is it necessary to comment on some kind of nonsense?

It took half a year to Brits to find the “suspects.” Although they left their full personal data and fingerprints in the embassy when they received visas. This is a separate nonsense. Then Russia said: please! Here they are, here’s their interview. If they were active GRU officers, they would not have left their fingerprints in the embassy for anything.

“Who are they?”

– I do not know who they are, but certainly not employees of special services. If the GRU needed to kill Skripal, he would now be dead. This would have been done quietly and without scandal.

“Why Britain needs this?”

– This is a well-thought-out strategy of demonization and international isolation of Russia. In the UK, as in the rest of the Western world, everything works very simply. Most people do not read newspapers at all. And those who read, do not understand half. But everyone sees the headlines. Provocation with the Skripals is needed to exclude the Russian Federation from the Commission for Investigating the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. This is a minimum program.

Source: News Front

Posted in Russia, UKComments Off on The Skripals Are an MI6 Hoax – ‘Not Worthy of Ladies’ Detective Novels’ – Israeli Expert Demolishes UK Case

Zionist Ian Austin vs anti-”Israel” protest


Ian Austin concern over anti-”Israel” protest in Dudley

Hard-left pro-Palestine demonstrators were due to protest outside Labour MP Ian Austin’s office today to call for him to condemn the actions of the Israeli Government.

Dudley North MP Ian Austin has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism in the Labour party

The event has been organised by the Dudley Palestine Solidarity Group (DPSG) and has been backed by local Momentum activists and Corbynite Labour town councillors.

It was scheduled to take place at the Paradise Centre on Buffery Park, at the same time as Mr Austin’s monthly surgery, where he meets with constituents to discuss their concerns.

Dudley North MP Mr Austin has been an outspoken critic of the rise of anti-Semitism in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and is currently being investigated over his behaviour during a row about the party’s anti-Semitism code.

A leaflet advertising the protest says: “Join us as we protest against the actions of the Israeli government.

“We demand Dudley North MP Ian Austin listens to the local and national condemnation and and speaks out on the human rights violations against the Palestinians.”

Mr Austin, who is the adopted child of a Jewish refugee, told the Express & Star that he was concerned the protest could intimidate visitors to his surgery.

He said: “People have the right to protest wherever they like, but they could consider whether an MP’s advice surgery where often vulnerable people seek private help is really the best time and place.

“I contacted the organiser and offered to arrange a meeting.

“I have not heard back, but I am worried that people might not want to come to my advice surgery with a protest is taking place, so I have told people who were planning to come that I can meet them elsewhere if they would prefer.”

DPSG spokesman Jerry Langford, said: “As a group we have long-standing concerns with the actions of the Israeli government in Palestine, and what we see as the constant abuse of human rights.

“While we understand that Ian Austin has expressed a position of working for peace in Palestine, we think that his stance on Israel is not really hard enough.

“We would expect more from a Labour MP. He is certainly always extremely vociferous where Jeremy Corbyn is concerned.”

Brierley Hill councillor Zafar Islam said he was planning to attend the protest.

Today’s demonstration marks the third time protests have been organised by pro-Palestine activists in recent months.

In June a protest at Dudley Library organised under the banner ‘Freedom for Palestine’ fell through due to a mix up with dates. Another demonstration was planned for July.




Posted in UKComments Off on Zionist Ian Austin vs anti-”Israel” protest

Election Landslide Raises Hopes for Mexican Labor


The landslide victory of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (“AMLO”) in the Mexican presidential election in July has raised workers’ hopes for a revitalized and democratized labor movement.

Independent unions have formed a new federation. They hope to win progressive labor law reform and finally end the reign of corrupt, pro-employer unions.

The coalition led by AMLO’s National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) won not only the presidency but also the majority in both houses of the Mexican congress. Till now, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) had dominated Mexican politics for decades.

The pro-employer unions that make up Mexico’s main labor federation, the Congress of Labor (CT), especially the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM), have historically been part of the PRI’s popular base. Top union leaders were nominated as the party’s senators and congresspersons.

“Protection Unions”

The CT unions are the largest in Mexico, representing around 10 percent of the formal workforce, though they have been in decline in recent years. These unions were enthusiastic cooperators in the low-wage neoliberal economic strategy adopted by the Mexican political and economic elite in the 1990s— including signing on to NAFTA. Their plan was to grow the Mexican economy by attracting US and Canadian investors with cheap labor.

The CT unions have supported the government’s low-wage development strategy by signing sweetheart “protection contracts” with employers before any workers are hired. They use their relationships with employers and with the Mexican federal and state governments to prevent any real negotiations or strikes.

The absence of authentic worker representation in most sectors has kept Mexican workers’ wages low and even declining in real terms over the past decade. Meanwhile CT union leaders have grown incredibly wealthy through their corrupt alliances with employers and government.








Posted in MexicoComments Off on Election Landslide Raises Hopes for Mexican Labor

The Bluffer’s Guide to Bombing Syria


Peter Ford, former British Ambassador to Syria, with a rather useful media guide, aptly described as, “The Dirty Dozen: 12 lies they tell you to anaesthetise you for the upcoming bombing of Syria.”

Baby Bomber (Daily Mirror front page)
IMAGE: Jingoist war propaganda image courtesy of the UK Mirror newspaper.

Peter Ford
21st Century Wire

The propaganda mills of the British and American governments – spokespersons, media, think tanks – are working overtime churning out ‘talking points’ to justify the upcoming large scale bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.

Here is a guide from a former insider to the top dozen of these lies.

1. There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib. As it happens this gem of moral blackmail is untrue. There are twice as many jihadis (about 100,000) as babies (0-1 year) (55,000). What is this factoid meant to say anyway? Don’t try to free an area of jihadis because you might harm a lot of children? The Western coalition scarcely heeded that consideration in razing Mosul and Raqqa in order to crush ISIS. They are still pulling babies out of the rubble in Raqqa.

2. The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons ‘attack’] must be true because Assad has done it before. False. Since 2013 when Assad gave up chemical weapons under supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the OPCW have not visited the sites of alleged attacks in jihadi-controlled areas but have accepted at face value ‘reports’ from pro-jihadi organisations like the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society, along with ‘evidence’ from hostile intelligence agencies. In the case of the one site the OPCW did visit, Douma, their report said they found no evidence of sarin, no untoward traces in any of the blood samples taken from ‘alleged victims’ (their term), no bodies and only ambiguous evidence of use of chlorine.

3. The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians and Syrians caused delay. False. As documented in the OPCW report, delay was caused by UN bureaucracy and jihadi snipers. The inspectors do not say their findings were to any significant degree invalidated by the delay.

4. Assad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into fleeing. False. They don’t. This desperate argument is trotted out to counter the fact that Assad would have to be stupid to use chemical weapons knowing what the result would be and that he would derive minimal military benefit. To date, not one of the alleged chemical attacks has precipitated an exodus any greater than flight caused by the legendary ‘barrel bombs’. The inhabitants of Douma by their own testimonies given to Western journalists were even unaware there might have been an attack until they heard about it in the media.

5. The OPCW won’t be able to investigate because it won’t be safe. A feeble excuse to preempt calls for establishing facts before bombing. The Turks escort Western journalists into Idlib. They have hundreds of troops there and the jihadis kowtow to them because they control all logistics. The Turks could escort OPCW. And wouldn’t the jihadis be keener than anybody for the inspectors to visit if their claims were true?

6. The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. False. The plan is to decapitate the Syrian state with attacks on the presidency. Failing that the aim is to make Idlib a quagmire for the Russians. Anything to deprive Asad and Putin of victory, regardless of whether it prolongs the war.

7. It’s all Russian disinformation. Yeah, like the arms inspectors before the Iraq war who said no WMD in Iraq. Reality: the Russians have got great intelligence on what Western powers with their jihadi clients are up to and are calling out the phoney moves.

8. There won’t be enough time for parliamentary debate. Pull the other one. Reality: the government are terrified of a rerun of 2013 when Labour and 30 brave Tory MPs voted against bombing, causing Cameron and then Obama to back off.

9. MPs can’t be told what is planned because it would jeopardise the safety of service personnel. How low can you stoop? Feigning concern for flyers when it’s really just about keeping the people in ignorance of how big the strikes are going to be.

10. There are going to be massacres, a bloodbath, or ‘genocide’. False. We heard all this hysteria before Aleppo, before Eastern Ghouta and before the campaign in the South. All vastly exaggerated. The Syrian Arab Army has not been responsible for a single massacre, while the jihadis have been responsible for many (source: quarterly reports of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria).

11. People have nowhere to go. False. The Russians have opened safe corridors but the jihadis are not allowing people to leave. They can still leave for the northern border strip which Turkey controls, where there are camps, and many (including jihadi fighters) will be able to cross temporarily into Turkey.

12. We can’t tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets for Assad. Really? You think he doesn’t know? Isn’t it because you are terrified it will come out that we have been supporting some real head-choppers?

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Bluffer’s Guide to Bombing Syria

Gaza: Great March of Return and Breaking Siege


For Twenty-Eighth Friday of Great March of Return and Breaking Siege in Eastern Gaza Strip, Nazi Gestapo Kill 3 Civilians, Including Child, and Wound 171 Others, Including 14 Children, 3 Journalists and 3 Paramedics.


On Friday afternoon, 05 October 2018, using excessive force against the peaceful protesters in the eastern Gaza Strip for the 28th Friday in a row, Nazi forces Killed 3 Palestinian civilians, including a child, and wounded 171 others, including 14 children, 3 journalists ( one of them was a female journalist)  and 3 paramedics with live bullets and direct tear gas canisters. Eight of those wounded sustained serious wounds.

According to PCHR fieldworkers’ observations, the border area witnessed heavy deployment of the Nazi forces this week as the latter heavily fired live bullets, increasing the number of causalities .

The Nazi forces announced before the beginning of the demonstration that they will reinforce the deployment of the Nazi soldiers in the southern area in order to thwart the terrorist operations and prevent sneaking into ”Israel” from the border fence in the Gaza Strip, according to the Nazi forces’ spokesperson Avichai Adrei.

Investigations and observations by PCHR’s fieldworkers emphasize that the demonstrations in all areas were as always fully peaceful, and neither weapons nor armed persons were seen. However, the Nazi forces’ snipers continued to position on the hills, behind the sand berms and in military jeeps along the border fence.

The Nazi forces continued to use upon highest military and political echelons excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators who posed no threat or danger to the life of Nazi soldiers in the areas of demonstrations.


The incidents today, 05 October  2018, were as follows:

At approximately 15:00, thousands of civilians, including women, children and entire families, started swarming to the 5 encampments established by the Supreme National Authority for the Great March of Return and Breaking Siege along the border fence, east of the Gaza Strip governorates. They raised flags and chanted national songs. Hundreds, including children and women, approached the border fence with ”Israel”, set fire to tires and gathered 300 meters away from the main border fence. Some of them attempted to throw stones at the Nazi forces, pulled parts of the barbed-wire fence established inside the Palestinian territories and fired incendiary balloons along the border fence.

The Nazi shooting, which continued until 19:00, resulted in the killing of 3 civilians, including a child. Two of them were killed in eastern al-Shuja’iyia neighborhood and the third one was killed in eastern Khuza’a, east of Khan Yunis.

The persons killed were identified as :

1-Mahmoud Akram Mohamed Abu Sam’an (20), from al-Nusirat Camp, was hit with a live bullet to the chest.

2- Fares Hafez ‘Abed al-‘Aziz al-Sersawi (12), from al-Shuja’iyia neighborhood, was hit with a live bullet to the chest.

3- Hussain Fathi Hussain Muhsen (al-Reqib), 18, from Bani Suhialah, east of Khan Yunis, was hit with a live bullet to the abdomen and succumbed to his wounds at approximately 20:45.

 Moreover, 171 civilians, including 14 children, 3 journalists ( one of them was a female journalist) and 3 paramedics, were wounded with live bullets and direct tear gas canisters. Eight of those wounded, including a volunteer paramedic namely Mohamed Nidal Jum’a Abu ‘si (27), from Bani Suhailah, sustained serious wounds. Moreover, dozens civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and seizures after tear gas canisters were heavily fired by the Israeli soldiers from the military jeeps and riffles in the eastern Gaza Strip.

Table of Civilian Casualties due to the Nazi Suppression since the Beginning of the Great March of Return on 30 March

Notes Medical Crews Journalists Women Children Total Casualties
Among those Killed, there are 3 Persons with Disabilities and a child suffers from a mental disorder, while among the children killed, there is a girl. 3 2 1 33 154 Killed
Among those wounded, 463 are in serious condition and 76 had their lower or upper limbs amputated.  The number of those wounded only include those wounded with live bullet and directly hit with tear gas canisters as there have been thousand others who suffered tear gas inhalation and sustained bruises. 119 101 225 1435 8431 Wounded

PCHR hereby condemns the crimes committed by the Nazi forces, believing it is as a result of Nazi regime enjoying impunity thanks to the U.S. and so encouraging the Nazi forces to commit further crimes upon an official decision by the highest military and political echelons.

PCHR emphasizes that continuously inflicting casualties, either killed or wounded, is unjustified, and using lethal force to target and kill civilians, who exercise their right to peaceful assembly or while carrying out their humanitarian duty, is a serious violation of the rules of international law, international humanitarian law, the ICC Rome Statute and Fourth Geneva Convention. Thus, PCHR calls upon the ICC Prosecutor to open an official investigation in these crimes and to prosecute and hold accountable all those applying or involved in issuing orders within the Nazi Forces at the security and political echelons.

PCHR also reiterates its call upon the High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances and their obligations under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

PCHR calls upon Switzerland, in its capacity as the Depository State for the Convention, to demand the High Contracting Parties to convene a meeting and ensure Nazi regime respect for this Convention, noting that these grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions regarding the guarantee of Palestinian civilians’ right to protection in the occupied territories.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Gaza: Great March of Return and Breaking Siege

Russia and the Taming of the ”Israelis”


Russia’s unexpected decision to supply Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems and to integrate Syria’s air defence within the Russian command calls for a quick reassessment of our views. It turned out that Russia is able to learn and respond in an unanticipated way. Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the Il-20 downing, the Russian reaction had been weak. The Russians agreed with Israelis that the plane had been hit by a Syrian S-200 missile. They provided the Israeli military with an opportunity to offer and defend their version of events, while Putin spoke of a “tragic chain of events”, apparently exculpating his Israeli partner.

I must admit I had thought that the Russians would accept the Israeli explanations, and the case would rest. This was the view of pro-Kremlin writers and bloggers, and they often know the mind of the Russian authorities. These guys and gals do not get their instructions directly from the Kremlin, nor do they have a consistent view of Russian interests nor an opinion of their own; usually they try to guess what the Kremlin will do next and build a defence line for it. If you watch them, you’ll get an idea of what the expectation.

They took a rather pro-Israeli line. Whoever called for a stronger response to the Israeli provocation, was called an “anti-Semite firebrand”. This is not as deadly a marker in Russia as it is in the West, but it still is not a great compliment, either. Some pro-Kremlin writers blamed the Syrians; so did the liberal opposition to Putin. Julia Latynina, the pet Russian writer of Western liberals, a Putin nemesis, a recipient of the Defender of Freedom Award, with hundreds of references in the Guardian and the New York Times, called the Syrians – “apes”. (The Russian anti-Putin liberals are racist beyond belief but they love Jews).

A pro-Kremlin English-language writer said that the Iranians (sic!) were to be blamed; perhaps they pushed the button and destroyed the Il. And Syrians surely were guilty as hell. He also ferociously attacked the experts who spoke of Israeli responsibility and called them “antisemites”. The chief editors of the Russian semi-official media apparently thought Putin wanted to forget about the whole business of the downed Il-20 as fast as possible. They promptly erased it from their agenda. Incredibly, on the next day the Russian media was practically free from any reference to the disaster. Only the hard old men of the opposition grumbled in their marginal online journals: “We are lost,” “Putin obeys his oligarchs,” “The Jewish lobby in Moscow won”, “Putin cares more of his Jewish friends than of the Russian soldiers”. But they were premature.

In Israel, the Ministry of Defence people rubbed their hands and said: We bombed all, we are bombing and we shall bomb as we find fit. They advised the Russians to blame Syria and accept the Israeli version of events. Israeli social networks rejoiced. But their joy was premature, too.

The first signal of something amiss was sent when the Russians refused to receive an Israeli high-level delegation in Moscow. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Lieberman proposed to fly to Moscow personally, but they were rebuffed. Only a military delegation led by the Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin was allowed to come and present their version. It was found wanting. The Russian Ministry of Defence produced ample evidence that the Israelis knowingly caused the loss of the plane with all hands. Netanyahu had made a person-to-person call to President Putin, it was of no avail.

Apparently Putin was upset on a personal level with the Israeli attack. He is known for hating betrayal. He considered Netanyahu to be almost a personal friend, and the downing of the plane by this erstwhile friend grieved him a lot, so people close to the Kremlin intuit. There are less personal interpretations. In the same time the ruling (Putin’s) party United Russia suffered humiliating defeats in governors’ elections. 70% to 30% the incumbents were voted out, and representatives of strongly anti-Western coalition of Nationalists and Communists conquered those three districts. In the Armed Forces, the idea of letting bygones be bygones was rejected out of hand. The army demanded a stronger response.

Putin is the most pro-Western ruler Russia is likely to have; his successor will probably be more rigid to Western demands, while pro-Western elements (“liberals”) have a snowball-in-hell chance to come to power in Russia via the election booth. That’s why Putin has to watch his step to keep in line with his base, as any ruler does. He didn’t want to spoil relations with Israel, but freedom of action had to be denied to the Israeli Air Force.

There was a lull when the disaster of the downed plane completely disappeared from media, Russian or Western. It was not mentioned by the New York Times, it was not mentioned by the Russian newspapers. And after that, unexpectedly, the Russian Defence Minister Mr Shoygu made his announcement. Russia responded adequately, closing the sky over Syria, or at least over Western Syria, and activating its powerful GPS-jamming system off the Syrian coast. Israel has lost its right to bomb Syria at will.

The Russians said it will take them two weeks to deliver, install and make the system operative. I have heard that the system of up to eight S-300 had already been delivered by massive airlift a few days ago, with cargo planes landing in Syria every few minutes. Probably two weeks will be needed to install and activate the system.

Now in Israel the response was of two kinds. The hot heads said Israel is not worried by S-300; they know how to deal with it, and if necessary, Israeli commandos will come and sabotage the system just in time for a massive air attack by Israeli bombers. Sensible people said Israel should try to repair relations with the Russian military. The Russians did a lot of what the Israelis asked them for, including removal of Iranian forces from the vicinity of Israeli borders (rather, armistice lines). A thorough investigation of the air disaster may uncover the mistakes and convince the Russians that they aren’t likely to occur again.

Netanyahu sounded like he was trying to minimise the strife with the Russians. After meeting with President Trump in New York, he said that he came with specific requests “and I received everything I wanted from him [Trump]. Our goal is to preserve the connection with Russia and on the other hand to defend Israel’s security against these threats.”

So, for good or bad, Israel is not going to break relations with Russia, and Russia is not going to go further, beyond sealing Syria’s sky for Israeli raids. If Israeli leadership will keep its fingers away from Syria, things may cool down. Otherwise, the results will be quite unpredictable.

In Israel, there aren’t many people at the top, apart of Netanyahu and Lieberman, who cherish their country’s involvement with Russia. For Israelis, Putin is one of many unsavoury leaders from Idi Amin to Orban their country has to play ball with. Russia is not popular with ordinary Israelis who prefer America or Germany. A lot of Israelis will be pleased with breakup of this connection. Immediately after the Russian decision had been announced, Haaretz had made its feelings clear: “In recent years, Russia has been caught lying or spreading disinformation about its role in a number of incidents, the most recent being its involvement in the U.S. presidential elections, the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So it’s hard to believe that anyone but Syria and Iran will adopt the Russian version of last week’s events.” This is not a way one’s partner is usually described.

More conspiratorially minded Israelis opined that beyond downing of the Il, there was an Air Force plot against Netanyahu and Lieberman who are unpopular within the top echelon of IDF. Others say it was an American Secret Service plot to undermine Russian-Israeli connection.

For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn’t give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God.

On the other hand, it is possible that the whole Israeli raid had been staged to down the reconnaissance plane and to leave the Russians without its real-time intelligence data. In 1967, the Israelis bombed and sunk the USS Liberty, an electronic spy ship, the then equivalent of Il-20, for they did not want to have foreign eyes and ears in the area. But then, there was an ongoing full-scale war between Israel and Egypt, and the USS Liberty had been attacked just before the planned Israeli invasion of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Could it be that Israelis expected an attack by France, England and the US upon Syria on that night, an attack that did not materialise thanks to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib? There was a British plane and a French frigate in the vicinity, and a whole lot of American ships.

The agreement on Idlib was a very important event, though Il-20 displaced it out of our collective memory. Putin and Erdogan reached a working compromise, thus avoiding almost unavoidable large scale hostilities. The White Helmets had already prepared a film with staged chemical attack upon Syrian children, but the agreement had made the attack improbable in the first place. It is possible that the American coalition assault had been postponed in the last moment, when the Russian plane had been already downed.

However, all is well that ends well. Russian decision to create practically a no-fly zone is a good decision, good for all. It is good for Russians as they learned that their Commander-in-Chief can make strong decisions. It is good for Syria, as they will suffer less of the Israeli bombardments. And it is really good for Israel, as this naughty child, a spoiled brat, a darling of America had to be forbidden to bother neighbouring children. The automatic missile defence system will provide a threat of spanking. The kid had been told that he is not allowed to kill neighbours. With its excessive aggressiveness multiplied by impunity, Israel has been spoiled, as anybody would. With this block, Israel can still become a mensch, and for this chance, thank you, Russia.

Will Tel-Aviv use this chance? The US will try to frustrate the Russian taming of Israel. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo already declared that no one may interfere with Israel’s divine right to freely bomb Syria. Will the Israeli lobby in America be able to neutralise Moscow’s decision and unhinge Israeli soul once again? Will they convince Putin to postpone his decision like they did in April, and a few years ago? I do not think so.

We can congratulate the leadership of Russia on the consistent, justified and well-balanced decision that may yet tame the Jewish shrew.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, RussiaComments Off on Russia and the Taming of the ”Israelis”

Good Job! Washington Angered Enough Countries to Provoke a Joint Response to Its Sanction War

Heck, even the UK is on board for this one

Lately, an ever increasing number of states started expressing their dissatisfaction with Washington’s protectionist policies, thus forming a group states that are determined to oppose unfair trade practices on the international stage. Therefore, there’s little surprise that the UN general assembly in New York turned into a show of solidarity against the White House and what it stands for on 25 September. The frustration of various states over Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal (JCPOA), turned this state into a symbol of an opposition to dubious policies introduced by the Trump administration and its unilateralism.

It’s been pointed out by Wirtschaftswoch that the rift between Washington and Brussels on Iran came on the back of a trade war Donald Trump started with Europe and China. It resulted in a number of European states trying to search for ways to bypass Washington’s newly reintroduced anti-Iranian sanctions.

Unsurprisingly, the European Union, Iran, China and Russia have come up with a joint plan to sidestep unilateral American sanctions designed to cripple the Iranian economy. Representatives of these states are convinced that Tehran is going to remain fully compliant with the terms of the nuclear deal, that is why they are going to do everything that is in their powers to preserve it.

All of them have repeatedly expressed “deep regret” over Trump’s decision to kill the deal, while pointing out that sanctions and so-called trade tariffs that the White House has been busy introducing go against the multilateral diplomacy endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council. In the past both Russia and the EU had their contradictions on a number of issues, by now it seems that they’ve managed to put it aside to unite against the US.

As it’s been laid out by European foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini alongside Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in the margins of the UN assembly:

EU member states will set up a legal entity to facilitate legitimate financial transactions with Iran and this will allow European companies to continue to trade with Iran in accordance with European Union law and could be open to other partners in the world.

France’s president Emmanuel Macron has also attacked Trump for fomenting “nationalism” and “protectionism” in his UN speech, while pointing out that the EU is being pushed around by Washington’s unilateral decisions, that are made detriment of everyone as they lead to isolation and conflict. After delivering this speech at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, Macron added that there’s an acute need to strengthen the economic and financial sovereignty of the EU.

Earlier last month, German foreign minister Heiko Maas urged Europe to resist unilateral American sanctions, while pointing out that the EU shouldn’t “sit like a rabbit in front of a snake.” In an interview with Bild, he added that he was appalled by a number of public statements that Donald Trump made, in which he described the EU as an opponent of the EU, alongside with Russia and China.

There’s been a lot of voices urging Europe to take responsibility for its security into its own hands, thus returning back its sovereignty. Last August, prominent political figures in both Paris and Berlin were particularly articulate in promoting this notion. What this basically means is that the two leading countries are determined to spearhead resistance of the EU to Washington’s unilateral practices. The fact that similar statements could be heard at the same time both in Berlin and Paris was a coincidence, but the ideas that were laid out in those could hardly be described as surprising. It’s curious that Emmanuel Macron made such a statement at a meeting with French ambassadors in Paris, just like Heiko Mass that pointed this notion out while also foreign ministry staff in Berlin.

It was rather unexpected that even the UK, which has been an adamant supporter of Washington’s designs for decades, has also chose to disagree with the United States on JCPOA. London is confident that Iran is fulfilling all the criteria of the deal, which was pointed out by Britain’s PM Theresa May in one of her speeches, which come as a surprise to international analysts.

In a bid to protect its interests on the international stage, the US is now following in China’s and Russia’s tracks in starting a process of diminishing the role of dollar in the financial transactions made across the union. Thus, it becomes increasingly evident that the Trump administration is contributing to a future demise of the global dollar system, even if that is hard to see right now. It’s been pointed out that the “America first” foreign policy, the trade wars and seemingly arbitrary nature of tariffs, trans-Atlantic tension and other geopolitical rivalries are all factors that could push the dollar off of its perch.

As it’s been pointed out by an analyst for the Arms Control Association, Kelsey Davenport in his interview for the Washington Post:

In the Iran case, the United States is damaging sanctions as a tool of statecraft, as it has put a lot of states between a rock and a hard place.

The growing effort aimed at conducting euro-denominated oil sales, combined with a smattering of other initiatives intended to weaken the influence of Washington’s financial dominance, could chip away at the dollar big time. American analysts argue that the dollar remains all-powerful, yet they seem to all agree that the Trump administration’s aggressive use of sanctions, crystallized by its zero-tolerance sanctions campaign against Iran, could undermine its role on the financial markets, as an ever increasing number of states adopt the idea that of the world coming up with a joint response to Washington’s unilateralism.

Posted in USAComments Off on Good Job! Washington Angered Enough Countries to Provoke a Joint Response to Its Sanction War

Trump’s New Syria Policy Is to Stay Forever, Does That Mean War With Turkey?

For Erdogan US Kurdish proxies are terrorists and their US-backed autonomous statelet a terrorist state

Strategic Culture:

Presidential candidate Trump promised to stay out of foreign wars. In April, the US president said the forces would leave Syria soon with the decision taken “very quickly” on how long they will remain there. “We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now,” he stated. On Sept.24, US National Security Adviser (NSA) John Bolton said the US would remain in Syria “until Iran leaves”. “We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” the NSA formulated the US position.

According to Military Times, his statement was “signaling a fundamental shift from the current counter-terrorism operations to a mission focused more on geopolitical maneuvering and proxy warfare.”The source believes the White House has revealed a massive mission creep. It cited James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation, who said. “I would prefer to keep US troops there indefinitely, because they also serve a purpose in blocking Iran’s freedom of movement and access to lines of communication that would connect western Iraq with Lebanon.”

Earlier last month, the secretary of state’s Special Representative for Syria engagement James Jeffrey said that the US military could pursue an enduring presence in part to complicate Iranian activities in the country. According to him, the forces will remain beyond “the end of the year”.

Looks like they will stay much longer. Special Representative for Syria Engagement, Ambassador James Jeffrey, openly intervened into Syria’s internal affairs by threatening it with sanctions the US would impose if it Syria did not align its domestic laws with Washington’s instructions. According to him, the US would work with countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to impose tough international sanctions in circumvention of the UN Security Council if Syria’s government failed to cooperate on rewriting the country’s constitution as a prelude to elections. “We will make it our business to make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it,” he warned.

It has been recently reported that the United States has set up a new military base near the Iraqi town of Al-Qa’im in Anbar province on the Iraqi-Syrian border. It is located near the strategic border crossing that links to the Syrian town of Abu Kamal. The US air defense and electronic radar systems in Kobani, the Aleppo governorate in northern Syria, and on the territory of the al-Shaddadi base in the Hasakah province. A no-fly zone could be established in northern Syria stretching from Manbij to Deir ez-Zor. The US will stay to prevent Iran from gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea. (by Arkady Savitsky in Strategic Culture)

Yesterday morning Colonel Lang emailed me about an apparent US policy change for the worse in Syria. At his request, I planned on doing two pieces on the subject, the one I just posted on the situation at Tanf and a second one about the situation east of the Euphrates. However, this morning I found this piece in “Strategic Culture” by Arkady Savitsky that did a far better job at addressing this subject than I would have done. Please read Arkady’s entire article.

I will add two additional points. First, Erdogan has announced that his forces are preparing to secure the YPG-held territories in the al Raqqa, al Hasaka and Deir Ezzor governorates. How does that square with the US-planned enduring presence in those areas? Are we gearing up for a US-Turkey war for eastern Syria?

My second point is that the Rojava Kurds are about to receive a right royal screwing. They pulled out of the talks with Damascusprobably under pressure of the US. That was a supremely boneheaded move by the Kurds. All they have to do is look at the fate of those who chose to take part in the reconciliation process. Former jihadis are being welcomed back to the fold. The Kurds would do at least that well if they stayed the course with the Damascus talks. Now they stand to be kicked in the teeth by the Turks and stabbed in the back by the US. Such promise. Such waste.Their choices exasperate me.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Trump’s New Syria Policy Is to Stay Forever, Does That Mean War With Turkey?

Nazi Minister Says we Can Beat Syria’s New S-300s

Mind you it’s the “Minister for Regional Cooperation”

An Israeli official said on Wednesday that Israeli Air Force can definitely destroy the S-300 missiles that recently supplied to Syria from Russia.

“The operational abilities of the air force are such that those (S-300) batteries really do not constrain the air force’s abilities to act,” The minister for Regional Cooperation Tzachi Hanegbi said.

Referring to F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that Israel began receiving from the United States Hanegbi said: “You know that we have stealth fighters, the best planes in the world. These batteries are not even able to detect them.”

”You know that we have stealth fighters, the best planes in the world. These batteries are not even able to detect them” Hanegbi told Israel’s Army Radio.

“We were already forced, a few months ago, to destroy Syrian missile batteries, and I hope they won’t challenge us in the future”, Hanegbi commented in what can be seen as a padded threat to take action against the newly-supplied S-300 missile system.

Recently, Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said that Israeli warplanes will carry on its strikes against positions in Syria despite of the fact that the Syrian Army is now in possession of S-300 air defense system.

On September 24, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shweigo took a decision to supply Syria with the S-300 systems to boost Syrian air defense forces after the Il-20 plane crash.

Russia decided to send S-300 systems to Syria in response to the recent incident of the Israeli aircraft using the Russian plane as a cover while targeting Lattakia. However, Moscow blamed Israel for downing the plane mistakenly by the Syrian air-defenses.

Moreover, The US Air Force may employ F-22 stealth fighters and F-16CJ Vipers to suppress and destroy enemy air defenses in response to Russia’s deployment of S-300 surface-to air missile systems to Syria’s government, the Drive wrote.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Nazi Minister Says we Can Beat Syria’s New S-300s

Shoah’s pages


October 2018
« Sep   Nov »