Freedom and sovereignty feels good…

Meanwhile on the London tube this mysterious message appeared, WARNING passengers of UK propaganda press, owned by globalist billionaires.

The Duran readers: What is going on here?

Speaking in Geneva, Gennady Gatilov, Sergei Lavrov’s deputy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, gave a brief statement to the press, clarifying Russia’s much misunderstood position regarding a Syrian peace settlement.

Gatilov is a gentle, soft spoken man.  At times he is too gentle, as many in Russia tend to be when faced with the onslaught of both western imperial aggression as well as the terrorist aggression of foreign fighters, currently plaguing the territory of their Syrian ally.

Nevertheless, he reiterated an important position, that the future of post-war Syria is up to the Syrian people and the Syrian people alone. Gatilov also confirmed Russia’s commitment to preserving Syria’s territorial integrity

Practically, this means that if Syria rejects Kurdish demands to seize Syrian territory or carve it out as an autonomous region, Russia would not contradict Syria in such an event.

This is an inconvenient fact for many.

Here are the three main countries who would not be comfortable with Syria maintaining both her sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

1. America

Syrian sovereignty is an inconvenient fact for the United States which under Donald Trump has largely given up on funding the jihadists terrorists that Barack Obama had supported in his desire for regime change. Having given up on blood soaked ‘moderate’ throat cutters, America is now fully backing the Kurds who have territorial and regional geo-political ambitions. They too threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria in their desire to either federate or secede from the Syrian Arab Republic. The majority of the Syrian population opposes Kurdish ambitions and traditionally so too has the Syrian government.

2. Turkey

Under President Erdogan, Turkey has been desirous for regime change in Damascus since the beginning of the conflict. Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism seeks the re-conquest of territories in the Arab world, including much of northern Syria and northern Iraq. This puts him in a two way battle between Syria and what is left of a sovereign Iraq on the one hand and Kurds who themselves seek to declare the Turkish borderlands as their own Kurdish state.

One of the strange ironies of the conflict is that in trying to expand Turkey and recapture erstwhile Ottoman territories, there is a chance that Kurds within Turkey (the largest Kurdish population in the world), may now be more emboldened than ever to succeed from Turkey.

Even if this does not happen, the formation of a Kurdish state on Turkey’s borders would  be unacceptable for any Turkish leader, not just the unhinged Erdogan.

3. Israel 

Under both Hafez al-Assad as well as Bashar al-Assad, Syria has been a constant supporter of the restoration of Palestine on land occupied by Israel. Because of this, Israel has long sought the removal of both father and son in Syria.

Because the ‘Assad must go’ brigade have largely admitted (however quietly) that regime change is no longer a possibility, Israel is now equally desirous of a Kurdish state on Syrian territory. Israel has long supported Kurdish separatism against secular Arab states, particularly Iraq and Syria. A Kurdish state in place of parts of Syrian and/or Iraqi territory would, be a rare regional ally for Israel which remains a regional pariah, in spite of recent reconciliation efforts with Ankara.

If Israel comes out and publicly backs Kurdish separatism, they will lose any good will from Turkey, but they will gain a possible military outpost in the legitimate territory of an Arab state. Many in Tel Aviv salivate at such an opportunity.

Each of these states stand to gain from Syria’s loss, whether her loss manifests itself in the form of Syrian weakness through federation or the destruction of Syrian territorial integrity in the form of a Kurdish state.

Although counter-intuitive, Turkey stands to gain as well. Erdogan cares less for peace than for power and a Kurdish state next to Turkey would give Erdogan the excuse he needs to consolidate power even further and put Turkey on a war footing. Erdogan never asked for permission before illegally invading Syria, so it can be safely assumed that no such permission would be asked in respect of a Kurdish state.

The wildcard in this is Russia. Unlike Syria and Iran who roundly oppose Kurdish separatism. Russia has generally enjoyed good relations with the Kurds. Sharing a traditional regional enemy in the form of Turkey is the basis of this relationship.

It would however be highly foolish if Russia were to back aspirant Kurdish nationalism at the expense of an actual state, one which has been a Soviet and Russian ally for many decades, namely Syria. It would be equally foolish for Russia to back the creation of a state or autonomous province in a Balkanised Syria that would alienate Iran. The fact that Iran and Russia seem to be deepening their relationship is a positive development in respect of Russia not putting its weight behind separatist Kurds.

Finally, one has to consider Russia’s relationship with Turkey. Turkey is in many respects, an enemy of Russian interests but Turkey is not an enemy of Russia itself per se.

Both countries have an important economic relationship and in spite of Erdogan’s illegal occupation of Syria which is roundly against Russian interests, if Russia were to stand against America in opposing a Krudish state, it would not only be an aid to Russia’s real ally in Syria but would help ease tensions with Turkey who for economic reasons and reasons of regional security, Russia needs more than it needs the United States. This will be even more important when the tyrant Erdogan finally goes, which may happen sooner rather than later. His nine lives may fast be running out.

Because Russia has good relations with both the Syrian government and with Kurds in Syria, Moscow has an upper hand in future negotiations that it ought not to misname. If Russia plays its hand right, it can satisfy the just desires of the majority of Syrians, show loyalty to an important Arab ally, reaffirm good future relations with Iran, get Turkey to climb down from its increasingly ludicrous position and humiliate the legacy of Obama’s policies on the world’s stage, something which may even help guide Trump back to his position of peace and reconciliation with Russia. At the same time, Russia can help reconcile Kurds to a healthy but not separatist position within the Syrian Arab Republic.

Russia has everything to gain from standing by Syria. Other less ethical states, by contrast, stand to gain from Syria’s destruction.

Turkey’s illegal invasion and occupation of Syria is known by Ankara as Operation Euphrates Shield. It formally commenced on the 24th of August, 2016. According to Turkey, Euphrates Shield was aimed at fighting ISIS as well as Kurdish YPG forces near the Turkish border.

In reality, Turkey has trained, armed and funded members of the jihadist Free Syrian Army in what Syria classifies as a war of aggression. In recent months, the operation became far more about fighting Kurdish forces in Syria than about any of Turkey’s other wider goals such as regime change in Damascus.

Turkey’s operation had no basis in international law.

From seemingly out of the blue, Turkey’s National Security Council today announced that Euphrates Shield has been completed.

This could mean several things.

It could be yet another one of Turkey’s many bluffs on the international stage. Whilst Turkey’s National Security Council claims the operation has ended successfully, there is every possibility that both direct Turkish aggression against Syria as well as aggression from its FSA proxies could continue into the foreseeable future.

But if the statement turns out to actually be backed up by realities on the ground, there are two distinct possibilities behind it.

Although Syria has complained before the UN and other international bodies of the illegal nature of Turkey’s aggressive invasion and occupation of Syrian territory, such expressions of frustration with Turkey have largely fallen on deaf ears.

However, if Russia or America made their private views known to Turkish President Erdogan, this could have impacted Turkish decision making.

For slightly different reasons, both Trump’s United States and Putin’s Russia have desired an end to Turkish meddling in Syria. Russia is privately and to some extent publicly, angry at Turkey’s totally destabilising role in Syria. Russia speaks from the perspective of both an integral ally of the Syrian Arab Army’s campaign against terrorism, but also as a power which has looked favourably to Krudish efforts to fight various jihadist groups including both the Turkish backed FSA and the Saudi/Qatari backed ISIS.

America, even under Trump, has no real time for the legitimate government in Syria but is instead, hellbent on utilising Kurds to both fight the war against militant Salifism. Additionally Washington wants Kurds to form the nexus of a post-war settlement. Because of this, America would not want a putative ally (and fellow NATO member) in Turkey to be fighting against their favourite proxies in the Syrian conflict.

In terms of destabilising Syria, emboldening pro-Turkish terrorists and prolonging conflict, Euphrates Shield has indeed been a success. But in terms of making gains against Kurds, making meaningful gains against the Syrian Arab Army, getting America and Russia to change their thinking and most importantly to help oust President al-Assad, Euphrates Shield has been a colossal failure for Turkey.

In this sense, there is a distinct possibility that Erdogan has proclaimed ‘mission accomplished’ for domestic consumption ahead of his referendum for extra Presidential powers set for the 16th of April. Erdogan is no stranger to using external events in order to bolster his domestic popularity.

The biggest question remains, will Turkey actually now leave Syrian territory, taking their FSA fighters with them? Or inversely, is this yet another meaningless statement from a Turkish regime known for half-truths and downright lies?

Time will tell.

Fliers accusing Jews of creating anti-Semitic hoaxes were left in neighborhoods of Scottsdale, Arizona.

The fliers reference the fact that a teen in ‘Israel’, believed to be Jewish, was arrested in connection with the threats made to nearly 150 Jewish community centers and Jewish institutions in the U.S. “Why do Jews feel the need to create fake anti-Semitism hoaxes?”  the flier reads, and directs people to the website of the neo-Nazi and white supremacist Daily Stormer website.

The flier also features a cartoon of a man with a very large and slightly hooked nose wearing a hat and trench coat spray painting a swastika on the side of a building with the caption “Hey Rabbi. Watcha’ Doing?”

The fliers were dropped throughout this week near the Valley of the Sun Jewish Community Center in Scottsdale, according to the Arizona Republic.

Scottsdale police are investigating the fliers, though they told local media that the fliers do not violate any criminal statutes and do not contain a specific threat.

Yesterday British Prime Minister Theresa May signed a letter addressed to the EU, informing the EU that Britain is invoking its right under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to quit the EU, thereby formally commencing Britain’s Brexit process

Today that letter was hand delivered by the British government to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, and to the rest of the EU leadership in Brussels

Here is the full text of the letter:

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.

We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.

Czech news Právo is reporting that a computer belonging to the president of the Czech Republic, Milos Zeman, was hacked Monday, resulting in the installation of content containing child pornography.

On the US hacker attack, the Czech president stated…

“I turned on my computer and looked in disbelief for about 10 seconds at what was happening, before I realized that it was a hacker attack.”

We are certain that the Czech Republic or the EU, will find a way to blame the US hacker attack on Russian hackers.

Via Sputnik News Agency…

Members of the president’s IT team were able to track the source of the hack to somewhere within the state of Alabama, in the United States, according to Nigerian news website Pulse.ng. No further details were offered.

Known as a populist-leftist and an avowed climate-change denier, Zeman, 72, supports an end to the current sanction regime by the West against Russia and is a strong critic of Islamic extremism. He recently announced his intention to run for a second five-year term in the upcoming 2018 presidential elections.