Archive | May 11th, 2018

Murder and Violence Plague Mexico’s Elections

A Cinco de Mayo tweet by Mexican journalist Ricardo Alemáninsinuating that presidential frontrunner Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the left-leaning Morena party could be assassinated created an uproar in Mexican media and on social media outlets:

“A fan killed John Lennon. A fan killed Versace. A fan killed Selena. Let’s see when, lefties,” it read.

Although Alemán quickly erased the tweet and rendered an apology, arguing in a video posted on his Twitter account that his statement had been misinterpreted and distorted, a torrent of outrage poured forth. The communicator lost two jobs and wound up in a heap of political and legal trouble.

Personalities from across the Mexican political spectrum, including López Obrador campaign chief Tatiana Clouthier, independent presidential candidate Margarita Zavala, former election crimes special prosecutor Santiago Nieto, and historians Enrique Krauze and Lorenzo Meyer condemned Aleman’s words.

In the bigger scheme of things, the Alemán Affair brought back to the fore existing tensions and deep-seated anxieties shadowing the 2018 election campaign. And with good reason. Since last fall, when the electoral process unfolded, scores of political aspirants, primary candidates, sitting office holders, activists and family members have been murdered across the country.

Cited by the Spanish news agency EFE, a recent report by the private security consulting firm Etelleket chalked up 173 aggressions against politically-associated individuals between Sept. 8 of last year and April 8 of this year, plus aggressions against 30 family members. The casualty list included 77 murders, a number representing a sharp increase from the 2015 mid-term elections when 70 aggressions (including 21 murders) were counted by Etellekt.

Recent violence directed against politically active individuals and/or family members has occurred in many regions of Mexico, but is most marked in the states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and Mexico, according to Etelleket.

While Etelleket’s findings bore the quality of a loud wake up call, politically tainted violence has only increased since the report was released.

A review of Mexican media accounts tallies 14 additional relevant slayings since April 8, boosting the murder roll to 91.

A sampling of recent murder victims include Maribel Barrajas, 25-year-old Mexican Green Party candidate for the Michoacan state legislature; Ricardo Bravo, municipal Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leader in Eduardo Neri, Guerrero; Chihuahua PRD activist Juan Carlos GutiérrezAlejandro González, mayor of Pacula, Hidalgo; Addiel Zermann, Social Encounter Party (PES) candidate for Tenango del Aire, Mexico state; and Manuel Fuentes Torruco, a 66-year-old cousin of Eduardo Fuentes, the legal substitute mayor of Cardenas, Tabasco, who is immersed in a conflict over the political position. Last month, one of Eduardo Fuentes’ daughters reportedly warned of violent threats against her family.

Image on the right: Andrés Manuel López Obrador

Image result for Together We Will Make History mexico

On Sunday, the bullet-ridden body of Eduardo Aragón Caraveo, Chihuahua City leader of the PES who went missing May 4, was recovered in the trunk of his vehicle. The PES is one of three parties that form López Obrador’s Together We Will Make History electoral coalition.

In a separate attack on Sunday, an estimated 250-300 gunmen descended on the community of Ignacio Zaragoza, Chihuahua, leaving in their wake at least four dead, including PRD city council candidate and campaign coordinator Liliana Garcia, who was kidnapped and then murdered.

According to El Diario de Juárez, gunmen also burned properties belonging to PRD politician Felipe Mendoza and Octavio Chaparro, head of the PRD in Ignacio Zaragoza.

Posted on the Ciudad Juárez website, a statement from Chihuahua Morena party leader Martín Chaparro strongly condemned the latest bouts of Chihuahua violence. Chaparro reminded the public that the municipal treasurer of Ignacio Zaragoza, Guadalupe Payan, was kidnapped and murdered just last March.

Violence, he affirmed, had “reached all spheres,” necessitating an urgent “security strategy that guaranteed citizens the right to go out and freely vote without pressures on July 1.”

By Monday, the Chihuahua PRD was calling for the suspension of the elections in Ignacio Zaragoza.

On Tuesday, Abel Montúfar made the news when the contender for a Guerrero state legislative seat was murdered. A candidate of the ruling PRI state electoral coalition, Montúfar had longtime connections to law enforcement institutions and PRI political circles. He was slain in Guerrero’s Tierra Caliente, a region known as a narco corridor that is beset by violence. Prior to his killing, Montúfar reported death threats.

Late on the evening of Montúfar’s murder, a Mexican military patrol was ambushed near a ranch linked to the slain politician’s family. According to a Mexican military communique posted on Aristegui Noticias, three soldiers were killed and three wounded. No arrests were immediately announced.

As a tough week progressed, Luis Raúl González, Mexico’s human rights ombudsman, weighed in against political violence and polarization in any form. Democratic exercises should be an occasion to “find solutions to the problems we face, not pathways to blind alleys of violence, intolerance and division,” González said in a communique issued by the official National Human Rights Commission.

The geography of election-year violence

Until now, the bulk of the violence has occurred in state or municipal political environments where numerous posts are also up for election in 2018. Though exact motives remain a mystery in the majority of the killings, different news accounts mention ongoing criminal conflicts, underworld power struggles and coveted political transitions as the backdrop.

In Guerrero and Chihuahua, for instance, violent disputes between drug gangs frame the local context, while in Puebla, Verarcuz and Higaldo, the activities of so-called huachicoleros, or highly organized bands of thieves who rob gasoline from Pemex pipelines for a brisk black market, stand as important factors.

In Guerrero, crime and violence are likewise raising serious concerns among staff and representatives of the National Electoral Institute (INE), the official agency charged with organizing the July 1 elections. At an INE session in the state capital of Chilpancingo last week, INE personnel denounced that their trainers had suffered robberies of cell phones and money, warnings to not walk streets at certain hours and other incidences of intimidation. In one case, an INE staffer was trapped during a military operation to free a kidnap victim. Mostly, the incidents occurred in Acapulco, Zihuatanejo and Tlapa.

In previous years, INE staff had as always endured sun exposure, dehydration and dog bites in the course of their work, but a “climate of insecurity and violence” was complicating the institute’s mission in 2018, INE official Analid Mier was quoted in the Guerrero daily El Sur as saying.

The newspaper also reported that at least 17 state legislative hopefuls had withdrawn from the race, including Silvia Rivera, a current federal congresswoman from President Enrique Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) who had defected to López Obrador’s camp but ended up dropping her pursuit of a new political office because of threats. Similar to Montúfar, Rivera had originally sought office in the violent Tierra Caliente.

For his part, INE chief Lorenzo Cordova downplayed the impact of violence on successful completion of the 2018 political cycle. Quoted in Aristegui Noticias, Cordova condemned violent acts, but assured that the electoral process “was going well, on time and advancing along.”

Meanwhile, as the political storm over Ricardo Alemán’s tweet hit full blast, the Mexican television networks Televisa and Channel 11 dropped the journalist from their programming.

“I don’t agree with it but I respect it,” Alemán said in another tweet. “Every company has the right to contract whoever suits their interests. Lynching and the demand for censorship won! The democrats of Morena!”

But others had a far different view of the nature of an episode that’s tested the limits and balances between freedom of speech, journalistic professional responsibility and political sensibility in an already charged electoral atmosphere.

Ricardo Peralta, who is mentioned as a possible anti-corruption chief in a López Obrador government if the candidate is elected president, announced he would file legal charges with the Office of the Federal Attorney General against Alemán, for the alleged offense of crime apology.

Peralta was quoted in El Universal as justifying legal action not as a personal vendetta against Alemán, but as an effort to establish a precedent against the “irresponsible use of the communications media, and in this instance, a social media network by those considered opinion leaders who can’t incite hate and violence.”

Posted in MexicoComments Off on Murder and Violence Plague Mexico’s Elections

Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory: The US Opts for a Path that Can Only Lead to War

Nearly everyone loses by President Donald Trump’s decision on Tuesday to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) relating to Iran’s nuclear energy program and to reinstate the “highest level” of sanctions while also threatening secondary sanctions on any country that “helps” the Iranians. The whole world loses because nuclear proliferation is a disaster waiting to happen and Iran will now have a strong incentive to proceed with a weapons program to defend itself from Israel and the United States. If Iran does so, it will trigger a regional nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Egypt undoubtedly seeking weapons of their own.

Iran and the Iranian people will lose because their suffering economy will not now benefit from the lifting of sanctions and other economic inducements that convinced it to sign the agreement in the first place. And yes, even the United States and Israel will lose because an agreement that would have pushed back by ten or fifteen years Iran’s timetable if it were to choose to develop a weapon will now be reduced to a year or less. And the United States will in particular lose because the entire world will understand that the word of an American president when entering into an international agreement cannot be trusted.

The only winners from the withdrawal are President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will enjoy the plaudits of their hardline supporters. But their victory will be illusory as the hard reality of what they have accomplished becomes clear.

Failure of JCPOA definitely means that war is the only likely outcome if Tel Aviv and Washington continue in their absurd insistence that the Iranians constitute a major threat both to the region and the world. A war that might possibly involve both the United States and Russia as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel would devastate the region and might easily have potential to escalate into something like a global conflict.

The decision to end the agreement is based on American domestic political considerations rather than any real analysis of what the intelligence community has been reporting. Deep-pocketed Iran-hating billionaires named Sheldon Adelson, Rebekah Mercer and Paul Singer are now prepared to throw tens of millions of dollars at Trump’s Republican Party to help it win in November’s midterm elections.

Those possessed of just a tad more foresight, to include the Pentagon and America’s European allies, have strongly urged that JCPOA be continued, particularly as the Iranians have been fully in compliance, but there is a new team in Washington. America’s just-confirmed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did not exactly endorse the ludicrous Israeli claim made by Benjamin Netanyahu two weeks ago that Iran has a secret weapons of mass destruction program currently in place, but he did come down hard against the JCPOA, echoing Trump in calling it a terrible agreement that will guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon. The reality is quite different, with the pact basically eliminating a possible Iranian nuke for the foreseeable future through degradation of the country’s nuclear research, reduction of its existing nuclear stocks and repeated intrusive inspections.

The failure of the JCPOA is not about the agreement at all, which is both sound and workable. There is unfortunately an Israeli-White House construct which assumes that Iran is both out to destroy Israel, for which no evidence has been revealed, as well as being singularly untrustworthy, an odd assertion coming from either Washington or Tel Aviv. It also basically rejects any kind of agreement with the Iranian government on principle so there is nowhere to go to “fix” what has already transpired.

The United States has changed in the past seventeen years. The promotion of policies that were at least tenuously based on genuine national interests is no longer embraced by either political party. A fearful public has allowed a national security state to replace a constitutional republic with endless war as the inevitable result. Presidents once constitutionally constrained by legislative and judicial balance of power have successfully asserted executive privilege to become like third world dictators, able to make war without any restraint on their ability to do so. If America survives, historians will no doubt see the destruction of the JCPOA as the beginning of something new and horrible, where the government of these United States deliberately made a decision to abandon a beneficial foreign treaty to instead opt for a path that can only lead to war.

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory: The US Opts for a Path that Can Only Lead to War

The Coming US War Against Iran

I spent nearly 15 years in the CIA. I like to think that I learned something there. I learned how the federal bureaucracy works. I learned that cowboys in government – in the CIA and elsewhere around government – can have incredible power over the creation of policy. I learned that the CIA will push the envelope of legality until somebody in a position of authority pushes back. I learned that the CIA can wage war without any thought whatsoever as to how things will work out in the end. There’s never an exit strategy.

I learned all of that firsthand in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. In the spring of 2002, I was in Pakistan working against al-Qaeda. I returned to CIA headquarters in May of that year and was told that several months earlier a decision had been made at the White House to invade Iraq. I was dumbfounded, and when told of the war plans could only muster, “But we haven’t caught bin Laden yet.” “The decision has already been made,” my supervisor told me. He continued,

“Next year, in February, we’re going to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and open the world’s largest air force base in southern Iraq.”

He went on,

“We’re going to go to the United Nations and pretend that we want a Security Council Resolution. But the truth is that the decision has already been made.”

Soon after, Secretary of State Colin Powell began traveling around Europe and the Middle East to cultivate support for the invasion. Sure enough, he also went to the United Nations and argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, necessitating an invasion and overthrow because that country posed an imminent threat to the United States.

But the whole case was built on a lie. A decision was made and then the “facts” were created around the decision to support it. I think the same thing is happening now.

First, Donald Trump said repeatedly during the 2016 campaign that he would pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran sanctions deal. The JCPOA allows for international inspectors to examine all of Iran’s nuclear sites to ensure that the country is not enriching uranium and is not building a weapons program. In exchange, Western countries have lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing them to buy spare parts, medicines, and other things that they had been unable to acquire. Despite the protestations of conservatives in Congress and elsewhere, the JCPOA works. Indeed, the inspection regime is exactly the same one that the United Nations imposed on Iraq in the last two decades.

Trump has kept up his anti-Iran rhetoric since becoming president. More importantly, he has appointed Iran hawks to the two most important positions in foreign policy: former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton as National Security Advisor. The two have made clear that their preferred policy toward Iran is “regime change,” a policy that is actually prohibited by international law.

Perhaps the most troubling development, however, is the apparent de facto alliance against Iran by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent “presentation” on what he called a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program was embarrassingly similar to Powell’s heavily scripted speech before the UN Security Council 15 years earlier telling the world that Iraq had a program. That, too, was a lie.

Saudi crown prince Muhammad bin Salman, the godfather of the Saudi war in Yemen, which in turn is a proxy war against Iran, recently made a grand tour of the United States and France talking about “the Iranian threat” at every turn. The rhetoric coming out of the UAE and Bahrain is at least as hostile as what has been spewed by the Saudis.

Meanwhile, there’s silence on Capitol Hill. Just like there was in 2002.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that I’ve seen this before. Our government is laying the groundwork for yet another war. Be on the lookout for several things. First, Trump is going to begin shouting about the “threat” from Iran. It will become a daily mantra. He’ll argue that Iran is actively hostile and poses an immediate danger to the United States. Next Pompeo will head back to the Middle East and Europe to garner support for a military action. Then US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley will scream in front of the UN Security Council that the US has no choice but to protect itself and its allies from Iran. The final shoe to drop – a clear indication of war – will be if naval carrier battle groups are deployed to the eastern Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, or the Persian Gulf. Sure, there’s always one in the region anyway. But more than one is a provocation.

We have to be diligent in opposing this run into another war of choice. We can’t be tricked or taken by surprise. Not again.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on The Coming US War Against Iran

In the Wake of Extensive Israeli Bombings of Syria: Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet Plots More Aggression



Overnight Wednesday Israeli aggression on multiples Syrian sites wasn’t the end of it, much more sure to come – partnered with Washington in waging undeclared war on Syria and Iran.

It’s been ongoing for decades. Trump’s JCPOA pullout, along with US/Israeli rage for regime change and Russia’s failure to challenge their regional aggression, suggests much greater trouble to come – the ominous threat of full-scale war on Syria and Iran, a nightmarish scenario.

Trump’s earlier remarks turning truth on its head signaled hostile anti-Iran steps he’s taken with more to come, outrageously calling its government “a corrupt dictatorship…whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos,” adding:

“We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles.”

The only Middle East “murderous regime(s)” are US-supported despotic ones, Israel, and America’s regional presence, not Iran, the region’s leading peace and stability advocate, not Syria, a nation struggling valiantly against US-led aggression.

Trump falsely accused Iran of links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Just the opposite is true, the Islamic Republic combating this US-supported scourge.

Following Israel’s latest aggression in Syria, its security cabinet met Thursday night plotting its next moves, further military action sure to come.

Israeli ministers saying they have no intention of escalating conflict was a bald-faced lie. The IDF continues provoking Syria and Iran to retaliate against its aggression, wanting a pretext great enough for potential full-scale war on both countries.

The threat of it erupting is real, things heading ominously in this direction – one hostile action against Syria and Iran at a time.

Major conflicts begin incrementally. The Middle East is the world’s leading hotspot.

Netanyahu lied claiming “Iran crossed a red line,” falsely accusing its military of firing rockets on occupied Israeli Golan targets.

“We are in a protracted campaign, and our policy is clear. Iran cannot be allowed to entrench itself militarily in Syria” he added.

Iranian National Security Council deputy head Abu al-Fadl Hassan al-Baiji denounced his false accusation, saying the Islamic Republic “ha(d) nothing to do with the missiles that struck the enemy entity…”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi condemned Israel’s latest aggression, saying

“(r)epetitive attacks of Quds occupiers on Syrian territory is a blatant violation of Syria’s sovereignty and an aggressive move.”

“The Zionist regime, which cannot put up with stability, security, and serenity in the region, has set up its own security on insecurity and making the region all the more unstable.”

Ghasemi criticized the international community’s failure to condemn Israeli aggression, assuring more of it to come, partnered with Washington.

Iran’s government issued the following statement in response to Trump’s JCPOA pullout, saying:

“The unlawful withdrawal of the US President from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is but the final of long and persistent violations of this accord on the part of the United States, and especially since the coming into office of its new extremist Administration.”

“Mr. Trump’s absurd insults against the great Iranian nation indicates the extent of his ignorance and folly.”

“Moreover, his baseless charges against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in fact befits a regime which has through its interventions dragged the Middle East into chaos and ignited terrorism and extremism; whose Zionist ally is engaged in unprecedented cruelty, violations of human rights and aggression; and whose regional clients gave birth to and nurtured terrorist groups, which Mr. Trump in a ridiculous claim linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“It is regrettable that this kind of individual now governs the civilized and peaceful American people.”

The statement condemned numerous JCPOA breaches, stressed Iran’s full compliance with its principles, noted that it’s an international accord adopted unanimously by the Security Council, requiring all nations to observe it.

America and Israel are serial lawbreakers, both countries threatening regional and world peace. They’re in no position to criticize Iran or any other countries.

The Islamic Republic’s foreign minister is tasked with enlisting support from other JCPOA signatories, Iran’s economic partners, and the international community to guarantee Tehran’s rights under the nuclear deal.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran head is charged with pursuing all necessary steps required to pursue unrestricted pre-JCPOA nuclear activities if diplomatic efforts fail.

Trump illegally reimposed nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. The US Treasury sanctioned six Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials and three Iranian enterprises, more of the same to come – flagrantly breaching unanimously adopted Security Council Res. 2231 (July 2015) affirming the JCPOA, making it binding international law, prohibiting any nation from unilaterally abrogating it.

America is an international outlaw, breaching the JCPOA one of numerous examples along with its endless wars of aggression.

Will nuclear deal signatories Britain, France and Germany reject US reimposed nuclear-related sanctions or bow to Washington’s will on this vital issue?

In 1996, the EU adopted a Blocking Regulation, largely aimed at countering US sanctions on Cuba and Iran.

If invoked to challenge US reimposed nuclear and related sanctions on Iran, EU companies could engage in unrestricted trade with the Islamic Republic – risking loss or restricted access to the US market.

It’s clear which choice they’ll make unless the EU vowed to sanction US businesses in retaliation, a most unlikely prospect.

Brussels wants good economic relations maintained with Washington, likely to sacrifice trade with Iran to assure it, going along with Trump’s action despite publicly sticking with the JCPOA.

Prospects for saving it as slim. The deal’s demise virtually assures Iranian resumption of pre-JCPOA nuclear activities.

Trump vowed severe consequence if events unfold this way. Clearly tougher US sanctions will be imposed, aiming for isolating Iran economically and politically.

Will US/Israeli war on the Islamic Republic follow? Will Russia intervene as it did in Syria? Is East/West confrontation inevitable?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on In the Wake of Extensive Israeli Bombings of Syria: Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet Plots More Aggression

What’s Washington Really Doing in Armenia? Color Revolution against Moscow?


There has been considerable speculation in recent days as to whether the recent and ongoing protests across former Soviet Armenia constitute another Washington Color Revolution destabilization or whether it represents simply the angry revolt of citizens fed up with the deep corruption and lack of economic development under the regime of Prime Minister Serzh Sargysan. Following days of large protests, the former President was forced to resign on April 23, declaring, 

Nikol Pashinyan was right. I was wrong.”

Armenia is an integral member of Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and were it to come under control of a pro-NATO opposition could bring a strategic problem for Moscow to put it mildly. The issue is significant.

Ironically, what nominally sparked the protests was the action of Sargysan to in effect do what Turkey’s Erdogan has done, only in reverse. He and his parliamentary majority party managed to strip the office of President of almost all but ceremonial roles, while giving actual decision powers to the office of Prime Minister. That he managed just before he himself became Prime Minister. Reaction from Moscow to the ongoing protests until now has evidently been muted following a statement that it won’t get involved in Armenian internal affairs.

At this point, despite the fact that Sargysan resigned as Prime Minister and did not submit himself as candidate to oppose Pashinyan in the May 1 parliament vote, Pashinyan fell short of the majority needed to be named Prime Minister. As of this writing he has called for a total blockage of traffic and government buildings by “peaceful acts of civil disobedience.” He told a crowd outside Parliament after the failed vote was announced,

“Tomorrow total strike is declared. We block all the streets, communications, subway and the airports starting from 08:15. Our struggle cannot end in a failure.”

Color Revolution?

What evidence points to a directed Washington intervention into a country strategic for Moscow? First we have the established presence of an office in Yerevan of the Open Society Foundations-Armenia. As the anti-government protests built in size on April 17, several NGOs signed an open letter to the government warning that they had identified probable government-backed protest disruptors and warned against their deployment against the peaceful protestors.

The call was signed among others by Helsinki Committee of Armenia, part of Helsinki Committees which in part is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The call was also signed by Open Society Foundations – Armenia.

This past February the  OSF-Armenia announced a joint project with the European Union designed to, “focus on engaging youth, young activists and journalists. It will serve as a bridge between the established human rights advocates in Armenia and younger generations of activists interested in gaining more expertise in defending rights of the RA citizens.”

Another signer to the warning statement to the Armenian government was an Armenian NGO calling itself the Protection of Rights Without Borders NGO. It turns out that that NGO is also funded not only by  OSF-Armenia, but also by the EU and by the US State Department USAID, an organization as I describe in my newest book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance, that is frequently tied to US Government regime change destabilizations and Color Revolutions.

The fact that Open Society Foundations-Armenia and others signed such a statement directly tied to unfolding events on the streets of Yerevan suggest at the least more than an academic interest in the growing protests.

What about the role of other US-based NGOs in Armenia? The leading US regime-change NGO, National Endowment for Democracy, created in the 1980’s in the words of Allan Weinstein, one of its founders, to do what the CIA used to do but privately, has become far less forthcoming about its grants. Nonetheless some research reveals that the NED has also funded numerous programs in Armenia ranging from promoting rule of law and government accountability in Armenia, as well as funding a 2017 program for Armenian journalists to show “how Georgia benefits from its associations with the EU and how Armenia does not reap similar advantages from the Eurasian Economic Union.” In another generous grant the NED gave more than $40,000 in 2017, a hefty sum in the depressed Armenian economy, to finance Armenian Times Newspaper as they put it, “to improve the quality and increase the availability of independent news…”

Now if we add to the established presence of Washington-financed NGOs the fact that the US State Department actively is in contact with opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan during the recent protests it becomes even more likely we are witnessing a variation of Washington’s Color Revolution. On April 30, the day before the fateful parliament vote, US State Department Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, A. Wess Mitchell, noted he had initiated a phone discussion with opposition Civil Contract MP, Nikol Pashinyan. In his official statement Mitchell merely stated that the

“US government looks forward to working closely with the new government in Armenia, aiming to further deepen the decades-long US-Armenian relationship.”

Wess Mitchell sits in the post held under Obama by the infamous neoconservative Ukraine Color Revolution instigator, Victoria Nuland. It seems he is the continuity of Nuland as well. Mitchell came to the State Department post in 2017 from something called the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) where he was CEO and which he actually founded. Now things get interesting.

The CEPA, a Washington think tank founded in 2004 at the time the US was deep involved in the Ukraine Orange Revolution, describes its mission being “to promote an economically vibrant, strategically secure and politically free Central and Eastern Europe with close and enduring ties to the United States.” A major program of CEPA is “dedicated to monitoring and exposing Russian disinformation in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.”

Indeed Assistant Secretary of State Mitchell comes from a Washington anti-Russian think tank whose funders include NATO, US Defense Department, National Endowment for Democracy, the major military industry giants including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, Bell HelicopterNotably after an article in the Russian state RT on the funding of CEPA that portion of their website seems to have vanished into cyber nirvana.

In addition to Russophobe Mitchell in admitted contact with opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan, US Ambassador to Armenia, Richard Mills, a former Senior “Democracy Advisor” (sic) at the US Embassy in Iraq owes his job to Victoria Nuland who reportedly brought Mills to Yerevan to help bring Armenia, like Ukraine, into the US sphere and away from Russia. Mills reportedly played a key role in brokering the sale of an Armenian Vorotan Hydro complex to American company that triggered a failed 2015 attempt at a Color Revolution protest over the ensuing 16% hike in electricity prices. US-funded NGOs argued the main reason for the rising electricity was Russia whose Gazprom dominates the Armenian energy market. Protests were spread then using the social media hash tag #ElectricYerevan.

This time all indications point to a far more refined remake of a US Color Revolution, this time with a credible leader, 42-year old journalist and prison veteran from earlier anti-government actions Pashinyan. Pashinyan has been careful to declare if made Prime Minister he would not take Armenia out of Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. On May 1 he declared,

“We consider Russia as a strategic ally, our movement does not create threats for this…If I am elected [as the prime minister], Armenia will remain a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.”

At this juncture it is clear, despite Nikol Pashinyan’s soothing words, that the Armenian events are not at all good news for Moscow whose direct options are for the moment limited.

Why Armenia?

Armenia is a strategic ally of Moscow ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is bordered by two hostile countries—Azerbaijan and Turkey. Her other neighbors are Iran and Georgia. With the situation in Georgia precarious since the US staged a Color Revolution in 2003 bringing the pro-NATO Mikhail Saakashvili into power, were Armenia to come under influence of a leader determined to pull the country away from Russian dependence, its major trading partner and investor, it would result in some kind of civil war.

Already there are voices in Azerbaijan gleefully anticipating such an outcome. On May 1 as the Armenian parliament refused to vote Pashinyan in as Prime Minister, Azeri parliament member Gudrat Hasanguliyev warned that the situation in Armenia might turn into a civil war. He insisted that Azerbaijan should be prepared to use such a civil war as a chance to retake the secessionist Nagorno-Karabakh whose population is majority Armenian.

Since the Russian-brokered end to a war between a US-backed Azeri army and Armenia in 1994 the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave has been in an uneasy ceasefire. It was broken briefly in 2016 when Azeri forces tried a military occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh before being forced to backdown.

All evidence at this point suggests there is a dirty hand of the US NGOs and State Department pushing to take advantage of the internal discontent inside Armenia to further weaken Russia and its Eurasian Economic Union by at the minimum creating unrest and chaos in Armenia. If this is so will be clear soon enough.

Posted in ArmeniaComments Off on What’s Washington Really Doing in Armenia? Color Revolution against Moscow?

The Art of War: US Fleet with 1000 Missiles in the Mediterranean ‘Video’


The US aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, which set sail from the world’s largest naval base in Norfolk (Virginia), entered the Mediterranean with its strike group.

The strike group consists of the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy and the guided-missile destroyers USS Farragut, USS Forrest Sherman, USS Bulkeley, and USS Arleigh Burke. Two others, USS Jason Dunham and USS The Sullivans, will rejoin the strike group at a later date. German destroyer FGS Hessen is added to the Truman strike group.

The fleet, with more than 8,000 men on board, has an enormous firepower. The Truman – a supercarrier 300 meters long, equipped with two nuclear reactors – can launch 90 fighters and helicopters in consecutive waves. Its strike group, supplemented by 4 destroyers already in the Mediterranean and some submarines, can launch over 1,000 cruise missiles.

The US Naval Forces Europe-Africa – whose headquarters are located in Naples-Capodichino while the base of the Sixth Fleet is located in Gaeta – are thus strengthened. They are under the orders of the same admiral (currently James Foggo) who commands the Allied Joint Force Command Naples at Lago Patria.

The deployment of the US fleet in the Mediterranean is part of the overall strengthening of US forces in Europe, under the orders of the same general (currently Curtis Scaparrotti) who holds the position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

In a congressional hearing, Scaparrotti explains the reason for the strengthening of US forces in Europe. What he presents is a real war scenario: he accuses Russia of carrying out “a campaign of destabilization to change the international order, fracture NATO and undermine US leadership around the world”.

After “the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and its destabilization of Eastern Ukraine”, the United States, which deploys over 60,000 troops in European Nato countries, has increased its posture in Europe by deploying an armored brigade combat team and a combat aviation brigade, and by pre-positioning equipment for additional armored brigade combat teams. At the same time the US doubled its maritime deployments to the Black Sea.

To strengthen its forces in Europe, the United States spent more than 16 billion dollars in five years. At the same time the US pushed the European allies to increase their military spending by 46 billion dollars in three years to strengthen the NATO deployment against Russia.

This is part of the strategy launched by Washington in 2014 with the putsch of Maidan and the consequent attack on the Russians of Ukraine: making Europe the first line of a new cold war to strengthen the US influence on its allies and hinder Eurasian cooperation. The NATO foreign ministers reaffirmed their consent on April 27, preparing a further expansion of NATO to the East against Russia through the entry of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Georgia and Ukraine.

This strategy requires an adequate preparation of public opinion. To this end, Scaparrotti accuses Russia of “using political provocation, spreading disinformation and undermining democratic institutions” even in Italy. He then announces that “the US and NATO counter Russian misinformation with truthful and transparent information”. In their wake, the European Commission announces a series of measures against fake news, accusing Russia of using “disinformation in its war strategy”.

It is to be expected that NATO and the EU will censor what is published here, by decreeing that the US fleet in the Mediterranean is a fake news spread by Russia in its “war strategy”.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on The Art of War: US Fleet with 1000 Missiles in the Mediterranean ‘Video’

US Trade War Claims China’s Telecom Firm ZTE as First Victim

The US trade war against China has claimed its first major victim with the telecom firm ZTE announcing that the “major operating activities of the company have ceased.”

The announcement, which came in a statement issued to the Hong Kong stock exchange late on Wednesday, is the result of a seven-year ban imposed by the Trump administration on sales of US components to the company last month, claiming it had breached the terms of a settlement of a deal over the company’s sales to Iran and North Korea.

The company operates on a global scale, doing business in more than 160 countries with over 74,000 employees. It generated revenues of $17 billion last year and recorded a profit of more than $700 million. It is the fourth largest smartphone vendor in the US and also supplies equipment for phone and telecommunications networks.

It is one of the largest suppliers of telecommunications equipment supporting networks across Africa and in the Middle East, a business which could now be wiped out. The wireless carrier MTN, which provides networks to 220 million people in 22 countries across Africa, said it was assessing contingency plans given its exposure to ZTE in its networks.

Telstra, the biggest Australian telecom firm, said it would no longer carry its own-branded smartphones made by ZTE because it could not guarantee supply. ATT, the major distributor of ZTE phones in the US has said it is assessing the impact of the ban.

Production at the company’s manufacturing plant in Shenzen ceased in April but employees are continuing to report for work and collect their wages. In its statement ZTE said that “as of now” it still maintained sufficient cash to comply with its commercial obligations.

ZTE said that together with “related parties” it was “actively communicating with relevant US government departments” in order to facilitate the removal or modification of the order banning sales of components to it by US firms.

The Chinese government is directly involved in those discussions. At the meeting at the end of last week in Beijing with a high-level US economic and trade delegation, the Chinese government raised the ZTE case in its list of demands. It pointed to “high concern” over the case and called on the US to “listen to ZTE’s complaints seriously,” and consider the company’s progress in complying with US demands.

How much weight that will carry is another question under conditions where the central axis of US trade policy towards China is aimed at blocking its development in high-tech industries, not least in telecommunications, which it regards as an existential threat to US economic and ultimately military dominance.

Far from pulling back, the Trump administration is reported to be considering imposing further bans on Chinese companies selling telecom equipment in the US on “national security” grounds.

The ban by the Commerce Department has struck a severe blow because it targets one of the key weaknesses of the Chinese telecoms sector. China does not have a highly developed chip-making capacity and ZTE has been forced to rely on the US firms Qualcomm and Intel for the chips used in its devices.

In the longer term, the Chinese government is expected to respond by pouring resources in to the development of chip-making capacity. In its report on the ZTE shutdown the New York Times cited a recent speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping pointing in this direction.

“By tightening our belts and gritting our teeth, we built ‘two bombs and one satellite,’” Xi said. “The next step is to do the same with science and technology. We must cast away false hopes and rely on ourselves.”

In the immediate situation, the US action has brought warnings that it will bring about major disruption in global supply chains.

Christopher Thomas, a partner at McKinsey’s in Beijing, told the Financial Times:

“The complexity of this issue is mind-boggling because the electronics value chains are much more complex and globally integrated than they were in the past.”

A technology lawyer cited by the newspaper said the ruling over ZTE would “lead to increased Balkanisation of the tech world, and speed up the tech ‘arms race’ between China and the US.”

The issue of the ZTE ban will likely be raised at talks in Washington next week when a Chinese delegation, headed by chief economic negotiator Liu He, will hold talks with senior economic officials of the Trump administration over US demands that the trade deficit between the two countries be reduced by $200 million within two years. The US has threatened to impose tariffs on up to $150 billion worth of Chinese goods by the end of this month unless progress is made.

The Wall Street Journal reported that China was likely to offer to import more US goods as the main way of reducing the trade gap.

However it noted it was “far from clear whether even a good-faith effort by China to reduce the deficit would be enough to satisfy the Trump negotiating team” because although Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is focused on deficit reduction, the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer “has been leading negotiations on more fundamental issues.”

Those issues centre on Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” program which aims at boosting the country to a leading role in high-tech development. Lighthizer and fellow anti-China hawk White House economic adviser Peter Navarro regard the program as a direct challenge to US economic supremacy and the US “negotiating” platform issued in Beijing last week included the demand that it be virtually scrapped.

The ever-more aggressive “America First” program, which is directed not just against China but at all the major US trading partners, is starting to produce shifts in economic relations. This was in evidence at a trilateral summit in Tokyo earlier this week attended by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

Standing beside his Japanese and South Korean counterparts, Li delivered a speech calling for closer economic integration between the three countries and for the completion of the Chinese-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Without directly citing the Trump administration he declared:

“In the current circumstances, China, Japan and South Korea should stand even more firmly, uphold the rules-based multilateral trading system and proudly oppose protectionism and unilateral actions.”

Moon and Abe also made similar remarks endorsing free trade and closer economic alignment of the three countries.

In the face of the most significant moves towards global trade war since the 1930s, one of the other characteristics of that disastrous decade—the formation of trade blocs—is also starting to take shape.

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on US Trade War Claims China’s Telecom Firm ZTE as First Victim

Commemorating The May 2nd 2014 Odessa Massacre: Why the U.S. Coup-Regime Still Runs Ukraine


First published on May 1, 2015

The Ukrainian massacre of anti-regime pamphleteers on May 2, 2014 at the Odessa Trade Unions Building, burning these pamphleteers alive there, was crucial to the Obama Administration’s solidification of its control over Ukraine. That massacre was designed to, and it did, terrorize the residents in all areas of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the man whom Obama had just ousted, Viktor Yanukovych. Especially in the Donbass region, Yanokovych had received 90%+ of the votes. In Odessa, he had received three-quarters of the votes. (Later will be explained why this terror against the residents of such regions was necessary for Obama’s purpose of solidifying his control over Ukraine’s government.) 

So, the shocking methods of executing these people, and its being done in public and with no blockage of video images being recorded of these events by their many witnesses, and with the newly-installed Obama government in Kiev doing nothing whatsoever to prosecute any of these horrific murderers, there was a clear message being sent to the people who had voted for Yanukovych: If you resist the new authorities in any way, this is how you will be treated by them. This is how you will be treated (and that video was posted to the Internet by the perpetrators and their supporters, by headlining, “48 Russian Subversives Burned To Death In Fire At Trade Unions Building Fire In Odessa,” so that any other ‘Russian Subversives’ would have no doubt. However, those victims’ identities were subsequently published, and all of the victims were actually Odessa locals, none were Russians. The perpetrators were racist fascists, after all; and, so, being a ‘Russian’ meant, to them, being from a hated ethnicity, not necessarily being a citizen of Russia.) Terror was the obvious purpose here, and Obama was behind it, but nazis were in front of it, and they were proud of their handiwork — proud enough to film it and then to display it to the public.

If the President that you had voted for were subsequently to be overthrown in an extremely bloody coup — or even if it had happened in an authentic revolution — then how would you feel? And, if, two months later, people who were peacefully printing and distributing flyers against the illegally installed replacement regime were publicly treated this way, then would you want to be ruled by that regime?

Yanukovych had been elected in 2010 in an election that was declared free and fair by international observers; and, furthermore, according to wikipedia, “All exit polls conducted during the final round of voting reported a win for Viktor Yanukovych over Yulia Tymoshenko.[162][163][164].” But, starting in Spring of 2013, which was as soon as Obama got into position all of his key foreign-affairs appointees for his second Presidential term, after the 2012 U.S. election, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine immediately started organizing, for Maidan square in Kiev, public demonstrations to bring Yanukovych down, and they placed at the head of this operation the co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy, a man who had long studied Hitler’s methods of political organization. The troops, actually mercenaries, that provided the snipers who fired down onto the demonstrators and police in Maidan square in Kiev in February 2014 and pretended to be from Yanukovych’s security forces, were trained not by Parubiy but instead by Dmitriy Yarosh, who was the head of Ukraine’s other large racist-fascist, or nazi, organization, the Right Sector, whose CIA-and-oligarch-backed army numbered probably between 7,000 and 10,000. Yarosh selected the best of them for this operation. Whereas Parubiy was the main political organizer and trainer of Ukraine’s far-right, Yarosh was the main military organizer and trainer of Ukraine’s far-right.

So, Obama’s operation to oust Yanukovych was fully dependent upon Ukraine’s far-right, which was the only nazi movement that still retained deep and strong roots anywhere in Europe after World War II. Obama built his takeover of Ukraine upon people like this. As is clear there, they were very well trained. Yarosh had been training them for more than a decade. (He had been doing it even prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.) Yarosh had carefully studied successful coups; he knew how to do it. Just as Obama had very skillfully selected his political campaign team for his 2008 White House run, he very carefully selected his American team for what would become the chief feature of his second-term foreign policy: his war against Russia, central to which was his campaign to install rabid haters of Russia into control of Ukraine, right next door to Russia (in the hope of ultimately placing missiles there, against Russia). He had groomed Dick Cheney’s former foreign-affairs advisor Victoria Nuland as the spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s State Department (Nuland and Clinton were also personal friends of each other, so she was a skillful choice for this post), and then he boosted Nuland in the second term to the State Department post which oversaw all policymaking on Ukraine. Likewise Obama boosted Geoffrey Pyatt into the Ambassadorship in Ukraine, as the operative there to carry out Nuland’s instructions. Nuland made the decision to base the Maidan demonstrations upon the political skill of Paribuy and the paramilitary muscle of Yarosh. They headed her Ukrainian team.

Wikipedia says of Parubiy, and of Obama’s other Ukrainian operatives:

Parubiy co-led the Orange Revolution in 2004.[5][11] In the 2007 parliamentary elections he was voted into theUkrainian parliament on an Our Ukraine–People’s Self-Defense Bloc ticket. He then became a member of the deputy group that would later become For Ukraine!.[5] Parubiy stayed with Our Ukraine and became a member of its political council.[12]

In February 2010 Parubiy asked the European Parliament to reconsider its negative reaction to former Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko’s decision to award Stepan Bandera, the leader of the [racist-fascist] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the title of Hero of Ukraine.[13]

In early February 2012 Parubiy left Our Ukraine because their “views diverged”.[14] In 2012 he was re-elected into parliament on the party list of “Fatherland”.[15] [Yulia Tymoshenko heads the Fatherland Party; and she had been Obama’s choice to become the next President of Ukraine, but she was too far-right for even the far-right voters of northwestern Ukraine, so Poroshenko won instead.]

From December 2013 to February 2014 Parubiy was a commandant of Euromaidan.[16] He was coordinator of thevolunteer security corps for the mainstream protesters.[17] He was then appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.[6] This appointed was approved by (then) new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on June 16, 2014.[18]

As Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Parubiy oversaw the “anti–terrorist” operation againstpro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.[19]

Working directly under Parubiy in that “anti-terrorist operation” or “ATO,” was Yarosh, who in an interview with Newsweek, said that he has “been training paramilitary troops for almost 25 years,” and that his “divisions are constantly growing all over Ukraine, but over 10,000 people for sure.”

On May 14th of last year, there appeared, at Oriental Review, an important news report, “Bloodbath in Odessa Guided by Interim Rulers of Ukraine,” which described the roles of Yarosh, and of these others. It opened: “The information provided below was obtained from an insider in one of Ukraine’s law-enforcement agencies, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.” It said:

“Ten days before the tragedy a secret meeting was held in Kiev, chaired by the incumbent president Olexander Turchinov, to prepare a special operation in Odessa. Present were minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov, the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaychenko, and the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Andriy Parubiy. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, the Kiev-appointed head of regional administration of the Dnepropetrovsk region, was consulted in regard to the operation.

During that meeting Arsen Avakov has reportedly came up with the idea of using football hooligans, known as “ultras,” in the operation. Ever since his time as the head of the Kharkov regional administration he has worked closely with the fans leaders, whom he continued to sponsor even fromhis new home in Italy.

Kolomoisky temporarily delivered his private “Dnieper-1” Battalion under the command of law-enforcement officials in Odessa and also authorized a cash payment of $5,000 for “each pro-Russian separatist” killed during the special operation.

Mykola Volvov was wanted by the Ukrainian police since 2012 for fraud.

A couple of days before the operation in Odessa Andriy Parubiy brought dozens of bullet-proof vests to local ultra-nationalists. This video shows an episode of handing the vests to the local Maidan activists in Odessa. Take note of the person who receives the load. He is Mykola Volkov, a local hard-core criminal who would be repeatedly screened during the assault on Trade Unionist House gun-shooting at the people and reporting about the “incident” by phone to an official in Kiev.


Ultranationalist militants from the extremist Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA-UNSO), who could be recognized by their red armbands, were also used during the operation. They were assigned a key role in the staging of the provocations: they masqueraded as the defenders of the tent city on Kulikovo Field, and then lured its occupants into the House of Trade Unions to be slaughtered.

Fifteen roadblocks were set up outside of Odessa, secured by militants under the personal command of Kolomoisky’s “Dnieper-1” Battalion, as well as Right Sector’s thugs from Dnepropetrovsk and the western regions of Ukraine. In addition, two military units from the Self-Defense of Maidan arrived in Odessa, under the command of the acting head of the administration of the president, Sergey Pashinsky – the same man who was caught with a sniper rifle in the trunk of his car on Feb. 18 on Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. Pashinsky later claimed that he had not been fully informed about the plans for the operation and had dispatched his men only to “protect the people of Odessa.” Thus, there were a total of about 1,400 fighters from other regions of Ukraine in the vicinity at the time – thus countering the idea that there were “residents of Odessa” who burned down the House of Trade Unions.

Deputy chief of Odessa police and principle coordinator of the operation Dmitry Fucheji mysteriously dissappeared soon after the tradegy in Odessa.

The role of the Odessa police forces in the operation was personally directed by the head of the regional police, Petr Lutsyuk, and his deputy Dmitry Fucheji. Lutsyuk was assigned the task of neutralizing Odessa’s regional governor, Vladimir Nemirovsky, to prevent him from putting together an independent strategy that could disrupt the operation. Fucheji led the militants right to Greek Square where he was allegedly “wounded” (in order to evade responsibility for subsequent events).

The operation was originally scheduled for May 2 – the day of a soccer match, which would justify the presence of a large number of sports fans (“ultras”) downtown and would also mean there would be a minimal number of Odessa residents on the streets who were not involved in the operation, since the majority of the city’s population would be out of town enjoying their May Day holidays.

It should also be noted that Kolomoysky himself was directly connected to the U.S. White House.

If not for this horrific massacre, then the voters in the anti-coup regions would have remained inside the Ukrainian electorate, participants in the May 25th Presidential election to succeed Yanukovych as Ukraine’s new President: they would have been Ukrainian voters because the public sentiment in those regions still was not yet predominantly for separating from Ukraine; it was instead for the creation of a federal system that would have granted Donbass, Odessa, and the other anti-coup areas, some degree of autonomy. But that way, with the moderating influence of the voters in the far southeast, the resulting national government wouldn’t have been rabidly anti-Russian, and so wouldn’t have been, like the present one is, obsessed to kill Russians and to join NATO, for a NATO war against Russia. Obama needed to get rid of those voters. He needed them not to participate in the 25 May 2014 election. The May 2nd massacre was the way to do that. Here was the electoral turnout in the 25 May Ukrainian Presidential election. As you can see, almost all of the voters in that election were located in the parts of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for Yulia Tymoshenko in the 2010 election, against Yanukovych.

Obama did his best to get the nazi queen Tymoshenko elected as Ukraine’s President; but, now that she was publicly and openly campaigning as the rabid anti-Russian that she had always been, and now that even many Ukrainian conservatives had qualms about going to war against Russia, since there was now so much political rhetoric favoring doing that, Poroshenko won, Tymoshenko lost. Poroshenko had played his cards just right: having been a supporter of the Maidan and of the overthrow of Yanukovych but not publicly associated with the nazis. He was even one of the people who informed the EU’s investigator that the coup was a coup, no authentic revolution.

Publicly, Poroshenko gave no hint that he knew that Yanukovych had been framed for the February sniper-attacks that had been organized by the U.S. White House and that the overthrow had been a coup. In fact, on May 6th, just days after the massacre, and less than a month before the 2014 Presidential election, Poroshenko said, “Proof was presented at the Verkhovna Rada’s session behind closed doors today that what happened at the House of Unions can be called a terrorist attack.” (This had to be “behind closed doors” because it was fictitious and thus needed to be blocked from being examined by the public.) By that time, the polls already showed that he was going to win the election, and he knew that his only real audience was the man sitting in the U.S. White House.

Obama didn’t get the more overt anti-Russian President that he had wanted, but he still controls Ukraine. The installation by Nuland of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the ‘temporary’ new Prime Minister to lead Ukraine after the coup, until a new President would be elected on May 25th, turned out to be permanent, instead of temporary. And Petro Poroshenko can’t do anything that Obama doesn’t want him to do. So: Obama still remains the virtual Emperor of Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine shouldn’t praise or blame either their Prime Minister or their (perhaps merely nominal) President for what has been happening in their country after the coup; they should instead praise or blame those men’s master: Barack Obama. He’s the person who made Yatsenyuk the Prime Minister, and who controls Poroshenko even though he didn’t prefer him over Tymoshenko.

Ukraine is just part of the American Empire now. Any Ukrainian who doesn’t recognize that would have to be a fool. It’s the outright nazi part of the American Empire, but it’s part of the American Empire nonetheless. Obama is the first U.S. President to install a racist-fascist, or nazi, regime, anywhere; and he did it in Ukraine, which has long been the ripest place in the world for doing that sort of thing. The May 2nd massacre was an important part of the entire operation. This is why that important massacre is ignored as much as it can be, in the U.S.

It’s important history, but it’s history that 99% of Americans are blocked from knowing. So: pass this article along to everyone you know (and, via facebook etc., even to some people you don’t know); and they, too, will then have access to the documentation that’s linked-to here, just as you did.


Posted in UkraineComments Off on Commemorating The May 2nd 2014 Odessa Massacre: Why the U.S. Coup-Regime Still Runs Ukraine

The Syrian Crisis Escalates. U.S. Hegemony and Nazi Expansion


The Syrian Crisis Escalates. U.S. Hegemony and Israel’s Expansion

As I wrote two weeks ago, the Syrian crisis is only in its beginning stages. The assault on Syrian military positions last night, apparently a US/Israeli operation, is evidence that the crisis continues to develop. 

There are four mutually reinforcing causes of the crisis:

(1) Israel’s ability to use the US government to eliminate foes in the Middle East that are obstacles to Israel’s expansion. Israel has Syria and Iran targeted, because the two governments supply the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which has twice driven Israel out of Israel’s attempted occupation of southern Lebanon, whose water resources Israel covets.

(2) The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony, which fits well with Israel’s Middle East agenda, a fit made even stronger by the strong neoconservative alliance with Israel.

(3) The US military/security complex’s need for justification for its massive budget and power.

(4) The inability of the Russian government to understand the first three reasons.

From the way the Russian government speaks, the Russians believe that Washington’s military actions in the Middle East for the past 17 years dating from the US invasion of Afghanistan, a still unresolved war, have to do with fighting terrorism. The Russians keep expressing the view that Russia and the US should join in a common effort to fight terrorism. Apparently, the Russian government does not understand that terrorism is Washington’s creation. The long wars with unfavorable outcomes that were the results of Washington’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq led to Washington recruiting and supplying terrorists to overthrow Libya and Syria. Clearly, Washington is not going to fight against the weapon it created with which to achieve its agenda.

The Russian government’s confusion about Washington’s relationship to terrorism is the fourth cause of the ongoing Syrian crisis. Washington was caught completely off guard in 2015 by Russia’s surprise intervention in Syria on the side of the Syrian government against Washington’s jihadist “rebels.” Russia was in complete control and could have ended the war in 2016. Instead, apparently hoping to appease Washington and show a reasonable face to Europe, the Russian government announced in March 2016 a premature victory and withdrawal. This mistake was repeated, and each time Russia made this mistake gave Washington opportunity to introduce its own troops and aircraft, to resupply and train its jihadist mercenaries, and to organize Israeli, Saudi, French, and British participation in the military assaults on Syria. Now the problem is that US troops are mixed in with the jihadist mercenaries, making it difficult for the Syrian/Russian alliance to clear Syrian territory of foreign invaders without killing Americans, something the Russians and Syrians have so far avoided doing. The Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, now accuses Washington of trying to partition Syria, but it was Russian indecisiveness that led to Syria’s partition.

The inability of the Russian government to comprehend the US/Israeli/neoconservative alliance and what this means for the Middle East, together with the indecisiveness of the Russian government about supplying Syria with the S-300 air defense system, has enabled the crisis to escalate with last night’s as of yet unclaimed attack on Syrian military positions with what appears to have been “bunker buster” bombs, an escalation.

The attacks last night killed Iranians, and the next attack might kill Russian military personnel. At some point the Russian government might tire of its humiliation, in which case Israeli and US aircraft will begin falling from the sky and attacks on “rebel” positions will claim US lives.

The Russian government’s inability to comprehend that peace is not the Israeli/American agenda and that neither in the US nor Israel is there any good will on which Russia can build an agreement to bring peace to Syria and the Middle East means the crisis will continue to build until war is upon us.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Syrian Crisis Escalates. U.S. Hegemony and Nazi Expansion

Aggression on Syrian Sites Prelude to Something More Serious?



A previous article discussed what happened. Three Syrian military facilities near Hama and Aleppo’s airport were struck, locations where Iranian military advisors are based.

Pro-government sources accused Israel of conducting the attacks, its warplanes likely operating from Lebanese airspace.

It’s unclear if any of its missiles were intercepted and destroyed. Clearly at least some struck intended targets. No casualty count was officially reported.

An unconfirmed report indicated surface-to-surface missiles were fired from Jordan. If so, Washington, Britain or Israel could have launched them.

Israel refused to comment on the Sunday strikes. They came ahead of Netanyahu’s Monday announcement about Iran’s nuclear program, discussed in a same-day article.

US war secretary Mattis said Washington had nothing to do with overnight Sunday strikes on Syrian targets.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said

“all these reports over an attack on an Iranian military base in Syria and the martyrdom of several Iranian military advisers in Syria are baseless.”

In early April, Israeli warplanes terror-bombed Syria’s T-4 airbase, the attack conducted from Lebanese airspace, causing numerous Syrian and Iranian casualties.

Reportedly 20 missiles were fired, eight intercepted and destroyed. Israel rarely ever admits responsibility for its acts of aggression, numerous incidents conducted against Syrian targets throughout years of war.

On April 26, Israeli war minister Lieberman ominously said Iran “is in its final days and will soon collapse,” adding:

If its forces attack Israel, the IDF will “destroy every Iranian military outpost in Syria threatening Israel.”

The Netanyahu regime won’t tolerate an Iranian presence in Syria “whatever the cost may be.”

Lieberman lied claiming Iran is establishing military bases in Syria “close to the Golan Heights…to attack us.”

Islamic Republic military advisors operate from Syrian bases – involved in combating US/Israeli-supported terrorists. No evidence suggests and Iranian plan to attack Israel or any other country.

Lieberman, Netanyahu and other regime officials lie repeatedly about Iran, not a shred of evidence supporting their baseless accusations.

Coincidentally with Netanyahu’s Monday announcement, Israeli Knesset extremists passed controversial legislation.

It lets Netanyahu declare war or conduct major military operations on his own after consulting with his war minister alone – bypassing the Knesset and security cabinet, along with ignoring international law.

MK Eyal Ben-Reuven denounced the law, calling it “severely harmful…another distraction from Netanyahu’s shaky legal situation” – letting him and Lieberman go to war on their own.

MK Ofer Shelah accused Netanyahu coalition partners of bowing to his will on this vital issue under extreme pressure, adding:

“Netanyahu’s contempt for everyone around him and for everything we’ve learned from our many wars has overtaken the recognition of many good and experienced Knesset members.”

Why this legislation any time and why now? It came along with Netanyahu’s baseless accusations about Iran’s nuclear program, days ahead of Trump’s May 12 deadline on whether to stick with the JCPOA or pull out – following overnight Israeli aggression on three Syrian sites, suggesting something much more serious could be coming.

What precisely won’t be known until events unfold. Russian passivity in the face of increasingly hostile US/Israeli actions against Syrian sovereignty leaves the country vulnerable to escalated aggression.

Maybe full-scale war is coming because Russia hasn’t acted to prevent it so far.

Is its resolve weakening on Syria? Is Putin’s passivity an attempt to prevent tougher US sanctions on Russian enterprises – coming in some form no matter what he does or doesn’t do?

Is he willing to sacrifice Syria for improved relations with Washington not forthcoming short of surrendering Russian sovereignty to its will?

He intervened in Syria to combat terrorism, mostly concerned about protecting Russian security.

Washington wants all sovereign independent governments eliminated – Russia, China and Iran its key targets, naked aggression and color revolutions its main strategies.

Believing patience with Washington can eventually change its hostile agenda is hoping for what hasn’t happened and won’t – not any time as far ahead as anyone dare predict.

Hegemons can’t be bargained with. They don’t negotiate. They demand.

Washington is hellbent to turn Russia and all other sovereign independent countries into US vassal states.

Putin’s failure to accept reality jeopardizes Russia’s security. It’s high-risk to confront Washington forcefully.

It’s higher risk to remain passive against a hegemon seeking the destruction of Russian sovereignty as a key step toward unchallenged global dominance – by whatever means it takes.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Aggression on Syrian Sites Prelude to Something More Serious?

Shoah’s pages