Saturday 22nd of January 2022

aggression vs aggression...


On Thursday, talks will continue in the broader format of the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes the US as well as Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states.

The European Union, too, is determined not to be left out. EU defense and foreign ministers will meet in the French town of Brest on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. As with all the other planned conferences, the main topic on the agenda will be Russian demands for security guarantees and possible reactions to an escalation by Putin in Ukraine.

EU sidelined on European security

The main takeaway is that the Russian president has managed to get the "West" scrambling, laying bare differing viewpoints in the opposing camp. When it comes to the relationship with Russia, there are clear differences within NATO and the EU, depending on the interests of the member states.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has even complained that the bloc has been left out — he said he wasn't even asked — when it came to security in Europe and in Ukraine.

To date, the Europeans have not managed to agree on exactly which tough sanctions they want to use to threaten Russia. The only thing the EU has decided is that Moscow should have a high price to pay if it escalates its aggression against Ukraine.

Compromise for the Kremlin

The EU is understandably reluctant to target the sector that would really hurt Russia, namely energy supplies. Without oil and gas from Russia, several countries in Europe, including Germany, would be in serious trouble.

Putin will probably not have to reckon with any serious resolutions being taken during this intense week of diplomacy. It's likely that we'll simply see the same warnings that have been issued since 2014, when Russia first deployed its troops on Ukraine's eastern border.

Neither the US nor other NATO states will be deploying their own military to assist Ukraine. And it remains out of the question that NATO will respond favorably to Moscow's demand that NATO categorically deny membership to Ukraine and Georgia.

Western powers will not accept Russian blackmail, and Putin knows that very well. However, Biden has already assured the Kremlin that the accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future. After all, this state of limbo has existed since the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Keeping the dialogue going

The West will continue its maneuvering, relying on diplomacy in a bid not to provoke military action by Russia. And Putin will keep the West on its toes with his deliberate provocations.

Putin will keep the conflicts in and around Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia simmering in order to prevent these countries from moving closer to the West. For him, the West, which couldn't even organize its own withdrawal from Afghanistan in August, seems militarily indecisive in the extreme.


Read more:




no respect for the UN...

Russia wants to force the US to respect the UN Charter

by Thierry Meyssan

Russia and China have just written to the United States asking it to respect the United Nations Charter and the word it has given. This approach, devoid of any aggressiveness, calls into question not only the functioning of the UN, NATO and the European Union, but almost all the US advances since the dissolution of the USSR. It is obviously unacceptable to Washington. But the US hyper-power is not what it used to be. It will have to begin its withdrawal.


The world today is ruled by the United States of America and NATO, which present themselves as the only global powers, while the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are more powerful than them, both economically and militarily.

On December 17, 2021, Moscow released a draft bilateral treaty with Washington providing guarantees for peace [1], as well as a draft agreement to implement it [2]. These documents are not directed against the United States, they are only aimed at enforcing the UN Charter and complying with its own commitments.

On December 23, at President Putin’s annual press conference, a question from Sky News journalist Diana Magnay led to a spat. Vladimir Putin curtly replied that Russia’s remarks on US behaviour dated back to 1990 and that Washington not only ignored them, but persisted in going ahead. Now Nato weapons were about to be deployed in Ukraine, which would be an unacceptable fact for Moscow [3]. Never before has a Russian leader expressed himself in this way. It is important to understand that placing missiles four minutes’ flight from Moscow poses an extreme threat and is a cause for war.

On 30 December, a telephone conversation was held between Presidents Biden and Putin. The US side put forward proposals for resolving the Ukrainian issue, while the Russian side brought the discussion back to the US violations of the UN Charter and of its word.

The US is considering showing its good faith by not welcoming Ukraine into Nato. This is an approach that only marginally answers the question posed and is only likely to prevent war if accompanied by withdrawal measures.

It is clear that we are entering a period of extreme confrontation that will last for several years and could degenerate into a World War at any moment.

In this article, we will examine this conflict, which is largely unknown in the West.


During the Second World War, the United States deliberately made the maximum effort weigh on the Soviet Union. Between 22 and 27 million Soviets died (13-16% of the population) compared to 418,000 Americans (0.32% of the population). When this butchery ended, the US formed a military alliance in Western Europe, Nato, to which the USSR responded by creating the Warsaw Pact. Nato soon proved to be a federation that violated the principle of state sovereignty laid down in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter [4], which Third World countries denounced in 1955 at the Bandung Conference [5]. Ultimately, the USSR also violated the UN Charter by adopting the Brezhnev Doctrine in 1968 and imposing it on the members of the Warsaw Pact. When the USSR was dissolved and some of its former members created a new military alliance, the Collective Security Treaty, they chose to turn it into a confederation in compliance with the UN Charter.

To be clear about the meaning of federation and confederation, let us take an example: during the Civil War, the Northerners formed a federation because the decisions of their government were binding on all its member states. In contrast, the Southerners formed a confederation because each member state remained sovereign.

When the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the Germans wanted to reunite their nation into one country. However, this meant the extension of Nato into the territory of the German Democratic Republic. At first, the Soviets were opposed to this. A reunification with the neutralisation of GDR territory was envisaged. In the end, First Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to the expansion of Nato through the reunification of the two Germanies on the condition that the Alliance did not seek to expand to the East.

West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, his Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and French President François Mitterrand jointly supported the Russian position: NATO had to commit itself to no further expansion to the East. US President George H. Bush Sr. and his Secretary of State, James Baker, made numerous public statements and commitments to this effect to all their interlocutors [6].

As soon as the USSR was dissolved, three neutral countries joined the European Union: Austria, Finland and Sweden. However, the EU and Nato are one and the same entity, one civilian and one military, both based in Brussels. According to the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty (Article 42, paragraph 7), it is NATO that ensures the defence of the European Union whether or not its members are also members of NATO. De facto, these countries are no longer neutral since their accession to the European Union.

In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council announced that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could join the European Union. From then on, the process of NATO membership for the former members of the Soviet bloc went smoothly, apart from the traditional Russian remarks.

But by the 1990s, Russia was a shadow of its former self. Its wealth was plundered by 90 people, the so-called ’oligarchs’. The standard of living collapsed and the life expectancy of Russians dropped by 20 years. In this context, no one listened to what Moscow was saying.

In 1997, the Nato summit in Madrid called on the former Soviet bloc countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty. After East Germany (1990), but the next five times in violation of its word, it was the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999; then in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia; in 2009 Albania and Croatia; in 2017 Montenegro; and again in 2020 Northern Macedonia.

Ukraine and Georgia may soon join Nato, while Sweden and Finland may abandon their theoretical neutrality and openly join the Atlantic Alliance.

What was unacceptable in 1990 is still unacceptable today. It is not conceivable that Nato missiles are within a few minutes’ flight of Moscow. The same situation occurred in 1962. The United States deployed missiles on the USSR’s border in Turkey. In response, the Soviets installed missiles on the US border in Cuba. US President John Kennedy discovered in extremis the trap the Pentagon had put the US in. He managed to clarify the situation through his ambassador to the United Nations. The then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, was violently anti-Soviet and intended to provoke a nuclear war. Fortunately his current successor, General Mark Milley, is much wiser and maintains courteous relations with his Russian counterparts.


The UN Charter was negotiated by 50 states in 1945 at the San Francisco Conference, even before Soviet troops took Berlin and caused the Nazi Reich to surrender. It was adopted unanimously. Since then, another 147 states have signed it, bringing the total number of signatories to 197.

The Russian proposal of December 17, 2021 for a bilateral US-Russia Treaty to Safeguard Peace states in Article 2 that: "The Parties shall ensure that all international organisations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties participates adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations. For the reasons explained above, this implies the transformation of Nato or its dissolution.

The same proposal states in Article 4 that the former member states of the Soviet Union cannot join Nato. This implies that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should leave and that neither Ukraine nor Georgia should join.

Article 7 of the Russian proposal stipulates a ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons outside its borders. This implies the immediate withdrawal of atomic bombs illegally stored in, for example, Italy and Germany in violation of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Furthermore, respect for the UN Charter requires a return to the original functioning of the UN and the abandonment of the illegal practices that this organisation has been engaged in since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Insensibly, the UN is not only no longer fulfilling its statutory objectives, but is being transformed into an agency for implementing US decisions. For example, the Blue Helmets, which were once "interposition forces", have become "peacekeeping forces" since the dissolution of the USSR. They no longer simply intervene when two parties are at war and manage to conclude a cease-fire. They used to intervene between the two sides, with their explicit agreement, and ensure that their commitments were respected. Today, they do not care about the agreement of the protagonists, or even the existence of an agreement between them. In practice, during the twenty years or so of Russia’s collapse, the Security Council endorsed a US decision. In practice, therefore, the peacekeepers were mainly at the service of the Pentagon.

The most glaring example is the Libyan affair. The US organised and financed false testimony before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that Muamar Gaddafi was bombing his own people [7] . These depositions were then passed on to the Security Council. Washington obtained a resolution allowing Nato to intervene in order to "protect the population" of Libya from its "dictator". Once there, Nato forbade the African heads of state to come and check what was going on, threatening to kill them all. Then it bombed Libya, killing about 120,000 of the people it had supposedly come to "protect". Finally, it split the country into three and installed terrorists in power in Tripoli [8].

In the case of Syria, a further step has been taken. The UN, which had asked the Arab League to carry out an on-site investigation to verify reports of a civil war, did not ask any questions when this mission was interrupted without explanation. This was because experts from 21 Arab countries had found in a preliminary report that the US information was false [9]. The US then appointed Jeffrey Feltman, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy for the broader Middle East, as deputy to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who coordinated the Allied operations in the war economically, politically and militarily [10]. Years later, while this gentleman is long gone to commit other crimes elsewhere, his directives to starve Syria are still being imposed on UN agencies [11].

This brings us to the question of UN agencies. Many of them serve as a cover for US actions. For example, in this period of the Covid-19 epidemic, everyone has noticed that member states’ contributions to this agency represent less than 20% of its budget, while donations from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone represent 10%. In fact, some of the WHO’s actions are heavily influenced by private interests. Or Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Security Council, Vitali Churkin, revealed that in 2012 the UNHCR transported hundreds of armed jihadists by boat from Libya to Turkey to form the so-called Free Syrian Army.

And that’s not all. The Security Council has passed numerous sanctions against states during the period of Russia’s erasure. Many senior UN officials are seeing on the ground that these sanctions are causing famine and killing civilians. But they have been voted on and can only be lifted by a vote that the US opposes. These so-called ’sanctions’ are not sentences passed by a court of law, but weapons against people wielded in the name of the United Nations.

Since Washington can no longer get them adopted, it unilaterally decrees them and forces the European Union, its vassal, to apply them. Thus the Europeans of the Union are murdering civilian populations, this time in the name of "democracy".


In the West, we announce what should take place in order to take credit for the event. Often we do nothing to make it happen, we wait for it and congratulate ourselves in advance. This is what is known as a "publicity effect". In Russia and China, on the other hand, where there is less talk, people only announce what they are sure to achieve. Generally speaking, announcements are revelations of what has just been done.

When President Putin announces that he is going to put the United States in its place, it is not negotiable. Russia knows that President Joe Biden cannot withdraw. It intends to force him to do so, perhaps slowly, but surely. Like a chess player, Moscow has anticipated the next moves. All it has to do is show its strength and possibly strike at the margins. For example, the Russian military could demonstrate its hypersonic missiles so that everyone can see that it can destroy any target in the world. Or it could strike the US armed forces on territory they illegally occupy.

On December 15, 2021, Moscow and Beijing staged their military alliance. This was two days before the draft treaty with the US was published. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping spoke in a video conference to support the Russian proposal. China has officially insisted on the legitimacy of this demand. While there are many Sino-Russian differences, and even points of conflict such as Eastern Siberia, Moscow and Beijing are bound to support each other. Both countries have been under attack from the West in the not too distant past. They have experienced the hypocrisy of these partners and know that they need each other to resist them.

In recent years, Russia has mastered new weapons. In 2014, it showed that it could neutralise the communications and controls of a US destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, equipped with an Aegis system linking it to all US missile launchers [12], and even of an aircraft carrier such as the USS Ronald Reagan [13]. Subsequently, it showed in the Levant that it could extend space where it neutralises all Nato communications and commands over a radius of 300 kilometres [14]. Currently, Russia has superiority in conventional conflicts.

The French hypersonic weapons technique, long unexploited by NATO, was perfected by the Soviets, then by the Russians [15]. Today, it is the decisive weapon capable of striking any target anywhere on Earth with nuclear weapons. A launcher passes through the atmosphere, picks up speed as it orbits the Earth, and then shoots at its target as it re-enters the atmosphere. Its speed is such that no one can intercept it. This weapon makes NATO’s "missile shield" obsolete [16]. Currently, Russia has superiority in nuclear conflicts [17].

An intermediate version of this has been provided by Moscow to Beijing and probably to Pyongyang. The Deputy Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Christopher Grady, has acknowledged the Russian technological lead and announced that the US is working hard to catch up. Although President Donald Trump has revived military research, it will take the Pentagon many years to do so.

The Syrian war was an opportunity for Moscow to test a huge amount of new weapons, some of which proved far superior to Western ones. At the same time, the failure of the massive F-35 programme, which has been unable to meet all its commitments, shows that US military research has broken down. This multi-role aircraft is largely sold to the Allies, but abandoned by the US Air Force, which is falling back on reissuing old F-16s.

In addition, China has developed an effective satellite destruction technique that it seems to have shared with Russia. The destruction of an old Soviet satellite on November 15, 2021, not far from the International Space Station, caused a stir within Nato. From now on, China and Russia could render all NATO armies deaf and blind in a few hours.


Thierry Meyssan



Roger Lagassé







paying the proxies...

It is a well-known fact that Washington has been trying to impose the so-callled American-style democracy upon all countries that are not willing to play ball with the White House and that are not willing to accept its instructions. On this “democratization” path the US has relied on various tactics, that would vary depending on the situation. This pattern is clearly exemplified by the US atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 “in the defense of the American democracy” that claimed 240,000 Japanese lives. Then, guided by the same objective, at the direct order of the Democratic president John F. Kennedy (1961 – 1963) the US initiated the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 to topple Fidel Castro’s “undemocratic regime.” This was followed by the direct military incursion in Vietnam in 1964 initiated by the Democratic president Lyndon Johnson (1963 –1969), then Laos (where the US stayed up till 1973); by bombing border territories the US drew Cambodia into the Vietnam war and occupied the Dominican Republic yet again. “The fight for democracy” was picked up by the US Democratic President Bill Clinton who, for this end, bombed Yugoslavia back into the stone age. Under the same slogan of fictitious American democracy Barack Obama toppled Muammar Gaddafi’s government plunging Libya into a decade-long chaos. Republican Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush are also to blame for “long-standing democratic” wars in Iraq and Somalia.

Besides “democratic intimidation” by the American weaponry, Washington has been active in instigating “color revolutions” that swept through Czechoslovakia (Velvet Revolution of 1989), Yugoslavia (Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), Georgia (Rose Revolution of 2003), Ukraine (Orange Revolution of 2004), Kyrgyzstan (Tulip Revolution of 2005), Tunisia (Jasmine Revolution of 2011), the second time in Ukraine (Euromaidan or Revolution of Dignity of 2013 –2014), Armenia (Revolution of socket of 2015). A series of “color revolutions” was also orchestrated in the Arab world.

And now, as the events in Kazakhstan have shown, a new era of “the American style democratization” has been ushered in, which will see the use of terrorist scum that Washington was bringing to Afghanistan from Syrian and Iraq. It is no coincidence that on January 8, Rahim Oshakbayev, a member of the National Council of Public Trust under the President of Kazakhstan, said that the country’s hospitals had admitted a lot of foreign nationals who only speak Arabic. Meanwhile, documentary evidence of the militants’ incursion in Kazakhstan that point in the direction of the West that has been supplying them with weapons and money will surely appear in the wake of the investigation and testimonies given by the militants detained by Kazakh law enforcement agents.

As became known from media coverage, Washington has been extensively and for a long time accumulating not only the future trigger-men of the “democratic transition in the American style,” but also funds for eroding situation in Kazakhstan. Any “protest activity” needs money, lots of it; it is needed for the production of banners, organization of communication channels and means, throwing a bone to “independent” media which should cover the events “in the right way.”

Speaking of which: The New York Times that has devolved into a sensationalist tabloid and has been delivering on the White House’s 30 pieces of silver while covering events in Kazakhstan, has exceeded all expectations. The newspaper’s official Twitter page interpreted those tragic events in Kazakhstan in quite a peculiar way, publishing a link to its own article on the CSTO peacekeepers dispatched to this country to stabilize the internal situation. The message was, in particular, accompanied by a provocative tweet: “Dozens of antigovernment protesters were killed in Kazakhstan, the police said, as Russian-led troops tried to restore order.” At the time of publications, however, the Russian troops had not yet arrived to the hot spots where mass engagement that claimed some lives took place, so they cannot be blamed for any killings. These facts, nonetheless, did not discourage The New York Times, as they would not discourage any other yellow press. This fake was paid for upfront and so this media source was dettermined to keep spreading fakes.

As for the funds allocated by Washington through official channels alone to undermine the situation in Kazakhstan, the extensive grant programs list of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a body well-known for its close ties with the CIA, comprises a competition for “human rights activities in Kazakhstan” for everyone to see. In April 2021, it received $800,000.

Then, in May 2021, USAID organized a program dubbed Support for Freedom of Association in Kazakhstan, allocating for its needs another $750,000. The program indicates the necessity “for projects to strengthen advocacy and networking capacity for civil society organizations advocating specifically on fundamental freedoms.” The program is supervised by the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor which comes under the purview of Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. This means that the agency violates universal legal framework on non-interference in other countries’ affairs.

In a clear hope to “put to good use in Kazakhstan” the remaining ISIS (banned in Russia) militants that had been trained in the US special camps in Syria and Iraq, in December 2021, USAID launched a campaign of Promoting International Standards for Religious Freedom in Kazakhstan, allocating for this “work” another $740,740. How this democratization worked out for Kazakhstan can be seen in Kazakh media reports about the radical terrorists going on a rampage from January 2 through 6, beheading two local law enforcement agents,  and murdering in the Almaty street a Kazakh director and musician Saken Bitayev on January 6, burning of down of the golden fund of Kazakh cinema building and slaughtering civilians.

Besides USAID, a notorious NED with ties with the CIA, funded from the US budget and founded by the US Congress in 1983, also contributed to establishing “American-style democracy” in Kazakhstan. The fund’s official website reveals a list of programs for Kazakhstan, while some separate sums that it had recently allocated for this country can be found on the website Stanradar.

It is worth noting that US President Joe Biden has recently announced plans to ramp up financing of “democracies around the world” while the White House decided to allocate another $424 million to implement such initiatives.

Washington’s response to Kazakhstan and CSTO peacekeeping contingent’s thwarting of an apparent attempt by the West to change the political regime in this Central Asian country is also remarkable. Despite the fact that local and regional media in detail informed the world community about the rampage the extremists unleashed on January 2 – 6, releasing a variety of evidence and footage, and an official statement by the Kazakh Foreign Ministry which published a timeline of the events and the decisions of the Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the US State Department voiced a clear discontent regarding CSTO peacekeeper deployment. No doubt, the United States is fuming for a reason since it invested a lot of money to foster this coup attempt in Kazakhstan which had been thwarted both by the local authorities and by a unified response to this terrorist barbarity by the CSTO peacekeeping forces!

Therefore, on January 7, the spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, legitimately and correctly assessed the statement of the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken regarding the tragic events in Kazakhstan:  “In his typical boorish manner, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken jested about the tragic events in Kazakhstan,” Zakharova wrote in a post on her Telegram channel. The diplomat stressed that the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s (CSTO) response to the events in Kazakhstan has been totally legitimate, as it had been brought to the notice of the UN Security Council.

Zakharova also lambasted Blinken’s remark about the situation in Kazakhstan and CSTO’s peacekeeping forces arriving in the country. The US Secretary of State said, in particular, that “when Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.” “If Antony Blinken loves history lessons so much, then he should take the following into account: when Americans are in your house, it can be difficult to stay alive and not be robbed or raped. We are taught this not only by the recent past but by all 300 years of American statehood,” Zakharova said. “Natives of the North American continent, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Libyans, Syrians and many other unfortunate people who were unlucky enough to see these uninvited guests at their doorsteps will tell a lot about this,” she went on to say, clearly reminding about, among other things, the ongoing illegal US occupation of Syria, unchallenged looting of this country and dozens of thousands of civilians killed in Middle East in the recent years alone.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



Read more:


Most likely the US money went through the Saudis/Sunnis to create a Daesh-style of revolution in Kazakhstan...




time for the US to quit...

In recent months, anti-American sentiments among the Syrians have noticeably intensified in Syria, demanding the withdrawal of the US Army from this country. The growth of these sentiments is due not only to the continuing illegal export of Syrian oil by the United States to Iraq, as regularly reported by the Syrian Arab news agency SANA and from the UN rostrum by the official Syrian authorities. An increasing number of leaders of Arab tribes and clans in eastern Syria, whose members were killed for their political views and beliefs against the illegal occupation of their country by American troops and their Kurdish allies, join the anti-American protests.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimates that during the ten years of war in Syria 36% of the country’s 18 million inhabitants have lost their homes, 6.6 million people have become internal refugees, and 13.4 million people require humanitarian assistance. More than 5.6 million people have left Syria since 2011. The ongoing war in Syria is mainly due to the participation of international players, above all the USA.

The use of the US Army and mercenaries to support neo-colonial targets has become the standard of US behavior. And this is especially clearly visible in the actions of Washington in Syria, where the United States, not only relying on the US army and thousands of private military companies (PMCs), continues to plunder this country, its energy resources, artefacts and any property of the Syrian Arab Republic. But, demonstrating their rights as a colonizer, they dictate to whom and how they allow contacting the official authorities of Damascus.

At the same time, the list of crimes committed by the US military in Syria is increasing every day, making it inevitable that they are recognized outside the law by the world community.

For example, at the end of December, the Syrian Foreign Minister said in an interview with the Syrian state TV channel Suria that the United States and its allied forces held more than 57,000 refugees in the Al-Hol camp in northern Syria, including 30,000 children. The Syrian authorities have repeatedly demanded Europe to return them to their countries.

The Al-Tanf region of the country, controlled by the Americans, has become a gray zone where militant camps of sorts operate, which, in turn, hide behind camps of civilian refugees experiencing hardship and lack of everything, including food, water, and medicine. For example, former militants of the Shumar tribe, who live in the east of Al-Suwayda Governorate, went to the Syrian Arab Armed Forces as part of the measures taken by official Damascus to establish peace in the country. It was reported that mainly refugees enter the terrorist group Jaysh Maghawir al-Thawra (banned in the Russian Federation) because of the plight in the refugee camp located in the Et-Tanf. The Americans distribute this humanitarian aid exclusively between the militants, which is not enough for them either. And so it has been for more than one year. For participation in the activities of terrorist groups, about $400 is paid, which is a very decent amount by Syrian standards.

Having established itself in a strategically important place, the US army ignores the demands of the legitimate authorities of Syria to leave the country. They continue their military activity, and any vehicle that does not belong to the “friendly USA” side, any crowd of people moving in an undesirable direction for the USA, everything is fired upon and destroyed.

In December, The New York Times told about the crimes of the US Army in Syria, hundreds of civilians killed, and the complete impunity of the actions of the elite US Army Special Forces “Delta.” According to the American publication, the unit’s fighters were part of the secret Talon Anvil group; from 2014 to 2019, they directed attack drones to targets in Syria and became guilty of substantial civilian casualties.

There has been no meaningful reaction on the part of the international community to the Syrian authorities’ repeated calls to put an end to the United States’ lawlessness and plundering of the country. This failure has, in recent years, prompted the development of armed popular resistance to Washington’s policies, just as it did in Afghanistan and in Iraq. This confrontation has already turned into an anti-American guerrilla movement.

In particular, this became especially evident in armed attacks on US military bases in Syria, which increasingly began to be subjected to missile attacks and drone attacks. So, the largest US base on the Syrian territory of Et-Tanf has recently become the target of several drone attacks. Drones change tactics and approach with each attack. The latest attack, involving what might be called a swarm core, was challenging to repel with basic US anti-aircraft and anti-drone systems. Some drones even managed to fire projectiles at vital targets such as fuel depots, command posts, retrodictive antennas, radars, etc., without detecting interception systems.

To block the export by the United States of Syria’s national property abroad and limit the activities of the American military, the population of Syria periodically blocks the path of the American army and forces them to change the route. Sometimes this happens with the support of the Syrian Arab Army.

For such actions by the Syrians, the soldiers of the US occupation forces in the Syrian Arab Republic began to lose their nerves. They freaked out and started to inflict airstrikes. For example, on January 4, the international coalition led by the United States attacked positions in the Deir ez-Zor Governorate in northeastern Syria, from where the American military base had been attacked earlier in the area.

In these conditions, the peace in Syria is becoming more fragile. At any moment, another wave of armed conflict in this country may begin with an attempt to forcefully expel the American military from this country.

Therefore, an objective reaction of the UN and the international community to suppress the activities of the US occupation forces illegally staying in Syria and their quickest withdrawal from this country is long overdue. And only such a reaction can save the region from another armed conflict and bring the long-awaited peace to the people of Syria.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, writing for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



Read more:





Sometimes it seems that when it comes to international relations Russian president Vladimir Putin might be the only head of state who is capable of any rational proposals. His recent negotiating positions conveyed initially by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov to step back from the brink of war between his country and the United States over Ukraine are largely eminently sensible and would defuse the possibility that Eastern Europe might become a future Sarajevo incident that would ignite a nuclear war. Per Putin, “We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the US frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But…something [more is needed], not just verbal assurances.”

Putin and President Biden discussed the Russian proposals and other issues in a phone conversation on December 30th, in which Biden called for diplomacy, and both he and Putin reportedly took steps to defuse the possible confrontation. In the phone call the two presidents agreed to initiate bilateral negotiations described as “strategic stability dialogue” relating to “mutual security guarantees” which have now begun on Sunday, January 9th, in Geneva. That will be followed by an exploratory meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday and another meeting with the Organization for Security and Cooperation on Thursday.

Pat Buchanan, who is somewhat skeptical about Russian overreach, has summed upthe Putin position, which he refers to as an ultimatum, as “Get off our front porch. Get out of our front yard. And stay out of our backyard.” Putin has demanded that NATO cease expansion into Eastern Europe, which threatens only Russia, while also scaling back planned missile emplacements in those former Warsaw Pact states that are already members of the alliance. He also has called on the US to reduce harassing incursions by warships and strategic bombers along the Russian border and to cease efforts to insert military bases in the five ‘Stans along the Russian federation’s southern border. In other words, Russia believes that it should not have hostile military forces gathering along its borders, that it should have some kind of legally guaranteed and internationally endorsed strategic security zone such as the United States enjoys behind two oceans with friendly governments to north and south.

Buchanan concludes that there is much room for negotiating a serious agreement that will satisfy both sides, observing that the US now has through NATO untenable security arrangements with 28 European countries. He notes how “The day cannot be far off when the US is going to have to review and discard Cold War commitments that date to the 1940s and 1950s, and require us to fight a nuclear power such as Russia for countries that have nothing to do with our vital interests or our national security.”

Secretary of State Tony Blinken has been openly skeptical about the Russian proposals, arguing that Moscow is a threat to Europe, though the extent that the Biden administration will play hard ball over the details is difficult to assess. Blinken and NATO have already declared that they will continue their expansion into Eastern Europe and the White House is reportedly preparing harsh new sanctions against Russia if the talks are not successful. To be sure, Administration pushback may be a debating technique to moderate or even eliminate some of the demands, or there may actually be hard liners from the Center for New American Security who have the administration’s ear who want to confront Russia. Either way, both Blinken and Biden have warned the Russians “not to make a serious mistake over Ukraine,” also stating that there would be “massive” economic consequences if there were any attack by Russian troops. After a meeting with Germany’s new Foreign Minister, Blinken asserted last week that there would be no progress with in diplomatic approaches to the problem as long as there is a Russian “gun pointed at Ukraine’s head.” In reality, of course, Moscow is 5,000 miles away from Washington and the truly dangerous pointed gun has been in the hands of NATO and the US right on Russia’s doorstep.

To be sure, fighting Russia is popular in some circles, largely a result of incessant negative media coverage about Putin and his government. Opinion polls suggest that half of all Americans favor sending troops to defend the Ukrainians. The Republicans, notably Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, appear to be particularly enthusiastic regarding going to war over Ukraine as well as with China over Taiwan and openly advocate both admitting Ukraine into NATO as well as sending troops and weapons as well as providing intelligence to assist Kiev. They argue that it is necessary to defend American democracy and also to maintain the US’s “credibility,” the last refuge of a scoundrel nation, as Daniel Larison observes , since Washington frequently “goes back on its word.” And then there are the crazies like Ohio Congressman Mike Turner who says that US troops must be sent to Ukraine to defend American democracy. Or Republican Senator from Mississippi Roger Wicker who favors a possible unilateral nuclear first-strike to “rain destruction on Russian military capability,” leading to a global conflict that wouldn’t be so bad as it would only kill 10 to 20 million Americans.

Russia has a right to be worried as something is brewing in Kazakhstan right now that just might be a replay of the US-supported NGO-instigated successful overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. The Collective Security Treaty Organization members Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia, have sent soldiers responding to the Kazakh government’s request for help. Unfortunately, US foreign policy is not only about Russia. The Taiwan issue continues to fester with a similar resonance to the Ukraine crisis. China, a rising power, increasingly wants to assert itself in its neighborhood while the US is trying to alternatively confront and contain it while also propping up relationships that evolved after the Korean War and during the Cold War. The status quo is unsustainable, but US moves to “protect” Taiwan are themselves destabilizing as they make the Chinese suspicious of American intentions and will likely lead to unnecessary armed conflict.

And let’s not ignore America’s continued devastation by sanctions and bombs of civilian populations in Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Yemen to punish the governments of those countries. And, of course there, is always Israel, good old loyal ally and greatly loved by all politicians and the media, Israel, the Jewish state. Biden continues to waffle on reentry into the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, which is good for the US, under pressure from Israel and its domestic “Amen chorus.” Just last month, speaking at a Zionist Organization of America Gala, former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intoned that “There is no more important task of the Secretary of State than standing for Israel and there is no more important ally to the United States than Israel.” Add to that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s unforgettable bleat about her love for Israel, “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”

You might ask how any American leader could so blatantly state that US interests are subordinate to those of a foreign country, but there we are. And it is tragic that our president is willing to sacrifice American military lives in support of interests that are completely fraudulent. The truth is that we have a government that in bipartisan fashion does everything ass backwards while the American people struggle to pay the bills and watch their quality of life and even their security go downhill. Again citing Vladimir Putin’s wisdom on the subject, one might observe that as early as 2007 at the Munich Security Conference, the Russian president said that the “lawless behavior” of the United States in insisting on global dominance and leadership did not respect the vital interests of other nations and undermined both the desire for and the mechanisms established to encourage peaceful relations. He got that right. That is the crux of the matter. There is neither credibility nor humanity to American foreign policy, and everyone knows that the United States and allies like Israel are basically rogue nations that obey no rules and respect no one else’s rights. This has been somewhat true since the Second World War but it has become routine practice in nearly all of America’s international relations since 9/11 and the real losers are the American people, who have to shoulder the burden of an increasingly feckless and hopelessly corrupt political class.



Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].


Read more:



Read from top.







The interview of Steven Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine, by the 7:30 report, ABC TV, was slanted as all get out in favour of the US's and NATO's aggressive ambitions towards Russia. It would have been "balanced" to also present counter-arguments that contextualised views about Ukraine, Crimea and Russia.


The attitude of Steven Pifer is "whatever the US wants, the US (and NATO) gets. The US owns the world. Bugger off!!!"

Some points need to be made:

— The dismantling of the USSR in 1990 was a generous act by Gorbachev, who was promised by Ronald Reagan that the West would not try to "poach" former Soviet republics.

— Ukraine has been a controversial country. Some of its citizens are "Russian". In general, Ukraine has been a hot bed of Nazism, during WW2 and thereafter. This Nazism was exploited by the US fomenting a "colour" revolution in 2014 by giving more than $5 billions and weapons to the Ukrainian fascist factions and organisations. The crux of this "largess" came when Biden, Secretary of State under Obama, threatened the Ukrainian Poroshenko government of not getting US$1 billion, should the prosecutor general of Ukraine, Shokin, continues his investigation into Burisma — a crooked energy company, which had "useless" HUNTER BIDEN on the board of directors. Biden famous words were:

"if the prosecutor is not fired you’re not getting the money. Well son of a bitch, he got fired."

This was blackmail. Ukraine has been a corrupt country, under its various governments since the end of WW2 when Ukraine, in general, sided with Germany to invade Russia. Russia did not forget this episode of brotherhood betrayal.

One must remember that angelic abortionist Joe Biden is the writer of the "Patriot Act", as well.

— In regard to Crimea, Crimea was always "part of Russia" in this USSR context. While Crimea had been fought over by the Ottoman Empire and Russia, it had been Russian for nearly three centuries. 90 per cent of Crimeans are Russian. The main city/port, Sevastopol, is RUSSIAN. Crimea was a pseudo-gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, for being a "good soviet republic", in the 1960s. Crimea had a LEGITIMATE vote to become Russian "again" in 2014, in a way similar to Scotland voting to remain in the UK or not, around the same period. Russia DID NOT invade Crimea. The Russians were ALREADY there.

— The downing of an airliner above the contested Donetsk area of Ukraine has been a sore point which the West (NATO – a European lackey of the USA - and the US) wants to blame Russia by whatever means, including lying about in its "investigation". The only fact to consider is why would Ukraine DIVERT a commercial airliner to fly above a war zone. Another consideration is the possibility of a "false flag" event by Ukraine to blacken the Russians.

— The Minsk agreement made in 2015 that gives autonomy to the part of Eastern Ukraine — populated by more than 70 per cent Russians — have been regularly flaunted by Ukraine, with the help of the West, being completely hypocritical on this subject.

— Pifer is a hypocritical purveyor of crap.

— The interview on the 7:30 was improperly contextualised, basically indicating that Russian troops in RUSSIAN territory were a threat to NATO's own positioning in Europe, with its nukes all AROUND RUSSIA (Poland, Germany, Italy and tentatively in Ukraine) before "Russian ever had troops on its borders".