NATO Gearing up for Regime Change in Russia with False Flag Ops?

Professor Filip Kovacevic discusses the articles from four Russian newspapers: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Izvestia, Kommersant, and Komsomolskaya Pravda. He discusses the recent sinking of the Russian spy ship ‘Liman’ in the Black Sea, the interview with the Russian permanent representative to NATO Alexander Grushko, the summit meeting between the German chancellor Angela Merkel and the Russian president Vladimir Putin, and the claims about the potential ‘false flag’ terrorist attack in Kiev during the Eurovision song contest.

Netanyahu in Russia begs

Image result for king putin

Ha!

Putin sits on the victor’s platform in Syria, achieving his strategic goal of showing his power in the Middle East, just as the former Soviet Union did. Russia has done so in coordination with its powerful allies.

Iran is not only a military ally, but also a major buyer of modern Russian weapons systems and engineering skill. Russian engineers and scientists also established the Bushehr nuclear facility.

Russia’s arms exports to the Middle East range from $ 1.2 billion to $ 5.6 billion a year from the $ 14.5 billion annual arms export market, Chatham House estimates. In 2016, the two countries announced an agreement to buy Russian tanks and aircraft worth $ 10 billion.

How did Netanyahu think that Putin would abandon his ally and fall into the arms of Israel? What will Putin get back from this, who is victorious in a long war?

The premise of Netanyahu’s trip seems to have been based on more than arrogance, that he can somehow convince the Russian president himself of the Israeli position.

However, the Israeli prime minister made a fundamental mistake in the assessment of the situation, and the world media ridiculed the outcome of the talks and described it on a semi-global level as a failure.

read the full article here ida2at.com

War Against Russia For Israel; Hell No We Won’t Go!

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest James Morris was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hardline interventionist approach for the US toward that divided country.

The host and the two other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea on the grounds that (in their minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even more hostile to Israel.

But when one moves from speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the Israel lobby, one can see that Morris was completely correct.

Moreover, Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Israel lobby’s position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as members of the Israel lobby have perceived Israel’s interest (which might not be the same as the Crosstalk threesome.)

The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially been  ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position toward  Syria.

Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best encapsulated by an  August 2011 open letter from  the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense  of Democracies (an organization which claims to address any “threat facing  America, Israel and the West”)  to  President Obama, urging  him to take  stronger measures against Syria.

Among the  signatories of the letter are  such neocon luminaries  as: Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather”  Norman Podhoretz and a former National Security adviser to President George  W. Bush); the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard”  editor Bill Kristol;   Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  under George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper);  Joshua Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI],  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”);  Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq);  Robert Kagan  (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James Woolsey  (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of  the  Foundation for Defense of  Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the Committee for the  Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John McCain in his 2008  presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former Director of the Project  for the New American Century’s Middle East Initiative and a former resident  fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky (advisor to the propagandistic Office of  Special Plans, which was under Douglas Feith); John Hannah ( senior fellow  at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former  national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and  Gary  Schmitt (AEI and former President for the Project for a New American  Century).

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/19/conservatives_suggest_syria_next_steps_0

As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in  Syria was not an idea conceived by either  the neocons or the broader Israel  lobby; rather it  can be traced back to the Israeli  Likudniks, being  articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the  Nineteen Eighties.”

In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use  military means to bring about the dissolution of  Israel’s neighboring  states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian  groupings.

Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking  because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and  religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of  powerless mini-statelets that could in no way confront Israeli power.  Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s model for the entire Middle  East.

Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves  as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and  the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution  of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such  as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long  run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as  the primary short term target.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)

What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place  today is that Yinon’s rationale for  eliminating the dictatorial regimes in  Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with  their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based  solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently  weaken Israel’s enemies.

The neoconservatives took up the gist of the  Yinon’s position  in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors  included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was  presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It  urged him  to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which beginning  with Iraq would include  “weakening, containing, and even rolling back  Syria.”

Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not  liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (“The Transparent  Cabal,” p. 90)

Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to  confront Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States  and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided.  And this position on  Syria was concurred in  by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one  month before the US invasion of Iraq,  identified it, along with Libya and  Iran,  as an ideal target for  future US action.

Sharon stated:  “These are  irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass  destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make  that easier to achieve.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,”  p. 172)

A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election,  Bill Kristol would emphasize  the key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.”  He wrote in the  “Weekly Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with  America’s efforts to put down the insurgency  in Iraq,  it was thus  essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as  part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The  Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)

The close ties  between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a  fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria.  It  was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006  incursion into Lebanon.  Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon  Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that  was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli  confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that  Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. “They believed that  Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that  Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It  was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the  thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit.”  Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow  for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in  the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)

And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a  casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons  sought.  Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this war  is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are not going  to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and  Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can  accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)  Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article,  “It’s Our War,”  underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing  conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression  [arms provided to Hezbollah]  with a military strike against Iranian nuclear  facilities.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)

As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime  has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time.  And it  currently propels the demand for militant action  against the Syrian  government.    Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a  way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy),  or even leading to war with it.    That Israel might not benefit from regime  change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a  development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of  the overall Israel lobby support it.  And it is they who affect the policy  of the United States.

Ending NATO, a Monstrous Institution

Image result for israel enters NATO

Israel is on the march where it really counts. Soon after the de facto Saudi recognition of Israel last month now comes this further step making Israel a de facto member of NATO. As of this month Israel has “Official Representation” at NATO HQ in Brussels.

US led NATO and its allies, including Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Apartheid Israel, are perpetuating these crimes beneath ridiculous banners of “humanitarian interventions” and/or the “Global War On Terror”

The coercive strategies being used include these:

  • Destroying hospitals and infrastructure
  • Starvation
  • Disinformation campaigns/erasing “history”
  • Balkanization/partitioning
  • Bombing civilian populations
 

The end-game is to de-populate and to destroy target countries and to subjugate the remaining population.

• June 5, 2017

Their anxiety about the future of NATO, recently on full display again when the American president was in Europe, could not be bettered as a measure of the incapacity of Europe’s top politicians to guide their continent and represent its populations.

Through its provocations of Moscow, NATO systematically helps increase the risk of a military confrontation.

By thus sabotaging its declared purpose of preserving collective security for the countries on either side of the Atlantic, it erases its fundamental reason for being and right to exist.

Grasping these facts ought be enough to fuel moves aimed at quickly doing away with NATO. But it is terrible for more and easily overlooked reasons.

NATO’s survival prevents the political entity that is the European Union from becoming a significant global presence for reasons other than its economic weight.

If you cannot have a defense policy of your own you also deprive yourself of a foreign policy.

Without a substantive foreign policy, Europe does not show anything that anyone might consider ‘a face’ to the world.

Without such a face to the outside, the inside cannot come to terms about what it stands for, and substitutes meaningless platitudes for answers to the question as to why it should exist in the first place.

shutterstock_119677318 NATO is an example of an institution that has gotten completely out of hand through European complacency, intellectual laziness, and business opportunism. As a security alliance it requires a threat.

When the one that was believed to exist during the Cold War disappeared, a new one had to be found.

Forged for defense against what was once believed to be an existential threat, it only began actually deploying its military might after that threat had disappeared, for its illegal war against Serbia.

Once it had jumped that hurdle, it was encouraged to continue jumping toward imagined global threats.

Its history since the demise of its original adversary has been deplorable, as its European member states were made party to war crimes resulting from actions at Washington’s behest for objectives that have made a dead letter of international law.

It has turned some European governments into liars when they told their populations that sending troops to Afghanistan was for the purpose of assorted humanitarian purposes like reconstructing that country, rather than fighting a war against Taleban forces intent on reclaiming their country from American occupation.

Afghanistan did not, as was predicted at the time, turn into a graveyard for NATO, next to that of the British Empire, the Soviet Union and – farther back – Alexander the Great.

Having survived Afghanistan, NATO continued to play a significant role in the destruction of Gaddafi’s Libya, and in the destruction of parts of Syria through covertly organising, financing, and arming ISIS forces for the purpose of overthrowing the Assad government.

And it continues to serve as a cover for the war making elements in Britain and France. America’s coup in the Ukraine in 2014, which resulted in a crisis in relations with Russia, gave NATO a new lease on life as it helped create an entirely uncalled for and hysterical fear of Russia in Poland and the Baltic states.

NATO repudiates things that we are said to hold dear. It is an agent of corruption of thought and action in both the United States and Europe.

Through propaganda that distorts the reality of the situation in the areas where it operates, and perennial deceit about its true objectives, NATO has substituted a now widely shared false picture of geopolitical events and developments for one that, even if haphazard, used to be pieced together by independent reporters for mainstream media whose own tradition and editors encouraged discovery of facts.

This propaganda relies to a large extent on incessant repetition for its success. It can generally not be traced to NATO as a source of origin because it is being outsourced to a well-funded network of public relations professionals.

The Atlantic Council is NATO’s primary PR organization. It is connected with a web of think tanks and NGO’s spread throughout Europe, and very generous to journalists who must cope with a shrinking and insecure job environment.

This entity is well-versed in Orwellian language tricks, and for obvious reasons must mischaracterise NATO itself as an alliance instead of a system of vassalage.

Alliance presupposes shared purposes, and it cannot be Europe’s purpose to be controlled by the United States, unless we now accept that a treasonous European financial elite must determine the last word on Europe’s future.

An influential policy deliberation NGO known as the International Crisis Group (ICG), is one of the organizations linked with the Atlantic Council.

It operates as a serious and studious outfit, carrying an impressive list of relatively well-known names of associates, and studies areas of the world harbouring conflicts or about-to-be conflicts that could undermine world peace and stability.

Sometimes this group does offer information that is germane to a situation, but its purpose has in effect become one of making the mainstream media audience view the situation on the ground in Syria, or the ins and outs of North Korea, or the alleged dictatorship in Venezuela, and so on, through the eyeballs of the consensus creators in American foreign policy.

NATO repudiates political civilisation. It is disastrous for European intellectual life as it condemns European politicians and the thinking segment of the populations in its member states to be locked up in what may be described as political kindergarten, where reality is taught in terms of the Manichean division between bad guys and superheroes.

While Europe’s scholars, columnists, TV programmers and sophisticated business commentators rarely pay attention to NATO as an organization, and are generally oblivious to its propaganda function, what it produces condemns them to pay lip service to the silliest geopolitical fantasies.

NATO is not only terrible for Europe, it is very bad for the United States and the world in general, for it has handed to America’s elites important tools aiding its delusional aim of fully dominating the planet.

This is because NATO provides the most solid external support for sets of assumptions that allegedly lend a crucial moral dimension to America’s warmaking.

NATO does not exist for the sake of indispensable European military prowess, which hardly has not been impressive. It exists as legal justification for Washington to keep nuclear weapons and military bases in Europe.

It obviously also exists as support for America’s military-industrial complex.

But its moral support ought to be considered its most significant contribution. Without NATO, the conceptual structure of a ‘West’ with shared principles and aims would collapse.

NATO was once the organisation believed to ensure the continued viability of the Western part what used to be known as the ‘free world’. Such connotations linger, and lend themselves to political exploitation.

The ‘free world’ has since the demise of the Soviet Union not been much invoked. But ‘the West’ is still going strong, along with the notion of Western values and shared principles, with ‘the good’ in the form of benevolent motives automatically assumed to be on its side.

This gives the powers that be in Washington a terrific claim in the realm of widely imagined moral aspects of geopolitical reality.

They have inherited the mantle of the leader of the ‘free world’ and ‘the West’, and since there has not been a peep of dissension about this from the other side of the Atlantic, the claim appears true and legitimate in the eyes of the world and the parties concerned.

In the meantime the earlier American claim to speak and act on behalf of the free world was broadened and seemingly depoliticised by a substitute claim of speaking and acting on behalf of the ‘international community’.

There is of course no such thing, but that doesn’t bother editors who keep invoking it when some countries or the bad guys running them do things that are not to Washington’s liking. Doing away with NATO would pull the rug from under the ‘international community’.

Such a development would then reveal the United States, with its current political system and priorities in international affairs, as a criminal power and the major threat to peace in the world.

I can hear an objection that without this resonance of moral claims the activities serving the ‘full spectrum dominance’ aim would have been carried out anyway.

If you think so, and if you can stand reading again what the neocons were producing between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi in 2003, subtract all references to moral clarity and the necessity for the United States to serve as moral beacon for the world from that literature, and you will see that preciously little argument remains for American war-making that ensued.

shutterstock_591252749 The spinelessness of the average European politician has added up to huge encouragement of the United States in its post-Cold War military adventurism.

With forceful reminders from Europe about what those much vaunted supposedly shared political principles actually stood for, American rhetoric could not have been the same.

Strong European condemnation of the shredding of the UN Charter, and the jettisoning of the principles adopted at the Nuremberg trials, would have made it much more difficult for George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocons to go where blind fanaticism and hubris, with imagined economic advantage, took them.

Perhaps more importantly, it might have given a relatively weak American protest movement the necessary added energy to rise to the level of effectiveness once attained by the anti-Vietnam activists as they imprinted themselves on the political culture of the 60s and 70s.

European dissent might not have halted but could have slowed the transformation of much of the mainstream media into neocon propaganda assets.

As it is, NATO exists today in a realm of discourse in which revered post-World War II liberal conditions and practices are still believed to exist.

It is an apolitical and ahistorical realm determined by hubris and misplaced self-confidence, in which powers that have utterly altered these practices and negated its positive aspects are not acknowledged.

It is a realm in which America’s pathological condition of requiring an enemy as a source of everlasting profit is not acknowledged. It is a realm in which America’s fatuous designs for complete control over the world is not acknowledged. It is a realm of foreign policy illusions.

NATO is supposed to guard putative Western values that in punditry observations have something to do with what the Enlightenment has bestowed on Western culture.

But it deludes staunch NATO supporters, who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the possibility that what they have long trusted to be an agent of protection, has in fact become a major force that destroys those very qualities and principles.

There is a further more tangible political/legal reason why NATO is monstrous. It is steered by nonelected powers in Washington, but is not answerable to identifiable entities within the American military system.

It is not answerable to any of the governing institutions of the European Union. Its centre in Brussels exists effectively outside the law. Its relations with ‘intelligence agencies’ and their secret operations remain opaque.

Who is doing what and where are all questions to which no clear, legally actionable, information is made available.

NATO has thereby become a tool of intimidation lacking any compatibility with democratic political organisation. An autocrat aspiring to unfettered rule with which to operate anywhere in the world would find in NATO the ideal institutional arrangements.

All this should be of our utmost concern. Because all this means that NATO is now one of the world’s most horrible organizations that at the same time has become so politically elusive, apparently, that there is no European agent with enough of a grip on it to make it disappear.