Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Craig Kelly Speech on the Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in Australia

Craig Kelly Speech on the Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine for the early treatment of COVID-19 in the Australian Federal Parliament

Original can be found on Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP…

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 2 Comments

UAE intelligence agents training YPG militants in northern, eastern Syria: Report

Press TV – August 30, 2020

The United Arab Emirates (UAE)’s spy agency has reportedly been training Kurdish militants affiliated with the anti-Damascus People’s Protection Units (YPG) in areas under their occupation in northern and eastern Syria over the past few years.

Turkey’s official Anadolu news agency, citing multiple sources, reported on Sunday that Signals Intelligence Agency (SIA) officers held secret talks with the Kurdish militants back in 2017, and were dispatched to YPG-held areas in Syria the following year.

The report added that SIA agents purportedly train YPG militants to carry out espionage and counter-espionage operations, acts of sabotage as well as assassinations. The Kurdish militants are also being taught how to conduct signal intelligence, information security and cryptography on communication networks.

Such training missions are said to be underway in the Kurdish-populated northeastern Syrian city of Qamishli as well as major cities of Hasakah and Dayr al-Zawr.

Anadolu further noted that Emirati intelligence officers have even established a secret direct hotline with YPG militants.

The UAE has long been accused of sponsoring the militant groups, which have been operating across Syria since early 2011 to topple the Damascus government.

The YPG — the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — has America’s support in its anti-Damascus push. The Kurdish militants seized swathes of land in the northern and eastern parts of Syria from the Takfiri Daesh terror group in 2017, and are now refusing to hand their control back to the central government.

Turkey views the YPG as a terrorist organization tied to the homegrown Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been seeking an autonomous Kurdish region in Turkey since 1984.

On October 9, 2019, Turkish forces and Ankara-backed militants launched a cross-border invasion of northeastern Syria in an attempt to push YPG militants away from border areas.

Two weeks after the invasion began, Turkey and Russia signed a memorandum of understanding that asserted YPG militants had to withdraw from the Turkish-controlled “safe zone” in northeastern Syria, after which Ankara and Moscow would run joint patrols around the area.

Back on June 14, an unnamed security source at the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) told the London-based al-Araby al-Jadeed newspaper that the UAE had allegedly provided financial aid to PKK militants in Iraq’s northern semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.

The source said KRG authorities had imposed limitations on money transfers coming from the Persian Gulf state, and that the measure applied to all exchanges in Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Biden’s chances rest on a John Podesta-Planned Military Coup, Ballot Harvesting, Police Shootings, and a False Flag

By Joaquin Flores | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 30, 2020

Our early August prognosis published by SCF on August 23rd, that Joe Biden would not concede the election even if Trump wins, was confirmed by Hillary Clinton herself on August 25th.

This piece will follow up on the strategy involved in that piece, and develop these in light of John Podesta’s election war-game and the situation in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In the Kenosha situation, we have armed groups on both sides, creating a volatile situation in what increasingly looks like a pre-civil war scenario. All together, we can now see the following is evident:

Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential bid now depends on a combination of a.) severe social media and search engine censorship of book-burning proportions, b.) signs from the military that they will back Biden (per John Podesta ) on the heels of c.) an inconclusive election (mailed-out blank ballots), and d.) (the Soros wing of) BLM’s ability engage in rioting and to pose as Trump-like supporters (QAnon and adjacent, such as ‘Save The Children’) in order to e.) conduct a dangerous or illegal public stunt (false flag).

Trump’s deep campaign has revolved around Christian, Gnostic, and New Age themes, which (with regard to the latter two) intersect themes of spirituality previously in the domain of the coastal left. These will form the substrate of a focus on this election being a contest of Good vs. Evil, of Light vs. Dark, of the champions of children against sexual predators, as well as anti-war and anti-vax themes; wherein ‘war mongers’ like ‘Hillary Clinton’, alleged child abusers like ‘John Podesta’, and regulatory capturers of healthcare like ‘Bill Gates’, serve as anthropomorphic reifications of unadulterated evil.

This is a novel phenomenon, and does not represent pre-Trump Republican tropes and organizing issues. Mainstream Republican tropes were represented at the RNC convention, and work to establish a continuity – even if ill fitted – between traditional conservatism (previously opposed to Trump) and Trump’s hardcore base.

[Image – Alleged Soros-BLM posing as a pro-Trump ‘Save the Children’ demonstration in what some fear foreshadows a false flag]

The Coup – Color Revolution and Arab Spring

Past political contests after the assassination of Kennedy appear to be based upon a consensus on key issues on international relations among elected officials, because the permanent administration had consensus on these themselves. But the rise of Trump, and the great lengths a part of the permanent administration has gone to frustrate his efforts, strongly indicate that there is now a political crisis and division so great, at the level of leadership, that all the soft-power and coup methods (used by the CIA abroad) are now being used within the U.S. against the executive branch.

A part of this permanent administration appears to back Trump, or rather Trump appears to be ‘their candidate’, and this may well in part explain his electoral success in 2016 despite what appeared as overwhelming odds to the contrary.

Perhaps the most visible permutation of this division and crisis were events in the deserts of Syria and Iraq, where Pentagon backed Kurdish YPG forces fought against CIA backed ISIS forces, with Americans in the employ of these institutions embedded on either side, firing at each other and taking losses. It would make sense that to military intelligence, such an incoherent and openly corrosive dynamic would need to be finally headed off.

Therefore, all of the lessons drawn from the Color Revolution, Fourth Generational Warfare (4GW), counter-insurgency and hybrid warfare, learned in our study of the events of Yugoslavia, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela and lately Belarus, all become necessary reading in order to understand the absolutely destabilized position that the U.S. finds itself in as we approach the 2020 election.

We should expect, in line with the color-springs tactic, that police will engage in the killings of black men, orchestrated by police secret societies operating on behest of the permanent administration (known colloquially and hereafter as the ‘deep state’). These will be timed in such a way for maximum utility with regard to high/low points in the campaigns of the two candidates.

Kenosha On Fire

Such an incident just occurred on August 23rd in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake. Standard and divisive motifs followed: the event was not clear cut, and definitive aspects of the case are open to interpretation and subject to confirmation bias in the public’s eye. This will provoke reaction and polarization, with the nuances and facts of the situation and its context often traded in for political expedience. Pro law enforcement types more closely associated with conservative politics will say the shooting was justified prior to a hearing of the facts, and will include biographical information about Blake which demonstrates his past criminal offenses, while ignoring that these past offenses do not form the basis for legitimizing a ‘summary execution’. Likewise, anti-police liberals will condemn the shooting as racist and unjustified, without regard to the views on race of the police involved, and without a review of the actual facts that anti-Trump corporate media was reluctant to expose but which were contained in the police report. At the same time, there is a long history of police falsifying evidence and statements to justify shootings such as these.

Note that the governor of Wisconsin, the Democrat Tony Evers, is the one who declared a state of emergency for Covid-19 and an unpopular lockdown. He is a career government bureaucrat, and was met by a mobilization of armed citizens against those diktats. Yet the fall-out and riots in the aftermath of the Blake shooting, of which the Evers-mandated high unemployment (per lockdown) forms the substrate but yet expressed through BLM/Antifa riots, will be blamed on Trump, whose years in public service can be counted on a single hand, and whose general efforts have been to end the lockdown and ‘re-open the economy’. Evers will not call on rioters to observe social distancing, and will call the armed detachments involved in arson and looting, ‘protesters’, and the constitutionalist militias who deployed to protect the rights of both protestors (from police excess) and civilians (from protestor-arsonists) as ‘right wing’.

The increasing emergence of ‘armed peaceful protestors’, an Orwellian oxymoron as a phrase in itself, first appeared in the Syrian conflict, where American corporate media and fake-left publications like Counterpunch regularly referred to armed Al Qaeda/ISIS/FSA groups engaged in shootings and killings as ‘peaceful protesters’.

[Video, Photo – an ‘armed peaceful protestor’ stands off with an armored Sheriff vehicle.]

In our past pieces, we have explored the mechanisms that the DNC and the permanent administration will use to nullify or falsify the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in November. This included the use of Democrat governors in certain states, as we previously wrote, to declare a state winner so that its electors go to Biden, in manufactured cases where the desired vote by state citizens could not be determined. It included the use of NGO employees, Labor/BLM/Antifa activists alongside contact tracers to use the coronavirus and social upheaval around manufactured racial justice issues to interfere with voters’ access to polls, and voters’ use of mailed-out ballots and ballot harvesting schemes.

In our last piece we disclosed that the DNC plans to have Biden declare himself the winner of the election, whatever the pending (inconclusive, tampered, stolen, etc.) outcome may be.

In a separate piece published on FRN, this author explained that for the Trump strategy against the riots to work, would require a plan that involved the co-opting of the BLM hashtag by his supporters. This would mean a separation of the BLM from Antifa, the latter being a designated terrorist group.

We explained there that this approach would be similar to that taken by Russia and Syria in the Syrian war, where certain Free Syrian Army (FSA) units had to be separated from ISIS, so that these FSA units could be considered ‘legitimate opposition’ (a change of tact in itself, previously all armed opposition were considered illegitimate by the Syrian government), and even incorporated into joint attacks with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA – Assad’s forces) against ISIS.

Of particular interest will be how the public and courts view the actions of Kenosha Guard militia member Kyle Rittenhouse. These two videos, the news commentary dubbed over and to the contrary, show Rittenhouse acting in self-defense. It also shows that those with him provided first responder assistance to the man who pulled a gun on Rittenhouse and who was subsequently shot in the arm.

Censorship

We now know, per the New York Times, that Facebook execs have been meeting to implement a strategy to censor information that Donald Trump has won the 2020 election, because of the working contingency plan (which appears to still be in operation) that Biden will declare victory regardless of a determinable outcome, as we previously wrote. This, however as we explained, would result in a vote in the Congress and Senate where it is likely that Nancy Pelosi may assume the presidency.

Simultaneously, Facebook execs have had a difficult time pushing against a terrified DNC which has been making irrational demands to further censorship.

Why are the DNC’s Censorship demands on Facebook irrational?

The DNC demands are fear-based and reactionary, and while Facebook execs have been happy to do the bidding of the DNC and pro-deep state Republicans (still a majority), they know the requests to further censor pro-Trump twitter accounts are known to produce the opposite effect. This is confirmed by the known science on the subject.

Studies of social revolutions and regime legitimacy show that further censorship in an environment where citizens have access to alternate informational lines, only erodes the legitimacy of the regime. Such a study was conducted on how the DDR tried to cover up the mass exodus of citizens into West Germany some thirty years ago [Sometimes Less Is More: Censorship, News Falsification, and Disapproval in 1989 East Germany . Christian Gläßel Katrin Paula , 2019].

Facebook execs called upon MIT to conduct a study to help establish their case, and a layman’s version of these conclusions were published in MIT’s online magazine Technology Review in a piece titled, It’s Too Late to Stop QAnon with Fact Checks and Account Bans.

In this article by MIT, it is reported that: “Friedberg, who has studied the movement deeply, says he believes it is “absolutely” too late for mainstream social-media platforms to stop QAnon, although there are some things they could do to, say, limit its adherents’ ability to evangelize on Twitter.”

Like the study of the DDR and regime legitimacy, the DNC finds that the more they push for censorship, the more popular the pro-Trump conspiracy theories grow.

What appears to be a work-around for this conundrum the deep state faces, is a new development, where the Soros wing of BLM has been instructed to stage at least one rally (so far) in Chicago that took place during the week of August 17th. In this, a group wearing what looked like Soros wing BLM uniforms actually carried placards associated with QAnon – such as WWG1WGA, #SaveTheChildren, #EndHumanTrafficking, and were replete with signs calling for ‘ending the pedophile Satanic cabal’.

Podesta’s Simulation Sees Public Looking to Military for a Sign

Of particular interest is that John Podesta recently ran a simulation on the DNC’s approach and response to election 2020, where he played the role of Biden. This war-game exercise was covered by David Frum for the Atlantic. Despite its counter-factual ‘facts’ and erroneous presumptions (poll based, etc.), the findings were startling.

Neither side would concede, courts would be too slow to act, Antifa and QAnon groups would clash in the streets, and the actions of the military, in either direction, or as with the National Guard – as deployed by the Justice Department under AG Barr, would be the deciding factor.

In that simulation there were a total of 67 players who met on Zoom in the first week of June 2020. This was composed of high-profile critics of President Donald Trump, including law professors, retired military officers, former senior U.S. officials, political strategists, attorneys, and cable news room editors.

We have to reiterate that Podesta, playing the role of Biden, understands that the real outcome of the election will therefore be the position that the military takes.

A wing of Trump’s supporters – Qanon – are adamant that military intelligence, or at least an operation within the NSA, will not only back Trump, but have been backing Trump since before the 2016 election. They believe this partly explains Trump’s victory despite what they see as an election ‘rigged’ by Clinton – thereby explaining Clinton’s otherwise unfounded confidence that she would win by a landslide in that fateful election now four years ago.

On the other side have been several notable members of the deep state, such as Colin Powell and former CIA chief John Brennan.

This all gels with the insider information that we have written about from SEIU, which as explained previously, forms the nexus between the Biden ground campaign and its GOTV, Bernie’s ‘Our Revolution’ and ‘Working Families Party’, Antifa, and BLM.

Conclusion

The likelihood that the 2020 election will not produce an agreed winner, barring effective active measures from Trump, is nearly certain. Based on the Northop/Standard model, Trump has an over 90% chance at winning an election if following the rules in place in the past dozen election cycles. This explains why the DNC has introduced as many X factors as possible – a politicized Covid-19 response, slanted news which riles up reliable protest movement assets towards rioting and looting, and a mailed-out ballots scheme which is indistinguishable in effect from known problem vote riggings techniques like ballot harvesting.

It is clear that the DNC wants to produce no clear winner, and use some combination of article XX, XII, and provisions as reinforced by related constitutional provisions for the continuation of government, and NSDP 51.

Because there are so many variables, possible counter measures, and new ‘X factors’ that can be introduced, this is a developing story with no clear outcome now estimable. If it is true that the NSA is backing Trump, then this provides strong reason to believe that this candidate will emerge the winner out of the fray. In either event, future X factors are almost certain.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | | 2 Comments

A Pakistani Olive Branch Extended In Efforts to End the Afghani Conflict

By Vladimir Odintsov – New Eastern Outlook – 30.08.2020

In the face of the obvious failure of US policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan has stepped up its efforts to peacefully resolve the Afghani conflict.

On August 24, at the invitation of Pakistani Foreign Ministry, a delegation of the Taliban (movement banned in the Russian Federation – ed.), headed by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar arrived from Doha, capital of Qatar, to meet both civilian and military representatives of Pakistan. Its purpose was to discuss the latest developments in the peace process in Afghanistan and further steps in this direction, improving the security situation for civilians in Afghanistan as well as trade between the two neighboring countries, as confirmed by Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen on his Twitter.

This meeting was already the third of its kind: previously the parties met in October 2019 at the Pakistani Foreign Ministry and in February this year in Doha. This third visit of the Taliban delegation, as intended by those behind it, should contribute to resolving the contradictions that have arisen in recent days on the eve of the intra-Afghan peace talks that did not start on August 20 and were postponed to a later date, and were part of the agreement signed in Doha in February between the Taliban and the United States. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi emphasized in his statement that Islamabad invited the Taliban to emphasize the importance of negotiations, adding that negotiations are “the only way forward” in Afghanistan. “It is the Afghanis who need reconciliation, and our task is mediating,” he said. “The main goal is to ensure peace, and the next stage should be the beginning of an intra-Afghan dialogue.”

In a statement in connection with this meeting, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry highlighted Islamabad’s positive contribution to the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan, which culminated in the signing of a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban in Doha on February 29, 2020. Therefore, Pakistani officials are confident that Afghani stakeholders must seize this historic opportunity to secure a comprehensive political negotiated solution to the Afghani conflict. Islamabad called on the international community to step up its participation in the reconstruction and economic development of Afghanistan, by creating the necessary economic opportunities and conditions conducive to the return of Afghani refugees to their homeland.

Islamabad leaping to action in the peaceful resolution of the Afghani crisis is in part due to Washington’s unrelenting criticism of Pakistan for “insufficient efforts to counter Afghani anti-government forces,” which the US State Department has repeatedly noted in its reports. In particular, the United States emphasizes how Pakistan failed to prevent a number of attacks by militants from its territory against Afghanistan, and makes minimal efforts to suppress the activities of terrorist organizations. At the same time, it is especially clear Islamabad only conducted anti-terrorist operations against those militants who carried out attacks specifically on Pakistani territory. This critical position has been repeatedly voiced by the current Afghani authorities close to the United States, accusing Islamabad of supporting the Taliban and other militants operating in the weakly defended border, indicating, in particular, that Taliban leaders are based in cities along the Pakistani-Afghani border, including Quetta and Peshawar.

Washington’s latest accusations against Islamabad were voiced in the annual report on terrorism published by the US State Department on June 24. In it, in particular, it was noted that Pakistan is a haven for terrorists and terrorist groups operating in South Asia, such as the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and aysh-e-Mohammad (all banned in the Russian Federation), and the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan and the Pakistani army have been accused of inaction. In addition, the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report indicated that religious minorities and children are frequent victims of the slave trade in Pakistan.

For these reasons and for alleged “insufficient support by the Pakistani authorities for the American strategy on South Asia” in 2018, the United States refused to provide financial assistance to Islamabad in the amount of $300 million. This has already caused Islamabad’s harsh discontent with such assessments of Washington’s actions by Pakistan, since the indicated amount was supposed to be not help, but compensation for funds already spent by this country on countering terrorism.

However, today everyone is already well aware that Washington’s criticism of Pakistan in recent years is primarily due to the desire of the current American authorities to shift the blame for the apparent failure of their policy in Afghanistan to a third party, including the deaths here of more than two thousand American soldiers as well as over 20 thousand injuries, hundreds of billions of dollars worthlessly spent on goals incomprehensible to the public, which was more than enough to have long ago made Afghanistan a flourishing state in many ways. An important factor in such attacks by the Donald Trump administration on the Pakistani authorities is also the establishment of closer bilateral relations between Pakistan and China, as a result of which the traditional ties between America and Pakistan have all but disintegrated.

Although it is still early to speak into the results of the third meeting of Pakistani representatives and the Taliban, it is nevertheless obvious that the negotiations that took place in the current situation were very necessary in hopes to settle the Afghani conflict. And once again it was Islamabad who extended the olive branch in an effort to achieve peace in Afghanistan.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Anatomy of coup attempt in Belarus

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 30, 2020

Russian President Vladimir Putin disclosed in a TV interview on August 27 that the Americans, among others, had fuelled the unrest in Belarus. He explained that the controversial presence of 33 Russian nationals (with military background) in Minsk in the run-up to the presidential election in Belarus on August 8, which briefly created misunderstanding between Minsk and with Moscow, itself was a joint operation by Ukrainian and US intelligence agencies.

The Russian nationals were apparently given job offers and were “simply lured there (Minsk), dragged across the border … de facto they were brought in on fake documents.” Evidently, Russia is in possession of hard intelligence.

Putin spoke up even as US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun wrapped up talks with top Russian officials in Moscow Wednesday. According to a VOA report, Biegun’s consultations “marked an intensifying U.S. effort to find a peaceful solution in Belarus.” The report took note that en route to Moscow, Biegun had “signalled that Washington was not eager to accept efforts by [Belarus President Alexander] Lukashenko to cast the election standoff as an East versus West showdown that might trigger direct Russian involvement.”

Simply put, Biegun was on a “damage control” mission. This can be taken as admission of defeat in the US-backed regime change project in Belarus. Conceivably, Russian officials shared with Biegun their intelligence regarding the CIA involvement. Later, crisply anodyne identical readouts were released by the Russian and American sides without divulging any details.

The CIA would roll back its Belarus operation — for the time being, at least. A commentary titled What’s Next for the Peaceful Uprising in Belarus? by the United States Institute of Peace sees “potential to bring change” in Belarus, but concludes saying, “While there are no guarantees of success, there is cause for hope. At a minimum, Belarusians have gained a new-found sense of dignity and belief in the power of nonviolent collective action.”

This appears to have been a well-planned operation. Under the garb of journalists, western intelligence deployed dozens of special agents in Belarus. Lukashenko has ordered their expulsion. Associated Press, Radio Liberty and BBC “reporters” have had their accreditation cancelled. A Swedish “photo journalist”, presumably an intelligence operative, was detained and was released at the personal intervention of the Swedish ambassador to Belarus and flown out of Minsk.

From the pro forma reaction by the European Union so far, Brussels has a fair idea of what really happened — that there has been a US operation with active participation of Poland and Lithuania (both EU countries) and Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, NATO statements have been rather combative. The NATO also began air exercises in Poland and Lithuania coinciding with the unrest in Belarus. 

However, major European powers — Germany, France, Italy — didn’t want to get entangled. Their top leaders telephoned Putin to ease the tensions. The EU initially proposed OSCE as mediator, but Moscow sensed that it might lead to backdoor entry by the US intelligence. The OSCE is manned by NATO powers and is under American thumb.

The clincher has been the stern warning by the Kremlin that if the western operation continued, Russia will be left with no option but to intervene. The warning came at Putin’s level, making it very clear that Russia will not countenance a regime change in Minsk to hijack Belarus into the American camp. Moscow has asserted its special interests in Belarus under international law. In his TV interview on Thursday, Putin emphatically stated:

“Indeed, the Union Treaty… and the Collective Security Treaty (CSTO) include articles saying that all member states of these organisations, including the Union State, which consists of two states only – Russia and Belarus, are obliged to help each other protect their sovereignty, external borders and stability… In this connection, we have certain obligations towards Belarus, and this is how Mr Lukashenko has formulated his question. He said that he would like us to provide assistance to him if this should become necessary. I replied that Russia would honour all its obligations.

“Mr Lukashenko has asked me to create a reserve group of law enforcement personnel, and I have done this. But we have also agreed that this group would not be used unless the situation becomes uncontrollable… we came to the conclusion that now it is not necessary, and I hope that it will never be necessary to use this reserve, which is why we are not using it.” Putin made it abundantly clear that Moscow stands by Lukashenko.”

The events in Belarus constitute a watershed moment. Russia will not allow another Ukraine-type colour revolution in the “near abroad”, aimed at encircling it with hostile governments. But Moscow’s intervention, if at all, will conform to international law and stem out of invitation by the country concerned.

That is to say, Russia regards it to be the prerogative of the CSTO countries to handle their internal affairs without outside unlawful interference. Having said that, Moscow has invoked the CSTO’s collective security doctrine. This sets a precedent. The CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. A CIA-sponsored regime change project in any of these countries can run into the CSTO’s crosshairs. Considering that the CSTO is de facto led from Moscow, any more regime change project in Central Asia or Caucasus will trigger Russian countermeasures.

Most important, Moscow will not be prescriptive. Putin has supported Lukashenka’s proposal to draft a new constitution and hold fresh presidential and parliamentary elections, but transition should be lawful and orderly. This Russian approach has been already evident in Kyrgyzstan (2005) Turkmenistan (2006), and Uzbekistan (2016). Even in the case of Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004 and 2014), Russia didn’t oppose  transitions but the West turned them into geopolitical contestations to install anti-Russian regimes.

However, a caveat must be added. Putin also underscored that Belarus is a very special case. He said, in a clear reference to the US, “some forces would like to see something different happening there (Belarus). They would like to influence these processes and to bring about the solutions that would suit their political interests.” Russia cannot afford to see such nefarious designs succeed in Belarus.

In Putin’s words, “This nation is very close to us (Russian Federation) and perhaps is the closest, both in terms of ethnic proximity, the language, the culture, the spiritual as well as other aspects. We have dozens or probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of direct family ties with Belarus.” Not only that, Russia sources from Belarus almost 90 percent of its imports of agricultural products.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Hezbollah vs Israel 2006: Who has upper hand 14 years on?

Middle East Observer | August 14, 2020

Senior Lebanese political analyst Nasser Qandil explores what has changed between Hezbollah and Israel over the last 14 years since the ‘July War’ or ‘The Second Lebanon War’ in 2006.

After tracing the major changes and transformations in the military balance of power between the two sides over the last 14 years, Qandil then explores the current challenges facing Hezbollah inside Lebanon, particularly regarding the deepening economic and political crises in the country.

Note: we have added our own sub-headings in the below transcript to make for easier reading

Source: Al Mayadeen News

Date:  July 12, 2020

Transcript:

Hezbollah 14 years on from the July War

Nasser Qandil:

Actually, regarding (Hezbollah’s) achievement of liberation (in the year 2000) free from any conditions or negotiations, any analyst can figure out that after the year 2000, the region was involved in a race between the Resistance and (Israeli) Army of occupation in which both (sides) tried to reinforce the reality that they wanted to reflect on May 24, 2000 (i.e. just before the liberation).

Israel wanted to say that it has positioned itself on the borders with the purpose of protecting the interior (of Israel); that the era of (the war of) attrition has ended; and that it is moving into a stage where it is able to direct (its) deterrent capacity at will. In contrast, the Resistance wanted to say that Israel has humiliatingly and forcefully withdrawn (from Lebanon); and that this withdrawal is not only the beginning of a countdown of the (Israeli) entity’s capacity to hold onto (occupied) land, but also (its capacity) to go to any (new) war again as well.

Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the Al Aqsa Uprising (“Al Aqsa Intifada”) certified what the Resistance was saying. (Israel’s) 2006 war on Lebanon was the contest that had to settle the previous contests and the (side) who wins this round, cements what it has said. Israel has worked on a plan, theory, mechanisms and appraisals, that is, it didn’t go haphazardly to war (in 2006). In short, Israel counted on “air warfare” theory and put it into practice in the (2006) war. However, the Resistance was aware of that, so it opted to strengthen its power on land, in order to cancel out the theory of air warfare, and to bring the enemy to the land to fight, engage in (battles) of attrition, and (ultimately) defeat it.

The Resistance was the victor. This was the outcome (of the war), because when we talk about ‘victory’ we are not referring to the historic and final defeat. Rather, we are just discussing this war (in 2006) in which the Resistance achieved victory and Israel was defeated again. As in the Lebanon war of the year 2000, or (more accurately) as reflected by the liberation in the (year) 2000, Israel lost its first pillar, that is, its ability to occupy (Lebanon) and remain in it. It also lost its second pillar in the 2006 war, which is its ability to wage war and achieve the goals (that it sets) as it wills.

After the 2006 war, the issue (between both sides) persisted. They entered a totally new and different race. The entity of the (Israeli) occupation is fighting to restore its honor and rehabilitate its image, whereas the Resistance is fighting the battle of becoming a regional power able to make the deterrence weapon (itself as) the policymaker. Since the year 2006, America put its weight behind (Israel’s goals) since Israel is not able to survive any longer without American protection and support. America went to Iraq after realizing that Israel superiority is (gradually) being eroded, and that it is important to rehabilitate its power and control through the American military presence to compensate for the deficiency in Israel’s ability that came about after Lebanon’s liberation in the year 2000 and the Al Aqsa intifada.

Host:

We all remember Condoleezza Rice and the ‘New Middle East Project’.

Nasser Qandil:

Exactly, and this was at the heart of the 2006 war. However, before this (war), America went to Iraq in order to redress the imbalance occurred after Lebanon’s liberation in 2000 and the Al Aqsa intifada, but they failed. The “July War” (2006) came as a second rehabilitation supported by American pressure, calculations and backing. It was a new failure that was added to the accumulated record of failures.

The only available alternative (choice) then was going to a great war, i.e. to topple Syria. This was like Armageddon. Nevertheless, other different battles, the Yemen war and the battle over the future of Iraq, occurred alongside the war (in Syria). They were no less important than the (war in Syria). Today, 14 years after the July War (in 2006), we can talk about facts and not about general trends only. The resistance (movements) transformed from being a resistance force into an Axis of Resistance. This becomes a fact; it is not just words. Today, when his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) speaks and says “I will kill you” – we’ll discuss this later – this (statement) reflects the (powerful reality) of the Axis of Resistance, from Beirut, to Palestine, to Iraq, to Yemen, to Iran and to Syria. This is the first major transformation that occurred between the years 2006 to 2020 during the heat of the several wars that raged over the map of the region.

The second (major transformation during these years): the ‘missile belt’ is now able to strike – from any point (within the Axis of Resistance) – any target in occupied Palestine (i.e. Israel). This means that as the resistance in Palestine is able to target all (areas of Israel) north of Gaza, the resistance in south Lebanon can target the entire (area of Israel) south (of Lebanon); the resistance from Iraq is even able to reach the (Mediterranean) sea; the resistance in Yemen can cover the whole territory of Palestine; and that’s besides (the missiles capabilities of) Syria and Iran.

The Host:

The entire Israeli intelligence efforts have lately been centered on the missile capabilities of the resistance.

Nasser Qandil:

This ‘(missile) belt’ has been completed; it is not a subject of discussion anymore.

The third (major) development is the entrance of the drones (UAVs).  The use of this weapon is not restricted to the Lebanese front line. Israel has evidence that confirms that. How many times were drones sent by the resistance from Lebanon? How many times were the Israelis lost because they failed to track the drones sent from Gaza? (Further evidence lies in) the drones in Yemen, and the achievement of the Aramco attack (in Saudi Arabia) that the godfather of the Dimona (Israeli nuclear program) and Thomas Friedman wrote about it an important article in the New York Times. The article states that what happened in Aramco (can be) repeated on all American military bases in the Middle East, and can be repeated (in a strike) on Dimona. Moreover, one of the Israeli generals quoted by Thomas Friedman during a telephone conversation says that it seems that we must now relinquish the status of being the number one technicians in the Middle East, (and cede that status) to Hezbollah and its allies, and (we ought to) call upon our people to carry hand rifles  in any coming wars in which drones are used. Henceforth, the third factor is the drones.

The fourth (major) new factor is the precision-guided missiles which formed the center of the struggle during the last two or three years of the Syrian war. The Israeli (air) raids which initially aimed at stopping the supply of weapons to the resistance (from Syria to Lebanon) turned into a specific goal (during these years) which became ‘preventing the resistance from the possibility of transforming their missiles into precision-guided ones’. Today, the Israelis speak about precision-guided missile factories and this signifies that they have surrendered to this fact.

The last issue we are ignorant of was revealed by the video published (recently) by (Hezbollah’s) military media which says “Mission accomplished”. Certainly, it is not referring to the precision-guided missiles because his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) has already announced clearly and publicly that ‘yes, we have enough precision-guided missiles to hit any vital Israeli military installation in occupied Palestine’.  But we still don’t know what is meant by “Mission accomplished”. This will stay one of the resistance’s surprises in the coming wars.

Israel 14 years on from the July War

Nasser Qandil:

What have Israel and America achieved in return? Their situation now is similar to that in the July War (2006); they go to war today on one foot only. It was the air force in (the) July (War) that they relied upon, and it is the financial sanctions (that they rely upon) today. Did the Resistance succeed in breaking this foot? I say “Yes, and we will expand on this discussion later.

Host:

We will continue discussing why the resistance succeeded…

Nasser Qandil:

In the first section we talked about the progress achieved by the resistance (Hezbollah) from 2006 to 2020. Israel also worked (on building its power) during these 14 years. Let us see what it did.

Host: … and of course (Israel) was given a green light by the US.

Nasser Qandil:

First of all, Israel focused on the home front. Its main aim was not to draw up a plan to seize the initiative, but to face the fallout of the July War. The resistance (Hezbollah) has risen higher and higher in its level of readiness, its networking capabilities (i.e. greater integration of the Resistance Axis across the region), and its ability to wage war. Meanwhile, what did the (Israeli) entity do?

(First), the Iron Dome that (Israel) was preparing (in order to intercept) Katyusha missiles is now threatened by precision-guided missiles and drones. (The Israelis) went back to saying that they will shoot down missiles with hunting rifles!

(Second), the (Israeli) home front has further collapsed, and now in the time of Corona, it is even worse.

Third, political fragmentation, which is one of the repercussions of the July War. Since the July War, the (Israeli) entity has been mired in its inability to reestablish a historical (political) bloc capable of leading the entity politically. This fragmentation reached its peak with three (consecutive) repeats of the election.

The last point that (Israel) has discovered (over the last 14 years) is that there is no solution to is broken spirit, because we are not only talking about equipment, armies, weapons and logistical plans, we are talking about human beings, about their mental condition. The resistance (Hezbollah) is now becoming more and more confident that it can bring down the (Israeli) entity. When his eminence Sayyed (Nasrallah) comes out and says in one of his recent appearances that there is a real possibility that the (Israeli) entity will collapse without war, and that this generation is going to witness the liberation of Jerusalem… On the other hand, we find the (Israeli) entity in a state of frustration. No matter how many (Israeli) generals say “We will win. Victory is ours in the coming war. We are waiting for the right opportunity to wage war”… what are you (Israelis) waiting for? You and the Americans said: “Time is not in our favor. Yesterday’s war is better than a war today, and a war today is better than a war tomorrow.”

Host:

Who is going to achieve Israel’s goals today? Who is the principal agent? The US? Because, as you said in one of your articles, Sayyed Nasrallah’s recent speech on 7/7/2020, presents the most vivid example of the (resistance’s) ability to defeat the Israeli occupation and American hegemony. But how is he (Nasrallah) able today to combine this (military) resistance with economic resistance?

Nasser Qandil:

What I want to get to is that in one of his appearances, his eminence Sayyed Nasrallah cut to the chase and said: “The resistance (Hezbollah) has already overtaken Israel. Israel is still standing thanks to US protection.” In 1996, the Resistance discovered – and this was the secret behind the liberation in the year 2000 – that the Israelis remained (in Lebanon) because they were under the illusion that the border buffer zone (that Israel established within Lebanese territory) protects the (Israeli) entity from the missiles of the resistance. So if (Israel) realizes that the border (buffer zone) is pointless and that the entity will be targeted no matter what, it will withdraw. And this is what happened (in the year 2000).

Today, his eminence Sayyed (Nasrallah) tells us that the resistance is certain that the (Israeli) entity continues to survive only because of the American presence (in the region), and that the decisive battle with the entity is a battle to expel the Americans from the region.

Whoever analyses the (American) sanctions and the logic behind them will discover that they are not aimed at escalating the situation such that it provokes a full-scale confrontation. This is nothing but propaganda. In fact, these sanctions have direct political goals. I mean, (Lebanese) parties affiliated to the US (in Lebanon) are proposing (very high demands such as) the disarmament (of Hezbollah) and the implementation of Resolution 1559 because this is the American approach. Just as they (Americans) did in 1983 with (Lebanese) President Amine Gemayel when they told him that they were (about to attack) Syria at the same time in which they were engaged in negotiations with (Syria). Two months later, McFarlane) the special US envoy to the Middle East) was asked: “why did you back out (of the attack)? You would have put (Gemayel) in big trouble.” McFarlane answered: “if we told (Gemayel) that we were (negotiating) with Damascus, he would have beat us to it. We trick our allies to make them think that we are escalating for the sake of imposing stronger terms in the negotiations.”

What do Americans want from the Caesar Act? Why are the Americans putting pressure on Lebanon, blocking access to US dollars in the (Lebanese) market, preventing the transfer of dollars to the country, and closing lines of credit – via the Central Bank of Lebanon’s accounts -for the purchase of fuel? What do they want? The Americans are not hiding (their intentions). They told us what they want. James Jeffrey (US Special Representative for Syria Engagement) told us. Why the Caesar Act? He said in the live appearance he made in which he spoke about the Act. He said ‘we wish to go back to (the balance of power) that existed before 2011. What does he mean by “before 2011”? He means the time when “we (Americans) will acknowledge the victory of President Assad. We were not present (in Syria before 2011), but Hezbollah and Iran were not there either. We leave (Syria), but (Hezbollah and Iran must) leave too.”

So he (Jeffrey) wants to ensure the security of the (Israeli) occupying entity in southern Syria by hinting at sanctions against Russia as the main target of the Caesar Act. Syria will be hit by sanctions anyway and Iran is drowning in a sea of sanctions. Therefore, these sanctions are actually against Russia. The Caesar Act was introduced originally at the beginning of 2016 in order to reach a compromise with Russia in relation to the battle in Aleppo. However, (the Caesar Act) now aims at reaching an agreement with Russia over the terms of the withdrawal of US forces from Syria and is not aimed at (prolonging) their stay.

Second, regarding Lebanon, David Schenker (US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs) publicly appeared on TV and said that Hezbollah is involved in ‘corruption, smuggling, money laundering, causing devastation, and that it is the cause of the crisis (in Lebanon)’ etc. Give it to me directly (Schenker), what do you want? He (Schenker) told us directly that “you are suffering greatly (due to the economic crisis). You have promising gas reserves in the (Mediterranean) sea, but they are in a region that is the subject of a dispute with Israel. We (the US) presented you with a plan, so accept it! So the US wants an exit strategy that provides the (Israeli) occupying entity with a security belt on the Syrian and the Lebanese fronts, and (the US seeks to achieve this) by exerting “maximum pressure on the resistance”.

———

Nasser Qandil:

This is the third pillar of the power of the Resistance. The first pillar is military capability. The second pillar is the political front, meaning the Axis of Resistance. The third pillar is economic reconstruction. Without a resistance economy, the resistance cannot speak of an ability to maintain a level of cohesion within its support base and environment. What I want to say here is that the measures and steps taken by the resistance are not new. It is not true that the resistance, being under pressure at the moment, is now discovering or searching (for solutions). This was in fact its original program. Its original program was and is ‘Openness to the East’, that (Lebanon) have multiple sources (for economic, financial, and political relations). Its original program is aimed at breaking the borders (created by) Sykes-Picot between the countries of the region to form a single (economic) market. Its original program is aimed at relying on industry, agriculture and the national currency for exchange with neighboring countries and where possible. This is the original plan of the resistance. But this plan is now being put into action. It is not a negotiating weapon to lure Americans into easing conditions. If the Americans want to cooperate they are welcome, but if they don’t we will proceed (with this plan). Either way, this plan is not subject to review. Industry and agriculture are objective needs (of Lebanon).

In terms of industry and agriculture, Lebanon … Lebanon, by the way – in the year 1960, the Iraqi market was running 60% of the Port of Beirut and 30% of Lebanese industrial production. Today, Lebanon, which used to export milk, cheese, juice, clothing and shoes to the Gulf, imports 200 million dollars worth of milk and cheese only! Thus, the revival of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors, which were destroyed by the rentier economy, was and is the original plan. We are not talking about a knee-jerk reaction.

Host:

Has the goal (behind the sanctions) become counter-productive? Because the Lebanese internal consensus over the economic resistance that Sayyed Nasrallah called for was remarkable. I want you to comment briefly because we exceeded the time allocated for this file. The Patriarch (Bechara Boutros) al-Rahi said today: “The Lebanese people today do not want any majority (group in Lebanon) to tamper with the constitution and to keep them away from (Lebanon’s) brothers and friends.” This is noteworthy as well Mr. Nasser, is it not?

Nasser Qandil:

The truth is, the speech of his Beatitude (al- Rahi), at certain points, was vague and unclear. It seemed like he was targeting the resistance by talking about neutrality and keeping Lebanon out of conflicts. However, today there may be another direction. I think the Lebanese people know that when we talk about buying oil products in Lebanese pounds… if you don’t want to buy them from Iran, then buy them from Saudi Arabia. Aren’t you friends with Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Let these countries sell us oil products in Lebanese pounds. Half of the demand for dollars in the Lebanese market is because of oil imports. We are depleting the reserves of the Central Bank of Lebanon. They will last us for five years instead of ten if we keep using them for oil imports.

His eminence Sayyed Nasrallah announced that Iran is ready to help, and since oil imports are consuming half of the budget, the resistance is proposing to remove half of the pressure on the US dollar, meaning (that the exchange rate) would return to 3000 or 4000 (Lebanese pounds per dollar) if we buy these oil products in Lebanese pounds. We are not bound to (importing) from Iran exclusively. Bring any offer from any other country.

Host:

True… for the Americans, the (economic) war was aimed at Hezbollah. However, the entirety of Lebanon is suffering the consequences of this war.

Nasser Qandil:

Here, I want to say something so we can put things in the right perspective. When the uprising began in October (2019), Pompeo and his team went beyond warnings. (Jeffery) Feltman (Former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs) said before the American Congress: “Do not overestimate the influence of this uprising. Let’s not allow Lebanon to become prey for China and Russia.” He said frankly that China wants Lebanon to be a base for its 5G (technology) in the Middle East.

The Americans are backtracking from this (maximum economic pressure) approach not only because of economic (considerations). Do not be mistaken. This is because a highly powerful security message was delivered to the Americans about what the resistance might do if the situation (in Lebanon) deteriorated further.

—————

Nasser Qandil:

When someone with the great prominence, status, and figure of Sayyed Nasrallah comes out and says: “I will kill you, I will kill you, I will kill you” … These words were written down (on paper). He did not say them out of anger during his speech. He was establishing a (new) equation. He said: “You are making me choose between hunger or death. My answer is: I will kill you, I will kill you, I will kill you.” Mediators received questions asking them “what is going on? (what does Nasrallah mean here by ‘I will kill you’)” Then they got the answer. The answer might be – I do not know the answer, only the resistance knows it – but it might be in the form of strong military strike that the US and Israel would never expect. Is it the announcement of the zero hour for the expulsion of US forces from Iraq and Syria? Maybe. Is it a precision guided missile attack on the Dimona (nuclear reactor in Israel), for example? Maybe. Is it a (codeword) for opening up the (military) front in the south of Lebanon, and the Golan Heights front (from Syria) under the title of liberating the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights in one go? Maybe. This is the level and size (of the warning that Nasrallah directed).

The resistance will not stand idly by while its people suffer (from the deteriorating economic crisis). It will fight hunger by establishing the foundations of economic reconstruction because this is its project. This (economic reconstruction) has nothing to do with merely fighting (US) sanctions. (The resistance) found an opportunity to launch this project. Other (Lebanese parties) did not accept these proposals (before). Now it is the chance (to put them forward).

Do we want to change Lebanon’s identity by (economically) cooperating with China and giving rise eastern totalitarianism and who knows what, as some (in Lebanon) claimed? No. But does it make sense that the NATO (member) Turkey dares to go to Russia and buy S400 (missile systems), while we (Lebanese) don’t dare to buy Kalashnikov bullets that former Prime Minister Saad Hariri pledged to buy but did not dare to allocate funds for? We have 10 billion dollars’ worth of offers from China to build power plants, factories and tunnels under BOT (Build–operate–transfer) contracts, but we don’t have the courage to accept these offers because we are afraid that the US might be upset with us!

Host:

Saudi Arabia itself is now negotiating with China over avenues of cooperation…

Nasser Qandil:

Everyone is turning to China. (Check) the Boston Harbor now, all the equipment for loading, operating, and unloading are Chinese!

Host:

This all goes back to the American-Israeli concerns, Mr. Nasser.

Nasser Qandil:

This is the economic vision of the resistance. The (military) dimension (of this whole picture) is something else. The (military) dimension is the following: when they raise the bar of the financial threat, we raise the bar of the military-security threat.

Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

If Navalny was poisoned, unlikely it was by Putin: Italian professor tears down ‘state-sponsored assassination’ theory

RT | August 30, 2020

Western media wasted no time in accusing the Russian government of attempting to kill protest leader Alexey Navalny with poison, but basic common sense points against the conspiracy theory, an Italian professor has argued.

Navalny fell ill last week during a commercial flight and was rushed to a hospital after his plane made an emergency landing in the Siberian city of Omsk. Days later, he was flown to Germany to be treated at the Charite University Hospital in Berlin. Doctors there said his symptoms indicate poisoning with a cholinesterase inhibitor – a type of chemical encountered in certain medicines, insecticides, and nerve agents.

Since the first day of Navalny’s ordeal, his inner circle has been accusing President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government of trying to assassinate the activist and of running a cover-up operation after the attempt failed. This narrative was swiftly adopted by mainstream media in the West. Some Western governments threatened to impose a new round of sanctions against Russia over the case.

Yet even if criminal intent is proven in the case, basic common sense undermines the ever-popular formula of ‘poisoning + Russia = Putin’, according to an article published by the Italian magazine Formiche on Saturday. The piece was penned by Igor Pellicciari, Professor of History of International Relations at the University of Urbino, who also teaches at MGIMO University, Moscow’s top school for career diplomats.

The ‘state-sponsored poisoning’ theory has several weaknesses, Pellicciari wrote, starting with the political cost that Navalny’s demise under suspicious circumstances would entail for Moscow. The death of an opposition figure would inevitably be pinned on the Kremlin, prompting sanctions, and further tarnishing its already damaged reputation. It would also fuel domestic discontent, which would be untimely, given that Russia, like many other nations, is currently having to deal with both an economic slowdown and public fatigue with the social distancing measures prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The benefits for removing Navalny from the picture are dubious at best. He may be hailed as the Russian opposition leader by the Western press, but, in reality, he leads a relatively small faction of fractured anti-government forces in Russia. His corruption investigations and organization of protests make him a thorn in the side of the Kremlin, but not a realistic threat to the powers that be, Pellicciari said.

However, while the motive for a state assassination of Navalny is questionable, the capability of carrying one out is not, which doesn’t sit well with what has actually happened, the professor argued.

Navalny was taken to a hospital in Omsk with all due haste, remaining in Russian doctors’ care for 44 hours and treated with evident success. On arrival, he was given a shot of atropine – a drug that’s effective against certain types of toxins – and reacted so well that the German doctors continued the same treatment after the patient was transferred to their care.

The Russian state had many opportunities to ensure Navalny’s death, if such was its intent, Pellicciari suggested. It could orchestrate a less timely hospitalization or send an assassin to finish the job at the Omsk clinic. It could provide the hitman with a more effective poison from or simply stage an accident rather than use a poison and risk an ugly exposure.

So far Russia resisted foreign pressure to launch a criminal probe into the situation. Pellicciari believes Navalny may have been a victim of a crime, but if that is the case it is not likely that the hit was ordered from the top echelons of the Russian government. Navalny is a divisive figure and has plenty of lower-caliber enemies, both Russian officials and private citizens, Pellicciari said.

A state assassination would look more like the mysterious plane crash that killed Italian politician Enrico Mattei in 1962, he added.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Russophobia | Leave a comment

Putin says West looks as if prepared response to Belarus’ election in advance

Press TV – August 30, 2020

Russian President Vladimir Putin says there is reason to suspect that Western countries prepared their rejection of Belarus’ recent presidential election result before the vote was even held.

Speaking in an interview with the Russia-1 TV channel that was aired on Saturday, President Putin said Belarusian authorities had invited representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the August 9 elections, which incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko won, but the OSCE refused to send monitors.

“Belarusian authorities have invited the OSCE ODIHR to participate in the monitoring of the election. Why didn’t they come? This immediately makes us think that, basically, the position on the results of this election has already been prepared,” Putin said, referring to the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

Western countries and Belarus’ opposition have rejected Lukashenko’s re-election, claiming that voter fraud took place and demanding that the election be repeated. Mass protests have been staged by the Belarusian opposition since the results were announced.

The Belarusian government has rejected the allegations of vote rigging and ruled out a repeat election. Lukashenko has also warned of a Western plot to destabilize Belarus and has turned to President Putin for help with maintaining security.

In his Saturday interview, the Russian president said Belarus’ election was an internal issue of the country.

“We believe this is, first and foremost, an internal matter of the Belarusian society and the people of Belarus,” Putin said.

But he said Russia was ready to help. Belarus, he said, is “probably, the closest country to Russia ethnically, culturally, and spiritually.”

Putin said Lukashenko had asked him to have a group of law enforcement officers on standby to be dispatched to Belarus if necessary. The Russian president said that he expected the crisis to be resolved peacefully but that the group had been formed.

“We agreed that the group would not be deployed unless the situation in Belarus spirals completely out of control,” he said.

Putin said Moscow would only involve itself in Belarus if “extremist elements acting under the cover of political slogans cross certain red lines and engage in banditry, start burning houses and banks, [and] try storming government buildings.”

On Thursday, the Russian president urged Belarus’ government and opposition to resolve their differences peacefully.

August 30, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment