Aletho News


Turkiye ‘reviewing options’ for Syria withdrawal: Report

The Cradle | March 23, 2023

Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar released a report on 23 March claiming that Turkiye is willing to make concessions regarding the fate of its military presence in Syria, and is reviewing options to set a timeframe for the withdrawal of its troops from the country.

This comes in light of Damascus’ repeated insistence that the continuation of normalization efforts between the two countries depends on this condition.

“Turkish officials are studying, at the present time, several options regarding the fate of the Turkish military presence in Syria and the possibility of setting a schedule to end it in connection with field, humanitarian and political developments,” Syrian opposition sources told Al-Akhbar.

According to these sources, Turkiye will present proposals on this matter to Russian and Iranian mediators and is hoping that Tehran and Moscow will be able to act as “guarantors” to convince Syria that Ankara will properly implement any agreement that is reached, “whatever the results of the Turkish presidential elections.”

Damascus said in January that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is using the reconciliation with Syria as a ploy to secure himself in the upcoming election in Turkiye. Many have reinforced this, alleging that Erdogan wishes to use the normalization to portray himself as a champion in diplomacy, and as the solver of the Syrian refugee crisis in Turkiye.

Since the devastating earthquake that struck Turkiye and Syria at the start of last month, Erdogan’s chances at reelection have slimmed, according to the most recent polls.

Russia is currently working to set a date for a four-way meeting between the foreign ministers of Ankara, Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran, aimed at moving forward with the reconciliation. However, this meeting has so far failed to materialize, given Syria’s insistence on clear Turkish concessions.

According to Al-Akhbar, Turkiye’s newfound willingness to concede on the issue of its military presence is the reason behind the Turkish foreign minister’s latest claim that the meeting could be held “within days.”

March 23, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

Multipolarity was triggered by the 2003 US invasion of Iraq

By Karin Kneissl | The Cradle | March 20, 2023

On the night of 19-20 March, 2003, the US air force began bombing the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. The EU and NATO were deeply divided on whether to join the aggression: While newer NATO members from Central and Eastern Europe were in favor of the war, European heavyweights Paris and Berlin opposed it.

The Iraq war also marked the onset of diplomatic coordination between Moscow and Beijing at the UN Security Council (UNSC). The two countries began in 2003 to apply similar voting patterns in the Council, first on Iraq, then on Libya in 2011, and over Syria in several key votes. That early Russia-China UN coordination has, 20 years later, transformed into a determined joint policy toward “guarding a new world order based on international law.”

Looking back at March 2003 from the vantage point of March 2023, the invasion of Iraq unleashed geopolitical consequences far beyond the obvious ones, like the proliferation of terrorism, a decline of US power, and regional chaos. In 2003, a foundational, global shift in the balance of power was surely the last possible consequence envisioned by the war’s planners in Washington and London.

Disconnecting the dots

The destruction of Iraq, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army by the first “US Consul” Paul Bremer in May 2023, the outflow of refugees to neighboring states such as Syria and Jordan, and the exponential growth of extremism and terror attacks are among the consequences of this misguided war.

The flimsy reasons for the war, such as non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and Baghdad’s alleged support of terror groups like Al Qaeda, were debunked extensively in the following years. By the spring of 2004, evidence was already rife – whether from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or from the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group (ISG) – that Iraq had no WMD program at all.

Rarely before had disinformation campaigns – what is now commonly referred to as “fake news” – been so meticulously executed. The “with us or against us” narrative had firmly taken hold: Western think tanks were out in full force promoting regime change and “democracy” (not a stated goal of the US-led invasion) in Iraq, while those who opposed it were labeled anti-Israel or anti-America.

Despite unprecedented, massive public protests across western capitals in opposition to the Iraq war, the US and its allies had already set in motion their considerable war machine, led by figures such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar.

A false narrative linking Baghdad and the September 11 attacks had already been well-seeded, despite there being no connection whatsoever between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the bombers. It should be noted that there were no Iraqi or Afghan citizens among the terrorists who piloted the 9-11 planes, who were predominantly Saudi nationals.

Unfinished Business

In the autumn of 2001, war scenarios for an invasion of Iraq and regime change were already being laid out in Washington. Johns Hopkins University dean Paul Wolfowitz – an avid supporter of regime-change and US military expansion into Iraq – was named deputy secretary of defense in February 2001, a full seven months before the 9-11 attacks. Wolfowitz’s working hypothesis was that Iraq, with the liberalization of its oil industry, would be able to finance a post-war reconstruction from its own petroleum exports.

The group around Vice President Dick Cheney, which included Wolfowitz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was influential in shaping President George W. Bush’s position on Iraq. Unlike his father, George H. Bush, who was an experienced CIA director and analyst, the younger Bush lacked a distinct personal worldview on foreign policy, which he outsourced to his hawkish coterie.

Nevertheless, he was determined to finish what he saw as his father’s “unfinished business” from the 1991 ‘Gulf War’ aimed at expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That conflict was executed under a UN Security Council resolution, authorizing legal measures against Iraq as a state, but which did not constitute a war under international law.

In 1991, only Jordan‘s King Hussein took a position supporting Saddam Hussein, with all other nations backing the coalition assault against Baghdad. The US government adhered to the UN resolution, which aimed to restore Kuwait‘s territorial integrity – but not to overthrow the Iraqi government.

Instead, the US supported Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country and encouraged them to revolt against Baghdad. The Iraqi army crushed that rebellion, as it did an uprising in the Shia-dominated south. Perhaps the rebels had hoped for more concrete military aid from the US, but regardless, Hussein remained firmly in power despite military defeat elsewhere.

From Washington’s perspective, the US had failed to unseat Hussein, and within the Bush family, there was a desire to settle a score. For George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq provided an opportunity to step out of his powerful father’s shadow by executing the elusive regime-change goal. The September 11 attacks provided a justification for this obsession – what remained was to connect Iraq to the US terror attacks and galvanize public and political support for a war, both domestically and internationally.

The UN Security Council in turmoil

In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was a great deal of division among UN Security Council (UNSC) members. US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented questionable evidence of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, while the foreign ministers of Germany and France publicly opposed the aggression, for which they occasionally received applause in the Council.

China and Russia, who vehemently opposed the war, began coordinating their decisions and responses, in part because of their respective oil interests in Iraq. This cooperation between Moscow and Beijing set the stage for a coordinated multilateral approach between the two nations. Both governments understood that a war would open Pandora’s box, leading to the collapse of Iraqi institutions and resulting in widespread regional disharmony.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened. The subsequent years saw weekly attacks, an expansion of Salafi terror groups like Al Qaeda, the rise of ISIS in 2014, and perpetual internal Iraqi conflict. Anyone familiar with the country‘s conditions was aware of the looming catastrophe when the illegal invasion of Iraq began on 20 March, 2003.

China and Russia and the multipolar order  

Twenty years to the day, Chinese President Xi Jinping will embark on a three-day state visit to Moscow, and the focus will extend beyond bilateral energy relations, which have been a consistent priority since 2004.

As previously stated in their joint declaration in Beijing in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart aim to coordinate their foreign policy and advance it together. Their discussions may also touch on the Ukraine dossier, although media expectations in the west may be overestimated.

It may be pure coincidence that the meeting coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion. Yet it also highlights how extensively Russian and Chinese strategies have intertwined over the past two decades.

Today, increasingly, “orientation comes from Orient.” Cooperative geostrategic leadership and sound alternative propositions to resolve global conflicts are being shaped in Beijing and Moscow – because the old centers of power can offer nothing new.

Twenty years after the US invasion of Iraq, a failed ‘war on terror,’ the proliferation of extremism, millions of dead and displaced in West Asia, and never-ending conflict, China and Russia have finally teamed up to systematically advance their view of the world, this time with more resolve and global clout.

As catastrophic as it was, the Iraq war ended the practice of direct US military invasions, ushering in a war-weary era that desperately sought other solutions. That global division of opinion that began in 2003 over Iraq is, 20 years later, being institutionalized by emerging multipolar powers that seek to counter forever wars.

March 20, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

The U.S. War of Aggression Against Iraq

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 16, 2023

The U.S. invasion of Iraq, whose 20th anniversary occurs this month, provides a perfect demonstration of why so many people around the world believe that the U.S. government suffers from a very grave case of hypocrisy. While U.S. officials decry Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with great vehemence, they somehow block out of their minds their own deadly and destructive invasion, war of aggression, and long-term occupation of Iraq.

Not only have U.S. officials not even offered an apology for what they did to the Iraqi people, they still expect the American people to thank the troops for what they did to the people of Iraq.

Let’s keep one important, undisputed fact in mind: Iraq never attacked or invaded the United States. It was the United States that was the invader and the aggressor. That’s why I use the term “war of aggression.” It is a term that was used at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal to convict and condemn German officials who did the same thing to other countries in World War II that the U.S. did to Iraq.

That means that under international law, U.S. troops had no legal authority to kill even one Iraqi. Yet, they killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We are still expected to thank the troops for their “service” in killing an enormously large number of people they had no right to kill.

There is another important, undisputed fact to keep in mind: Congress never declared war on Iraq. Yet, our Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before the president can legally wage war with his army against another nation. That makes the U.S. invasion, war of aggression, and occupation illegal under our own form of government.

Thus, the killing, maiming, injuring, or torturing of Iraqi citizens was illegal under our own form of government. Yet, we are still expected to thank the troops for their “service.”

U.S. officials have long claimed that their invasion of Iraq was based on an innocent mistake. They say that they honestly thought that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction.”

But there is a serious flaw in that justification: The U.S. government had no legal authority to enforce WMD resolutions that had been enacted by the United Nations. Only the UN has the legal authority to enforce its own resolutions. It is undisputed that the UN never authorized an invasion of Iraq to enforce its WMD resolutions.

Equally important, the WMD claim was clearly a lie on the part of U.S. officials to garner American support for the invasion. After all, if it was truly an innocent mistake, once it became clear that there were no WMDs U.S. officials would have apologized for their deadly and destructive invasion and ordered the troops to return home. Instead, they keep the troops in Iraq, who continued killing, injuring, maiming, and torturing Iraqis.

Moreover, once it became clear that there were no WMDs, U.S. officials quickly shifted their justification for their invasion, war of aggression, and occupation to bringing “freedom” to the Iraqi people. That’s why they called their war of aggression “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” But under international law, a nation is prohibited from invading another nation for the purpose of bringing “freedom” to the invaded country. Moreover, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis they killed are not enjoying “freedom” because they are dead.

Moreover, notice something else of importance: There has never been an official U.S. investigation — not even by Congress — into whether the WMD claim was, in fact, an innocent mistake or an intentional, deliberate, and knowing lie. Even while U.S. officials cry out for war-crimes indictments of Russian officials for supposed war crimes in Ukraine, they steadfastly oppose any indictments or even criminal investigations of U.S. officials who ordered and presided over the U.S. invasion, war of aggression, and long-term occupation of Iraq.

It is always easy to point out the faults, failures, and misdeeds of foreign regimes. It is much more difficult to focus on the faults, failures, and misdeeds of one’s own regime. We should bear in mind that when U.S. officials point their accusatory finger at Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and other regimes, there are three more hypocritical fingers pointing back at them.

March 16, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Germany is not a sovereign nation – Moscow

RT | March 14, 2023

Germany is facing an inevitable economic decline after losing its access to Russian energy, but cannot do anything about it because it is not a sovereign nation, the secretary of the Russian National Security Council has claimed.

“Germany tried for many years to build its economy on a combination of cheap Russian energy and advanced German technologies. Like no one else, it realizes that the terrorist attack against the [Nord Stream pipelines] will definitely cause the German economy to decline further,” Nikolay Patrushev said in an interview published in Argumenti i Fakti newspaper on Monday.

The advantages that German businesses enjoyed by getting access to Russian fuel has long irritated the governments of the US and the UK, he continued. But Berlin is not at liberty to continue cooperating with Moscow, “because the German nation is not independent.”

“Washington imposes on Berlin its economic and environmental agenda and keeps a 35,000-strong military force on its soil. For years, the White House controlled [former chancellor] Angela Merkel, and now it forces the German leadership to side with the version of the pipeline sabotage that is advantageous to the US authorities,” Patrushev said, describing America’s treatment of Germany as “humiliating.”

The remarks were part of Patrushev’s comments on the sabotage of the undersea pipelines, which were built to supply Germany with Russian natural gas. The Nord Stream links were ruptured by powerful explosions last September in what Russia has called a blatant terrorist attack.

A series of articles published by Western media this month claimed that Western intelligence services believe that a “pro-Ukrainian group” not associated with any government was behind the attack. Patrushev argued that, considering the training and equipment that such a complicated operation required, this scenario would seem plausible only to people who “cannot think logically.”

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh had previously reported that the operation was ordered by US President Joe Biden and conducted by a US-Norwegian team of saboteurs. Both nations deny this allegation.

Hersh said Washington wanted to prevent Berlin from making a U-turn on its decision to phase out Russian gas supplies in response to the Ukrainian crisis. Liquified natural gas, which is produced by American companies and costs significantly more, took over a large portion of the European energy market previously held by Russian fuel.

March 14, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , , | 1 Comment

Kosovo wants NATO-Serbia war – Belgrade

RT | March 11, 2023

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the ethnic Albanian authorities in the breakaway province of Kosovo of attempting to provoke a war in which NATO would once again take their side.

“They want to drag Serbia into a conflict with NATO. Kurti wants to be like [Vladimir] Zelensky, and I would be some kind of [Vladimir] Putin,” Vucic said on Friday, referring to Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti and the presidents of Ukraine and Russia.

“It’s what they’re after, what they’ve been doing all along. And in this, they have the support of a significant part of the international community, because [Kosovo] is their child,” he added.

Vucic was commenting on the recent arrest of an ethnic Serb on charges of “war crimes” dating back to the 1998-99 conflict, which ended with NATO bombing Serbia on behalf of ethnic Albanian separatists. The provisional government in Pristina declared independence in 2008, with Western support, which Belgrade has refused to recognize.

“They don’t want normalization, they want to humiliate Serbia,” argued Vucic. “But I’m telling you, that won’t happen. There will be no humiliation, no capitulation.”

The proposal for “normalization of relations” between Pristina and Belgrade, made public last month by the EU, amounts to a de facto recognition of the breakaway province, which would have the right to join NATO, the EU, and the UN. Vucic insists he did not sign anything and will never agree to those terms.

“We are preparing for talks on Monday or Tuesday,” he said, referring to the EU-sponsored talks in neighboring North Macedonia. “But it’s not clear to me why. They said they wouldn’t agree to a deal. Well, why are you coming then? For us to recognize Kosovo?”

Vucic insists that before anything else can happen, the EU needs to enforce the 2013 Brussels Agreement, which among other things envisioned political autonomy for ethnic Serbs in the province. The ethnic Albanian authorities have refused to implement that part of the deal for ten years now, insisting it clashes with the ‘constitution’ of Kosovo. Neither the EU nor the US has done anything to influence Pristina to change its mind, Vucic noted.

Instead, the EU has just granted Kosovo visa-free travel to the bloc, while threatening an economic boycott against Serbia unless it joins the Western sanctions against Russia.

March 11, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Canada has blood on its hands: Ottawa’s role in the Syria war exposed

By Steven Sahiounie | Free West Media | March 6, 2023

While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from U.S. foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the U.S.

Canada has blood on its hands in Syria. Canadian intelligence would have provided its government with the facts concerning the Syrian uprising in Deraa in March 2011. That information would have allowed the Canadian government to determine whether to support the U.S.-NATO attack on Syria for regime change or to stand on its own two feet and stay out of nation-building in the Middle East. Instead, the Canadian government knowingly hung on to the apron strings of their southern neighbor and followed the leader into destroying a nation, and deliberately preventing its recovery when the conflict was over.

The conflict in Syria has been described as a popular uprising that was crushed, or as a civil war. The Syrian conflict is neither. It was a CIA-engineered plan for regime change directed by U.S. President Obama. Later, the EU and Canada supported the U.S.-NATO attack on Syria because the EU and Canada usually follow the lead of the U.S. unquestioningly.

The U.S. plan failed because of overestimating the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s support in Syria. The majority of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but they are overwhelmingly secular in terms of governance. Had the population supported the Free Syrian Army, which was the foot soldiers of Obama, the regime change might have been successful. But, most Syrians rejected the notion of chopping off the heads of their neighbors to effect a change in government. The majority of Syrians reject Radical Islam, which is a political ideology hiding behind a religion. They prefer a secular government that protects religious rights for all, given the fact, there are 18 different sects in Syria.

The conflict in Syria has ended with the country having been split into 3 sections. The main section covers 75% of the territory in the hands of the central government in Damascus, while the northeast corner is under the occupation of the U.S. military partnership with the Kurds, and the last remaining terrorist-controlled area is in the tiny enclave of Idlib.

The Kurdish section was not involved in the recent earthquake, and they support themselves by selling stolen oil from the oil wells guarded by the U.S. military which President Trump ordered, and President Biden has ordered to remain occupied. When the U.S. troops leave Syria, the Kurds will reunite with the central government. The U.S. occupation is the only thing keeping them separate.

The country has been prevented from recovery due to the U.S.-EU sanctions which prevent any materials from being shipped to Syria. Canadian companies, and individuals, have not sent machines, materials, or other recovery supplies for fear of being penalized by the U.S. Treasury Department. Humanitarian supplies are supposed to be exempt, except there is a time-consuming and costly procedure to get an exemption approved, and most firms and individuals are not willing to seek approval.

On February 9 the U.S. Treasury Department issued General License 23 which waives the sanctions for humanitarian supplies only for 180 days in the wake of the 7.8 earthquakes. Canadian companies and individuals could send supplies to Damascus, but they must be sent through an NGO and not the Syrian government.

Humanitarian aid was sent to Idlib from the UN, crossing the Turkish border at Bab al Hawa. International aid agencies and charities have arrived in Idlib from Turkey. When the Canadian government states they are supporting humanitarian efforts inside Syria, they are referring strictly to the one small province of Idlib, under the command of Al Qaeda terrorists who call themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Canada has taken in over 25,000 Syrian refugees. While this has been seen as a humanitarian act, it is also a political tool. From the outset of the conflict in 2011, refugee camps were established on the border of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Refugees sleeping in tents in bad weather demonstrate on western media that Syria was not safe to live in, and not politically correct. Some of the refugees left Syria because they were politically opposed to the government in Damascus. Those refugees mainly numbered among the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a global terrorist organization, whose goal is to establish an Islamic government everywhere. However, most of the refugees were escaping violence caused by the conflict. Houses were destroyed by both the terrorists and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). In many cases, it was the terrorists who attacked homes and civilians. In response to the terrorists’ attacks, the SAA responded likewise attacking terrorist positions which were located in civilian homes.

Both Turkey and Jordan were allied with the U.S. foreign policy under Obama and were playing supporting roles to the CIA program Timber Sycamore which supported Radical Islamic terrorists fighting the government in Damascus. Both Turkey and Jordan had offices that supplied weapons, cash, and training to the terrorists fighting in Syria. The refugee camps in both countries served as a haven for the families of the terrorists fighting in Syria, in which the UN and other international aid agencies would be feeding and caring for the basic needs of the refugees in the camps.

By 2016, Canada had spent over $1 billion in humanitarian, development, and security assistance in the Syria crisis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced 2016 Canada’s new strategy for the Syrian crisis. His new strategy was to keep following the Americans, and he tried to reframe his government’s involvement as humanitarian.

Over the years, Canada has been accused of being a lap dog for the U.S. While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from U.S. foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the U.S. Many would say that is because the U.S. policy is in the best interest of Canada, and not a dictated position. U.S. President Obama used the Israeli paper “A Clean Break” as the road map for regime change in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. He was trying to create a ‘New Middle East’. His plan failed in each country, but succeeded in destroying much of each country, and killing thousands. Obama used the Muslim Brotherhood as his partner on the ground in each of the countries. Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria resisted the Muslim Brotherhood and fought back to remain secular governments even though the full weight of U.S.-EU-NATO resources was thrown at the project.

By April 2017, Trudeau was still hanging on to the Obama regime change project in Syria. However, by then President Trump had been elected to office, and he shut the CIA operation in Syria down. Trudeau attended a G7 meeting and was talking up Syria with UK Prime Minister May and French President Hollande. They were anticipating directions from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concerning the future of the U.S. regime change program in Syria.

They would later find that Trump was not in favor of the Obama plan, and it was his wish to leave Syria, but in 2019 he was prevented from a troop withdrawal from Syria by the U.S. State Department headed by Mike Pompeo, who said the U.S. troops needed to remain to prevent the Syrian government from access to their oil. This is why Syrian homes have 30 minutes of electricity 3 times per day now.

According to the U.S. government, and their Canadian followers, if you keep the Syrian people without electricity, without gasoline, and without heating fuel in winter, they will rise and complete the Obama regime change plan. That strategy is both immoral and unethical. It is also illegal under international law to steal a nation’s resources.

The Muslim Brotherhood is very well established in Canada and had connections at the highest levels in the Canadian government. In February 2015, the standing senate committee on national security and defense met in Ottawa to study and report on security threats facing Canada.

In the meeting of senators, an excerpt from the memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood was shown as evidence.

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

The Muslim Brotherhood had successfully entered into the Obama administration and key U.S. official positions. The group had done the same in Canada.

In the Ottawa meeting, it was stated that in June 2012, a delegation of Islamist leaders linked to the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada had met with Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. The delegation was led by Hussein Hamdani, an adviser to the Department of Public Safety, as a member of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security.

Hamdani was in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as an adviser on national security matters since he has been associated with organizations whose charitable status has been revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency due to their involvement in the financing of international terrorism.

Senator Beyak spoke at the meeting and said, “They declare themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Senator Lang pointed out, their plans are very clear.”

This demonstrates the deep understanding of the Canadian government of the deadly nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its involvement in Canada, its government, and its link to the conflict in Syria, which was part of the Obama plan.

How Canada plays into the hands of radical Islamists

The Canadian government is capable of determining whether the U.S. foreign policy and never-ending wars abroad are in the best interest of Canada.

The Canadian government had understood from U.S. intelligence that the Obama plan to destroy Syria was based on using the Muslim Brotherhood, and the political ideology known as Radical Islam, as the foot soldiers inside Syria. The Canadian government understood that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated Canadian society and was involved with the Canadian government at the highest levels. The threat to Canada was known, but the decision was made to blindly follow Washington’s dirty war in Syria.

U.S. President Obama is the main villain in this story, but Canada was capable of standing firm against plans to use Radical Islamic terrorists to change governments abroad.

Canada has supported humanitarian aid to Idlib, but not the rest of the country. Idlib is the last remaining terrorist-controlled province in Syria. It is an olive-growing region with no industry or resources outside of the production of olives. It was chosen as the headquarters of the Al Qaeda branch in Syria (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) because it sits on the Turkish border. Turkey, following the U.S. directives, supplied the terrorists with all resources needed including tanks and anti-tank missiles which have even been used to bring down a plane.

Canada does not supply any aid to Syria other than Idlib, which represents 2% of the total area of the country. Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Hama, Homs, and all other areas in Syria have never received even a loaf of bread from either the U.S. or Canada. However, the UN does supply some food to certain areas outside of Idlib. Funds for the UN World Food Program are in part from U.S. and Canadian donations. Even now, since the 7.8 magnitude quake occurred on February 6, Canada continues to only recognize the 3 million persons in the so-called “The Islamic Republic of Idlib” as Syria. The other 20 million in Syria get nothing, even though Latakia alone has 820 dead, 142,000 homeless due to the quake, and 102 collapsed buildings.

From the U.S.-Canada foreign policy on Syria point of view: Idlib must be maintained as a separate viable ‘state’, free of Damascus. The U.S.-Canada policy is to ignore the government in Damascus and pretend that Idlib is Syria. The Al Qaeda terrorists are thus rewarded by the west for their participation in regime change, which was the Obama policy that Canada signed up to.

Last month, David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen published an article detailing the Canadian special forces’ participation in a controversial 20-member U.S. military team dubbed Talon Anvil in 2015, which has been accused of killing scores of innocent people in Iraq and Syria.

“In December 2021 the New York Times revealed that Talon Anvil was responsible for launching tens of thousands of bombs and missiles against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq but in the process had killed hundreds of civilians. The reckless actions of the Talon Anvil team, which operated from 2014 to 2019, alarmed members in the U.S. military and even the CIA, the newspaper reported.”

“Independent investigators and human rights groups have estimated that at least 7,000 civilians were killed by coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.”

Last month, Canada announced it would take back 23 of its citizens who have been held in Islamic State camps in northeast Syria, under the control of the Kurds who are partners of the U.S. military there. The group includes six women, 13 infants, and four men.

This would be the largest repatriation for Canada after the Islamic State caliphate was destroyed in 2019.

More than 42,400 foreign citizens, most of them children, have been held in life-threatening conditions in IS prison camps across Syria, Human Rights Watch says.

Canadian intelligence was well aware of who in Canada was following Radical Islam, and who had left to fight in Syria before the founding of ISIS. They were also following events on the ground in Syria while Canadians and other foreigners were fighting the Syrian government, and who among them had made the transition to joining ISIS once the U.S.-sponsored FSA had disbanded.

In 1998, Richard N. Haass wrote “Sanctions: too much of a bad thing.” In his expert analysis, it was proven that U.S. sanctions do not work in big projects, such as regime change in Syria. He further proved that innocent people suffer under sanctions, and they were immoral and unethical. The sanctions against Syria must be lifted and allow citizens to rebuild their lives and allow foreign governments to donate and invest in the rebuilding of the country.

Aid should be allowed to enter Syria in all locations, from Idlib to Deraa, and all in between. All Syrian citizens should have the right to receive help. Planes with aid should be allowed to land in Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia and shipping containers should arrive in the port of Latakia.

The international community should be putting pressure on the terrorists in Idlib to lay down their arms or arrange to leave the country. They are holding 3 million civilians as human shields. The freedom of those civilians should be a priority to western nations such as Canada.

The President of Turkey, Tayyip Recip Erdogan, has already voiced his wish to repair his relationship with Damascus. Canada and other peace-loving western nations should be supporting his negotiations with Damascus. Washington has told Erdogan not to talk with President Assad, but Canada could show some backbone and defy Washington by showing support for Erdogan’s peace initiative.

Canada should re-open their Embassy in Damascus. With diplomats and humanitarian experts available on the ground, this would be a positive and constructive action that would truly show the Syrian people that Canada cares.

Finally, Canada should identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Care should be taken by all future Canadian governments to study plans in Washington that assume Canadian support. The Canadian government, supported by its intelligence agency, is capable of determining whether the U.S. foreign policy and never-ending wars abroad are in the best interest of Canada. Taking the high road is sometimes a lonely road, but lives and nations might be saved.

March 6, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yemen’s parliament calls for confrontation with foreign occupation forces

Press TV – March 5, 2023

Yemen’s parliament has reiterated its rejection of the presence of foreign occupation troops in the country.

The lawmakers called on the Yemeni people to confront the foreign forces to prevent any outside intervention in the country’s internal affairs.

The Yemeni parliament warned in a statement on Sunday of American plots to target the unity and sovereignty of the country amid the US-British-Saudi presence in the southeastern province of al-Mahrah, according to Yemen’s al-Masirah television network.

It called for standing united in the face of invaders and occupiers while blaming the coalition of aggression and its mercenaries for tampering with the wealth of the Yemeni people and forfeiting the sovereignty, independence and unity of Yemen and its territorial integrity.

The statement strongly condemned any foreign presence in “Yemeni lands, islands and waters, whatever its justifications.”

The House of Representatives also condemned the suspicious American movements taking place in the occupied Yemeni provinces, the latest of which was a visit by the American ambassador and the commander of the US Fifth Fleet under the pretext of combating smuggling.

The US military moves in the southeastern provinces of al-Mahra and Hadhramaut have escalated significantly and provocatively over the past months, in parallel with Washington’s attempts to thwart peace efforts and circumvent the demands of the Yemeni People and the requirements for a solution, including the complete departure of foreign forces from Yemen.

The American news website Huffington Post recently confirmed that the United States is moving in the path of seizing al-Mahra Province for “geopolitical purposes and long-term economic ambitions and goals, including control of the governorate’s coasts and ports.”

The site revealed that “US soldiers and military experts frequent the province, moving around it, away from the media spotlight.”

Saudi Arabia launched the devastating war on Yemen in March 2015 in collaboration with its Arab allies and with arms and logistics support from the US and other Western states.

The objective was to reinstall the Riyadh-friendly regime of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and crush the Ansarullah resistance movement, which has been running state affairs in the absence of a functional government in Yemen.

While the Saudi-led coalition has failed to meet any of its objectives, the war has killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and spawned the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

March 5, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

False hopes and broken promises litter the ground behind the UN Statement on Palestine

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | February 28, 2023

Rarely does the Palestinian Ambassador to the UN make an official comment expressing happiness over any official proceedings concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Ambassador Riyad Mansour, though, is “very happy that there was a very strong united message from the Security Council against the illegal, unilateral measure” undertaken by the Israeli government.

The “measure” in question is a decision, on 12 February, by the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to construct 10,000 new housing units in nine illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank. Predictably, Netanyahu was angered by the supposedly “very strong united message” from an institution that is hardly known for its meaningful action regarding international conflicts, especially in occupied Palestine.

Mansour’s happiness may be justified from some perspectives, especially as we seldom witness a strongly-worded position by the Security Council that is both critical of Israel and embraced by the US. The latter has used its veto in the council 53 times since 1972 — according to the UN itself — to block draft Security Council resolutions that are critical of the occupation state.

However, a close examination of the context of the latest UN statement on Israel and Palestine shows that there is little reason for Mansour’s excitement. The statement in question is just that; a statement, with no tangible value and no legal repercussions. It could have been meaningful if the language had been unchanged from its original draft. Not of the statement itself, but of a binding UN resolution that was introduced on 15 February by the UAE ambassador.

Reuters revealed that the draft resolution would have demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” That resolution — and its strong language — was scrapped under pressure from the US and was replaced by a mere statement that “reiterates” the Security Council’s position that “continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines.” It also expressed “deep concern”, actually, “dismay” with Israel’s 12 February announcement.

Netanyahu’s angry response was mostly intended for public consumption in Israel, and to keep his far-right government allies in check; after all, the conversion of the resolution into a statement, and the watering down of the language were all carried out with the prior agreement of the US, Israel and the PA. The Aqaba conference held two days ago is confirmation that such an agreement is indeed in place. Hence, the statement could not have come as a surprise to the Israeli prime minister.

Moreover, US media spoke openly about a deal, which was mediated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The reason behind it, initially, was to avert a “potential crisis” which would have resulted if the US had vetoed the resolution. According to the Associated Press, such a veto “would have angered Palestinian supporters at a time that the US and its western allies are trying to gain international support against Russia.”

However, there is another reason behind Washington’s apparent sense of urgency. In December 2016, the then US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice refrained from vetoing a similar UN Security Council resolution that strongly condemned Israel’s illegal settlement activities. This happened less than a month before the end of Barack Obama’s second term in the White House. For Palestinians, the resolution was too little, too late. For Israel, it was an unforgivable betrayal. To appease Tel Aviv, the Trump Administration gave the UN post to Nikki Haley, an ardent supporter of Israel.

Although another US veto would have raised a few eyebrows, it would have presented a major opportunity for the strong pro-Palestine camp at the UN to challenge US hegemony over the matter of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It would also have deferred the issue to the UN General Assembly and other UN-related organisations.

Even more interesting, according to the Blinken-mediated agreement — reported by APReutersAxios and others — Palestinians and Israelis would have to refrain from unilateral actions. Israel would freeze all settlement activities until August, and Palestinians would not “pursue action against Israel at the UN and other international bodies such as the World Court, the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council.” This was the gist of the agreement at the US-sponsored Aqaba meeting as well. While the PA is likely to abide by this understanding — since it continues to seek US financial handouts and political validation — Israel will most likely refuse; in fact, practically-speaking, it already has.

Although the agreement reportedly stipulated that Israel would not stage major attacks on Palestinian cities, only two days later, on 22 February, Israel raided the West Bank city of Nablus. It killed 11 Palestinians and wounded 102 others, including two elderly men and a child.

Moreover, a settlement freeze is almost impossible. Netanyahu’s extremist coalition government is held together in large part by the common understanding that settlements must expand constantly. Any change to this understanding would almost certainly mean the collapse of one of Israel’s most stable governments in years.

Why, then, is Mansour “very happy”? The answer stems from the fact that the PA’s credibility among Palestinians is at an all-time low. Mistrust, if not outright disdain, of Mahmoud Abbas and his authority is one of the main reasons behind the brewing armed rebellion against the Israeli occupation. Decades of promises that justice will eventually arrive through US-mediated talks have culminated in nothing, so Palestinians are developing their own alternative resistance strategies.

The UN statement was marketed by PA-controlled media in Palestine as a victory for Palestinian diplomacy. Hence, Mansour’s happiness. But this euphoria was short lived.

The Israeli massacre in Nablus left no doubt that Netanyahu will not even respect a promise he made to his own benefactors in Washington. This takes us back to square one: back to where Israel refuses to respect international law, the US refuses to allow the international community to hold Israel to account, and the PA claims another false victory in its supposed quest for the liberation of Palestine. Practically, this means that Palestinians are left with no other option but to carry on with their resistance, indifferent — justifiably so — to the UN and its “watered-down” statements.

March 1, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Yemen condemns Israeli, Emirati eviction of Socotra island residents

The Cradle | February 24, 2023

The Ministry of Fishing in Yemen’s National Salvation Government in Sanaa has strongly condemned the UAE’s eviction of residents from the Abd al-Kuri Island of the Socotra archipelago off the Yemeni coast, which Abu Dhabi has been carrying out as part of its long-active plan of transforming Socotra into an Israeli-Emirati military and intelligence hub.

The ministry strongly condemned “the forced displacement of fishermen and residents of the island, and [their forced eviction towards the coastal town of] Hadiboh,” a 22 February statement read.

The statement added that the displacement of the island’s residents and fishermen represents a “flagrant violation” of Yemen’s sovereignty, as well as a threat to navigation and the residents of nearby islands.

The ministry also highlighted the “geostrategic importance of Abd al-Kuri Island” and demanded that the UN Security Council call for an immediate cessation of the UAE’s forced eviction of the island’s residents.

According to the Yemeni statement, these forced evictions follow the recent arrival of Israeli officers to Socotra and the construction of new barracks and military facilities on Abd al-Kuri Island.

This is confirmed by Yemeni journalist and activist Anis Mansour, who on 20 February strongly condemned the “bringing in of Israeli and Emirati forces to the island without the knowledge of the leadership or authorities, in a blatant challenge to Yemeni dignity and sovereignty.”

Mansour said that “the invading forces began to expel the Yemeni local armed tribes from the island, and the residents present there are also being expelled to the Qusa’ir area.”

Mansour also claimed that the Saudi-led coalition plans to ‘secure housing’ in Hadhramaut for about 1,000 fishermen from the island in order to limit the island to the presence of Emirati-Israeli military and intelligence officials only.

Israel is interested in the strategic archipelago because it serves as a potential flashpoint for a confrontation with Iran. In 2020, the Washington Institute published an analysis examining how Israeli submarines could potentially strike the Islamic Republic from positions near Yemen.

An Israeli tourist stands on a hilltop in Yemen’s Socotra Island. January 2022. (Photo credit: Twitter)

In January 2022, Socotra made headlines due to controversial photos of Israeli tourists who had visited the islands under a UAE-issued visa.

February 24, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Germans demand investigation of Nord Stream sabotage, end of US occupation

Free West Media | February 23, 2023

After the sensational revelations by US investigative reporter Seymour Hersh about the perpetrators of the Nord Stream attacks on September 26, 2022, the German government has remained silent. It does not want to comment on Hersh’s research results, according to which the pipelines were blown up by Americans and Norwegians.

The Scholz administration certainly has not drawn any conclusions from the revelations.

The German public obviously sees things very differently – at least if one wants to believe a voting simulation by the Dutch portal “Restart Democracy”. There, the Rudulin Foundation, which by its own admission is committed to more co-determination and a “truly democratically oriented society”, asked 6425 German citizens to vote between February 10 and 17.

Almost 100 percent voted to convene a Nord Stream investigative committee. The question was: “Do you vote for or against the convening of the Nord Stream committee of inquiry?”

Markus Bönig, Director of the Rudulin Foundation, underscored the difference between a survey and a vote: “Voting by voters is an important instrument of the joint declaration of intent. It is used for decision-making and choice, so that power is actually and directly exercised by the people,” explained Bönig.

Surveys, on the other hand, only draw a non-binding opinion of a comparatively small group of registered people, according to Bönig.

Peace demonstrations reflect the mood

In addition to the big peace demo on Friday in Dresden (with HC Strache and Björn Höcke) and on Saturday in Berlin (with Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer), there will be another peace demo in Ramstein on Sunday under the motto “Close Airbase Ramstein – Ami [Americans, ed.] go home!”

The call from the organizers states: “As a broad, non-partisan protest alliance, we have registered a large peace demonstration for February 26, 2023 on the square in front of the train station in Ramstein. We demand the immediate closure of the US airbase, the complete withdrawal of all US troops, taking all weapons stationed here with them.

“The danger that Germany will be drawn into a third world war is growing daily. The recent decision to deliver heavy tanks to Ukraine also ensures that Germany is increasingly becoming a participant in the war. One of the centers for war, suffering and also for crimes against humanity is the US Airbase in Ramstein. Here we would like to send a clear signal for peace on February 26, 2023.”

Their goals include:

  • The closure of the US airbase in Ramstein and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Germany
  • A sovereign German foreign policy
  • No to arms shipments
  • A return to diplomacy
  • An end to sanctions
  • No to foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr

The peace demonstration will start at 12 pm on the square in front of the station in Ramstein. The square is located opposite the Ramstein Miesenbach train station on Bahnhofstrasse. There will be a pavilion on the site of the opening rally, where initiatives and organizers can display their information material.

In addition to an opening rally, there is a large demonstration in the direction of the airbase, where another rally will be taking place. Participants who cannot complete the route for health reasons will be able to remain at the site where sanitary facilities will be available.

February 24, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | 1 Comment

Time for US Pull-Out: GOP Congressman Warns About Risk of Kinetic Conflict With Russia in Syria

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 23.02.2023

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz has introduced a resolution seeking to direct President Joe Biden to remove all US troops from Syria. The House must vote on Gaetz’s proposal within 18 days of its introduction due to the bill’s war powers status.

“[T]he purpose of my legislation is to force members of Congress to vote on record regarding whether they think we ought to continue Obama’s war in Syria. President Obama kicked off our involvement (…) and now we still find ourselves in the middle of a Syrian civil war with Russia and Turkey and Iran, all present in a very confined neighborhood,” Congressman Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., told the US press earlier this week.

Gaetz, a House Armed Services Committee member, filed the War Powers Resolution on February 22 after he learned that four US military servicemen and a working dog were wounded in a US and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) helicopter raid in northeastern Syria.

Speaking to the US press, Gaetz shared his concerns with regard to the US president’s ability to handle Syrian matters. The congressman quoted Biden’s August 2021 interview in which the president claimed that the US “[doesn’t] have military in Syria to make sure that we’re going to be protected.” However, according to the American media at the time of Biden’s comment, there were at least 900 troops in Syria who were helping their SDF proxies on the ground.

Gaetz has also drawn attention to reports alleging that Russian and US personnel get into very close proximity with one another. “[T]he risk of an accident or miscalculation or just misuse of authority could lead to direct kinetic conflict between the United States and Russia in Syria,” the lawmaker insisted.

In addition, Congress has never authorized the use of military force in Syria, the congressman argued. “America First means actually putting the people of our country first — not the interests of the military industrial complex,” he said.

Gaetz’s resolution has been filed under the War Powers Act of 1973, which was designed to limit the president’s authority to wage war and reasserted Congress’ authority over foreign wars. Notably, at the time of the 1973 bill’s introduction, then President Richard Nixon tried to veto it. However, Congress overrode his veto, and the resolution became law following the US pullout from Vietnam in early 1973.

If Gaetz’s legislative initiative passes, US military personnel must be removed from the Syrian Arab Republic within 15 days.

Meanwhile, the lawmaker lamented the fact that Democratic progressives who used to be anti-war activists have become “cheerleaders” for the US’s overseas conflicts. “‘The Squad’ used to be anti-war. Now, they’re waving their pom poms for NATO,” he said.

The representative believes that the upcoming vote on his resolution will show who the real patriot of America is and who continues to stick to Middle Eastern adventurism.

Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, was the first who sought to pull US troops out of Syria. Nonetheless, he later insisted that some of the contingent should stay in place to “protect” the Syrian oil fields occupied by the US-backed Kurdish-dominated SDF. Trump was also misled about the actual number of US servicemen in Syria. US Syria envoy Ambassador Jim Jeffrey admitted in November 2020 he was “always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”

February 24, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

After 15 years of ‘independence’, it is clear that Kosovo was a stepping stone for NATO’s imperial goals

Serbia’s breakaway province is an exercise in the ‘rules-based order’, where rules are made up for the convenience of Western powers

By Aleksandar Pavic | RT | February 17, 2023

On February 17, 2008, a group of US-backed “democratic leaders” headed by a former Western-sponsored terrorist declared the independence of Serbia’s breakaway province of Kosovo and Metohija (its full legal name under Serbia’s constitution).

It seemed oh so simple and straightforward at the zenith of the “unipolar moment,” and Kosovo Albanians were “confidently awaiting Western recognition for their state despite the anger its secession provoked in Serbia and Russia’s warnings of fresh Balkan unrest,” as a Reuters report drily noted.

Their confidence was more than justified, as 22 of 27 EU and 26 of 30 NATO member states eventually recognized this unilateral act of secession, pulling along many other smaller, mostly Western-dependent countries to follow suit. UN Security Council Resolution 1244, according to which the province is to remain an autonomous province of Serbia pending a mutually agreed final settlement, was ignored, just as the UN and international law were ignored in the spring of 1999, when NATO unilaterally engaged in a 78-day bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under the familiar pretext of protecting “democracy, human rights and the rule of law.” This resulted in NATO’s military occupation of the province that lasts to this day.

The case of “independent Kosovo” is in many ways the perfect embodiment of the post-Cold War West’s “rules-based order.” In contrast to international law, which derives from the UN Charter and numerous universally accepted post-WWII treaties and agreements, the “rules-based order” is pretty much anything its propagators deem it to be in accordance with their political interests du jour. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, these “rules” are “created from scratch for each particular case. They are written within a narrow circle of Western countries and palmed off as the ultimate truth.”

In the case of Kosovo and Metohija, the “rules” were to be tailored to the ambitions of the unipolar hegemon and its vassals. This formed the base of the collective West’s failed attempt to declare this instance sui generis, i.e., unique and incomparable to any other case, in order to prevent others from referring to it as a precedent – South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, the Donbass, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, among others, begged to differ. And, no, the original goal of this unique “rule-setting” was not to protect “democracy, human rights and the rule of law” in Serbia’s historic province, which hosts not only the site of the legendary Battle of Kosovo of 1389, the only battle in which an Ottoman sultan was killed, but also hundreds of Serbian Orthodox medieval churches and monasteries. The true US interest was much bigger and less benevolent. And it was revealed in a document memory-holed by Western mainstream media, a May 2000 letter to then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder by Willy Wimmer, a member of the German Bundestag and vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE.

Wimmer’s letter contains a description of a security conference that he had attended in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava that was co-organized by the US State Department and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington-based think tank. A list of participants and the agenda could at one time be found on the AEI website but are no longer available at the time of writing. Almost all of the information available nowadays about it comes from Wimmer’s account. According to him, the conference not only exposed the true causes of NATO’s brutal attack on Yugoslavia and subsequent occupation of Kosovo and Metohija, but also the purpose behind NATO’s further enlargement toward the borders of Russia, and, most importantly from the aspect of global security, the US aim of undermining the international legal order as part of its drive for global domination. In essence, Wimmer’s report revealed the criminal plan that has brought the world to the brink of global, possibly nuclear, conflict.

According to senior US officials at the conference as cited by Wimmer, Yugoslavia was bombed “in order to rectify General Eisenhower’s erroneous decision during World War II,” when he failed to station US troops there. Naturally, as Wimmer recorded, no one at the conference disputed the claim that, having engaged in the bombing of a sovereign country, “NATO violated all international rules, and especially all the relevant provisions of international law.” Furthermore, NATO’s unilateral intervention outside its legal domain represented a deliberate “precedent, to be invoked by anyone at any time,” and “many others” in the future.

The ultimate imperial goals were clearly stated: “To restore the territorial situation in the area between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia such as existed during the Roman Empire, at the time of its greatest power and greatest territorial expansion. For this reason, Poland must be flanked to the north and to the south with democratic neighbor states, while Romania and Bulgaria are to secure a land connection with Turkey. Serbia (probably for the purposes of securing an unhindered US military presence) must be permanently excluded from European development. North of Poland, total control over St. Petersburg’s access to the Baltic Sea must be established. In all processes, peoples’ rights to self-determination should be favored over all other provisions or rules of international law.”

In short, the tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine today can be clearly traced back to NATO’s trampling of international law in the case of Kosovo and the “victorious” West’s building of a new (“rules-based”) order by expanding its military alliance all the way to Russia’s borders. If we were to apply the Nuremberg Principles of International Law formulated under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 on the basis of the post-WW II Nazi war crimes trials, NATO’s decision-makers would stand a very good chance of being found guilty of crimes against peace: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances,” and “(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

In other words, international law is inconvenient for today’s collective West not just for practical but for legal and moral reasons. Not to speak of the obvious historical parallels with a previous militaristic attempt at forming a “new order” that ended in a Berlin bunker after tens of millions of lives were extinguished. Wimmer’s (almost) forgotten correspondence is an indictment far deeper than the collective West’s current marriage of convenience with Kiev’s neo-Nazi element.

However, even as the Ukraine crisis continues to escalate, the new Battle of Kosovo is far from over. Because, 15 years on, the collective West still hasn’t been able to find a political accomplice in Belgrade ready to grant it retroactive amnesty by recognizing “independent Kosovo” and/or agreeing to its UN membership. That is why, even as they stubbornly press on with the latest Drang nach Osten on the military field, Western powers are also doubling down on their diplomatic pressure on Serbia, which not only refuses to formally recognize its own dismemberment but also to join the illegal sanctions against Russia. The latest ploy, informally called the Franco-German plan, is to try to force Serbia to recognize its province’s statehood in all but name, in return for foggy promises of financial aid and (distant) future EU membership. As a result, the current onslaught of Western diplomats on Belgrade is only slightly less intense than the parallel inflow of Western mercenaries to Kiev.

The problem for the collective West is that, despite its intense, decades-long pressure, substantial investment in the Serbian media and NGO sector, and threats of renewed international isolation, Serbian popular opinion remains stubbornly independent-minded. According to a recent report by the uber hawkish, London-based Henry Jackson Society, 53.3% of Serbian citizens wish their country to remain neutral in the Ukraine conflict (with a further 35.8% supporting an overtly pro-Russian stance), while 78.7% oppose sanctions against Russia and 54.1% think that Serbia should rely on Russia first when it comes to foreign policy (as opposed to 22.6% opting for reliance on the EU). Furthermore, the EU has definitely lost its luster, with 44.3% saying they would “definitely” or “probably” vote against EU membership (as opposed to 38.1% ready to vote for) if a referendum were to be held tomorrow. Finally, according to a recently released independent Serbian poll, 79.2% oppose EU membership as a “reward” for recognizing independence for Kosovo.

It can thus be argued that, much as Hitler’s march into the Rhineland broke the post-WW I world order, NATO’s unprovoked attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was a deliberate move to destroy the post-Cold War order, while the Western-inspired declaration of Kosovo’s independence 15 years ago was an attempt to legitimize a new, “rules-based” order, which is now reaching its ugly culmination in Ukraine. And, taking the parallels a bit further, just as the attempted new order may meet its military Stalingrad in Ukraine, it might meet its diplomatic Stalingrad in Kosovo, well before the 20th anniversary of that occupied territory’s purported independence.

February 17, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment