Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Moscow warns Trump against attack on Syria

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | April 9, 2018

The US President Donald Trump has appeared himself at the barricades facing Russia, finally. He has done everything possible so far not to get entangled in the New Cold War. And the Kremlin gave him the benefit of doubt so far. But no more.

How far Trump is seeking a confrontation with Vladimir Putin is hard to say but he is an intelligent man who would know that there is nothing personal about Russian policies. This is the first time Trump has directly criticized Vladimir Putin by name. Trump’s tweet on Sunday is provocative:

  • Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK! If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

Moscow lost no time to point out that the so-called chemical attack is fake news. In fact, Moscow has been alerting its allies in Syria that precisely this sort of a false flag operation by the Saudi and US-backed terrorist group Jeish al-Islam (which is staring at defeat by the Syrian government forces in Eastern Ghouta) could be expected.

History is repeating. A similar false-flag was staged in Eastern Ghouta in 2013 and it almost prompted then US President Barack Obama to move naval fleets to the Mediterranean for war on Syria, but a prompt Russian initiative on chemical disarmament of Syria under the auspices of the UN defused the US-Saudi plot. Subsequently, investigations by western journalists, including from Associated Press, found that the then Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan only had supplied a chemically armed warhead to the terrorist group in Eastern Ghouta.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov disclosed today in Moscow that the Syrian government had transferred to the UN Security Council and the OPCW the intelligence reports to the effect that a provocation was being prepared with the use of chlorine in East Ghouta. Lavrov added: “The US is taking steps not to leave (Syria) as President [Donald] Trump said, and leave Syria for others, but to establish a foothold there for a very long time – experts believe so.”

So, the big question is what Trump could be up to. Trump mentioned Obama in his tweet. For sure, Moscow is on alert. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued another warning to Washington on Sunday that any US interference in Syria will be “absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.” The text of the statement is reproduced below:

  • The Syrian government army is conducting an operation to free civilians in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, from the control of militants and terrorists. The greater part of this suburb has been liberated. Irreconcilable radicals have mounted fierce resistance in the town of Douma, where they use the remaining civilians as a human shield.
  • In this situation, the Russian Centre for Reconciliation in Syria and the Syrian government forces have created humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of civilians. They will continue with this effort. However, those who are not interested in the early elimination of one of the last seats of terrorism in Syria and in a genuine political settlement are doing their best to hinder the evacuation of civilians.
  • False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.
  • We recently warned of the possibility of such dangerous provocations. The goal of these absolutely unsubstantiated lies is to protect the terrorists and the irreconcilable radical opposition that has rejected a political settlement, as well as to justify the possible use of force by external actors.
  • We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.

The detailed Russian explanation suggests that a criticality has arisen. Two Israeli jets fired missiles at a Syrian airbase in Homs province today early morning from Lebanese air space inflicting heavy casualties. Israeli drones have been reported over Lebanon. This could be a dry run for US operations.

April 9, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Syrian Air Defenses respond to ‘missile attack’ on airbase in Homs – state media

RT | April 9, 2018

A military airport in Homs province has been targeted in a “missile attack,” SANA reports. Although Syrian air defense systems allegedly intercepted at least eight projectiles, several people were reportedly injured and killed.

Several missiles were launched at Syria’s T-4 air base in the east of Homs province, SANA reports, citing a military source. According to the agency, the attack has “probably” been carried out by the United States.

There are several “martyrs and wounded” as a result of the strike, SANA added, without specifying the number of casualties.

While the US Defense Department is “aware” of reports of an alleged missile strike, it has dismissed reports of any US involvement.

“At this time, the Department of Defense is not conducting air strikes in Syria,” the Pentagon told Reuters in a statement. “However, we continue to closely watch the situation and support the ongoing diplomatic efforts to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable.”

According to Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen broadcaster, the missiles were coming from the Mediterranean Sea, through Lebanese airspace. Meanwhile, Al Masdar News is reporting that “unknown jets” have entered Syrian airspace from Lebanon, and is speculating that the jets could be Israeli. In response, the Syrian Air Defense system at Mezzeh Air Base was activated, the report added.

Almost precisely a year ago, on April 7, 2017, the US carried out a strike against Syria’s Shayrat Airbase, launching a volley of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea. Back then, Washington justified the attack as a necessary response in the wake of reports of a deadly chemical attack in Idlib province, without waiting any on any investigation into the incident.

The latest news comes as Damascus faces fresh accusations of allegedly targeting civilians in a chlorine attack, which were put forward by the controversial White Helmets group, which is always to the fore in Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict.

Damascus, meanwhile, has denied the accusations, while the Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the latest reports as another example of a “continuous series of fake news about the use of chlorine and other chemical agents by the government forces.”

Amid escalating tensions, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Central Command (CENTCOM), have allegedly been compiling lists of potential targets and attack options to present to Trump and his national security team, senior US military officials told Israel’s i24NEWS.

Israeli officials had, throughout Sunday, advocated striking targets in Syria, calling on Washington to retaliate against Damascus in response to the alleged Douma chemical attack. The charge was led by the Israeli Strategic Affairs and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan, who told the Army Radio on Sunday that he personally hopes that the US would take military action against the Syrian government. Among an array of politicians, Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog also called on the US to take “decisive military action” against Syria. The idea of Israel’s intervention in Syria was also supported by the Israeli Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who urged his followers “to try and stop this massacre.”

Donald Trump’s fury, meanwhile, focused on Damascus and the Syrian president Bashar Assad, whom the US president called an “animal.” The US leader also lashed out against Iran and Russia for supporting Assad, saying there is a “big price” to pay for the latest chemical attack.

Trump has already held talks with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, after which both leaders decided to form a united front against Russia at the upcoming United Nations Security Council meetings, planned for Monday. Macron previously indicated that France might consider unilateral actions, including a military strike if chemical weapons were ever used in Syria again.

April 8, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SYRIA: The Egregious Western Media ‘Chemical Weapon’ Fraud in Eastern Ghouta


One of the many unsubstantiated claims of “Napalm attack” made by the UK/US created propaganda construct, the White Helmets in Eastern Ghouta.
By Vanessa Beeley | 21st Century Wire  | April 8, 2018

Napalm was a US invention. Napalm “was invented in a top-secret 1942 war research collaboration between Harvard University and the U.S. government”. In 1952 the U.S. Patent Office issued certificate 2,606,107 for “Incendiary Gels” and made napalm’s precise formula available worldwide. 

“U.S. troops used a substance known as napalm from about 1965 to 1972 in the Vietnam War; napalm is a mixture of plastic polystyrene, hydrocarbon benzene, and gasoline. This mixture creates a jelly-like substance that, when ignited, sticks to practically anything and burns up to ten minutes. The effects of napalm on the human body are unbearably painful and almost always cause death among its victims.” ~ The Vietnam War

The accusation of “napalm attack” conjures up terrible images designed to shock.  In 1945 the US B29 bombers dropped their payload of 69,000 pounds of Napalm over Tokyo, Japan in one hour. An estimated 100,000 Japanese men, women and children perished in the resulting fire storm. Washington considered the 10 days of Napalm bombing raids across all Japan’s major cities, a huge success. The US also used Napalm in North Korea with devastating consequences for its people in the 1950s. Washington dropped 32,557 tonnes of Napalm on Vietnam.

The US’ most recent use of Napalm was during the Iraq war in 2003 when “dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River, south of Baghdad” according to an article in the Independent. In the same article a US commander of Marin Air Group 11 states:

“We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,” said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. “Unfortunately there were people there … you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It’s no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.”

According to Robert M Neer, author of Napalm: An American Biography, the countries who have used Napalm are:

“Countries that have used napalm, in addition to the United States, include: Greece (the first use after World War II), France, Britain, Portugal, United Nations forces in Korea, the Philippines, South Vietnam and North Vietnam (in flamethrowers), Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, India, Iraq, Nigeria, and Brazil.”

Syria is not mentioned.

Neer goes on to explain that the UN had banned the use of Napalm against “concentrations of civilians” under Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US signed the protocol almost thirty years after it had been adopted by the General Assembly, on January 21 2009. It was President Obama’s first full day in office. The caveat being “the US can disregard the treaty at its discretion if doing so would save civilian lives.” Considering just how many civilian lives had been destroyed by the US deployment of Napalm, it is hard to imagine a scenario where Napalm might be beneficial to civilians… but the inference is “we should trust the US to make that decision on our behalf and on behalf of the civilians in any given situation.”

The Syrian Napalm Narrative

The ‘Chemical Weapon’ narrative has sustained the conflict in Syria with alleged attacks being attributed almost entirely to the Syrian government, the Syrian Arab Army and Russia. The seven year information war has been ferocious with NATO-aligned media, think tanks and self appointed experts such as Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat doing all in their power to reinforce the “Syria did it” narrative.

If we were to map the chemical weapon claims in each terrorist held area undergoing liberation by the Syrian Arab Army, we would clearly see that the claims are commensurate with the pressure felt by the terrorist factions as the SAA closes in on their stronghold. … continue

April 8, 2018 Posted by | Fake News, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Douma Chemical Attack: Timeline of facts so far

By Kit | OffGuardian | April 8, 2018

A brief post, collating all the known events surrounding the build up to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria on the 7/8th of April 2018.

  • February-April 2018: The Syrian Arab Army has been making quick, decisive gains on the ground in recent weeks. Eastern Ghouta has all but fallen. Barring foreign intervention, the Syrian government’s victory is now all but assured.
  • March 13th 2018 Russian military command claims US is aiming to strike Damascus on an “invented pretext”. Advises them against it.
  • March 13th 2018 Syrian forces reported finding caches of chemical weapons in labs around liberated areas of Ghouta.
  • March 19th 2018 Russian and Syrian military figures reported they feared the rebels would stage a “false flag” chemical attack in order to drag US/NATO into action in Syria.
  • March 30th 2018 Donald Trump told a crowd at a speech in Ohio – and later repeated in a tweet – that the USA would be pulling out of Syria “very soon.” This is met with consternation in the capital and across the media.
  • April 6th 2018 UNSC meeting convened – at Russian request – to discuss the alleged attack in Salisbury, UK. Every member of the UNSC who spoke was categorical in their condemnation of any use of chemical weapons.
  • Night of April 7th/morning of April 8th… a chemical attack is reported by the US/UK funded “White Helmets”. The US blames Syrian govt. and holds Russia “responsible”.

With these facts as they are, we should ask a few questions:

1. Why, with the current international focus on chemical weapons, why would Assad hurt his cause by attacking a non-military target with chemical weapons?

2. With global political discussion focusing more on Saudi Arabian war on Yemen, the Skripal attack, and Israeli violence against Palestinians, why would Assad choose this moment to conduct a chemical attack and potentially distract from these issues?

3. The Syrian Arab Army is currently operating in Douma, why would Assad risk dropping chemical weapons that could hit his own troops?

4. The POTUS has publicly stated he intends to pull out of Syria “very soon”. Why would the Syrian Government endanger this development?

5. Cui bono? Who has the most to gain from this chemical attack? The SAA, who are already winning the war, or the cornered jihadist forces in desperate need of aid and air support?

April 8, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

Turkey: France’s buildup in Syria will amount to ‘invasion’

Press TV – April 8, 2018

Turkey which has deployed troops to northern Syria says if France steps up its military presence in the Arab country, it will amount to an “invasion.”

“If France takes any steps regarding its military presence in northern Syria, this would be an illegitimate step that would go against international law and in fact, it would be an invasion,” Turkish Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli said Saturday.

Turkey sent troops to the northern Syrian region of Afrin on January 20 to force out Kurdish militants, known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which it suspects of having ties with anti-Ankara separatists.

France, which has criticized Ankara over the offensive, operates in Syria as part of the so-called US coalition.

French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a delegation of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which has the YPG as its backbone, at the Elysee Palace on March 29.

On Saturday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan railed against Paris. “France, you are abetting terrorism, supporting it by then hosting them at the Elysee Palace,” he said.

“Especially, if they intend to support terror group elements or give direct or indirect protection with armed forces, this would be a really calamitous step,” Canikli said during a visit to the northeastern province of Giresun.

After the Paris meeting, Kurdish officials said France was planning to send new troops to the city of Manbij, also in northern Syria.

Paris has also threatened to attack Syria if it was established that Damascus had deployed chemical weapons in its military operation, an accusation strongly rejected by the Syrian government.

Turkey, which has pushed the YPG out of Afrin, has also threatened to extend its operation to Manbij, which hosts American forces.

Ankara has further locked horns with Washington on several occasions over the latter’s providing arms, training, and logistical support to the Kurds.

April 8, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

‘Netanyahu, Trump clash over early Syria withdrawal plan’

Press TV – April 6, 2018

A recent telephone conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump grew tense over Trump’s earlier expression of his tendency to withdraw US forces from Syria “very soon,” according to two US officials.

Netanyahu and Trump discussed regional developments over the phone on Wednesday, according to the official account from the United States.

But two unidentified US officials said later that Netanyahu had objected to Trump’s remark that he would like US forces out of Syria shortly, according to The Times of Israel.

There were no more details on the give-and-take between the Israeli prime minister and the US president.

On March 29, Trump said the US would “be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now.”

The US has reportedly more than 2,000 troops stationed in eastern Syria, in addition to several thousand others in the Arab country’s north.

“We spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. And you know what we have for it? Nothing,” Trump said.

Other US officials have since been attempting to walk back Trump’s remarks, which had already been in contrast to the mainstream US position.

Just on Friday, the Pentagon sounded differently from Trump, saying the American military plans in Syria remained unchanged.

On April 3, Trump also signaled that countries that wanted the US to remain in Syria would have to pay for that presence, singling out Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision, and I said, ‘Well, you want us to stay, maybe you’re going to have to pay,’” he told reporters at the White House. “We do a lot of things in this country. We do [them] for a lot of reasons, but it’s very costly for our country and it helps other countries a hell of a lot more than it helps us. So we’re going to be making a decision.”

The Israeli prime minister’s objection to Trump’s stated Syria plan came despite reassurances by US officials that Trump has changed his mind.

Apart from the troops on the ground, the US and a number of its allies have been bombarding what they say are Daesh positions inside Syria since September 2014, without any authorization from the Damascus government or the United Nations.

After the Wednesday telephone conversation between Netanyahu and Trump, a White House statement said, “President Trump reiterated the commitment of the United States to Israel’s security,” and that “the two leaders agreed to continue their close coordination on countering Iran’s malign influence and destabilizing activities.”

Netanyahu later tweeted that he had “thanked President Trump for his commitment to Israel’s security and America’s support for Israel at the United Nations.”

Neither of the official accounts referred to the tense moments of the conversation.

Unlike the US and its allies, Iran and Russia have government-authorized advisory presence in Syria. Israel has attempted to portray Iranian advisory assistance to Damascus as an attempt at spreading its regional influence, which Iran has consistently denied.

April 6, 2018 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump challenges the Russian-Turkish-Iranian alliance

By M.K. Bhadrakumar | Asia Times | April 5, 2018

Three is company. But if the trilateral dialogue format in international diplomacy seldom produces concrete results, that is because it cannot be sequestered from external influences. Besides, the three participants are bound to have specific interests and priorities. The long-awaited Turkey-Russia-Iran trilateral summit in Ankara on April 4 has been no exception.

The summit didn’t end as a damp squib but its outcome has been measly. Three reasons can be attributed to this. First and foremost, the US President Donald Trump might have been responsible.

The Ankara summit’s main agenda was Syria, but Trump’s “very-soon” remark in Ohio last Thursday introduced a strategic ambiguity into the Syrian situation. And he deepened the ambiguity further on the eve of the summit by stating on Tuesday at a meeting at the White House that he wanted to immediately withdraw US forces from the war-torn country, arguing that the US had already won the battle against the Islamic State.

Trump said, “I want to get out — I want to bring our troops back home. It’s time. We were very successful against ISIS.” Trump literally barged into the Istanbul tent and hijacked the mind of the three presidents.

What is the Syria that Erdogan, Putin and Rouhani would discuss – a Syria with open-ended US military presence or a Syria denuded of the Americans? That is now the big question.

Pentagon and White House split on what to do?

Even then, it is very unclear whether Trump himself is free to make up his mind. A former British ambassador to Syria Peter Ford framed the paradigm this way: “I have a feeling that there are divided counsels within the Pentagon, definitely in the White House (regarding US troop removal from Syria). Trump sincerely wants to get out since it’s what he campaigned on, but whether he’ll be allowed to by elements of the ‘deep state’ is the question.”

The good thing is that there could be elements within the Pentagon who too aren’t necessarily happy about an open-ended military presence in Syria without a clear-cut objective. The military mind cannot focus well when there are gnawing doubts.

Second, the disclosure (by the Kremlin first) that Trump has invited Putin to the White House has opened a vista of new possibilities. What if a joint Russian-American peace initiative in Syria gets revived? Trump now becomes a “stakeholder” in a Syrian settlement.

On the contrary, if the trilateral Russian-Turkish-Iranian dialogue on Syria (known as the Astana process) has gravitas today, it is mainly due to the Trump administration’s retrenchment from the Syrian peace process. The dalliance that the Obama administration (secretary of state John Kelly) kept going with the Kremlin (foreign minister Sergey Lavrov) has petered out and what remains today is the military-to-military “deconfliction” mechanism between the US and Russia to ensure that they don’t shoot at each other in Syria.

But, if Trump and Putin breathe new life into a Russian-American joint enterprise to choreograph a Syrian settlement, the Astana process gets relegated to the backburner. Participants at the Ankara summit agreed to hold the next meeting in Astana in mid-May, but much water might flow under the bridge by then.

Decision on Iran deal due by May 12

Third and finally, the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) remains the “known unknown.” Trump is due to make a decision on the Iran nuclear deal by May 12. And the geopolitics of the Middle East could change dramatically, depending on what he decides to do – especially if Trump were to pull the US out of the JCPOA.

The conventional wisdom is that changes at the US State Department and the National Security Council presage a more hawkish US foreign policy toward Iran. But there are weighty arguments too as to why Trump may not sound the death knell of the JCPOA and opt instead to simply give the nuclear deal a fresh lease of life, as he has done twice already.

To be sure, depending on the state of play in US-Iranian relations, the geopolitics of the Middle East could change and Syria is the theatre where this could see visible impacts in the near-term. So it was notable that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani didn’t go for Trump’s jugular at the Ankara summit. Iran also refrained from pushing any fresh initiatives and seemed more or less happy with a passive role – biding its time and brooding, as it were.

Given the above, what did the summit actually achieve? For a start, trilateral dialogue is always primarily a statement. What emerges from yesterday’s summit on the Bosporus is that the western influence in Syria (and the Levant) is inexorably on the wane. The summit underscored that the three countries intend to reinforce their influence in Syria.

Having said that, while the summit flagged the intention of the three countries to deepen cooperation, they also have divergent goals. For instance, the Turkish priority was that Russia and Iran continued to acquiesce with its military operation. Erdogan stated at the joint press conference, “Turkey will not stop until all regions under PYD/PKK (Kurdish militia) control, including Manbij, are secured… Turkey values Russia and Iran’s solidarity with its Afrin operation, we will establish grounds for peace in Afrin.” Rouhani and Russian President Vladimir Putin neither nodded agreement nor dissented.

The single most important outcome of the summit where all three countries have shared interest is in their forceful affirmation of the unity and territorial integrity of Syria and their rejection of “all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combatting terrorism.”

The bottom line is that Russia, Turkey and Iran have a strong convergence of interests in the termination of the US military presence in Syria. Paradoxically, here again the Trump factor comes in. Their brittle alliance faces an existential threat if Trump somehow realizes his dream of bringing the US troops in Syria back home “where they belong.”

April 5, 2018 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

West Uses Skripal Row to Boot Russia From Syrian Chemical Weapons Issue – Moscow

Sputnik – 04.04.2018

Blaming Skripal’s poisoning on Moscow, Western states are trying to push Russia aside from discussion of cases of chemical weapons usage in Syria, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman.

On Issue of Chemical Weapons

Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that chemical weapons remain a key issue in the decision-making process for all countries, as the legitimacy of Bashar Assad’s power in Syria is always being linked to it by Western countries and the US-led coalition.

“Before, we were told that Assad just had to leave, because he was bad but then this concept was abandoned. Now they say that he is bad and must leave because he violates international law using chemical weapons in Syria,” she said.

The representative went on saying that the West is trying to play the same card in the current row over Skripal’s poisoning.

“Thus, inventing the story about the alleged use of chemical weapons by Russia on British soil, Western countries are trying to push Russia aside from the legal field of discussion of issues pertaining to the chemical weapons in Syria. Under the pretext that there is nothing to talk about with Russia, as they claim Russia has used chemical weapons in Europe,” Zakharova added.

Earlier in the day, the British side presented its own version of why Russia proposed to convene an extraordinary session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Council. According to the UK permament representative to the OPCW John Foggo, Russia wants to use the organization’s meeting scheduled for April 4, the date on which a year ago a chemical attack in Syria’s Khan Sheikhoun took place, in order to make a political statement.

“For all of us gathered here, it is very sad to admit that chemical weapons attacks continue not only in Syria. Today marks exactly one month since the usage of the nerve agent here in Europe,” he said.

After the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta in January, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson accused Damascus of using chemical weapons and also claimed that Russia was responsible for the victims because of its engagement in Syria.

The Russian Foreign Ministry back then said that Washington was spreading propaganda against Moscow in an attempt to demonize the Syrian government and subsequently topple it, underscoring that the information on the chemical attacks used by the United States was uncorroborated.

In October 2017, the OPCW report alleged that the Syrian government was responsible for the April 4 sarin attack on the Syrian city of Khan Sheikhoun, claiming that the nerve gas used during the attack had been taken from stockpiles belonging to the Syrian government. However, the latter was destroyed as part of a 2013 deal with the US and Russia — a process the OPCW itself signed off on as having been completed that November.

Damascus has constantly denied being in possession of chemical weapons, the destruction of which had been confirmed by the OPCW.

On Russian Media

Russia would like to receive clarifications from the US State Department after accounts of Russian media outlets were blocked on Facebook, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said.

“We expect an official reaction to this situation from US authorities … we would very much like to hear official comments from the US State Department,” she told a briefing.

She called on Facebook to specify its issues with Russian media accounts and explain reasons behind its decision to block them.

On Tuesday, Russia’s Federal News Agency (FAN) said that Facebook had blocked its official page without any warning. Also on Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company blocked more than 270 accounts and pages run by Russia’s Internet Research Agency.

On Russian Vessel Detained in Ukraine

Moscow summoned the Ukrainian temporary charge d’affaires in Russia on Wednesday to protest the detention of a Russian ship and to demand the release of its crew as well as the return of the vessel, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“On April 3, the charge d’affaires ad interim of Ukraine in the Russian Federation was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry where he was handed a protest note in connection with the illegal detention of Russian fishing vessel Nord by the Ukrainian Border Guard Service on March 25 in the Sea of Azov, the transfer of the vessel to the port of Berdyansk and illegal custody of its 10 Russian crew members,” spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted.

According to Zakharova, Moscow demanded the immediate release of the illegally detained crew and the return of the vessel to its legitimate owner.

On March 26, Ukrainian border guards detained the Russian ship Nord, claiming that its crew had violated the sea border. The Russian Foreign Ministry demands the Ukrainian side to return the captured ship, which is in the Ukrainian port of Berdyansk, and to release the crew.

READ MORE:

Russia’s Offer for Joint Probe Into Skripal Case ‘Perverse’ – UK OPCW Delegation

Russia Concerned, Outraged Over US Claims on Attacking Syria — Moscow

Facebook, Instagram Delete Dozens of Russia-Linked Accounts

Russian Navy Disproves Dangerous Manoeuveres between Russian and UK Vessels

April 4, 2018 Posted by | Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The UK Government – and Not Russia – is the Real Threat to UK Security

By Neil Clark | Sputnik | April 2, 2018

Here we go again. In the UK government’s latest 52 page ’National Security Capability Review’, guess who’s right there at the top of the threats Britain faces? Yes – those dastardly Russians!

‘The resurgence of state-based threats, intensifying wider state competition and the erosion of the rules-based international order, making it harder to build consensus and tackle global threats’, the report says. ‘The erosion of the rules-based international order’? Excuse me? Didn’t that happen when the UK and its NATO allies bombed Yugoslavia- without UNSC approval in 1999- and when the UK and its allies illegally invaded Iraq — again without UNSC approval- in 2003?

According to the report, those events just didn’t happen. Instead ‘Russian State Aggression’ is the thing we should all be worried about. The long litany of alleged Russian crimes include ‘supporting the Assad regime‘ and the ‘illegal annexation of Crimea’. Never mind that the so-called ‘Assad regime‘ requested Russian assistance in fighting ISIS [Daesh]/al-Qaeda linked jihadists whose co-ideologists have brought terror to the streets of Britain.

Nor that the predominately Russian people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a democratic referendum to return to Russia following a western-backed regime change operation in Ukraine in which virulently anti-Russian nationalists and neo-Nazis provided the cutting edge. Let’s not let little things like facts get in the way shall we?

Despite the British government providing no proof that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, or indeed that the Novichok nerve agent was definitely used, the report states boldly: The indiscriminate and reckless use of a military-grade nerve agent on British soil was an unlawful use of force by the Russian State.

The truth is that the official government narrative on Salisbury has more holes in it than a slab of Swiss cheese.

And that was before we were told last week that the oh-so-deadly nerve agent was probably on the Skripal’s front door- the door which police officers had been touching on a regular basis as they came in and out of the house.

As in 2003, with the UK government’s Iraqi WMD claims, a conspiracy theory is being presented as 100% established fact.

Everything is back to front. We’ve entered the ‘Through the Looking Glass’ world of Lewis Carroll- where we‘re being asked by Theresa May and co to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

Far from posing a threat to British security, Russian actions in the Middle East are actually making British citizens safer. It’s the UK government which has been putting our lives at risk- not the ‘evil Putin‘.

The UK‘s neo-conservative foreign policy — which has been followed by Labour and Conservative governments over the past 20-or so years, has involved targeting independently-minded secular states for violent regime change. None of these states threatened Britain or the British public. On the contrary, they were actually opposed to the extremist terror groups who DO pose a threat. By working to destabilise countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, the UK government has greatly boosted the cause of global terrorism.

Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator but he was never going to attack Britain. By toppling the Iraqi strongman, and dismantling the entire state apparatus, Britain facilitated the rise of the Islamic State [Daesh] — a group whose adherents have carried out attacks against UK citizens.

In Libya, Britain — and NATO acted as the air-force of radical jihadist groups — as part of their strategy to oust Muammar Gaddafi. Members of the so-called Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were able to travel freely between Britain and Libya. ‘The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its foreign policy objectives,’ writes Mark Curtis. ‘Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May — who was Home Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi — clearly have serious questions to answer.’

The first major ‘blowback’ to British citizens of the UK government‘s Libya policy came in 2015, when British tourists were killed by terrorist attacks in neighbouring Tunisia. One was killed in an attack on the Bardo National Museum in March 2015, while three months later, 30 British tourists lost their lives in the holiday resort of Port El Kantaoui. Among those killed was Denis Thwaites, a former professional footballer with Birmingham City. Tunisia had been a safe place for British tourists — before Cameron and co set about ‘regime-changing’ Libya and turning the country into a jihadists playground. It was reported that the Port El Kantaoui terrorist, Seifeddine Rezgui, had trained in an ISIS camp in ‘liberated’ Libya.

Then in May 2017, 22 people were blown up when leaving a pop concert in Manchester by Salman Abedi. The radicalised bomber had only returned from ‘liberated’ Libya a week earlier and is believed to have fought with his father with the LIFG, against Gaddafi — (and on the same side as NATO), six years earlier.

Again, remind me who is the biggest threat to UK security — the UK government — or Russia?

Having ticked off Libya from their ‘To Do’ list, the neocons in the UK government turned their attentions to Syria. Again, here was a country whose secular government posed no threat to the UK. President Bashar al-Assad, who trained as an eye doctor in London and whose wife Asma was born in England and brought up in Acton, could have been an ally, if the UK had been genuinely interested in fighting Islamist terrorism. But instead the UK supported hardcore Islamists, euphemistically referred to as ‘rebels‘ to try and bring down the Assad government.In June 2015, Seumas Milne reported how a trial in London of a man accused of terrorism in Syria had collapsed — when it emerged that British Intelligence had been backing the very same ‘rebel‘ groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

‘Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much,’ Milne noted. But it was not an isolated case.

The government is now talking about a new ‘Fusion Doctrine’ to ‘strengthen our collective approach to national security’. But here’s a better strategy. Let’s change our foreign policy. Let’s stop regime-change wars and destabilisation campaigns against countries which mean us no harm. Let’s stop supporting jihadist ‘rebels’ abroad in pursuance of neo-conservative objectives. Let’s start respecting international law. And let’s stop blaming Russia for problems which have been created at home.

April 3, 2018 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

America Faces a Vietcong Style Genuine Arab Rebellion in Syria

By Adam Garrie | Eurasia Future | 2018-04-02

While the Syrian Arab Army has liberated all of Eastern Ghouta from pro-western Takfiri terrorists and Turkey continues to be unable to get the US to agree on a disarmament agreement regarding YPG/PKK terrorists in Manbij, in Raqqa, a genuine Arab rebellion is taking place against the United States and their YPG proxies.

While the word “rebel” has been used throughout the duration of the Syrian conflict to describe heavily armed and handsomely paid terrorists whose loyalty is to foreign powers and whose citizenship is often not Syrian, in Raqqa, one is witnessing an organic uprising of indigenous Arabs against the American military and the SDF flagged YPG terrorists who have worked with the US to occupy Arab majority lands in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Real moderate rebels finally emerge 

As geopolitical expert Andrew Korbyko recently wrote in Eurasia Future,

The American President made global headlines once again after he seemingly veered off script at a political rally in Ohio by declaring that the US will be ‘coming out’ of Syria ‘very, very soon’ in order to ’let the other people take care of it now’. Trump didn’t elaborate, but his surprise announcement came on the heels of Turkish President Erdogan threatening to expand his country’s anti-terrorist campaign into the part of northeastern Syria that the Russian Security Council previously said hosts as many as 20 American bases, which could potentially lead to a ‘war by miscalculation’ between the two nominal NATO ‘allies’ if the American forces remain there during this time and are caught in the Turkish-Kurdish crossfire.

Within a day after Trump’s statement, the Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff informed the world that Raqqa’s native majority-Arab population had begun to rise up against the US-backed Kurds that are in control of the city, thus heralding in the beginning of the “Rojava Civil War” that the author first predicted more than a year ago and which was undoubtedly further provoked by the anti-Arab ethnic cleansing campaign that the Kurds commenced over the summer. It can’t be known for certain, but Russia and Turkey likely have a favorable attitude towards the Arab revolt against the pro-American Kurds because it dovetails with their interest in seeing this disruptive power removed from the agriculturally and energy-rich corner of northeastern Syria.

The key elements of Korybko’s observations are as follows:

1. In spite of some disagreements regarding a post-war settlement, Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey are all opposed to the illegal US presence in Syria, although none seek a direct confrontation with US forces.

2. It is not clear if the indigenous Arabs of Raqqa are loyal to Damascus, Ankara or some other power, but what is clear is that they are united in a common objective of exorcising the US and its proxies from their homeland.

An Arab Vietcong 

While the issue of the Arab rebels of Raqqa’s loyalty to one state or another is a key mystery, ultimately the most immediate threat to the always flimsy US narrative regarding the region, is that the US and their allies may face a Vietnam war style combat situation against the Arab rebels, assuming the US doesn’t “pull out” of Syria as Donald Trump recently indicated.

In the American war in Vietnam, the US found itself facing not only regular troops from Northern Vietnam but indigenous Vietcong rebels in the South whose fight was first and foremost against a foreign occupier. The Arab rebels in and around Raqqa likely feel the same way, as for example did the Algerian fighters who rebelled against French rule between 1954 and 1962. While the US did have  Southern Vietnamese allies on its side, such troops were in the minority and ultimately faced ostracism after the US loss. Just as some South Vietnamese and other minorities who sided with the US during war, typically out of opportunism, attempted to run away from Vietnam when the war was lost by the US, so too might many YPG militants attempt to flee along with their US masters when defeat is imminent as it could be in short order.

A French connection 

Prior to the US entering Vietnam, indigenous Vietnamese (referred to as Indochinese at the time) rebels fought a colonial French occupation between 1946 and 1954. After the French were vanquished in 1954, the US began gradually sending so-called “military advisers” to Vietnam before the situation spiraled into a full-scale US invasion after the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident in 1964.

Today, there is discussion that US troops in north-eastern Syria will be replaced by French and/or Saudi troops. The irony here is that while the US went into Vietnam only to repeat the loss of their French predecessors, now it appears as though France may enter north eastern Syria only to inherent a rebellion against the US and its Kurdish proxies that neither foreign army is likely to win.

As French President Macron has publicly come out in support of Kurdish radicals in Syria, it is unlikely that a French strategy in Raqqa would look significantly different than the US strategy. Moreover, the presence of Saudi troops in the region would only have the effect of making apolitical rebels likely to side increasingly with either Turkey or Damascus, were a fellow Arab army to fight along side infamously anti-Arab Kurds against indigenous Sunni Arabs.

Syria remains an Arab Republic

With the defeat of Daesh in Syria, many Arabs have attempted to return to their homes in places like Raqqa, only to find that they are being abusively occupied by US backed Kurdish militants. This is a classic recipe for rebellion and while the world is focused on Eastern Ghouta and Manbij, the Arab rebellion against the USA and YPG is already underway, as has been confirmed by the Russian military.

Now a spokesman for the Arab rebels has issued the following statement,

“Following the intelligence activities, the militia of Raqqa waged a special operation targeting the US Staff located at the former base of the 93rd Brigade in the district of Ayn Issa, 43 miles north of Raqqa. Several mortar shells were fired on individual targets without any casualties on our side”.

While the authors of this statement claimed they were opposed to both the US and Turkish presence in Syria, seeing as they are operating in an area far from any Turkish troops, the likelihood is that this group of rebels is centred around a pro-Damascus and anti-US political/military agenda. Indeed, as the government in Damascus remains the only legitimate Arab representative of the Syrian people, the rebellion in Raqqa may prove to help reconcile formerly anti-government forces with the government, as indigenous Arabs displaced by American troops and their proxies look to restore Syrian Arab rule over the Syrian Arab Republic.

While Turkey has said countless times that it does not intend to stay in Syria beyond a reasonable timeline for orderly withdrawal, the US has stated that it plans to stay in Syria for an extended period of time. Recent statements from the so-called SDF saying that they are unaware of Donald Trump’s proposed “pull out”, indicate that the veracity of the US President’s statements are far from certain. Thus, whatever faction the Arabs of north eastern Syria are ultimately loyal to, the fact remains that the US and its allies will be the primary targets and in the context of Syria, this excludes Turkey.

Conclusion

Thus the likelihood is that the Arab rebellion against the US and its proxies will only grow, perhaps especially if the US troops in the region are replaced by generally less capable French or Saudi troops. In this sense, whoever seeks to occupy Arab land in north eastern Syria whether Kurdish terrorists, the US military, French military or Saudi military – they will ultimately be doomed to failure for the same reason the US failed in Vietnam and Iraq and likewise, for the same reasons that the French failed in Indochina and Algeria.

The difference between a fake rebellion against a legitimate government funded by outsiders, as was seen in Eastern Ghouta, Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Deir ez-Zor, versus a genuine indigenous rebellion against an occupying foreign army and a minority of non-local militants whose loyalty (in terms of cooperation) is to the invader, is clear enough. The fake foreign funded “rebellions” historically lose battles while organic rebellions against an imperial occupier tend to eventually win, often with very decisive results.

April 2, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

Raqqa’s Militia Attacks US Coalition Base in Northern Syria

Sputnik | April 2, 2018

DAMASCUS – The militia of the Syrian city of Raqqa fired mortars on the US-led coalition base in the town of Ayn Issa, the press service of the movement said on Monday.

“Following the intelligence activities, the militia of Raqqa waged a special operation targeting the US Staff located at the former base of the 93rd Brigade in the district of Ayn Issa, 43 miles north of Raqqa. Several mortar shells were fired on individual targets without any casualties on our side,” the statement said.

The militia noted that they do not tolerate “the occupational forces” of the United States, Turkey, and their allies in northern Syria.

The statement read: “Do not relax night and day, wherever you are.”

On March 25, the indigenous Arab population launched an uprising against armed groups supported by the United States in the town of Al-Mansura in the suburbs of Syria’s Raqqa, opposing a forced mobilization conducted by the Syrian Democratic Forces and local self-governing bodies appointed by the United States. The uprising came as result of a 4-year-long military campaign, carried out by the United States and its allies against Daesh in Syria, without the approval of either the Syrian official government, nor the United Nations.

Last October, the coalition drove Daesh out of Raqqa that had been previously served as the de facto capital of the terrorist group’s self-declared caliphate. According to the United Nations, the humanitarian situation in the city is disastrous and the infrastructure is completely destroyed.

READ MORE: 

Violent Clashes Between US-Backed Kurds and Locals Reported in Raqqa

April 2, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

Trump is the most peace-loving US president Putin will ever know

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | April 1, 2018

A fortnight after sacking Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and a week after kicking out Lt. General HR McMaster from the National Security Council in the White House, President Donald Trump has made his first major foreign policy move. He announced on Thursday in front of cheering supporters at a rally in Richfield, Ohio,

  • “We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. By the way, we’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to be coming out of there real soon. We’re going to get back to our country, where we belong, where we want to be.”

In sheer power play, Trump has shattered the coalition between the US foreign and defence establishments, which Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis assiduously built to usurp policymaking. (Read my column in Asia Times dated March 15, Deconstructing the sacking of Rex Tillerson.)

Trump made his announcement on Thursday without consulting the state department or Pentagon. The state department spokesperson admitted ignorance. The Pentagon spokesperson mumbled that “important work remains to guarantee the lasting defeat of these violent extremists” in Syria. But, on Friday, the White House chief of staff John Kelly in a phone call to Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan conveyed Trump’s decision ordering a hold on more than $200 million in recovery funds earmarked for infrastructure projects in northeastern Syria in territories under US military control. This freezes a pledge made by Tillerson in support of Pentagon’s plans for an open-ended military presence in Syria.

Trump’s move may gain traction with 2 American soldiers reportedly killed and four injured in an IED explosion near Manjib on Thursday. Mattis won’t undermine Trump’s decision. That is simply not the military man’s style, which is always to use “front men” (like Tillerson.)

John Bolton, McMaster’s replacement, isn’t a military man. Bolton has a terrible reputation in the Beltway, which will sap his effectiveness. But Bolton is a rank opportunist who’ll know what is good for him under a Boss who is moody and volatile in turns. Also, Mike Pompeo, the incoming secretary of state, is a close pal of Trump’s and there is no daylight possible between the two.

Thus, Trump’s foreign policy agenda is becoming “kinetic”, finally. The speech in Ohio is vintage Trump. He has returned to his golden theme of mending America’s decaying infrastructure “with American heart, and American hands, and American grit.” (White House readout) This is also Trump’s campaign plank in the 2020 election: No more wars abroad unless US interests are directly threatened.

My gut instinct says that an overall easing of tensions with Russia is also to be expected. Trump is not seeking a fight with Russia. Arguably, he is the most peace-loving American president Vladimir Putin will ever know.

The exact circumstances of the Skripal spy case will never be known but following a phone call Trump made to British PM Theresa May on March 28, some sort of a cooling off period may have begun. The White House readout said,

  • Both leaders agreed on the importance of dismantling Russia’s spy networks in the United Kingdom and the United States to curtail Russian clandestine activities and prevent future chemical weapons attacks on either country’s soil.

The above formulation by no means constitutes an “anti-Russian” articulation. Rather, it is a statement on national security priorities.

Hasn’t Britain begun “soft-pedaling” already? Contrary to the gloomy news Wednesday that the chances of Yulia Skripal, the ex-spy’s daughter, surviving was only 1 percent, London announced on Friday that she is “out of danger”, is eating and drinking. And Skripal himself, though “critical”, is “stable”.

Equally, the British FO said on Saturday, “We are considering requests for consular access in line with our obligations under international and domestic law, including the rights and wishes of Yulia Skripal.” The Russian embassy has sought consular access. (Yulia is a Russian citizen.)

Moscow must be sensing new stirrings in the air. The latest remarks by the Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov were spoken more in sorrow than in anger. Antonov said on Saturday,

  • “We want everybody to understand that we (US and Russia) are destined to become friends again. Only close interaction between our countries can help maintain international strategic stability and find mutually beneficial solutions to global and regional challenges.”
  • “Relations between ordinary people shouldn’t suffer. We’ll do everything in our capacity to make sure that Americans have zero problems with trips to Russia.”

Winston Churchill once compared Russian politics to a “dogfight under a carpet”. That is an apt description of Trump-era Russian-American spats as well.

April 1, 2018 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »