By Jon Rappoport

Hours after Donald Trump suggested the US should downsize its role in NATO, bombs went off in Brussels.

In the wake of the attacks, the Globalist party line is shaping up: Downsize? Absolutely not. NATO must respond. Led by the US, it must, wait for it, invade Syria, an ISIS stronghold. With ground troops.

Don’t even bother trying to figure out the logic behind that idea. It goes something like this: get rid of President Assad (who is in a war against ISIS) because somehow the Brussels attack is all his fault.

Led by the US, NATO should attack ISIS in Syria—ISIS, the group funded and backed and armed by the US government. Perfect.

Gibberish.

I can just hear a US general trying to decipher his marching orders: “Let’s see, we have to go into Syria and get rid of President Assad, and he’s the one fighting against ISIS. Hmm. And we also have to decimate ISIS. In other words, we should more or less level the whole country, wipe out everybody, and turn the place into a wasteland worse than the wasteland it already is. Right? And while we’re doing that, we have to ignore the fact that our government shipped weapons to ISIS from Libya. How about this instead? Locate the key people who are urging this insane military campaign and put them in prison where they can’t do more harm. Or let’s launch an operation against the moon. That would be good, too.”

French President Hollande is also right up there on the insanity index. His latest statement, after the Brussels attacks, assures one and all that this is a war against Europe, not merely Belgium. But he is the one who has been asserting that Europe has no right to question the flood of immigrants streaming across the continent. Border controls? No, no. What possible relationship could any of these immigrants have to terror attacks? They were trained outside Europe on how to mount bombing operations against civilian populations, after which they came into Europe with that intention? Sure, but so what?

Housed within Brussels, of course, is the headquarters of the European Union, which is Globalism Inc. for Europe. Its covert aim is to drown all nations of the continent in immigrants, so that within a few decades there will be no more recognizable countries—at which point a simple declaration that all of Europe is one indivisible entity will carry the day. This intention must never be spoken of. It must be hidden. Instead, the population of Europe must enlist in a universal, what shall we call it, Tolerance Corps, grinning from ear to ear wherever they go, urging acceptance of the new status quo, now and then grieving as new terror attacks blow people up. Who could doubt the efficacy and wisdom of this plan?

Do not offend the people who are blowing you up. Do not realize who is covertly backing the people who are blowing you up. Instead, rely on these backers to stop the people who are blowing you up.

Keep smiling. Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. Your tolerance and compassion and good cheer will earn you a gold star on the heavenly blackboard. Keep opening your door to all who enter. Extend them a helping hand, just as your government does. Your visitors will make your land a better place. Let us all sing a hymn of joy.

The realities of the situation don’t matter. The only thing that matters is your basic desire for kindness. You must give lip service to that. You must sing the hymn, because it marks you as a good person. Stop thinking. Mark yourself as a good person.

The US/Globalist wars of decimation in the Middle East and Northern Africa? The blowback from the wars? Not important. Not relevant. Well, they are relevant in one respect. You personally are guilty for those wars. Therefore, you must now surrender to whatever happens. You must give up everything as a sign of your humility and guilt. You have no right to defend yourselves. Nor do you have the right to insist that your governments defend you. Of course not.

Everything is all right. Everybody is all right. We are everybody.

One great cheese glob of the coming utopia.

Somewhere in the bowels of the EU headquarters, a high-ranking official is standing in front of a mirror, applying tan base to his parched pale face, combing his sparse hair, rehearsing his upcoming statement to the press:

“Let’s see. Reality versus appearance. The reality is, this is perfect for us. An attack within a mile of our building. We couldn’t have anything to do with it. We’re victims. We’ve been making sure the governments of Europe keep their borders open, to let in terrorists, and so on. Now, when I appear before reporters…the appearance. I need to affect an expression of outrage mixed with sadness. Dignified. Do dignified. ‘The terrible events of today, the assault on Europe, on the stability of society. We will not rest until we bring the criminals to justice. At the same time, we must not fall into the trap of believing that all people coming to our lands are’…no, scratch that last part. Too early for that. The bodies are still lying on the ground. Stay with the outrage and the sadness. And assurances that we will work harder to gain control over the situation. We all stand united. Together. Our thoughts are with the grieving families…”

He walks out into a large hall, exits the building, and stands before a throng of reporters. He nods, steps to a podium. He looks out into the distance, as if summoning up a greater understanding.

But he already understands. He understands very well.

Only a complete fool wouldn’t.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

By Brandon Turbeville

Regardless of which side you choose to listen to in the Armenian/Azeri conflict, one thing everyone can agree on is that the ceasefire is not holding. The regularly ignited dispute between the two neighboring countries has been a fixture for years but, over recent months, has seen a flare up that is threatening to throw yet another part of the world into chaos and open warfare.

On April 5, Russia was able to organize and mediate between chief officials of the Azeri and Armenian militaries and clench a “ceasefire agreement” on the “contact line” in Nagorno-Karabkh, the area currently being fought over by the two countries and Armenian “militias.” However, ever since the ceasefire agreement was made, both sides have traded accusations that the other side has violated the agreement. In fact, the accusations of violations are so numerous that one could scarcely call the ceasefire a functioning agreement. For instance, Armenia has claimed that, in the last 24 hours alone, Azerbaijan has violated the ceasefire 50 times. There have been similar claims against the Armenians by the Azeris.

A Brief History Of The Conflict

The roots of the Azeri-Armenian conflict are connected to both national histories and the fall of the Soviet Union as well as ethnic histories and regional ties.

Essentially, in the late 1980s a referendum was held by the inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabkh region where the majority Armenian population largely voted for reunification with Armenia while the minority Azeri population boycotted the vote. The vote obviously favored independence from Azerbaijan and reunification with Armenia causing a rift between both countries which escalated from a political disagreement and social disharmony to outright violence and eventually military operations that only grew as the Soviet collapse appeared more and more imminent.

Nagorno-Karabkh is a small enclave located within Azerbaijan but whose territory is actually held by Armenian “paramilitaries” and the self-declared “Government of Nargorno-Karabkh.” In fact, the territory held by Armenian forces surround and extent past the boundaries of Nagorno-Karabkh, which creates a novel border dispute between the two countries as well as a porous border situation.

The National Sentiment

In Azerbaijan, the declaration of separation and the subsequent defeat to Armenian forces, who were perceived as drastically inferior both in terms of military and demographic strength, intensified nationalist feelings. As a result, a campaign of destruction of ancient Armenian sites took place in Azerbaijan in an apparent Azeri attempt to erase any cultural and historical evidence and legacy that Armenians had in the country as well as to provide the opportunity for the falsification of history in regards to the Armenian presence and connection to the land. As such, this is the same method that was employed by Turkey in the time leading up to the Armenian genocide. It is the same method as that of ISIS regarding Shi’ite, Christian, and other religious artifacts and sites.

As a result, after being faced with the anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabkh are even more entrenched and committed to the idea of independence and separation from the Azeri national government.

Outside Supporting And Opposing Forces

Turkey plays a conspicuous role in the Azeri/Armenian conflict. Interestingly enough, the Azeris have ethnic and linguistic ties to the Turks and Turkey has shared a rich and bloody history of discrimination, antipathy, and violence toward Armenians. This anti-Armenian history, coupled with Erdogan’s Islamism, has contributed to the reasoning behind Erdogan’s recent statement that Turkey stands with Azerbaijan “to the end.”

Of course geopolitical elements are at play here as well. After all, the Turkish “nationalist” Grey Wolves operate a chapter in Azerbaijan, a clear indication that NATO and not only the Turks has a clear foothold in Azerbaijan. Indeed, Azerbaijan is an active participant in NATO’s Partnership For Peace and Individual Partnership Action Plan. Azerbaijan has also shown signs that it intends to become a member of NATO proper in the near future.

Armenia, for its part, is also a member of the NATO Partnership For Peace program, the Partnership Against Terrorism, and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. While it is not a member of NATO, there are talks of the future of Armenia by “opposition” parties who argue for joining the Anglo-American world army.

On the other hand, Russia is also heavily involved in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 2015, a report was released which claimed that Azerbaijan purchased around 85% of its weapons from Russia in the past five years. The weapons transfers amounted to about $4 billion worth of transactions.

Russian ties go deeper with Armenia, however, since the tiny nation hosts two Russian military bases there, serving as an extension of Russian influence as well as a deterrent against Turkey.

With Russia maintaining such close ties with both nations, it presents a very precarious position for the Russian leadership in regards to the Azeri/Armenian conflict. On one hand, weapons deals and military bases provide a close relationship with which to negotiate a peaceful solution. On the other hand, a close relationship with both countries provides for the necessity to walk very carefully so as not to appear to be taking one side over the other and thus isolating one of the Russian partners. One false step can cost Russia either billions and influence or bases and influence.

Conclusion

With all of this in mind, (i.e. the Russian influence and arms sales to both countries as well as the growing/ever-present NATO “Western” influence), both Armenia and Azerbaijan are clearly attempting to walk a tightrope between two world powers amid a potentially explosive situation that could ignite the region in conflagration.

With both the Syrian and the Armenian/Azeri conflict holding so much interest for Russia and Turkey, the potential for Erdogan to overplay his hand is a distinct possibility. As with the hubris of many world leaders, however, the most unfortunate aspect to a loss of one’s senses is that the general population pays the price in blood and treasure.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

By Brandon Turbeville

So what’s the big difference between the “moderate” terrorists and the extremist terrorists running rampant in Syria today? At one time, we were told there were no terrorists at all. Then, we were told terrorists were indeed present but that there were also moderate, secular, democracy-loving freedom fighters in the country. Now, after the nature of the so-called “rebels” has been revealed ad infinitum by the alternative and independent press, it is admitted that the “fighters” in Syria are terrorists but, apparently, some are moderate and some are extreme.

Of course, they all have the same goal of Sharia. They all hate minorities, Christians, Alawites, Shiites, etc. They all torture. They all rape. We could go on and on. In the world of the West’s “rebels,” there is not one shred of difference between any of the armed groups fighting against the secular Syrian government besides the names they call themselves.

Still, we are told there are clear differences and that the U.S. State Department knows just what they are. Only, they aren’t telling the American people. Or the Russians. Or the Syrians. Or anybody. The “moderate” terrorists are thus a very mysterious force, a group of which we may speak but also one that never shows itself.

Of course, there are groups that the United States admits are brutal killers but somehow rationalizes to the public that they are “our” brutal killers. The U.S. can, at times, be forced to admit that the groups it supports as “freedom fighters” have committed atrocities, rapes, murders, torture, and establishment of Islamic theocracy upon unwilling inhabitants. Essentially, the U.S. can admit (when pressured) that these groups have the same ideology as ISIS, although the State Department will never say these exact words.

Thus, it is clear that any designation of terrorist groups as “extremist” or “moderate” is obviously based on political motivation and geopolitical designs, not the nature or action of the terrorist group in question. If that were the case, then Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam, and other groups would easily be listed as terrorist organizations that would subsequently not be covered under the “ceasefire” agreement. After all, there is no distinguishing characteristic that sets these groups apart from ISIS or Nusra other than a name.

But when the Russians attempted to remove these groups from the list of non-protected terrorists in Syria (terrorists protected at the insistence of the West), the United States, Britain, France, and Ukraine rushed to their rescue and blocked the Russian proposal. This is, of course, despite the fact that both of these groups, which make up around half of the “Syrian opposition forces” thanks to Western name changes, have repeatedly worked together with Nusra and ISIS forces. Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham have both worked so closely with ISIS and Nusra that the groups themselves are virtually interchangeable. Nevertheless, the U.S. is only digging its own international public relations grave with its refusal to designate known and obvious terrorists as precisely that, particularly when it has launched campaigns of destruction and death across the world on the basis of allegedly “fighting terror.”

The Russians have now forced the Western nations to admit that, despite their rhetoric, terrorist organizations are doing their bidding and have never truly been the targets of NATO forces. While the Western public remains entirely befuddled as to the nature of the crisis in Syria (many do not even know there is a Syrian crisis) Western propaganda has created such a complex and distorted view of the situation that any newcomer or casual observer would find it incredibly difficult to navigate through the lies and deceit.

For the rest of the world, however, much of that propaganda is ridiculous and transparent and, for that reason as well as many others, the United States and NATO are losing more and more credibility by the day.

Videos courtesy of WTFRLY.com

Image Credit: TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

By Dierdre Fulton

Drawing Russian rebuke, NATO members and partners on Monday launched what is being called the largest war game in decades—a 10-day exercise involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries, none more committed than the United States.

The exercise, dubbed “Anakonda-16,” is taking place in Poland ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw that will likely approve more troops to be stationed in eastern Europe. The United States is providing around 14,000 troops for the exercise, more than any other participating nation.

According to Stars and Stripes:

Thousands of troops have arrived in Poland to begin the 10-day series of engagements, including air-ground assaults and electronic warfare scenarios. Airborne units, infantrymen, medics, military police and aviation units will operate jointly throughout the exercise, which culminates in a massive live-fire event led by the U.S. Army’s 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.

A separate international naval exercise, Baltops-16, also involving NATO forces, began Monday in Finland, which is not a member of the global alliance.

The activity comes, as journalist Lucian Kim noted in an analysis published by Reuters, “just weeks after the United States inaugurated the first of two controversial missile-defense installations in Eastern Europe. Next year, the Pentagon plans to quadruple military spending in Europe to $3.4 billion and begin rotating an armored brigade through Eastern Europe—in addition to extra NATO forces to be deployed to Poland and the Baltics.”

And last month, work began on a separate missile interception base at Redzikowo, a village in northern Poland—”turning the country,” analyst Gilbert Doctorow wrote on Friday, “into a U.S. bastion and potential launch platform against Russia in possible violation of existing agreements governing intermediate-range nuclear weapons.”

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized the uptick in activity near Russia’s borders.

“We do not hide that we have a negative attitude toward the NATO line of moving its military infrastructure to our borders, drawing other countries into military unit activities,” he said. “This will activate the Russian sovereign right to provide its own safety with methods that are adequate for today’s risks.”

Meanwhile, speaking of the Polish war games as well as the ongoing “SaberStrike” operation in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Meshkov told journalists that the exercises “carry a serious destabilizing component” and that their “main goal is to continue the aggravation of tensions.”

At RT, author and journalist Robert Bridge offered a tongue-in-cheek thought experiment highlighting the ratcheting tensions:

For those who still aren’t convinced that Russia has some serious grounds for concern as the US-led war machine grinds ever closer, let’s put the situation into its proper perspective. Let’s imagine that the geopolitical chessboard were suddenly flipped and it is Russia that is now busy hatching a 28-member military alliance near America’s border, for example, in Latin America (and after Moscow had pledged not to increase the membership of the military bloc following the collapse of the Soviet Union).

But why stop there? Let’s roll the dice and see what Washington’s reaction would be if Russia had just dispatched three TU-160 Blackjack bombers to South America to participate in war games with the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil, for example, just weeks after Moscow dropped a missile defense system – which could go offensive with the flick of a switch – in, say, Colombia. Yikes! I dare say there’s not a straitjacket in the world that could restrain the writhing neocon convulsions that would break out across the Beltway.

A report issued last summer said ever-growing war games conducted by Russian and NATO forces feed a “climate of mistrust.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Dierdre Fulton writes for CommonDreams.org, where this article first appeared.

By Tony Cartalucci

Kurdish fighters allegedly backed by the US, have crossed the Euphrates River in Syria and have moved against fighters from the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) holding the city of Manbij. The city is about 20 miles from Jarabulus, another Syrian city located right on the Syrian-Turkish border. Jarabulus, too, is held by ISIS.

The initial push toward Manbij came from the Tishrin Dam in the south; however, another front was opened up and is hooking around the city’s north – successfully cutting off the city and its ISIS defenders from roads leading to the Turkish border – including Route 216 running between Manbij and Jarabulus.

Planning an assault on an urban center requires that an attacking force cut off city defenders from their logistical routes. Doing so prevents the enemy from fleeing and regrouping, but also diminishes the enemy’s fighting capacity during the assault. It is clear that the fighters moving in on ISIS in Manbij have determined that Jarabulus and Turkey just beyond the border, constitutes the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity.

Western Media Admits ISIS Entering Syria From Turkey

Jarabulus is increasingly being referred to across the Western media as the “last ISIS border-crossing point into Turkey.” A 2015 article written by the Guardian’s Jonathan Steele titled, “The Syrian Kurds Are Winning!,” would explain that (emphasis added):

In July of this year the YPG, again with the aid of US airpower, drove ISIS out of Tal Abyad, another town on the border with Turkey. This meant ISIS had lost two of the three crossing points from Turkey through which it could bring foreign volunteers, finance, and weaponry to strengthen the jihad.

Idriss Nassan, the Kurdish spokesperson of the Kobanî canton, told me that the YPG now plans to liberate the last ISIS border-crossing point into Turkey at the town of Jarabulus.

Steele’s article gives the impression that the US was actually trying to stop ISIS by helping the Kurds wage war inside of Syria. However Steele, for whatever reason, never addresses his own implications that ISIS is literally being reinforced from Turkey – a NATO-member since the 1950’s which hosts a US Air Force base at Incirlik, and who has allowed US, British, French, and Persian Gulf state intelligence agencies and special forces to operate along its border with Syria with impunity since the conflict began.

More recently, in a Washington Times article titled, “Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out,” it would quote the Turkish Foreign Minister himself admitting (emphasis added):

Joint operations between Washington and Ankara in Manbji, a well-known waypoint for Islamic State fighters, weapons and equipment coming from Turkey bound for Raqqa, would effectively open “a second front” in the ongoing fight to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Syria’s borders, [Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu] said.

The Foreign Minister of Turkey admits that ISIS forces – fighters, weapons, and equipment – are pouring out of Turkey’s own territory “bound for Raqqa,” but never explains how the most notorious terrorist organization of the 21st century could move enough men and materiel through a NATO-member state to wage an entire war with, without being stopped before reaching Syria. Also not explained is where ISIS is procuring the weapons that it is moving through Turkey.

It is a reality that directly and damningly implicates Turkey and its allies as state sponsors of terrorism, and calls into question both the legitimacy and relevance of NATO itself. At the very least – NATO is exposed as a military alliance so impotent that it cannot even secure its own territory from being used as a springboard for full-scale ISIS military operations.

US-NATO Harbored, Protected ISIS for Years

It should be noted that as a “collective act” by NATO, at one point in the conflict, the United States and Germany would even place Patriot missile systems along the Turkish-Syrian border to discourage Syrian aviation from approaching too close – a strategic reality that did not shift until Russia began its own direct military intervention in the conflict on Damascus’ behalf, as Defense News reported at the time.

In retrospect – it appears that both the US and Turkey were complicit in ensuring Syrian efforts to interdict terrorists including ISIS were ineffective – establishing what was essentially a de facto buffer zone inhabited by among other groups – Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front and ISIS itself.

Russia’s entry into the war and its subsequent operations directly along the Syrian-Turkish border disrupted ISIS’ logistical support from NATO-territory and has been the primary factor leading to ISIS’ weakening within Syria.

Time is Up for the West’s Narrative

With the Western media itself now admitting ISIS is crossing into Syria from Turkey – even without explaining the obvious context and implications this has for both Turkey and NATO – it will become quickly apparent to all that more should be done by Turkey and NATO to contain ISIS within Turkey itself, rather than beyond Turkey’s border with Syria.

For the United States in particular to have substantial military assets located in Turkey for its Syrian operations, but appear oblivious to the ISIS threat passing by its own troops, intelligence officers, and military trainers and advisers, will become an act even the most naive Americans and Europeans will find difficult to believe.

In the meantime, efforts to continue securing Syria’s borders, north and south, must be made in order to confront the West’s proxies on the battlefield. Meanwhile, across information space, efforts must be made to continue raising awareness that a war fought by fighters moving from one country into another is not a “civil war,” it is a foreign invasion – and those nations participating in it along the invaded nation’s borders must be held accountable.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By Brandon Turbeville

With the rising tensions in Syria between the United States, NATO, Europe, and Russia, there are, once again, signs that both sides are preparing for the potential of some type of direct military confrontation between the world’s two superpowers.

While most individuals assume that both historical and future events arise as a result of a series of massive and seismic actions, the truth is often that a whimper precedes the bang. While many events are indeed sparked by a single definitive act, it is also true that, in the events leading up to the defining moment, rarely does the general public realize that they are walking along the path to such an event. Even rarer is the individual who realizes that this path was already carved out by high-level players in the halls of banks, corporations, governments, and secret societies long before the destination is ever reached.

For instance, most scholars present the events leading up to World War I as an immediate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a shadowy semi-secret society that was not fundamentally connected to any other secret establishment. The truth, however, is that not only was the Black Hand a part of a Revolutionary Freemasonic structure and the war itself a carefully orchestrated plot that involved the personal attention and assembly of King Edward VII as well as British and French Freemasonic Lodges, but it was not solely a reaction to the assassination of Ferdinand.

More importantly for the context of this article is the fact that, for thirty days after the assassination, life, for the most part, continued on without any apparent changes in the lives of the general public. Indeed, in the month after the assassination of Ferdinand, the majority of the world’s population had returned to what has been described as a “dreamlike trance” of ignorance even as the declarations of war were being prepared behind the scenes.

The time of this “dreamlike trance” – July 1914 – may very well bear relevance to the time in which we find ourselves today. While we must do our best to avoid sensationalism, the question of US-Russia relations, US imperialism, and the geopolitical imperatives of the US, Russia, China, and NATO compounded by the overwhelming ignorance of the general public is one that should cause some concern as to whether or not we find ourselves in a similar situation today.

In March, 2015, I wrote an article entitled “Do Russia/NATO Military Drills Signal Something Ominous?” where I listed and discussed a number of “military drills” and acts of strategic positioning that pointed toward the potential for direct military confrontation between the two powers. It is now over a year later and that cataclysmic confrontation never took place. Unfortunately, signs and indications that it is a possibility are picking up again.

The Polish Drills

The recent drills involving U.S., British, and Polish troops, dubbed Anaconda, are some of the largest NATO drills of its kind and they are doing nothing to ease the tensions with Russia over the deployment of the missile defense system aimed at Russia and being placed essentially at its doorstep.

As Reuters reports,

US, British and Polish soldiers parachuted to the ground in Poland on Tuesday in a mass show of force as NATO launched its biggest war games in eastern Europe since the Cold War.

The exercises — staged against the backdrop of a military and diplomatic standoff between Russia and the West — have rattled the Kremlin.

NATO says the 10-day Anaconda manoeuvres involving 31,000 troops are intended to shore up security on the alliance’s eastern flank, where member states have been spooked by Russia’s increasingly assertive actions.

“There’s no reason to be nervous,” Ben Hodges, Commanding General, US Army Europe, told reporters, insisting the exercises were purely “defensive”.

They are being held a month ahead of a NATO summit in Warsaw set to seal its largest revamp since the Cold War by deploying more troop rotations to eastern European members deeply wary of Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Moscow fiercely opposes the NATO moves, billed by the US-led alliance as part of its “deterrence and dialogue” strategy.

And the Kremlin reacted angrily to the start of the manoeuvres, NATO’s biggest since the Trident drills last year involving 36,000 troops in Italy, Spain and Portugal.

“The exercises… do not contribute to an atmosphere of trust and security,” said spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

“Unfortunately we are still witnessing a deficit in mutual trust.”

Anaconda involves troops from 24 states, including 14,000 from the US, as well as ex-Soviet “Partnership for Peace” states like Ukraine.

The New Russian Base

It is very strange logic to consider a military base built inside one’s own country as an act of aggression. However, it can be considered an act of strategic positioning and it cannot be argued that Russia is not being forced to respond to U.S. provocation and encirclement. For this reason, it appears that the Russians are building a new base on the Russian/Ukrainian border in an effort to protect itself from the growing potential of a direct confrontation with NATO troops.

Reuters also reports on the new Russian initiative by writing,

Russia is building an army base near its border with Ukraine, the latest in a chain of new military sites along what the Kremlin sees as its frontline in a growing confrontation with NATO.

While there have been no clashes between the former Cold War rivals, Russia is building up forces on its western frontiers at a time when the NATO alliance is staging major military exercises and increasing deployments on its eastern flank.

A Reuters reporter who visited the Russian town of Klintsy, about 50 km (30 miles) from Ukraine, saw a makeshift army camp, large numbers of newly-arrived servicemen and military vehicles.

. . . . .

Last year, Reuters also reported on construction of two other bases further to the south on Russia’s border with Ukraine.

It is rare for a mainstream media outlet to utter anything resembling reality these days but Anton Zverev did manage to do so when he wrote for Reuters that “Each side says it is only responding to steps taken by the other, but the build-up risks locking NATO and Russia into a spiral of measure and counter-measure from which it will be difficult to escape.” Of course, the article did not point out that American/NATO aggression is indeed the reason why Russia feels the need to shore up its defenses.

The U.S. Aircraft Carrier In The Mediterranean

After the small draw down of Russian troops and aircraft from Syria, the Western media could not contain itself from making claims that the Russians were running scared from their battle with ISIS, despite the fact that the Russian-Syrian alliance had done more to destroy the group in weeks than the U.S. had done in years.

But, while the Russian draw down was itself limited and merely a change in strategy after the initial phase of Russian involvement had been completed, it appears that Russia has ordered another round of military equipment to Syria.

This time, instead of committing planes and personnel to land bases inside Syria, Russia is sending its aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, to the Mediterranean.

Even as that aircraft carrier is scheduled to appear in the Mediterranean in the coming months, the United States has made an “unplanned diversion” of its own as the USS Harry S. Truman has also been sent to the Mediterranean.

As Tamer El-Ghobashy of Market Watch wrote,

This 20-story-tall aircraft carrier with a crew of 5,000 made an unplanned diversion from the Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean last week — a quick pivot intended to send a clear message to Russia.

. . . . .

Rear Adm. Bret Batchelder, the highest-ranking officer on the carrier, told visiting reporters this week that moving the “capital ship” of the U.S. Navy from the Gulf through the Suez Canal is a flexing of muscle meant to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies of the American commitment to maintaining the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean.

“It is a demonstration of capability. That’s for sure,” he said. “There are undoubtedly folks who are watching that and this is just a graphic representation of what we’re capable of.”

A military official in Washington said the Truman’s shift was a signal to Moscow and a demonstration of the Navy’s operational flexibility and reach.

The Race For Raqqa

The Syrian military is quickly closing in on Raqqa, one of the last ISIS strongholds in the country, and is expected to reach the city within a matter of weeks or even days where a major battle between government and terrorist forces is inevitable. Recently, the Syrian military liberated a number of areas in eastern Syria near the Taqba airbase, another site that is expecting liberation in the next few days. The Syrian military has already reached the edge of Raqqa province.

Raqqa has acted as the ISIS capital since the mysterious appearance of the group two years ago and has gone virtually untouched as the Syrian military has been bogged down in major cities and western/central areas of the country in their fight against the Western-backed terrorists. Notably, despite its rhetoric of fighting to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, the U.S.-led coalition has yet to bomb Raqqa.

Fresh on the heels of a major public relations victory in Palmyra, however, the Syrian military is now marching toward Raqqa and, if successful, it will score one of the biggest victories in the five-year war. This is not only because the de facto ISIS capital will be eliminated or because the SAA will gain more territory, it is because the liberation of Raqqa will be yet another example of how the Syrian military will have accomplished in weeks what the United States and coalition members have claimed may take a decade to do. It will be another instance where the lack of will on the part of the United States to actually destroy Daesh is put on display for the rest of the world, either causing the U.S. to look weak in the eyes of the world or exposing it for actually supporting the terrorist organization to begin with. Regardless, the victory for the Syrian government will be twofold.

That is, unless the U.S. gets there first . . . .

The U.S. has been using the presence of ISIS in Syria as an excuse to bomb, send Special Forces, publicly support terrorists, and possibly invade since the Western-backed terror group appeared on the scene two years ago. Yet, despite its rhetoric, the United States and its coalition have not bombed Raqqa and have largely abstained from bombing (see here and here) any other terrorist group. Instead, the U.S. has focused on bombing Syrian military targets, civilians and civilian infrastructure (see here also), and acting as a deterrent to the Syrian military’s movement in many “rebel-held” areas of the country.

Now, however, the United States seems to have great interest in Raqqa as it aids its loose collection of terrorists, fanatical Kurds, and Arabs known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in “battles” around the ISIS capital.

So why the sudden interest in Raqqa? It’s fairly simple. The United States sees clearly that the Syrian military and its Russian allies are going to liberate Raqqa soon enough and the U.S. does not want to suffer another public relations setback. A defeat for ISIS is thus a humiliation for the United States. That fact alone should raise some eyebrows.

Regardless, the United States would like to have its own “victory” in Raqqa before the Syrians and the Russians can have theirs. If the SDF is able to “take” Raqqa, the U.S. will then be able to shout from the rooftops that America has liberated Raqqa and defeated ISIS in its own capital.

The U.S. also has another goal in Raqqa – the theft of more Syrian territory by using its proxy forces going by the name of the SDF. Whether or not ISIS proper is in control of Raqqa is merely a secondary concern for the United States. If the SDF succeeds in imposing control over the city and the province, then the West will have succeeded in cementing control over the area in the hands of its proxy terrorists once again, but with yet another incarnation of the same Western-backed jihadist fanaticism. The U.S. can then use the “moderate rebel” label to keep Russia and Syria from bombing the fighters who merely assumed a position handed to them, albeit through some level of violence, by ISIS.

With the situation as it stands, there is now the very real possibility of some type of major confrontation taking place in Raqqa that could very well have international ramifications. On one hand, there is the Syrian military, backed by the Russian Air Force and Russian Special Forces heading East to Raqqa while, on the other side, there is the SDF, backed by the U.S. Air and Special Forces, heading West toward Raqqa. Both sides are in a race to gain control over the ISIS capital, gain territory, and declare a victory for the world to see. But what if they arrive in Raqqa at the same time?

In other words, there is a distinct potential that, in the race for Raqqa, the Syrian/Russian alliance might find itself face to face with the possibility of direct military conflict with the U.S./SDF (terrorist) alliance. At that point, the question will be who, if either, will back down? If both forces decide to push forward, the result could be devastating not only for Syria but for the rest of the world.

Conclusion

It is now legitimate to wonder whether or not Russia and NATO are engaging in troop placement under the guise of drills for the purposes of preparing for and eventually launching a real war.

Indeed, one would be entirely justified in wondering whether or not we are seeing the chess pieces being set for a major military confrontation beginning in Eastern Europe but finding its way to North America and eventually enveloping the entire world.

Given the track record of both governments, it is entirely plausible to believe that, if both nations were indeed placing their military personnel in strategic positions, the cover of “drills” could and would be used so as not to forewarn the general public or cause panic in society and hamper the war effort. In addition, the cover of military drills and exercises is obviously a tactic available to governments whereby they are able to position military personnel in prime locations before any actual combat has taken place.[1]

With all of this in mind, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Are the American people in a dreamlike trance?”

“Are we in July, 1914?”

Notes:

[1] Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives, Anchor, (1997) ISBN 0-385-47954-9, pages 454-459

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

By Matt Agorist

Last week marked the official launch of NATO’s Anakonda-16 war games, calling for the largest assembly of foreign forces in Poland since World War II.

The exercise consisted of 30,000 troops supported by several arsenals of vehicles, aircraft and ships will be deployed in one of the biggest exercises on NATO’s eastern flank since the end of the Cold War.

While NATO is touting this move as training, the Russians are calling it the “summer of provocation,” and a move to reignite the Cold War intended to force Moscow to starve its domestic economy to ramp up its military to meet a growing external threat.

Russia is not alone in their assertion either. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Bild am Sonntag newspaper this week that these ostensible ‘war games’ are little more than warmongering.

“What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Mr Steinmeier said in an interview to be published in Germany’s Bild am Sontag newspaper.

“Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken,” Steinmeier said ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw beginning July 8. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he emphasized.

Rather than risk inflaming the already-volatile situation further “through saber-rattling and warmongering,” there needs to be more dialogue and cooperation with Moscow, Steinmeier said.

It would be “fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence,” German FM said, calling to give way to diplomacy instead of military posturing.

The alliance should also consider the possibility to “renew discussions about the benefits of disarmament and arms control for security in Europe,” he said.

In spite of NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu saying the alliance’s actions are “defensive, proportionate, and in line with our international commitments,” Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a response.

The real intent behind this saber-rattling is expanding military spending and bolstering the U.S. war machine. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski recently offered pertinent insight as to why Russia continues to be so vilified by the Pentagon and American media alike:

“The Pentagon needs and wants Russia to be the next big enemy that they are arming against it, budgeting against it, that they are targeting. Certainly, we have talked for a long time about China and China plays an important role as the enemy of choice for the U.S. military. But Russia is ideal in part, because we don’t import a lot of things from Russia, in part because we don’t have the debt relationship with Russia that we do with China. So, Russia makes for a very convenient enemy for the Pentagon in terms of its mission, its budgeting, and its intelligence organization.”

“The Pentagon needs that kind of enemy,” Kwiatkowski continued. “And [U.S. Secretary of Defense] Ashton Carter, if you listen to what he says continually — even from the beginning of time he was put in office — his job is fundraising, just like the university president’s job is not education but rather fundraising. Ashton Carter’s job is also fundraising, and he fundraises through this process of identifying, pushing, and delivering up an enemy that will justify their budgets.”

Prior to the German FM speaking out about this overt saber rattling, the only ones defending the Russians — were the Russians. Now that a U.S. ally is applying sensible logic to the scenario, the antagonistic intentions of the military-industrial complex are laid bare.

Unfortunately, the U.S., in its flagrant and irresponsible creation of the world’s largest military, cares not about starting actual world wars in their attempts to enrich their corporate masters.

When the chickens come home to roost, however, the result of such belligerent foreign policy will be death and destruction — on a massive scale.

Matt Agorist is the co-founder of TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared. He is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist

By Matt Agorist

There is no question that the United States has been dangerously rattling the saber in Russia’s direction. From deploying battleships off their coast, to conducting record-breaking war games in the region, there is no doubt — the US is painting Russia as an enemy.

Now, however, we have even more glaring proof of the U.S. government’s intentions. Hacked private emails of the US general formerly in charge of NATO show a deliberate attempt to provoke conflict with Russia.

The emails, posted by the site DCLeaks, show correspondence between General Philip M. Breedlove, former head of the US European Command and supreme commander of NATO forces, with several establishment insiders concerning the situation in Ukraine following the February 2014 coup that ousted the elected government in favor of a US-backed regime, according to reports.

The emails expose Breedlove’s frequent communication with General Wesley Clark, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and involving a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, State Department official Victoria Nuland, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

The communications are nothing short of Breedlove seeking advice on how to essentially start World War III.

Below is an example of one of the emails. “I seek your counsel on two fronts,…. how to frame this opportunity in a time where all eyes are on ISIL all the time,… and two,… how to work this personally with the POTUS,” Breedlove wrote to Powell in September 2014.

“I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized, … ie do not get me into a war????” Breedlove wrote in an email to Harlan Ullman, senior adviser to the Atlantic Council, describing his ongoing attempt to get Powell to help him influence Obama.

“Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell,” Ullman replied a few months later, in another string of emails about Breedlove’s effort to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react” to Russia, as reported by the Intercept.

According to The Intercept:

Breedlove did not respond to a request for comment. He stepped down from his NATO leadership position in May and retired from service on Friday, July 1. Breedlove was a four-star Air Force general and served as the 17th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe starting on May 10, 2013.

Phillip Karber, an academic who corresponded regularly with Breedlove — providing him with advice and intelligence on the Ukrainian crisis — verified the authenticity of several of the emails in the leaked cache. He also told The Intercept that Breedlove confirmed to him that the general’s Gmail account was hacked and that the incident had been reported to the government.

“The last conversation I had about it with General Breedlove, he said, ‘Yeah, I’ve been hacked several times,’” said Karber. He added that he noticed at least one of his personal emails appearing online from the leak before we had contacted him. “I turned this over to the U.S. government and asked them to investigate. No one has given me any answer.”

“I have no idea whose account was leaked or hacked,” said Powell, when reached for comment about the emails. Powell said he had no comment about the discussions regarding Obama’s response to the conflict in Ukraine.

In the European press, Breedlove has been portrayed as a hawkish figure known for leaning on allied nations to ditch diplomacy and to adopt a more confrontational role again Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. Breedlove, testifying before Congress earlier in February of this year, called Russia “a long-term existential threat to the United States and to our European allies.”

Der Spiegel reported that Breedlove “stunned” German leaders with a surprise announcement in 2015 claiming that pro-Russian separatists had “upped the ante” in eastern Ukraine with “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of the most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” sent to Donbass, a center of the conflict.

The Russians referred to last month as the “summer of provocation,” and called the NATO war games a move to reignite the Cold War intended to force Moscow to starve its domestic economy to ramp up its military to meet a growing external threat.

Russia is not alone in their assertion either as the Intercept pointed out. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Bild am Sonntag newspaper this week that these ostensible ‘war games’ are little more than warmongering.

“What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Mr Steinmeier said in an interview to be published in Germany’s Bild am Sontag newspaper.

“Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken,” Steinmeier said ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw beginning July 8. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he emphasized.

Rather than risk inflaming the already-volatile situation further “through saber-rattling and warmongering,” there needs to be more dialogue and cooperation with Moscow, Steinmeier said.

It would be “fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence,” German FM said, calling to give way to diplomacy instead of military posturing.

The alliance should also consider the possibility to “renew discussions about the benefits of disarmament and arms control for security in Europe,” he said.

In spite of NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu saying the alliance’s actions are “defensive, proportionate, and in line with our international commitments,” Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a response.

The real intent behind this saber rattling is expanding military spending and bolstering the U.S. war machine. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski recently offered pertinent insight as to why Russia continues to be so vilified by the Pentagon and American media alike:

“The Pentagon needs and wants Russia to be the next big enemy that they are arming against it, budgeting against it, that they are targeting. Certainly, we have talked for a long time about China and China plays an important role as the enemy of choice for the U.S. military. But Russia is ideal in part, because we don’t import a lot of things from Russia, in part because we don’t have the debt relationship with Russia that we do with China. So, Russia makes for a very convenient enemy for the Pentagon in terms of its mission, its budgeting, and its intelligence organization.”

“The Pentagon needs that kind of enemy,” Kwiatkowski continued. “And [U.S. Secretary of Defense] Ashton Carter, if you listen to what he says continually — even from the beginning of time he was put in office — his job is fundraising, just like the university president’s job is not education but rather fundraising. Ashton Carter’s job is also fundraising, and he fundraises through this process of identifying, pushing, and delivering up an enemy that will justify their budgets.”

Prior to the German FM speaking out about this overt saber rattling, the only ones defending the Russians — were the Russians. Now that a U.S. ally is applying sensible logic to the scenario, the antagonistic intentions of the military-industrial complex are laid bare.

Unfortunately, the U.S., in its flagrant and irresponsible creation of the world’s largest military, cares not about starting actual world wars in their attempts to enrich their corporate masters. These hacked emails only add credence to this notion.

When the chickens come home to roost, however, the result of such belligerent foreign policy will be death and destruction — on a massive scale.

Matt Agorist is the co-founder of TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared. He is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist

By Tony Cartalucci

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

From the ongoing refugee crisis triggered by NATO’s own globe-spanning and ongoing military interventions, invasions, and occupations, to its continued expansion along Russia’s borders – violating every convention and “norm” that existed during the Cold War to keep it “cold,” NATO has proven that it is to the populations it poses as protector over, in fact, their greatest threat.

In particular, the summit in Warsaw, Poland centered on NATO’s expanding military presence along Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as in Poland itself.

The summit also covered ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations so far beyond the Atlantic states the alliance allegedly was founded to protect, it would be comical if the consequences of their far-reaching meddling weren’t so serious.

Belligerence vs. Balance

Global peace and stability is tenuously maintained through a careful balancing act between conflicting centers of power. The story of human history is that of this balancing act being performed.

World War II, which gave way to the current international order we live in, came about because of a fundamental failure to maintain this balancing act.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of World War II’s genesis, was the German military build-up along the then Soviet Union’s borders characterized by Berlin at the time as a means of collective defense for Europe, when in fact it was the lead up to a full-scale invasion known now as “Operation Barbarossa.” It is troublesome particularly because NATO is currently building up its forces in almost precisely the same areas and in almost precisely the same manner Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.

When German forces crossed into Russia on June 22, 1941, a potential balance of power meant to preserve Germany and the rest of Europe against perceived Soviet menace turned into a war that devastated both Europe and Russia.

The subsequent Cold War is an example of a balancing act of power being performed mostly with success. However, despite many common misconceptions regarding the Cold War, the mere existence of opposing nuclear arsenals and the concept of mutually assured destruction was not why balance was maintained.

Instead, balance was maintained by an immense framework, painstakingly constructed by both American and Soviet leaders, at the cost of both nations’ egos, pride, and interests and involved everything from agreements about the weaponization of space, to the composition and deployment of their nuclear arsenals, and even regarding defense systems designed to protect against nuclear first strikes.

There were also specific and complex agreements arranged over the deployment of troops along each respective center of power’s borders, including the borders of nations that existed within their spheres of influence.

It was clear during the Cold War that both Washington and Moscow vied to expand their respective reach over the rest of the world, resulting in proxy wars everywhere from the Middle East to South America, and from Africa to Asia in a “low-intensity” bid – relative to all-out nuclear war – to gain the upper-hand.

Preceding and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, tentacles of Western influence had finally prevailed, and reached deep within Russia itself, eroding not only Russia’s own institutions and national sovereignty, but unsettling the global balance of power that had existed for decades after World War II.

It was only during the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin that this trend was reversed and something resembling global balance reemerged.

It was clear that during the early 2000s, whatever progress the US had made in dismantling the remnants of Soviet checks to its otherwise unlimited desire for global hegemony, would need to come to an end, and a new framework mirroring that of the Cold War, established to accommodate emerging global powers including the Russian Federation

But this is not what happened.

The New Build-Up

Instead, under the administration of US President George Bush and continued under that of President Barack Obama, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was unilaterally withdrawn from by the United States.

Additionally, the United States – beginning in the 1990s and continuing until today as seen in Ukraine – has funded and backed various political coups across Eastern Europe under the guise of “promoting democracy,” installing client states along Russia’s borders. Attempts to undermine and overthrow governments continues in nations like Belarus and Azerbaijan, as well as the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Nations successfully overthrown and co-opted by Washington have been systematically turned against Russia economically, politically, and militarily. These nations are almost immediately folded into NATO’s military alliance. In 2008, for example, the US client regime in Georgia would invade the Russian-backed republic of South Ossetia, precipitating a full-scale Russian response in what many believe was a NATO attempt to test Russian resolve. It is reminiscent of Nazi-Soviet geopolitical jousting in Finland just before Operation Barbarossa commenced.

Ukraine, overthrown in a NATO-backed putsch between 2013-2014, has also taken a hostile posture toward Russia, and again, Western military aggression, seeking Ukraine as a vector through which to strike deeper at Russia is a direct replay of events that unfolded during World War II.

The story of NATO post-Cold War has been one of confrontation, not of fostering security or stability.

Instead of working on a new framework to establish global stability by recognizing a new emerging balance of power between East and West, NATO has attempted to “race” in a reckless bid to expand its own influence as far and wide as possible before this balance of power establishes itself through the realities of military, political, and economic force

It appears that NATO may even be contemplating the destabilization and overthrow of the political order in Moscow itself with attempts to foster terrorism in Russia’s southern regions through massive NATO-backed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the funding and support of hostile political fronts all across Russia.

A Gradient of Balance Versus a New Cold War

The Cold War was characterized by two distinct centers of power with little room for nations to deal in anything resembling an intermediary sphere of influence.

Today, very easily, a gradient of balance can be established between North America, Europe, Russia, and Asia – where the best benefits of dealing with each other could be enjoyed by all. The only requirements would be first allowing Europe to develop a foreign policy that reflected the best interests of its own governments, people, and industry, and second, the ability for Washington, London, and Brussels to abandon their unrealistic designs toward global hegemony and opt instead for a more realistic balance of multipolar power.

NATO precludes all of this – effectively coercing Europe into a zero sum game with Russia, just as it had done during the Cold War.

Europe faces many threats. But none of them from Russia. It is flooded by refugees fleeing NATO wars. It is weathering instability in nations like Ukraine, whose political order was upended by NATO-backed political violence. And Europe is plagued by the irresponsible, reckless actions of prospective NATO members like Georgia, run by incompetent regimes installed by and for Washington’s best interests, not the stability and long-term interests of the European people.

Europe’s leadership has clearly demonstrated no interest in recognizing these realities. It will be up to the European people themselves to demand a more rational shift away from the various, intentionally manipulative strategies of tension NATO has cultivated, and toward a more sensible and independent relationship with the world beyond the Atlantic alliance.

There has been much talk of Britain’s leaving of the European Union. Perhaps it is time for the European Union to leave the long and corrosive influence of Anglo-American interests and institutions.

Until then, the people of Europe should examine closely the lessons of history of aggressive expansion toward Russia’s borders, the lies such expansion was predicated upon, and the consequences those lies had on the security and stability of Europe when finally they were exposed through the unfolding conspiracy they were designed to obfuscate.

The wheel of history turns not because our hands are on it, turning it, but because our apathy and ignorance has prevented our hands from stopping it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By Claire Bernish

On Friday, NATO leaders agreed to the deployment of military forces to Eastern Europe to bolster Baltic states against the threat of Russian incursion.

Following the launch of the Western alliance’s unprecedented military exercise known as Anakonda-16 — ten days of war games in Poland involving some 30,000 troops from over 20 NATO member nations — the announcement backs up posturing over supposed Russian aggression in the region.

Anakonda-16 has been described as the largest military exercise since the Cold War — but Russian President Vladimir Putin has understandably perceived such moves as aggressive and a threat, with Russian officials referring to the exercise as “the summer of provocation.”

As areas along the border with Russia grow tense, NATO’s mixed messages about the deployment indicate the situation could explode at any time.

“These battalions will be robust and they will be multinational,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference following the first session of the alliance summit, Reuters reported. “They make clear that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on the whole alliance.”

In fact, the announcement to deploy four battalions — consisting of between 3,000 to 4,000 troops, 1,000 of whom will come from the U.S. — has been expected since June, when chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Petr Pavel, claimed troop buildup would remain limited because no imminent threat from Russia exists.

“Deployment of substantial military force is not being considered,” Reuters reported Pavel said at the time.

It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.

Now, however, as Reuters reports, the announcement codifies explicitly the Russian threat to Baltic states and Poland as the reason for that deployment.

Western — and particularly, U.S. — sabre-rattling in the area has placed Putin on the defensive.

As America celebrated Independence Day, Zero Hedge cited Russian news agency TAAS, that Putin — responding to last month’s deployment by the United States of two aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean — “will respond to the double aircraft escalation, by deploying its own aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsoz, to Syria where its unofficial role will be as a counterpoint to U.S. naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean.”

NATO war games and troop deployment must be viewed contextually in light of correspondence from 2014, revealed earlier this month, from former head of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander of Europe of NATO, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, to senior advisor to the Atlantic Council, Harlan Ullman, which stated:

I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,… ie do not get me into a war????

Breedlove, who earlier this year called Russia “a long-term existential threat to the United States and our European allies” — and whose reputation for hawkishness on Ukraine and Russia was well known — claimed he’d been hacked “several times,” intimating the emails may not be authentic. But, if valid, the correspondence clearly indicates a belligerent stance underpinning NATO’s actions with the U.S.’ old Cold War foe.

Breaking with other NATO member nations, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier sided with Russia in denouncing the Anakonda-16 exercise as heightening the possibility of all-out military conflict.

This Book Could Save Your Life (Ad)

“What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through sabre-rattling and warmongering,” Steinmeier cautioned in an interview published by German newspaper, Bild am Sonntag.

Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well-advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.

Steinmeier added it would be “fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence.”

As precipitous as such sabre-rattling might be, in February, Ret. U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski offered insight in an interview on why the U.S. continues to stir hostilities with Russia.

“The Pentagon needs and wants Russia to be the next big enemy that they are arming against it, budgeting against it, that they are arming,” Kwiatkowski explained. “Certainly we have talked for a long time about China and China plays an important role as the enemy of choice for the U.S. military. But Russia is ideal in part, because we don’t import a lot of things from Russia, in part because we don’t have the debt relationship with Russia that we do with China. So, Russia makes for a very convenient enemy for the Pentagon in terms of its mission, its budgeting, and its intelligence organization.

“The Pentagon needs that kind of enemy. And [U.S. Secretary of Defense] Ashton Carter, if you listen to what he says continually — even from the beginning of time he was put in office — his job is fundraising, just like the university president’s job is not education but rather fundraising. Ashton Carter’s job is also fundraising, and he fundraises through the process of identifying, pushing, and delivering up an enemy that will justify their budgets.”

Despite Kwiatkowski’s explanation of China as an inconvenient enemy to provoke, the U.S. hasn’t ceased in the escalating tensions with that nation, either.

After the deployment of a number of U.S. warships to the hotly-contested waters of the South China Sea, China’s Maritime Safety Administration announced, also on July 4th, it would be conducting its own military exercises from July 5 through July 11.

“The drills are a very symbolic expression of China’s resolve,” Zhu Feng, dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Nanjing University, told TIME. “It is definitely also responding to the recent American warships patrolling the South China Sea.”

China even claimed it would be ready to fight U.S. aggression — and would be backed by Russia in the event support became necessary.

While the U.S. boils over with outrage following the prominent killings by police of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and the subsequent murders of five police officers during an otherwise peaceful protest of those deaths, NATO and the U.S. inch ever-closer to a third world war that appears otherwise preventable — if Western leaders would simply put down their sabres.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

By Julian Rose

Poland, a country repeatedly occupied by foreign armies in the past, is once again suffering the humiliation of foreign troops encroaching upon her sovereign territory. Only this time, the occupying armies are under the flag of NATO and the agenda is the establishment of an ostensibly anti-Russian ‘war theatre’ – a logistical bridgehead in preparation for a possible Third World War.

Not surprisingly, I am deeply troubled by this manoevring. As a British citizen working in Poland for the past fourteen years, I feel a keen sense of the injustice being perpetrated upon the Polish people. Most fail to realize that the nation is being led down a road which could end up establishing a dangerous precedent: a near permanent US-led foreign army on Polish soil.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this ‘occupation’ is that it is being welcomed with open arms by the Polish government, which appears obsessed with the notion that the Russian Federation may be planning to invade Poland. But any realistic evidence for this is entirely lacking, rendering the entire exercise nothing short of criminal.

The degree of carefully controlled NATO propaganda being put out by the national government is unprecedented in recent history. It resembles, but is far more efficient, than the techniques used by the Communists during their occupation of pre-1989 Poland. This resemblance is reinforced by that fact that the present government (Pis), has taken a 100% controlling influence of the country’s media in order to reinforce its position.

That might be all well and good, if the position was one based upon insight, wisdom and positive leadership. However these are exactly the attributes that are missing.

In their place is an unholy capitulation to spreading the message of ‘fear’. Fear used as the mirror image of the US foreign policy position of the past two to three decades, with ‘fear of terrorism’ being hyped-up to offer an alibi for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now by proxy, Syria and the murder of millions that has resulted.

Let us, therefore, remind ourselves of what the actual story is here, so that we may counter this grand deception and dangerous indoctrination of Polish citizens.

NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is officially described as “an alliance of countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the  North Atlantic Treaty of 1949.” However that is just a front, in reality NATO is an agent of the ‘New World Order’ promoted by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger and other members of the long-standing US neoconservative imperialist club. A club closely supported by Great Britain, whose Royal Society has long planned for a continuation of the hegemonic ambitions associated with the building of the British Empire.

This is the background of the euphemistically named ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the USA. The same policy position is maintained by President Obama to this day.

Other European nations enlisted into NATO’s fold have recently been warned that “Russia represents the greatest threat to world peace.”  As always, this ‘fear ticket’ has been instrumental in sucking countries into the fold.

Few have questioned the logic or wisdom of this position, appearing happy to play their part in the revival of the ‘cold war’ which has thawed, frozen, re-thawed and re-frozen again, at the behest of the vast propaganda exercise perpetrated by successive US and UK governments over the past half century.

There is essentially no difference between US foreign policy and that of NATO. Which is not to say there is no friction between NATO’s European military chiefs and their US counterparts. There is; but the European element is ultimately brought to heel by their US ‘grand masters’, and the semblance of unity is preserved by government- and corporate-controlled public broadcasting in North America and Europe alike.

The public, who remain locked into the deliberately perpetrated psychology of fear, nod their heads in orchestrated harmony: “The US is our protectorate; Putin is Mr Evil; long live NATO.”

NATO is now the chief instrument for the continued enforcement of a policy that ensures the protection of the interests of a small elite of largely Anglo-Saxon industrialists, bankers and military strategists. It supports the status quo of corporate dominance and personal privilege and reflects the ongoing ambitions of families who have been at the forefront of aggressive and pugilistic wealth hunting for decades. Families like the immensely wealthy Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

So let us examine the grounds for NATO and the USA’s assertion that Russia presents the greatest threat to world peace.

The Russian Federation under President Putin, has a notable lack of foreign policy interventions into territories outside its field of control. The two often cited by critics, involve a disputed incursion into Georgia (August 2008) and the more recent ‘reclaiming to the fatherland’ of Crimea. Both of these involved direct responses to Western-provoked uprisings and the ‘coloured’ revolutions backed by Western-sponsored hegemonic political interests, in the hope of gaining a geopolitical and military foothold in territories historically aligned with Russia.

These illegal CIA-backed incursions, fomented on the back of cooked-up evidence of ‘a dangerous strategic push by Russia’ are actually part of a long-standing plan developed by the Trilateral Commission, The Project for the New American Century, The Institute of Foreign Affairs, Chatham House (London) and other similar NATO/US aligned bodies of influence.

This plan is not simply a policy to protect the interests of neoliberal capitalism against its Communist counterpart, but to gain the preeminent and dominant position of power on the planet: to become masters of A New World Order. What US strategists have named “Full Spectrum Dominance”. Not just of this planet, but of outer space and eventual interplanetary colonization as well.

Now perhaps we will understand a little more about just who or what it is that Poland is inviting to be its protectorate against the supposed ‘epitome of evil’ Vladimir Putin.

NATO is the advanced arm of a new colonization of this ancient land, whose empire was once the largest and most advanced in Europe. There are significant deposits of valuable mineral resources in many areas of the country. Copper, silver, platinum, coal and uranium, to name a few. Not to mention millions of hectares of above-average fertile farmland. There can be little doubt that Poland’s western neighbors have a far greater hunger for such resources than those on Poland’s eastern flank, who have much greater deposits of the same mineral resources already available to them.

Perhaps the real reason for cranking up the latest round of fear based hysteria against Russia has to do with something else altogether. The fact that, during the past five years, Putin has initiated a national ban of GMO and put in place a policy of returning the country to the position of a self-sufficient nation, making national food security a high priority.

Not only this, Putin has responded to the trade sanctions imposed by the West after the Crimea controversy, by declaring a significant area of land in Eastern Russia available to all those who wish to enter into small scale ecological farming ventures. Aspirants who could not normally afford to get onto the land, are being gifted the chance to do so, and Russia will get the benefit of moving ever closer to the ecological based self sufficiency it has its sights on.

There is nothing that the corporate and political globalists fear more than the retention, in any country, of an independent element with access to land, water and fuel. This, after all, represents the ability to reject slavery under the corporate providers; and that, if carried out on a significant scale, could blow the agents of control right off their hegemonic thrones.

Russia, provoked by the West, has thrown down the gauntlet to those unable to see beyond the imperialist power heists so assiduously promoted and practiced by the USA and its NATO allies. She has, in effect, pulled the ace card out of the pack within the global strategic casino of modern-day crypto warfare – and placed it, face up, on the gambling table.

Poland, as a nation with over one million small- and medium-sized family farms, could well have upstaged this surprise move by Russia, by opting to place national food security and food sovereignty at the top of its political agenda. Pis, in particular, in response to the significant political support it gets from the family farm sector of Eastern Poland, might have chosen to distance itself from the Western global imperialists, and direct the nation down much the same route as Putin is forging for the federation of fellow Slavs.

But no, dazzled by the allure of being invited onto the top table of the global elite, President Duda and party chairman Katszinsky allowed ambition to far outsway any patriotic sense of what the Polish nation could achieve once united around a genuine goal of peace and prosperity.

In contrast to the courageous World War Two stand made by the anti-Nazi resistance movement, so admired around the world, Pis – ‘the party of patriotism’ – succumbed to the classic political temptation-trap, and invited the architects of the New World Order right into the heart of the home soil. In the process, allowing their voice to be added to the well-oiled propaganda machine which is assiduously trying to provoke Putin into some form of retaliatory act of defiance against an increasingly predatory NATO.

An act that would be instantly used to pin on Russia the blame for provoking a Third World War.

That is the undertext for NATO’s ‘war games’ being so provocatively played out on the border that divides the two countries.

Citizens of Poland have long been ‘softened-up’ for this new partitioning of their only recently freed land. Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform party, had already been drawn into negotiating the stationing of US Patriot missiles in Poland, in defence (according to the US Ambassador) “of a missile attack from Iran.”

These US missiles have gone ‘live’ and further consignments brought into the country, since Pis was overwhelmingly elected into power in 2015. And now NATO has been invited to establish an Eastern European HQ in Poland, with up to thirty thousand troops being allowed to engage in military manoeuvres within striking distance of the Russian border.

The softening-up of Polish citizens is a process that has been accomplished by a number of different means, and it’s most important to understand that these are now the standard tools of this age, drawn upon by the architects of the military industrial control system in order to get their way on the world stage.

Firstly, TV and the general media are brought under the control of the powers that be. This can be either corporate or government control; but usually consists of the two working in tandem.

The propaganda machine is then rolled into action, 24/7. After two or three months of unrelenting media brain washing, the majority fall in line and dutifully repeat the message without ever suspecting that it is an invention fabricated to achieve a deception of highly significant proportions.

Simultaneously, the sky is filled with chemicals (known as chemtrails) that have the effect of neutralising normally active cellular brain activity, thus helping to render citizens essentially ‘passive’; just when they most need to be most active in counteracting the political/military heist being imposed upon them.

On July 8/9, this year (2016) the sky over much of Poland was thick with airborne chemical artificial cloud trails. Exactly the dates when the recent NATO summit was being held in Warsaw. It is increasingly widely recognized, by those who can still think, that NATO has been at the forefront of chemtrail activity for the past fifteen years or more.

Laboratory tests of water and soil, after these activities have been in evidence, have revealed that chemtrails are composed of a number of highly toxic ingredients, of which aluminium, strontium and barium are the most commonly detected. All of these, in different ways, act to block the normal functioning of the neocortex, as well as diminishing the natural functioning of the nervous system, heart and lungs. Millions are unknowingly getting sick due to these clandestine, criminal activities.

By combining intense media indoctrination with chemical infusions of an already polluted atmosphere, it has been possible to create a powerful opiate against any form of active resistance or indeed, open rebellion. Something that should, by now, have forced government to cut its ties to the nefarious ambitions of the top-down Illuminati control system.

To complete the NATO web of insidious poisoning of innocent citizens, GMO planting is back on the agenda, in what is supposed to be a time of total ban of such activities.

Long-fought-for Polish GMO Free Zones are now threatened by new government legislation allowing the incorporating of special areas in which GM planting would be allowed to take place. This extraordinary reversal comes from Pis, the political party that once took the strongest line against the import and planting of GM seeds and plants. Banning them outright in 2006, due to overwhelming evidence of the environmental contamination and health risk attached to these genetically engineered plants and seeds.

Lastly, but by no means least, the church is brought into the fold so as to reinforce NATO’s bidding. The Vatican has for decades made no secret of its pro-Western leanings, and support for military intervention wherever its interests are under threat.

Accompanying these criminal and frankly genocidal activities, is the steady imposition of electronic surveillance control mechanisms for monitoring both the professional and social activity of the populous as a whole. This represents a clear deprivation of basic civil rights and freedoms normally guaranteed to citizens in countries operating political systems known as democracies.

Increasingly, anyone found to be exercising the natural instinct for observation and critical awareness, is logged as ‘a potential danger to the state’. And with the massive computer storage capacity available today, tens of thousands of names are logged onto police and state records, and then checked against any suspicious activities that might be used to incriminate such individuals as a ‘terrorist threat’.

In conclusion; as Poland’s political class places its trust in the hands of NATO and the pledge of intervention to counteract the completely unqualified chimera of the threat of a Russian invasion of Polish territory; so does the nation as a whole lose its ability to take control of its own destiny and forge a path which is in the common interest of its citizens.

US National Security strategy is now being superimposed upon Polish National Sovereignty, at the behest of the leaders of the country. US National Security operates, and has operated for decades, under the edicts of an openly antagonistic war rhetoric, which  I quote here: “We will defend our interests from a position of strength and will conduct combat operations anywhere in the World. We will, if necessary, act outside of international law in defense of our values.” And now we know what these values are.

Until Poles, and indeed all free-thinking citizens of the world, deeply question the morality of supporting the unapologetic ethos of greed and war, there can be no vindication for the heroes of the past who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.

Julian Rose is President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside.

By Mac Slavo

Turkish President Recep Erdogan has deployed 7,000 armed police and heavy vehicles to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The base is a NATO asset and reportedly houses between 50 and 90 B-61 variable yield thermonuclear weapons. The base is the largest nuclear weapons storage site in Europe with some 25 underground vaults.

(B-61 thermonuclear weapon)

A failed coup in Turkey two weekends ago is believed to have been planned by the President himself presumably so that he could take control of the entire country. Tens of thousands of supposed “coup supporters” have since been rounded up by Erdogan officials.

Late Saturday night all access to the military base by NATO personnel was apparently restricted and airspace over the area has been closed.

Via Sputnik News:

All inputs and outputs to the Incirlik Air Base located in Adana have been closed as Turkish Minister of European Affairs cautions that it is just a “safety inspection” while local newspapers speculate that a second coup attempt may be underway.

Some 7,000 armed police with heavy vehicles have surrounded and blocked the Incirlik air base in Adana used by NATO forces, already restricted in the aftermath of a failed coup. Unconfirmed reports say troops were sent to deal with a new coup attempt.

According to the Turkish Minister for European Affairs, Omer Celik, this is just a routine “safety inspection.” Hurriyet, by contrast, reports that anti-terror police received reports of a second attempt by Gulenists to overthrow the Erdogan regime.

Zero Hedge notes that this can’t possibly be a “routine” safety inspection and may have immediate geo-political ramifications should Turkey’s President Erdogan threaten hostile action.

The lockdown at Incirlik follows a massive wave of protests on Thursday when pro-Erdogan nationalists took to the streets yelling “death to the US” and called for the immediate closure of the Incirlik base. Security personnel dispersed the protesters before they were able to make it to the base.

And while there has been no official statement from US armed forces stationed at Incirlik at this time, the situation continues to develop in front of the air base as more heavy trucks have been dispatched to surround and block access to the critical military facility.

…

It is unclear if Erdogan is naive enough to think that he can out-bluff and out-bully the US and keep Incirlik hostage until he gets Gulen repatriated by Obama on a silver platter, a hostage “tit for tat” we first described two weeks ago. If so, one wonders, if he is doing so alone, or with the moral support of others, perhaps such recently prominent enemies of Erdogan as Vladimir Putin. Recall that just over a month ago Erdogan publicly apologized to Putin for downing the Russian Su-24 fighter jet in November, and called Putin “a friend.”

Full report at Zero Hedge

President Erdogan has previously claimed that an ousted cleric named Fethullah Gulen who is currently living in the United States was behind the coup.

Given his recent history and attempts to hold Europe hostage with the refugee crisis, Erdogan may just be insane enough to think he can hold a NATO military base hostage in exchange for Gulen, in which case all hell is likely about to break loose.

Also See: 

• Top Tier Gear For Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear Disaster
• Are You Ready Series: Nuclear Disaster Preparedness
• Nukes and Fallout: How to Survive When Others Won’t
• Preparing For the Next Attack: How To Survive a Nuclear Meltdown

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

You can read more from Mac Slavo at his site SHTFplan.com

By Steven MacMillan

“Operation Unified Protector is one of the most successful in NATO’s history… We have done this together for the people of Libya, so they can take their future firmly and safely into their own hands. Libyans have now liberated their country. And they have transformed the region. This is their victory” – Former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, speaking in October, 2011.

“In Libya, the death of Muammar al-Qaddafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do” – US President, Barack Obama, speaking in October, 2011.

“I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya. This is Libya’s moment, this is Libya’s victory, the future belongs to you” – Former US Secretary of State and Democratic Nominee for President, Hillary Clinton, speaking in October, 2011.

On August the 1st, US warplanes bombed Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL) targets in the Libyan city of Sirte, almost exactly five years after Western imperialists declared NATO’s 2011 war in Libya a complete success.

These strikes are not the first conducted by the US in Libya this year, in a broader campaign that is officially aimed at defeating an enemy that the US had a major hand in creating in the first place (I’m sure the military-industrial complex isn’t complaining, however).

Peter Cook, the Pentagon’s Press Secretary, said in a statement released on the 1st of August in relation to the strikes that:

Today, at the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), the United States military conducted precision air strikes [which is Orwellian/Pentagon-speak for dropping bombs (not uncommonly on civilians)] against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya, to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL in its primary stronghold in Libya… The U.S. stands with the international community in supporting the GNA as it strives to restore stability and security to Libya.

Wait a minute though, have I missed something? I thought Libya was “liberated” in 2011 and the country is now a beacon of ‘freedom and democracy’ for the Middle East and North Africa? Are the Libyan people not enjoying being “free from a tyrant;” similar to the liberty the Syrian people will experience if Assad the ‘tyrant’ is overthrown and the country is handed over to al-Qaeda?

Since the future belonged to the Libyan people in 2011, is the country not a vibrant and prosperous democracy today? Is Libya not one of the major hubs of the Mediterranean, with trade booming and flocks of tourists travelling from across the world to sample the delights of the country – from the fascinating culture of the indigenous people to the stunning (I must admit) Roman ruins?

I thought the standard of living for the average Libyan was much higher than it was before the tyrant was deposed? Is Libya not helping to build the African continent up to try and alleviate the millions of people who live in poverty?

I thought the “most successful” campaign in NATO’s history meant that terrorism could not gain a foothold in the country, considering the Western alliance spends the majority of its time (after antagonising Russia that is) talking about fighting terrorism? I thought NATO’s love-bombs only hit the baddies, and never killed or maimed any civilians?

Are the Libyan people not enjoying the fruits of another Western foreign policy success story? Are the Libyan people not enjoying the stability that always follows a Western war of aggression? I thought the Libyan “kinetic military action” was yet another triumphant imperial endeavour, just like Afghanistan, Iraq and the numerous other countries that were lucky to be the targets of Western ‘humanitarian’ forces?

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By Ulson Gunnar

Unconfirmed reports regarding the US moving nuclear weapons it reportedly maintains at Incirlik Airbase, Turkey to Romania (a NATO member since 2004) made the rounds last week. It is just one of many stories surrounding the apparent fallout between the United States and its stalwart ally and fellow NATO member, Turkey.

Following a failed coup in July, Turkey has accused the US openly of orchestrating the attempted overthrow of the government. Despite this, US forces continue operating from Turkish territory, and according to official reports, American nuclear weapons remain in Turkey.

But what if they were being moved? And if not to Romania as Romanian officials insist, to another NATO member state, what would this mean? And if they are not being moved, who started this rumor and why?

NATO Nuclear Sharing

The US currently maintains nuclear weapons in a number of NATO countries (Turkey, Belgium, Italy, German and the Netherlands) under a “nuclear sharing” program that dates back to the Cold War. The impact of joining this program is politically and strategically significant. There are risks and responsibilities involved with hosting US nuclear weapons, and those nations that seek to opt out once in the program can struggle for years before these weapons are finally removed from their territory.

A 2009 Der Spiegel article titled, “Yankee Bombs Go Home: Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany,” highlights just how difficult this can be, especially considering that as of 2016, US nuclear weapons remain in Germany, and as Deutsche Welle points out, new weapons may even be on their way.

According to a 2010 paper by The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled, “NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma” (PDF), part of the reasoning of maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe and Turkey is to give the NATO alliance “credibility” as well as discourage nuclear proliferation both within NATO and beyond it.

The paper postulated that the removal of nuclear weapons from Turkey could unbalance the region strategically and spur nuclear proliferation from Iran to Saudi Arabia and perhaps even force Turkey itself to seek its own nuclear weapons. In regards to Turkey, the paper concluded that maintaining US nuclear weapons there was desirable both for Turkey and for NATO.

Possible Reasons for the Rumors

Considering what were perceived to be the consequences of removing nuclear weapons from Turkey in 2010, the transferring of US nuclear weapons to Romania now would be serious indeed. Thus, floating rumors of the weapons being moved could have been aimed at pressuring Ankara to make concessions regarding any number of current US projects in the region, the most prominent of which would be its ongoing proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Another possibility may have been to simply add credibility to claims that US and Turkish ties are strained, even unraveling. This might be perceived as necessary considering the lack of actual, quantifiable fallout seen on the ground in Turkey in regards to a continued US presence within its territory, as well as on the ground along the Turkish-Syrian border.

This geopolitical subterfuge might be aimed at Russia and Syria as a means of drawing them in before an inevitable betrayal.

US nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey and throughout Europe have always been somewhat secretive. In the RUSI paper words such as “reportedly” are used in reference to the number and location of US nuclear weapons across the region. This secrecy makes rumors regarding US nuclear weapons and their potential movement from Turkey to Romania particularly attractive in terms of extorting geopolitical concessions and manipulating public perception as they are difficult to confirm or deny.

Rumors Vs. Reality

However, the perceived implications of the move have already been placed in the minds of many.

But regardless of these rumors, the reality of US-Turkish ties remains to be seen on the ground, in Turkey, at Incirlik Airbase, at America’s sprawling complex in Ankara where a variety of diplomatic, political and military activities are organized from and along the Turkish-Syrian border where US forces and various armed proxies are still operating.

When Ankara begins taking concrete steps toward truly ending the war in Syria, such as cutting off supply lines that have fed US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed militants for years, resulting in the collapse of militant forces particularly in Idlib and around Aleppo, there may be proper impetus to make the prospect of transferring US nuclear weapons out of Turkey more believable.

Likewise, should Turkey begin incrementally removing the large presence of US military and diplomatic personnel from its territory to levels more proportionate to those seen in non-NATO member states, the idea of the US moving its nuclear weapons out of the country will not seem so far fetched.

However, even if Turkey wanted to take all of these steps, it would not be easy to immediately implement them. Much of what constitutes current US-Turkish ties has been in the making for decades, forged during the Cold War and tempered further in its aftermath. And if these decidedly smaller steps are difficult to initiate, larger steps like transferring nuclear weapons and altering the geopolitical and strategic lay of an entire region are even more so.

With this in mind, we should consider these rumors as possibly coercive in nature, and even more so, possibly meant to manipulate public perception into believing the fallout between Turkey and the US is greater than it really is. Regardless, when really put into perspective, the possibility of the US transferring nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania is still just that, rumors.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By Brandon Turbeville

On Wednesday morning, Turkey abruptly launched an all-out military assault on Syria, sending in tanks, troops, and engaging in airstrikes, in concert with airstrikes from the United States, to the northern portions of Syria near the Turkey-Syria border under the guise of combating ISIS forces. At this time, the military operations seem focused around Jarablus.

According to the BBC, “A dozen Turkish tanks and other vehicles have rolled across the Syrian border after heavy shelling of an area held by so-called Islamic State (IS). Military sources told Turkish media 70 targets in the Jarablus area had been destroyed by artillery and rocket strikes, and 12 by air strikes.”

Al-Masdar reports on the progress of the Turkish military offensive by writing:

The Turkish Special Forces, alongside the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Faylaq Al-Sham, reportedly captured their first village during this new offensive dubbed “Operation Euphrates Shield.”

According to Faylaq Al-Sham’s official media wing, their forces captured the village of Tal Katlijah after the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) terrorists quickly abandoned the area in order to reinforce Jarabulus.

ISIS has mostly abandoned the small area between Jarabulus and the Turkish border, leaving only small units to resist the advancing Turkish-backed rebels.

The Turkish-backed rebels are now attacking the hilltop village of Tal Sha’er, which is along the road to Jarabulus.

What Is Turkey Doing?

The Turkish invasion is predicated on the basis of “fighting ISIS,” a wholly unbelievable goal since Turkey itself has been supporting, training, and facilitating ISIS since day one. Not only that, but Turkey is arriving in Syria with terrorists in tow since, as the BBC reported, “Between nine and 12 tanks crossed the frontier, followed by pick-up trucks believed to be carrying hundreds of fighters from Turkish-backed factions of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).” If Turkey was interested in stopping terrorism, why would they lead the charges for more terrorists to enter Syria? Indeed, if stopping terrorism was truly Turkey’s goal, it is capable of sealing the border from its own side without any need for invasion so why the war the party?

Turkey’s interests do not lie in stopping terrorism. Far from it. Turkey’s foreign policy and military decision to invade Syria are based along three lines; its desire for more territory (which it believes was stolen from it long ago), its willingness to continue working with NATO in its attempt to destroy the secular government of Syria, and its concern over the Kurdish expansion.

With this invasion, Turkey has solidified its willingness to risk outright war with Syria and perhaps even Russia in order to fulfill the goals of NATO and Anglo-American powers who have sought to destroy Syria from the beginning. Part of this strategy is the creation of “buffer zones” and “safe zones” in the north, precisely the concepts that were re-floated and discussed by the United States and U.K. only days before the invasion. Note that the invasion and operations are centering around Jarablus, the eastern border of the famed Jarablus corridor which, bordered by Afrin and Azaz in the west, make up the last fully functioning terrorist supply routes coming in from Turkey. These were precisely the dimensions that were discussed by Western think tanks and NGOs in regards to what a “safe zone” in Syria should look like. Although argued on the basis of “giving civilians somewhere to go” the zones were supposed to be controlled by “moderate” Western-backed terrorists and were clearly designed to prevent the Syrian government and Russian forces from closing the supply routes coming from the Turkish side of the border into Syria.

This “safe haven” is also a way for the neo-Ottoman Erdogan to lay claim to more territory in order to placate his dream of becoming the 21st Century equivalent of the leader of the Turkish empire. At the very least, this desire for more land under the Turkish flag will lead to a situation similar to that of the Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally occupied for decades but which there is frequent threat of military action and controversy.

Erdogan is also incredibly concerned about the growing Kurdish movement both inside Turkey and in Syria. With the Kurds gaining more and more territory in the north of Syria, in large part because of support being given by the United States, as well as Kurds in Iraq becoming more and more willing to work with YPG Kurds in Syria and the growing interest of dissent and military operations inside Turkey by the PKK, Erdogan is undoubtedly concerned that the Kurds could decide to unite and initiate a massive campaign for autonomy and independence or, at the very least, inspire Turkish Kurds to launch a revolution.

Other Interests

While some may suggest that Turkey is getting off the reservation and simply acting on its own interests (i.e. rolling back the Kurds), Erdogan has long acted as a major tool of the NATO agenda against Syria. The very fact that the United States is aiding the Turkish operation with airstrikes of its own should go some length in demonstrating that the NATO powers are in full support of the military incursion.

Still, others have a different perspective. Andrew Korybko of Katehon argues that the Syrians, Iranians, and Russians are tacitly supporting the incursion because it alleviates them of the responsibility of cleansing ISIS and Kurdish battalions from northern Syria. Korybko points to increased political talks between Syria and Turkey in recent days as well as the domestic climate of Russia in terms of support for increased military operations. Korybko suggests that the United States has been duped by Turkey into falling in line with the incursion which is, in reality, an agreement on strategy and policies related to Syria by the “multipolar bloc.” Korybko writes,

. . . . . Damascus and Ankara have been engaged in secret talks for months now in the Algerian capital of Algiers, as has been repeatedly confirmed by many multiple media sources ever since this spring. Moreover, Turkey just dispatched one of its deputy intelligence chiefs to Damascus a few days ago to meet with his high-level Syrian counterparts, so this might explain the reason why Russia and Iran aren’t condemning Turkey’s incursion into Syria, nor why the Syrian officials aren’t loudly protesting against it either. More and more, the evidence is pointing to Turkey’s operation being part of a larger move that was coordinated in advance with Syria, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, for domestic political reasons within both Syria and Turkey, neither side is expected to admit to having coordinated any of this, and it’s likely that bellicose rhetoric might be belched from Ankara just as much as it’s predictable that Damascus will rightfully speak about the protection of its sovereignty.

What’s most important, though, isn’t to listen so much to Turkey and Syria, but to watch and observe what Russia and Iran say and do, since these are the two countries most capable of defending Syria from any legitimate aggression against its territory and which have been firmly standing behind it for years now, albeit to differing qualitative extents though with complementary synergy (i.e. Russia’s anti-terrorist air operation and Iran’s special forces ground one). This isn’t in any way to ‘excuse’, ‘apologize for’, or ‘explain away’ the US’ opportunistic and illegal inadvertent contribution to this coordinated multipolar campaign, but to accurately document how and why it decided to involve itself in this superficially Turkish-led venture, namely because it was cleverly misled by Erdogan into thinking that this is a precondition for the normalization of relations between both sides.

Russia lacks the political will to cleanse the Wahhabi terrorists and Kurdish separatists from northern Syrian itself, and for as much as one may support or condemn this, it’s a statement of fact that must be taken into account when analyzing and forecasting events. With this obvious constraint being a major factor influencing the state of affairs in Syria, it’s reasonable then that Syria, Russia, and Iran wouldn’t vocally object too much to Turkey tricking the US into doing this instead out of the pursuit of its own self-interests vis-à-vis the attempted normalization with Ankara. The major qualifying variable that must be mentioned at this point is that serious Russian and Iranian condemnation of Turkey’s ongoing operation would signal that something either went wrong with their multilaterally coordinated plan, or that Turkey was just a backstabbing pro-American Trojan Horse this entire time and the skepticism surrounding Moscow and Tehran’s dedicated efforts to coax Ankara into a multipolar pivot was fully vindicated as the correct analysis all along.

Still, with all that in mind, it should be remembered that Washington has essentially led Erdogan by the nose through most of the Syrian crisis. Only recently has the neo-Ottoman shown signs of moving away from U.S. influence but, even those apparent moves are being questioned by researchers and analysts. At this point, we still do not definitively know if the United States was behind the coup in Turkey or if it was an inside job/false flag staged by Erdogan and the U.S. in order to justify a clampdown on Erdogan’s opponents. Judging by the fact that no diplomatic staff has been recalled, Incirlik continues to be use by the United States, and now joint military operations are taking place between the United States and Turkey, it is difficult to believe that Turkey truly believes the U.S. was behind an attempted coup against Erdogan.

Regardless, Turkish incursions into Syrian territory on the basis of a false flag, all the while being supported by the West, are nothing new. Remember, in 2014, Turkey was exposed for planning to use an alleged attack on the tomb of Suleiman Shah as well as a false flag attack on Turkish territory in order to justify an invasion of Syria.

In its article, “Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript Of Leaked Syria ‘War’ Conversation Between Erdogan Officials,” the International Business Times released the transcript of a conversation between members of Turkish leadership planning a false flag using their terrorist proxies in order to justify an invasion:

Ahmet Davutoğlu: “Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us.”

Hakan Fidan: “I’ll send 4 men from Syria, if that’s what it takes. I’ll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary.”

Feridun Sinirlioğlu: “Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit.”

Yaşar Güler: “It’s a direct cause of war. I mean, what’re going to do is a direct cause of war.”

With this in mind, it is interesting to note that an eerily similar type of “opportunity” took place right before the recent invasion. As the New York Times described,

A bombing on Saturday night at a Kurdish wedding in Gaziantep, a Turkish town near the Syrian border, was one of the deadliest in a string of terrorist attacks that have struck Turkey. Since June 2015, Kurdish and Islamic State militants have staged at least 15 major attacks across Turkey, killing more than 330 people.

The New Atlas also sees the Turkish invasion as part of the NATO goal of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. The website writes,

Thus, Turkey’s government and a complicit Western media have helped place the blame equally on both the Islamic State and Kurdish militants ahead of the now ongoing cross-border operation.

The above mentioned BBC article would also note:

Turkey has vowed to “completely cleanse” IS from its border region, blaming the group for a bomb attack on a wedding that killed at least 54 people in Gaziantep on Saturday.

In the aftermath of the July coup, many were hopeful Turkey would realign itself geopolitically and play a more constructive and stabilising role in the region.

Instead, while citing the threat of the Islamic State and Kurdish forces along its border, a threat that its own collusion with US and Persian Gulf States since 2011 helped create, Turkey has decisively helped move forward a crucial part of US plans to dismember Syria and move its campaign of North African and Middle Eastern destabilisation onward and outward.

The response by Syria and its allies in the wake of Turkey’s cross-border foray has so far been muted. What, if any actions could be taken to prevent the US and its allies from achieving their plans remain to be seen.

While the toppling of the government in Damascus looks unlikely at the moment, the Balkanisation of Syria was a secondary objective always only ever considered by US policymakers as a mere stop gap until eventually toppling Damascus as well. Conceding eastern and parts of northern Syria to US-led aggression will only buy time.

Buffer Zones

The idea of establishing a “safe zone” in Syria is, of course, not a new concept. In July, 2015, the agreement being discussed would have effectively created a “buffer zone” that would have spanned from the Turkish border line into Syria. It would have extended from Azaz in the West to Jarablus in the East and as far south as al-Bab. The width of the zone would have been about 68 miles and would have extended around 40 miles deep into Syria, right on the doorstep of Aleppo.

The zone would have much smaller than that which Turkey and the United States have called for in the years prior and wouldn’t have necessarily stretched the length of the Turkey-Syria border. But it is a start.

True to form, the US and Turkey attempted to obfuscate the fact that their agreement was the creation of a no-fly zone by renaming it an “ISIL-free zone.” This is the same tactic used when the term “no-fly zone” and “buffer zone” began to draw too much ire from observers only a year ago. Then, the term became “safe zone.”

Semantics have served NATO and the United States well over the years. After all, a simple name change of terrorist organizations has made the Anglo-American powers able to produce “moderate rebels” and the most frightening terrorist organization the world has ever seen while using the same group of terrorists.

The description of the “ISIL-free zone” of 2015 was that it would be a distinguished area in which the Turkish and U.S. military would engage in aggressive operations against ISIS. It was floated that this area would have also functioned as a place where civilians displaced by the Syrian crisis may run to for safe haven and where “moderate rebel” forces can maintain a higher presence free from the battles with ISIS.

“Once the area is cleared, the plan is to give control to as-yet-unidentified moderate Syrian rebel groups. The United States and Turkey have differing interpretations as to which groups can be defined as ‘moderate,’” the Washington Post reported.

The reality, however, is that the “ISIL-free zone” would have been nothing more than a Forward Operating Base deeper into Syrian territory, working under the direct protection of the U.S. military and Turkish air force. That is exactly what the British and the U.S. are arguing for today.

Going further back, public discussion of the implementation of a “buffer zone” began as far back as 2012 when the Brookings Institution, in their memo “Assessing Options For Regime Change” stated

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The Brookings Institution went further, however, describing a possible scenario that mirrors the one currently unfolding in Syria where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by establishing a “multi-front war” on Syria’s borders. Brookings writes,

In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

Of course, the establishment of a “No-Fly Zone” is tantamount to a declaration of war. Such has even been admitted by top U.S. Generals when explaining exactly what a No Fly Zone would entail. As General Carter Ham stated,

We should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.

General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said,

I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability

Conclusion

Regardless of the fact that the Anglo-American empire may very well be risking a direct military confrontation with another nuclear power, the NATO forces are intent on moving forward in their attempt to destroy Syria and its government. The major victories by the Syrian military that have taken place in recent weeks as well as the inability of the West’s terrorists to roll back SAA gains have obviously convinced NATO that more drastic measures are needed and that proxies are simply not enough to defeat a committed military supported by its people. Thus, we now see the plan so heavily promoted by Western think tanks and military industrial complex firms being implemented.

Clearly, the Turkish agenda is not focused on combating ISIS. If it was, the Turks would have long ago sealed their borders with Syria as well as ceased their training and facilitation of terrorist groups flowing into Syria from Turkish territory.

The Turks do not need NATO Buffer Zones to end terrorism within their own country. They need to seal the borders with Syria, immediately cease funding, training, and facilitation of terrorists operating inside Turkish borders alongside a massive sting operation netting and eliminating these organizations. Turkey would also greatly benefit by backing away from Erdogan, his idiotic policies, and his equally idiotic Islamist government. Turkey must put aside “political Islam” and return to a culture of secular governance. Lastly, Turkey must pursue a reasonable and fair policy toward the Kurds in its southeast.

Of course, Turkey has sent every signal possible to announce that they intend to stick with the NATO line of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad and replacing it with a government or governments beholden and favorable to Washington and the Anglo-American oligarchy.

Obviously, a “buffer zone” and/or a “no-fly zone,” of course, is tantamount to war and an open military assault against the sovereign secular government of Syria because the implementation of such a zone would require airstrikes against Assad’s air defense systems.

With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.

While the goal is clearly to establish such a zone before tightening the grip on Assad even further and ultimately leading to his overthrow, one can only wonder as to what pronouncement or “policy” will result from the Tuesday NATO meeting. Whatever it may be, the Syrian people will be the ones to pay the highest price.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

By Brandon Turbeville

With the recent events transpiring in Syria – the U.S. bombing of Syrian government soldiers in Deir ez Zour and the subsequent sabre rattling of the United States and Russia – it is clear to anyone paying attention that the world is edging closer to the possibility of a major confrontation between two world nuclear powers. Such a confrontation would spell disaster not only for the populations of those countries but also for the entire earth if the full military power of Russia and the United States are ever set loose.

While panic is never the best option and constantly proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh is often an attempt to promote products and attract attention, we cannot ignore signs that the world is marching toward an abyss which, if pushed too far, it may not be able to step back from.

Over the past few weeks, however, the world, at the behest of the United States and NATO powers, has taken steps in that unfortunate direction. Indeed, the last two weeks have been a time of increasing sabre rattling on the part of the warmongering West and a statement of defiance by Russia, Syria, Iran, and now China.

The Kirby Warning

In the wake of the collapse of the ceasefire agreement in Syria during which neither the United States nor its terrorist pets abided by any of the terms of the agreements and where the United States ended up bombing Syrian military soldiers in Deir ez Zour in support of ISIS, a war of words ensued between the State Department spokesman, Samantha Power, and Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, Maria Zhakarova.

Yet U.S. State Department spokesman, John Kirby was not to be outdone in rhetoric and threats when he issued a thinly veiled warning to Russia by essentially saying that, if Russia did not knuckle under and play ball with the United States on Syria, the consequences would be terrorism in Russian cities and more Russian soldiers coming home in body bags.

“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft,” he said.

Zhakarova hit back on social media by writing,

And those [acts of terrorism] will be perpetrated by ‘moderate’ [Syrian opposition groups]? Just the ones that Washington has been unable to separate from Al-Nusra for as long as six months?

[What about] Terrorist attacks in France, America and other countries; the beheadings of people of all nationalities by Islamic State militants in Syria – is this all kind of a different paradigm? Perhaps another ‘parallel reality?’

Don’t you think that such ventriloquism about ‘body bags,’ ‘terrorist attacks in Russian cities’ and ‘loss of aircraft,’ sounds more like a ‘get ’em’ command, rather than a diplomatic comment?

Indeed, it seems that the U.S. is taking a page out of the Saudi book in terms of its threats. The Kirby statement is eerily reminiscent of the statements made by Saudi Arabia that, if Russia did not abandon Syria, the terrorist groups that KSA controls would be set loose to commit attacks on Russian soil. Kirby’s statement was certainly a more veiled threat, but only veiled with the slightest of nuance.

U.S. Suspends Bilateral Talks With Russia

Shortly after Kirby’s statement and threats to cut bilateral talks with Russia over the Syrian crisis, the United States did, in fact, sever those talks. While military-to-military communication and official government-to-government communications remain intact, all discussions over the ceasefire agreement and diplomatic solutions to the crisis were officially ended.

As Ryan Browne of CNN reported on October 4,

The US announced Monday it is “suspending its participation in bilateral channels with Russia” that had come about as part of the short-lived cessation of hostilities in Syria.

“This is not a decision that was taken lightly,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement announcing the suspension.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who spent months negotiating with his Russian counterpart in order to bring about a ceasefire in Syria, spoke Tuesday about the end of bilateral talks and emphasized that the US was not giving up on peace or the Syrian people.

“Yesterday, as most of you saw, the United States announced our decision to suspend the bilateral discussions with Russia on the re-institution of the cessation of the hostilities agreement. A decision that, believe me, does not come lightly,” Kerry told an audience in Brussels, Belgium, while speaking on Transatlantic relations.

The head of Russia’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kosachev, stated that “Russia has striven for continuing dialogue with the US on Syria until the last moment, and only our position was keeping the chance to launch a stable peace process alive.”

The U.S. decision to halt talks was largely as a result of the Russian military assistance being given to the Syrian military such as the bombing of terrorist positions in Aleppo, a move that has angered Washington since it has been supporting the terrorist forces since day one.

Russia Suspends Plutonium Deal With U.S.

In another response to increased anti-diplomatic behavior of the United States, Russia announced that it was suspending the Plutonium Disposition Pact, a nuclear accord between the two countries that was, at one time, seen as a symbol of a new era of cooperation between Russia and the United States. This accord is a mutual pact requiring both parties to destroy excess weapons-grade plutonium by recycling 34 tons of of the material per year on the march toward nuclear non-proliferation. The agreement had been signed in 2000.

Russian President Vladmir Putin stated the reason for the ending of Russian participation in the agreement was due to “the emergence of a threat to strategic stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the United States of America towards the Russian Federation” and “inability of the United States to ensure the implementation of its obligations to utilize surplus weapons-grade plutonium.”

As David Filipov writes for the Washington Post,

Citing “unfriendly actions” by the United States, the Kremlin announced Monday that Russia would suspend a landmark agreement to dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, yet another sign of deteriorating relations between the two countries.

In a decree released by the Kremlin, President Vladi­mir Putin said Moscow would consider a resumption of the accord only if Washington agreed to several sweeping conditions. Among them: reducing the American military presence in NATO countries near Russia’s border, canceling all sanctions against Russia and compensating Moscow for losses resulting from those sanctions.

The largely symbolic move reversed an agreement once hailed as an example of successful U.S.-Russian cooperation, and comes at a low point in post-Cold War relations between Moscow and Washington.

Following President Putin’s statement the Russian Foreign Ministry added that the United States “done all it could to destroy the atmosphere encouraging cooperation.”

U.S. Considering Striking The Syrian Military

Shortly after the suspension of bilateral talks, the U.S. media began reporting on the possibility that the United States would launch strikes against the Syrian military, particularly in Aleppo where the SAA is engaged in a fierce battle to liberate the largest city in Syria. The justification for the strikes would be the need to “make Assad pay a price” for his alleged violations of the ceasefire. The reports came as the result of “leaks” and information provided to mainstream news organizations by anonymous official sources.

Some believe these “leaks” were simply a method of suggesting a strike on Syrian forces to gauge the Russian response without officially committing to the intent to launch airstrikes.

Josh Rogin of the Washington Post put forward a standard mainstream report of the possibility of a U.S. airstrike campaign on October 4. He wrote,

U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime will be back on the table Wednesday at the White House, when top national security officials in the Obama administration are set to discuss options for the way forward in Syria. But there’s little prospect President Obama will ultimately approve them.

Inside the national security agencies, meetings have been going on for weeks to consider new options to recommend to the president to address the ongoing crisis in Aleppo, where Syrian and Russian aircraft continue to perpetrate the deadliest bombing campaign the city has seen since the five-year-old civil war began. A meeting of the Principals Committee, which includes Cabinet-level officials, is scheduled for Wednesday. A meeting of the National Security Council, which could include the president, could come as early as this weekend.

Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the regime as a means of forcing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to pay a cost for his violations of the cease-fire, disrupt his ability to continue committing war crimes against civilians in Aleppo, and raise the pressure on the regime to come back to the negotiating table in a serious way.

The options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me. One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.

The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented in the Deputies Committee meeting by Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said. That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.

“There’s an increased mood in support of kinetic actions against the regime,” one senior administration official said. “The CIA and the Joint Staff have said that the fall of Aleppo would undermine America’s counterterrorism goals in Syria.”

Russia Threatens To Shoot Down American Jets

But the Russians quickly responded to the unofficial official American preparations for airstrikes against the Syrian military. Very soon after the mainstream reports were posted, the Russian Defense Ministry responded that Russia would consider any missiles or airstrikes launched against Syrian government-held territory as threat to Russian personnel and would respond in an appropriate manner, i.e. shoot down the missiles/planes.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Igor Konashenkov stated,

Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.

Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to.

And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality.

Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who in September reported to the [US] President on the alleged controllability of ‘opposition’ fighters, but today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria,” he said.

Konashenkov went on to say that the Russian military has ordered the deployment of not only S-300 but also S-400 units in Syria in order to protect its forces on the ground. Russia has also reportedly sent an additional number of S-300 units as well as Antei-2500 units to Syria as well as more bombers and attack planes. In addition, Russia Beyond The Headlines reports that Russia is sending two missile ships to the Mediterranean in mid-October. Konashenkov also pointed out that the Syrian air defense systems have been updated as well with the implementation of Russian technology.

Mortar Attack On The Russian Embassy

While a single mortar attack on an embassy might not be the greatest indication of World War 3 when taken on its own merit, when one considers the ominous warning (or thinly veiled threat) coming from State Department Spokesman John Kirby that Russia may see terror attacks in its cities and Russian soldiers coming home in body bags if it does cooperate on Syria, the fact that a mortar attack would take place at the Russian embassy shortly after the statement was uttered is thus a monumental development.

Reuters reported:

One of the mortar shells, fired from a district controlled by rebels, exploded close to the guard post in front of the embassy, while another detonated near the entrance to the consular office, the ministry said in a statement.

The embassy compound was strewn with shrapnel, but none of embassy staff were hurt, it said. It said material damage was being assessed.

Chinese Involvement In Syria

While the United States, NATO, Israel, and the GCC are clearly maintaining a unified front, the Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and Syria have been brought together in an apparent loose coalition of mutual interest. Despite all the military might of the Russians and the determination of the Syrians, the latter military coalition has long seemed at a disadvantage considering the condition and prowess of the former as well as the economic disadvantage of the latter. However, with the recent entrance of China to the Syrian scene, tepid as it may be, the balance of power seems to be shifting to that of a more even playing field.

As Sputnik reported,

On Monday, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Li Baodong said that the positions of Beijing and Moscow coincide on the Syrian issue. Speaking to Sputnik, Chinese and Russian analysts confirmed that recent events have demonstrated that the two countries are quickly building a sustainable strategic partnership in their response to the Syrian crisis.

Speaking at a briefing in Beijing, Li said that “China and Russia hold the same position on the most important international and regional issues,” including the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan. “The two countries, being permanent members of the UN Security Council, continue to cooperate closely on international and regional issues,” Li added, noting that President Xi Jinping looks forward to meeting with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the upcoming BRICS summit in Goa later this week to discuss the most pressing issues of regional and international politics. Li’s words on Russian-Chinese cooperation in Syria were confirmed in practice on Saturday, when China voted in favor of a Russian draft resolution aimed at resolving the Syrian crisis at the UN Security Council. China justified its vote by explaining that the Russian proposal would be the surest way to ensure a cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access, and a more effective joint fight against terror. Chinese UN envoy Liu Jieyi expressed regret that the Russian proposal was not adopted after being blocked by the US and its allies.

According to the South China Morning Post, the Chinese military was supposed to begin providing assistance and aid to the Syrian government, an agreement which was made on August 14.

The decision was made after a rare visit by special envoy Xie Xiaoyan, the former Chinese Ambassador to Iran, in March. In addition, the Chinese military delegation to Syria, which was headed by Chinese rear admiral Guan Youfei, the Director of International Cooperation at the Central Military Commission, met with the Syrian Vice Prime Minister, Fahd Jassem al-Freij, and the Syrian Minister of Defense.

“They reached consensus on enhancing personnel training, and Chinese military offering humanitarian aid to Syria,” said a report by Xinhua news agency.

Al-Freij thanked the Chinese government as well as the Chinese military which stated, via Guan, that the Chinese PLA is willing to continue cooperation with the Syrian military.

According to the South China Post, “Guan also met Lieutenant General Sergei Chvarkov, chief of the Russian centre for reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria on Monday.”

China sets to benefit by an end to the Syrian crisis or at least the ability of the Syrian government to continue to attrite terrorists fighting on its territory due to its concerns over the Uighur element fighting not only in Syria but also in Chinese territory.

Uighur separatists have long been fighting for “independence” from the oppressive Chinese government. However, the Uighurs are themselves fanatical in nature and maintain ties to Turkey’s Grey Wolves terrorist organization as well as NATO’s Operation Gladio.

Regardless, Chinese cooperation with Syria is no doubt welcomed by the Syrian government that is currently mopping up terrorists all across the country but can still use all the help it can get.

Conclusion

The United States is clearly marching itself toward a confrontation with not one but two world powers. China has its own goals of empire and the Russians have given every indication that, while they are willing to stay within their own borders and concern themselves only with Russia, they are not going to allow their country to be encircled and broken apart nor are they willing to let every single ally and strategic interest be pulled out from under them in a death of a thousand cuts.

It is now time for the United States to back away from its plans to destroy Syria and, at the very least, have some sense of self-preservation and realize when it is time to pull back. The U.S. must not allow itself to continue to act as the battering ram for the Anglo-American agenda of world hegemony and empirical harmonization. Aside from the legal and moral implications of the war on Syria, it is becoming more and more clear that there are other powers in the world who are not willing to go so easily into that dark night this time around.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit: DaisyLuther.com

By John Vibes

In the midst of deepening tension between US allies NATO and Russia, NATO is planning the largest military buildup along the Russian border since the cold war.

NATO called on allied governments this week to contribute whatever troops and equipment they can to the effort. According to Reuters, thousands of troops are expected to arrive in the coming days and weeks.

It was reported that Italy, France, Denmark and other European states are expected to join the NATO military divisions that will be led by the United States along Russia’s border.

On Wednesday, Britain announced it is sending hundreds of soldiers and hardware to Russia’s borders as part of a huge military deployment.

A total of 800 troops, drones and tanks are moving to Estonia as part of the biggest military build-up of NATO troops on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

In addition to the forces allocated for his specific operation, NATO has an army of over 40,000 ready to be called up to fight at any time.

The US military claims that this threatening move is meant to act as a “deterrent” to the Russian military, but this is obvious a move that will escalate tensions and push towards a possible third world war.

“This is a credible deterrence, not to provoke a conflict but to prevent conflict,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday — ironically ignoring the fact that it is a de facto provocation.

Just imagine what would happen if Russian troops amassed along the Mexican border and told the US that this move was to ‘prevent conflict.’

The so-called Iskander-M cruise missiles can hit targets across Poland and the Baltics, although NATO officials declined to say if Russia had moved nuclear warheads to Kaliningrad.

The United States’ envoy to NATO, Douglas Lute, told reporters that NATO and the US military may consider Russia a threat if they had nuclear weapons within range of NATO’s deployment. This statement is insane considering the fact that the US military is the one that is many miles from home on the border of someone else’s lands.

“This deployment, if it becomes permanent if the presence of nuclear weapons were confirmed, would be a change in (Russia’s) security posture,” Lute said.

If anyone is a threat, it is NATO and the US government.

These military tensions are the result of an ongoing proxy war in Syria, in which Western powers are attempting to institute a regime change in the country by funding violent rebel groups. Meanwhile, Russia has interests in keeping their allies in the Syrian government in control, putting the two superpowers at odds.

Until now, Russia and the US have been fighting through third parties, just as they had during the previous Cold War, and the same type of situation is developing today.

John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. John writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. John is currently battling cancer naturally, without any chemo or radiation, and will be working to help others through his experience, if you wish to contribute to his treatments please donate here.

By Daisy Luther

Angela Merkel and nearly every other national leader in Europe are in a panic because of Trump’s unexpected win in the Presidential election.

Why?

Because, money, of course. The US money that props up NATO may be coming to an end.

During his election campaign, President-Elect Trump described NATO as obsolete.

NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. (source)

American money makes up a disproportionate 73% of NATO defense expenditures. That is something that Trump says he that he intends to reduce which would force others to put more into the communal money pot if they want America’s continued participation.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned President-Elect Trump that going it alone isn’t a good idea for either the US or the EU:

The only time Nato has invoked its self- defence clause, that an attack on one is an attack on all, was in support of the United States after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This was more than just a symbol. Hundreds of thousands of European soldiers have served in Afghanistan since. And more than 1,000 have paid the ultimate price in an operation that is a direct response to an attack against the United States. Today of all days, we remember them – It is all too easy to take the freedoms, security and prosperity we enjoy for granted. In these uncertain times we need strong American leadership, and we need Europeans to shoulder their fair share of the burden. But above all we need to recognise the value of the partnership between Europe and America. It remains indispensable. (source)

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said:

I think that we’ll waste time for two years while Mr Trump tours a world that he is completely unaware of. We have to teach the new president of the USA what Europe is, and how it works. The Trans-Atlantic alliance, and the NATO alliance, is called into question, so it could be quite pernicious. With regards to refugees and other non-Americans, Trump has an approach which in no way coincides with the approach in Europe. (source)

Juncker was speaking at a “crisis” meeting that had been arranged very soon after Trump won the election.

But a crisis for whom?

It has never crossed the consciousness of any of these people that they have messed up, and they have messed up big-time. They have listened to Angela Merkel, who seems to be the self-proclaimed ‘ruler’ of Europe, and now they are paying the price. Infrastructures are crumbling, and crime rates are soaring as they sink without trace under the weight of migrants pouring across their open borders. What’s more, this is a situation that they thought the United States would be joining them in until last Wednesday morning.

And until last Wednesday morning, they thought that the US would be ponying up to help them.

The UK refused to follow the same route as the rest of Europe, and Brexit was the result.

Boris Johnson, the UK Foreign Secretary, refused to attend the meeting. He said that the ‘collective whinge-o-rama’ going on amongst European leaders due to  Trump’s election needs to stop.

Johnson’s failure to attend was viewed as a snub to Europe and a thumbs up to the US. His decision to stay at home on a soggy British Sunday highlights the growing divide between the UK and Europe since Brexit became a reality.

A Foreign Office spokesman said:

We do not see the need for an additional meeting on Sunday because the US election timetable is long established. An act of democracy has taken place, there is a transition period and we will work with the current and future administrations to ensure the best outcomes for Britain. (source)

Finally, Nigel Farage (UK Independence Party)  spent a couple of hours in a private meeting with Trump on Saturday. You may recall that Farage was the engineer of the Brexit movement. He and most of the Brits who voted to exit the EU were pulling for Trump in the election.

“Don’t underestimate this guy,” Farage said on “Squawk Box.” “He’s made a big, big success of his business career. And he intends to be a successful president, and I think he may well be.”

…Trump’s surprise victory has often been compared to the poll-defying June vote by British citizens for the U.K. to leave the European Union trading bloc.

“What Trump believes in, as I believe in, is nation-state democracy — that we should be controlling our own borders; making our own laws; and yes, trading with each other, cooperating with each other, being good neighbors,’ Farage said. (source)

Trump threatened “Brexit times 10,” and he delivered it. The EU, still a mess from Britain deciding to leave, is now in a death spiral from which it may not recover.

If Europe is looking to lay blame, it seems to me that they need to look no further than Angela Merkel. It was her open-door policies on immigration that drove the UK away and gave the US a glimpse of their future if they elected for Clinton.

The trouble with opening a can of worms is that you can never get the lid back on before a few escape.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, where this article first appeared, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

Image Credit: Pixabay.com

By Claire Bernish

A “serious military confrontation” between Russia and NATO nations ranks at the top of the Council on Foreign Relations list of conflict risks for 2017 — and judging by the new McCarthyite, Red Scare hysteria gripping the nation, it seems the United States is hell bent on making that a reality.

For its ninth annual Preventive Priorities Survey, CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA) “asked foreign policy experts to rank conflicts based on their likelihood of occurring or escalating and their potential impact on U.S. national interests.”

A military conflict between Russia and a NATO member nation would stem “from assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe,” according to the survey.

Other “top tier” risks with a “high” impact and moderate likelihood of occurring include a nuclear crisis with North Korea; a cyberattack on critical U.S. infrastructure; and a “mass casualty terrorist attack,” either in the United States or another NATO ally nation.

Additionally, three conflicts with a “high” likelihood which would have a “moderate” impact include “increased violence and instability in Afghanistan resulting from a continued strengthening of the Taliban insurgency and potential government collapse; the intensification of violence between Turkey and various Kurdish armed groups within Turkey and in neighboring countries; and the intensification of the civil war in Syria resulting from increased external support for warring parties, including military intervention by outside powers.”

CFR analysts did not deem any conflict both highly likely and highly impactful to U.S. interests, “a change from last year when an intensification of Syria’s civil war was considered the most urgent threat. Respondents still considered a worsening of Syria’s civil war to be highly likely in 2017, but downgraded its impact on U.S. interests from high to moderate.”

Analysts did, however, view President-Elect Donald Trump as a substantial wild card, as Paul B. Stares, CPA director and General John W. Vessey senior fellow for conflict prevention, explained:

With a new presidential administration assuming office, it is important to help policymakers anticipate and avert potential crises that could arise and threaten U.S. interests. Our annual survey aims to highlight the most likely sources of instability and conflict around the world so that the government can prioritize its efforts appropriately.

What the survey unsurprisingly fails to mention is the role the United States and NATO have actively played in a potential military conflict with Russia.

As recently as late June, Russian aggression remained a subject of debate — even within NATO. General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, explained rather bluntly,

It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.

But a number of Balkan states, paranoid about the possibility Russia would invade as it had in Crimea, requested support in the form of military protection from NATO — and the subsequent buildup of alliance forces along Russia’s border has been viewed by many as the true aggression in this scenario.

First deploying between 3,000 and 4,000 troops, Pavel initially claimed troop buildup would remain limited in scope due to the lack of substantive threat from Russia — but numbers quickly ballooned to at least 40,000, and it’s unclear at this point precisely how many NATO troops are stationed along the Russian border.

Further, on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, NATO put 300,000 troops on high alert over fears of Russian hackers. Since then, anti-Russia hysteria has gripped the American political establishment, and though no unassailable proof has yet surfaced, the CIA, various politicians, and mainstream outlets claim Russia did, indeed, interfere in the election.

That claim, though plastered in a constant string of headlines, has been disputed by the FBI and, more recently, a WikiLeaks insider. Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and known ally of Julian Assange, told the Daily Mail on Tuesday,

Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.

Murray also penned in a blog post:

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they ‘know the individuals’ involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of ‘We know who it was, it was the Russians’ are beneath contempt.

This Book Could Save Your Life (Ad)

What, exactly, the ultimate goal is with this Red Scare, McCarthyite scaremongering isn’t yet clear, but the tactic has certainly furthered the cleft between the U.S. and Russia — making CFR’s conflict assessment of the situation all the more believable.

Whether the incoming Trump administration will heed the warning — and end the unnecessary, absurdly dangerous provocation — is still an open question.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

By Claire Bernish

Belgium — Yves Chandelon, NATO Auditor General, was found dead — by gunshot to the head — in the Belgian city of Andenne last Friday.

Authorities are calling the death a suicide, but Chandelon’s family is reportedly vehemently disputing that assessment.

Although information remains scarce, there are troubling details suggesting Chandelon indeed might not have taken his own life.

For one thing, the NATO auditor, who was apparently tasked with “counteraction against terrorism financing issues,” according to News.am, was found over 62 miles from Lens, the city where he lived — and nearly 87 miles from his place of work in Luxembourg.

Chandelon also owned three registered firearms, but an unregistered weapon was discovered near his body.

Further, Belgian press reports, Chandelon “had mentioned to his entourage, he thought he had been followed and had received ‘strange’ calls.”

SudInfo.be reports the man’s family has a number of unanswered questions surrounding the strange death, asking, “Did Yves Chandelon have any enemies? Was he threatened in the course of his work in NATO? Was it an odious crime made up in suicide, or did the man go through a troubled period?”

Belgian media also reports in the days before his suspicious death, Chandelon “felt threatened,” and that the duties of his job would have required him to deal with money laundering and issues related to terrorism — “A profile likely to expose Chandelon to danger.”

Indeed several NATO allies — and, glaringly, NATO member nation Turkey — have been exposed for directly funding terrorist groups; most notoriously, the self-titled Islamic State.

Incidentally, Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov was assassinated this week in Ankara, while giving a speech to a small group gathered in an art gallery — though the killer was shot dead by police shortly afterward, questions still surround the incident.

Mevlut Mert Altintas, the man who murdered Karlov, had been a Turkish police officer, until a recent purge by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of those sympathetic to political opposition believed by him to be behind a coup attempt this year.

Altintas reportedly began shouting about revenge for Aleppo — the recently-liberated Syrian city where Syrian government forces backed by Russia battled to expel all terrorist groups.

But some of those terrorist groups are backed by the U.S. and Turkey — and the United States even armed one of the largest faction of so-called moderate rebels as part of its attempt to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As for the Islamic State, Turkey has been exposed for allowing the caliphate to transport stolen oil and other supplies into Syria — a fact ultimately admitted true by the U.S. — and an issue that has brought condemnation and rancor in the NATO ranks.

Virginia Senator Richard Black explained in an interview in January, as reported by RT,

Virtually all arms, ammunition, equipment, supplies, jihadists, medical support – all of it comes from Turkey. Right now, ISIS sends 44,000 barrels of oil per day – stolen barrels, most of it from Syria – across the border into Turkey,’ said Black. ‘The State Department has publicly said that there’s only a trickle of oil that gets into Turkey, but I have personally spoken to Kurdish activists … [who] observed hundreds of ISIS oil tankers carrying stolen Syrian oil into Turkey on a daily basis.’

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.