In the late 1980s, the leaders of the west promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that they would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union pulled out of Eastern Europe and ended the Cold War. That promise was not kept. A triumphal West stuck it to the Soviet Union’s greatly weakened Russian successor, by incorporating the former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO and the EU. But that was not enough to sate the lust of the neo-liberal triumphalists in search of a new imperium. Their next move tried to incorporate the Caucasus country of Georgia — a country more a part of Central Asia than of Europe — into the West’s sphere of influence. That turned out to be a bridge too far; the Russians intervened militarily to put a stop to the lunacy. But events in the Ukraine suggest that stop may have been viewed as a temporary speed bump on the pathway to rolling back Russia’s geography to the years of Ivan the Terrible.
Category: Head Stories
The concept of the Long War is part of US military doctrine since the end of World War II. In many regards, todays wars are a continuation of the Second World War. Worldwide militarization is also part of a global economic agenda, namely the application of the neoliberal economic policy model which has led to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population. Michel Chossudovsky, Berlin, January 11, 2014 Introduction The world is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. This “war without borders” is being carried out at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in World history, which has been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously. The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. Worldwide militarization is part of a global economic agenda.
China Has Good Reason to Help Stabilize Latin American Economies In the last week or so much of the international business press has been focused on the problems of financial stability in developing countries, some of whom have recently become more vulnerable to capital outflows. The main cause is that investors are trying to get the jump on possible moves by the U.S. Federal Reserve to allow U.S. interest rates to rise, which will draw capital from developing countries and cause their borrowing costs to rise. Argentina has gotten some of this attention, as it allowed the peso to fall by 15 percent in one day and increased some access for Argentines to dollars on the official market. Venezuela is not so much affected by these market developments, but is always negatively portrayed in the international media, and more so in the last year since its exchange rate system problems have caused its inflation to rise to an annual rate of 56 percent over the past year.
China has stated its goals quite unambiguously. “A moderately prosperous society by 2020” is the first goal and “a strong socialist nation by 2049” as the second. But this may be simplified: China’s leadership wants its people to have a standard of living equal to that of the developed nations of the West. And that, along with restoring and preserving sovereignty, has been the main part of the Chinese program since 1949 – at least. China’s great historical achievement is to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty, accounting for most of the eradication of poverty in the recent past. This achievement is rarely mentioned in the West. Consider the simple consequences of that fact. China has a population of 1.36 billion and the United States has a population of 320 million. So if China is to have a per capita GDP equal to that of the United States, its total GDP must be more than four times the size of the US economy. Four times.
President Assad’s media advisor appeared on CNN and asked where John Kerry gets the right to tell the Syrian people who can and cannot be their leader. She encouraged the media to come to Syria so “you will find out for yourself who is the criminal; who is kidnapping people, who is raping people.” She said that “most of what’s circulated in the media has nothing to do with what’s in Syria.” From the following site: http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/01/bouthaina-shaaban-think-u-s-democratic-syria/ In the current international negotiations over the Syrian conflict, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that current president Bashar al-Assad will not have a role in any new transitional government.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has emphasized Russia’s red line with regards to terrorism, saying that “a dialog with terrorist groups fighting in Syria will not be held under any circumstance”. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani backed up Russia’s position in an interview on CNN, saying that “the first step for solving the crisis in Syria lies in expelling terrorists”. Meanwhile, UN/AL envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi has held talks with both the Syrian government’s and the foreign-backed opposition and indicates that talks continue in Geneva on Monday. In February 2013 a US veto to a Russian sponsored UN Security Council resolution, condemning all forms of terrorism, regardless by whom and under which circumstances they are being committed, threw the two partners for peace into a state of diplomatic deep freeze. Russia drafted the resolution, following a devastating terrorist attack in Damascus, and Lavrov responded to the US veto by blasting the US administration for double standards. On Sunday, in Geneva, the Russian Foreign Minister underlined Russia’s red line with regards to terrorism, saying:
Israel is often viewed by Washington politicians as the most ‘stable’ ally in the Middle East. But stability from the American perspective can mean many things. Lead amongst them is that the ‘ally’ must be unconditionally loyal to the diktats of the US administration. This rule has proven to be true since the United States claimed a position of ascendency, if not complete hegemony over many regions of the world since World War II. Israel, however, remained an exception. The rules by which US-Israeli relations are governed are perhaps the most bewildering of all foreign policies of any two countries. An illustration of this would be to consider these comments by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon quoted in the Israeli news portal Ynetnews. “The American security plan presented to us is not worth the paper it’s written on,” he said, referring to efforts underway since July by American Secretary of State John Kerry, “who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor.” Kerry “cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians,” said Ya’alon.
The media spin machine is again kicking into high gear, perfectly timed to accompany the “Geneva II” Syria peace talks. The lies are necessary to give the Obama administration an upper hand in the peace negotiations, which are not being used to pursue peace, but instead, to accomplish the Obama administration’s longstanding goal of Syrian regime change. Here are the top three Western media lies about the Syrian peace talks. 1) The removal of Syrian Bashar al-Assad was an agreed upon “precondition” for the Geneva II peace talks. This lie has been repeated over and over by government and media alike. It has zero basis. The Obama administration claims that this precondition was expressed in the “Geneva communiqué,” which was a road map agreement meant to guide the Geneva II peace talks, agreed upon by some of the major parties of the negotiations, including Russia. The communiqué does indeed call for a negotiated political transition, but nowhere does it state that such a transition cannot include President Assad. Such a condition would have been outright rejected by Russia.
Today, in this gathering of Arab and Western powers, we are presented with a simple choice: we can choose to fight terrorism and extremism together and to start a new political process, or you can continue to support terrorism in Syria. Let us reject and isolate the black hands and the false faces, which publicly smile but covertly feed terrorist ideology, striking Syria today, but ultimately spreading to infect us all. This is the moment of truth and destiny; let us rise to the challenge. Syria Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, who headed his country’s official delegation to Geneva II, called at the opening session of the conference on a collective confrontation against terrorism and on starting a national dialogue in Damascus, SANA reported. Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic, SYRIAN – steeped in history for seven thousand years. ARAB – proud of its steadfast pan-Arab heritage despite the deliberate acts of aggression of supposed brotherly Arabs. REPUBLIC – a civil state that some, sitting in this room, have tried to return to medieval times. Never have I been in a more difficult position; my delegation and I carry the weight of three years of hardship endured by my fellow countrymen – the blood of our martyrs, the tears of our bereaved, the anguish of families waiting for news of a loved one – kidnapped or missing, the cries of our children whose tender fingers were the targets of mortar shelling into their classrooms, the hopes of an entire generation destroyed before their very eyes, the courage of mothers and fathers who have sent all their sons to defend our country, the heartbreak of families whose homes have been destroyed and are now displaced or refugees.
Unquestionably, there would be no Geneva-II conference on Syria had it not been for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s brilliant tactical strategy of offering up a positive proposal from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Syria would turn over to the West all of his country’s chemical weapons in order to avoid a Western military attack. Kerry laid down his chemical weapons stipulation at a September 2013 joint press conference in London with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. In answer to a reporter’s question about what Assad could do or offer in order to stop an attack from the United States and other NATO forces, Kerry responded, “Umm… sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over! All of them… without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done, obviously.”