The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics

29 Jun

By Thierry Meyssan

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 28 JUNE 2016 


Favourable to the Brexit, Queen Elizabeth is now able to reorient her country towards the yuan.
While the world Press is searching for ways to re-start the reconstruction of Europe, still without Russia and now without the United Kingdom, Thierry Meyssan considers that nothing can now prevent the collapse of the system. However, he points out, what is at stake is not the European Union itself, but the institutions which enable the domination of the world by the United States, and the integrity of the United States themselves.

No-one seems to comprehend the consequences of the British decision to leave the European Union. Those commentators who interpret party politics, and who forfeited their understanding of international challenges a long time ago, have been concentrating on the elements of an absurd campaign – on one side, the adversaries of uncontrolled immigration, and on the other, the «bogeymen» who have been threatening the United Kingdom with the direst of torments.
But the stakes of this decision have nothing to do with these themes. The discrepancy between reality and the discourse of the political media illustrates the disease from which the Western elite is really suffering – their incompetence.
While the veil is being ripped apart before our eyes, our elites do not understand the situation any better than the Communist Party of Soviet Russia could see the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 – the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, then the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and the Warsaw Pact six months later, followed by the attempts to dismantle Russia itself, in which it almost lost Chechnya.
In identical fashion, we will soon be witnessing the dissolution of the European Union, then NATO, and unless they pay close attention, the dismantling of the United States.
What interests are behind the Brexit?
Contrary to the boastful claims of Nigel Farage, UKIP was not the originator of the referendum it has just won. The decision was imposed on David Cameron by the members of the Conservative Party.
For them, London’s policy must be a pragmatic adaptation to the evolution of the world. This «nation of shop-keepers», as Napoleon qualified it, observes that the United States are no longer either the world’s prime economy or its major military power. There is therefore no further reason to hang on as their privileged partner.
Just as Margaret Thatcher never hesitated to destroy British industry in order to transform her country into an international financial centre, in the same way the Conservatives did not hesitate to open the door for the independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland – and thus the loss of North Sea oil – in order to transform the City into the primary off shore financial centre for the yuan.
The Brexit campaign was largely supported by the Gentry and Buckingham Palace, who mobilised the popular Press to call for a return to independence.
Contrary to the interpretations published in the European Press, the departure of the British from the EU will not happen slowly, because the EU will collapse faster than the time necessary for the bureaucratic negotiations concerning their withdrawal. The Comecon states did not have to negociate their exit, because the Comecon had ceased to function as soon as the centrifugal movement began. The member states of the EU who hang on, desperately trying to save whatever remains of the Union, will fail in their adaptation to this new distribution, and run the risk of experiencing the painful convulsions of the first few years of the new Russia – a vertiginous drop in the standard of living and life expectancy.
There is an urgent need to reform the institutions in order to save the hundred thousand civil servants, elected officials and European collaborators who will inevitably lose their jobs, and the national elites who are also tributary to the system. All of them wrongly believe that the Brexit has opened a breach into which the Euro-sceptics will plunge. But the Brexit is only a response to the decline of the United States.
The Pentagon, which is currently preparing the NATO summit in Warsaw, has not yet understood that it is no longer in a position to browbeat its allies into increasing their Defence budget and backing up their military adventures. Washington’s domination of the world is over.
We are moving into a new era.
What is going to change?
The fall of the Soviet bloc was first of all the death of a certain vision of the world. The Soviets and their allies wanted to build a united society in which as many things as possible were to be considered common property. They succeeded in creating a Titanic bureaucracy and a grim bouquet of comatose leaders.
The Berlin Wall was not destroyed by anti-communists, but by a coalition of the Communist Youth and the Lutheran Churches. Their intention was to refound the Communist ideal, but liberated from the Soviet yoke, the political police and the bureaucracy. They were betrayed by their elites, who, after having long served the interests of the Soviets, did an eager about-face and rushed to serve the interests of the United States. The most passionate of Brexit voters are attempting to regain their national sovereignty, and make the leaders of Western Europe pay for the arrogance they showed in imposing the Treaty of Lisbon after the popular rejection of the European Constitution (2004-07). They too may be disappointed by what comes next.
The Brexit marks the end of the ideological domination of the United States, that of the dime-store democracy celebrated as the «Four Freedoms». In his address on the State of the Union in 1941, President Roosevelt defined them as (1) Freedom of Speech and expression, (2) the Freedom of all people to honour their God in the way they choose, (3) Freedom from need, (4) Freedom from Fear [of foreign aggression]. If the English are going to return to their traditions, continental Europeans are going to revisit the questions posed by the French and Russian revolutions concerning the legitimacy of power, and shake up their institutions at the risk of sparking a new Franco-German conflict.
The Brexit also marks the end of the military-economic domination of the US, since NATO and the EU are simply the two sides of a single coin – even if the construction of their Foreign Policy and Common Security took longer to implement than that of free exchange. Recently, I was writing a note on this policy in terms of the situation in Syria. I examined all the internal documents of the EU, both public and unpublished, and arrived at the conclusion that they had been written without any knowledge of the reality on the ground, but from notes taken by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was himself reproducing the instructions of the US State Department. A few years earlier, I had to do the same job for another state, and had arrived at a similar conclusion (except that in this other case, the intermediary was not the German, but the French government).
First consequences within the EU
Currently, the French trade unions are rejecting the project for a law on Labour which has been drawn up by the Valls government on the basis of a report by the European Union, which itself was inspired by instructions from the US State Department. While the mobilisation of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) has enabled the French people to discover the role of the EU in this affair, they still have not grasped the EU-USA connection. They have understood that by inverting the standards and placing company agreements above branch agreements, the government was in fact questioning the preeminence of the Law over the contract – but they do not know about the strategy of Joseph Korbel and his two children, his natural daughter, the Democrat Madeleine Albright, and his adopted daughter, the Republican Condoleezza Rice. Professor Korbel assured that in order to dominate the world, all Washington needed to do was impose a re-writing of international relations in Anglo-Saxon legal terms. Indeed, by placing the contract above the Law, Anglo-Saxon legalese privileges, in the long term, the rich and powerful over the poor and needy.
It is probable that the French, the Dutch, the Danes and others will try to detach themselves from the EU. For that, they will have to confront their ruling class. Though the duration of this combat is unforseeable, its issue leaves no doubt. In any case, in the period of upheaval which is coming, the French workers will be difficult to handle, unlike their English counterparts, who are currently disorganised.
First consequences for the United Kingdom
Prime Minister David Cameron played the summer holiday card in order to postpone his resignation until October. His successor, probably Boris Johnson, therefore has the time to prepare the change which can be implemented as soon as he arrives at Downing Street. The United Kingdom will not wait for its definitive exit from the EU to develop its own policy – to begin with, dissociating itself from the sanctions levied against Russia and Syria.
Contrary to what the European Press claims, the City of London is not directly concerned by the Brexit. Because of its particular status as an independent state placed under the authority of the Crown, it has never been part of the European Union. Of course, it will no longer be able to shelter the head offices of certain companies which will retreat back into the Union, but on the contrary, it will be able to use the sovereignty of London to develop the yuan market. Already in April, it obtained the necessary privileges by signing an agreement with the Central Bank of China. Besides which, it may develop its activities as a fiscal paradise for Europeans.
While the Brexit will temporarily disorganise the British economy while it waits for a new set of rules, it is probable that the United Kingdom – or at least England – will reorganise rapidly for its own greater profit. We’ll have to wait and see if the creators of this earthquake will have the wisdom to share its rewards with their people. The Brexit is a return to national sovereignty, but it does not guarantee popular sovereignty.
The international landscape may evolve in many different ways according to the coming reactions. But even if things turn out badly for some people, it’s always better to adhere to reality, as the British have done, rather than clinging to a dream until it shatters.

The Inconvenient Truth: Assad’s Popularity Confounds NATO Propagandists

27 Jun

By Barbara McKenzie, 

Source: http://russia-insider.com/en/inconvenient-truth-assads-popularity-confounds-nato-propagandists/ri15217

Face it, NATO and its allies would have labelled Jesus Christ the Butcher of Damascus if this had suited their agenda of forced regime change in Syria

Anyone who saw the vilification of Alex Salmond during the run-up to the referendum on Scottish Independence, or of Corbyn during the British Labour leadership campaign, by ‘responsible organs of the Press’, must have come to full realisation of how totally unbridled, how totally unprincipled, the Establishment and its mouthpieces can be once they declare war.

The Establishment has been demonising popular leaders who threaten its hegemony for centuries. If you believe Bashar al Assad evil, purely on the claims of the Establishment and its press, then you probably accept that Joan of Arc was a witch, Bonny Dundee was depraved, Napoleon ate babies, Ares Velouchiotis was a sick sadist, Arthur Scargill was corrupt, Alex Salmond is the new Ghengis Khan, and Jeremy Corbyn everything thrown at him last year. (I’m guessing the traditional view of Richard III is suspect as well…)
In the case of Bashar al Assad, the accusations range from gassing his own people (long disproved), to the frankly batty one of being responsible for 90% of the deaths in Syria (even though almost half of all deaths have been soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army – presumably Assad has been killing his own soldiers …). The hollowness of the accusations has been well documented.
The attack on al Assad is reinforced by creating an equivalence between all secular leaders in the Middle East – they are, or were, defined without exception as evil dictators. George Galloway jubilantly declared his support for the Arab Spring in a strongly worded critique of Gaddafi in a radio broadcast in February 2011. ‘I have been waiting for these Arab dictatorships to fall, and it appears that one after the other they are falling, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya’ – Galloway clearly does not see Iraq as part of the pattern.

The Establishment has been demonising popular leaders who threaten its hegemony for centuries. If you believe Bashar al Assad evil, purely on the claims of the Establishment and its press, then you probably accept that Joan of Arc was a witch, Bonny Dundee was depraved, Napoleon ate babies, Ares Velouchiotis was a sick sadist, Arthur Scargill was corrupt, Alex Salmond is the new Ghengis Khan, and Jeremy Corbyn everything thrown at him last year. (I’m guessing the traditional view of Richard III is suspect as well…)
In the case of Bashar al Assad, the accusations range from gassing his own people (long disproved), to the frankly batty one of being responsible for 90% of the deaths in Syria (even though almost half of all deaths have been soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army – presumably Assad has been killing his own soldiers …). The hollowness of the accusations has been well documented.
The attack on al Assad is reinforced by creating an equivalence between all secular leaders in the Middle East – they are, or were, defined without exception as evil dictators. George Galloway jubilantly declared his support for the Arab Spring in a strongly worded critique of Gaddafi in a radio broadcast in February 2011. ‘I have been waiting for these Arab dictatorships to fall, and it appears that one after the other they are falling, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya’ – Galloway clearly does not see Iraq as part of the pattern.

Galloway repeated this sentiment again at the Oxford Union in October 2012, in relation to Syria, though admittedly he had turned against the idea of military intervention. While the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt may indeed have had considerable popular support, Galloway in 2012 appears to have been still unaware of the huge demonstrations in support of Gaddafi in Libya the previous year. In Syria too, big demonstrations in support of the al Assad government took place from a very early stage, notably in Damascus and Aleppo.
The Arab Spring has been well exposed as a propaganda tool to enable Western powers, with the help of oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, to destabilise secular, progressive, independent countries like Libya and Syria and put in place a pliant leadership. In this interview recorded in Damascus 2013, a Syrian soldier gives his own take on the Arab Spring.

An integral part of the campaign against al Assad is the smearing of those who are sceptical about the negative claims regarding al Assad, don’t like bloody proxy wars dressed up as revolutions and moreover support Syria’s right to control its own destiny.
They are termed Assadistas, fascists, truthers, monsterphiliacs even (yes I’ve got links, no I’m not promoting the authors here). The argument goes something like, ‘the evil dictator Bashar al Assad gassed his own people, you are trying to prove he’s not an evil dictator and didn’t gas his own people, therefore you are a fascist supporting an evil dictator’.
Inevitably the campaign to undermine those investigating the truth about Syria extends to preventing them from discussing their findings publicly. British journalists Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill, both dedicated supporters of forced regime change in Syria, were instrumental in preventing Mother Agnes Mariam, a nun based in Homs, from speaking at the Stop the War Coalition. That STW buckled to such pressure is a shameful moment in their history.
The concerted efforts to stop Tim Anderson, author of The Dirty War on Syria, from speaking at the Crossing the Border conference on the refugee crisis to be held on Lesvos, Greece in July, is another example of the determination of regime change advocates to stifle open discussion, though this time without success.
The attack was orchestrated by Syrian Solidarity UK (usually referred to by the unfortunate acronym SSUK), notable for its strong support for the White Helmets who are embedded with al Qaeda in Syria (Jabhat al Nusra). At the same time the group published a hit piece against the Syrian Solidarity Movement, which is led by a group of pro-Syrian activists and journalists, including Dr Anderson.
If Bashar al Assad were a war criminal he would not have the support of his people, and Syria would not have been able to hold off against externally funded forces as it has done for five years. Before the Syrian war Bashar al Assad was the most popular leader in the Arab world. Polls show that Bashar al Assad still has the support of the majority of Syrians.

Al Assad’s position within Syria is now stronger than ever. Syrians view with horror the thought that extremist takfiris who have collaborated with the West might have a permanent role in Syria’s future, and are more than ever determined to resist sectarianism. The al Assads are seen as representing the tolerant, multi-confessional country they are so proud of.
Bashar is an Alawite, his wife Asma is Sunni, and they make a point of showing solidarity with Syria’s Christian community, exemplified by the couple’s surprise attendance at choir practice at the Church of Our Lady of Damascus last Christmas, a few days after the church suffered a mortar attack. If Bashar al Assad is deposed, it will not be by the will of the Syrian people.


Dutch newspaper publishes cartoon depicting Turkey’s Erdogan as an ape

26 Apr

The cartoon, published by the populist daily De Telegraaf, shows the Turkish President squashing free speech http://goo.gl/uLsZaM

Al Qaeda and ISIS Equipped with Surface-to-Air Missiles, Target Syrian Planes.

14 Apr

By SputnikGlobal Research, April 10, 2016

  
A Second Syrian plane shot down by Islamist rebels in one month as al-Nusra and Daesh continue to acquire American weaponry from Turkey, bankrolled by Saudi Arabia.

On Tuesday, Islamist rebels shot down a Syrian plane, the second such incident in less than a month, and captured the pilots. Inquiries are being made at the highest level as to how the al-Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda in Syria, has come into possession of advanced Western surface-to-air missiles.
Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down with Institute of Islamic Thought director Zafar Bangash on Thursday to discuss the developing situation in Syria and whether access to this weaponry will undermine Syrian air superiority.
Where are al-Qaeda affiliates getting these advanced weapons?
“According to the information that has emerged, it was al-Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda in Syria,” explained Bangash. He speculated that the missiles were sold to the extremist group by Turkey and paid for by Saudi Arabia, in a continuing effort to overthrow the Assad regime. He suggested that the Americans have a hand in it as well, saying, “the United States has always been involved in providing these weapons, even if not directly.”
The plane shot down on Tuesday was over Aleppo, an al-Nusra and Daesh stronghold. Why is that significant?
“Aleppo is the only major city that has been under the control of al-Nusra or Daesh,” explained Bangash. “The Syrian Army was making progress along with Hezbollah fighters and Iran’s revolutionary guards backed by the Russian Air Force and have been inching towards Aleppo.”
Bangash elaborated that the capture of Aleppo by rebel forces is significant, due to it being the largest city in Syria, and formerly the country’s financial hub. “It is even larger than Damascus, so obviously the terrorist groups and their backers will put up a tough fight not to lose it,” said Bangash.
Does terrorist access to anti-aircraft technology deprive the Syrian army of air supremacy?
“Not completely. I don’t think it will prove a game-changer because Russia is still there,” said Bangash. “These terrorists can cause some damage and some threat to the Syrian air force, and I am sure that the Syrian air force will change their tactics.”
nonetheless, Russia’s continued presence in the fight against extremist militants will continue to keep rebel groups on their heels as allied forces march towards Aleppo. “Russian air force planes carried out a number of operations last week,” said Bangash. “Further, per the ceasefire agreement between Russia and the US, the terrorist groups were specifically excluded from the ceasefire, so Russia has no obligation whatsoever to avoid attacking these groups.”
Has the US presence in Syria benefitted the extremist organizations?
“Yes,” said Bangash who explained that, since 2005, the Americans along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey have had their eyes on ousting Assad from controlling Syria. “If the Syrian people don’t want Assad, that is for the Syrian people to decide, it isn’t for the United States or any other country to decide.”
He said that he “thinks it is very clear that the US wants to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad, and that is why the Americans are talking about increasing their special forces in Syria.” Bangash said that the US presence has never been welcomed by the Syrian government. “They have not been given permission by the Syrian government and that is in violation of international law and the UN Charter.”
In contrast, Bangash says that the Russian government came in to maintain the stability of the current Syrian regime, and prevent the country from becoming a failed state, similar to Libya following the ouster of Muammar Gadhafi. “Russia went there with permission of the legitimate government, but the US is there illegally,” he stressed.

Is the U.N. Complicit in Delivering Weapons and Ammo to Al Qaeda in Syria Using UNHCR Trucks?

9 Apr

By Prof Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research, April 09, 2016

  
Is the United Nations complicit in the smuggling of weapons and ammo into Syria?
In December 2015, Russia expressed its concern at the UN Security Council that arms shipments as well as “rebels” were entering Syria via U.N.-monitored checkpoints at which U.N.staff are “supposed to check the relief cargoes” (Tass January 5, 2016). It would appear that routine weapons shipments into Syria have not been the object of UN cross border inspection. 
A recent report (yet to be confirmed) suggests that UNHCR trucks are being used to smuggle weapons and ammo into Syria (see twit and photo below)

  

  Is the United Nations complicit in the smuggling of weapons and ammo into Syria?

In December 2015, Russia expressed its concern at the UN Security Council that arms shipments as well as “rebels” were entering Syria via U.N.-monitored checkpoints at which U.N.staff are “supposed to check the relief cargoes” (Tass January 5, 2016). It would appear that routine weapons shipments into Syria have not been the object of UN cross border inspection. 
A recent report (yet to be confirmed) suggests that UNHCR trucks are being used to smuggle weapons and ammo into Syria (see twit and photo below).

Déjà Vu?
The following January 2013 text is displayed by the UNHCR’s mouthpiece Refugees Daily without acknowledging the fact, amply documented that the “Rebels” are al Qaeda affiliated militia.

  
What is intimated by the UNHCR headlines (above) is that the granting of weapons to Syrian opposition “rebels” will contribute to alleviating the refugee crisis:
Syrian rebels say they fear that weapons pledged recently by the United States and other international backers will not come in time for them to make gains against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.
…. U.S. officials have said that the CIA is preparing to deliver limited shipments of weapons and ammunition to Syrian rebels through clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan. A senior Middle Eastern official said last week that although most weapons have entered Syria via Turkey until now, there are plans to increase the use of the Jordanian border as flows increase.
Mohammed al-Zoubi, one of dozens of seasoned smugglers in the Jordanian border city of Ramtha, said ordinary pickup trucks and open borders could facilitate the supply of thousands of rockets to rebel fighters in the southern Syrian city of Daraa — as soon as they get the green light and the weapon shipments.
“If they open the borders, Jordan could be the weapons entry point for all of Syria,” Zoubi, 45, said, adding that gunrunning into Syria has been all but “stamped out” because of tight security along the border. Refugees Daily
Refugees Global Press Review Compiled by Media Relations and Public Information Service, UNHCR

From the very outset of the Syria war in March 2011, the UNHCR has turned a blind eye to the influx of terrorists and weapons. The Geneva based UN body has not addressed the causes of the refugee crisis:
“The UN refugee agency’s top protection official has warned of the enormous humanitarian impact of the Syria crisis, particularly on civilians who have been displaced and face threats such as gender-based violence.
It is also, for many, accompanied by gender-based crimes, deliberate victimization of women and children and a frightening array of assaults on human dignity,” Assistant High Commissioner (Protection) Erika Feller told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday.
The Assistant High Commissioner said child victims were “becoming a defining feature of the Syrian conflict.” Noting that children are subjected to a high risk of violence, she said “reports of torture and death of detained children, or of the sexual abuse of both boys and girls, are particularly harrowing.” (January 2013 UNHCR statement)
These hollow statements totally ignore the underlying causes of the refugee crisis which from the outset was triggered by terrorist acts against civilians perpetrated by al Qaeda “rebels” supported and financed by the US and its allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia)

Saudi Arabia Uncovered

3 Apr

Saudi Arabia Uncovered

Published on 24 Mar 2016

Click bellow to watch the shocking truth:


Why are UK &US so silent on the recapture of Palmyra from the clutches of Isis? Aren’t they supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s.

29 Mar

 

Robert Fisk,  Sunday 27 March 2016

In the end, it was the Syrian army – and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon, and the Iranians, and the Russians – who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra

The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn’t they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn’t we?
Less than a week after the lost souls of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should – should we not? – have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (I’m talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.
As my long-dead colleague on the Sunday Express, John Gordon, used to say, makes you sit up a bit, doesn’t it? Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin’s Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren’t utter a single word to say well done.
When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army’s big question: why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn’t they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army’s front lines? Why didn’t they attack Isis?
“If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.
Inside Isis secret tunnels
Putin noticed this, and talked about it, and accurately predicted the retaking of Palmyra. His aircraft attacked Isis – as US planes did not – in advance of the Syrian army’s conquest. I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American “war on terror”. They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.
So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra, and who may – heavens preserve us from such a success – even storm the Isis Syrian ‘capital’ of Raqqa. I have written many times that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back Raqqa – and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915 Christian victims into the streets – I promise you we will be silent again.
Aren’t we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s. Pray for peace, folks. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,357 other followers