Saturday 11th of July 2020

when the USA are creating problems to keep busy...


by Samuel Moncada, Permanent Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations.

I have the honour to write to you to denounce several dangerous actions that threaten the peace and security of Venezuela and the Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole.

In a previous communication, a letter dated 6 August 2019 (S/2019/641), the Security Council was informed of the threats made by the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, to commit an act of war by imposing a naval blockade against Venezuela. We note with concern a new attempt to fabricate an excuse for aggression using the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, to which our country is not a party.

On 11 September 2019, 11 countries in the Americas (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, United States, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Dominican Republic) resolved to convene a meeting of the Organ of Consultation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, on the grounds that the current situation in Venezuela has a “destabilizing impact” and poses a “threat to peace and security in the Hemisphere”, as may be seen from the attachment (see annex).

The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed in 1947 and since then never activated, is an instrument associated with the cold war, the division of the world into ideological blocs and the use of military force to maintain the hegemony of the Government of the United States of America in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a legal expression of the colonialist Monroe Doctrine proposed in 1823, which condemns the Americas to subordinate themselves to the primary power in the continent.

Although, geographically, the intention is for the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to cover the 35 countries of the Americas, only 18 countries have ratified it, 12 countries never joined it and 5 countries have denounced it, the Treaty ceasing to have effect for those States. These include the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which, on 14 May 2013, invoked article 25 of the Treaty to denounce it.

As a result of the decision to convene the Organ of Consultation of the Inter American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the remaining States of the Americas that are not parties to the instrument (17 States) are excluded from participating in regional affairs while plans are being made to engage in military aggression against a non-signatory State: the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The use or threat of use of military force, without authorization from the Security Council of the United Nations, are practices that violate the Charter of the United Nations, the international treaty accepted by 193 countries to govern relations between States and to which all its signatories, including the members of the Inter American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, committed themselves to respect international peace and security. In cases in which regional treaties contravene the Charter, it is clearly established that obligations under the United Nations prevail, not those under any other international agreement:


In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail (Art. 103),


The use of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, as invoked on 11 September 2019, is a violation of the right to peace and security of the Venezuelan people and the rights of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a full State Member of the United Nations. It is clear that all States Members of the United Nations should handle their disputes without violating the principles, authority and procedures established in the Charter and the body of international law that derives from its application. The deliberate refusal to do so has serious consequences, as we will see:


In article 8 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, it is stated that:


… the measures on which the Organ of Consultation may agree will comprise one or more of the following: recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions; breaking of diplomatic relations; breaking of consular relations; partial or complete interruption of economic relations or of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and radiotelephonic or radiotelegraphic communications; and use of armed force.


It is no coincidence that the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, on 1 August 2019 announced that he was considering the imposition of a naval blockade against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The use of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance as a tool to implement the naval blockade was announced on 17 September 2019 but with the real reason of the act of war being expressed; it is no longer a question of the regional threat, but a coup d’état against the Government of Venezuela.

The United States continues to support interim President Juan Guaidó, the National Assembly, and the Venezuelan people as they seek to restore democracy to their country. To this end, the United States and our partners have invoked the TIAR/Rio Treaty, which facilitates further collective action to confront the threat posed by the former regime of Nicolas Maduro to the Venezuelan people and to the region. We look forward to coming together with regional partners to discuss the multilateral economic and political options we can employ to the threat to the security of the region that Maduro represents.

Now the United States Government is invoking the Treaty for Venezuelan domestic policy reasons that have nothing to do with the maintenance of international peace and security; rather, the use of force is being threatened to overthrow the constitutional Government of Venezuela, in violation of the principles of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter in its Article 2.4:


All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


The Government of the United States of America is being supported in its military interventionism by the Government of Colombia which intends to militarize its relations with Venezuela by trying to involve our country in its longstanding internal war whose causes are purely endogenous. However, we can find the true motivations for the militaristic rhetoric of the Government of President Iván Duque in the statements by his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carlos Holmes Trujillo, to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States when he requested the convocation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance Organ of Consultation:

We will maintain our political and diplomatic efforts and continue to make these denunciations, supported by international law and having recourse to existing instruments to establish the conditions that will ultimately allow the brothers and sisters of Venezuela to live once more in democracy and liberty.

The military interventionism appears once again as a tool to force the overthrow of the democratic Government of Venezuela. What authority does the Government of Colombia have to put in place the conditions that would bring about a change of Government in Venezuela? What we have is an unequivocal confession of goals and actions that violate the Charter of the United Nations. The motivations have nothing to do with international peace and security; rather, the aim is to bolster the interests of the Governments of the United States and Colombia as they move to control the Venezuelan political system.

Activation of the Organ of Consultation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance for interventionist reasons, on the basis of article 8 of the Treaty, sets the stage for engaging in aggression against Venezuela, aggression being understood as set out in article 1 of resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the United Nations General Assembly, of 14 December 1974:


Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.


The fact that an amendment proposed by the delegation of Costa Rica, aimed at discarding the use of military force from the options to deal with the “situation” of Venezuela was rejected by the countries that adopted the resolution is proof that invoking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is an attempt to justify military force against Venezuela.

The 11 States that are threatening to use armed force against Venezuela are manipulating a regional agreement, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, to deliberately ignore the authority of the Security Council of the United Nations. Under Article 53 of the Charter, any regional agreements that provide for coercive measures are subject to authorization by the only body legally empowered to apply forcible measures in the world:


The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council ...


It is not possible to use the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance without the express authorization of the Security Council. In the case of Venezuela, that authorization does not exist, nor has it been requested. The United States of America and its accompanying countries are in breach of the Charter when they claim for themselves the power that all States gave only the Security Council, as established in Article 24.1:


In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.


The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Colombia, in invoking the activation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, accuse Venezuela of being a “threat to peace and security in the Hemisphere”. This reckless accusation is wholly unfounded. Moreover, it violates international law because the United States Government has no authority to call Venezuela a threat that warrants the use of military force. That authority is exclusive to the Security Council, as established in Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states:


The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


In the 70-year history of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the United States has used military force in Latin America and the Caribbean in the following cases: Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Nicaragua (1984), Panama (1989) and Haiti (2004). Now it is planning a military aggression against Venezuela. Historical facts show that the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance has failed to maintain peace in the region and has proven useless in preventing the acts of military aggression of the United States of America.

How can the historically most aggressive country in the entire region call Venezuela a threat? How can the Government of the United States of America apply a policy of economic terrorism against Venezuela, with illegal unilateral coercive measures, yet say that Venezuela is a threat? How can Venezuela be called a threat, when it is the President of the United States of America who is making direct and repeated threats to intervene militarily and impose a naval blockade?

There being no legal basis for aggression against Venezuela, we must note that the facts of the situation do not justify action as serious as the use of military force. The Charter of the United Nations sets out two ways in which military force may be used against another State: namely, with the authorization of the Security Council (Art. 42); and by invoking the right of self-defence (Art. 51).

Self-defence is an inherent right justified only in the event of armed attack (Art. 51 of the Charter) or an act of aggression as defined in General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) (of 14 December 1974). Neither of these conditions exists in Venezuela, or the region. The notion of self-defence cannot be dragged out to muddle the subjective assessment of supposed potential or latent threats that have no basis in reality.

Absent aggression, the use of armed force constitutes an illegal act of war that gives powerful States the capacity to arbitrarily leverage their military advantages to further their interests at the expense of international peace and security. Article 51 of the Charter establishes the conditions for the application of the principle of self-defence without affecting the authority and responsibility of the Security Council to “take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”. Therefore, States invoking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance must show the Security Council evidence of armed attack or aggression to enable it to exercise its authority in a timely manner to prevent the perpetration of an act characteristic of the disastrous doctrine of “preventive war” that has led to so many catastrophic consequences in recent history.

Besides not posing a regional threat, since its independence, two centuries ago, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has never been in an international war nor has it engaged in what could be considered aggression against another country. Consequently, attempts to use the right to self-defence, under the cover of false threats, to justify aggression against Venezuela are unacceptable.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has shown itself to be a lover and guarantor of peace. Therefore, we are warning against the aggression being planned, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and to the detriment of the powers and responsibilities of the Security Council. For this reason, we call on the Security Council to affirm its authority in the case of the illegal manipulation of the Inter American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance as an excuse to use force against Venezuela, when our country is not even a party to that treaty.

In the absence of any real justification for armed aggression, we also call for action to prevent bellicose rhetoric from being used to justify the illegal application of the preventive war doctrine against Venezuela. Venezuela has not carried out any aggressive act against any country in the region and therefore calls on the Security Council to acknowledge publicly that Venezuela poses no threat to international peace and security.

The Security Council can de-escalate disputes by promoting the use of the mechanisms for the pacific settlement of disputes set out in Chapter VI of the Charter, thereby demilitarizing relations among the countries of the Americas. Resolving disputes through military action only benefits the most powerful country in the continent, which historically has used force abusively against its neighbours.

Reaffirming the authority conferred on it by all States through the Charter, the Security Council can avert a catastrophe that would destroy the region for generations. The peoples of the Americas have a right to peace and it is our obligation to work to defend and protect that right.

I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as a document of the Council.







Adopted in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Council at its regular meeting of September 11, 2019)


CONSIDERING that the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, United States, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela, by Note CP/INF. 8369/19 dated September 9, 2019, requested the convocation of the Organ of Consultation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Council;

RECALLING the provisions of resolutions AG/RES. 2929 (XLVIII-O/18) of June 5, 2018, CP/RES. 1117 (2200/19) of January 10, 2019, CP/RES. 1123 (2215/19) of March 27, 2019, CP/RES. 1124 (2217/19) of April 9, 2019, CP/RES. 1127 (2228/19) of May 13, 2019, AG/RES. 2944 (XLIX-O/19) of June 28, 2019, and CP/RES. 1133 (2244/19) of August 28, 2019;

CONSIDERING that in keeping with Article 6 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) the crisis in Venezuela has a destabilizing impact, posing a clear threat to peace and security in the Hemisphere; and

BEARING IN MIND the relevant provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) and of the Charter of the Organization of American States,


1. To provisionally form the Organ of Consultation provided for under Article 12 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) and to convene the Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs referred to in Article 11 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) for the second half of September 2019.

2. To inform the United Nations Security Council about the text of this resolution and about all activities related to this matter.

soft weapons of war...



“Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War”, Kelly M. Greenhill, Civil War Journal, Volume 10, Issue 1, July 2008. Understanding the Coercive Power of Mass Migrations,” in Weapons of Mass Migration : Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy, Kelly M. Greenhill, Ithaca, 2010. “Migration as a Coercive Weapon : New Evidence from the Middle East”, in Coercion : The Power to Hurt in International Politics, Kelly M. Greenhill, Oxford University Press, 2018.


From the rising significance of non-state actors to the increasing influence of regional powers, the nature and conduct of international politics has arguably changed dramatically since the height of the Cold War. Yet much of the literature on deterrence and compellence continues to draw (whether implicitly or explicitly) upon assumptions and precepts formulated in-and predicated upon-politics in a state-centric, bipolar world. 

 moves beyond these somewhat hidebound premises and examines the critical issue of coercion in the 21st century, with a particular focus on new actors, strategies and objectives in this very old bargaining game. The chapters in this volume examine intra-state, inter-state, and transnational coercion and deterrence as well as both military and non-military instruments of persuasion, thus expanding our understanding of coercion for conflict in the 21st century.
Scholars have analyzed the causes, dynamics, and effects of coercion for decades, but previous works have principally focused on a single state employing conventional military means to pressure another state to alter its behavior. In contrast, this volume captures fresh developments, both theoretical and policy relevant. This chapters in this volume focus on tools (terrorism, sanctions, drones, cyber warfare, intelligence, and forced migration), actors (insurgents, social movements, and NGOs) and mechanisms (trilateral coercion, diplomatic and economic isolation, foreign-imposed regime change, coercion of nuclear proliferators, and two-level games) that have become more prominent in recent years, but which have yet to be extensively or systematically addressed in either academic or policy literatures.

the western saint factory...

by Andre Vltchek

The new generation of “pro-Western heroes” and “saints” is clearly failing to impress the world. Juan Guaido and Joshua Wong are definitely as right-wing as Mother Teresa was, but not as “credible”.


A long time ago I visited a place in Calcutta, India, where Mother Teresa used to operate. According to the Catholic Church and Western propaganda apparatus, she was helping the poor.

When I asked those who knew her personally, they described her as a spiteful, vindictive person, with a short temper. Off the record, of course, as to criticizing her openly would be met with great outrage all over the world.

One of the greatest critics of Mother Teresa was an English-American author, Christopher Eric Hitchens, who wrote about her, frankly and openly:

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”

An anti-Communist and staunch Serb-hater, Mother Teresa allegedly asked Bill Clinton to bomb Belgrade, although this information miraculously disappeared from records.

The Western apparatus constantly produces “villains”: Soviet and Chinese Communists, Latin American anti-imperialists, African and the Middle Eastern patriots, as well as Asian independence-minded leaders.

Simultaneously, it manufactures “heroes”: religious demi-saints, ‘freedom-loving opposition leaders’, ‘benevolent monarchs treasured by their people’, as well as pro-Western (and therefore “democratic”) presidents.

Almost miraculously, all these glorious individuals are doing and saying precisely what is expected from them in London, Paris and Washington. They never fail to impress the Western mass media and public; they hardly ever make any serious blunders. As if some invisible hand was writing the script.

There are hundreds of them, but the most prominent are known to the entire world. To name just a few: the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Vaclav Havel, Pope John-Paul the Second, the Thai King Bhumibol… But the list goes on and on.

Virtually all the major “saints” manufactured by the Western regime, were Cold-War warriors. All were closely tied to Western imperialism and neo-colonialism. All would be easy to expose and to discredit, but ‘miraculously’ again; almost no one has ever dared to do so, because it would mean a direct clash with the chief propagandists in the West, as well as with their local lackeys.


Now, new icons are entering the stage.

They are not as successfully crafted as their predecessors. The “saints” from the bygone days were masterpieces of the propagandists. They were ideologically almost ‘bullet-proofed’.

The new ones are often cheap see-through replicas.

Two of the latest products are Joshua Wong of Hong Kong, and Juan Guaido of Venezuela. Both are young, egocentric, aggressive and absolutely unabashed. Both are trained by the Empire in the art of what is lately defined as ‘regime change’.

One is described in the West as a ‘pro-democracy leader’, the other one is a self-proclaimed president.

Both individuals are credible only if the public wants them to be. If it doesn’t, it is easy to find errors in their “logic” and agendas. It is actually easy to laugh at their programs and ‘programmers’.

Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong ‘pro-democracy leader’, is clearly a ‘selfie-generation’ Western implant, without any understanding of global politics, and without any profound philosophical agenda. 

An evangelical fanatic, educated in a private Christian school in Kowloon, he “developed organizational and speaking skills through involvement in church groups”. 

During his first ‘protest activities’ in 2014 (the Umbrella Movement), he was only 17 years old. But this young, confused kid was picked up quickly by the radar of the U.S. anti-Chinese warriors, and in 2018 nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, for “peaceful efforts to bring political reform and protect the autonomy and the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong in the Sino-British joint declaration”.

Since then, he has been flying from one Western capital to another, smearing the People’s Republic of China, harvesting unconditional support, while promoting bizarre political concepts which, if implemented, would further damage the people of Hong Kong – a city which is already falling far behind Mainland China, under the leadership of the corrupt turbo-capitalist elites (who cannot be fought successfully, precisely because of the old British legislation, which is still applicable under the ‘One Country Two Systems’ arrangement).

Mr. Wong, a “Color Revolutionary” (although his old symbol was actually an umbrella), has been photographed together with the discredited “White Helmets” in September 2019, in the German capital of Berlin. 

The White Helmets gang, another Western implant (this one in Syria), has been implicated as being a bunch of mercenaries closely cooperating with Western-sponsored jihadi cadres operating in the Middle East. It is good to mention that the White Helmets were, at one point, also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

On top of it, Joshua Wong has been photographed with officials of the US consulate in Hong Kong. That, just few weeks before the ‘protesters’ went on a rampage, after marching on the US diplomatic mission, demanding that the US “liberates” their city from China. Needless to say that by this action they, de facto committed treason.

No matter how much the Western mass media supports, even glorifies Joshua Wong and his black-mask-wearing hooligans/followers, the majority of the people of Hong Kong are clearly supporting Beijing, and are actually horrified by the rioters, who have been destroying public property, and are indiscriminately beating anyone who dares to show respect for the Mainland China and its flag.

Brainwashed and heavily conditioned, Mr. Wong, drunk on self-righteousness and near religious zeal, declared in Berlin:

If we are in a new Cold War, Hong Kong is a new Berlin.”

Still in Germany, he then went on and insulted the Chinese President Xi Jinping, describing him as “not a president, but an emperor”, urging the ‘free world’ to stand with us to resist the Chinese autocratic regime”.

All that, while China has been showing great restraint in dealing with the destructive and treasonous protesters; much greater restraint than France, or the West’s client state, Indonesia.

Hong Kong protesters led by Wong, destroy public property, beat up Chinese patriots, then get occasionally sprayed by pure potable Hong Kong water, and treated by Western media as martyr-saints!



Juan Guaido of Venezuela became known to his fellow-citizens, only after he declared himself to be their president. He was not elected by anyone; he has no support of any substantial group of people, except an unidentified minority of the right-wing elites.

But he became the new “saint” of the West, at least among the high-level U.S. and European politicians who are determined to kick the socialist president Nicolas Maduro out, hoping to put on the throne some regressive, pro-business and treasonous dictator.

No matter how ridiculous, even idiotic, Guaido appears to the majority of Venezuelan people, no matter how monstrous and against all international laws the situation has become, the West (and the pro-Western elites in many Latin American countries) is pushing Guaido down the throats of the world. His boyish submissive laughter is haunting both Caracas and the provinces.

Who cares that he had been posing and taking photos with the leaders of Colombian drug cartels. Narcotic mafias in Latin America have always been used by the West, when the war against left-wing governments had been raging. Just remember Nicaragua and the Contras.

Who cares that Guaido just received a fresh 52 million dollars for the regime change, in addition to hundreds of millions of already approved funds. The latest funding came proudly from USAID, under the cover of “development assistance”.

As long as he hates socialism and internationalism, he is a Western hero and saint!


In the era of the internet, things are not easy, but far from impossible to track down.

“Saints” manufactured by the West can now be scrutinized with much greater precision and success than in the old days. If they are not, it is only because the Western public (and the public in the client states) does not want to get involved.

Those in Berlin, Paris or New York, who are supporting Joshua Wong or Juan Guaido, are not doing it out of ignorance. Maybe some do, but most of them definitely don’t. They do it out of racism against China, and out of spite towards the patriotic Latin American socialism. Full stop. 

Arguments will not convince them to change their mind. They block what does not suit them. They do not want to know. They want the status quo.

They do not care about how China is progressing, how much it has been improving the lives of its citizens. They do not care that “democracy” means the rule of the people, and not some Western multi-party-political charade. They have no respect for different cultures.

Socialism Venezuelan-style, winning all over the continent, would not be in their interests.

Decaying Hong Kong, rescued by Beijing, is their worst ideological nightmare.

And so, in a way and paradoxically, Joshua Wong is correct: Hong Kong is becoming the new cold-war Berlin. But not because of Beijing or Moscow, but because of treasonous cadres like himself.

“Saints” produced by the West, in all corners of the world, have been extremely damaging to their nations and humanity.

They still are, to this day.

But we will expose them, wherever they are.

Mr. Wong, you want your country to be attacked, and bombed by the United States. You want your own city to be ruled again, by the United Kingdom. You take dictates from the foreign and hostile powers. You are pushing China and the West towards a conflict. You have blood on your hands and you should be stopped. I just saw your people in action! I documented your destructive deeds, visually and in writing.

Juan Guaido, you are selling your beautiful nation to the powers that have been colonizing and plundering it, for decades and centuries. It is not just that you don’t have any shame left – you are betraying both your people and the South American continent!

I always found something dubious about sainthood.

But the new, fake saints, manufactured on order, are exceptionally appalling!

First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook



Read more:



Read from top.

and putin came along...

Russia, which has long been seen by the West as a threat to international stability, has proven to be a security guarantor, Spain’s former Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, adding that the US has turned into a global disruptor.

Palacio, who also worked as a Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the World Bank Group, cautioned the Western political elites against perceiving Russia as a “spoiler” that only seeks to “thwart the West’s plans” with its every move. Although such a view of Moscow has seemingly been prevalent both in Europe and across the pond ever since crisis broke out in Ukraine in 2014, it is high time this approach was reviewed, the politician believes.

Today, Russia is a genuine global power broker.

The former official noted that Moscow’s years-long diplomatic efforts appear to have finally paid off now as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Kiev’s support for an agreement on elections in the breakaway eastern regions, aimed at eventually granting them special status – something that Russia has advocated all along. Similarly, in September, the UN finalized formation of a 150-member constitutional committee for Syria – a body first proposed at the Russia-hosted conference in 2018.


Read more:

a US move designed to embarrass the russians...

The US will step aside for an imminent Turkish operation against Kurdish-led forces in north-eastern Syria, the White House has said, in a major shift. 

Turkey wants to clear Kurdish militiamen - whom it regards as terrorists - away from the border.

The Turks would become responsible for all Islamic State (IS) group prisoners in the area, the US statement said.

Kurdish YPG fighters have until now received strong support from the US, which has hundreds of troops in Syria.

In January, President Trump threatened to "devastate Turkey economically" if it attacked Kurdish forces following a planned US pullout from Syria.

However, the White House statement issued on Sunday makes no reference to the YPG, which has played a leading role in defeating IS - also known as Isis - in Syria. 

The statement followed a phone call between President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

What did the White House say? 

"Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria," the statement said. 

"The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial 'Caliphate', will no longer be in the immediate area."

The White House also said that Turkey would take over all responsibility for Islamic State (IS) group fighters captured over the past two years.


Read more:


One has to look at the peace process in Syria instigated by Russia, with the help of China. Russia and Turkey have managed some delicate diplomatic ties that have annoyed the US... What better way but to place a wedge between Turkey and Russia than to let Turkey "invade northern Syria?... An invasion which would go against Russia and Syria's interests...




Australian ISIS fighters jailed in northern Syria, and their wives and children trapped in refugee camps, could be left at the mercy of the invading Turkish army after the US President Donald Trump announced shock plans for immediate withdrawal.

The decision effectively abandons the American-backed Kurds, who have helped the west fight ISIS in the region, to the invading Turkish army, which regards the group as a terrorist insurgency.

The New Daily understands 80 Australians are believed to be in the conflict zones in Kurdish-controlled northern Syria, including 20 women and 46 children.

They include Australian mothers and children featured in recent reports by the ABC’s Four Corners, who have begged to return to Australia and claimed they were tricked into entering ISIS-controlled territory by their husbands.

There are also 14 Australian men confirmed as being in held in prisons run by Syrian Kurds, who warned on Monday they fear “mass killings” if the Turks are allowed to invade the region.


Read more:

great and unmatched wisdom...

US President Donald Trump has boasted of his "great and unmatched wisdom" and threatened to "destroy" Turkey's economy after appearing to green-light a Turkish invasion of northern Syria and abandoning the US-allied Kurds who helped fight against the Islamic State (IS) group.

Key points:
  • The White House announced the withdrawal of troops from northern Syria on Sunday
  • Republicans have criticised the move, which has prompted fears of a mass breakout of captured IS fighters
  • Mr Trump later threatened Turkey if the government does anything he considered to be "off limits"


The White House on Sunday announced the withdrawal of troops from northern Syria, saying it was too costly to keep supporting the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) militia, which had been an important American ally in the fight against IS jihadists.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long threatened that an operation against the Kurdish militants in northern Syria, who Ankara regards as terrorists, could come "any night without warning".

Mr Trump's decision to effectively abandon the US's Kurdish allies has been roundly criticised by some members of his own party.


Read more:


Now, where are the US troops "retreating to?" Somewhere else in Syria or being shipped out in Hercules planes?


Read from top.

they try to get rid of trump because he does not follow orders.




Donald Trump, Alone Against All

by Thierry Meyssan

Alone, against his opposition, against his administration and against his allies, President Trump does not seem to be able to fulfil his campaign commitments. Three years after his election, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment procedure against him because he is fighting against the corruption of the Clinton clan.

Donald Trump’s main campaign commitment to end the offensive Rumsfeld/Cebrowski military strategy and replace it with a policy of Jacksonian cooperation is met with strong internal US and external opposition from US allies. More than ever, the President appears alone, absolutely alone, in the face of the transatlantic political class.

It was all a foregone conclusion

As with his predecessor, Barack Obama, everything seemed to be a set up. Upon his election in 2009, Obama was hailed as the "first black president of the United States" and then proved unable to solve the problems of this community, leaving police violence against them to reach new heights. In the early days of his term, the Nobel Committee awarded him the Peace Prize for his efforts "for a world without nuclear weapons"; a subject he immediately stopped addressing. Although his record is the exact opposite of his campaign promises, he is still popular around the world. It does not matter if jobs are relocated to China, Guantánamo continues, thousands of targeted killings are carried out, or Libya is destroyed.

Conversely, as soon as he was elected and even before the transfer of power in 2017, Donald Trump was presented as a manic-depressive narcissist, a weak and authoritarian personality, a crypto-fascist. As soon as he joined the White House, the press called for his physical murder and the Democratic Party accused him of being a Russian spy. It obtained that an investigation be opened against him and his team with a view to his dismissal. His chief advisor, General Michael Flynn, was forced to resign 24 days after his appointment and then arrested. When Donald Trump lost the mid-term (November 2018) elections to the House of Representatives, he was forced to negotiate with some of his opponents. He reached an agreement with the Pentagon, allowing certain military actions as long as they did not involve the country in a spiral, and in exchange obtained the closure of the Russian investigation. For eight months, he tried to force march to stop the annihilation of the Great Middle East and preparations for the destruction of the Caribbean Basin. He hoped to be able to announce the realization of peace at the United Nations General Assembly. Crash! The same day, the USIP (alter ego of the NED, but for the Department of Defense), submitted its report on Syria, advising to relaunch the war. And, again on the same day, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced the opening of impeachment proceedings against him, this time in connection with his fight with the Ukrainian authorities against the corruption of the Clinton clan.

It is therefore unlikely that Donald Trump will be able to carry out his program before the end of his mandate as the election campaign for his possible re-election begins. However, his supporters point out that he is never as good as when he is cornered.

Few media have explained Jacksonism, an ideology that no one has promoted since the Civil War. Almost all of them claimed for two years that Donald Trump was incoherent and unpredictable, before admitting that he acted according to a given worldview.

In any case, he has already managed to repatriate many offshore jobs and put an end to the massive support of the Departments of State and Defense for the jihadist armies, although there are still some ongoing programs.

No matter what Barack Obama and Donald Trump did as presidents, we will only remember how the media presented them on the day of their induction.

The role of the deep state

It is now clear that opposition to Donald Trump is not only constituted by the bulk of the American political class, but also by most foreign leaders of countries allied to the United States. This may seem strange to the latter, who would have everything to gain from its success. But that is not how politics works. One after the other, these leaders became convinced that no one could change US policy. The interest of their states in the face of the powerful USA was therefore not to sink with a Donald Trump isolated in his country, but to remain faithful to the destructive policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

It remains to be seen who among the tens of thousands of civil servants is pulling the strings and why they are opposed to Trump’s project. The "deep state" whose president cannot influence politics may only be a sociological phenomenon as it can represent structured interests. President Trump believed he had neutralized the opposition of the committees responsible for implementing the more or less secret treaties of the United States with its allies. He believed he had negotiated with the alternative government constituted as a preventive measure in the event of a nuclear war. He was obviously wrong.

The lessons of this story

Two lessons can be drawn from this history. First, all historians agree that George W. Bush did not really hold the presidency, but aligned himself with his entourage, first with his vice-president, Dick Cheney, and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It is also clear that Barack Obama had very little power other than targeted assassinations. It now appears that Donald Trump is not in a position to change US policy. It must be said that, since 11 September 2001, the office of President of the United States has been almost exclusively in the media. And, if the president does not make policy, those who do so in the shadows are not elected.

Secondly, the United States’ allies do not obey the US President, but its deep state. They are the toys of an invisible actor. Only Russia and China are truly independent. Russia is the only one of these three states whose president is democratically elected and who exercises power on behalf of its people. China is a transparent system, but only members of the single party participate in its political life. The United States system is perfectly opaque.

Thierry Meyssan

Roger Lagassé


Read more:


It could be said that Trump is a buffoon. But is he using his buffoonery to unbalance the deep state? His latest call on removing the US troops between the Kurds and the Turks seems to be crazy from an American point of view. But Trump would know that the alternative is going to pin down US troops and consume credibility as well as cash for years to come. He wants to sort this out NOW. Here, the Donald is throwing the gauntlet to the Russians and to the Syrian government. Are they going to protect the kurds in exchange for the return of the Syrian territory the "Kurds have taken over"? And fight against their new friend, Turkey. Or are the Syrians going to let Turkey invade, destroy the Kurds in Syria and the Turks give the "Kurdish land" back to Syria — or keep it?


As far as Trump is concern, this has nothing to do with the USA, because either way it's going to be ugly, and the USA would get the blame anyhow. And Trump does not care about the deep state. He carries on regardless, like a mad "genius", not afraid of the big bad wolf... Quite fascinating to see the media laud the Dems who are as corrupt as ever — and the point being that Trump isn't corrupt, just crazy according to the rule book and madly trying to shift the US into a "different" role.


Imagine kids born in 2001 can now be soldiers in Afghanistan... Isn't this crazy? And of course all media (except the Murdoch media) were prepared to headline "Hillary makes history" under the close watch of the deep state. So what is the relationship between the deep state and Mr Murdoch — and his successors? Old Rupert is crafty enough to make the deep state sit, like a good dog... He may have leverage... Say some ammos in reserve: more about Epstein's clientele...


Read from top.

helping turkey gain territory...


by Stephen Lendman

Читайте больше на


Wannabe sultan Erdogan covets expanding Turkey’s borders to include oil-rich northern Iraqi and Syrian territory. Combatting Kurds in Syria, posing no cross-border threat, is part of his annexation scheme — what Damascus officials condemn and won’t tolerate.

In cahoots with US aggression in Syria, including aid to ISIS and likeminded terrorists, Erdogan is pursuing his long-planned land grab, Russia doing nothing to deter what demands universal condemnation. Press TV, Reuters, the Jerusalem Post, and other media reported that he intends spending $27 billion for constructing scores of villages and 10 towns in northern Syria, including 200,000 residences.

His unlawful land grab involves stealing it from its rightful owners, breaching the country’s sovereignty more than already on the phony pretext of constructing a large scale “safe zone” from the Euphrates River to the Iraqi border. He aims to control 250 miles of northern Syrian territory bordering Turkey, 20 miles deep into its sovereign land. Claiming it’s to resettle one to two million Syrian refugees now in Turkey is a ruse.

Ending aggression by the US and its imperial partners, including Ankara, is the only way to ensure their safety, facilitating their return home. Erdogan turned international law on its head, claiming establishing a cross-border “safe zone” justifies Turkish occupation of northern Syrian territory. Press TV said Turkey’s scheme is to “carv(e) out a patch of land in the Arab country for itself.” Erdogan wants Syrian refugees prevented from returning home to Aleppo and other areas he wants them excluded from — wanting them resettled in territory controlled by the US and its terrorist foot soldiers. He wants northern Syria demographically changed from historically Kurdish to territory housing Turkish-supported Syrian refugees.

The project if undertaken will take years to complete, along with greatly taxing Turkey’s financial ability to pursue it without foreign funding. Reuters said he “called on France and Germany to provide additional financial aid for the project.” In his UN address, he said “I call on all countries to support our efforts regarding Syria” — no matter the flagrant breach of international law. Damascus slammed what it called Erdogan’s “blatant aggression,” a flagrant breach of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity — what the UN Charter and other international laws prohibit.

In August, the Trump and Erdogan regimes agreed to establish, “coordinate, and manage the implementation of the safe zone” in northeastern Syria. At the time, a Damascus statement said the unlawful scheme “exposed the US-Turkish partnership in the aggression against Syria, which serves the interest of the Israeli occupation entity and the Turkish expansionist ambitions,” adding: “Syria calls on the international community and the UN to condemn the US-Turkish flagrant aggression which constitutes a dangerous escalation and poses a threat to peace and security in the region and the world and hinders all positive efforts for finding a solution to the crisis in Syria.”

Longstanding US/Israeli plans call for redrawing the Middle East map — partitioning Syria part of the scheme. If implemented, Erdogan’s land grab will make resolution of endless war in Syria more unattainable than already. Russian involvement is key to preserving Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, what it stressed numerous times it supports. It involves preventing Turkish annexation of sovereign Syrian territory, what it failed to do so far, and may not to strengthen political and economic ties to Ankara.

Note: On Sunday, Press TV reported that US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (infested with terrorists) “kidnapped hundreds of people in” northern Syria, adding: “(T)he terrorists continue to perpetrate criminal and abusive practices against ordinary citizens in areas under their control.” Damascus is committed to liberate its territory controlled by these elements. Restoration of peace and stability to the country is unattainable without eliminating their presence, along with ending unlawful US/Turkish occupation of its territory.

Читайте больше на

a bad name for a military offence...

Live Updates: Turkey's Offensive Peace Spring in Northeastern Syria Begins


Last week, Turkey announced that it would launch a military incursion in northeastern Syria to drive away Kurdish militants from the area and set up a "safe zone" in the region to accommodate Syrian refugees there. The US said it would never back the Turkish operation and would withdraw its troops from the Kurdish-held territory. 

Turkey's Operation Peace Spring in northeastern Syria has officially begun, President Erdogan announced via Twitter on Wednesday.

According to the President, the offensive's primary targets will be the Kurdistan Workers' Party and Daesh*.

* Daesh (ISIL/ISIS/IS/Islamic State) is a terrorist organisation banned in Russia



Read more:


Turkish troops have entered north-eastern Syria, launching a land offensive against Kurdish militia fighters just days after US troops pulled back from the area. 

Key points:
  • The overnight military action follows Wednesday's strikes by Turkish warplanes and artillery aimed at Kurdish YPG targets
  • World leaders are concerned the offensive could destabilise the region and see an IS resurgence
  • Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said operation "Peace Spring" was aimed at eradicating "the threat of terror"


The overnight military action follows Wednesday's strikes by Turkish warplanes and artillery aimed at Kurdish YPG targets, part of an operation announced by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his official Twitter account.

The Turkish defence ministry said the army had hit a total of 181 militant targets with air strikes and howitzers since the start of operation.


Read from top.