Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who's Behind the Terrorists?

April 5, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Eleven have been killed and dozens more injured in what is an apparent terrorist attack on St. Petersburg's metro system. Western analysts are assigning possible blame for the attack on either terrorists operating from Russia's Chechnya region, or possibly terrorist groups affiliated with fronts fighting in Syria. 


Western analysts are also attempting to cement a narrative that downplays the significance of the attacks and instead attempts to leverage them politically against Moscow. A piece in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Fears of a Putin crackdown after terror attack on St Petersburg metro," would attempt to claim:
So who is to blame? No one has said officially. The BBC's Frank Gardner says suspicions will centre around Chechen nationalists or an Islamic State inspired group wanting payback for Putin's airstrikes in Syria. Or it could be a combination of both. 

Putin has in the past justified crackdowns on civilian protests by citing the terror threat. But will he this time, and will it work? 
At least one pro-Kremlin commentator has linked the attack to the recent mass demonstrations organised by Putin's political opponent. 
Yet, in reality, the demonstrations and the terrorist groups being implicated both share a significant common denominator - both are openly long-term recipients of US-European aid, with the latter group also receiving significant material support from US-European allies in the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

US-European support for foreign-funded organizations posing as "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs) running parallel efforts with terrorist organizations undermining Moscow's control over Chechnya have been ongoing for decades.

Beyond Chechnya, the United States' own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would admit in a 2012 memo (PDF) that:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 
The DIA memo then explains exactly who this "Salafist principality's" supporters are (and who its true enemies are):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
In essence, the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) was a creation of the US in pursuit of its attempted regime change agenda in Syria. The current, self-proclaimed "Islamic State" is situated precisely in eastern Syria where the DIA memo claimed its state sponsors sought to place it. Its role in undermining Damascus and its allies' attempts to restore peace and order to the Syrian state is obvious.


The fact that NATO-member Turkey served as a logistical, training, and financial hub for not only the Islamic State's activities, but also other terrorist groups including Al Qaeda's regional franchise - Al Nusra - also further implicates not only possible Al Qaeda and Islamic State involvement in the recent St. Petersburg blast, but also these organizations' state sponsors - those who "support the opposition" in Syria.

Whether the United States played a direct role in the St. Petersburg blast or not is inconsequential. Without the massive state sponsorship both Washington and its European and Persian Gulf allies have provided these groups, such global-spanning mayhem would be impossible. The fact that the US seeks to undermine Russia politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily, and has recently fielded US-European-funded mobs in Russia's streets - means that it is likely not a coincidence violence is now also being employed against Russia within Russian territory.


National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex' Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.


The New York Times in their article, "Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser," would report:
President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.
In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will - verbatim - repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise - and have devised for decades - US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies - funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel - General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS' YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of "invading Ukraine" and China of  "challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power." When describing China's "challenging" of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea - quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.


General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to "US interest" abroad - not US national security itself - by challenging the post World War 2 international order - an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.


US-NATO War Continues to Creep East

February 5, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Despite unmaterialized hopes of a new tack for US foreign policy, it appears that each and every front of US aggression has reopened in earnest, from the Middle East vis-a-vis Iran, to the South China Sea opposite China and now across Eastern Europe between US-led NATO and Ukrainian forces against Russia.


 Articles like the UK Independent's "‘Everything is destroyed’: on the ground as latest surge of deadly violence strikes eastern Ukraine," sound the alarm, stating:

While the fighting has been largely kept to the outskirts of Avdiivka during the day, the nighttime has been hellish for residents. Shells have landed indiscriminately throughout the town, and civilian casualties are racking up.
The Independent would continue, stating:
According to Hug, both sides are making use of heavy weapons such as the multiple-launch Grad missile system, and they are doing so in plain sight of OSCE observers. Grads, along with 152mm and 122mm artillery, were banned under the Minsk II agreement, which was signed two years ago after the catastrophic battle of Debaltseve.
And to accent just how "in plain sight of OSCE observers" Ukrainian forces are operating, footage taken by BBC staff shows two OSCE observer vehicles following directly behind advancing Ukrainian tanks during one of the reported offensives.

Despite the BBC's own staff capturing the footage, the BBC's reporting on Ukraine features carefully cropped photos omitting the OSCE observer vehicles.

The OSCE itself, in its own official reports, states (emphasis added):
In violation of withdrawal lines, the SMM observed two tanks (T-64) between government-controlled Orlivka (22km north-west of Donetsk) and Avdiivka (17km north of Donetsk). In government-controlled Talakivka (90km south of Donetsk) the SMM saw two towed howitzers (D-30, Lyagushka, 122mm) towed by two military trucks (Ural). In government-controlled Ivanivka (59km south-west of Donetsk) the SMM saw four multiple rocket launcher systems (BM-21 Grad, 122mm) at a military compound which were previously seen on 29 November 2016. On 29 January, approximately 2.5km north of government-controlled Aslanove (85km south of Donetsk), an SMM mini unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spotted four self-propelled howitzers (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm) near a tent with two-three soldiers visible and stacks of what appeared to be ammunition boxes.
While US and European media portray US foreign policy as having shifted under incoming president Donald Trump, Ukrainian forces are emboldened by a systematic campaign of US-NATO support, including US-NATO forces operating both inside and outside Ukraine attempting to train and equip Ukrainian forces ahead of renewed fighting anticipated in eastern Ukraine.

CBS News in its February 1, 2017 article titled, ""Re-tooling an army from scratch," as it fights a war," admits:
The U.S. is working with Canadians, British and Lithuanian forces at the remote training center near Yavoriv, which is now referred to as the Joint International Peacekeeping Security Center.

Training ranges from gearing up ministry of interior troops to regular troops, military police and medical personnel, all admittedly for the purpose of reengaging rebel forces in the east in direct violation of agreements made with eastern Ukrainians, brokered between the US, NATO and Russia.

CBS News would admit as much, stating:
"The training here will increase their survivability on the battlefield," Ducich said. "They're going against an enemy that has very sophisticated weapons -- and not just from the lethal standpoint... there's an electronic warfare aspect to this that we have not seen that we are now incorporating into the training here. I don't think it's about matching (Russia's capabilities). I think it's knowing what you can do and maximizing that effectiveness on the battlefield."
In addition to openly training Ukraine's army to reignite hostilities, rebel leaders have been targeted and assassinated amid the fragile ceasefire.

The Trump-Media Circus and Continuity of Agenda

January 12, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - As the US media expertly divides the American public into pro and anti-Trump camps over cartoonish, unfounded personal accusations aimed at President-elect Donald Trump, Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson confirmed before the US Congress that hostilities and agitation toward both Moscow and Beijing will only expand over the next 4-8 years.


The Business Insider in an article titled, "CNN distances itself from BuzzFeed, says Trump is using the website 'to deflect from CNN's reporting'," outlined the recent rash of accusations and the political fallout in their wake, stating:
CNN distanced itself from BuzzFeed on Wednesday after the digital news outlet published a document that contained unverified claims about President-elect Donald Trump's campaign conduct and personal life.
CNN's decision is based on the fact that nothing it or BuzzFeed reported is actually substantiated with fact, with the Business Insider admitting:
"We [CNN] made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations," the statement continued.
The fallout following the oafish, elementary lies spread by BuzzFeed, CNN, and others, represents rhetorical bait irresistible not only to Trump supporters, but to anyone with a conscience who opposes the systemic abuse that persists across the Western media. However, bait this irresistible is laid out for a purpose.

As the Public Squabbles, Continuity of Agenda Marches On

Were headlines not consumed by the crass allegations pushed across the Western media aimed at Trump, and the rhetorical backlash that predictably followed, the American public might be consumed instead by the fact that Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State just confirmed that quite literally nothing is going to change as Trump takes office in regards to US foreign policy.


What's Really Behind US Claims of "Russian Hacking?"

January 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Despite great effort recently put into bolstering the credibility of the "American intelligence community" in the wake of their assessment regarding alleged "Russian hacking," it should be remembered that this same "community" intentionally and maliciously fabricated a myriad of lies surrounding so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which led to a destructive war that claimed upward to a million lives - including over 4,000 US troops.


A community responsible for verified, self-serving lies, has no credibility. Nor do the media organizations that repeated those lies without questioning the very flawed factual and logical fundamentals underpinning them.

More recently, the evidence presented by this community and their partners across the Western media regarding alleged "Russian hacking" of the 2016 US elections is so weak, the logical fallacy of appealing to authority is essential to selling it to the global public.

What Do They Even Mean by "Russian Hacking?"

The sinister tone of "Russian hacking" suggests that Moscow somehow subverted the 2016 US elections through the use of information technology. Headlines across the Western media like CNN's, "US accuses Russia of trying to interfere with 2016 election," would help fan the flames of hysteria, claiming:
The Obama administration said Friday it was "confident" that Russia was behind recent hackings of emails about upcoming US elections in an attempt to interfere with the process. 

The announcement marks the first time the US administration has officially accused Russia of hacking into US political systems. Earlier in the week, the two countries broke off formal talks about a ceasefire in Syria. 

"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a joint statement.
Claims of Russia "hacking into US political systems" invokes images of hackers based in the Kremlin using sophisticated cyber weapons to crack into voting machines, polling stations, and databases to skew election results. In reality, nothing of the sort happened - based not on Russian statements - but on the "American intelligence community's" own official reports on the incident.

The Actual Evidence - According to the US Government Itself

In actuality, the "hacking" involved e-mails that were leaked to the public - genuine e-mails that had circulated throughout the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including those between US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta.

The e-mails were then handed over to Wikileaks before being released to the public.

No polling stations were "hacked," no databases compromised, and no influence exercised over US elections beyond whatever influence the truth about DNC internal communications had on the American public.


US Concerns Over "Election Interference" May Backfire

January 5, 2017 (Joseph Thomas -NEO) - The United States has recently claimed the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from US territory as well as additional sanctions against the Russian state are in retaliation for what the Washington Post claims is "2016 election interference."


In the Post's article, "Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference," it's stated that:
The response, unveiled just weeks before President Obama leaves office, culminates months of internal debate over how to react to Russia’s election-year provocations. In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election, leaking damaging information in an attempt to undermine the electoral process and help Donald Trump take the White House.
The "damaging information" that was leaked, however, was disseminated by Wikileaks, and likely the result of an internal whistle-blower, not Russian operatives. Questions surrounding the veracity of America's claims are owed to a substantial lack of evidence provided by US departments and agencies involved in both the investigation and the punitive measures applied in its wake.

However, the US' reaction to what it claims is "2016 election interference" could significantly backfire, since the US itself is engaged in very real, overt election interference globally, and for decades. In fact, even as the US berated Russia for allegedly interfering in America's internal politics, its own organisations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded by the US government, openly admitted they were leaking information regarding China's internal politics in efforts to undermine Beijing.


In fact, NED and its subsidiaries (including the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) as well as myriad fronts around the world these organisations fund, support and direct, are openly dedicated to manipulating foreign elections, creating US-friendly opposition movements and even overthrowing governments that impede US interests worldwide.

The New York Times, in fact, would admit in 2011 in an article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," that:
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
US interference across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2011 would eventually lead to regional war, the complete destruction of Libya and near destruction of Syria as well as regime change in a number of nations including Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.


As US Berates Russia For Political Meddling, It Openly Meddles in China

December 26, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Despite a concerted backlash against what US political leaders and policymakers claim is Russian interference in America's internal politics, the US continues to openly interfere in the internal politics of other nations worldwide, including most recently, China.



Berating Russia Over Alleged Hacks 

In an effort to redirect attention and blame for America's unravelling political fabric, the US political establishment and its media has spent an inordinate amount of time blaming Russia for allegedly "hacking US elections" by infiltrating the Democratic National Committee (DNC)'s e-mails.

The hacks revealed impropriety within the Democratic party as well as e-mails between US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her adviser, lobbyist and counsellor to US President Barack Obama, John Podesta which revealed everything from admissions US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing material support to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq to the Clinton Foundation receiving funding from these same state sponsors of terrorism.

The fallout from the revelations has included a media blacklist targeting what is called "fake news," or, any media outlet that opposes narratives established by Washington, particularly regarding the contents of the leaked e-mails. It also resulted in claims that Wikileaks (who published the leaked e-mails) was intentionally mixing fabricated e-mails in with genuine DNC data, the Intercept would report.

The United States government and policymakers have also promised retaliation against Russia, who is accused of orchestrating the hacks and working with Wikileaks to publish the e-mails.

Considering the gravity the US has viewed alleged interference in its internal political affairs, one would expect Washington to have a solid record of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, specifically in regards to respecting their internal politics and particularly now, as Washington attempts to justify growing hostility toward Moscow regarding alleged meddling.

Do As I Say, Not As I Constantly Do... 

But even as the backlash against Russia reaches a fevered pitch, the US finds itself openly, some may even say, shamelessly meddling in the affairs of other nations on an equal or greater degree than even Russia has been accused of.


Retaliation Promised: Russian Ambassador's Murder Justified, Even Praised Across the West

December 23, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In the week leading up to the brazen, cold-blooded murder of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov in Ankara, Turkey, the United States repeatedly and publicly threatened "retaliation" against Russia for allegedly "hacking" the 2016 US presidential elections.


During the same week, Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower and Iranian ground support, finally ended the occupation of the northern city of Aleppo by armed militants who invaded in 2012. The inevitable liberation of Aleppo was accompanied by apoplectic hysteria across Western political, policy and pundit circles calling for everything from additional sanctions on Russia to threats against the lives of Russians themselves.

While the Western media has since attempted to dismiss murmurs across Russian and Turkish media in the aftermath of Ambassador Karlov's assassination implicating US involvement, they simultaneously appear incapable of concealing what can only be described as delight over the tragic attack.

The Washington Post, in an article titled, "Turkish police officer, invoking Aleppo, guns down Russian ambassador in Ankara," would characterize the assassination as a "retaliatory attack," stating:
The shooting was among the most brazen retaliatory attacks yet on Russia since Moscow entered the war in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, and unleashed a bombardment on Aleppo that has drawn international condemnation for what observers on the ground have called indiscriminate attacks on civilians. 
The Washington Post also intentionally portrays labeling the incident as a terrorist attack as Moscow's exclusive point of view, claiming:
But in Moscow, where the Kremlin has maintained that its aerial sorties and missile attacks have exclusively targeted “terrorists,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the shooting “a terrorist attack,” and President Vladi­mir Putin called it a “provocation aimed at rupturing ties between Russia and Turkey.”
The Washington Post is able to refrain from openly applauding the assassination, but does everything in its power to legitimize, even defend it within the context of an angry "police officer" provoked by what the Washington Post calls Russia's "indiscriminate attacks on civilians." Relegated deep within the article and beyond the attention span of most readers, are details that reveal Ambassador Karlov's attacker as a participant in organized terror.

Russian Ambassador Assassinated: Retaliation, But by Whom?

December 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Just days after the liberation of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was gunned down while giving a talk at an art gallery in Turkey's capital of Ankara. 


The gunman, identified as a former Turkish police officer, flashed the familiar one finger gesture used by terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria including by Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" - while shouting, according to the Guardian:

Don’t forget Aleppo. Don’t forget Syria. Unless our towns are secure, you won’t enjoy security. Only death can take me from here. Everyone who is involved in this suffering will pay a price.
The attack coincided with an alleged security incident near America's embassy in Ankara, characterized by the US Embassy as a "shooting," though it may be in reference to the actual assassination.

Western newspapers, however, including the Daily Mail, the UK Express, and The Sun attempted to portray the announcement as a separate incident. This may be a deliberate attempt to portray the US as a victim in tandem with Russia, to divert suspicion away from US involvement.

Assassination Takes Place Days After US Vowed "Retaliation" Against Russia 

US President Barack Obama, US policymakers and pundits, as well as US Senators for the past week have vowed "retaliation" against Russia for alleged "hacking" during the 2016 US presidential election. These threats take place against a wider backdrop of increasingly unhinged outbursts made by Western politicians, pundits, and policymakers amid frustration in advancing their global agenda versus a reemerging Russia and a rising China.


The Guardian in an article published just this week titled, "Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election," would state:
Barack Obama has warned that the US will retaliate for Russian cyberattacks during the presidential election. 

In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he is waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action,” Obama said. “And we will – at a time and place of our own choosing. 

“Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.”
Articles like the International Business Times' "How Can The US Retaliate Against Russia's Hacking? Here Are 6 Possible Moves," would list possible forms retaliation could take, including:
Cyberattack on Russian networks or infrastructure; Release damaging information about Vladimir Putin; Target offshore accounts; Place malware inside Russian espionate networks; Interfere in Russian politics Economic sanctions.
However, it has been noted by many analysts, including those within the US' own foreign policy circles, that America's ability to retaliate with "cyberattacks" against Russia in such a manner would range from futile, to even galvanizing the Russian people further behind the Kremlin.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Obama Confronts Complexity of Using a Mighty Cyberarsenal Against Russia," would note:

But while Mr. Obama vowed on Friday to “send a clear message to Russia” as both a punishment and a deterrent, some of the options were rejected as ineffective, others as too risky. If the choices had been better, one of the aides involved in the debate noted recently, the president would have acted by now.
In all likelihood, an attempted counter "cyberattack" would have ended in further humiliation and isolation for the United States' ruling circles.


For Washington, Destroying Syria is a Bipartisan Agenda

November 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With a new president coming into office, hopes for a break in the Syrian conflict are abound. However, these hopes are likely misplaced. Recent US designs for the destruction of Syria began unfolding, not during the administration of US President Barack Obama, but in fact during the presidency of George Bush, and were merely continued, and clearly expanded upon under President Obama.


Pundits and policymakers on both the "left" and "right" of the Western political spectrum have made arguments for continued, even expanded US war with Syria, simply behind the smokescreen of varying partisan narratives. In the end, however, the Middle Eastern nation's overthrow - and failing that - its incremental and systematic division and destruction, remains Washington's ultimate endgame.

President-Elect Trump's Surrounded by Eager Warmongers  

President-elect Donald Trump's campaign for the past 2 years or so has been openly guided by elements of Washington's political establishment often referred to as Neo-Conservatives. This includes former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director during the Bill Clinton administration, James Woolsey, an avid supporter of US war with Iran who served as Trump's adviser on national security, defense and intelligence, Politico would report.

Together with Woolsey, Trump has either invited in or courted other members of the so-called Neo-Conservative establishment including former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

Joining them is media personality Steven Bannon of Breitbart News, the establishment's "right cover" retrenched within what is otherwise the independent and increasingly influential alternative media.

Woolsey, Bolton, Giuliani, and Gingrich have all lobbied for years as advocates for war with Iran, including lobbying directly for US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a means of propping up a capable, armed, and fanatical proxy with which to indirectly wage war on Iran, much as the US is currently using Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and proxy groups like Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) to wage proxy war on Syria.

Syria's Destruction Plotted Under Bush, Carried Out Under Obama, a Prerequisite for War with Iran...  

In fact, war with Syria has been long determined by US policymakers as an essential prerequisite before waging war on Iran. Syria's inclusion within the Bush-era "Axis of Evil" was in fact announced by Trump-ally John Bolton under the Bush administration in 2002.


Terrorists Targeting Russia in Syria - As Planned

November 4, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Russian forces operating in Syria upon Damascus' request have met several close calls during military and humanitarian missions over the past two months. In late October, Syrian and Russian organised humanitarian corridors came under heavy fire in Aleppo in a brazen attempt by Western-backed militants to prevent civilians from crossing over into government-controlled western Aleppo.


Dan Rivers of UK-based ITV would say in an October 20 Tweet:

Buses ready to 'evacuate' civilians from east - so far no one has crossed. A rebel mortar just landed 50 ft from us. No injuries thank God.
Alex  Thomson of British Channel 4 would also Tweet:
Confirmed - rebels are firing mortars into the checkpoint areas making it extremely dangerous to attempt to leave E Aleppo...
It is important to cite Western journalists present at the corridors dodging incoming mortars particularly because the incoming fire went otherwise unreported by the Western media. The Washington Post would allude to it in an article strategically titled, "Russia says Aleppo escape corridors under fire," in an attempt to make the claims appear to be baseless Russian propaganda.

Then early this month, Russian helicopters came under fire by designated foreign terrorist organisation, the Islamic State in western Syria with Newsweek in its article, "ISIS Claims to Have Shot Russian Helicopter," claiming:
Russia’s Ministry of Defense confirmed militants hit one of its aircraft during a flight in Syria, but denied reports of any fatalities in the incident, Russian state news agency Itar-Tass reports. 

Extremist militant group Islamic State (ISIS) reported via their news agency Amaq they had destroyed a Russian attack helicopter in Syria’s Homs Governorate using guided missiles on Thursday, according to news website SITE Intelligence.
And again, strategically, Newsweek decides to conclude its article by stating:
The Russian government has come under heavy scrutiny for not upholding a ceasefire agreement and continuing military operations in Syria, in support of the Assad regime.

Could these serendipitous setbacks for Russia simply be a coincidence? Or are they the manifestation of Western desires to remove Russia from the Syrian conflict by targeting its forces by proxy?


Has CIA's Plot to "Covertly" Kill Russians in Syria Come to Pass?

August 9, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Former acting director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Michael Morell during a televised interview with American talk show host Charlie Rose, openly conspired to commit a raft of war crimes in Syria, suggesting that the US should take measures to "covertly" kill Russians and Iranians through armed proxies on the ground.


He also suggested targeting Syria's senior leadership through a series of terrorist attacks in and around Damascus, according to CBS News.

During the interview, Morell would state:
I'd give them the things that they need to both go after the Assad government but also to have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia'a militia who were killing American soldiers. The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price. 
Charlie Rose would then interrupt Morell to clarify by stating:
You make them pay the price by killing Russians? And killing Iranians? 
To which Morell replied emphatically:
Yes. Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this. Right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. 
Morell's plans echo those laid out by other US policymakers, including those at the Brookings Institution.

And indeed, this appears to be precisely what the US has already been doing. At least two Russian helicopters have been shot down over Syria. The first near the Syrian city of Palmyra by terrorists from the self-proclaimed Islamic State using what Russian sources claimed was a US-made TOW anti-tank missile system, which is also capable of shooting down slow, low-flying aircraft.


The second more recently was over territory in Syria's northwestern Idlib province controlled by US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation, Jabhat Al Nusra. The helicopter was engaged in humanitarian operations relieving a town besieged by Western-backed militant groups.

Nursa forces are now leading a US-backed offensive on the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Both incidents appear to be the precise manifestation of Morell's admitted conspiracy to kill Russians covertly, with Moscow apparently having gotten the message, and subsequently relaying it to the rest of the world by linking the incidents to US-armed terrorist organisations.

NATO: Lying All the Way to Barbarossa

July 11, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - 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 global-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.

Turkey's "Apology" to Russia to be Tested on Syria's Border

June 29, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The Washington Post summarizes the recent apology offered to Russia by Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in its article, "Turkish president apologizes for downing of Russian warplane last year." It reports:
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized Monday for the downing of a Russian warplane in November and called for Russia and Turkey to mend a bilateral relationship that has become openly hostile over the incident. 

One Russian pilot was killed last year when two Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian Su-24 warplane over Turkey’s border with Syria in an unexpected clash that Russian President Vladi­mir Putin called a “stab in the back administered by the accomplices of terrorists.”

 Additionally, the Washington Post would note:
In a statement, Erdogan’s press secretary said Russia and Turkey “have agreed to take necessary steps without delay to improve bilateral relations,” specifically noting regional crises and the fight against terrorism. 
Indeed, the fight against terrorism does truly require Turkey's aid. And its aid in this fight, particularly along the Turkish-Syrian border will serve as the true measure of Ankara's sincerity regarding its apology and regret for Russia's downed SU-24 warplane.

Turkey Has Enabled this Conflict, It Can Prove It's Sorry by Ending It  

As revealed by Turkey's own foreign minister in a Washington Times article titled, "Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out," it was admitted that:
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.
In other words, Turkey's own government admits that Islamic State (IS) fighters, weapons and equipment are coming from Turkey, bound for Raqqa, which should make pundits, the press, politicians and the general public alike wonder why then Turkey along with its partners in the Persian Gulf, Europe and North America are fighting the Islamic State in Syria, rather than simply interdicting them within what is essentially NATO territory before they even reach Syria to begin with.

US Seeks Direct Confrontation with Russia in Syria

June 21, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The US has recently accused Russia of bombing what it calls "US-backed rebels" in southern Syria. CBS News in their article, "Russia ignores warnings, bombs U.S.-backed Syrian rebel group," would claim:

On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group that's backed by the U.S.

The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings.

  More alarming is what the US claimed happened next. CBS News would further claim:

Two American F-18 jet fighters were dispatched to provide air cover for the troops on the ground as they tried to evacuate their casualties. By the time the F-18s arrived, the Russian planes were headed away, but were still close enough to see.
But when the F-18s broke away to refuel, the Russians returned for a second bombing run. Another call went out to the Russian command center in Syria, demanding that the planes wave off.

The crew of an airborne command post tried to contact the Russian pilots directly but got no response. The Su-34s conducted another bombing run, leaving a small number of opposition fighters dead on the ground.
Neither CBS News nor the US Department of Defense ever explained why the US believes it is entitled to send armed militants over the borders and into a sovereign nation, or why it believes a sovereign nation and its allies are not entitled to confront and neutralize them or why US aircraft are entitled to fly over Syrian airspace without the authorization of the Syrian government.

In other words, the US is vocally complaining about its serial violations of international law and norms finally (allegedly) being confronted and put to an end by Russian military forces.

But Did Russia Even Attack America's Armed Invaders? 
Russia however, has denied US accusations. CNN's article, "Russia denies bombing U.S.-backed Syrian rebels near Jordan border," states:
Russia's Defense Ministry denied bombing U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces in a recent military operation near the Jordania border, according to a statement released on Sunday. 

The Kremlin response comes after U.S. and Russian military officials held a video conference to discuss Thursday's strikes. 
As is characteristic of all US claims regarding its multiple, ongoing foreign acts of military aggression, the most recent row in Syria is heavy on rhetoric and light on evidence. Had Russia attacked armed militants invading Syrian territory, it would have been well within its rights to do so, however it has claimed it hasn't. The burden of proof is on the US.

Turkey Wants to Normalize Relations With Russia - For Free?

June 8, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Every schoolchild knows that in order to makeup one must first offer a sincere apology. They must also be perceived as sincerely regretting whatever offense it was they committed, and show interest in not repeating such an offense or compounding it with similarly antisocial behavior. If such a notion is easily understood by a schoolchild, how come the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears not to know this?


To answer this question, one must read the narrative provided by the Washington-London establishment. Articles like the BBC's "Can Russia and Turkey heal rift?" provides useful insight.

The article claims:
[Turkish President Erdogan] also said he wanted to improve ties with Russia but that he did not understand what kind of "first step" Moscow was expecting. 

Russia's President Vladimir Putin was clear about that: Moscow expects a formal and public apology from Turkey and also compensation for the jet incident. 

Not something that Ankara seems likely to do.  
To explain why something so simple is not something Ankara is likely to do, the BBC would elaborate by explaining that there is no "international" pressure on Ankara to do so. For long-time readers of news services like the BBC, they will realize that the term "international" actually refers to the US, UK and EU exclusively.

There is no pressure on Turkey from Washington, London and Brussels specifically because the downing of Russia's warplane over Syria was part of a wider proxy war these centers of power have been waging in Syria against both Damascus and ultimately against Moscow.

The BBC also noted that:
As Russia maintained a de facto no-fly zone in northern Syria by the Turkish border, Turkey lost its ability to give air support to Syrian rebels or protect its borders from Islamic State (IS) militants' shelling. 
However, this is a transparent falsehood. IS has long been suspected of using Turkish territory as a safe haven and springboard into Syria. More recently, this has become painfully obvious and a point of humiliating contention for Ankara. Ankara is clearly being left holding the most toxic aspects of Washington's proxy war against Syria, including complicity in propping up IS.

IS "shelling" into Turkey resembles less of a genuine threat to Turkish security, and more of an updated version of a conspiracy revealed by the International Business Tribune (IBT) in which Ankara planned to attack its own territory from Syria to help justify cross border military incursions into Syria by Turkish forces.

Everyone's Paying For America's War on Russia, Including America

US sanctions aren't just hurting everyone including the US, they are accomplishing nothing. 
June 6, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The US State Department's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) notified readers of a diplomacy campaign by the United States aimed at "urging" Europe to maintain sanctions against Russia. While the US claims the necessity of these sanctions are self-evident and beneficial to the US and Europe, such campaigns would not be needed if that were truly the case.

Image: Ukraine's own industries have been the first to collapse, not Russia's, amid US-led sanctions on Moscow.

The article titled, "U.S. Sends Envoy To Urge Europe To Maintain Russian Sanctions," states:

The United States is dispatching an envoy to Paris and Berlin on June 7 and 8 to try to convince European allies "of the importance of maintaining sanctions pressure on Russia," the U.S. Treasury said on June 3.
The sanctions, RFE/RL claims, are a result of Russia's involvement in neighboring Ukraine's downward spiral, which ironically enough, began not with Russian involvement but with that of America. Between 2013-2014 the United States, with its own senators traveling to Ukraine and taking the stage at US-backed protests in Kiev, quite literally propelled a violent Neo-Nazi putsch into power.

Since then, Ukraine has unraveled. Rather than taking responsibility for yet another failed US intervention, US policymakers have instead decided to shift the blame on Moscow. The ability to hold up US-EU sanctions against Russia as a means of legitimizing this shift of responsibility is key to the continued underpinning of Western support for the current regime in Kiev, and Washington's continued belligerence toward Moscow.

US Sanctions are a Geopolitical Wrecking Ball 
Like a geopolitical wrecking ball, US intervention in Ukraine first destabilized and destroyed Ukraine's economy, before brushing into Russia and now with sanctions ongoing ever since, the effects have swung back to hit Europe and even the United States itself.

Ukraine since Soviet days has enjoyed several notable accomplishments in the field of heavy industry. The legendary Anatov aircraft company is headquartered in Ukraine and produces some of the largest heavy lift aircraft in the world.

The New York Times in 2014 would report in its article, "Aviation Giant Is Nearly Grounded in Ukraine," that:
The crisis with Russia that erupted in February terminated Antonov’s most promising, albeit already troubled, joint venture: a short-takeoff, heavy-lift plane that the Russian military had sought for years. 
Antonov was not alone. With the rupture, Ukraine, among the world’s top 10 arms exporters, lost the market that spurred the development of its military industry. 
Economic and military experts said Antonov’s troubles epitomized the twin problems plaguing state-run companies in Ukraine, particularly the military sector, as it tries to slip Russia’s gravitational pull and hitch its fortunes to Europe.
Though the New York Times attempts to place the blame squarely on Russia, the reality is that Ukraine has an inescapable historical, cultural, technological and socioeconomic relationship with neighboring Russia, a relationship being artificially severed by a likewise artificial regime in Kiev.

Image: The first and perhaps last Ukrainian-made tanks to arrive in Thailand as Bangkok shifts to Chinese alternatives amid Kiev's faltering leadership. 
The primary problem facing this US-European prodded shift is that the defense industry Ukraine was a part of, represented and benefited from mirroring that of the US and Europe. Attempting to integrate itself with the US and Europe is unlikely, and instead what will follow is the liquidation of Ukraine's economic strength.

The New York Times notes that Ukraine also was a prolific weapons developer and manufacturer, among the top 10 in the world. Nations around the world sought Ukrainian systems, including armored personnel carriers and main battle tanks because of comparable characteristics to Russian and Chinese systems.

Thailand: Big Hopes for New Economic Ties with Russia

May 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - During the upcoming Russia-ASEAN Summit (May 19-20) to be held in Sochi, Russia, additional talks will be held with Southeast Asian nations seeking to bolster ties with Russia, who has until recently played a disproportionately minor role in Asia relative to the United States.



Diversifying Economic Ties 

It should be understood that Western special interests seeking global hegemony are driven first and foremost by economic ambitions. Political and military operations augment and run parallel to attempts to expand and dominate nations and regions of the planet economically. Such ambitions are meticulously planned out by policy think-tanks underwritten by corporate-financier interests, and sold to the public by corporate-dominated media campaigns.

In other words, the realm of economics is simply another dimension these special interests wage their war of hegemony within.

Therefore, for smaller nations like Southeast Asia's Thailand, operating in contradiction to US interests both in the region and within Thailand itself incurs predictable punitive measures from Wall Street and Washington - including coordinated media campaigns to undermine the nation politically, US-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) undermining the nation socially, and various forms of economic warfare to target the nation financially. Over-dependence on economic ties with the West are easily used as leverage over what should otherwise be a sovereign, independent nation.

Russia-ASEAN Summit: Posturing or Power Play?

May 17, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Earlier this year, despite immense fanfare, the US-ASEAN Summit held in Sunnylands, California ended in a fizzle rather than a bang. Little of substance emerged from and admittedly "symbolic" summit, and the US even went as far as criticizing guests as they departed - lecturing them regarding "democracy" and "human rights."


Coupled with this send-off designed to humiliate, was the US State Department's various funded media fronts operating in each respective ASEAN state, mocking and denigrating ASEAN leaders who have fallen from Washington's favor.

Far from another step toward fostering better relations between Washington and Asia as prescribed by the US "pivot to Asia," it was instead a transparent attempt to empty out the resources of the region via compromising and coercive free trade agreements - more specifically, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - and line up an unwilling Southeast Asia as an adversarial proxy against Beijing - a notion none save for Washington attending the summit found appealing.

In reality, a summit can only bear equitable outcomes for all involved when a balance of power and leverage exists between all parties in attendance, thus making concessions possible, even desirable and above all beneficial to all.

Washington represents special interests with an enormous, lopsided amount of power and influence, backed in turn, by networks set up in each respective ASEAN member by US special interests to undermine and coerce each government to capitulate to US demands. Entire political fronts underwritten by Washington through the US State Department and an extensive network of faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) exist to pressure and eventually overrun each state, creating for all intents and purposes a region of client regimes representing Washington, not the people they actually rule over.

Under such conditions, events like the US-ASEAN Summit represents a bully lining up his victims in an uncomfortable public display designed to make coercion look like cooperation.

Could a Russia-ASEAN Summit Provide an Alternative?

Later this month Russia is to host its own version of a joint ASEAN summit. In addition to the Russia-ASEAN Summit, there will be various bilateral meetings between Russian leaders and respective ASEAN states, including Thailand.


Russia, unlike the US, does not possess extensive extraterritorial networks of NGOs dedicated to subverting and coercing foreign governments. It has no historical or current presence in Asia militarily, unlike the US who is permanently occupying Japan, building bases in the Philippines, and regularly provokes security crises in the South China Sea. Russia spends a fraction of what the US does on its military overall, and cultivates a multipolar, non-interventionist worldview in direct contrast to America's "intentional order" it places itself atop.

In reality, Russia represents for ASEAN a much more equitable partner to deal with, not only directly for mutual economic and political benefit, but also as a means of balancing stronger relations and alternative economic opportunities against uncompromising hegemony imposed by Washington.

Stronger ties with Russia could offer ASEAN the ability to leverage more from the US, if not offer an exit to inequitable impositions altogether.

US Meddling in Thailand Boosts Bangkok-Moscow Ties

May 4, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called "Pivot to Asia" serving as the current underpinning of American foreign policy in Asia has been repeatedly exposed as a continuation of a decades-old cynical region-wide US gambit to encircle and contain China while establishing military, sociopolitical, and economic hegemony over China's neighbors, particularly those in East and Southeast Asia.


US proxies have long held power in the Philippines and Japan, while Myanmar has recently found itself under direct Western influence through US-British proxy Aung San Suu Kyi and her army of US-British funded political fronts and faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Other nations, including Malaysia and Indonesia have encountered increasing hostility from the "pivoting" United States as they choose closer ties to China in exchange for infrastructure and meaningful economic relations versus the West's non-negotiable "free trade agreements" and one-sided military "partnerships."

Thailand finds itself geographically, historically, and geopolitically at the center of this "pivot." Historically, Thailand remains the only Southeast Asian state to avoid European or American colonization. It has accomplished this by striking a delicate balancing act between various opposing hegemonic forces in the region.

More recently, it has weathered over 10 years of political instability brought about by US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra who served as prime minister from 2001-2006, with his brother-in-law and sister served as nepotist stand-ins up to 2014 when finally he and his political party were completely removed from power by a peaceful military coup.

During Shinawatra's time in power, he would serve Western interests well - sending Thai troops to participate in the unpopular and illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, hosting the CIA's atrocious rendition program on Thai soil, and attempting to ramrod through a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.

Since Shinawatra's initial removal from power in 2006 and up to and including today, he has received unswerving support from some of the largest lobbying firms in Washington including his former Carlyle Group associate James Baker,  Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Robert Amsterdam, and notorious Neo-Conservative Kenneth Adelman. It is clear that the US seeks to put Shinawatra back into power, or at the very least, use his political front to divide and weaken Thailand as much as possible to gain additional regional leverage.

Thailand now finds itself at the end of a US-European campaign to isolate and shame the nation for dismantling the foreign-backed political networks of Thaksin Shinawatra. Western headlines portray Thailand as an international pariah, when in reality, its increasingly closer relations with Bejing alone equates to the support of a nation that - by itself - represents more people than the US and EU combined. But Beijing is not Thailand's only potential ally. There is another.