The Pentagon is to propose quadrupling its budget for European defence in 2017 in the light of "Russian aggression", US Defence Secretary Ash Carter says.

He described Russia as a growing challenge for the US.

Relations between Russia and the West have plummeted since Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in March 2014.

The Pentagon will also propose a 50% increase in spending on the campaign against so-called Islamic State (IS).

Mr Carter said US forces engaged in an air campaign against IS in Iraq and Syria were "starting to run low" on laser-guided missiles and "smart bombs".

Moving closer to a new Cold War

Nato bolsters Eastern Europe

"So we're investing $1.8bn (£1.2bn) in 2017 to buy over 45,000 more of them," he said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington.

On Europe, Mr Carter said increased funds would allow greater numbers of troops to be deployed to European bases, as well as more training and exercises with allies.

"We're taking a strong and balanced approach to deter Russian aggression," he said. "We haven't had to worry about this for 25 years, and while I wish it were otherwise, now we do."

read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35476180

On January 25th, which was the date when peace talks on Syria were to start, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that the organization founded by Osama bin Laden admirer, Zahran Alloush, represent the anti-Assad forces in the upcoming Syrian peace talks, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov very reluctantly accepted.Alloush had founded and led the jihadist organization, Jaysh al-Islam. Wikipedia says “Jaysh al-Islam ex-leader Zahran Alloush gave a speech on the merits of Hajj in 2013 and praised Usama bin Laden, addressing him by the honorific ‘Sheikh’ and the honorific ‘rahimahu Allah. … Alloush addressed the Al-Qaeda organization Jabhat al-Nusra as ‘our brothers’.” Al-Nusra had helped in carrying out a U.S.-Turkish-Saudi-Qatari arranged sarin gas attack in August 2013 that President Obama blamed on Assadand that Obama still cites as his reason and justification for bombing Assad’s army. Even when Obama entered the White House in 2009, he was aiming to find a way to remove Syria’s President, Assad, from power. Setting up this gas-attack (and blaming it on Assad) turned out to be the way to make that possible.Al Jazeera announced on 25 December 2015 that “Russian Air Raids Kill Prominent Rebel Commander”Alloush. Both Russia and Assad now will have to negotiate with Mohammad Alloush, his survivor. Even French leader Francois Hollande supports Alloush — despite the recent jihadist attacks in France. Apparently, anything to get rid of Russia’s ally Assad is okay with Western leaders.

read more: http://off-guardian.org/2016/01/27/u-s-allies-make-bin-laden-admirer-a-negotiator-in-syria-peace-talks/

 

America’s aristocracy is determined to take over Russia. Ever since the end of the Soviet Union and of its communism, the Cold War has become replaced by an increasingly hot war in which the U.S. and its allies are expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders, and imposing against Russia what the U.S. refused to accept being imposed upon itself during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis: nuclear checkmate!

The direction of aggression since the end of communism has reversed, and the aggression itself has considerably intensified. Though the ideological excuse for the conflict is thus entirely gone, the aggression against Russia is far more than the Soviet Union ever dreamt of even trying against America. It’s so blatant. This is raw aggression, for nothing else than conquest — ideology has nothing to do with it. First, Russia’s allies are assassinated or otherwise overthrown; then, Russia is to be in the cross-hairs, isolated as much as possible: Russia’s ally Saddam Hussein in Iraq was killed in 2003; Russia’s ally Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was killed in 2011; America and its allies (Sunni-fundamentalist nations Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) tried to kill Russia’s ally the non-sectarian Shiite Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2013 but failed; and the U.S. perpetrated a coup that overthrew the Russia-friendly President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014. In each instance, chaos and an enduring hell for the victim-nation’s public have resulted, but America’s rulers are psychopaths, and they keep up the propaganda and the lies alleging the U.S. regime to be good and the regimes they overthrow to have been bad and ‘deserving’ of the American-and-allied aggression. The regimes they overthrew were bad, but not nearly so vile as America has imposed after them. In Syria, Russia itself interceded in order to defeat the jihadists that the U.S.-led operation has been using to bring down Assad. Only the U.S-and-allied nonstop propaganda fools the publics in U.S.-allied countries to think that their own rulers were ‘well-intentioned’ but ‘misled by poor intelligence.’ The suckers don’t even notice that it happens again and again: there is clearly a pattern to these ‘mistakes.’ These weren’t mistakes; they were aggressions, for spreading conquest. This is an increasingly hot war; to call it ‘the new Cold War’ is to lie, yet again.

read more: http://off-guardian.org/2016/01/05/americas-now-aggressive-war-against-russia/

Despite some quarters blaming over-production and under-usage of oil and gas, on global warming adjustments and present economic woes, I still maintain that the whole picture here is a lot directed at "making Russia suffer", including the over production of the Saudis which is sending them broke...

 

Most of the BIG oil companies want to put their hands on the Russian oil and gas fields. They tried before and Putin threw them out. They don't like Putin. 

 

Though Putin does not have a great leverage against the American lies — because most of us in the west support these crappy porkies — he still is cleverer than most. He has done a better job at saving Russia from the wolves than Gorbachev, Stalin and Lenin have — in far more discreet difficult situations. 

 

The Obama administration has found itself increasingly backed into a corner by Russian bombing in Syria that its diplomacy has so far appeared powerless to stop.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Friday that he has been in continuous contact with the Russians and that the next few days will determine “whether or not people are serious” about a cease-fire, humanitarian access to are areas besieged by fighting and the revival of peace talks suspended this week.

 

In the meantime, he said, while “civilians, including women and children, [are] being killed in large numbers” and humanitarian access remains denied, the bombing is “not going to stop just by whining about it.”

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said publicly that his government saw no reason to stop the airstrikes, which Russia says are targeting “terrorist” groups, including those fighting with the Syrian opposition against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-is-preparing-for-possible-air-drops-of-humanitarian-supplies-over-syria/2016/02/05/552e689c-cc14-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ussyria-152pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

---------------

 

After having encouraged an all-out war against Assad by Al Qaeda and terrorist sundries, the US finds its plan has gone to shit. In order to stop things going worse for "its chosen side', the US tried to cobble a peace plan or at least a cease fire.  The Russians have no bar of it, for good reasons. Either way some innocent people will suffer and get killed but at least the Saudi backed terrorist won't win — a victory of terrorism which would mean more misery for Syrians. Many People are now rejoicing in Syria, BECAUSE the Russian backed government forces LIBERATED THEM from the thugs sponsored by Saudi Arabia — and the USA.

 

 

 

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) offered other terrorist groups operating in Northern Aleppo province to give up infighting and start a coalition to slow down the growing trend of the Syrian army victories in the region in recent weeks.

ISIL’s offer includes a 12-paragraph proposal issued after the Syrian army, popular forces and Hezbollah backed up by the Russian air force and Iran’s military recommendations and strategies scored a growing number of victories in almost all lines of engagement, specially in the provinces of Aleppo, Lattakia, Hama and Damascus.

The ISIL proposal includes a ceasefire and establishment of a coalition of all terrorist groups that will last 6 months. The internationally blacklisted terrorist group has given rival militant groups one week to respond to its offer.

The ISIL decision was made after the Syrian army managed to break the siege of strategic Nubl and al-Zahra towns in Aleppo after four years.

Syrian Army troops alongside Hezbollah fighters drove the militant groups back from their main supply lines near the border with Turkey and imposed full control over the highway.

The Syrian army men and Hezbollah ultimately cut off the terrorist groups’ main supply route from the Turkish city of Gaziantep, marking the first time in nearly 3 years that they have had a presence along the Aleppo-Gaziantep Highway that stretches through the Aleppo province’s Northern countryside. […].

Reports coming in that ISIS’ proposal was already accepted and is being implemented:

#Breakingnews: #ISIS & Jabha al-Shamiyah concluded a cessation of hostility, opening "borders", supply oil to rebels, exchange prisoners+

— Elijah J. Magnier (@EjmAlrai) February 7, 2016

http://off-guardian.org/2016/02/07/isis-to-rival-militants-in-syria-join-us-to-stop-assads-forces-advance/

 

 

Meanwhile the Russians are determined not be played by the US like in Afghanistan 30 years ago. They are determined to eliminate the opposition to Assad — or at least make them lay down their weapons — and destroy ISIS in the same swoop. Russia is bringing in four Su35Es on top of its other military aircrafts and S-400 advance air defence systems to Syria, protecting its interests against Turkey and NATO and against ISIL...

 

 

Justin Bronk writes for AL Jazeera:

 

 

Russia is thought to have no more than 40 Su-35 fighters in frontline service so the deployment of four aircraft with crews to Syria is also a fairly substantial undertaking for a Russian military which is struggling to modernise in the face of economic recession and very low oil prices.

It further illustrates how the confrontation with Turkey has become central to Putin's campaign to force the West to recognise Russia as one of the world's major military powers once more.

Justin Bronk is a Research Fellow in Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/analysis-russia-piling-pressure-turkey-160207065649214.html

 

Actually, the author of this piece has not looked at the present developments of Russian defence systems. The Russian military is not struggling everywhere across all disciplines. It is modernising possibly faster than the US military. The Su35 is the best plane for its purpose. But then, the article by Bronks is a point of view expressed for a Western audience designed to belittle the Russians while the Russian tactics are far clearer than those of the US which are to say the least confused and hypocritical, and would let the extremist terrorist Sunnis take over Syria on behalf of the Saudis. Amen.

The major worry is what the US is going to do about Russian/Syrian successes in Syria, where the US is not welcome.

 

Hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians in opposition-held areas in Aleppo city are under threat of being cut off from basic food supplies amid expectations of a looming siege by government forces, the United Nations has warned.

The UN said on Tuesday that it is worried government advances could block the last link for civilians in rebel-held parts of Aleppo with the main Turkish border crossing, which has long served as the lifeline for those areas in Syria.

"It would leave up to 300,000 people, still residing in the city, cut off from humanitarian aid unless...access could be negotiated," the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said.

"If government advances around the city continue", it said, "local councils in the city estimate that some 100,000 to 150,000 civilians may flee," it said.

Aleppo was once Syria's biggest city and home to two million people.

Syrian government forces, backed by Russian air strikes and Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, have launched a major offensive over the past week in the countryside around Aleppo, which has been divided between government and rebel control for years.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/aleppo-siege-cut-food-supplies-300000-160209205643204.html

 

The easiest solution would be for the city of Aleppo to surrender under UN supervision to limit the possible reprisals from the Syrian army. Supplies would flow in. Would this be a real prospect of improvement? Of course.

 

 

The Syrian Government has responded to the latest United Nations report documenting torture and mass killings in the country's prisons, saying it has "no credibility".

Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, the top advisor to president Bashar al Assad, told Lateline the findings from the UN Commission of Inquiry were "totally unfounded".

"This report is as reliable as the claim that there was nuclear and mass destruction weapons in Iraq before occupying Iraq," she said.

The report, released earlier this week, accused the Syrian Government of carrying out "extermination" in its jails and painted a horrific picture of makeshift detention centres run by groups such as Islamic State.

She hit out at the head of the UN commission, Paulo Pinheiro, for not actually visiting Syria but went on to say this was because the regime would not let him enter.

"Paulo Pinheiro was not allowed to come to Syria because we know how biased he is," she said.

"[The UN] have never been to Syria, they haven't been talking to Syrian people."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-12/syrian-government-advisor-bouthaina-shaaban-rejects-un-report/7161732

 

 

Peter Oborne writes in The Spectator:

I had been trying to get to Aleppo for ages, but was unable to do so because rebel activity had cut off the city from the outside world. Syrian government military successes at the start of January meant there was at last a safe road. I hired a driver, was allocated a government minder (very handy at checkpoints), and booked into a hotel. Driving north from Damascus, we picked up a 22-year-old Syrian army lieutenant called Ali, returning to his unit after eight days’ leave with his family.

We drove through Homs — miles and miles of utter devastation — and then east on to the Raqqa road. Ali told me that he had been assigned to Kuweires military airport east of Aleppo, which was under siege for three years from Al Nusra and Islamic State forces. He spoke of daily firefights against Isis fighters. For long periods his unit was entirely cut off. When Ali was shot in the chest there was no question of being airlifted out. He convalesced in a field hospital. Eventually the siege was lifted and Ali could return home and see his parents for the first time in more than two years. ‘The secret behind Kuweires was the loyalty of the soldiers. We had no tanks. I lost 82 comrades,’ said Ali. Now his unit is mopping up Islamic State positions round Al-Bab to the East of Aleppo.

When we reached Aleppo there had been no electricity for 112 days and no water for almost two weeks. Improvised mortars — gas canisters explosive enough to bring down buildings — can fall anywhere. Seventeen of the giant student dormitory blocks at the university are now set aside for displaced families from rebel-held areas. All the families have terrifying stories to tell about intimidation and murder at the hands of fanatical Al Nusra, Isis or Free Syrian army forces. These refugees are everywhere. I knocked on the door of Baron’s Hotel, the famous establishment in downtown Aleppo where Agatha Christie wrote Murder on the Orient Express. There I learnt the sad news that the charismatic owner, Armen Mazloumian, had died of a heart attack the previous week. His widow Rubina told me that he had refused to close down his hotel when the crisis began, opening his doors instead to victims of jihadi terror from the countryside.

Aleppo’s favourite film this winter is Bridge of Spies, Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece about Cold War espionage. It is a movie that Aleppans vividly understand. They live in a place where survival means crossing enemy lines to negotiate deals about water, electricity, hostages. Aleppo has characters whose lives are even more heroic than James Donovan, the lawyer played by Tom Hanks who crossed into East Berlin to negotiate the release of Gary Powers. At the education ministry I met a schoolmistress who had just made a five-day journey through endless Islamic State checkpoints to collect her pay cheque. She was about to return home, fully conscious of what lay ahead. Syrian Army troops are advancing on her town. ‘Islamic State will turn us into human shields,’ she told me.

My time in Aleppo coincided with the turning point in the Syrian civil war. Assad’s forces, with the help of Russian air power, cut off the line of supply from the Turkish border to the jihadist forces encircling the government-held areas of the city. Deprived of fresh fighters, guns and ammunition from their Turkish sponsors, Al Nusra and other groups encircling the city are, over the long term, doomed. Islamic State, which sells its oil through Turkey, will start to run short of money. Think of Stalingrad in 1942: the besiegers are now the besieged.

When I returned to London I read in the newspapers that this turn of events was regarded as a calamity. Of course, it does depend on your point of view. Government-held Aleppo was under siege from jihadi forces until late last year. That was never reported. Now the areas of Aleppo held by the rebels are coming under siege. That is reported in the western press as a catastrophe, and has brought a concerned response from the British Foreign Secretary.

Again and again I was asked: why is Britain supporting the terrorists? Western media rightly emphasise Assad’s atrocities. But the Aleppans I spoke to regularly pointed out that under Assad’s regime women can walk alone down the street and pursue a career; that a broadly liberal curriculum is taught in the schools; that Christians can worship at their churches and Muslims in their mosques. These Aleppans have lived under siege from groups hellbent on the imposition of a mutant version of Wahhabi Islam. They know that many of their fighters are foreigners whose ambition, encouraged by Turkish and Saudi sponsors, is to extinguish Aleppo’s tolerant culture and drive every last Christian out of the city. These Aleppans have a point. When the history of the Syrian civil war is finally written, historians will indeed have to confront the question: why has it been British government policy to turn the ancient city of Aleppo into present-day Kandahar...

http://off-guardian.org/2016/02/11/uk-columnist-in-aleppo-the-besiegers-are-now-the-besieged/

 

 

 

After five months of suffering and destruction under unrelenting attacks by Russian aircraft, the Syrian people have at last received some good news: an agreement announced early Friday morning in Munich between the United States and Russia to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to besieged Syrian cities, followed by at least a temporary cessation of hostilities.

As Secretary of State John Kerry noted, “The real test is whether all parties honor those commitments.” Given the brutality and dictatorial ambitions of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and the duplicitous behavior of his chief ally, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, that is a huge if. But for the moment it is worth celebrating a step toward what could be the first sustained halt in the fighting in Syria since the civil war began in 2011.

 

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/opinion/a-chance-to-halt-the-brutality-in-syria.html?_r=0

 

Of course the NYT forgets that for the last four years, Aleppo has been under siege from rebels including Al Qaeda and ISIS allied forces. Of course the NYT forgets that the US diplomacy is to support the rebels against the Syrian government of Assad. So the NYT has the gall to say that :

From the start, Mr. Putin has played a duplicitous hand. While pretending that Russian military action was aimed at the Islamic State and other terrorists, he has overwhelmingly attacked anti-Assad rebels — with an eye to consolidating Mr. Assad’s power, so that Russia can maintain its Mediterranean port in Syria and assert a leading role in the Middle East.

 

Of course, WE all know that PUTIN does not play a duplicitous hand. We know that Putin's position is clear about what he wants: that is to say he wants Assad to stay in power and retain the mix of ethnicity in Syria contrary to the AMERICAN policy which is clear as black pudding — since the Americans want the extremist Sunnis, backed by the Saudis and ISIS to take over Syria, while having a policy mishmash of finding ISIS a bit over the top while not really wanting to get rid of it, because it also is a thorn in the side of Iraq. As we know since the removal of Saddam from the yanks, Iraq has shifted away from the Sunnis to favour its majority Shia. The Americans are pissed off that they got snookered in Iraq and now in Syria.

 

The NYT editorial is a lot of shit... 

 

, 

 

Ian Black Middle East editor and Kareem Shaheen in Beirut
Saturday 13 February 2016 04.22 AEDT
Last modified on Saturday 13 February 2016 11.53 AEDT

Bashar al-Assad has dealt a swift blow to international efforts to secure a ceasefire, deliver aid and promote a negotiated solution to the war in Syria, vowing to regain control of the entire country and warning that it could still “take a long time”.

The Syrian president was speaking to the AFP news agency in Damascus on Thursday, hours before an agreement was reached in Munich on arranging a cessation of hostilities and the urgent despatch of food, medicines and other supplies to hundreds of thousands of civilians in besieged areas.

Assad said his armed forces would try to retake all of Syria but added that the involvement of regional players “means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price”. He warned of the possibility of direct intervention by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who back the rebels.

However, the US state department said Assad was “deluded” if he thinks there is a military solution to the war in Syria.

The Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said on Friday that Assad’s removal was vital to defeat Islamic State. “We will achieve it,” he told the Munich security conference.

“It might take three months, it might take six months or three years - but he will no longer carry responsibility for Syria. Period,” he later told newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Assad said it would be possible to end the war “in less than a year” if rebel supply routes from Turkey, Jordan and Iraq were cut. The signs are that Russian airstrikes, which were not mentioned in the Munich statement, are helping him achieve that goal. “The main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey, for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists,” he added.

Russian aircraft were seen in action in northern Syria again on Friday.

The Syrian leader affirmed his readiness to talk – but he offered nothing to the forces who have been seeking to overthrow him since 2011. “We have fully believed in negotiations,” he said. “However, if we negotiate, it does not mean that we stop fighting terrorism. The two tracks are inevitable in Syria.”

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/12/syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-vows-to-retake-whole-country

---------------

The Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said on Friday that Assad’s removal was vital to defeat Islamic State. “We will achieve it,”???????????

 

If you believe that the removal of Assad is vital to the "defeat of ISIS", you've got rock in your head. ISIS is providing support to the rebels against Assad. The US is providing support for ISIS supported rebels:

 

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) offered other terrorist groups operating in Northern Aleppo province to give up infighting and start a coalition to slow down the growing trend of the Syrian army victories in the region in recent weeks.

ISIL’s offer includes a 12-paragraph proposal issued after the Syrian army, popular forces and Hezbollah backed up by the Russian air force and Iran’s military recommendations and strategies scored a growing number of victories in almost all lines of engagement, specially in the provinces of Aleppo, Lattakia, Hama and Damascus.

--------------

 

Gus: The Arab Spring in Syria was started by Sunnis "protesting peacefully" to remove Assad, under the help of agent provocateurs from Saudi Arabia and other Wahhabi outfits. The aim is to take over the country, impose a strict Islamic rule in what was basically an open democracy in Syria. Christians, Alawites and other sects would slowly been eradicated or thrown out. THIS IS THE SAUDI PLAN... And we in the west are helping the Saudis.

The original "protests" escalated because Assad did not want to budge and things turned violent. ISIS was formed under the influence of the Saudis as a foil to the real problem which is the Saudis wanting to wahhabise Syria 100 per cent.

The Russians of course are painted as the bad guys because they are helping Assad stay in power, and the slow deterioration of the situation in Syria which the West was complicit in suddenly got reversed by Russian air power (far more effective than ours and the US) — and the west is now pissed off: their chosen future rulers of Syria, the Saudis via their proxy — the Sunnis of ISIS and other "rebels (terrorists) — have been delayed. So we say the Russians are "killing" civilians. Tough titties. The other side(s) is doing far more harm and planning far more harm than the Russian supported Troops of Assad. YES, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND FIGHTERS WHO ARE SUPPORTING ASSAD IN DEFENDING AGAINST AN ALL OUT WAHHABI ASSAULT STYLE OF GOVERNMENT FOR SYRIA.

It's that simple.

 

If you believed America’s longest war, in Afghanistan, was coming to an end, be advised: It is not.

Departing U.S. commander Gen. John Campbell says there will need to be U.S. boots on the ground “for years to come.” Making good on President Obama’s commitment to remove all U.S. forces by next January, said Campbell, “would put the whole mission at risk.”

“Afghanistan has not achieved an enduring level of security and stability that justifies a reduction of our support. … 2016 could be no better and possibly worse than 2015.” Translation: A U.S. withdrawal would risk a Taliban takeover with Kabul becoming the new Saigon and our Afghan friends massacred. Fifteen years in, and we are stuck.

Nor is America about to end the next longest war in its history: Iraq. Defense Secretary Ash Carter plans to send units of the 101st Airborne back to Iraq to join the 4,000 Americans now fighting there, “ISIS is a cancer,” says Carter. After we cut out the “parent tumor” in Mosul and Raqqa, we will go after the smaller tumors across the Islamic world.

When can Mosul be retaken? “Certainly not this year,” says the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart.

Vladimir Putin’s plunge into the Syrian civil war with air power appears to have turned the tide in favor of Bashar Assad. The “moderate” rebels are being driven out of Aleppo and tens of thousands of refugees are streaming toward the Turkish border.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be enraged with the U.S. for collaborating with Syrian Kurds against ISIS and with Obama’s failure to follow through on his dictate—”Assad must go!”

read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/no-end-to-war-in-sight/

 

Russia bashing has become a favourite mainstream media sport, bolstered by Russia's entry in the Syrian conflict. Brisbane barrister, James O'Neill, has been doing some fact-checking of recent stories by the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor.

PETER HARTCHER, the political and international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald again writes about Russia’s alleged misdeeds in the world. Yet again, as with his previous piece on the same theme, ideology trumps evidence.

In lieu of an earlier desire to impose communism upon the world, that Hartcher tells us was the objective of the Soviet Union, we now have 'coercive nationalism.'

How does this alleged phenomenon manifest itself? First, we are told that Russia is financing extremist political parties in several western European nations 'in a bid to undermine the European Union'.

And the evidence for this claim? Actually, none is offered, although the claim does echo similar claims made by the right wing UK media such as the Daily Telegraph, itself echoing claims made by CIA director James Clapper.

Even if the allegations were true, and it is frankly difficult to see how such activity would serve Russian national interests, Hartcher totally overlooks decades of interference in European domestic affairs by the USA. One will never see Hartcher refer to colour revolutions or Operation Gladio as well documented instances of just such interference.

We are then told that Russian jets are deliberately striking Syrian civilians. The reason for this alleged war crime is to turn them into refugees, who in turn will 'flood' into Europe and thereby 'divide the transatlantic alliance and undermine the European project'.  

Why is Russia bombing Syria? An explanation of the backdrop to the conflict and consequences of this next stage http://t.co/GAAhKUvzzA

— IndependentAustralia (@independentaus) October 8, 2015

The source for this completely fact free claim is none other than John McCain, whose exploits include being photographed with ISIS terrorists. The overwhelming bulk of these refugees were in fact created years before the Russian intervention in September 2015. They were expelled from Turkey as part of a Turkish strategy aimed at blackmailing Europe over Turkey’s application for EU membership.

These issues have been widely discussed in the literature which one would have expected Hartcher, as an “international editor” to be familiar with.

Hartcher then claims that NATO is 'bulking up' their arms in the 'frontier states' between Europe and Russia. These frontier states are said to fear this “coercive nationalism” that Hartcher says constitutes Russian foreign policy.

The “frontier states” Hartcher refers to are for the most part previously members of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet led alliance formed as a counterpoint to NATO and its frequently declared hostility to the Soviet Union.

Hartcher either does not know, or prefers to forget, that U.S. President George Bush Senior promised Russian President Gorbachev that in exchange for Russia not resisting German reunification and the breakup of the old Soviet Union NATO would not advance 'as much as a thumb’s width' to the East.

That promise was immediately broken by Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, and today NATO has multiple bases and nuclear weapons in those former Warsaw Pact nations. Yet Hartcher has the gall to suggest that Russia is the aggressor. In keeping with the tenor of the rest of the article he even suggests, quoting cold war warrior Paul Dibb that Russia’s military doctrine says that it can use nuclear weapons against opposing conventional forces.

Amy Woolf comprehensively demolished this untrue claim in a detailed research paper published in February last year for the Congressional Research Service. If Hartcher, or Dibb for that matter, actually acquainted themselves with the relevant literature they would know the absurdity of their claims. That would not fit the editorial objective however, of demonizing Russia and Mr Putin at every opportunity, regardless of the facts.

Hartcher’s appalling piece of pseudo journalism concludes by quoting Dibb on Syria:

 'Look at the way Putin leapt to take advantage of the situation in Syria. Russia now has to be consulted in any settlement.'

The assumptions built into that single quote are worthy of separate examination in their own right. Suffice to say only at this point that Russia, unlike the U.S., France, UK and Australia, came to the assistance of the sovereign Syrian government at the latter’s invitation.

.@davidonformosa Peter Hartcher: "The regimes in Russia, China and the so-called Islamic State are all fascist." http://t.co/bevBM8HwZc

— Fergus Ryan (@fryan) June 2, 2015

Russia’s military presence in Syria is in accordance with international law, which is more than can be said of the U.S., Australia and others. But international law is not the Australian government’s strong suit, as may be seen in a host of areas.

Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, is currently in Beijing telling the Chinese what they can and cannot do in the South China Sea. Her pronouncements on Australia’s legal basis for being in Syria is manifestly wrong. Just as interesting is her studied silence on the illegality of Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen and threatened attack on Syria, the latter being in addition to the Saudi’s material and other support for ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

Hartcher would do the SMH readers a similar favour if he ceased writing about matters for which he is singularly ill equipped and dangerously ill informed.

James O'Neill is a former academic, and has practiced as a barrister since 1984. He writes on geo-political issues, with a special emphasis on international law and human rights.

https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/more-ill-informed-russia-bashing-by-hartcher-in-the-smh,8697

 

See also:

a modern religious war...

 

On 11 March, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (VC) ruled that Russia must change its law on the Constitutional Court as it relates to allowing the Court to decide on the unenforceability of a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement.

You will recall that the amendments made to the Federal Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation» came into effect on 15 December 2015. The Constitutional Court of Russia decided that the provisions of the Russian Constitution take precedence and therefore no other acts may take priority over them. The law details the procedure necessary should decisions implemented by international bodies violate the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Under this new law, the bodies that must implement the decisions of international courts have been granted the right to ask the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation whether implementing the decision would be in violation of the Constitution. Should the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation find that it would in fact violate the Constitution, it would then declare the decision «unenforceable». And should the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation make such a ruling, then any actions (acts) aimed at implementing the international body’s decision cannot be started or carried out in the Russian Federation. Period.

In opposition to this, the Venice Commission has stated that the right adopted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to rule on the «unenforceability» of international decisions, including ECHR judgements, is incompatible with Russia’s international and legal obligations, «because such empowerment may result in preventing the execution of international decisions in any manner in the Russian Federation».

But here is the most important thing. According to the VC, the inability of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to remove contradictions between the Constitution and international decisions does not absolve the state from its obligation to enforce international decisions. Unnamed lawyers of the Venice Commission are saying that it is the duty of all state bodies to reconcile provisions of the international treaties in force in Russia with the Constitution, for instance through interpretation or even modifying the Constitution.

The Venice Commission is not only calling for Russia to amend its law, but is also suggesting the specific wording that should be used by Russia’s state bodies. For example, it has suggested that articles be deleted according to which no measures will be taken to enforce an international decision declared by the Constitutional Court not to be in conformity with the Constitution. It also states that the Russian law should spell out the duty of the Russian authorities to find alternative measures for executing the international decision.

The Venice Commission has instructed us that, «the Law should make clear that individual measures contained in the European Court’s judgments, such as payment of just satisfaction, may not be the object of an assessment of constitutionality».

But what actually is the Venice Commission that is telling Russia how it should amend its laws?

The Venice Commission is the familiar name given to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, so-called because of the city in which it holds its meetings. The VC was created in 1990 shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and played an «important role in the adoption of constitutions by Eastern European countries that comply with the standards of European constitutional heritage». It is therefore an instrument for the legal absorption of Eastern European countries by the Euro-Atlantic community.

Initially, the commission consisted of a total of 18 lawyers. Now, however, the VC has 60 members and these are not just from member states of the Council of Europe (of which there are 47), but also from non-European countries like the US, Chile, and even territories whose governments have absolutely nothing to do with international law (such as Kosovo).

Worse still is the fact that the Venice Commission is not just made up of international lawyers, but also certain «independent experts who have achieved eminence through their experience in democratic institutions or by their contribution to the enhancement of law and political science». Who these people are exactly is unknown. In any event, among those telling Russia to amend its legislation are people without any kind of legal training such as the deputies of national parliaments and high-ranking officials.

read more: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/03/19/the-venice-commission-against-russia.html

Eurocrats are finding it more difficult these days to blame every negative event and situation in Europe on Russia. That doesn’t stop them trying.

Recently, they’ve been hard at work linking Moscow to the – predominantly Libyan, Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi (in origin) – migrant crisis, despite the fact that Russia only intervened in one of those countries [with its blessing] and America and its NATO appendage bombed all four and invaded two [without].

Russia, and RT in particular, also have been blamed for promoting Brexit, even though a whole lot of the UK popular press (The Daily Mail, The Sun and the The Daily Telegraph to name just a few) is in favor of Britain leaving the EU. Don’t forget the Panama Papers scandal either: Vladimir Putin led initial press coverage, despite not being named at all in the disclosure. At the end he still somehow ended up being the man - according to Western media accounts - behind the apparent conspiracy.

The Dutch referendum on Ukraine was another “blame Russia” event, despite exit polls making it clear that Moscow’s influence on the result was benign. Guess what they cited instead? “The EU's lack of transparency, lack of Ukrainian reform on corruption, fear of eventual EU membership for another large, poor eastern state and internal Dutch disillusion with the country’s elite.” WHOWOUDDATHUNKIT.

Now, the latest attempt to pin all the EU’s failings on Russia is a "Europe Today" TV channel. Whatever this enterprise is supposed to be, it has been proposed by Elmar Brok, the German head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs. Maybe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.

read more: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/342032-europe-today-eu-media/

 

See toon at top...

...

In other words: what Biden is saying, is that, if Trump wins this election, then there is going to be some sudden, unannounced, U.S. government response against Putin, and that only after it is over, will the U.S. government explain to the public why it did what it did.

But, of course, that assumes Americans will still be alive, even if Russians are not; and, so, if the “proportionate” response turns out to be a blitz nuclear attack against Russia, then anyone who is still alive will be wondering: what was it ‘proportionate’ to?

The United States is no longer — at least not in Syria — actually fighting the thing that Trump calls “extremist Islamic terrorism”: we are instead arming Al Qaeda in Syria to overthrow and replace Putin’s ally, Bashar al-Assad, there. All of the U.S. government’s talk against “ISIL” (the Sauds’ preferred acronym for “ISIS”) is mere distraction from the tens of thousands of other jihadist fighters from other jihadist groups that have also been imported by the U.S. and Saudi governments into Syria as Obama’s and the Sauds’ “boots on the ground” to overthrow Assad there. The leadership now for all of those jihadist groups (except for ISIS itself) is, in fact, Al Qaeda in Syria, which has gone under the name “al-Nusra.” Nusra is supplying the leadership now to all the jihadist factions that have been sent into Syria; Nusra is the only jihadist group that possesses the long experience and training in jihad and military matters, which is needed in order to be able to overthrow Assad. Al Qaeda is now America’s essential ally, at doing what the U.S. government most wants to do: overthrow and replace Assad. The U.S. is deadly serious about that intention, as can be seen here from the NBC News preview video of their interview with Biden, from which the above quotations are sourced. Looking at Biden’s face there, one can see that this is deadly serious. This isn’t about sexual aggression — either Donald Trump’s or Bill Clinton’s — it’s about the survival of civilization, or else nuclear war.

There have been many reports in the U.S. press saying that Obama has, ever since at least October 6th, been contemplating an all-out U.S. bombing campaign to bring down Assad. But that would mean war with Russia, which has been actively bombing Nusra and all the other jihadists in Syria. 

Hillary Clinton is urging a “no-fly zone” in Syria, so that we can do to Assad what we did to another ally of Moscow, Muammar Gaddafi. However, when that was done to Gaddafi, Putin stood aside and wasn’t supplying military assistance to Gaddafi, which would have enabled Gaddafi to wipe out the fundamentalist Muslims who were trying to overthrow him. Russia is involved actively, this time, to prevent happening in Syria what happened in Libya. A no-fly zone in Syria would thus mean U.S. war against Russia.

These are tense times.

read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/15/president-obama-threatens-president-...

 

Meanwhile the duplicity of the media in regard to Aleppo is stupifying. As the west sponsored Iraqis are going to "take over" Mosul in Iraq against the ISIS terrorists, to the approval of the Western media, the said same media is blue in the face about the Assad forces supported by the Russians retaking Aleppo from the terrorists (Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS and some terrorists that are "sponsored" by the west itself to complicate matters). Hypocrites !

The US are bastards... including in their bombing of Houthis in Yemen. Michelle Obama might be eloquent but she is talking crap, as behing her hollier than thou back, the US bombs are falling on many innocent people, including the sick, the old and the young and those about to get married...

 

And for good measure:

Ignoring yet another rebel shelling of Aleppo civilians, the US State Secretary has accused Moscow of committing daily “crimes against humanity,” while the UK Foreign Secretary blamed the Assad regime for the “radicalization” of the so-called moderates.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/362979-kerry-johnson-russia-aleppo/

The US Congress’s request to American intelligence agencies to evaluate the "survivability" of Russian and Chinese leaders after a nuclear attack is absurd, global peace activist Helen Caldicott told Sputnik.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The comprehensive study recently mandated by Congress will be carried out by the US intelligence agencies and by STRATCOM, US Strategic Command which is in charge of nuclear forces, according to a little-reported section of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

"This congressional investigation into the survivability of Russian and Chinese leadership in the event of nuclear war is ridiculous," Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the organization that was the co-winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, said.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201702031050300057-us-study-survivability-putin-ridiculous/

 

See toon at top...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Friday slammed US threats to strike Syria as "unacceptable."

"The threats to carry out unilateral military strikes on Syria, including Damascus, recently voiced by the United States, as it was last April based on unsubstantiated accusations against the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, are unacceptable and inadmissible. [We] have clearly said that to US representatives via diplomatic and military channels," Lavrov told reporters.

Earlier this week, US Envoy to UN Nikky Haley threatened a Washington strike against Damascus in the event of chemical weapons being used in Syria.

Responding to Haley's statement, the Russian General Staff said that Moscow's armed forces would respond if the lives of Russian servicemen in Syria were threatened, including in the event of a missile strike on Damascus.

 

Lavrov reiterated Friday the need to distinguish terrorists in Syria from the opposition, urging the United States to fight against terrorists in the besieged enclave of Eastern Ghouta.

"I hope that the US-led coalition realizes the necessity of not fencing off terrorists, as is happening now in Eastern Ghouta, but will fight terrorist groups consistently and on principle," Lavrov said.

The minister stated that the progress achieved at the Astana talks on the Syrian settlement, including due to Russia’s efforts, was not being welcomed by those striving to divide the country into small territories under their control.

 

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201803161062587126-lavrov-coalition-u...