Why is US President Joe Biden letting the Saudi prince who murdered a journalist walk?

The United States government publicly identified Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia as the murderer of an American resident, and then President Joe Biden choked.

Instead of imposing sanctions on MBS, Biden appears ready to let the murderer walk. The weak message to other thuggish dictators considering such a murder is: Please don’t do it, but we’ll still work with you if we have to. The message to Saudi Arabia is: Go ahead and elevate MBS to be the country’s next king if you must.

All this is a betrayal of my friend Jamal Khashoggi and of his values and ours. But even through the lens of realpolitik it’s a missed opportunity to help Saudi Arabia understand that its own interest lies in finding a new crown prince who isn’t reckless and doesn’t kill and dismember journalists.

What should Biden have done?

As a matter of consistency he should have imposed the same sanctions on MBS, including asset freezes and travel bans, that the United States imposed in 2018 on lower-level figures who carried out the murder of Khashoggi. These sanctions should also apply to the stooges and front companies that MBS has used to accumulate assets around the world.

“The key message that should be sent not only to MBS, and others in the Saudi Court and government, but also to other would-be killers of journalists around the world, is that there is a heavy price to pay for such crimes and nowhere to hide,” Agnes Callamard, who as a U.N. official investigated Jamal’s killing, told me.

The United States should also have suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. US law bars military assistance to security units involved in gross human rights abuses, and that is true of security forces under MBS, who also serves as defense minister.

Biden reportedly feared that sanctions on MBS would poison relations with Saudi Arabia. Yes, that’s a legitimate concern, and I agree that it’s often necessary to engage even rulers with blood on their hands. But in this great balancing of values and interests, the towering risk is that MBS, who is just 35, will become king upon the death of his aging father and rule recklessly for many years, creating chaos in the Persian Gulf and a rupture in Saudi-US relations that would last decades.

In other words, it’s precisely because Saudi Arabia is so important that Biden should stand strong and send signals – now, while there is a window for change – that the kingdom is better off with a new crown prince who doesn’t dismember journalists.

MBS is the sixth crown prince Saudi Arabia has had over the last decade, and only one of them (King Salman) rose to become king. Two died, and two were deposed. If it becomes clear that Saudi Arabia will not have a workable relationship with the West if MBS becomes king, perhaps we’ll see a seventh crown prince. That’s not the US dictating to Saudi Arabia, but pointing out reality.

“King Salman and any independent advisers he may still have would be well-advised to consider how unsustainable it will be for the kingdom to retain MBS as crown prince,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now. “MBS has proven time and again to be a liability and a danger for the kingdom, reviled and avoided by the international community.”

US officials sometimes say that if we don’t sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, then France or Russia will. But what Saudi Arabia gets from America is not only high-tech weaponry but, far more important, an implicit promise of defense from Iran or other countries. France and Russia can’t provide that.

Some Saudis tell me that it’s a foregone conclusion that MBS will become king. Maybe. But the fact that MBS has detained rivals, like Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz (who is broadly admired in Saudi society) and Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, suggests that he doesn’t think it’s a done deal.

“It’s not a given that if you’re crown prince, you’re going to become king,” noted Dr Khalid Aljabri, who is currently in the United States but has close ties to senior Saudi royals, and whose father was allegedly targeted for murder by MBS. “Just apply the law. Sanction MBS! If they sanction MBS, the whole country would come to a standstill, and King Salman would have no choice but to remove his son, even if he doesn’t want to.”

Perhaps I’m biased because I knew Jamal. Some may think: It’s too bad about the murder, but other leaders have killed people, too. True, but MBS poisons everything he touches. He kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister. He oversaw a feud with Qatar. He caused the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. He imprisoned women’s rights activists. He has tarnished his country’s reputation far more effectively than Iran ever could.

So, Mr Biden, it’s not a human rights “gesture” to sanction MBS. Jamal was a practical man who didn’t believe in mushy gestures – but he did dream of a more democratic Arab world that would benefit Arabs and Americans alike. And by letting a murderer walk, you betray that vision.

-NYT

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/us-news/2021/02/27/joe-biden-mbs-saudi-us/

The vision for the US is : Why is there a war against Syria?

Contrary to the idea carefully sown by seven years of propaganda, the war against Syria is not a « revolution which went wrong ». It was decided by the Pentagon in September 2001, then prepared for many years, admittedly with a few difficulties.

A war in preparation for a decade

A reminder of the main stages of the planning of the war: 

- In September 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld adopted the strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which specified that the state structures of half of the world had to be destroyed. For those states whose economy is globalised, the United States would control the access to the natural resources of those regions not connected to the global economy. The Pentagon commenced its work by « remodelling » the « Greater Middle East » [1]. 

Read more: http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35479

The Saudis, including their shitty murdering little prince, are part of the plan... Jamal Khashoggi was going to expose the REAL plan... and many consequential derivatives... See the trick? One could suggest that the US helped in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... 

The missiles were launched towards the Syrian capital at around 10.16 pm local time, Syria’s SANA news agency reported, citing a military source. Few of the projectiles are believed to have reached the ground. The source said that the country’s missile defences took down “most of the enemy missiles.”

The agency has published several videos showing intercepts in the night skies over Damascus.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/516832-syria-israel-missile-attack/

Read from top... See also: 

WEEKS AFTER President Joe Biden announced he would end U.S. support for “offensive” military operations in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of progressive lawmakers are asking his administration to clarify what forms of U.S. support will continue.

In his first foreign policy address earlier this month, Biden said his administration was “ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.” But he also promised that the U.S. would continue to help Saudi Arabia defend itself against missile attacks, including from Iranian-backed militias like the Houthis in Yemen. In the following weeks, his administration has yet to explain how it distinguishes between offensive and defensive forms of support.

On Thursday, 41 members of Congress sent a letter to Biden expressing support for his decision to limit U.S. backing for the war but asked him to clarify what forms of “military, intelligence, [and] logistical” support it defines as “offensive” activities and what forms of support will continue.

“You have said that the United States will ‘continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people’ from ‘threats from Iranian-supplied forces in multiple countries,’” the letter says. “What activities does this policy entail, and under what legal authority is the administration authorized to engage in such activities?”

The letter was written by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.; Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., and signed by 38 others. In a phone interview Wednesday, DeFazio told The Intercept that he wasn’t aware of any formal communication between the Biden administration and Congress about their policy, and said the letter was trying to get answers.

“That raises questions that we would like to have answered,” DeFazio said. “How do you define weapons? What’s the difference between an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon? Congress has acted a number of times to block arms sales to the Saudis. So we just have a number of questions. We think it’s obviously a tremendous improvement over the position of the Trump administration. We would just like more clarification, more detail about what the shift means and also what [legal] authority they’re depending upon to continue to be involved in this conflict in any way.”

Khanna told The Intercept that he had informal conversations with Biden administration officials about how they interpret “offensive” operations, but he wanted the administration to clarify the details with Congress as a “formal statement of administration policy.”

“My understanding is that the ban on any U.S. participation in Saudi military strikes applies very broadly to any Saudi bombing or missile strikes into Yemen,” Khanna said. “There is no wiggle room for the Saudis to claim they’re attacking a place in Yemen out of self-defense. That is my understanding of how the administration intends the directive.”

Asked about the letter, a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council referred The Intercept to the Department of Defense and the State Department for comment. A spokesperson for the Department of Defense did not respond, and spokespersons for the State Department and director of national intelligence declined to comment.

The letter comes as the Biden administration is expected to release a long-awaited intelligence report on the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. The report is likely to serve as a reminder of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and could reopen old wounds about the direct involvement of the country’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. After the assassination in 2018, Congress passed measures to block arms sales and direct President Donald Trump to cut off U.S. support for the war in Yemen, but he vetoed them.

Biden is expected to call King Salman of Saudi Arabia, MBS’s father, to discuss the U.S.-Saudi relationship before the release of the Khashoggi report. As a candidate, Biden took a much harsher line on arms sales, saying in a November 2019 primary debate that “there is very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia.”

Saudi Arabia and the UAE began their intervention in March 2015, after an Iranian-backed rebel group overran the country’s capital, Sanaa. Under the Obama and Trump administrations, the U.S. supported the intervention with arms sales and intelligence, even as the Saudi air force bombed civilian targets, like markets, schools, and medical clinics. The Trump administration cut off midair refueling for Saudi warplanes in 2018, but other forms of U.S. support continued.

Last month the Biden administration paused all arms sales to Saudi and the UAE, with Secretary of State Tony Blinken citing a desire “to make sure that what is being considered is something that advances our strategic objectives, and advances our foreign policy.” Those sales included a massive $23 billion transfer of advanced weapons technology — including the F35 fighter jet and Reaper drones — to the UAE as part of the Trump administration’s “Abraham Accords.”

The letter from members of Congress questions what weapons the administration deems “relevant” to offensive operations and whether the $23 billion sale will go forward.

In the past, Saudi officials have claimed their airstrikes were acts of self-defense against the Houthis, who themselves have carried out missile attacks against targets in southern Saudi Arabia.

Max Abrahms, a professor of political science at Northeastern University and a critic of the U.S. intervention, told The Intercept the Democrats who signed the letter are right to question the Biden administration. “The distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is often unclear,” Abrahms said in a phone interview. “Which weapons are offensive or defensive depends on one’s own perspective in this conflict.”

The letter also contains a detailed list of questions about Biden’s other policies toward Yemen, including whether the U.S. will pressure the UAE and Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing different militias there, and whether it would support an independent investigation into allegations of disappearances and torture by UAE-backed forces — which the Trump administration denied knowledge of in 2019.

Read more:

https://theintercept.com/2021/02/25/yemen-saudi-war-biden-democrats/

Read from top. I would not trust Joe Biden in a million years...

The new ruler of the White House used his first foreign policy speech since taking office – given at the international online session of the Munich Security Conference, devoted to relations between Europe and the United States – not to deliver a call to become involved in constructive activity, something objectively needed in the world today in the wake of the collapse caused by the coronavirus pandemic, but instead to stoking the next round of military confrontation. US President Joe Biden, dropping his mask of “peace lover”, accused China and Russia of allegedly aspiring to weaken NATO and transatlantic unity, and promised to bolster the most important values and strength of Western democracies – something he sees only in terms of whipping up military hysteria.

Stressing that “with his arrival” Europe should no longer think about its strategic autonomy, Biden reaffirmed his administration’s intention to reinforce mutual values by modernizing the countries’ military forces and maintaining military support for European NATO members. He “reassured” his European allies that, unlike during the “times of Trump”, now the problems involved in Western European security and cooperation within NATO are the main priorities for current US political leadership.

A similar tone taken by Biden about ratcheting up the military confrontation prevailed at the G7 forum, with calls to collectively rebuff Beijing and Moscow. As no one doubted, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who chaired the summit, became an active middleman for Washington’s policies there. However, Biden’s harshness toward Moscow and Beijing openly annoys European leaders, and so far on the European continent there are no signs of any enthusiasm for supporting this line taken by the White House, or of Washington’s success in pulling France, Germany, and Japan onto its warship. The attempt to create a world alliance against China and Russia by relying on Sinophobic and Russophobic ideologies has not yet yielded any results.

Explaining the unrealistic nature of these aspirations held by the United States, the Chinese state-run newspaper Global Times, in particular, emphasized that the G7 states, although they still have an advantage in terms of technology and the international division of labor, only account for a portion of the world economy, and that this portion has been rapidly decreasing in recent years. The G7 countries now account for 33% of world GDP, while 30 years ago that figure was about 70%. Meanwhile, China alone generated 18.6% of global GDP in 2020. Therefore, talking about economic recovery after the pandemic without involving China in this process is “like sailing the seas without a compass”.

The same applies to the futility of the West opposing Russia by imposing sanctions or creating various kinds of “circles of friends for the United States”, since not only in the field of military innovations and modern-day weapons, but also in the civilian effort to combat the global disaster – the coronavirus pandemic – Moscow showed the advantages it has to everyone long ago. It is with good reason that the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, and Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems, have recently been increasingly compared to the “Russian Kalashnikov” in everyday language.

Today, the only common interest Americans and Europeans have is gaining leverage as a bargaining tool to contain China and Russia. This motivation is especially strong for the Europeans, because they do not want to lose their profits due to curtailing commercial ties with either China or Russia. And this economic cooperation between the two sides will continue, at least throughout this decade. And this, in particular, is confirmed by the landmark publication that appeared recently in the American conservative journal on international politics called The National Interest, where even the former chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, urged the US not to make Russia into a scapegoat for its domestic political purposes.

Clearly aware of the short amount of time he will spend in the White House, Joe Biden is actively seeking to demonstrate an unusually hawkish approach toward Russia and China, imposing the conditions for a new global cold war. However, he still does not realize that the new Washington administration will have to wage four wars at once: two cold wars in the international arena against China and Russia, a civil war within the country, and a major cultural war – first in the United States, and then across the entire globe. The possibility cannot be ruled out that, in all likelihood, more than one local military conflict will be added to those, and because of this Biden is not going to reduce, but expand the US military presence in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, the United States will have to fight on all fronts at the same time, while facing a growing shortage of resources! And the fact that the United States has not been able to win a single war over the past 70 years is common knowledge for everyone, especially in regard to Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Hence, as they say in the Orient: The dog barks, but the caravan moves on. Along with that, in the Orient they know that “barking” is the province of the weak.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in response to the White House’s calls for a cold war Mother Nature herself has punished the United States for its militaristic policy, and indifference towards ordinary Americans. Almost without exception, all last week American media outlets – along with Biden’s calls for a cold war – talked about the sudden cold weather that has swept the United States, resulting in power outages and dozens of victims. More than 200 people have perished, and five died of hypothermia. According to the KHOU television channel, the family of a boy frozen to death in Texas has filed a $ 100 million lawsuit against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves about 90% of the consumers in the state, and a local energy company called Entergy. Several million people were left without electricity, about 14 million Texas residents encountered problems related to the water supply, and more than 260,000 were left without potable water. A frozen Texas is driving the American oil industry to the verge of collapse, Bloomberg stated. As a result, US President Joe Biden has already declared Texas a natural disaster zone.

And although in many countries, including the United States, warmer weather is expected in the near future, today many people, including Americans, are posing a very pressing question: will a thaw come in the foreign policy position taken by the Biden administration?

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/02/27/the-cold-war-unleashed-by-biden-has-turned-into-freezing-temperatures-in-texas/

Read from top.

Syria’s state-run media earlier reported that 200 troops had been flown to US bases in al-Shaddadi on 21 January for future deployment at Omar oil field and Koniko gas field in neighbouring Deir ez-Zor province. It was also reported that the US-led military coalition had dispatched 40 truckloads of weapons and logistical equipment to Hasakah.

The United States is plundering Syria’s natural resources to send them to other places that will benefit from American theft, claimed J. Michael Springmann, a former US diplomat in Saudi Arabia.

Responding to reports that the US military has transferred hundreds of troops from Iraq to Syria’s energy-rich northeastern province of Hasakah, Springmann, who was head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, during the administrations of former presidents Reagan and Bush from September 1987 through March 1989, underscored:

Syria’s state-run television network reported earlier that 200 troops were flown to American bases in the town of al-Shaddadi onboard helicopters on 21 January.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/202101241081863632-us-plundering-syrian-oil-to-send-to-israel-claims-us-ex-diplomat/

Read from top. See also: the rumsfeld/cebrowski plan... in was jamal about to reveal the US/Saudi alliance designed to stuff up the middle east?

J. Michael Springmann is an American former diplomat and political analyst for Iranian state-run news channel Press TV. He was the head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in the Reagan and former Bush administrations, from September 1987 through March 1989.[1] While stationed in Saudi Arabia, Springmann was "ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants". Springmann states that these applicants were terrorist recruits of Osama Bin Laden, who were being sent to the United States in order to obtain training from the CIA.[2] Springmann issued complaints to "higher authorities at several agencies", but they've been unanswered.[3] The State Department has stated that the consular officer had final authority in issuing the visas, not Springmann.[4]

From cited CBC Interview:

CBC: And when you questioned them, what would they say were their reasons for expecting to get a visa with such slight credentials?

Springmann: There was one instance of two Pakistanis who came to me, and they wanted to get to an American auto parts trade show. They couldn't name the show, and they couldn't name the city in which it was going to be held. And then the case officer came over and called me on the phone, and said, "Give them a visa". I said "No, it doesn't wash". "Well, we need it, I'm sorry." Then he went to the head of the consular section and got me overruled, and they got their visas. But when I complained to the powers in the consulate, and the people in Riyadh, I was told to keep quiet, that there was reasons for doing this, that it wasn't a case of my poor judgment, it was this and it was that. This simply fueled my suspicions that something untoward was going on.

Following Springmann's complaints, he was fired by the State Department.[5]

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Springmann

We already have mentioned this episode in regard to 9/11 on this site...

See also:

Thousands of American soldiers and civil servants have lost their lives in the War on Terror. Innocent citizens of many nations, including Americans killed on 9/11, have also paid the ultimate price. While the US government claims to stand against terror, this same government refuses to acknowledge its role in creating what has become a deadly international quagmire. Visas for al-Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World sets the record straight by laying the blame on high-ranking US government officials. 

During the 1980s, the CIA recruited and trained Muslim operatives to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Later, the CIA would move those operatives from Afghanistan to the Balkans, and then to Iraq, Libya, and Syria, traveling on illegal US visas. These US-backed and trained fighters would morph into an organization that is synonymous with jihadist terrorism: al-Qaeda.

J. Michael Springmann, a former US diplomat, names individuals and organizations that deny culpability. He analyzes the effects of a nebulous war on the US economy and infrastructure. After thirteen bloody years, Springmann exposes hypocrisy and deceit wrapped in a sullied flag of patriotism and honor.

In the last month alone, the situation on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan escalated for the second time. Kyrgyzstan stated that Tajik military personnel have reinforced the border with military personnel and reported that a sea vessel appeared on the disputed section of the state border at an undisclosed location, with equipment and soldiers on the Tajik side of the border.

Border conflicts between Kyrgyzstan and neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have been occurring for years with notable regularity. In early 2021, Bishkek held intensive negotiations with Tashkent, announcing a solution to the disputed sections.

However, a similar dialogue with Dushanbe stalled, and a severe clash between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan broke out in April. Let’s recall that the formal reason for the conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is the seasonal aggravation of relations between the citizens of these two states due to a lack of water and disputes over the hitherto undiminished state border.

The military conflict occurred at a section of the Tajik-Kyrgyz border in late April. It was preceded by a conflict between residents near the Golovnoy water distribution point, whose ownership is disputed by both sides. This is where the water intake that supplies water to the surrounding areas of both countries is located. Tajikistan believes that the Kyrgyz authorities are unfairly distributing water. In spring and summer, when agricultural work begins, water consumption increases tenfold, so conflicts between neighbors escalate.

As a result, according to official data, the April four-day conflict on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border claimed the lives of 44 people, 36 of whom were citizens of Kyrgyzstan. 180 Kyrgyz and 110 Tajiks were injured. On the territory of Kyrgyzstan, medical and educational buildings, infrastructure, 170 residential houses and other movable and immovable property of local citizens were destroyed. The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic described the border conflict as military aggression from the Tajik side. Border problems between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have existed since 1993, but no one expected a conflict of this intensity on the border between the two countries.

Armed conflicts on the border between the republics have arisen more than once over disputes over water and the state border, which is 976 km long. Only 519 km have been clarified and delimited, the rest of the line remains disputed. This conflict is the quintessence of the complex territorial contradictions that exist between the two countries and between the two peoples. The large number of enclaves of the neighboring state is largely to blame. As a result, the border is very peculiar and it is very difficult to demarcate the borders. Therefore, such conflicts periodically arise and there are even fears that they may reach the scale of Nagorno-Karabakh….

The Collective Security Treaty Organization has consistently and actively worked to end the conflict. The CSTO Secretary General Stanislav Zas called the Chairmen of the Security Councils of both countries, urging them to stop the violence. Largely thanks to his efforts, the conflict ended and the sides moved to establish a conciliation commission. Significant peacemaking efforts have also been undertaken by Moscow, including by Russian President Vladimir Putin personally in direct contacts with the leaders of both Central Asian states.

Nevertheless, in the regional press one can more often find assessments of various experts that behind the formal cause of this conflict lies the desire of Western countries, primarily of the USA, to kindle a “ring of fire” around Russia, to expand this local conflict into a civilization conflict and to give it the character of a clash between Persian and Turkic vectors of power.

A significant confirmation of this point of view is the active desire of the United States in recent months to gain a foothold in the countries of Central Asia and establish its military bases there to replace those lost in Afghanistan due to the withdrawal of the US troops from there. However, these attempts are opposed by Russia, and with it China, as a result of which Washington has gone to explicitly push through its non-governmental organizations and other local opportunities in Central Asia the population of the region to aggravate the internal situation in the region. The US-controlled local media played an important role in this, as did such US and Pentagon-funded media outlets as the outspoken US foreign agent Karavansarai, which tendentiously portrayed the situation. An analysis of social networks shows that facts are distorted and fakes are spread within the framework of the information war already launched by the West to inflate the conflict between the residents of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to involve other countries, including Turkey, in this confrontation, and also to discredit Russia as a partner of the Central Asian states.

On April 15, the New York Times acknowledged that US officials have been in contact with authorities in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan about the possibility of using bases in the region amid withdrawal from Afghanistan. A week before the April conflict on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken held a series of online consultations with the foreign ministers of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in the C5+1 cooperation format, also trying to induce these countries to work more closely with the United States and address issues of benefit to Washington after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

In addition to this format, three lines were involved: US, Afghanistan + Central Asian country that shares a border with Afghanistan. In particular, on March 17, similar online talks were held with Tajikistan at the level of foreign ministers with the participation of the US Under Secretary for Political Affairs David Hale. Similar talks were held by Washington with Bishkek, after which, in particular, according to Nezigar Telegram channel, a staff of 400 “military consultants” was moved to the US Embassy in Bishkek. According to the official White House position, they were sent to supposedly “prevent the negative consequences of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and reduce overall tensions in the region.” The Diplomat freely admitted that in addition to solving the Afghan problem, the US “intends to demonstrate its comprehensive presence in Central Asia and counteract the influence of China and Russia in the region.”

By demonstrating its intention to return to Central Asia, the United States is trying to offer its services in “pacifying” Bishkek and Dushanbe, in fact pursuing its goal of turning Central Asia into a military hotbed in order to draw resources from Russia, and with it China, to “extinguish” this conflict. In such actions, Washington can already see the tendency of the West to turn the situation between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan into a mirror situation that was created in the South Caucasus, which Moscow is trying to prevent.

In this context, with the active participation of Moscow, the signing of a protocol within the framework of the working meeting of the State Commission on the delimitation and demarcation of the state border of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Tajikistan on June 5 of this year was a worthy response to western attempts to destabilize the situation on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border and in Central Asia, in general. According to the parties, the difficult situation that has developed recently at this section of the state border has been resolved peacefully.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/06/09/who-is-fanning-the-flames-of-the-kyrgyz-tajik-conflict-and-why/

Read from top

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAY !!!!!∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞!!!!!