Robert PARRY: Trump Falls in Line with Interventionism; consortiumnews, Sep 19, 2017

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 20.09.2017

Dear all,

below a commentary on Trump’s UN speech* written by Robert Parry.

His conclusion: „… what Trump made clear in his U.N. address is that his “America First” and “pro-sovereignty” rhetoric is simply cover for a set of policies that are indistinguishable from those pushed by the neocons of the Bush administration or the liberal interventionists of the Obama administration. The rationalizations may change but the endless wars and “regime change” machinations continue.“

* full speech see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-un-speech-read-in-full-transcript-north-korea-general-assembly-a7956041.html

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/19/trump-falls-in-line-with-interventionism

Trump Falls in Line with Interventionism

By Robert Parry,

Sep 19, 2017

 

Exclusive: President Trump’s U.N. speech showed that despite his America First rhetoric, his policies are virtually the same as the neocon strategies of George W. Bush and liberal interventionism of Barack Obama, says Robert Parry.

In discussing President Trump, there is always the soft prejudice of low expectations – people praise him for reading from a Teleprompter even if his words make little sense – but there is no getting around the reality that his maiden address to the United Nations General Assembly must rank as one of the most embarrassing moments in America’s relations with the global community.

Trump offered a crude patchwork of propaganda and bluster, partly delivered as a campaign speech praising his own leadership – boasting about the relatively strong U.S. economy that he mostly inherited from President Obama – and partly reflecting his continued subservience to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, perhaps most importantly, Trump’s speech may have extinguished any flickering hope that his presidency might achieve some valuable course corrections in how the United States deals with the world, i.e., shifting away from the disastrous war/interventionist policies of his two predecessors.

Before the speech, there was at least some thinking that his visceral disdain for the neoconservatives, who mostly opposed his nomination and election, might lead him to a realization that their policies toward Iran, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere were at the core of America’s repeated and costly failures in recent decades.

Instead, apparently after a bracing lecture from Netanyahu on Monday, Trump bared himself in a kind of neocon Full Monte …

(…)

– He spoke with the crass hypocrisy that the neocons and many Israeli leaders have perfected, particularly his demand that “all nations … respect … the rights of every other sovereign nation” — when he made clear that he, like his White House predecessors, is ready to violate the sovereignty of other nations that get in Official Washington’s way.

A Litany of Wars

Just this century, the United States has invaded multiple nations without U.N. authorization, based on various “coalitions of the willing” and other subterfuges for wars of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals deemed the “supreme international crime” and which the U.N. was specifically created to prevent.

Not only did President George W. Bush invade both Afghanistan and Iraq – while also sponsoring “anti-terror” operations in many other countries – but President Barack Obama acknowledged ordering military attacks in seven countries, including against the will of sovereign states, such as Libya and Syria. Obama also supported a violent coup against the elected government of Ukraine.

For his part, Trump already has shown disdain for international law by authorizing military strikes inside Yemen and Syria. In other words, if not for the fear of provoking American anger, many of the world’s diplomats might have responded with a barrage of catcalls toward Trump for his blatant hypocrisy. Without doubt, the United States is the preeminent violator of sovereignty and international law in the world today, yet Trump wagged his finger at others, including Russia (over Ukraine) and China (over the South China Sea).

He declared: “We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.”

Then, with a seeming blindness to how much of the world sees the United States as a law onto itself, Trump added: “The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.”

Of course, in the U.S. mainstream media’s commentary that followed, Trump’s hypocrisy went undetected. That’s because across the American political/media establishment, the U.S. right to act violently around the world is simply accepted as the way things are supposed to be. International law is for the other guy; not for the “indispensible nation,” not for the “sole remaining superpower.”

(…)

—  Full text attached (pdf, 3p)  —

THE SAKER A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences 20170411

Globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Stephan Best

11.04.2017

Dear all,

as following we document a new piece of the well known US military analyst, The Saker, on the US attack on Syria.

-=The full document attached=-

thesaker.is

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

The Saker

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail. I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences. But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

  1. a classical US-executed false flag
  2. a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don’t. Unless,
  3. the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored. (…)

I would note that those who say that the Russian air defense systems did not work don’t know what they are talking about. Not only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked with the protection of the Syrian Air Space. That is a task for the Syrian air defenses. The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to protect Russian personnel and equipment. This is why the Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes. And this is hardly surprising as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel. (…)

Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising him. And nobody is calling him a “Putin agent” any more. None of which will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way. He chose a quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days. How totally stupid of him. He apparently also chose the option of an “attack for show” to begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history, probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show? A few flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters. (…)

Political consequences (external)

Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US collaboration with Russia of any kind. Worse, he has also destroyed any hopes of being able to defeat Daesh. Why? Because if you really believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want to sell you bridges all over the world. It ain’t happening. What is much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton. Let me explain.

The following are the measures with Russia has taken following the US attack on Syria:

  1. Denunciation at UN (to be expected, no big deal)
  2. Decision to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)
  3. Decision to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)
  4. Decision to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won’t be able to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something) (…)

The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

This is bad. Really bad. This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with. What this also means is that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States. (…)

In fact, I don’t think that there was much of a plan at all beyond showing that Trump is “tough” and no friend of Putin. That’s it. I think that the so-called “elites” in charge running the USA are infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible. I don’t buy the “managed chaos” theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their dis-order. Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it’s not part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant. (…)

Conclusion: what happens next?

Simply reply: I don’t know. But let me explain why I don’t know. In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a “rational actor”. The Soviets sure where. As where the Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions. You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)? I don’t know. To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types. (…)

Ciao Stephan Best

THESAKER US cruise missile attack 20170411.docx

Der schmutzige Krieg gegen Syrien — Weltnetz.tv – Plattform für linken und unabhängigen Videojournalismus

Christiane Reymann im Gespräch mit Tim Anderson Die Öffentlichkeit ist entsetzt über den Krieg in Syrien. Die Lage scheint unkontrollierbar geworden zu sein.

über Der schmutzige Krieg gegen Syrien — Weltnetz.tv – Plattform für linken und unabhängigen Videojournalismus

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland (III) | Oriental Review

RELATED POSTS Smashing Greater Central Asia (III)Central Asia: Top 10 Developments in 2010 Smashing Greater Central Asia (II)Turkmenistan as the Three-for-One Staging Ground of Eurasian Destabilization Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid WarsNew Integration Project for Eurasia – Making the Future Today Comments comments

Quelle: Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland (III) | Oriental Review

Nachtwandler: Brasilianische Demokratie vor die Hunde geworfen – Pepe Escobar

Brasilianische Demokratie vor die Hunde geworfen 06.04.2016

Pepe Escobar

Es brauchte nur drei Minuten für eine Bande kleiner Gauner – eher bekannt als Korruptionsexperten als kompetente Verwalter – um (buchstäblich) die junge, aber lebendige brasilianische Demokratie den Hunden vorzuwerfen.

Ohne Stimmen zu zählen, damit die Verräter nicht öffentlich identifiziert werden können, hat die zentristische Partei der Brasilianischen Bewegung (Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro oder PMDB) in Brasilien die Koalition verlassen, die Präsidentin Dilma Rousseff in Brasilia an der Macht unterstützt, damit die Chancen einer kafkaesken Amtsenthebung von Rousseff im April durchgedrückt werden kann.

Die PMDB ist Brasiliens größte Partei – die 69 der 514 Parlamentssitze einnimmt. Kurzfristig will die Partei einen ihrer eigenen, jetzigen Vize-Präsidenten Michel Terner, 75, an die Präsidentschaft bringen, ein nicht gerade brillianter Verfassungsrechtler, bis zur nächsten Wahl 2018, wodurch der weiße Coup/Regime Change Wirklichkeit wird, von dem die Vertreter des Hybrid-Krieges in Brasilien und ihre niedrigen Vasallen geträumt haben. (…)

Quelle: Nachtwandler: Brasilianische Demokratie vor die Hunde geworfen

Pepe ESCOBAR + Ted SNIDER about „Unconventional War“- and „Silent Coup“-Tactics in Brazil + Latin America

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 02.04.2016

Dear all,

amongst others Pepe Escobar recently points to the concept of Unconventional War (UW) detailed by the 2010 US Special Forces Unconventional Warfare manual:

“The intent of US [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish US strategic objectives… For the foreseeable future, US forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.”
“Hostile” powers are meant not only in a military sense; any state that dares to defy any significant plank of the Washington-centric world “order” – from Sudan to Argentina – may be branded “hostile”.
Source: http://www.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Special_Forces_Report.pdf

„In the UW manual, swaying the perceptions of a vast “uncommitted middle population” is essential in the road to success, so these uncommitted eventually turn against their political leaders. The process encompasses everything from “supporting insurgency” (as in Syria) to “wider discontent through propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government” (as in Brazil). And as an insurrection escalates, so should the “intensification of propaganda; psychological preparation of the population for rebellion.” That, in a nutshell, has been the Brazilian case.“

Source: Pepe ESCOBAR, 28.03.2016: Brazil, like Russia, under attack by Hybrid War;
URL: www.rt.com/op-edge/337411-brazil-russia-hybrid-attack

Similary Ted SNIDER writes on „silent coup“ tactics as U.S-backed political movements are spured discrediting Brazil and other Latin American progressive movements in order to remove trublesome leaders.

„This strategy began to take shape in the latter days of the Cold War as the CIA program of arming Nicaraguan Contra rebels gave way to a U.S. economic strategy of driving Sandinista-led Nicaragua into abject poverty, combined with a political strategy of spending on election-related NGOs by the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, setting the stage for the Sandinistas’ political defeat in 1990.

During the Obama administration, this strategy of non-violent “regime change” in Latin America has gained increasing favor, as with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decisive support for the 2009 ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya who had pursued a moderately progressive domestic policy that threatened the interests of the Central American nation’s traditional oligarchy and foreign investors.

Unlike the earlier military-style coups, the “silent coups” never take off their masks and reveal themselves as coups. They are coups disguised as domestic popular uprisings which are blamed on the misrule of the targeted government. Indeed, the U.S. mainstream media will go to great lengths to deny that these coups are even coups.
The new coups are cloaked in one of two disguises. In the first, a rightist minority that lost at the polls will allege “fraud” and move its message to the streets as an expression of “democracy”; in the second type, the minority cloaks its power grab behind the legal or constitutional workings of the legislature or the courts, such as was the case in ousting President Zelaya in Honduras in 2009.

Both strategies usually deploy accusations of corruption or dictatorial intent against the sitting government, charges that are trumpeted by rightist-owned news outlets and U.S.-funded NGOs that portray themselves as “promoting democracy,” seeking “good government” or defending “human rights.” Brazil today is showing signs of both strategies.“ — emphasis, m.z. —

Source: Ted SNIDER, 30.03.2016: A ‘Silent Coup’ for Brazil?; URL: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/30/a-silent-coup-for-brazil

ESCOBAR-BRAZIL-under-Hybrid-War-Attack160328.pdf
SNIDER-Silent-Coup-for-Brazil?160330.pdf

Identifying The Targets – Next Hybrid Wars

Identifying The Targets: The first two parts of the series introduced new concepts to the Hybrid War theory and successfully tested them on the Syrian and Ukrainian cases. This proved

via Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars — Réseau International (english)