Archive
Secret Intelligence Service
.
A Brief Glance from 2016 into 2017
From Asymmetric to all-out Confrontation?
.
Crown copyright (c) 2016
A Brief Glance from 2016 into 2017
.
(C-I) (C-III)
.
(C-III) I think it’s useful to do this because we can look back and see how wrong we were.
(C-I) Wrong or right, it doesn’t matter; it’s the issues that prevail.
(C-III) Quite. Would you please start the thing off.
(C-I) Yes. Firstly, there cannot be a conflict which invokes a military response involving Russia, NATO and China. Any nation that presupposes ideological or narcissistic threat has to resolve it by other means. The whole process of diplomacy culminates with this objective in mind. If it does not, via any party or fraction thereof, we have a huge problem – one that some say is looming. I’m most interested in our focus on Russia, for now.
(C-III) Let’s just look at a few issues that suggest lack of trust, lack of having got far in conflict resolution.
(C-I) OK. I can think of one; what were the real reasons of John Kerry’s visit to Russia? What global goals does the US set for itself? How does Europe intend reacting to the crisis in Turkish-Russian relations, or lack thereof?
(C-III) Some are suggesting that John Kerry took a new plan for the new world order to Vladimir Putin. Others suggest that the world is collapsing. So what’s your view on the real reason for John Kerry’s visit to Moscow?”
(C-I) Yeah. One should look beyond politics here. One should try to understand the real reasons and motives behind diplomatic statements. Even when politicians offer a smile, their faces do not necessarily reflect true reality.
The US Secretary of State John Kerry is a serious person. He is a representative of the ruling clans of the United States. John Kerry went to Russia with Victoria Nuland who the Russians neither like nor trust, actually despise her. In the US delegation, there was also US ambassador to Russia, John Tefft. They wanted to put something like an ultimatum to Putin. If an official of Kerry’s level arrives, he should have clear objectives. The objective is clear. The United States needs to remove Putin from power. Another objective is to take complete control of Syria by orchestrating the exit of Bashar al-Assad. This is not going to happen in Russia’s view.
(C-III) I think that the American mission consisted of three parts. The first was to obtain Putin’s agreement for Assad’s resignation and the capitulation of Syria. The United States is standing behind a huge coalition that was created to oppose the onslaught of the Islamic State. However, in only two-three months of Russia’s operations in Syria, it’s become very obvious to everyone that the Russian Federation commands colossal and one of the most highly advanced military machines. Of course, the United States was greatly surprised in the beginning. Afterwards, they created a huge, 100,000-strong army under the guise of anti-terrorist coalition.
John Kerry’s second goal was to receive Putin’s agreement for the execution of the Minsk Accord. In reality, the United States wants Russia to leave the Donbass – E.Ukraine, for good. In accordance with the Minsk Accord, the Donbass was to return to Ukraine before the end of 2015 under certain conditions, which neither side have been able to observe.
Kerry’s goal number three is, not was, to make Putin capitulate. What does John Kerry have so to achieve this rather lofty objective? He has a circle that he’s tightening around Russia. NATO’s military contingent in the Baltic States and in Poland has been increased thirteen times. Military actions in the Donbass are about to resume and this poses a very significant danger. Yes, there is every reason to believe that the war in the South East of Ukraine is going to begin forthwith. What will Russia do? Will they stay on the sidelines and watch as they put it, ‘genocide being perpetrated via foreign funded war machinery’ or will they move in? I think they will move in, full force as soon as the first women and children are killed. I don’t think the Russians will tolerate not being able to provide the humanitarian aid convoys and this issue will be the last straw.
(C-III) Terrorist activities in the Caucasus are in the making. In the region, Dagestan during December 2015, thirteen people were killed. Dagestan is still a hot spot. The Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov should be able to keep the situation under control but if he cannot, there will only be one eventuality and that Russia will move in to support him.
There is also the problem on the borders of the Crimea, I mean regarding the blockade and who the Russians are saying is instigating it – The Turks. The most advanced Bulava class, multi warhead equipped submarines are off the coast of the Crimea and are suggestive of plans already formulated. Of course the issue might go away if they allow the convoys through.
Another front is opening in Central Asia. This is a very serious development, because in northern Afghanistan, for example, the Islamic State has recently taken two towns. The Islamic State continues to morph, become more entrenched, globally speaking. The Islamic State is already in China. Just look at the map; the Baltic States, Ukraine, Donbass, the Caucasus, Central Asia, China – this has the effect of encircling Russia, who suffice it to say won’t allow threats to impinge on its sovereignty. I’m just repeating what they say.
With regard to Turkey, this country is in a habit of showing influence on political processes in other countries. Turkey took part in two Chechen wars. Militants would receive medical assistance (as in the case of the Islamic State from Syria) education and training in Turkey. Turkey was playing against Russia and continues playing so today and this suggests extremely dangerous consequences. At this moment and as you know, the Russian military are poised to attack any Turkish infringement of Syrian airspace, or indeed any other space, and they will.
John Kerry arrived in Moscow with a tough agenda. The US has been showing greater influence on the countries that Russia considered its allies. Russia has lost Argentina, because Cristina Kirchner is no longer the president. The new Argentine president swore an oath to the US. Everything is now happening on the American scenario. Colour revolutions are brewing in Latin America. Now they’re trying to impeach Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. She cannot align and assist Russia because she has to deal with serious problems in her own country.
In Venezuela, the ruling party has lost the elections as well. The same is happening in Cuba. Everyone is eagerly waiting for Castro brothers to die. There is every reason to believe that Cuba will become a colony of the United States forthwith.
The Balkans. Serbia, Russia’s long-standing ally, was lost a few months ago. The country seeks NATO and EU membership. The Serbian administration has been completely Americanised. Montenegro is joining NATO. There were protests in Bulgaria, Serbia and in other countries too, but no one is paying attention to them. No matter what people may say, politicians follow instructions from Washington. As a result, Russia only has China left from the BRICS countries. Not to downplay the significance of that particular relationship, the economic and military super power, because it far outweighs any other.
John Kerry sought to remind Putin that owing to the actions of the Central Bank, the Russian ruble is collapsing. This potential collapse of the Russian national currency has nothing in common with the declining world oil prices. The West has been striking economic, financial and social blows on Russia.
(C-I) I think that the current situation is very serious. The Russian Defence Minister has recently reported that the Russian nuclear weapons were set on full alert. It is being said in Russia that Putin has his own trump cards that he can use if and when time comes. In other words, they have something against American trump cards, which is one way of looking at it, but appeal to vast nuclear arsenals with off the scale technological superiority over the past examples, leaves discomfort in its wake.
(C-III) What of Putin’s record at home? For 12 years, Putin has increased the budget of Russia 22 times, military expenditure – 30 times the GDP – 12 times (Russia jumped to 36th place in the world in terms of GDP in the second place).
Reserves have grown 48 times.
Returned 256 mineral deposits in the Russian jurisdiction (left back 3!).
Ripped liberal in the history of enslaving the production sharing agreement.
Nationalised the oil industry 65% and 95% of gas and many other industries.
Rose industry and agriculture (Russian for 5 consecutive years ranked 2-3 in the world in grain exports, ahead of the US, which is now on the 4th place).
Increasde the average salary in the public sector at 18.5 times in 12 years, and the average pension – 14 times.
Well, it is quite small thing; Putin has reduced the extinction of Russia’s population from 1.5 million a year in 1999 to 21 thousand in 2011, i.e., in 71.5 times.
In addition, Putin abolished the Khasavyurt agreements – than defended the integrity of Russia, made public NGOs – the fifth column and forbade deputies to have accounts abroad, defended Syria, end the war in Chechnya. And returned to Crimea.
(C-I) Of course and arguably, no one in the West understands the true nature of those they feel threatened by to the extent that they can predict what courses of action will transpire. For example, if Russia collapses there are those in the inner circle who are not prone to diplomacy and who will defend their homeland to the extent of ordering the military machine to go berserk.
In the US, the US Executive Order and so on, is ready at a moment’s notice should war break out. It’s not an arbitrary scenario. I mean, they’ve done more than merely think about it.
What is your view on the provocations against Russia from Turkey? Why did that country decide to start serious confrontation with Russia? What does Turkey desire?
(C-III) Every country has its own list of geopolitical requirements, and these requirements are absolutely different for Turkey and for Russia. During the last twenty years the two countries have been working in a very productive way because they shared a veneer of common interest. Yet, bigger geopolitical conflicts are never gone.
During the last twenty-five to thirty years, Turkey has been developing economically, financially and militarily. The Turkish President Erdogan wants to obliterate secular Turkey. There is also a significant medical factor; Erdogan has leukemia. He has been taking strong medications for years and these affect his state of mind making him psychologically unstable. Some are drawing similarities with Hitler, who couldn’t get through the day without methamphetamine administered by his personal physician.Personally I wouldn’t go as far as that.
What do Bulgarian people think about it?
I’ll answer my own question. Interestingly in Bulgaria, when the Turkish Prime Minister recently paid a visit many were out on the streets under Bulgarian and even Russian flags. The people were chanting, ‘Out of Bulgaria!’ ‘Down with Turkish terrorism in Syria.’ And so on.
If there is a likely risk of conflict in the South China Sea between the US and China, both parties will back off. There is by far too much to lose in all areas of endeavour. China has global authority vis a vis economic interests and won’t jeopardise these, but I’m saying that against the backdrop of a whole Pandora’s Box of issues. The first on the list is global supremacy. Which nation wants it, does the objective mean different things to different parties? We need to look at the concept of ‘enemy’. Is an enemy in the sights of cyber warfare the same as in outright military conflict? Where is the crossover suggested?
(C-I) We should pull significant strategic facets from 2015 and throw these into the new year. We should begin with China.
Might the war dynamic so characteristic of 2015 be changing and if so, how? Will the control of the world exerted by the West, characteristically hit a wall in the coming years?
You can argue that the world is moving away from wars. How – because what is beginning to emerge in the East, is construction – massive projects to uplift those ignored for more than a thousand years. This transforming positive shift is what, if anything, will save from the mass death making and capitulation that some in the West appear to desire.
I can illustrate this with recent developments out of what was centuries ago referred to in Chinese, as the centre of civilisation. It may well become so again if present trends with China, Russia and other Eurasian nations continue as they have been.
China is moving forward with a massive array of global infrastructure initiatives, including with Russia and the other states of the Eurasian Economic Union, even on to the European Union. Beijing is linking its economy by land and by sea to all Eurasia, from the East China Sea to the Black Sea, from the Malacca Strait to the Gulf of Finland, to Piraeus in the eastern Mediterranean.
China has inaugurated its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, an institution that could soon pale the floundering US-controlled World Bank in funding infrastructure projects across Asia and into Eurasia.
It is healthier by far to have a clear consensus as to what are the positive developments in the world, not dwell on the negative. I want to touch briefly on recent developments involving the Peoples’ Republic of China which are potentially transforming for the entire planet.
04/12/2015 marked the opening of a two-day Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Johannesburg South Africa, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China will provide $60 billion in assistance and loans for African countries – inclusive of $5 billion in zero interest loans and $35 billion in preferential facility and export credit and concessionary loans.
China founded the FOCAC with participation of 40 African nations and their ministers in 2000. In 2006 Beijing hosted the first FOCAC Heads of State Summit in China, with participation of 35 African heads of state. At that summit China announced it would make $5 billion worth of concessionary loans to Africa. That major Chinese economic interest in Africa caused shock waves in Washington at the US Treasury and at the US-dominated IMF. China’s then-President Hu later announced the creation of the China-Africa Development Fund to further Chinese investment in Africa with $1 billion initial funding, which he said was expected to grow to US$5 billion in the future.
The Washington response by the Bush Admin. to China’s economic cooperation with long-neglected IMF-depressed African nations, was to create AFRICOM, a dedicated Pentagon command solely devoted to countering Chinese influence in Africa.
At the Johannesburg second heads of state Summit and the sixth ministerial meeting of FOCAC, Beijing announced it will give an added $60 billion to African states for development projects and aid. This will considerably benefit both Chinese and African interests. Unlike NATO’s seemingly endless wars, the construction of infrastructure – railways, water navigation, electric power grids, – these lift the population and enhance peace, stability and prosperity.
Prior to the FOCAC meeting Xi went to Zimbabwe, a long-standing Chinese ally, where he announced loans to revamp its depressed economy. Ten economic agreements were signed between China and Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe. In South Africa, Xi signed bilateral agreements and loan deals worth $6.5 billion, mainly to build South African infrastructure. A total of 26 agreements were signed between South Africa and China.
In addition to growing its economic links to the vast, rich and by-the-West largely neglected African continent, China is moving to secure its vast One Belt One Road high-speed railway into the countries of the European Union.
On 26/11/2015, China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang hosted 16 European leaders in Suhzou, in the fourth China-Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) summit. The forum, initiated by Beijing in 2012 brought leaders from China and 16 Central and Eastern European states: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. All those European countries are struggling under the ‘depressed EU economic situation’. Chinese media called the meeting a ‘golden opportunity’ to deepen cooperation. Given China’s fascination with gold of late, China has surpassed South Africa to become the world’s largest gold mining country, it could have multiple meanings.
Given the de facto state of near-war and economic sanctions existing between the states of the EU, led by Germany, France, UK and Spain–with China’s close ally, the Russian Federation, China wants to rapidly secure completion of its vast Eurasian network of high-speed railways. The One Belt One Bridge would place China firmly into the large markets of the European Union as an urgent priority, as well to boost depressed Chinese economic growth.
The states of Central and Eastern Europe are to be China’s transshipment port to the larger EU markets. Beijing knows it’s merely a matter of time before the US targets China too. Beijing has few illusions about Washington geo-strategy.
At the summit Li told participants how China views the region; ‘Located at the east gateway to Europe and along the routes of the Belt and Road initiative, CEECs enjoy a very distinct advantage for enhancing connectivity,’ adding that China wants to work with them, ‘to build the China-Europe land-sea express line and enhance connectivity in Europe.’
Xinhua, summarising the results of the summit spoke of, ‘infrastructure-led all-round cooperation’ between China and the CEE states. China is also making a bid to construct railways, roads, and ports in Europe. China signed deals with both Hungary and Serbia to build a high-speed rail line between Budapest and Belgrade. Construction will begin before the end of this year, to be completed by 2017. Xinhua described the new railway as; ‘a fast lane for import and export of products between China and Europe.’
China is the world leader in building high-speed (faster than 200 km/hour) rail lines. The country has built more than 20.500 km of high-speed tracks over the past decade, more than the rest of the world’s high-speed rail tracks combined, with another 16,800km domestically under construction or in planning. That does not include the external Eurasian lines of the One Belt, One Road that Beijing is currently laying down.
China is the world leader in rail infrastructure, while the West falls farther and farther behind. China built the advanced Shanghai Maglev magnetically levitated ultra-high speed train that travels over 400 km/hour – the world’s fastest regular service train that German industry developed in the 1980’s, but was politically blocked at home in Germany. Initially, China began high-speed rail development with foreign technology transfer agreements with Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. The Chinese engineers then re-designed internal components and built indigenous trains that can reach speeds of up to 380 km/h. China now exports Chinese rail technology.
The Hungary-Serbia high-speed railway will be part of a larger land-sea express passage linking China and Europe. According to the Chinese government, ‘This express passage extends from the Piraeus Port of Greece in the south to Budapest, Hungary in the north via Skopje in Macedonia and Belgrade in Serbia.’ Though Greece was not part of the China-CEE summit, leaders from the other three;Hungary, Macedonia, and Serbia met with Li and agreed to work together on the project.
Li also announced that China will invest in constructing and upgrading port facilities in the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black Seas. Li stated that ‘Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria have proposed to strengthen cooperation on port development.’ Projects will focus on ‘production capacity cooperation among the ports and industrial parks of the coastal areas of the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.” Chinese companies will be “the major stakeholders in these projects.’
China will use incentive financing to insure that Chinese companies get a decent share of the work. Li said, ‘China will provide preferential financing support for those projects that use Chinese products and equipment in production capacity cooperation.’ He proposed a new ’16+1 finance company’ to financially support such projects ‘through business means.’ That would avoid the severe EU public debt restrictions. Vazil Hudak, Slovakia’s Minister of Economy, told Xinhua, ‘The whole region could be interested in larger infrastructure projects like communication, transport or some energy infrastructure between these countries, meaning gas pipelines.’
Is the US losing control of the world and will 2016 release that grip altogether? This is third part media hype. But China, especially in concert with Russia and the Eurasian states is leading an economic renaissance of a scale not seen in more than one hundred years.
.
For years, the EU has distanced itself from the concept of a ‘fortress Europe’. Now it appears, the protection of the external borders has been elevated to that of a moral principle, while refugees are being treated like a hostile invading army and deterred by warships, barbed wire fences and soldiers.
For example, the Slovenian government declared that it would only accept people with valid travel documents. Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia followed suit, as a result of which no refugee could pass through the Balkan route.
‘An end has been put to the irregular flow of migrants along the west Balkan route.’ thereby exposing the false press reports claiming that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had successfully fought against the closure of the Balkan route. This was supported by an interview with Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner with Germany’s Die Welt, in which she declared, ‘The closure of the Balkan route is taking place according to plan, and the clock will not be turned back.’
>>The closure of borders in the West Balkans will have absolutely catastrophic consequences for refugees, who will now be confined to Greece. More than 14,000 refugees (2015- 16) are now waiting to continue their journey in temporary refugee camps at Idomeni, on the Greek-Macedonian border. Days of heavy rain transformed their camp into a swamp, and the small two-person tents, in which six-member families have to suffer, were full of water. The hygienic conditions are horrific. Hundreds of refugees, including many children, are suffering from colds and diarrhea, doctors from a hospital near Idomeni have reported.
According to the official count, 36,000 refugees are currently stuck in Greece. The country, pushed to the economic and social breaking point due to the austerity dictates of the EU, has capacity for only 25,000. According to Greece’s crisis management centre, around 7,300 refugees are in emergency camps on the Greek islands, around 9,400 in Athens and more than 18,000 in camps in northern Greece.
The Greeks expect that up to 150,000 refugees will be stranded in Greece. So far during 2016, 131,847 refugees have been registered crossing the Aegean Sea, and at least 347 have drowned during the crossing. The latest 25 died in a boat which sank practically at the same time as the talks were taking place in Brussels.
Has the mounting humanitarian crisis has been met with utter indifference by the political elite in the EU? One has to ask. Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz responded to a question from the Süddeutsche Zeitung last week on whether the pictures from the camps should act as a deterrent, ‘I have said previously that we had to expect such pictures, even though one cannot feel good about it when one sees such pictures.’ But, he added, ‘there are only two ways. We allow the people through, or we stop them.’
.
From Asymmetric War Into All Out Military Confrontation
The threat of a US war on Russia is also apparent in the flood of war propaganda which has been unleashed upon the western mind. Putin is being subjected to the same kind of demonisation previously reserved for Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, while the State Department via the New York Times serves up photographic evidence of Russian troops in Ukraine.
What underlies the US war drive? Well, in the run-up to the Ukraine crisis, Washington had grown increasingly incensed by Moscow’s role in blocking US war plans against both Syria and Iran, not to mention Putin’s granting of asylum to NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden. Earlier, there was the fiasco that Moscow dealt Washington in the US-backed 2008 war launched by Georgia against South Ossetia. The events in Ukraine suggest that US ‘imperialism’ has embarked upon a strategy to eliminate Russia as an obstacle to its drive to assert hegemony over the Middle East and, more broadly, the landmass of Eurasia.
There are also internal factors driving Washington to war. Social contradictions within the United States have, during 2016, reached a dangerous intensity. Masses of working people continue to bear the brunt of the capitalist economic crisis, even as Wall Street recoups its losses from the 2008 collapse and grows richer than ever. More and more fingers are pointing at the super-rich as the party responsible for unprecedented social inequality and misery in America.
As so often in the past, war provides an external outlet for internal social pressures and the danger of domestic unrest. Under conditions of overwhelming popular hostility to military intervention, one thing is certain, a war with Russia would rapidly lead to the shredding of the Constitution, the abrogation of democratic rights, the outlawing of political opposition and a massive escalation of police state measures.
The greatest danger is to underestimate the threat of war. Even if war is averted or postponed in the immediate instance via the Trump presidency, the profound contradictions of the system at hand make the catastrophe of a nuclear Third World War not just a danger, but an inevitability, outside of the working class mobilising its strength internationally in a unified movement to put an end to capitalism. A tall order – opinion.
.
The Next Four Years
Regarding the US Presidency and the Election of Donald Trump
Amidst the endless media commentary, debates and speeches by the major candidates for 2016 US president, there is virtually no discussion of the active preparations of the ruling class for an immense escalation of war following the elections.
The elections themselves are being held under conditions of expanding militarist violence all over the world. In the Middle East and North Africa, the Obama administration launches air strikes in Libya, as NATO-member Turkey and US-ally Saudi Arabia consider a ground invasion of Syria. A leading German newspaper recently commented that a Turkish invasion, resulting in a conflict with Russian forces backing the Syrian government, could quickly ‘mean ending a cold war (between the US and Russia) and starting a hot one.’
US denunciations of Russia’s role in Syria come amidst a relentless militarisation of Eastern Europe in the two years since the Western-backed coup in Ukraine. The right-wing nationalist Baltic states and Poland are being armed and given a virtual blank cheque to stage actions against Russia with the knowledge that they will be backed by the US and NATO.
In East Asia, under the framework of the ‘pivot to Asia,’ the Obama administration is developing a network of military bases and alliances to encircle China, while denouncing Beijing for ‘militarising’ the region.
The US escalations point inexorably in the direction of war with Russia or China, whether as the outcome of deliberate actions by Americans or the unplanned result of Washington’s ceaseless saber-rattling. Behind the scenes, the strategists of American hegemony are concerned that the gargantuan US military is insufficiently massive for the tasks set before it. Vast resources are to be poured into expanding the apparatus of destruction, and the reintroduction of the draft is being actively considered. Concrete war plans are being worked out at ruling-class think tanks and in Pentagon offices.
To prevent alerting the public to the catastrophic implications of these operations and block any public debate, the Obama administration was seeking to delay a full-scale military escalation until after Election Day.
Note that the Democrats lost and pro Russia Donald Trump was the Presidential victor.
However, the American ruling class has a long tradition of initiating major military operations shortly after an election. Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the slogan; ‘He kept us out of the war.’ Only a few months after his second inauguration, the United States declared war against Germany.
Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on the promise that he would not send American soldiers into World War II, but by December 1941, the US was at war with both Germany and Japan.
Lyndon Johnson campaigned in 1964 as the ‘peace candidate’ before vastly escalating US military operations in Southeast Asia soon after he was inaugurated. Richard Nixon claimed in 1968 to have a plan to end the Vietnam War. He followed his election with the bombing of Cambodia.
The 2000 elections were held just before the launching of the ‘war on terror.’ In the 2002 mid-term elections, both the Democrats and Republicans agreed to exclude the impending war with Iraq from their campaigns. Four months after the elections, in March of 2003, George Bush launched the invasion.
In the current election, the political establishment and the media are collaborating even more intensely to keep the ongoing military operations and those that are to come entirely off the agenda.
On the talk shows which featured Republican candidates Donald Trump, and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, there was hardly any reference to US foreign policy. Aside from a brief reference by Trump to the possibility of ‘World War III’ in Syria, none of the candidates spoke of the situation in the Middle East or the risk of a conflict with Russia, or China.
The campaign had, of course, seen many statements from the candidates proclaiming their devotion to American imperialism. On the Republican side, Trump, the personification of reaction built up during 15 years of the ‘war on terror’ issued a series of ‘calls for murder and aggression all over the world’, and his rivals have followed suit. For example, in his victory speech following the South Carolina primary, Trump proclaimed that under his presidency; ‘we’re going to build our military so big, so good, so strong, so powerful that nobody is ever going to mess with us.’
On the Democratic side, to the extent that she has differentiated herself from Obama, Clinton had done so from the right, calling for a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria that would quickly bring the US into a major and globally catastrophic conflict with Russia.
As for the defunct supposed ‘socialist’ Bernie Sanders, he proclaimed his support for the Obama administration’s war policy in the Middle East, as well as other aggressive actions. In a Democratic Party debate, Sanders denounced ‘Russia’s aggressive actions in the Crimea and in Ukraine’ and declared his support for a policy of ‘beefing up our troop level in that part of the world to tell Putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched.’ To emphasise the point, he added, ‘We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.’ – Indicative of the same old story?
During later campaign events, Sanders denounced ‘authoritarian Communist China.’ Besides backing the administration’s policy in Syria and Obama’s extension of the US occupation of Afghanistan, he endorsed the use of drones and Special Operations forces, at one point affirming that as President he would do ‘all of that and more.’ He has insisted that the United States maintain the largest military in the world. One might wonder who exactly has to pay for that?
.
To address:
WMD and potential terrorist acts?
The changing climate – the coming summer, what if the temperature moves to 120-130 degrees?
The rise of the Russian economy
Presented by (C-V) Admin.
Return to previous page / list
.
Secret Intelligence Service
.
ROOM No. 15
Secret Intelligence Service
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum