Tuesday, 19 June 2018

الاجتياح الأميركي الفاشل بيروت 1982 والحُديدة 2018



يونيو 18, 2018


محمد صادق الحسيني


لعلّ المتابع يستغرب بشدة الربط بين العاصمة اللبنانية بيروت عام 1982 والعدوان «الإسرائيلي»، بضوء أخضر أميركي عليها، حيث كان الجنرال وليام هيغ رئيساً للأركان المشتركه للجيوش الأميركية، وبين اليمن، وبالتحديد الحُديدة في اليمن، حيث يتمّ تنفيذ هجوم واسع النطاق ضدّ هذه المدينة اليمنية الساحلية من قبل ما يُطلق عليه «التحالف العربي» وبمشاركة أميركية فرنسية «إسرائيلية» مباشرة، وليس كما في الغزو «الإسرائيلي» للبنان عام 1982، أيّ بإعطاء الضوء الأخضر الأميركي فقط.

وبالعودة إلى تشابه الوضع اللبناني، في حزيران 1982، مع الوضع اليمني، في حزيران الحالي 2018، فإنّ نظرة سريعة الى مسرح العمليات على ساحل البحر الأحمر، الممتدّ من ميناء الخوخة وحتى ميناء الحُديدة، يجب أن يسجل الملاحظات التالية:
أولاً: إنّ العقل الذي خطط لاجتياح لبنان، وصولاً إلى عاصمته بيروت، هو عقل عسكري أميركي «إسرائيلي»، تمثل رئيس أركان الجيوش الأميركية، الجنرال ادوارد ماير من 1979 – 1983 ، ورئيس أركان الجيش «الإسرائيلي» رفائيل إيتان من 1978 – 1983 ، وهو العقل نفسه الذي خطط للهجوم الحالي على الحُديدة، أيّ عقل رئيس الأركان المشتركة للجيوش الأميركية جوزيف دانفورد، ورئيس أركان الجيش «الإسرائيلي» الجنرال غابي ايزينكوت.
فقد تمثلت خطة اجتياح بيروت سنة 1982 في القيام بعملية اندفاعة مدرّعة سريعة للوصول إلى بيروت، بغطاء ناري كثيف جوي وبحري وبري، إلى جانب تنفيذ عملية إنزال بحري واسع على شواطئ خلدة، عند مدخل بيروت الجنوبي من جهة المطار.
تركّزت خطة الدفاع، للقوات المشتركة اللبنانية الفلسطينية، بالتعاون مع الجيش السوري الذي كان فوجه 87 ينتشر في التلال المحيطة بخلدة نقول إنّ الخطة قد تركزت على السماح لقوات العدو المدرّعة بتنفيذ اندفاعاتها الكبيرة والسريعة باتجاه خلدة، من الدامور/ الناعمة جنوب خلدة من دون الاشتباك معها. وقد انتظرت القوات المشتركة المنتشرة في المنطقة وصول تلك القوات الى مثلث خلدة، حيث أوقعتها في كمين مضادات للدروع، يوم 9/6/1982، امتدّ على طول ثلاثة كيلومترات، بالإضافة إلى تصدّي سلاحي المدفعية والمدفعية الصاروخية للقوات المشتركة لمحاولة الإنزال البحري.
وقد نجم عن ذلك التصدّي البطولي لقوات الغزو «الإسرائيلية» تدمير لواء مدرّع «إسرائيلي» بشكل كامل، إلى جانب إفشال الإنزال البحري ومقتل وجرح العديد من عناصر البحرية «الإسرائيلية»، أيّ فشل الجيش «الإسرائيلي» في التثبّت في النقاط التي وصل إليها في مناطق جنوب بيروت، من الدامور حتى مطار بيروت الدولي، واستمرار صمود القوات المشتركة اللبنانية الفلسطينية مدة 88 يوماً في وجه أحد أعتى جيوش العالم.
ثانياً: قيام الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، إثر هذا الفشل الذريع، في دخول بيروت من مدخلها الجنوبي، بمناورة التفاف على القوات المشتركة حيث فتح جبهة جديدة في منطقة الشوف اللبنانية، أيّ من الجنوب الشرقي، ليصل لاحقاً بقواته المجوقلة ومن ثم المدرّعة الى منطقة بعبدا وبعض الأحياء الشرقية لبيروت بالتعاون مع القوات العميلة التابعة في حينه لما يُسمّى «الجبهة اللبنانية» وذراعها العسكرية «القوات اللبنانية».
ثالثاً: هذا بالضبط ما يجري منذ ثلاثة أيّام على جبهة الحُديدة، حيث قامت قوات التحالف، وتحت غطاء ناري كثيف جداً من الجو والبحر والبرّ بمحاولة الاقتراب من مواقع قوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله في جنوب الحُديدة ومنطقة المطار، حيث سمح لهذه القوات بالتقدّم وتمّ إيقاعها في كمين ضخم لمضادات الدروع مما أدّى إلى تمكّن قوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله من إبادة لواء مدرّع بالكامل وقتل وجرح جميع عناصره. في الوقت الذي حاولت فيه قوى العدوان تنفيذ عملية إنزال بحري واسعة على شواطئ غليفقه فجر يوم 14/6/2018، جنوب الحُديدة لتعزيز القوات المدرّعة التي حاولت مهاجمة القوات المدافعة عن المطار. وقد قام سلاح البحرية اليمني بالتصدّي لهذه المحاولة بالصواريخ البحرية مما أدّى الى تدمير بارجة إماراتية وقتل عدد من المرتزقة الذين حاولت تلك البارجة إنزالهم على الشاطئ، وبالتالي تمّ إفشال الهجوم بالكامل.
رابعاً: وكما حصل في المحاولة «الإسرائيلية»، في حزيران 1982، للتثبّت في مثلث خلدة والسيطرة عليه، تمهيداً لدخول بيروت، وقيام الجيش الاسرائيلي بمناورة الالتفاف على القوات المشتركة اللبنانية الفلسطينية، من محاور بيروت الجنوبية الشرقية، نقول كما حصل آنذاك قامت غرفة العمليات الأميركية البريطانية «الإسرائيلية» السعودية المشتركة، التي تقود الهجوم على الحُديدة، بالانتقال الى محاولة الالتفاف على قوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله عبر بدء تنفيذ مناورة التفاف عبر الخط الموازي لخط الساحل، أيّ عبر تنفيذ هجمات كبيرة على محور التحيتا/ بيت الفقيه /المنصورية /وباتجاه الدريهمي /الشجيرة، حيث وقعت هذه القوات في مجموعة كمائن لقوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله، التي تمكنت من إفشال إقامة رؤوس جسور لهذه القوات في المناطق المذكوره أعلاه، وبدأت التعامل معها بالوسائط النارية المناسبة، الأمر الذي أسفر عن:
ـ محاصرة قوات التحالف في المناطق التي استدرجت اليها وإيقاعها في مصائد دروع لن تخرج منها دبابة واحدة إلا حطاماً.
ـ قطع خطوط إمداد هذه القوات البرية بالكامل والشروع في تنفيذ سلسلة إغارات قاتلة ضدّها، حيث استطاعت قوات الجيش وأنصار الله تدمير ثلاث عشرة دبابة للقوات الغازية هذا اليوم فقط، وذلك على محور الفازة.
ـ نجاح قوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله في اتباع تكتيكات عسكرية مبتكرة، أفقدت قوات التحالف ميزة التفوّق الناري بشكل عام والسيطرة الجوية بشكل خاص، بدليل عدم نجاح هذه القوات في الوصول الى محيط مطار الحُديدة وإبقاء وحداتهم، التي وصلت إلى الدريهمي، تحت الحصار وعرضة للعمليات الهجومية النوعية من قبل الجيش وأنصار الله، أيّ فرض حرب استنزاف قاسية على هذه القوات ستؤدّي في أقرب الآجال الى انهيارها الكامل، رغم الغطاء الناري الكثيف الذي توفره لها طائرات التحالف، بما فيها طائرات أف 35 «الإسرائيلية».
خامساً: يُضاف إلى ذلك سلسلة الهجمات المضادّة التي تنفذها قوات الجيش اليمني وأنصار الله، ليس فقط على جميع الجبهات في اليمن، وانما داخل السعودية أيضاً، في جيزان ونجران وعسير، وما ستقوم به القوة الصاروخية اليمنية من ضربات على أهداف هامة لقوى العدوان والتي لن تكون آخرها ضربة صاروخ التوشكا الذي قتل وجرح العشرات من أولئك المرتزقة يوم 14/6/2018.
إنه زمن الأميركي البشع يحاول إعادة الكرة معنا،
لكنه زمن الانتصارات أيضاً الذي تصنعه شعوبنا الحية،
واليمنيون فيه سادة البرّ والبحر وقريباً الجو أيضاً.
بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…
Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Monday, 18 June 2018

US Forces Albania to Take IS Fighters After Hosting MEK

Edi Rama at a NATO meeting (DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro)Edi Rama at a NATO meeting (DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro)
by Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh
“Albania will become a coordination center for fighters returning from ISIS to the Balkans,” announced Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov during a joint press conference with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama during a conference against violent extremism, which took place in Tirana this week.
Neither prime minister offered additional details, such as who is pushing this plan or with whom it is being negotiated. This vagueness generated criticism that Rama had not only failed to consult with parliament on this matter of grave importance to his country but perhaps he himself was not fully consulted.
Albania has been used before to host undesirables. In 2005, the United States sent five inmates from Guantanamo Bay there. Between 2013 and 2016, Washington also relocated 2,901 Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) extremists there from Iraq, which had been trying to expel them since 2003.
Now, the Trump administration is telling Albania to host and de-radicalize former Islamic State (ISIS or IS) fighters who originated from the Balkans region. According to Colonel Bardhyl Kollcaku, head of Albania’s Intelligence and Security Agency, “We have the appropriate experience to contribute in the study and addressing the phenomenon of foreign fighters.”
If the MEK had been de-radicalized, Kollcaku’s assertion would be credible. But they weren’t.
In 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pragmatically removed the MEK from the US terrorism list to allow members to be sent to third countries so that Iraq could be rid of them. European countries would not take them because of their terrorist past. Instead, the Albanian government agreed to take them only on the promise that a de-radicalization institute be established to reintegrate the extremists back into society.
This did not happen. The allocated budget, lodged with the American embassy in Tirana, has not been touched. Instead, after Donald Trump became president and set about dismantling every detail of Barack Obama’s legacy, the MEK were “allowed” to regroup.
Regrouping meant that the MEK would continue to call for violent regime change against Iran, backed by US extremists like Rudi Giuliani and John Bolton who now occupy influential posts in the Trump administration. As a result, Albania has become a front-line enemy state in relation to Iran.
Regrouping also meant re-enslaving members, who are not paid and have no human rights. It also meant building a closed camp in a remote part of the country to which Albanian authorities and security services have no access. As though Albania wasn’t having a hard time already cracking down on criminal and mafia gangs, now the MEK are implicated in criminal activity. Among several individuals arrested for money laundering last month, two Israelis were found to be associated with FARA NGO. This is the same company involved in building the closed military training base in Manez to which rank-and-file MEK fighters were moved last autumn.
At the same time that was happening, word got out that the widows and orphans of killed IS fighters would soon be transferred to the MEK’s deserted buildings in the Albanian capital of Tirana. Such rumors were dismissed at the time. Now it appears that the truth is much worse. Actual IS fighters will be sent to Albania.
It’s possible, however, that the IS fighters will follow a similar trajectory as the MEK in Albania. Western powers have seen Syria and Iraq fall away from their influence. Hezbollah governs Lebanon, and a restive population wrapped up in the politics of Palestine is challenging the stability of Jordan. These are uncertain times in the Middle East. Some individuals in Western power structures have broached the possibility of creating a bespoke covert mercenary force to bring fresh chaos and violence into the mix. Although the MEK has been such a handy tool for aggravating Iran, former IS fighters could, with the right training, constitute a similar force against other countries.
And although John Bolton recently remarked that regime change against Iran is now off the Trump administration’s agenda, continued patronage of the MEK belies that claim. So, this is not just Albania’s problem. The West needs to urgently ask, “What use is the Islamic State now?”
Massoud Khodabandeh is the director of Middle East Strategy Consultants and has worked long-term with the authorities in Iraq to bring about a peaceful solution to the impasse at Camp Liberty and help rescue other victims of the Mojahedin-e Khalq cult. Among other publications, he co-authored the book “The Life of Camp Ashraf: Victims of Many Masters” with his wife Anne Singleton. They also published an academic paper on the MEK’s use of the Internet. Anne Khodabandeh is a UK expert in anti-terrorist activities and a long-standing activist in the field of deradicalization of extremists. She has written several articles and books on this subject, along with her husband, who is of Iranian origin. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sunday, 17 June 2018

Saudi-led Aggression on Results Only in Failure, Hudaydah will be a swamp for invaders




Saudi-led Aggression on Hodeidah Results Only in Failure

June 17, 2018
hodeidah
The Saudi and Emirati aggression on Yemeni port of Hodeidah is resulting only in failure, with Yemeni Army and Popular Committees retaking initiative in the biggest battle since the war on Yemen started in March 2015.
Official in Ansarullah revolutionary group, Mohammad Al-Bakhiti, dismissed all reports that the Saudi-led forces have taken the airport of Hodeidah, stressing that the aggression powers sustain heavy losses.
“Yemeni forces completely retook initiative in western coast battle,” Al-Bakhiti said.
“Aggression forces have never secured any achievement in Hodeidah, morale of Yemeni Army, popular committees high,” the Yemeni official added.
Meanwhile, Yemeni sources confirmed that the Yemeni allied forces were still in control of the airport of Hodeidah, noting that Saudi-led media reports on capturing the airport aimed at diverting attention from the huge losses inflicted upon Saudi-led ground troops and mercenaries in several fronts across the port city.
In this context, Mohammed al-Sharif, deputy head of Yemen’s civil aviation, said images circulated online about the airport had been taken in October 2016.
“Yemeni forces are calling upon Saudi-led forces via speakers to surrender because they have no other choice. They are besieged from three sides with the fourth side is the sea,” Sabaa News Agency quoted a Yemeni source as saying.
“They are collapsing and the results of the battle show how they are in pure failure,” the source added.
The UAE, a key member of the Saudi-led coalition waging the war on Yemen, launched the Hudaydah assault on Wednesday despite warnings that it would compound the impoverished nation’s humanitarian crisis.
SourceAgencies
Related Videos
Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Reasons for the USA’s illegal occupation, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium

This article was first published by GR on September 18, 2017
Trump calls for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? Is it part of the “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys, or is it something else? 
Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market. 
These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.
The implication of Trump’s resolve is to plunder and steal Afghanistan’s mineral riches to finance the “reconstruction” of a country destroyed by the US and its allies after 16 years of war, i.e  “War reparations” paid to the aggressor nation?  
Screenshot: The Independent.
An internal 2007 Pentagon memo, quoted by the New York Times suggests that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.” (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010, see also Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010).
While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment…
“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said… “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines. (New York Times, op. cit.)
What this 2007 report does not mention is that this resource base has been known to both Russia (Soviet Union) and China going back to the 1970s.
While the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani has called upon President Donald Trump to promote US. investments in mining, including lithium, China is in the forefront in developing projects in mining and energy as well as pipeline projects and transport corridors.
China is a major trading and investment partner with Afghanistan (alongside Russia and Iran), which potentially encroaches upon US economic and strategic interests in Central Asia
China’s intent is to eventually integrate land transportation through the historical Wakhan Corridor which links Afghanistan to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region (see map below).
Afghanistan’s estimated $3 trillion worth of unexploited minerals, Chinese companies have acquired rights to extract vast quantities of copper and coal and snapped up the first oil exploration concessions granted to foreigners in decades. China is also eyeing extensive deposits of lithium, uses of which range from batteries to nuclear components.

The Chinese are also investing in hydropower, agriculture and construction. A direct road link to China across the remote 76-kilometer border between the two countries is in progress. (New Delhi Times, July 18, 2015)
Afghanistan has extensive oil reserves which are being explored by China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
Source Mining News, August 2010
“War is Good for Business” 
The US military bases are there to assert US control over Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. According to Foreign Affairs, there are more U.S. military forces deployed there [Afghanistan] than to any other active combat zone”, the official mandate of  which is “to go after” the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS as part of the “Global war on Terrorism”.
Why so many military bases? Why the additional forces sent in by Trump?
The unspoken objective of US military presence in Afghanistan is to keep the Chinese out, i.e hinder China from establishing trade and investments relations with Afghanistan.
More generally, the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan on China’s Western border is part of a broader process of military encirclement of the People’s Republic of China.–i.e naval deployments in the South China sea, military facilities in Guam, South Korea, Okinawa, Jeju Island, etc. (see 2011 map below)
Pivot to Asia
Under the Afghan-US security pact,  established under Obama’s Asian pivot, Washington and its NATO partners have established a permanent military presence in Afghanistan, with military facilities located close to China’s Western frontier.  The pact was intended to allow the US to maintain their nine permanent military bases, strategically located on the borders of China, Pakistan and Iran as well as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
US military presence, however, has not prevented the expansion of trade and investment relations between China and Afghanistan. A strategic partnership agreementwas signed between Kabul and Beijing in 2012. Afghanistan has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Moreover, neighboring Pakistan –which is now a full member of the SCO–, has established close bilateral relations with China. And now Donald Trump  is threatening Pakistan, which for many years has been the target of  America’s “undeclared drone war”.
In other words, a shift in geopolitical alignments has taken place which favors the integration of Afghanistan alongside Pakistan into the Eurasian trade, investment and energy axis.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and China are cooperating in oil and gas pipeline projects. The SCO of which Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are full members is providing a geopolitical platform for the integration of Afghanistan into the Eurasian energy and transport corridors.
China is eventually intent upon integrating Afghanistan into the transport network of Western China as part of the Belt and Road initiative.
Moreover, China’s state owned mining giant, Metallurgical Corporation of China Limited (MCC) “has already managed to take control of the huge copper deposit Mes Aynak, which lies in an area controlled by the Taliban.  Already in 2010, Washington feared “that resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth which would upset the United States”… After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more” (Mining.com)
China and the Battle for Lithium
Chinese mining conglomerates are now competing for strategic control of the global Lithium market, which until recently was controlled by the “Big Three” conglomerates including Albemarle’s Rockwood Lithium (North Carolina), The Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile and FMC Corporation, (Philadelphia) which operates in Argentina. While the Big Three dominate the market, China now accounts for a large share of global lithium production, categorized as the fourth-largest lithium-producing country behind Australia, Chile and Argentina. Meanwhile China’s Tianqi Group has taken control of Australia’s largest lithium mine, called Greenbushes. Tianqi now owns a 51-percent stake in Talison Lithium, in partnership with North Carolina’s Albemarle.
This thrust in lithium production is related to China’s rapid development of the electric car industry:
China is now “The Center Of Lithium Universe”. China is already the largest market for electric cars. BYD, Chinese company backed by Warren Buffett, is the largest EV manufacturer in the world and Chinese companies are producing the largest amount of lithium chemicals for the batteries. There are 25 companies, which are making 51 models of electric cars in China now. This year we will see over 500,000 EVs sold in China. It took GM 7 years to sell 100,000 Chevy Volts from 2009. BYD will sell 100,000 EVs this year alone! (Mining.com, November 2016 report)
The size of the reserves of Lithium in Afghanistan have not been firmly established.
Analysts believe that these reserves which are yet to be exploited will not have a significant impact on the global lithium market.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The future of the world in the hands of American military drug addicts


In 2015, ninety-two American missile officers were suspended because they had been cheating, taking drugs, or sleeping in the missile silos. These men are employed to guard and to operate 150 nuclear missiles at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming which constitutes one-third of the 400 Minuteman 3 missiles that stand “on hair trigger alert” 24 hours a day in silos which are scattered across the northern Great Plains.
Two officers aged between 22 and 27 are in charge of each missile silo, and each man is armed with a pistol to shoot the other if one shows signs of deviant behaviour
The missile silos are equipped with antiquated equipment including floppy disks and telephones that often don’t work. Each Minuteman 3 missile contains three hydrogen bombs, almost 50 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The officers in charge of these deadly weapons are clearly expected to follow strict behavioural standards at all times.
During the investigation, fourteen airmen had allegedly been using cocaine. Other drugs involved were ecstasy, cocaine, LSD and  marijuana.  All in all roughly one hundred officers were involved in the cheating scandal in 2015 and 2016.
Airman 1st Class Nickolos A. Harris, said to be the leader of the drug ring, testified that he had no trouble obtaining  LSD and other drugs from civilian sources and he pleaded guilty to using and distributing LSD plus ecstasy, cocaine and marijuana.
A side note – because LSD had showed up so infrequently in drug tests across the military, in December 2006 the Pentagon eliminated LSD screening from standard drug-testing procedures.
In more episodes of gross malfeasance, 2013 Vice Admiral Timothy Giardina,the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, was sacked for illegal gambling while Major General Michael Carey, a man in charge of all of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missile silos, was dismissed after a visit to Moscow when he became inebriated and insisted on singing in Russian night clubs, while cavorting with inappropriate women.
Considering all of these facts among many others, it is amazing to me that we are still here having not been incinerated in a global nuclear holocaust. Suffice it to say, we are in the hands of fallible men armed to the teeth with missiles and hydrogen bombs.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

What Was Achieved in Singapore

16-06-2018 | 10:04

All eyes were on Singapore this week where world-class showman and US President Donald Trump took the stage for what was undoubtedly the most important performance of his life.
What Was Achieved in Singapore
In a meeting with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un that lasted just over 40 minutes, Trump reportedly managed to hammer out an agreement to denuclearize the entire Korean peninsula “very quickly”.
He then described his new relationship with Kim as a “special bond” and said that “people are going to be very impressed” by what the pair achieved.
Sure, it’s a far cry from Trump’s “fire and fury” days when he was threatening the North Koreans with total annihilation.
It’s also a departure from suggestions by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton to apply the not-so quick “Libyan model” in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
But some things have not changed. Sticking to the on-again, off-again approach when it comes to his diplomatic episodes with Pyongyang, Trump told reporters after the summit that he trusts Kim but may later say he “made a mistake”.
In substance, the summit communiqué is equally ambiguous. It is little more than a list of very generalized commitments and nothing that Pyongyang has not already agreed to over the past thirty years.
It offers no timetable or a definition of denuclearization – a term that was previously characterized by North Korea and the US in very dissimilar ways.
The National Director at the ANSWER Coalition Brian Becker, who attended the Singapore summit, believes that Pyongyang is “prepared to carry out the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula but only in exchange for a new policy from the United States.”
“Right now the world sees that North Korea was willing to make many efforts – four unilateral concessions in a row, including a moratorium on these nuclear missile technology tests. They are now waiting for reciprocation from the United States,” Becker adds.
Although the vague declaration does in theory pave the way for further negotiations, any long-term settlement between Washington and Pyongyang requires a painstaking years-long process.
That process would have to address a long list of issues, including the reunification of the two Koreas and the withdrawal of tens of thousands of American troops from the region.
To what extent Trump, his administration or anyone in Washington is truly willing to broach such matters is pure speculation.
But tensions along the Korean Peninsula are a prefect example of a decades-long geopolitical problem that cannot be solved without the participation of all key players including China and Russia.
Washington’s escalating trade war with China and growing tensions with Russia suggest that the Americans are not interested in any such overtures.
The dishonest broker
Unlike the vague pledges in Singapore, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was the product of 18 months of negotiations between seven nations and included specifics on denuclearization and verification.
Both were ‘historic’ events, and both played out before the lenses of the world media.
Unfortunately for all involved, Washington’s nuclear deals never last longer than one presidential term.
Trump ripped-up Barack Obama’s Iran deal. Obama killed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who signed a nuclear disarmament deal with his predecessor George W. Bush. And Bush brings us back to North Korea, tearing up Bill Clinton’s nuclear deal with Kim Jong-un’s late father.
Journalist and political commentator Shobhan Saxena says that the “North Koreans have to be careful”.
“They should know whom they are dealing with because the Americans have proven again and again that they are not honest brokers of peace and they have failed time and again to keep their word,” Saxena explains.
In essence, all these agreements were little more than short-term strategies in Washington’s quest for hegemony.
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and ratchet up tensions with Tehran also implies that the Americans will have to direct more recourses towards the Middle East.
As such, a temporary easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula would certainly go a long way in guaranteeing that the US avoids a struggle on two fronts at a time when its power and influence are on the decline.
The domestic angle
The optics of the Singapore summit feed the narrative of a major diplomatic victory for the Trump Administration.
Trump, who desperately needs a win, will undoubtedly use the Kim meeting for domestic consumption.
His Republican Party is preparing for midterm elections, and the president needs them to retain their majority in Congress or he risks increasing his chances of being impeached.
Naturally, while waiting for the dust to settle, Trump will also be eyeing a second term in office.
With every White House policy decision being scrutinized, the incumbent will have his work cut out.
And having talking points about a ‘historic’ meeting – the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader – certainly helps.
Source: Al-Ahed News


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

THE SAKER: “CAN THE EU BECOME A PARTNER FOR RUSSIA?”

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review
The re-nomination (albeit somewhat reshuffled) of the “economic block” of the Medvedev government has elicited many explanations, some better than others.  Today I want to look at one specific hypothesis which can be summed up like this: Putin decided against purging the (unpopular) “economic block” from the Russian government because he wanted to present the EU with “known faces” and partners EU politicians would trust.  Right now, with Trump’s insane behavior openly alienating most European leaders, this is the perfect time to add a Russian “pull” to the US “push” and help bring the EU closer to Russia.  By re-appointing Russian “liberals” (that is a euphemism for WTO/WB/IMF/etc types) Putin made Russia look as attractive to the EU as possible.  In fact, the huge success of the Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum is proof that this strategy is working.
This hypothesis is predicated on one crucial assumption: that the EU, under the right conditions, could become a partner for Russia.
But is that assumption warranted?  I personally don’t believe that it is, and I will try to lay out the reasons for my skepticism:
First, there is no “EU”, at least not in political terms.  More crucially, there is no “EU foreign policy”.  Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the “EU” does not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy.  The best proof of that is how clueless the so-called “EU” has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump.  At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects “more equal than others” (say, the UK versus Greece).  Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the USA, and this is no surprise considering that even the so-called “EU leader” or “EU heavyweight” – Germany – only has very limited sovereignty.  The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn’t give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.  The undeniable fact is that the so-called “EU foreign policy” has gone against the vital interests of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
The Saker: "Can the EU become a partner for Russia?"
Welcome to Europe!
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU organization, but NATO.  And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% USA.  Forget about those fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke.  Not only do they represent no credible force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are completely dependent on the USA for a long list of critical capabilities and “force multipliers“: command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc.  Furthermore, in terms of training, force planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally dependent on the USA.  The reason?  The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam.  Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European (I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red, white an blue as it gets.  Forget about the “Eurocorps” or any other so-called “European armies” – it’s all hot air, like Trudeau’s recent outburst at Trump.  In reality in the EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss.  And here is the single most important fact: NATO desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist.  Do you really think that anybody will let that happen?  I sure don’t!  And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more US troops on their soil, not less and they are all pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion, hence the need for more and bigger military exercises close to the Russian border.  And just to cover all its bases, NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America.
Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships with Russia.  They include:
  1. Unpopular governments which need to explain their own failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman.  A good example is how the Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia.  Or the British with their “Brexit”.  The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a “Russian interference” in case the election results don’t turn out to be what they need.
  2. Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly back down from it.  Best examples: the UK and Merkel.  But since most (but not all) EU states did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British “highly likely” and in the name of “solidarity”, they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy.  There is *no way* they are simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
  3. EU prostitutes: states whose only policy is to serve the USA against Russia.  These states compete against each other in the most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of “most faithful and willing loyal servant of the USA”.  The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the “fiercely patriotic Poles” who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).  True, now that EU subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they know that the only place where they can still get money is the USA.  So don’t expect them to change their tune anytime soon (even if Bulgaria has already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it).
  4. Governments who want to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political party/movement to be “paid by the Kremlin” and representing Russian interests.  The best example is France and how it treated the National Front.  I would argue that most EU states are, in one way or another, working on creating a “national security state” because they do realize (correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).
Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a powerful anti-russophobic force.  Why?  Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany (and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about “Russia being an aggressor” which “does not comply with the Mink Agreements”, North Stream is going ahead!  Yes, money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these sanctions.  Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have.  This is why for *years* now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.
Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated, by the way.  We have clearly seen that these days when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it was the Europeans who said “nope!”.  To the extend that there is a “EU position” (even a very demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe.  So when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say “no”.  By the way, for all the Trump’s statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more sanctions on Russia.
The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this.  Again, the best example of this is the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6 reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia needs the G7 (she really doesn’t!).  Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally joined at the hip.  Just think of mob “families” who can even have “wars” against each other, but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all mobsters prey upon.
The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe.  There is a very high probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia (DNR/LRN).  I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis will lose.  The only question is this: to whom will they lose:
  • Option one: they lose to the combined forces of the DNR and LNR.  This is probably the most likely outcome.  Should this happen, there is a very high probability of a Novorussian counter attack to liberate most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, especially the cities of Slaviansk and Mariupol.  Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can be pretty darn sure of what the reaction in Kiev and in the West will be: Russia will be blamed for it all.  The AngloZionists will *never* admit that the Ukronazi regime lost a civil war to its own people because the Novorussians will never accept a Nazi regime ruling over them.  Thus, a Novorussian victory will result in more hysterical Russophobia.
  • Option two: the Ukronazis succeed in their attack and threaten to overrun Donetsk, Lugansk and the rest of Novorussia.  Putin simply cannot allow this to happen.  He has made that promise many times and he has recently repeated it during his “open line” with the Russian people.  If the Russians are forced to intervene, this will not be a massive ground invasion – there is no need for that.  Russia has the firepower needed in the form of missile and artillery strikes to destroy the attacking Urkonazi forces and to impose a no-fly zone over all of Novorussia.  If Kiev pushes on and launches a full-scale attack on Russia proper, the Ukrainian armed forces will be totally disorganized and cease combat in about 48 hours.  This scenario is what I call the “Neocon dream” since such a Russian intervention will not be imaginary, but quite real and the Kremlin will even confirm it all very publicly and probably recognize the two Novorussian Republics just like what happened in 08.08.08 when Saakashvili decided to invade South Ossetia.  So, AngloZionists will (finally!) have the “proof” that Russia is the aggressor, the Poles and Balts will prepare for an “imminent” Russian invasion and I think that there is a pretty good chance that NATO forces will move into the Western Ukraine to “stop the Russians”, even if the said Russians will have absolutely no desire (or even possible motive) to want to invade the rest of the Ukraine or, even less so, Poland, Sweden or the Baltic statelets.
I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not happen.  Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie military and “dobrobat” death squads) and maybe Putin’s recent not-so-veiled threat about “grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood” will have the needed effect.  But what will happen even if this attack does not take place?  The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state.  Whatever scenario you find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame Russia.
The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe.  It is becoming pretty clear that the USA is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones.  Right now, the USA and the “good terrorists” have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving “bad terrorists” into “good ones”.  This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower.  Furthermore, Russia is now reporting that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) “good terrorists” to – you guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians.  And why not?  It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again?  At the very least, it would give the USA another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even if they fail again, facts don’t matter here). And make no mistake, a US “victory” in Syria (or in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek’s excellent article on this topic here).  And, again, Russia will be blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be attacked.  As I wrote already many times, this is far from over.  Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other) but my personal opinion is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye.  And if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all quickly and obediently fall in line (“solidarity”, remember?).
The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak.
One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum.  However, I believe that neither of these events was really centered around Europe at all,  but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert Doctorow on this topic here).  Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about the “isolation” of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while Russia and China are having a tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire with.  So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal “economic block” in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all (especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).
Conclusion:
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the USA, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet.  It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.  You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for “protection”.  To think that by presenting a “liberal” face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don’t care about your face: what they want is your submission.  Vladimir Putin put it best when he said “They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense”.
However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will, engage with individual EU member states.  There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and Italy, or the UK and Austria.  Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also non-viable.  Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types and not the kind of Europe the European people need.  In fact, I would even argue that the EU is the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent.  Thus Russia should use her resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc.  These are all entities which seek to undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia.  Again, Putin put it best when he recently declared that “either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia“.
Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous to any country wanting to be truly sovereign.  If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple.  Instead, Russia needs to engage those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called “the Europe of fatherlands“.  Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall.  Sooner rather than later, one by one, European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia.  Only if the people of Europe succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe.  A prosperous Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals” is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European  elites replaced by sovereignists.
The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and the same enemy:  they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly, treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire.  This is why pushing the issue of “true sovereignty” (and national traditional values) is, I believe, the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire.  This will be a long struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.
The Saker
PS: just as I was sending this article away I came across this article by Paul Craig Roberts “Is Europe Too Brainwashed To Normalize Relations With Russia?” – make sure to also check it out!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!