Who Gains from Turning Europe into a Potential Nuclear Battlefield?

February 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to make the case for Washington's decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.


Claims that the Russian Federation has been violating the treaty have yet to be substantiated with anything resembling credible evidence. Also missing is any rational explanation as to why Russia would develop or deploy nuclear weapons capable of launching a nuclear strike on Europe without warning - a scenario the INF Treaty was created to deter.

Bloomberg in its article, "Nuclear Fears Haunt Leaders With U.S.-Russian Arms Pact's Demise," would claim:
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s top civilian, cited recent Russian deployments and evoked a Cold War-style threat of nuclear destruction at a global conference of security and defense officials this weekend in Munich, the baroque German metropolis that’s one of Europe’s richest cities.  

“These missiles are mobile, easy to hide and nuclear-capable,” Stoltenberg said. “They can reach European cities, like Munich, with little warning.”
Stoltenberg, the rest of NATO, Washington, and the many media organizations that work for and answer to both have failed categorically to explain why Russia would ever use nuclear-capable missiles against cities "like Munich, with little warning."

Would Moscow Nuke Russia's Closest Trade Partners? 

While Russia has invested greatly in recent years to expand its economic trade with Asia, it is still heavily dependent on trade with Europe.

The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals not only Europe as the most important region for Russian trade, particularly for Russian exports, but nations like the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy as among Russia's top trade partners.



Russia is currently working with Germany on its Nord Stream 2 pipeline - a pipeline transporting Russian hydrocarbons to Western Europe without passing through politically unstable nations like Ukraine. The project is a keystone of recent Russian efforts to modernize and adapt its hydrocarbon industry around complications arising from US interference across Europe - particularly in the form of the US-engineered 2014 coup in Ukraine and NATO's constant US-led expansion along Russian borders.

And Russian companies aren't the only ones benefiting from Nord Stream 2 or other economic ties between Russia and Europe. Russia imports more from Germany than any other European nation, and Germany is only second to China among all nations Russia imports goods from.

It is highly unlikely Russia is going to launch nuclear missiles at "Munich, with little warning" - because to do so would be entirely without rational justification. Characters like Stoltenberg and the rest of NATO gloss over this obvious gap in their narrative to sell Russia as an unpredictable adversary and an enduring threat to Western Europe, as well as the United States. But by filling in this obvious gap in NATO's logic, we can see who really benefits from turning Europe into a potential nuclear battlefield by stationing short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

Nuclear Battlefield Europe

It is Washington, not Germany nor Russia that opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. It is Washington who seeks to drive a wedge between Western European and Russian economic trade. It is Washington who seeks to galvanize - or coerce - Europe into a united front against Russia - even if it means compromising regional stability - both in terms of economics and security.

Washington - by withdrawing from the INF Treaty - doesn't jeopardize the security of its own territory - but opens up a new dimension to an already ongoing nuclear arms race in the heart of Western Europe. It will be Western Europeans and Russians who face the consequences that emerge from the abandoning of the INF Treaty and any unpredictable - or even accidental - incidents that result from the stationing of short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

As pointed out many times before - NATO itself more than any external threat - represents the greatest danger to its member states in terms of pilfering national treasuries, miring nations in protracted wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores, and exposing member nations to the consequences of these wars including the deluge of refugees fleeing to Europe from them.

The US - by causing chaos and division both within Europe and between Europe and its trade partners - is able to continue exercising control over the continent - literally an ocean away from Washington DC.

The withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the dangerous arms race sure to follow is another example of the US playing the roles of arsonist and fire brigade as a means to maintain the relevance of the international order it constructed over the last century - an order the US serves as the self-appointed leader of.

In terms of simple economics and genuine European security - the United States could not be more irrelevant.


While Germany maintains the United States as its top export destination - the overall European and Asian regions by far contribute more to the German economy. Any instability or crisis in Europe would have an impact on the German economy its trade with the US would in no way compensate for. In terms of imports, the role of the US is even less.

While European trade with Russia is relatively small in comparison to inter-European trade, or with partners in Asia or even the US - Russian hydrocarbons serve an important role in European energy security. And while the cutting of ties between Europe and Russia would certainly hurt Russia more - the chaos used to cut those ties may disrupt stability within Europe itself - chaos that would impact inter-European trade - trade that ties with the US or Asia would not compensate for.

Washington plays a dangerous game, with short-range nuclear missiles being the latest point of leverage it seeks to use in prying Europe away from Russia. It is another illustration of just which nation's government truly poses the greater threat not only to Europe, but to global peace, security and stability in general.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.     

Yemen: US "Accidentally" Arming Al Qaeda (Again)

February 15, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US weapons are once again falling into the hands of militants fighting in one of Washington's many proxy wars - this time in Yemen - the militants being fighters of local Al Qaeda affiliates.


CNN in its article, "Sold to an ally, lost to an enemy," would admit:
Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found.
The article also claims:
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, its main partner in the war, have used the US-manufactured weapons as a form of currency to buy the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and influence the complex political landscape, according to local commanders on the ground and analysts who spoke to CNN.
Weapon transfer included everything from small arms to armored vehicles, CNN would report.

 The article would include a response from Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael, who claimed:

The United States has not authorized the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates to re-transfer any equipment to parties inside Yemen.

The US government cannot comment on any pending investigations of claims of end-use violations of defense articles and services transferred to our allies and partners.
Despite obvious evidence that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are both violating whatever agreements the Pentagon claims to have with both nations, the US continues fighting their joint war in Yemen for them in all but name.

The US role in Yemen includes not only arming Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also training their pilots, selecting targets, sharing intelligence, repairing weapon systems, refuelling Saudi warplanes, and even through the deployment of US special forces along The Saudi-Yemeni border.

Because of this continued and unconditional support - Pentagon complaints over weapon transfers it claims were unauthorized ring particularly hollow. More so when considering in other theaters of war, US weapons also "accidentally" ended up in the hands of extremists that just so happened to be fighting against forces the US opposed.

(Repeated) Actions Speak Louder than Pentagon Excuses 

An entire army of Al Qaeda-linked forces was raised in Syria against the government in Damascus through the "accidental" transfer of US weapons from alleged moderate militants to designated terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda's Al Nusra affiliate and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS).

And while this was presented to the public as "accidental" -  years before the war in Syria even erupted, there were already warning signs that the US planned to deliberately use extremists in a proxy war against both Syria and Iran. 

As early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" would warn (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
From 2011 onward, admissions throughout prominent Western newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post would admit to US weapon deliveries to "moderate rebels" in Syria.

Articles like the New York Times', "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," and "Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria," the Telegraph's,  "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," and the Washington Post's article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," would detail hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons, vehicles, equipment, and training funneled into Syria to so-called "moderate rebels." 


The US Syria Withdrawal and the Myth of the Islamic State's "Return"

February 7, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - At face value - the notion that the US occupation of Syria is key to preventing the return of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) to Syrian territory is unconvincing. 



Regions west of the Euphrates River where ISIS had previously thrived have since been permanently taken back by the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian and Iranian allies - quite obviously without any support from the United States - and in fact - despite Washington's best efforts to hamper Damascus' security operations.


Damascus and its Russian and Iranian allies have demonstrated that ISIS can be permanently defeated. With ISIS supply lines running out of NATO-territory in Turkey and from across the Jordanian and Iraqi border cut off - Syrian forces have managed to sustainably suppress the terrorist organization's efforts to reestablish itself west of the Euphrates.

The very fact that ISIS persists in the sole region of the country currently under US occupation raises many questions about not only the sincerity or lack thereof of  Washington's efforts to confront and defeat ISIS - but over whether or not Washington is deliberately sustaining the terrorist organization's fighting capacity specifically to serve as a pretext for America's continued - and illegal - occupation of Syrian territory. 


The US Department of Defense Says It Best 

A recent report (entire PDF version here) published by the US Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General himself would claim: 

According to the DoD, while U.S.-backed Syrian forces have continued the fight to retake the remaining ISIS strongholds in Syria, ISIS remains a potent force of battle-hardened and well-disciplined fighters that “could likely resurge in Syria” absent continued counterterrorism pressure. According to the DoD, ISIS is still able to coordinate offensives and counter-offensives, as well as operate as a decentralized insurgency.
The report also claims: 
Currently, ISIS is regenerating key functions and capabilities more quickly in Iraq than in Syria, but absent sustained [counterterrorism] pressure, ISIS could likely resurge in Syria within six to twelve months and regain limited territory in the [Middle Euphrates River Valley (MERV)].  

By "continued counterterrorism pressure," the report specifically means continued US occupation of both Syria and Iraq as well as continued military and political support for proxy militants the US is using to augment its occupation in Syria.

The report itself notes that the last stronghold of ISIS exists specifically in territory under defacto US occupation or protection east of the Euphrates River where Syrian forces have been repeatedly attacked - both by US-backed proxies and by US forces themselves. 

The very fact that the report mentions ISIS is "regenerating key functions and capabilities more quickly in Iraq than in Syria" despite the US planning no withdrawal from Iraq seems to suggest just how either impotent or genuinely uninterested the US is in actually confronting and defeating ISIS. As to why - ISIS serves as the most convincing pretext to justify Washington's otherwise unjustified and continued occupation of both Syria and Iraq. 


US DoD's Own Report Exposes Weakness, Illegitimacy of "Kurdish Independence" 

The report is all but an admission that US-backed militants in Syria lack the capability themselves to overcome the threat of ISIS without constant support from Washington. That the report claims ISIS is all but defeated but could "resurge" within a year without US backing - highlights the weakness and illegitimacy of these forces and their political ambitions of "independence" they pursue in eastern Syria. 

A Kurdish-dominated eastern Syria which lacks the military and economic capabilities to assert control over the region without the perpetual presence of and backing of US troops - only further undermines the credibility of Washington's Kurdish project east of the Euphrates. 


Is China Building a "Police State" or Countering Western-sponsored Terrorism?

February 1, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Recent headlines across American and European news agencies have focused on the rise of a so-called Chinese "police state," specifically in regards to security infrastructure put in place in China's western region of Xinjiang.


Articles like Bloomberg's "Inside the Vast Police State at the Heart of China’s Belt and Road" and the Economist's "China has turned Xinjiang into a police state like no other" depict Beijing's efforts as a "Muslim crackdown" and a "massive abuse of human rights."

While such articles allude to the very real violence that has taken place in Xinjiang and elsewhere targeted by an extremist minority among China's Uighur population, it is portrayed as "resistance" by Western sources rather than terrorism.

Bloomberg's article would claim:
...state-mandated drills are part of China’s suppression campaign against Uighurs, predominately Muslim ethnic groups whose members have periodically lashed out with riots, stabbings and other attacks in protest of a government controlled by the Han Chinese majority. 
In reality, Uighur extremists are terrorists pursuing unrealistic separatism encouraged by Washington, and doing so through extreme violence.

Uighur Separatism is US Sponsored  

The United State government via the National Endowment for Democracy dedicates a page to programmes it is funding in what is listed as "Xinjiang/East Turkistan," East Turkistan being the fictional name of the imaginary state separatists seek to carve out of Chinese territory.

The inclusion of "East Turkistan" is all but an admission to US support for Uighur separatism.

The "World Uyghur Congress" (WUC) is among the groups the US NED is funding. It openly promotes separatism.


WUC is omnipresent in Western news reports, promoting allegations against Beijing regarding Xinjiang, yet WUC is actually based in Munich, Germany and Washington D.C.

WUC representatives such as Dilxat Raxit and Rebiya Kadeer are cited, making various unsubstantiated claims regarding China's treatment of Uighurs with Western news agencies often failing to mention their WUC affiliation or that the WUC is funded by the US government in articles.

Stories like, "Chinese Police Order Xinjiang's Muslims to Hand in All Copies of The Quran," published by the US State Department-funded and directed Radio Free Asia network are based entirely on WUC claims.

Further investigation would reveal the Qurans being collected were published in Saudi Arabia and deliberately rewritten to promote extremism. Newer versions printed elsewhere were not being collected.

It is just one of many examples of the US intentionally undermining security in China, then intentionally misrepresenting China's attempts to respond to these growing threats.

Uighur Extremists are Carrying out Deadly Terrorism in China 

What Bloomberg describes as "periodically lashing out" has been more accurately presented even in the Western press, years before this latest disinformation campaign against Beijing began.

In a 2014 BBC article titled, "Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs?," a long and appalling list of Uighur terrorist attacks are presented:
In June 2012, six Uighurs reportedly tried to hijack a plane from Hotan to Urumqi before they were overpowered by passengers and crew. 

There was bloodshed in April 2013 and in June that year, 27 people died in Shanshan county after police opened fire on what state media described as a mob armed with knives attacking local government buildings

At least 31 people were killed and more than 90 suffered injuries in May 2014 when two cars crashed through an Urumqi market and explosives were tossed into the crowd. China called it a "violent terrorist incident". 

It followed a bomb and knife attack at Urumqi's south railway station in April, which killed three and injured 79 others. 

In July, authorities said a knife-wielding gang attacked a police station and government offices in Yarkant, leaving 96 dead. The imam of China's largest mosque, Jume Tahir, was stabbed to death days later. 

In September about 50 died in blasts in Luntai county outside police stations, a market and a shop. Details of both incidents are unclear and activists have contested some accounts of incidents in state media.

Some violence has also spilled out of Xinjiang. A March stabbing spree in Kunming in Yunnan province that killed 29 people was blamed on Xinjiang separatists, as was an October 2013 incident where a car ploughed into a crowd and burst into flames in Beijing's Tiananmen Square.
It can only be imagined what sort of security measures the United States or United Kingdom would put into place if such large scale and persist terrorism was taking place within their borders. It would also be curious to imagine what either nation would do if the separatism driving the violence was being openly promoted by a foreign state.


For China, draining the swamps of ideological extremism is their method of choice and is the impetus behind the so-called "reeducation camps" being operated in Xinjiang.

This systematic and brutal campaign of terrorism now being omitted from Western news sources is deliberate. Omitting this crucial context is meant to portray Beijing's reaction to years of deadly terrorism as irrational, oppressive and totalitarian.

And even as the US and other Western nations promote this campaign of disinformation, stories are still slipping through, admitting to the serious and growing security challenges Uighur terrorism presents not only China but the rest of the world.


Western Media Promotes Color Revolution in Asia

January 28, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Just as the US has done across the Arab World and in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia faces political subversion aimed at transforming the region to serve Washington's interests.


Thailand is a pivotal Southeast Asian state of nearly 70 million people, with the region's second largest economy, a formidable military and able to boast as the only nation in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonisation.

It's decisive pivot away from Washington, toward Beijing and other emerging global powers has led to the current government's determination to replace aging US military hardware with Chinese, Russian and European weapons and the signing of multiple infrastructure project deals with China including high-speed rail networks both within Thailand and connecting Thailand to China via Laos.

As a key hub in Southeast Asia's ASEAN bloc, Thailand's influence either for or against American designs in the region can significantly impact Washington's ambitions.

For all of these reasons, the United States has slated Thailand for regime change.

Toward that end, Washington currently maintains a growing army of supposed "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs) attempting to influence and control everything from the media and law, to education, the environment and even elections.

These NGOs are also actively leading protests against the current government, protests that have recently grown after the government repealed bans on political gatherings. 

The current Thai government resulted from a 2014 military coup that ousted a US client government headed by Thaksin Shinawatra via his nepotist-appointed nominee (and sister) Yingluck Shinawatra.

Shinawatra supporters carried out an extensive campaign of armed violence against over half-a-year of sustained anti-Shinawatra protests in the streets of the capital, Bangkok, leaving over 20 dead. Despite the number of protesters on peak days reaching well over a million, US and European media downplayed their significance and even wrote them off as "anti-democratic." At the same time, there are examples of that same Western media justifying armed attacks on protesters as merely expressions of "frustration." 

Selling Violent Subversion as "Pro-Democratic" 

Conversely, in order to sell US-backed subversion as "pro-democratic," including recent US-backed protests now taking to the streets of Thailand, the Western media has begun introducing headlines like the Guardian's recent piece titled, "Thailand: biggest democracy protests in years held as military junta delays elections."

In it, it claims:
Tensions continue to mount in Thailand as the ruling military junta has signalled that the long postponed elections will be delayed yet again, the fifth delay in less than five years. 

On Sunday, in one of the biggest pro-democracy protests in Thailand in over four years, hundreds of people took to the streets for the third time in a week to criticise the military government for appearing to renege on assurances the election would finally happen on 24 February.
Just as US and European media sources did during the Arab Spring, these staged demonstrations are being intentionally hyped, numbers inflated and the interests funding and organising them intentionally concealed from readers.

The picture featured in the Guardian's article shows protesters clad in red, the color of choice of Thaksin Shinawatra's United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD, more commonly known as just "red shirts." Yet the only mention of "red shirts" in the Guardian's article appears in the second to last paragraph, attempting to portray them as a separate movement from what are obviously red shirt protests taking place now.


The red shirts are notorious for their ultra-violent protests. In 2009 they rioted through Bangkok and gunned down two shopkeepers amid looting. In 2010, 300 armed militants were brought in to augment red shirt mobs, leading to weeks of gun battles and grenade attacks in Bangkok, leaving nearly 100 dead and culminating in citywide arson that damaged or consumed several major buildings including the stock exchange, a historical theater and a major downtown shopping centre.

It was also Thaksin Shinawatra's red shirts who carried out violent attacks on anti-Shinawatra protesters in 2014.

None of this is mentioned in the Guardian's article and at one point the article even claims the 2010 violence was a result of an "army assault." This is despite the Guardian itself at least partially admitting to red shirt violence in 2010.