Occupy Hong Kong, Take Two

February 4, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) Were Hong Kong's street demonstrations a movie, the director's chair would certainly be placed in Washington D.C. Several independent researchers have exposed the shockingly large number of direct links between funding and political backing from Washington and nearly every prominent leader organizing street demonstrations in Hong Kong.

The yellow umbrellas winding through Hong Kong's streets, whose numbers are inflated by American and British media's expert use of tight angles and close ups, could be considered "take two." Take one wasn't fit for Washington's vision for Hong Kong, which is ironic considering the protests claim to be fighting for Hong Kong's self-determination. Regardless, the last round of protests fared poorly, with the majority of Hong Kong's residents turning on protesters who blocked roads for weeks, hurting local businesses and disrupting the lives, peace, and prosperity of the majority.

A loud, disruptive minority, disrupting the peace and prosperity of the majority, all while shouting "pro-democratic" slogans presents another irony and one that seems lost on some.

Washington's Studio Faces Stiff Competition 

The problem for Washington is that its ability to manage public perception has been drastically diminished. This, all while the ability of others, particularly nations targeted by Washington's schemes, now have the ability to bring their side of the story to a larger audience. The balance of power struck means that attempts to portray crooked, clumsy criminals, awkward academics and washed up politicians as another iteration of the global "occupy" phenomenon were destined to fail from the beginning.

EU Exploits Paris Attacks to Build US-Style Police State in Europe

January 28, 2015 (Vladimir Platov - NEO) - After the bloody events in Paris, when journalists of Charlie Hebdo were murdered in the broad daylight, all across the globe numerous journals have been discussing who could benefit from this tragedy.

In some countries (primarily Muslim) the manifestations against the provocative publications of controversial cartoons of the Prophet that mocked the religious feelings of all Muslims are still on the rise. Some experts have linked these provocative anti-Muslim cartoons with the acquisition of Charlie Hebdo by the Rothschilds in December 2014, the latter of whom are constantly worrying about their profits. But now they can be fairly content since after these tragic events the number of copies sold increased tenfold.

Another group of experts believes that the attack on French journalists was the result of direct actions of Western intelligence agencies. Therefore, the consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre can be compared to those of 9/11 attack, such as the tightening of security in Europe. These agencies have been seeking ways to create obstacles to the spread of Islam in Europe, along with obtaining legislative support to establish total surveillance over the activities and private lives of Europeans. Political elites behind such agencies believe that democratic rights, the protection of which has been the focal point of all populist political speeches in the West, should be narrowed. Police control in Western countries is increasingly intrusive with each passing day, as the growing distrust and discontent of the European population becomes more apparent. Western elites have failed to put forward comprehensive social and economic measures that could ease this growing angst, therefore an increase in political activity, anti-government demonstrations, and electoral control over ruling parties was inevitable.

The recent two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers of the EU in Brussels, summoned to discuss the “urgent measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism.” can be regarded as damning evidence against Western elites. It was of little surprise for experts that the topic of these discussions was the adoption of a EU version of the US Patriot Act, that is used by Washington to control not only its fellow citizens, but “allies” alike.

US Spying in Germany - With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

January 21, 2014 (Vladimir Platov - NEO) - A German spy employed by Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) was arrested in Berlin in early July 2014. He was charged with handing out the top secret documents to foreign secret services, namely the CIA. A few days later it was announced that German law enforcement agencies began searching for another US spy that had been stealing information from the The Federal Ministry of Defence.

The general secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Yasmin Fahimi called for the adoption of a list of “effective countermeasures” that would allow Germany to protect its national secrets from being stolen by Washington. Speaking on national TV Yasmin Fahimi said that: “We are not yet another banana republic.”

The incident involving a CIA spy uncovered within the BND ranks was perceived by most Europeans as total nonsense: a total of 218 top secret documents were stolen from BND by a 31-year-old employee Marcus R. over a period of two years while he was cooperating with the ”friendly” CIA. The White House was paying “the loyal agent” according to the “banana republic,” rates up to and including 25 thousand euros, omitting glass beads and colored feathers.

However, according to the German newspaper Bild, the investigation found out this January that this double agent had provided the US intelligence with a list of 3,500 of BND employees, all who are currently working across the world. This can hardly be regarded as an expression of Washington’s friendship towards Germany.

...if Washington has been treating Germany like a regular “banana republic”, one can only imagine what it has been doing to smaller countries in Europe, across the Middle East, and in Southeast Asia as well. 

Such aggressive US intelligence activities in Germany have become commonplace, but no prominent politician of this vassal state yet has voiced his concerns over this fact. Indeed, within the last few years, according to the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, BND has been transferring the personal data of German citizens to the US National Security Agency (NSA), via to the world’s largest center-neutral Internet exchange point DE-CIX in Frankfurt. According to the newspaper, the NSA has been intercepting up to 500 million phone calls and Internet messages in Germany per month. And all this was done despite the fact that private information is protected by the German Constitution, yet it seems that the well-being of its “big brother” is by far more important to German politicians that their own Constitution. In addition, the NSA had made a number of attempts to use DE-CIX to obtain a profile on the European Aerospace and Defense group and its French management, a fact released by Edward Snowden last year.

Et tu Poland? Putin Excluded from Holocaust Commemorations

January 20, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Glancing at the headlines one might believe Russian President Vladimir Putin had inappropriately decided not to attend Holocaust commemorations in Poland.

In one breathtaking display of misinformation, Reuters would report in its article Putin will not attend Holocaust commemorations in Poland that, "Sources told Reuters on Monday that Putin was unlikely to join world leaders gathering at the site of the Auschwitz death camp because distrust caused by the conflict in Ukraine has cast a pall on arrangements."

In reality, The Russian leader was never invited by Poland, the nation hosting the commemorations.

The geopolitical thrust and accompanying misinformation is designed to reinforce the perception that Russia is now a hegemonic threat, on par with Nazi Germany during World War II. Reality could not contradict this contrived narrative more.

On June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa was launched. Three massive German armies moved at lightning speed into the Soviet Union as part of a long anticipated Nazi attempt to conquer Russia. The invasion would quickly overwhelm unprepared Russian forces bringing German armies up to the gates of several major Russian cities, Moscow included.

Did a Russian Parliamentarian Just Commit Treason?

PowerPoint given by Russian opposition leader blueprints US-backed violent overthrow of Russian government.

January 19, 2015 (Eric Draitser - LD) - An interesting thing happened in Washington recently, and it had nothing to do with Beltway politics, Democrats vs. Republicans, or any of the other standard fare for the middle of the week in mid-January. Rather, a relatively small, little publicized event took place at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a prominent liberal-leaning think tank in Washington.

Image: Ilya Ponomarev prepared an entire PowerPoint detailing his contempt for Russia and his best advice for its ruination. The entire presentation can be viewed here. 

The event, “Russia’s Opposition in a Time of War and Crisis,” featured prominent Russian liberal opposition parliamentarian (member of the Russian Duma) Ilya Ponomarev, a noted critic of Russian President Putin, providing a detailed presentation regarding the current political climate in Russia, and the potential for the ousting or overthrow of the Russian government. Yes, you heard that right. A Russian elected official came to the United States to give a talk about how best to effect regime change in his own country.

At this point, the question is not so much whether what Ponomarev did was improper. The much more pressing issue is whether or not, by making this presentation in Washington precisely at the moment of heightened tensions between the US and Russia, Ponomarev has committed treason. While this may seem a rather extreme characterization, it is in fact quite appropriate.

What Is Treason and Does It Apply?

If we define treason as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to kill or harm its sovereign,” then Ponomarev’s actions seem to tread very close to the threshold for treason. Moreover, the fact that such a presentation was delivered at CSIS – a think tank rife with “strategic planners” and proponents of the use of “soft power” to expand US hegemony – is instructive as it provides a window into both Ponomarev’s thinking and, perhaps more importantly, that of the political establishment in the US.

During his presentation, Ponomarev touched on a number of critical issues related to Russia’s domestic political situation, trying to illustrate for the attendees that the political reality in Russia, despite the simplicity of the western corporate media narrative, is rather complex. Though he described the Putin-led government as “Bonapartist,” he noted that “Putin is Russia’s only reliably working institution.” While the veracity of that statement is debatable, it does seem interesting that an elected Russian lawmaker would go to a foreign country under the auspices of wanting to help his country move forward, and then proceed to advocate the overthrow of the “only reliable institution.” Would this not be a thinly veiled attempt to advocate for destabilization, putsch, or something similar? 

 
The most significant portion of Ponomarev’s presentation centered on a slide titled “Conditions for the Change of Power in Russia,” which laid out essentially a roadmap or blueprint for regime change in Russia. Ponomarev’s slide outlined what he believes to be the essential elements for successful overthrow of the democratically elected government. These include: 

1. Organized street protest (versus spontaneous one)
2. Appealing vision of the future presented to the majority of Russians
3. Leader, acceptable for all protesters and the elites
4. Access to some financial resources
5. Part of the elites should support the revolution
6. Trigger event

The Feeding Begins: Foreign Bankers Descend on Ukraine

December 18, 2014 (F. William Engdahl - NEO) - If it were not for the fact that the lives of some 45 million people are at stake, Ukrainian national politics could be laughed off as a very sick joke. Any pretenses that the October national elections would bring a semblance of genuine democracy of the sort thousands of ordinary Ukrainians demonstrated for on Maidan Square just one year ago vanished with the announcement by Victoria Nuland’s darling Prime Minister, “Yat” Yatsenyuk, of his new cabinet.

The US-picked Ukraine President, billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko called “snap” elections at the end of August for October 26. He did so to make sure genuine opposition to his regime of murderers, gangsters and in some cases outright Nazis would be able to push an unprepared genuine opposition out of the Verkhovna Rada or Parliament. Because the parliament had significant opposition parties to the US-engineered February 22 coup d’etat, they had blocked many key pieces of legislation that the Western vultures were demanding, from changing key land ownership laws to privatization of precious state assets. By law, the old parliament would have sat until its five year term ended in October, 2017. That was clearly too long for State Department neo-con Ukraine puppet-mistress Victoria Nuland and her backers in Washington.

Now, with a new parliament that is controlled by the Petro Poroshenko bloc as largest party and the boyish-looking former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is also new Prime Minister as head of the second largest party, the way was clear to get on with the rape of Ukraine. What shocked some is the blatant foreign takeover that followed, like a Wall Street vulture fund raid on a distressed debtor country of the Third World.

The ridiculous charade

Yatsenyuk, former finance minister in a previous criminal regime, and a suspected senior member of the US-intelligence-friendly “Church of Scientology,” has named three complete foreigners as cabinet ministers in key economic posts. And in an extraordinary act, the three have been made instant Ukrainian citizens by Poroshenko in a ridiculous ceremony. Ukraine is looking more and more like the US-occupied Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898 when General Arthur MacArthur, father of the mentally-dis-ordered Douglas, was Washington’s dictator on the spot.

The new Ukrainian Finance Minister, the one who will control the money and decides where it goes, is one Natalia A. Jaresko. She speaks fluent Ukrainian. Only problem—she is an American citizen, a US State Department veteran who is also a US investment banker. Now, the Ukrainian Constitution, prudently enough, stipulates that government ministers be Ukrainian. How then does our sweet Natalia come in?

The President of Ukraine, another Victoria Nuland favorite, the “Chocolate King” corrupt oligarch billionaire, Petro Poroshenko, made her a Ukrainian citizen in a bizarre ceremony the same day just hours before the parliament declared her Finance Minister.

In justifying his astonishing move, Poroshenko declared, “There are absolutely extraordinary challenges facing Ukraine…All this requires innovative solutions in the government…These decisions mean searching for candidates for the new government not only in Ukraine but also abroad.”

Forget your earlier silly schoolbook notions about how a democracy and a nation function. This is the age of no nation state, of private capital taking over the world for sake of profit. Looting über alles is the motto. The nation of Ukraine is being put on the auction bloc to be privatized anyway, so it makes sense that the auctioneers at the US State Department head-hunt the ones to do the inside job of preparing that auction wherever they find the willing executioners. And because what the privatizers have planned, it is easier to believe a non-Ukrainian would let the country be raped easier than a native Ukrainian, even corrupt natives.

Putin Exposes Criminal Global Order

October 26, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) -Russian President Vladimir Putin, before an international audience, exposed an international order capitalizing on the end of the Cold War to reshape the world according to its own interests, sidelining concepts such as basic international relations, international laws, systems of checks and balances, and even the very concept of national sovereignty itself. Amid President Putin's speech, he would condemn the United States' support for neo-fascists, terrorists, and its contempt for national sovereignty around the world.

The West's Rebuttal

Curious language accompanied the New York Times' account of the Valdai International Club discussion in the Black Sea coastal region of Sochi, Russia in front of which President Putin spoke. In an article titled, "Putin Accuses U.S. of Backing ‘Neo-Fascists’ and ‘Islamic Radicals’," the NYT attempts to portray President Putin's statements about US support for neo-fascists and terrorists as merely baseless accusations.

The NYT claims, "instead of supporting democracy and sovereign states, Mr. Putin said during a three-hour appearance at the conference, the United States supports “dubious” groups ranging from “open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.”" The NYT would also report, "“Why do they support such people,” he asked the annual gathering known as the Valdai Club, which met this year in the southern resort town of Sochi. “They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil.”"

It is difficult to understand why the NYT attempts to portray this statement as particularly controversial, or as a "diatribe," as the Times puts it, rather than a factual, timely, and necessary observation. 

Iran and the Proxy War in Kurdistan

October 17, 2014 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - In the midst of the war against ISIS (Islamic State) now taking place in both Iraq and Syria, a possible shifting of alliances that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region is taking place, and no one seems to have noticed. Specifically, the burgeoning relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq has the potential to remake the political landscape of the Middle East. Naturally, such a development is part of a broader geopolitical gambit by Iran, and it will have significant ramifications for all regional actors. However, it is Turkey, the gulf monarchies, and Israel that potentially have the most to lose from such a development.

While Iran has long-standing disputes with elements of its own Kurdish minority, it has demonstrably taken the lead in aiding Iraqi Kurds in their war against extremist fighters loyal to ISIS. As Kurdish President Massud Barzani explained in late August, “The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first state to help us…and it provided us with weapons and equipment.” This fact alone, coupled with the plausible, though unconfirmed, allegations of Iranian military involvement on the ground in Kurdish Iraq, demonstrates clearly the high priority Tehran has placed on cooperation with Barzani’s government and the Kurdish people in the fight against the Saudi and Qatari-backed militants of ISIS. The question is, why? What is it that Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in this fight? Who stands to lose? And how could this change the region?

The Iran Equation

While many eyebrows have been raised at Iranian involvement on the side of the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, perhaps it should not come as a much of a surprise. Tehran has steadily been shoring up its relations with Erbil, both out of a genuine desire to form an alliance, and as a counter-measure against the ouster of their close ally and partner, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Since the US war on Iraq began in 2003, and especially after US troops left in 2011, Iran had positioned itself as a key, and in some ways dominant, actor in Iraq. Not only did it have significant influence with Maliki and his government, it also saw in Iraq an opportunity to break out of the isolation imposed upon it by the US, EU and Israel over its disputed nuclear program. For Iran, Iraq under Maliki was a bridge both physically (linking Iran with its allies in Syria and Southern Lebanon) and politically (serving as an intermediary with the West in negotiations). In addition, Maliki’s Iraq was to be the linchpin of a new economic strategy which included the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, a project which would have provided Iran overland access to the European energy market, thereby allowing the Islamic Republic to overtake Qatar as the region’s dominant gas exporter to Europe.

The "Islamic State" is Neither Islamic nor a State

October 12, 2014 (Ekaterina Ryzhkova - NEO) In recent months, the world shudders as the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) carry on their violent spree. Originally this group was created by the US after the fall of Saddam Hussein, as a part of a project of establishing a “new democratic Iraq”. This project was doomed to fail, just like all the previous attempts by Washington of redrawing the Middle East map. From the very start the White House has been unable to recognize the potential danger of its “political formula” that was both inaccurate and explosive. A similar Western project that had been put in place “in the name of fighting the Soviet threat,” resulted in the rise of Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, both were funded with CIA money. One can also mention an attempt of putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and the fruitless efforts of toppling Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the latter move had been publicly supported by US Senator John McCain.

In other words, first the West is raising fanatics in areas of strategic interests, then it advises those fanatics to wage wars on its enemies, and then abruptly, Western rhetoric changes in order to launch and assault “against the world’s most dangerous evil.” Well, this modus operandi has been known since the World War II, when Harry Truman said that: “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible.”

In fact, the ISIL militants have been acting boldly since the first manifestations of Washington‘s sympathy towards them, at that point in time they were perceived as members of a “moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq.” But their leaders have become assured of their exceptionalism, assured that would enjoy impunity far too easily. From the first days of the Islamic State declaration, while mimicking US arrogance, they have been violating a number of universally recognized legal principles. 

ISIS, Turkey, and the Propaganda of Intervention

October 10, 2014 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - Today’s headlines are filled with reports of the imminent fall of the Syrian city of Kobani to forces of the Islamic State (ISIS). There are terrifying descriptions of an imminent massacre and the looming threat to Turkey as Islamic State forces move ever closer to the Turkish-Syrian border. Turkish President Erdogan waxes poetic about how he “warned the West” about the threat IS would pose and the dangers of inaction. It seems that everyone, including security experts and pundits, agree that the situation is critical and that US bombardment alone is powerless to protect the town or halt IS.

And yet, somehow lost amid the din of cries for intervention is the simple fact that it is US policy and the actions of the aforementioned Erdogan along with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Israel that created ISIS, nurtured it in its infancy, promoted its development, and unleashed it on Iraq and Syria. And now, for those same leaders, along with a chorus of interventionist voices in the media establishment, to sound the alarm is not only cynical and utterly disingenuous, it is a shining example of the arrogance of empire.

Kobani and the Story Not Being Told

As fighters of the Islamic State (IS) continue their charge towards the mostly Kurdish town of Kobani on the Turkish-Syrian border, deep cracks in the edifice of the US-led coalition against IS have begun to emerge. Diplomatic infighting has shattered the illusion of a cohesive and unified coalition cobbled together by Washington. Not only have a number of countries been apprehensive about getting deeply involved in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East led by the US, some ostensible allies have used the crisis as an opportunity to achieve political objectives. Perhaps the world leader in cynical opportunism this week is Turkish President Erdogan who has thus far refused to involve his forces in the war on Syria unless that war has as its ultimate aim the toppling of Syrian President Assad.

On October 7th, the NY Times ran a story with the headline Turkish Inaction on ISIS Advance Dismays the US which quoted a senior Obama administration official saying, “There’s growing angst about Turkey dragging its feet to prevent a massacre less than a mile from its border…After all the fulminating about Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe, they’re inventing reasons not to act to avoid another catastrophe…This isn’t how a NATO ally acts.” While the obvious implication is that Erdogan could cost the US the chance at a successful anti-terror operation, there is a subtle subtext that has gone almost entirely unnoticed; Turkey sees in ISIS an opportunity, not a threat.

Hong Kong's Identity Crisis

October 9, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When Anson Chan sat before an audience in Washington DC earlier this year giving a talk at the National Endowment for Democracy sponsored "Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters" event, she claimed that Hong Kong was suffering from an identity crisis.

Chan would claim, "we are facing an identity crisis in Hong Kong, particularity in the younger generation, people born after 1987 whose never known life other than under Chinese sovereignty. Hong Kong people pride themselves on the fact that we have an identity that is separate from the rest of China, we have core values rooted firmly in the rule of law, an open transparent accountable government, in protecting the rights and freedoms that we enjoyed under British colonial rule and which are protected under our constitution, the Basic Law. But today we see all these values being eroded."

Indeed, Hong Kong does face an identity crisis. It has irreversibly become once again a part of China after 142 years of foreign occupation by Britain. China now is a nation rising upon the world's stage, exercising increasingly what could be called "soft power" and developing its own institutions, organizations and laws to manage society and to conduct business both within China's territory and beyond it. What is eroding is not "the rule of law" or any of the other values Chan cited, but rather the West's versions of them as they existed under British colonial rule. These versions are being supplanted and incrementally replaced by China's own institutions, legal and socioeconomic structures as they should be.

What is left of British colonial rule over Hong Kong was originally designed to serve the British Empire, or in other words, emptying out the resources and prosperity of foreign lands, and consolidating it on behalf of London.

US Air Raids: The Unlearned Lesson of Libya

October 8, 2014 (Yuri Zinin - NEO) The speaker of the Libyan House of Representatives Akila Saleh Issa at the UN General Assembly demanded the international community to provide assistance in enhancing security in this troubled country. He stated that the rebuilding of a combat capable army in Libya is a matter of utmost importance, otherwise people will be left to face terrorists on their own. 

The alarming statements made by Libyan authorities coincided with the ongoing missiles strikes of the US against ISIL militants. 

This latest US military endeavor is now in the media's focus, while Middle Eastern experts try to figure out the purpose of those strikes, just like Washington’s future steps and time limits that remain largely unclear to this day. Those experts believe that a total of three armed interventions of the United States (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) over the past 13 years have effectively undermined the governing capabilities of the invaded states, which led to the destabilization of the entire region. 

In 2011 NATO air strikes against Libya that were carried out under the pretext of the urgent need of protecting civilians from a “violent dictator“, cleared the road to power for radical militants. Three years ago, once Muammar Gaddafi had been brutally murdered in October 2011, these militants took over Libya by filling the vacuum created by foreign intervention. From that moment on the country had been plunged deeper into bloodshed created by the former revolutionaries as they cut each other’s throats in a fight for rich oil-producing regions. 

Now there’s two military-political groups in Libya and each has its own government and parliament. The first resides in Tripoli and it is supporting the temporary parliament which has already lost its legitimacy. The second is backing the newly elected parliament in the besieged city of Tobruk, some 1,200 kilometers from Tripoli. According to the UN, new clashes between the two groups in recent months have generated a total of 150,000 refugees, including foreign workers that fled abroad. 

Sanction-Drunk West Forgets to Target ISIS Sponsors

September 21, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) As the US and Europe prepare another round of sanctions against Russia over the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, the third round of such sanctions since the conflict began shortly after the Euromaidan unrest resulted in the installation of a NATO-backed regime in Kiev, a curious and inexplicable oversight appears to have been made.

While wild accusations have been leveled against Russia over its involvement over the violence in Ukraine, claims ranging from covert support up to and including unsubstantiated claims of a "full scale invasion," prominent media organizations across the Western World have for years reported a flow of cash, weapons, equipment and fighters from America's allies in the Persian Gulf as well as from nations like NATO member Turkey, and into the conflict raging within Syria's borders.

While baseless claims leveled against Russia have served as ample justification for the West to continue leveling sanctions against Moscow, no sanctions have as of yet been leveled against the overt sponsors of militancy and, in fact, terrorism in Syria. So widespread has state-sponsored terrorism become in the Middle East that what began as a limited proxy war against Syria has transformed into an immense regional army with tens of thousands of paid soldiers requiring millions of dollars a day to operate across multiple borders and confounding the forces of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon combined.

As in Libya, So in Syria: The Folly of Interventionism

September 7, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United States has been inching its way toward intervention in Syria since hostilities began in 2011. From the beginning the US State Department admitted that terrorist armies were waging war against Damascus, but both the US government, its allies in Europe, and prominent media organizations across the West repeatedly claimed that the conflict was not an invasion by multinational terrorist organizations, but rather a “pro-democracy uprising.” Now, years into the conflict, the US is finally at the threshold of direct military intervention, announcing that it would begin flights over Syria to gather “intelligence.”

As in Libya…

The familiar narrative taking shape should sound strikingly familiar to the lead up to NATO intervention in Libya in 2011. There, just as in Syria, heavily armed terrorists, not “pro-democracy activists” were waging war against Tripoli. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts on the ground and the greater geopolitical context the Libyan conflict fit into, NATO successfully sold direct military intervention in Libya to the world. The “democratization” of Libya included daily NATO sorties into Libya, bombing the North African nation from air, while terrorist armies marched below, fully armed and equipped by NATO member states.

As the conflict drew to a close, with the Libyan government decimated, infrastructure nationwide destroyed, and very real atrocities (including genocide) unfolding just as NATO had falsely claimed were being perpetrated by Tripoli months earlier, it was clear that decimation, not democracy was the end result. Years after the decimation of Libya, the country remains in flames. There exists no stable government and the “pro-democracy freedom fighters” NATO assisted into power are now clearly exposed as sectarian extremists.

The Associated Press article, “Libya’s Islamist militias claim control of capital,” encapsulates the utter failure of NATO’s so-called “humanitarian intervention” and the alleged “democracy” their military intervention was to pave the way for. The AP reports that Tripoli, Libya, has been overrun by radical militants, the very militants NATO had been providing air cover for in 2011 and who news outlets like AP had claimed were “pro-democracy rebels.” The ongoing fighting is a result of dissatisfaction over hapless elections carried out symbolically, but finalized through heavily armed chaos across the nation.

Phantom Tanks and the Desperation of Kiev

Editor's note: This excellent synopsis of US propaganda regarding the Ukraine crisis can easily be verified by reading OSCE's own daily reports which in fact mention Nazis tearing down monuments, Kiev troops destroying Ukraine's own infrastructure, and no mention ever of a "Russian invasion." 

September 6, 2014 (Caleb Maupin - NEO) - How many times have we seen this before?

The President of the United States is on TV telling us horror stories. Some innocent people in some corner of the world are being crushed, he tells us. They face some monstrously evil oppressor, he says. While the United States doesn’t like war, what choice is there? Sacrifices must be made, cruise missiles must be unleashed, to protect the poor and innocent. The world is the set of an action movie, and the US is the tragic hero, forced to rescue the innocent.

This is the script we heard in former Yugoslavia. Bill Clinton claimed to be stoping “mass rapes” and “concentration camps.” After the smoke had cleared, and thousands had been killed, the truth came out. The United Nations admitted that no “genocide” had taken place. The talk of mass rapes and concentration camps had been hype.

While the alleged crimes used to justify destroying Serbia had been exaggerated, the crimes of the US funded Kosovo Liberation Army were very real. The balkans have never recovered from the bombing and destruction and the funding of ethnic hate groups. The “rescue mission” resulted in deeper misery than ever before.

We heard this script in Libya. Obama told horror stories about Gaddafi. As US backed insurgents were defeated on the battlefield, the US and NATO unleashed a horrific bombing campaign. Now Libya, once the wealthiest country on the African continent, is in ruin. The country has been destroyed, and rival factions battle for power surrounded by poverty.

In Syria, propaganda about alleged crimes by President Bashar Assad have been used to justify western support for an ugly civil war. Syria had been one of the more prosperous and peaceful countries of the region, but the US and its allies continue to funnel money to armed terrorists. A war that would have ended in a few months has dragged on for four years, with nearly 150,000 dead, and millions forced to become refugees.

Lies about “humanitarian crises” are a common justification was destructive wars from the United States. The result of US military attack is usually the worsening of conditions for the people.

Ukraine to Ferguson: America Reaping What it Sows

August 25, 2014 (NEO Journal) - What is happening now in Ferguson was inevitable. You cannot allow the killing of civilians across the globe by those you've elected and then go home and watch TV. If such barbaric acts are allowed somewhere else, they will be allowed everywhere.

People are saying: "how could this have happened, is it even real?" Surely certain German citizens were feeling the same when Hitler turned out to be a monster. It was coming, everybody knew that, but nobody cared enough to actually do something about it.

You can't leave politics alone, since it has no intention of leaving you alone.

NOTE: The Neo-Nazi militants featured in the video above raiding eastern Ukraine (wearing orange armbands) are of the Azov Battalion, featured in Al Jazeera's article, "Driven by far-right ideology, Azov Battalion mans Ukraine’s front line."

Fighting Back Against Western Sanction

August 23, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - While the impact of sanctions leveled against Russia is being debated, one fact is perfectly clear; the dangerous interdependence cultivated by the concept of “globalization” leaves nations vulnerable amid a global order dominated by hegemonic special interests that use such interdependence as a weapon.

Two rounds of sanctions have been leveled against Russia targeting Russian banking, arms manufacturing, and oil industries. Even as the sanctions are marketed to the world as Russia “paying a price” for its role in “destabilizing” Ukraine, Russia has been busy cultivating ties and expanding markets that are increasingly found outside the West’s spheres of influence and therefore, beyond the reach of these sanctions. Russia is also looking inward to diversify its markets and seek socioeconomic independence.

Instead of viewing the sanctions as an impassable obstacle requiring capitulation to Wall Street and London, Russia has viewed them as a challenge to sever reliance on unstable markets. More so, Russia’s quest for alternative markets is a means of applying its own form of pressure back upon the West. While the West attempts to portray the sanctions as “cutting off Russia,” the restrictions do at least as much to isolate the West itself.

Multipolar World Vs Western Hegemony

In a unipolar world, supranational geopolitical blocs like the EU (European Union), the African Union, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and regional free trade agreements serve to consolidate and open up the collective socioeconomic potential of the planet to those at the top of this international order. Currently, this constitutes the special interests on Wall Street, in the city of London, and among the special interests converging in Brussels. Interdependence is intentionally cultivated among the various members of individual blocs and between supranational blocs themselves. This ensures that leverage is constantly maintained over each individual national entity, making individual nations incapable of sidestepping collective initiatives of the blocs they are a part of.

Ebola and the Absent “Humanitarians”

August 18, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The US spent over two billion dollars during NATO’s armed assault on Libya both in ordnance used during months of aerial bombardment and in covert support for terrorists used as proxy ground forces in the overthrow of the Libyan government. The United Kingdom is estimated to have spent even more. Hundreds of millions were spent by other NATO members throughout the duration of the assault. The “protection of civilians” was repeatedly cited as the altruistic justification for such an expenditure in manpower and financial resources.

In the wake of the conflict, it was revealed that NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” left entire cities filled with unarmed civilians encircled by Al Qaeda-linked militants and relentlessly bombarded by NATO sorties while food, water, gas, and power were intentionally cut off to “starve” the inhabitants into submission. It was also revealed that the threat to civilians cited by NATO members was fabricated by those NATO chose to replace the targeted Libyan government with.

Similar scenarios have played out in Syria, Ukraine, and even North and West Africa. At the cost of hundreds of millions, French troops have invaded and occupied several African nations over the course of the past 3 years, including five of their former colonies, namely Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad. And while the French government claims their justification is fighting terrorism and improving security (hundreds of miles from their own shores) much of the terrorism is a direct result of NATO’s intervention in Libya and the intentional arming of immense terrorist networks in the process that have proliferated money, arms and all the strife that follows, across the region.

Enter Ebola 

Doubts rightfully linger over the intentions of the West and its “humanitarian interventions.” But surely when the opportunity arose to execute an unquestionable act of altruism, the West would rise to the challenge. Surely when civilian lives and security really demanded international intervention the US, British, and French would be there with their apparently limitless resources, tens of thousands of eager helping-hands, and equipment to meet the challenge. But instead they are absent.

GMO Golden Rice: The Scourge of Asia

August 9, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Asia’s dependency on rice cultivation for both subsidence and income is intuitively understood. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates the agricultural population of lowland rice cultivation in Asia to be over 470 million - larger than the entire population of the United States. Improvements in rice cultivation would stand to lift hundreds of millions from debt and poverty. Conversely, the disruption of rice cultivation would threaten to mire hundreds of millions in deeper debt, inescapable destitution, and all of the negative socioeconomic implications that follow.

Asia’s rice farmers produce between 1-2 harvests a year depending on the climb and climate of any given region. They do so to sell their rice, generally to mills who in turn sell the final product to exporters or for domestic consumption. Out of each harvest, rice farmers keep a portion for their own consumption, but the vast majority of what they grow is for income.

The UK-based Rice Association claims there are up to 40,000 species of rice, with a wide variety of characteristics suitable for different markets and uses. Rice farmers grow those which local, national and regional markets are best suited to move. In nations where subsidies are offered for rice crops, cheap, easy to grow varieties are chosen. More desirable or exotic species are grown by independent farmers who have developed their own cooperative with millers, marketers and exporters. The rice Asians eat depends on both economic and market realities. The impoverished eat what is cheapest and most easily available, but not necessarily that which is healthiest.

The Propaganda and Politics of MH17

July 27, 2014 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - The downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17) is a tragedy that will be remembered for years to come. However, the way in which the West has distorted the facts about what happened is no mere accident. Rather, it is a clear attempt by Washington and its allies and proxies to capitalize on the incident, using it as a weapon in their continued belligerent and aggressive policies toward Russia.

Recent days have seen a deluge of propaganda from both the US Government and the western media (especially US media) which, despite being short on facts, has attempted to place the blame for MH17 squarely on Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. While this certainly is no surprise given the public demonization campaign of Russia throughout the conflict in Ukraine, it undoubtedly crosses the line from laughable to utterly irresponsible and dangerous. Given the already icy relations between the two countries, it seems that Washington has as part of its strategy the inflammation of tensions.

But why? What does the US political establishment, which includes both major parties, hope to gain from this tragedy? Or, perhaps more specifically, how does the United States plan to capitalize on the incident? The propaganda, spin, and outright lies from Western media cannot be understood in a vacuum. Rather, they must be recognized as part and parcel of the larger political agenda of the West both in Ukraine, and Eastern Europe as a whole.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Western Media

Although the investigation into the crash has only just begun, that has not stopped Washington from attempting to shape the narrative into an indictment of Russia, accusing Moscow of being behind the attacks. Headlines such as White House Blames Russia For MH17 Crash, Saying There’s No Believable Alternative (Huffington Post) and Congress: MH17 Crash Is ‘Ac of Terror,’ and Putin May Be To Blame (The Daily Beast), both of which interestingly come from “liberal” media outlets, have become routine in recent days. The not so subtle, indeed overt, implication of such headlines is that Russia is responsible for the downing of MH17, despite there being no evidence to that effect.

Essentially, the US political establishment, and its corporate media appendage, attempted to make a flimsy case into a politically expedient narrative that would bolster the US-NATO agenda in Ukraine, while simultaneously legitimizing the belligerent, anti-Russian rhetoric and policies that the White House and Congress have been pursuing. Moreover, Washington has attempted to use the incident to deflect attention from the brutal war crimes and other embarrassing aspects of the US-backed Kiev regime’s horrific war against the people of eastern Ukraine.

The specific lies, omissions, and distortions propagated by Washington and its dutiful media servants must be recalled in order to debunk them, but perhaps more importantly, to demonstrate the clear and unmistakable way in which they have been used to cobble together a false narrative that, despite being an admitted fabrication, will be made permanent in the minds of many Americans.

Continue reading via New Eastern Outlook Journal...