The Crucial Difference Between Donbass & Oregon

January 9, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Despite a few superficial similarities, the difference between the rebellion in eastern Ukraine and armed Oregon ranchers standing off with the US federal government couldn't be greater.

A lack of understanding regarding the nature of power and how it is brokered has led to many mistakenly believing there is any merit to what the Oregon ranchers are doing, besides providing an example of precisely how not to stand up against increasingly tyrannical special interests.  This is not to say the ranchers, or even Occupy Wall Street should not be standing up against the US government, it is just that they are going about it in completely the wrong way - compounding their problems, not solving them.

Perhaps by examining the numerous and critical differences between the Donbass fighters and the Oregon ranchers, readers can see the chasm between the two, and perhaps how, in certain aspects, to bridge that chasm.

Donbass vs. Oregon

1. Backing: Donbass has the backing of a superpower - Russia. This includes substantial backing across the media, in terms of political support, and logistical and military support ranging from the implicit threat of Russian retaliation should Kiev and its NATO backers step over certain lines, to - according to NATO - direct military assistance.

In all likelihood, the only superpower backing the Oregon ranchers is the US federal government itself - not a single militia in the US has gone un-infiltrated in the last several decades. Geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser in a recent piece admits he is unsure of the true motives and intentions of the Oregon ranchers, but has dug up a significant amount of information casting serious doubts over not only their objectives, but the very character of its leadership. 

2. Weaponry: The Donbass fighters have a standing army which includes machine guns, military-grade rifles, rockets, missiles (including anti-aircraft systems), artillery, counter-battery radar, and even main battle tanks.  They have the infrastructure to resupply front lines with food, weapons, and fuel, and the ability to protect their logistical lines leading to and from areas of engagement.

The Oregon ranchers have 5.56mm rifles, which can be quickly overwhelmed by numerical superiority, superior firepower, and armor - of which the federal government has all in much abundance.

Washington Quietly Lifts Sanctions on Russian Rockets

January 7, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) -  Washington, who leveled widespread sanctions against Russia in an increasingly tenuous bid to isolate and undermine the stability of Moscow, has found itself humiliated and backtracking as it lifts bans on Russia's RD-180 rocket engines.

And even as Washington does so, the US media finds itself still painting Russia as a villain even as the US finds itself forced to buy rockets from a nation it claims invaded Crimea, is fostering a "hybrid war" in eastern Ukraine, and is bombing US-backed "rebels" in Syria. It is worth mentioning that Russia's RD-180 rocket engines, possessing unparalleled performance US firms have yet to match, will be used to launch payloads into Earth orbit for the US Department of Defense.

Popular Science in its article "Congress Moves to Lift Ban on Using Russian Rocket Engines" claims:

After Russia invaded Crimea, Congress swore off Russian rocket engines. But its ban on using these rockets to launch military payloads into space was perhaps a bit too hasty. A new bill approved by Congress has found a way to nullify the ban. 

United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that has long been the primary contractor for launching Defense Department payloads into space, relies on the Russian-made RD-180. ULA recently declined to bid on a launch contract due to its limited supply of rocket engines, and the Pentagon is not happy. Though ULA is developing a new engine, the BE-4 is years away from reaching the launch pad. This is, after all, rocket science that we're talking about.

While Russia did not in fact "invade Crimea," Popular Science is correct in pointing out that a ULA-made replacement for the Russian RD-180's is years from becoming a reality.

US Invasion of Syria Begins

October 31, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - As previously warned about in June of 2015, the United States has announced that it will officially begin ground operations in Syria through the use of special forces. The Washington Post in its article, "Obama seeks to intensify operations in Syria with Special Ops troops,"would report that:  

President Obama is sending a small number of Special Operations troops to northern Syria, marking the first full-time deployment of U.S. forces to the chaotic country. 

The mission marks a major shift for Obama, whose determination to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been balanced by an abiding worry that U.S. troops not be pulled too deeply into the in­trac­table Syrian conflict. 

The latest deployment will involve fewer than 50 Special Operations advisers, who will work with resistance forces battling the Islamic State in northern Syria but will not engage in direct combat, Obama administration officials said.

Admission of Special Forces in Syria is Just the Beginning 

While the US claims this move is to "defeat the Islamic State (ISIS)," it is instead clearly a move to establish long-sought "buffer zones" or "safe zones" in Syria where the Syrian government can no longer operate. US airpower will also undoubtedly be used to cover these special forces, creating a defacto no-fly-zone wherever they operate.

The map accompanying the Washington Post article clearly shows ISIS territory straddling the last remaining supply corridor being used to supply the terror group as well as others including Al Qaeda's al Nusra Front from NATO-member Turkey's territory. US special forces will likely begin operating in these areas, and zones carved out as US operations expand.

The eventual outcome, if these operations are successful, will be the division and destruction of Syria as a nation-state. This is more than mere speculation - this is a conclusion drawn by signed and dated policy papers produced by the Brookings Institution, who has called for such zones since as early as 2012, but under different contrived pretexts.

MH17: From Syria to Ukraine, When Lying Catches Up

October 13, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - At best, the United States, its NATO allies and the regime they have collectively created in Kiev, Ukraine, will be able to claim Russia, or militants defending eastern Ukraine from Kiev's armed incursions, accidentally shot down Malaysia Airlines flight 17 (MH17) after air controllers in Kiev recklessly sent it on a course over a battlefield other airliners had made a point to circumvent.

At worst, the US and its junior partners across Europe and the remnants of the British Commonwealth, will be implicated either in shooting it down accidentally themselves, or worse still, shooting it down on purpose in order to frame Russia and anti-regime militants in eastern Ukraine.

Russia certainly had nothing to gain by shooting down a civilian aircraft over a battlefield anti-regime militants have been aptly able to hold and defend. But what of NATO and its Ukrainian allies? In a war they are losing, could they have benefited from creating a pretext for NATO to intervene more directly?

The gain they have already wrought in terms of propaganda against Russia has been impressive. From the moment the airliner was shot down, the US, NATO and Ukraine have used the incident to indict Russia and more specifically, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in the court of public opinion. It has used legal maneuvering and its well-oiled press to turn the investigation of the disaster into a witchhunt with an inevitable outcome already eagerly determined to implicate Russia.

The Western media has intentionally twisted the words of investigators to misrepresent evidence and preliminary and very cautious statements to portray them as definitive conclusions to establish Russia's guilt.

There and Back Again - Your Trip Through the American Empire

October 10, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD)  The October 8, 2015 US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing titled, "Russian Strategy and Military Operations," gave viewers an instructive snapshot at the current state of America's dwindling power.

Image: Western governments have their populations cowering in fear over "refugees" invading and destroying their "Western culture," successfully distracting them from true cross-border invaders - multinational corporations whose unwarranted power and influence has done more to destabilize, destroy, steal, plunder, and ruin global populations than any boatload of refugees could hope to accomplish. 

Enter the American Empire

The hearing is one of many interfaces between corporate-financier funded policy think tanks and the politicians who will ultimately rubber stamp their schemes and designs into law. It consists of a panel of bought-off, self-serving senators, listening to think-tank academics with no practical experience along with retired generals drawing paychecks by keeping big-defense, big-oil, big-ag, big-finance, and others well fed.

This particular hearing included Heather Conley of the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) (donors here),  Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (donors here), General James Jones (USMC ret.) now of the Brent Scowcroft Center On International Security of the Atlantic Council (donors here), and Generael John Keane (US Army, ret.) of the Institute For The Study Of War (ISW) (donors here).

Image: This Tomahawk cruise missile was brought to Libya by, Raytheon - a corporate sponsor of the Atlantic Council, CSIS, and CFR - all of whom helped engineer, sell, and execute the war in the first place. 

Each witness providing testimony is a member of a corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank. Looking through their donors and boards of directors, one sees several common denominators - big-oil, big-defense, big-agriculture, big-pharma, big-finance, and other big-businesses forming the foundation of Wall Street and Washington's current power structure.

Considering that the issues being discussed before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services revolve around the application of military force throughout the world toward achieving not the territorial defense of the United States, but defending what are called US "interests" abroad - including the encirclement, containment, and eventual overthrow of geopolitical and socioeconomic competitors - immense conflicts of interest are obvious. In fact, it is clear that these corporate-financier interests are the primary force driving US foreign policy and military planning.

US Upstaged at UN General Assembly - Who's to Blame?

October 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The UN General Assembly this year celebrated its 70th anniversary which is why more leaders than usual attended and participated. While the speeches were typical and mostly irrelevant for people already well-informed about world events, there was one particular point to note that made this gathering more telling than most.

It wasn't a point that could be discerned by simply watching the speeches play out on the floor of the General Assembly hall, but rather revealed itself in the reaction to the speeches by American policymakers online.

While they predictably railed against the speech presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin, they also derided US President Barack Obama for being upstaged by his Russian counterpart. But it wasn't President Obama's shortcomings nor that of his speechwriters that led to this apparent humiliation. It was American policy itself, owed to the very policymakers being derisive.

Contrary to popular belief, American policy is not created by politicians either in the Oval Office or in Congress. Instead, doctrine, war plans, domestic and foreign economic policy, and geopolitical and strategic plans laid out for years to come, originate in corporate-financier funded think tanks and among the army of academics, industry leaders, and other lobbyists of special interests employed by them. These think tanks and the policymakers that work within them are unelected, transcending political party lines, and political administrations. 

The fact that a Democratic US president expanded the wars of his Republican predecessor, and provoked those this Republican opponents failed to implement during their term, illustrates perfectly the continuity of agenda prevalent in Western politics. Like the US often accuses its competitors around the world, the United States itself is ruled by an oligarchy of special interests who simply dress up their singular agenda as partisan politics to maintain the illusion of representative governance.

Their wars which in reality serve the singular purpose of achieving and maintaining global geopolitical socioeconomic hegemony are dressed up as "defending the homeland" under Republicans, and "humanitarian interventions" under Democrats. In following the unwarranted wealth and influence wrought from such wars, it can be seen clearly for what purpose they are truly waged. 

Thus, the criticism from across American foreign policy circles in the wake of the UN General Assembly, reveals precisely where America's true problems lie. It was their policy that President Obama was attempting to present to the world at the UN General Assembly. President Obama wasn't upstaged because he is a poor orator or because he depends on incompetent speechwriters, but because nothing the United States is truly doing around the world could be honestly presented to the public, leaving only the same tired rhetoric and boundless hypocrisy that even the least observant among us are beginning to notice.

This can best be illustrated in Syria, where the United States claims to be committed to defeating terrorism, all while it transparently supports terrorist militants in its goal to overthrow the government in Damascus. Thus, President Obama's talking points during the UN General Assembly regarding Syria rang particularly hollow. Conversely, when Russia stated that it planned to defeat terrorism in Syria, the world could already see clearly that it has been Russia supporting the only force within Syria's borders confronting terrorism - the government in Damascus.

American policymakers don't appear to realize or at least be willing to accept that it is they and the special interests they serve that are responsible for America's decline, its unpopularity, and the rise of competitors able to upstage the US in front of the UN General Assembly, and upon the stage of geopolitics.

These policymakers responsible for America's current course will never admit that they are not as smart as they believe themselves to be, or that their poor judgement, petty ambitions, egos, and plain incompetence has led to this irreparable decline in American legitimacy and influence.

And because they can never admit it, they can do nothing to resolve it. But maybe that is for the better.

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

Asia: Choosing Between East and West

September 3, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Political and business circles across Asia face a shifting geopolitical environment driven by the inevitable rise of China. Several fundamental factors are driving this shift  that if fully understood should help established political orders, business interests, and ruling elite across Asia position themselves for a peaceful, stable, prosperous future. Failure to position oneself carefully as this shift takes place, can see a political dynasty or business empire swallowed whole in the fissures of geopolitical tectonic change.

What Asia Looked Like and Why It's Changing 

For centuries Asia was dominated by first European colonial hegemony, then for nearly a century, American hegemony. The United States itself admits that it possesses "primacy" over Asia and that its primary geopolitical objective in Asia is to maintain that "primacy."

For the better part of a century, maintaining that primacy was enabled by vast economic and military disparity between Washington and the collective resources of Asia. Victory in World War 2 and America's subsequent involvement in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War allowed the United States to maintain an immense military, political, and economic footprint in the region.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, however, an exhausted American Empire began its slow and inevitable retreat. In the void left by this expanding retreat, nations across the region, not the least of which is China, have built themselves up socioeconomically, militarily, and geopolitically.

US Admits It is a Losing Proposition  

American efforts to contain China have proven futile - points made in the US' own policy papers who have attempted on multiple occasions to reformulate their antiquated concept of "primacy" and impose it upon Asia. The most recent of which was published by the influential Council on Foreign Relations - a corporate-funded think tank that represents the collective interests of some of the most powerful Western corporate-financier interests on Earth.

FBI Tracked Chattanooga Shooter's Family for Years

July 17, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Once again, another convenient shooting has helped supercharge anger, hatred, fear, and division across the Western World after an alleged "Islamist extremist" opened fire on and killed 4 US Marines at military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Without any knowledge of how the US has in fact created Al Qaeda and its many global affiliates, including vicious terrorist groups plaguing Southeast Asia, and the most notorious to date, the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), the American public will predictably react in a manner that will simply further justify America's meddling across the globe amid its self-created and perpetuated "War on Terror." It will also help in efforts to further tighten control over the American public itself, with increased justifications for expanding police state measures and future pushes to disarm the American people.

Yahoo News would report in their article, "Shootings at Chattanooga military facilities leave 4 Marines, gunman dead; act called 'domestic terrorism'," that:

A U.S. official told the Associated Press that Abdulazeez had not been on the radar of federal law enforcement before Thursday's shooting. 

But also added:

His father had been investigated several years ago for "possible ties to a foreign terrorist organization" and added to the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a report in the New York Times, but that probe did not surface information about Abdulazeez, the paper said.

This means that yet another case of "domestic terror" has involved someone either investigated by the FBI, entrapped by an active FBI operation where FBI investigators posed as terrorist leaders and walked a patsy through every step of a terrorist attack before arresting them and thus "foiling" the attack, or linked directly to someone the FBI was investigating.

Ironically, the immense omnipresent police state the West has erected to combat the so-called "terrorist" threat, including the total surveillance of all communications online and across all telecommunication networks, at home and abroad under the National Security Agency (NSA) will only expand, despite it once again apparently failing, and despite attempts by special interests on Wall Street and in Washington to claim this latest attack "again" somehow circumvented these already sweeping measures.

Meanwhile, The US Continues Supporting Extremists Abroad

And while this latest attack is passed off as a "domestic terrorist attack" and the result of "Islamic extremists," rather than a false flag event, the US continues to openly support the very "terrorists" it claims threatens its homeland and has inspired these sort of attacks.

Just recently, the Washington Post literally allowed a spokesman of Al Qaeda to defend his faction's role in the fighting in Syria, and his condemnation of the United States for not rendering more aid for the cause of overrunning and destroying the Syrian nation - a goal the US itself is likewise pursuing.

Labib Al Nahhas, "head of foreign political relations" for terrorist organization Ahrar al-Sham, wrote in his Washington Post op-ed titled, "The deadly consequences of mislabeling Syria’s revolutionaries," that:

Stuck inside their own bubble, White House policymakers have allocated millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support failed CIA efforts to support so-called “moderate” forces in Syria. But these “moderate” groups have proved to be a disappointment on nearly every count, not least of all in confronting the Islamic State.

He also states:

That question should prompt Washington to admit that the Islamic State’s extremist ideology can be defeated only through a homegrown Sunni alternative — with the term “moderate” defined not by CIA handlers but by Syrians themselves.

Essentially, the Washington Post afforded a terrorist organization space to make an appeal to the American public for military support. Ahrar al-Sham regularly coordinates with and fights within operations led by Al Qaeda's Al Nusra Front, a US State Department designated terrorist organization from which ISIS itself sprung.

Al Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham are described as the "closest" of allies by Western think-tanks and media reports. It is also revealed that Ahrar al-Sham worked along side ISIS itself.

Paris Ramadan Stunt: A Comedian, a Propagandist, and the Social Engineers

July 11, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - When tasteless alleged French comedian Yacine Hasnaoui decided to pose as a "Muslim," shouting at Paris restaurant patrons for "eating during Ramadan," before overturning tables and frightening by-standers, he probably realized shortly after just how un-funny his stunt was - which is precisely why he officially apologized for it on his Facebook page.

However, that the incident centered around a remorseful comedian, and not actually a Muslim, or even a brainwashed extremists posing as a Muslim, did not matter to what is essentially an industry built upon anti-Islamic propaganda serving not just the function of social engineering through elementary divide and conquer, but also serving as the rhetorical basis to continue waging war overseas, while stripping away the rights of citizens back home.

Leading the charge was career Neo-Conservative propagandist Robert Spencer, long-ago exposed at the center of other manufactured stunts including the "Ground Zero Mosque" and more recently, a shooting in Texas during a "Mohamed Drawing Contest." Regarding Hasnaoui's tasteless joke, Spencer's website, "Jihad Watch," shamelessly posted a headline reading, "Paris: Muslim overturns restaurant tables, shouts “People can’t eat, it’s Ramadan!”," before concluding:

It’s simple: in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to suit Muslim sensibilities. In non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to suit Muslim sensibilities.

The one thing Spencer gets right is the fact that it is indeed simple: people are easily manipulated, so much so that a comedian's stunt which he has already apologized for, can still be used to inspire fear, terror, hatred, division, and obedience across what is apparently still a supremely ignorant and easily manipulated population. Spencer's article was picked up across both Neo-Conservative circles and unfortunately, even in the alternative press where cognitive infiltration has been making steady headway.

Image: Headline should read: "Paris: Comedian overturns tables..."

Readers responded to Spencer's allegations with predictable condemnation toward all Muslims and calls for genocide against all practitioners of Islam. In order to implement these easily provoked desires of war and genocide, the corporate-financier interests across the West have an array of ready-made legislation at home and wars abroad prepared - the same interests that fund Spencer's otherwise unproductive, divisive, and apparently poorly researched work.

It is clear that once again, that which provokes fear, hysteria, hatred, and outrage amongst the peoples of the West the most, is a stunt of their own creation, having nothing at all to do with the supposed enemy of "Islam."  And even that perceived enemy of "Islam" is owed to networks of militant extremists funded, armed, organized, and directed by Washington, London, Brussels, and their regional allies in Riyadh, Doha, Ankara, Tel Aviv, and Amman.

And in the battle against these extremists, were you to ask one of Spencer's readers, they would tell you they and Mr. Spencer himself are at the forefront of the battle. In reality, tens of thousands of Muslims, alongside Christians, Druzes, and the secular, have shed their blood from North Africa to the Levant and beyond, fighting this scourge face-to-face on the battlefield and paying the ultimate price in the process.

Image: The Syrian Arab Army. Those that fight militant extremism the hardest are Muslims themselves. Dying in the tens of thousands, Syrians have fought bitterly to defeat the scourge of Al Qaeda, the so-called "Islamic State" and other Western-armed and backed groups laying waste to their nation disingenuously in the name of "Islam." If Spencer was serious about defeating the threat he writes about daily, he would be shoulder-to-shoulder with these men, not attempting to undermine them. 

And while Hasnaoui may be condemned for his tasteless, divisive joke, he has in actuality provided us with an immensely valuable public service - he has exposed the irrational hysteria that seizes the minds of men and empowers the manipulators in controlling society at home to in turn, empower subjugation abroad. Spencer either didn't know, or care about the truth behind the Paris stunt - it was simply another opportunity to fan the flames of conflict that fuel both is own personal ambitions and those who have allowed him pursue professional manipulation as a career instead of having to find a real, constructive occupation.

For those that find themselves regularly repeating Spencer's propaganda and that of those who circle in his orbit, they must take this most recent incident to heart as a warning that the only thing they will accomplish is the division of society, the further empowerment of the establishment, and the complete and utter annihilation of their credibility.

NSA-French Flap Confirms Euro-Servility

July 4, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - For those who labor under the misguided delusion that Europe defines its own destiny independently, no clearer wake up call could have been given than the latest US-French spying scandal. It is a wake up call not because of revelations that the United States has been spying on the French government, but because the French government, like its neighbor Germany who was also a victim of US spying, has predictably let the matter drop with no apparent repercussions for the perpetrators.

Time magazine, recognized widely as a mouthpiece of the US State Department, essentially gloated in its article, "Why the U.S.-France Spying Scandal Will Quickly Blow Over," that European dependence on the US economically and militarily is so deep and unswerving, that no violation of Europe's sovereignty could endanger "relations." By relations, of course, Time means US primacy and European servility.

Time used words like "the free world" to describe what is essentially the Western World. However, one must strain to associate "freedom" with what is apparently a global power violating the privacy of every nation on the planet, including its own, closest allies.

Shameless Politicians, Shameless Business Community?

It is no secret that politics in the West is determined almost exclusively by special interests in industry and finance. Industry and finance underwrites and are the primary beneficiaries of most of the Western governments' foreign and domestic policy. This is particularly the case when foreign military interventions are launched, and whether successful or not, bring these interests immense whirlwinds of wealth.

That the US was spying on European politicians is no surprise. This is to ensure those bent in servile obedience to Washington remain so. However, revelations regarding the spying scandal also reveal that European industries were also spied upon. Euronews' article "WikiLeaks: NSA spied on French ministers and business too" reported:

The latest WikiLeaks report says the US National Security Agency spied more extensively on top French officials in an apparent bid to seek information on economic policy, exports and trade. 

Jointly published by the French newspaper Liberation and the online outlet Mediapart, the allegations follow claims that French presidents were bugged.

What this reveals is not only the inferiority with which the United States views French politicians, but the equal inferiority it views the France's business community with as well. One of the greatest tricks of empire has always been attacking and co-opting one's competitors through their ego, leading French industrial and financial interests to believe that there truly was a "chair at the table" for them.

In exchange for sitting in this "chair," all that was required was "cooperation." This includes abandoning on multiple occasions France's own national interests to pursue the larger overarching ambitions of their Transatlantic masters. Foregoing trade with Russia, accepting the current financial and political order imposed by Washington upon Europe, and pursuing multiple wars across North and Central Africa, as well as covertly in the Middle East, has France being dragged into a dangerous game believing themselves as equals in what is clearly a lopsided relationship.

In such a lopsided relationship, it would seem Washington would be more than willing to pass on risk to its Transatlantic "partners."

Time would like France to forget what just happened, and leave the impression that such violations of trust and mutual respect are typical of the "modern world." If that were the case, one would expect France to have been conducting equal or greater espionage against the United States in turn, but apparently, that is not the case with France likely lacking even the ability to do so if it wanted.

This reaffirms that however the Europeans view themselves, at the end of the day such notions are irrelevant. Those who control their destiny and have shaped the geopolitical, socioeconomic features of their continent view the Europeans with no more respect or regard than they do any other client regime on the planet. It is likely, that should Europe remain in this lopsided relationship long enough, the time will come where the illusion of mutual interests will wear thin, Europe will attempt to pursue only what is in their best interests, and be regarded no differently than any other "rogue state" labeled as such by Washington.

For France, the only thing more humiliating for national honor than its politicians and economic leaders being spied on and manipulated without their knowledge, are politicians and economic leaders who lack the self-respect to respond to such an outrage. Words like "partnership" are often used when describing the Transatlantic community, but with a brute nation monitoring the every move of those within what it appears to believe is its sphere of influence, "prison warden" and "inmates" might be a more apt description.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Who's Behind Asia-Pacific's Growing Tensions?

June 18, 2015 (Tony Cartlaucci - NEO) - Increasing tension in the Asia-Pacific between China and nations surrounding its territory, appears to be an unstoppable and inevitable lead-up to regional conflict and perhaps even global war. 

In reality, for those who have studied history, this is a familiar rerun. Change the characters and place current events in the context of the early 1900's and we see the lead up to World War II and more specifically, the events that set the stage for the fighting in the Pacific. 

Some may believe this is a rerun of when Japan was the sole aggressor in the region, expanding beyond its means before finally meeting its match. Predicated on this misconception, these same people would believe that China has now traded places with Imperial Japan, and is expanding recklessly at the expense of regional and global peace and stability.

However, this is indeed a misconception.

World War II: Setting the Record Straight

To make this clear, we must consider the words of a contemporary of the period before World War II and the words of warning he offered regarding the true nature of tensions at that time. He was United State Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, and a man who fought America's wars on multiple continents throughout his entire adult life and part of his childhood - he lied about his age to enlist in the Marine Corps early.

In his seminal writing "War is a Racket," he speaks specifically of tensions in the Asia-Pacific at the time and offered advice on how to avoid what would be a catastrophic war (emphasis added):

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

General Butler alludes to the fact that America's posture in Asia-Pacific would inevitably provoke war. To answer why precisely the United States was conducting naval maneuvers off Japan's shores before the outbreak of World War II, one must consider America's openly imperialist "Manifest Destiny" which saw the seizure and occupation of islands across the Pacific, up to and including the Philippines which still to this day suffers the effects of constant US military, political, and economic meddling - but at the time the island nation was literally occupied as a conquered territory by the US.

Garland Shooting: Gladio - Texas-Style

Garland shooting involved troupe of practiced war propagandists and patsies long on the FBI's watch list. 

May 4, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - ABC News confirms that one of the suspects of the Garland Texas shooting incident, featuring professional war propagandists of the so-called "American Freedom Defense Intitiative" (AFDI), has been under FBI surveillance and investigation since at least as early as 2007.

Their report, "Garland Shooting Suspect Elton Simpson's Father: ‘My Son Made a Bad Choice’," states:

Followers of ISIS had been sending messages about the event in Texas for more than a week, calling for attacks. One referenced January's Charlie Hebdo massacre in France and said it was time for "brothers" in the United States to do their part.

Simpson was well known to the FBI. Five years ago he was convicted for lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Africa where investigators alleged he planned to join a terror group.

The investigation into Simpson reached back to July 2007, when he was recorded saying of fighting with Islamists, “I know we can do it, man. But you got to find the right people that… Gotta have connects.”

Despite the event allegedly increasing chatter amongst "Islamic State" (ISIS) groups online, and despite the suspect Elton Simpson being long under FBI surveillance and even sentence to 3 years of probation resulting from a terror-related investigation, he was still able to conveniently conspire and carry out an attack on a highly provocative propaganda stunt in the state of Texas. 

Garland Shooting Fits Pattern of Larger Staged Terror Campaign 

As with all other staged provocations, including similar shootings in Paris, France, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Sydney, Australia, the suspects were well known to state security agencies for years, but allowed to conspire and carry out predictable, deadly, and politically highly convenient attacks. All of this echos the similar and long-since exposed staged provocations of the notorious "Operation Gladio," carried out by NATO.

In Paris, France, the suspects in the so-called "Charlie Hebo Shooting" were under the watch of security forces for years, were in and out of jail specifically for terrorism, were known to have left France to join terrorists fighting with Western-backing in Syria and return, only to be left "unwatched" for precisely the 6 months they would need to plan, assemble the weapons for, and prepare to execute the attack.

American Politics: A House of Mirrors

April 25, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A house of mirrors is an immersive, highly distorted and intentionally confusing version of reality. Those walking its corridors are sometimes amused and sometimes frightened by the disorienting experience, but luckily for them, it is only temporary. There is an exit, and they will walk through it, back to reality.

But what if one existed their entire lives in such a distorted reality and knew of no exits? Would they convince themselves that these distorted images reflected back at them were in fact reality no matter how unnatural they appeared? Could they convince themselves to enjoy and even embrace this distorted reality?

One ponders such questions when looking from the outside-in on American politics. It too is a house of mirrors reflecting back a reality entirely distorted. Also like a house of mirrors, American politics have been intentionally constructed this way, to confuse, disorient and even frighten the American people when necessary to exercise mass persuasion over them. The final result is perpetual impunity granted to the powers that truly be, hiding behind the powers that allegedly were "elected," and powers whose authority only exists in this house of mirrors and no further.

New Leaders, Old Wars 

Consider US President George Bush Sr. He launched the inaugural war of what he himself called a "New World Order." Operation Desert Storm included multiple nations comprising of nearly a million soldiers who swept from the map one of the largest conventional armies (4th largest) in the world. Bush Sr., however, paused just ahead of sweeping the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power. His successor, US President William Jefferson Clinton would keep Iraq subdued with periodic bombing campaigns and the imposition of both crippling sanctions and no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq.

US Propaganda Op in Korea Exposes American TV as Social Engineering Tool

If American TV is used to brainwash North Koreans, wouldn't that suggest it was used to brainwash Americans too? 

March 20, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - When Wired published its article, "The Plot to Free North Korea with Smuggled Episodes of 'Friends,'" it probably hoped that its impressionable, politically ignorant audience would not pick up on the underlying facts and their implications, and simply see a "cute" anecdote poking fun at the besieged East Asian country while inflating their own sense of unwarranted cultural superiority.

What they missed, of course, is the fact that the program peddled by Wired as the work of "the North Korea Strategy Center and its 46-year-old founder, Kang Chol-hwan," is in fact funded and organized instead by the US State Department.

Indeed, the North Korea Strategy Center is partnered directly with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the US Department of State, the US State Department's Radio Free Asia propaganda network, and the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a defacto "department of regime change" backed by Wall Street's Fortune 500, solely for the interests of Wall Street's Fortune 500.

Readers of Wired's latest, long-winded spin on US-backed sedition abroad also most likely missed the fact that if TV shows from America are considered a tool for social engineering in North Korea, they are most likely being used as a tool of social engineering in the United States as well. The degradation of American culture, the family, and weakening of local communities, versus the growing centralized dominance of corporate-financier monopolies and their increasingly draconian police and surveillance state is a direct result of this.

Global Threat? US Policymakers Admit Iran is Defending Itself

March 16, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US policymakers admit that Iran's strategy is "largely defensive," and both aggressive and defensive tendencies are largely in response to US policy in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The US-based RAND Corporation, which describes itself as "a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis," produced a report in 2009 for the US Air Force titled, "Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East," examining the structure and posture of Iran's military, including its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and weapons both present, and possible future, it seeks to secure its borders and interests with against external aggression.

The report admits that:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

Such a narrative stands in direct contradiction of daily propaganda emanating from Western media monopolies portraying Iran as a global threat to peace and stability, and in particular, "bent on" attacking the US and its allies, particularly Israel, for no other reason but fulfilling fanatical, ideological hatred.

The recent political theater centered around the US and Israel, portrays a US attempting to accommodate Iran versus an Israel fighting an existential battle against a determined aggressor. Behind the rhetoric, however, the RAND Corporation lays out the specific facts, revealing a reality quite to the contrary.

It reveals an embattled, besieged Iran seeking to stave off foreign encirclement, destabilization, and literal invasion. RAND openly notes that the conflict is not about "defending" Israel or preserving US national security, but instead, centered on America's attempts to project power into the Middle East - half a world away from its own shores, and Iran's attempts to resist foreign hegemony.

Obama-Netanyahu "Fallout" is Theater - Planned in 2009

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned "diplomatic row" to justify "unilateral" Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost - up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution's policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retropspect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength - which according to Brookings - is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest - considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel - is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a "unilateral" Israeli first strike on Iran - an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves 

The Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible "peaceful" options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran - as admitted to by Brookings themselves - is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely "superb offer." The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy - one for public consumption (making "superb offers") and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

Russia: US-Backed Opposition Leader Gunned Down in Moscow

Martyrdom on demand: if not of use alive, perhaps of use dead? 

February 28, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) US-backed opposition groups in Russia have so far failed utterly to produce results. Their transparent subservience to Washington coupled with their distasteful brand of politics has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of most Russians. Each attempt to spread the "virus" of color revolution to Moscow, as US Senator John McCain called it, has failed - and each attempt has fallen progressively flatter.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never been more popular. His ability to weather serial provocations aimed at Russia by NATO has made him a champion against the perceived growing injustice exacted against the developing world by an increasingly militaristic and exploitative West.

So when US-backed opposition groups in Russia decided to gather again this coming March 1, Sunday, many wondered just exactly what they expected to accomplish.

Bloomberg just a day ago, would report in an article titled, "Anti-Putin Opposition Looks to Russian Spring for Revival," that:

Just before he was jailed for handing out leaflets at a metro station, Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny used his last moments in a Moscow court to record a video urging supporters to join a March 1 protest against President Vladimir Putin. 

Navalny’s removal from the “Spring” rally by a 15-day sentence underlined the beleaguered state of an opposition movement that brought 100,000 onto Moscow’s streets three years ago as well as the Kremlin’s unease about the potential for unrest in Russia.

Squeezed by government persecution and Putin’s near-record approval rating, Russia’s opposition is betting that an unfolding economic crisis will spark a spring revolt on a scale last seen at the winter protests of 2011-2012, the largest since the collapse of Communism 20 years earlier. It seeks to draw as many as 100,000 people to the “anti-crisis march” in Moscow, with protests also planned in 15 other cities. They’ll highlight declining living standards and the conflict in eastern Ukraine that triggered U.S. and European Union sanctions against Russia.

The article however, also stated that:

The opposition “hasn’t been this weak for many years,” Stefan Meister, an analyst at the German Council of Foreign Relations in Berlin, said by phone. “Even when we have a growing economic crisis in Russia, there’s still high support for Putin.”

Clearly to match the expectations the "spring" rally was meant to have, to infuse the "virus" US Senator McCain had claimed was intended for Moscow, something drastic would have to be done to change the current calculus.

The prospect of triggering sustainable unrest aimed at the Kremlin was beyond impossible - that is - until the leader of the planned protest was shot dead, practically on the steps of the Kremlin itself in the heart of Moscow.

Boris Nemtsov, was reportedly shot four times in the back on Friday night in a drive-by shooting. His body laid conveniently for media photographers to capture the Kremlin looming in the background.

Russia immediately condemned the killing, with President Putin noting it was an act of "pure provocation."

US "Pivot" Sends Asia Fleeing Toward China

February 26, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When former-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US "pivot to Asia," she and the policy wonks who dreamed it up probably imagined it as a well choreographed geopolitical masterstroke. In reality, it was more like an elephant crashing through the jungle, sending all in its path fleeing for cover well ahead of its arrival.

The empty rhetoric accompanying its announcement never materialized. Reading between the lines, what the "pivot" actually meant, was the doubling down on attempts to subvert, corral and otherwise twist the arms of Southeast Asia, South Asia and East Asia into arraying themselves for Washington's convenience and gain, against the growing influence and power of Beijing.

American designs have unraveled everywhere from Malaysia to Thailand and the only steps of this pivot still in good form appear to be in Myanmar and the South China Sea where budding political subversion is growing in one and an escalating strategy of tension is growing in the other. Despite these "successes," the prospects of Myanmar resigning itself to a future with close and growing ties to Beijing are unrealistic.

Likewise, the notion of a remilitarized Japan somehow containing China is untenable and more so each passing day.

Those capitulating today to Washington's attempts to reorder Asia will only be setting their nations back in the years to come when ultimately the "pivot" fails, and all that is left is China and those nations that decided to move forward together with it on its way up.

US Attempts to Isolate China Left it More Connected Than Ever 
Washington's attempt to convert Southeast Asia into a string of client states to encircle China with has instead resulted in deals to construct new railways connecting Singapore to the southern Chinese city of Kunming, the inclusion of Chinese forces at Thailand's annual "Cobra Gold" military exercises, the complete exposure of Washington's "democracy promoters" in Hong Kong and the removal from politics of two of Washington's long-standing political proxies, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia.

US Meddling in Asia Backfiring

Comments made in wake of US-backed proxy regime's fall in Thailand further alienate the waning superpower.

Image: US State Department's Daniel Russel, a chief proponents of the US
"Pivot to Asia" strategy aimed at using Southeast Asian nations as client
states to encircle and contain China, recently made comments condemning
Thailand's attempts to reign in a notorious criminal family - one the US so
happens to have backed for the past decade. 

February 4, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - First in Hong Kong, now in Thailand, ongoing US plans to install proxy regimes to extend hegemony across Asia-Pacific have fallen into disarray.

The latest row comes after US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel made comments condemning the recent coup that first deposed, then saw the impeachment of ex-Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra over a vast array of corruption and abuse of power charges.

Russel was quoted by an official US State Department transcript of a speech he gave in Thailand as saying:

...a narrow, restricted process -- carries the risk of leaving many Thai citizens feeling that they've been excluded from the political process.

That's the reason why we continue to advocate for a broader and more inclusive political process that allows all sectors of society to feel represented, to feel that their voices are being heard. I'd add that the perception of fairness is also extremely important and although this is being pretty blunt, when an elected leader is removed from office, is deposed, then impeached by the authorities -- the same authorities that conducted the coup -- and then when a political leader is targeted with criminal charges at a time when the basic democratic processes and institutions in the country are interrupted, the international community is going to be left with the impression that these steps could in fact be politically driven.

Russel's comments about "Thai citizens feeling that they've been excluded" is the preamble Shinawatra's own political front often uses to justify acts of terrorism and armed insurrection that have left hundreds of people dead. It is also a familiar line used to justify engineered US-backed violence in other nations aimed at regime change. 

Russel's claims that Shinawatra's criminal charges were "politically driven" beg belief. For the US to defend a prime minister openly serving as a proxy for a convicted criminal hiding abroad, and who presided over a regime that recklessly destroyed the economy while literally murdering its political opponents in the streets, is a clear breach of diplomatic protocol and unbecoming of the alleged purpose of the US State Department itself. 

Indeed, the US State Department exists to represent the will of the American people abroad, not to impose it upon others. 

The Thai government quickly condemned the comments, and a large public backlash followed, aimed at what is now increasingly seen as direct US meddling in Thailand's internal affairs.

What the US Sees in the Shinawatras 

Yingluck Shinawatra came to power in 2011, running openly as a proxy for her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, a convicted criminal who fled abroad to evade a 2 year jail sentence as well as a myriad of other pending criminal court cases. The election motto for Thaksin Shinawatra's "Peua Thai" political party was literally, "Thaksin Thinks, Peua Thai Does," an overt admission that a convicted criminal is still, quite literally attempting to rule the country.

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.