18:22 27.10.2016(updated 21:28 27.10.2016)

Get short URL343776697

The North Atlantic Alliance has violated national freedom, sovereignty and democracy instead of promoting peace and stability, Croatian politician Ivan Pernar of the Zivi Zid coalition told Sputnik, comparing the bloc to Nazi Germany.”Brussels is nervous since there are people who question … fairytales of EU bureaucrats about a better life in the European Union, as well as so-called peace and stability ensured by NATO. In fact NATO has ensured the opposite. The alliance has violated and trampled down on national freedom and sovereignty instead of protecting them. NATO supports overthrowing legitimate governments through bombings instead of advocating democracy,” Pernar said. Ivan Pernar is a Croatian activist and politician, member of the Zivi Zid populist political party (literally translated as “Living Wall”). He is well-known in the country for organized demonstrations in February 2011 outside the Croatian government building aimed at forcing the resignation of then-Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor. Demonstrations turned into to mass protests and Pernar was arrested several times for disturbing public order. After the demostrations he founded the Alliance for Change party, which turned later into Zivi Zid political party. As its candidate Ivan Pernar was elected to the Croatian Parliament in 2016. The politician insisted that NATO is “posing a threat” to the whole world, “just like Germany under Hitler.” The Croatian politician praised Moscow for its independent stance in the international arena. “If not for Russia, no one would have stood up to this. The United States would have been able to bomb and doom to destruction any country that does not want to serve [Washington’s] interests,” he said. Ivan PernarCroatian politician Ivan Pernar Pernar was also convinced that Croatians have realized that NATO brings “only harm,” pointing to the massive influx of refugees which the European Union has struggled to deal with. “The wave of refugees who we must take care of is a direct consequence of Washington’s activities around the world. The US is playing stupid: at first they cause chaos and then they say that you should sort it out by yourself. It’s impossible to imagine Russia do something like this,” he said. The politician cited Moscow’s limited military engagement in Syria as an example. The politician cited Moscow’s limited military engagement in Syria as an example. “Russia’s operation in Syria is based on international law. Moscow was invited by the legitimate Syrian government. At the same time Washington’s intervention, like all its operations, does not have a legal basis. This is why the US has opposed the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague. No one can put US presidents and generals on trial. The United States does not punish itself and no one else is capable or dares to,” he said.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610271046804375-nato-threat-nazis-hitler/

21:11 05.10.2016(updated 21:13 05.10.2016)

Get short URL

71090140

American democracy is experiencing a deep systemic crisis, Russian political analyst Anton Khashchenko noted, adding that Washington’s interventionist foreign policy has become an instrument for manipulating the American people. The recent developments, including the US’ “accidental” air strike against the Syrian Arab Army positions near Deir ez-Zor and Washington’s unilateral disruption of Russo-American cooperation on Syria, may have brought the world one step closer to a potential global conflict, Russian political analyst Anton Khashchenko assessed in his article for Izvestia newspaper. According to the political analyst, similarly, NATO’s ongoing military buildup along the perimeter of Russia’s borders has not only reflected the US military-industrial complex’s efforts to replenish its budget but could have been a preparation for a potential X-Day. “I believe that those who link toughening rhetoric [towards Russia] of Washington (as well as its governmental and non-governmental partners) to their struggle to increase their own budgets are right. It is obvious that every department is seeking to bite off a meatier piece while the country’s major fiscal document for 2017 is being discussed. The Pentagon needs to increase military expenditures, while curators of various non-commercial organizations and mass media [struggle to increase] the propaganda spending. In this context Russia as a major threat and Syria as a hotbed are excellent ‘horrors’ to scare the pants off congressmen and voters,” Khashchenko suggested. However, according to the political analyst, there is yet another reason for US decision-makers and their subservient think tanks and mass media sources to raise the alarm. Khashchenko argues that at the root of Washington’s expansionist foreign policy lie domestic economic, political and social problems, threatening to engulf the US. Citing Gallup.com research, the analyst pointed out that ordinary Americans do not seem satisfied with Washington’s domestic policies. For instance, almost 57 percent of US citizens believe that a third major US political party is needed, while only 37 percent say that the existing two parties do represent the American people. Remarkably, in 2008 and 2012, “less than half favored a third party,” Gallup reported. Meanwhile, Americans’ trust in political leaders is “at new lows.” “Americans’ trust in their political leaders and in the American people themselves to make political decisions continues to decline,” the report read stressing that the percentages of those trusting political leaders “are down roughly 20 percentage points since 2004.” The pollsters have signaled ahead of the November presidential election that “the economy, dissatisfaction with government and unemployment are the issues [Americans] see as most pressing for the country.” Furthermore, as a July study indicated, the majority of Americans believe that major donors and lobbyists have an overwhelming influence on how members of US Congress vote on legislation. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, according to Khashchenko. The Russian analyst underscored that the figures clearly indicate that the US’ political system is experiencing a deep systemic crisis. Predictably, US policymakers consider America’s expansionist foreign policy the only way to divert public attention from the burning domestic issues. “Therefore Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Libya and other [US overseas campaigns]… are the survival precondition for the American democracy,” he believes. However, as US investigative journalist James Carden recently remarked in his op-ed for The Nation, a military solution is “not a way forward.” On October 2, 2016, an alert memorandum for President Obama signed by a group of ex-US intelligence officials was published on Consortiumnews.com website. Former CIA and NSA officials warned the US president against escalating tensions with Russia over Syria. They quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova who said, while speaking to a Russian broadcaster, that if Washington launches a direct aggression against Damascus, “it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.” “The door to further negotiations remains ajar. In recent days, officials of the Russian foreign and defense ministries, as well as President Putin’s spokesman, have carefully avoided shutting that door… Therefore, we strongly recommend that you invite President Putin to meet with you in a mutually convenient place, in order to try to sort things out and prevent still worse for the people of Syria,” the former intelligence officials wrote. “In the wake of the carnage of World War II, Winston Churchill made an observation that is equally applicable to our 21st Century: ‘To jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than to war, war, war,'” they stressed.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20161005/1046034331/us-democracy-systemic-crisis.html

18:55 24.09.2016

Get short URL2693551195

The US attack against the Syrian Arab Army in the Deir ez-Zor region leaves more questions than answers, although Washington has declared the airstrikes an “accident.” It could not have simply been a mistake, Pakistani political analyst Salman Rafi Sheikh believes. It is unlikely that the US-led coalition’s airstrikes in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor region against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) positions took place due to a mere “accident,” Salman Rafi Sheikh, a political analyst and expert on Pakistani foreign affairs believes. “A look at the pattern of how the US-led coalition has been striking in the region would further reveal that the last strike, which killed more than 60 Syrian soldiers, was not simply a mistake,” Sheikh writes in his article for New Eastern Outlook. Sheikh pointed out that the SAA has been fighting against Daesh in the Deir ez-Zor region for a long time. However, the US-led coalition did not attack the terrorist group when it countered the SAA’s attacks and seized Palmyra. Surprisingly, the deadly strike has been conducted at a time when the SAA was gaining momentum on the ground. “The fact remains that the strike has taken place at a time when the Syrian army was successfully pushing ISIS [Daesh] back and bringing more and more [of the] region under its control,” Sheikh underscored. It seems that the SAA’s military success “was clearly running counter” to the US’ objective to weaken the Syrian government forces and prevent them from re-establishing Assad’s authority in the country’s troubled regions. As the situation unfolds, the US is pursuing two conflicting goals in Syria: first, they seek to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while on the other hand they want to defeat Daesh. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Pentagon, most notably Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, is opposing the US-Russian ceasefire deal on Syria, the analyst noted. “With many high-ranking US officials, including those from its Defense establishment, being skeptical about the deal and opposing it to keep Russia from buttressing Assad, could it not be that the strike, which certainly could not have taken place without the Pentagon’s approval, was actually meant to derail the deal?” Sheikh asked. To add to the embarrassment, it was Daesh who directly benefited from the US air strike against the SAA, the analyst remarked, calling attention to the fact that the terrorist group “launched an attack on the Syrian army immediately after the coalition jet had struck them.” First Deputy Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee in Russia’s Federation Council Franz Klintsevich shares a similar stance, believing that the Deir ez-Zor attack was hardly an “accident.” “The US conducted airstrikes on government forces in Syria deliberately and thoughtfully,” he suggested. According to Klintsevich, Washington’s major goal is “to depose President Bashar al-Assad, bring the opposition to power and maintain their economic interests.” Russian envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin echoed Klintsevich, stressing that “some aspects of the situation suggest that it could well have been a provocation.” Commenting on the issue, Yevgeny Satanovsky, head of the Moscow-based Middle East Institute, told the Russian online newspaper Vzglyad that there is something fishy about the US-led coalition’s “accidental” airstrike against the SAA. Either the Pentagon’s intelligence is worth nothing, or the US Department of Defense interpreted the US-Russian agreement on Syria in a pretty warped way, the expert underscored. At the same time, Russian journalist and political analyst Yevgeny Krutikov has repeatedly noted in his articles for Vzglyad that the SAA’s achievements on the ground are causing irritation in the Pentagon. To add more fuel to the fire, the SAA is about to defeat a very suspicious Islamist group — Jund al-Aqsa — known to have earlier been supported by the US. Despite the group being relatively small, it possesses modern weapons and even surveillance drones. Jund al-Aqsa was designated as a terrorist entity by the US only four days ago. However, it has been spotted colluding with both the former al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and the Free Syrian Army — the so-called “moderate opposition.” Given this, it is really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff on the ground, Krutikov noted. In any event, the possible defeat of Jund al-Aqsa will shed the light on a wide range of questions, especially about the groups drones and the identity of the leader of the group operating under the alias Abu Abdul Aziz al-Qatari, the political analyst stressed. It seems, however, that some Washington officials would rather leave a vast array of inconvenient truths about the Syrian war swept under the rug.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20160924/1045665455/syria-us-attack-pentagon.html

20:36 08.09.2016(updated 20:44 08.09.2016)

Get short URL152911231

On Wednesday, The Washington Post published an article saying the White House is at its wits’ end, and has issued the Kremlin an ultimatum on Syrian peace. The paper noted that the Obama administration “expects a decision from Moscow in the next several days.” The question now is whether the Kremlin will allow itself to be bullied into agreement. The Washington Post piece, written in a tone more reminiscent of a teacher scolding a misbehaving student than a report on the results of Russian-US negotiations over Syria, explained that “a final proposal” on a ceasefire and a possible joint counterterrorism operation was given to Russian officials on Monday during a meeting between President Putin and President Obama in China. The paper went on to cite Obama deputy national security advisor Benjamin Rhodes, who emphasized on Tuesday that Washington is “not going to take a deal that doesn’t meet our basic objectives.” Following Monday’s meeting between the Russian and US presidents, Russia’s Foreign Ministry announced that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would speak with Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva later this week. But the State Department didn’t confirm this meeting and in doing so, “made clear that they saw no purpose in yet another negotiating session if Russia has not changed its position,” The Washington Post explained. Nevertheless, Lavrov and Kerry did end up speaking on Thursday, albeit by telephone. What is Washington’s Syrian peace offer? According to The Washington Post, “the proposal calls for a cease-fire in civil war fighting throughout the country, including in and around the besieged city of Aleppo, and the safe, sustained delivery of humanitarian assistance.” Then, “once the truce is in place for a specified time period, the Syrian Air Force is to be officially grounded.” After that, “the United States and Russia are to initiate a joint air campaign against counterterrorism targets.” The “outlines of the deal were agreed two weeks ago,” the paper added, “but US officials have [since] accused Russia of backtracking on some elements, including the timing and duration of a ceasefire before other aspects of the agreement begin.” Emphasizing the drama and urgency of the ceasefire deal, what Washington and US media doesn’t seem to realize is that Moscow’s partner in Syria is Damascus. And getting the Syrian government to agree to halt its military campaign against ‘moderate rebels’ that they consider terrorists is easier said than done. Syrian President Bashar Assad has been very clear that in his government’s view, those who take up arms against the state are not opposition, but terrorists; this, he emphasized, is a definition that holds true around the world, and not just in Syria. In the meantime, the so-called moderate rebels, if they exist, are intertwined and collaborating with Islamist groups supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States, making it very difficult to ‘separate flies from cutlets’. This, incidentally, is a problem The Washington Post itself admitted. Finally, with Syrian government forces recently closing the ring around areas of Aleppo under militant control, it may be difficult for Moscow to convince Damascus on the need to halt its operations in a situation where the Syrian Army can almost taste victory in the country’s second city, which would doubtlessly help bring the war to its resolution. The US has been particularly concerned by developments in Aleppo. Last week, State Department special envoy for Syria Michael Ratney laid out a series of very specific steps on a ceasefire, complete with the requirement that government forces withdraw their heavy equipment from the area around Castello Road, the Aleppo militants’ main supply lifeline in the north. The Washington Post even cited the letter, which reads that “if the cease-fire extends to 7 days…checkpoints are set up and all forces are withdrawn, then the US and Russia will work on stopping the regime planes from flying and will work together to weaken al-Qaeda in Syria.” While it’s obvious that the US will always support ‘their guys’ in Aleppo, it’s unclear how the US plan is actually meant to weaken al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which recently rebranded itself and formally disassociated itself from the terrorist group. More than anything, Ratney’s plan feels like an attempt to stall for time to prevent Aleppo militants from being annihilated. Whatever the case may be, on Thursday, the Kremlin officially responded to The Washington Post’s article, presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov saying that it “doesn’t fully correspond to reality.” “The Syrian topic was indeed discussed in great detail by the two presidents, and in even greater detail by Lavrov and Kerry,” Peskov noted. “There really was a discussion on a certain document. However, this document has not yet been finalized, as there are still some unresolved issues remaining, and work continues,” he added. Peskov also emphasized that all points in the possible agreement are being discussed “in the format of compromise,” added that on “a small number of outstanding issues, compromise has not yet been reached.” What those issues are remains unclear, but their existence indicates that for one reason or another, on one issue or another, Moscow has rejected Washington’s effort to foist an unfavorable agreement on Russia and on Syria. Mark toner hinted at Washington’s tough line, noting that “we’re not going to settle for a less than ideal deal.” Toner’s comment immediately prompted a response by veteran Washington press corps journalist Matthew Lee, who pointed out that successful negotiation requires compromise by its very definition. “People always settle for less than the ideal; it’s the risk of sacrificing the good for the perfect, where the perfect is impossible,” Lee said. That sentiment sums up the essence of the Syrian negotiations. Because while US officials and media can huff and puff about the urgency of reaching an agreement, Russia and Syria won’t allow themselves to be swindled into a trap. At the same time, it’s worth remembering throughout that Damascus understands the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict more than any other party, since Syrians are the ones who have been dying in the fighting.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20160908/1045105095/russian-us-syria-negotiations-ultimatum.html