The year 2014 proved the West cannot yield power to emerging powers

As the world sadly ends the year 2014, perhaps capped off with another air travel disaster in Indonesia, the geopolitical situation between the West and the East (Russia, China, and the Rest) has perhaps made the world a more difficult place to live in.

The economic implications of trying to isolate Russia (and to a lesser extent, China) have had a profound effect not only in Europe and South East Asia, but also back to the energy lands of the Middle East. Not to be heard in the mainstream media to be sure, the petroleum kingdoms of the Middle East are unsure whether they can really stand the lowest oil prices not seen in many years.

The ever sluggish economic performance of the EU has not really made the peoples of Europe more prosperous.  The search for decent jobs is still a struggle for millions, while economic activity in the continent almost solely relies on a resurgent Germany. It is widely accepted that if it weren’t for Berlin, the entire EU project could’ve fallen apart.

South East Asia remains a hotspot for territorial brawls, with China on one side, and South East Asian countries becoming more ‘assertive’ and being emboldened by the ever-present United States on the other. The situation in South America, especially with the anti-West stance of Brazil and other major economies there, is a little more bearable as the recent major elections have maintained the Leftist attitude of Latin leaders.

And yet, everywhere you look at the headlines, from the resurgent Islamic movements in Syria and Iraq, to energy uncertainties transiting the Russian-Ukraine border all the way to Europe, or to expanded American military presence in Australia, Japan and the Philippines to ‘contain’ China, the West has shown it is reluctant to yield to the powers of ‘the Rest’. The problem with this of course is the intensifying clashes from the Middle East to Ukraine, which has resulted in countless lives lost.

The scandals between the NSA and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have not even put a stop to the continued moral violations the United States is committing to the world. For instance, Guantanamo Bay still exists (which is surprising especially since Obama promised he will close it during his presidency) and those curious personalities like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange continue to be described in the West as ‘traitors’.

Drone attacks, which kill significant numbers of civilians, continue pursuing their own little “Mission Accomplished” strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Under Obama, the United States has committed more of these drone sorties than his supposedly war hungry predecessor.

As the geopolitical situation in most parts of the world remain unresolved, and with no resolution in sight, we can only expect to remember this year as perhaps the major turning point in a future global conflict that might finish the human populace for good. Whether that catastrophic future will arrive or not, we can only admit that the West will still play the greater role in helping foster another century of peace, or whether they will not relinquish their centuries-old power to emerging powers and risk global annihilation.

On the CIA’s torture program: Admitting is only halfway to accountability

More than a decade has passed since the United States and its allies started their so-called ‘global war on terror’ the ripples of which are only becoming clearer as the years start to wane against the coalition of the killing.

How the United States has conducted this ‘war on terror’ is, for some time now, an issue that has seeped their way to the headlines, from the illegal Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, to the revelations of former intelligence officers, including Snowden and Assange.

But more recently, in a redacted 500-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on how the CIA conducted it’s euphemistically called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, it was confirmed that the CIA conducted a secret torture program. It is no surprise, but what is worrying is that no one person was named nor the critical times they were conducted were mentioned in the report. As Bush and Obama fondly remind the world, ‘people should be held accountable’. But as we suspect, moral relativism plays a role in how the US conducts its foreign policy.

For instance, former US vice president Dick Cheney staunchly denied that the CIA’s program of enhanced interrogation techniques is equivalent to the legal term ‘torture’. In an emotional interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press”, Cheney, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was unapologetic about the CIA program, and instead said ‘I would do it again in a minute’.

The former vice president also played the emotional card, saying that what constitutes torture were the 9/11 attacks, saying that “there is no comparison between that and what we did with respect to enhanced interrogation”. As to what the NBC host enumerated (rectal feeding, keeping a man in a coffin-sized box, handcuffing another man’s wrist to an overhead bar for 22 hours per day, for two consecutive days) during the interview, Cheney pointed out that “I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.”

On the one hand, the US Department of State denied the possibility of prosecuting anyone involved in the CIA’s torture program. In a press meeting, Jen Psaki played the emotional card saying “we made the decision to lay out very transparently what exactly we have done in the past that we didn’t think was consistent with our values, and I think that’s showing strength as a nation”. Such statement is consistent with Obama, who advised Americans “to focus on…getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

This essentially denies anyone from being held accountable for such gruesome misdeeds. Indeed, by choosing to move on and forget about the past, the US is fortifying its foreign policy position of using torture as an available option for future American leaders because it is morally relative to do so.

Emerging economies and realities: Despite their reliance, US keen on halting China’s economic influence

The recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing has once again highlighted the United States’ fervor for grandstanding acts of stealing the spotlight away from its rivals, or at least halting the advances of emerging economies and political powers beyond the Western hemisphere, whether it be at home or abroad.

Just a day before the APEC summit, US President Obama gathered participants to the US-led but China-excluded Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) held in the US embassy in Beijing. The TPP is essentially a regional trade agreement that aims to undermine China’s own Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, which is a broader framework for bringing closer integration of Asian economies.

This display of intent comes at a time when the TPP is yet to resolve long standing issues that has halted it from becoming a fully functional economic bloc. There are still protectionist issues to be settled between Washington and Tokyo, for instance, and New Zealand’s intention to “pull out of the negotiations if politicians in the US used them as a vehicle to try to contain the rise of China.”

IMF and World Bank: Tired economic powerhouses

As the United States’ economic and military influence further erodes, the vacuum it is creating is more and more being filled by emerging powers consisting of China, Russia, Indian, and Brazil, which together in July 2014, account for roughly 20% of the world’s economy based on GDP and 30% based on Purchasing Power Parity, which is a more accurate measure of world economy. In July, BRICS proposed a $100bn New Development Bank to meet infrastructure and development projects at a time when the West continues to erode its role in global trade.

The ongoing shift in global influence from West to East has rendered the traditional economic clout of the West, through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, unable to meet the enormous investments that are required by developing economies in the Asia Pacific region and Latin America. Indeed, both lending institutions have become hostage to their colonialist approach to development, such as in leadership, voting rights, capitalization, headquarters, and staffing, which are all dominated by the United States.

The perception that emerging economies are still heavily reliant on advanced economies for market access and demand is quickly coming to a pass. In its International Trade Statistics 2014, the World Trade Organization concluded that “more than half the exports from developing economies were sent to other developing economies in 2013.” It also revealed that “countries in Asia sent more than 60% of their exports to other nations in Asia and to Africa and the Middle East, compared with just over 15% each to North America and Europe.”

As has been observed in the past decade, this tectonic shift in global economic activity will only continue to progress to reach other economies not held hostage by the traditionally two-edged economic and political policies of the West.

Berlin Wall Politics: 25 Years Later

The past 25 years since the symbolic collapse of the Berlin Wall and the accompanying disintegration of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself has left many hopes unfulfilled and more fears realized. To the disappointment of many, the once euphoric atmosphere back then, stemming from the easing of East-West relations, has stayed only in that specific era.

The time marker may be 10, 15, 20, and now 25 years, but one thing has remained the same, the prime political situation in Europe remains: that of the continued antagonism between the West and Russia, especially because of the persistent expansion of NATO towards Eastern Europe and on to Russia.

The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, a man thoroughly celebrated in the West because of his openness and reform policies and perhaps the last remaining ‘elder’ of that significant era, may have expired his relevance in Russian politics and international relations, but what has remained constant is his correctly-judged observations about who’s to blame in the revival of East-West tensions in Europe and beyond.

Gorbachev, ‘Gorby’ as he was fondly called in the West back then, has been assured of a military block that will not expand ‘an inch’ to the Soviet sphere of influence. Contrary to mainstream Western literature, the term ‘influence’ was agreed upon by the victors of World War II, the most tangible evidence of which is the agreed division of Germany and capital Berlin, together with the rest of Europe. Today, NATO, the first pan-European military alliance established after the Great War, remains, while its counterpart, the equally formidable Warsaw Pact, has ceased to exist. Gorbachev and his communist allies in Europe knew that to achieve peace in Europe, the arms race must go, and with it a promise that NATO will remain at bay ‘where they are right now’ back in the late 1980s.

Since that fateful day of German reunification, NATO has expanded four times since 1999, adding not only former Warsaw Pact members but also former Soviet republics, and has committed itself to the destruction of Yugoslavia (which deeply hurt a weak Russia in the 1990s), the Western-backed secession of Kosovo, and today the unnecessary blood bath in Ukraine, on the Russian border itself.

It is unfortunate that the only remaining elder statesman of that era (which include Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul),only  Gorbachev has survived to tell how mistaken the situation in Europe has become because of the unchecked triumphalism and arrogance of leaders from the West has become, from crook American politicians John McCain to NATO’s top generals and EU plutocrats. The problem stems from how the West treats Russian national interests as irrelevant and similar to a deeply weakened and humiliated Russia in the 1990s.

 An economic and military powerhouse today, Russia has stood in the way of continued Western bullying and disregard for ‘the rest’ opposite ‘the West’. From its reluctance to let Syria fall, to Ukraine’s destruction, Moscow has seen it fit to check this inexorable spread of bogus ‘democracy’ by getting in the way of the American habit of ‘regime change’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’. Indeed, Russia has come a long way since the dissolution of the USSR, and the time has come for the West to come to terms with a changing international order, one that has seen a multipolar world replace a once unipolar but abusive world lead by the United States.

Although talks of a new Cold War is in the air (some call it premature because of the lack of ideological differences), the wall that has deeply divided East and West relations is perhaps unparalleled in the past 25 years.  There is no comparable division that has existed since the end of the Cold War, from American-backed sanctions against Russia (insulating the US but harming the EU), treating Russia like a third-rate country (Russia’s nuclear weapons alone guarantee its weight in international relations), to increased encroachment of military spheres (the regular presence of American warships in the Black Sea, a Russian naval stronghold, and military aircraft patrols in former Soviet republics), to the relentless demonizing of Putin and Russia (Obama comparing Russia to Ebola), and the recent fear mongering against the Sochi Olympics.

As for Europe itself, it has become nothing but a tool of Washington’s arm to antagonize Moscow. It has become voiceless and surrogate to American wishes, perhaps making Gorbachev’s recent statement true, that “ instead of becoming a leader of change in a global world Europe has turned into an arena of political upheaval, of competition for the spheres of influence, and finally of military conflict. The consequence inevitably is Europe’s weakening at a time when other centers of power and influence are gaining moment. If this continues, Europe will lose a strong voice in world affairs and gradually become irrelevant.”

Ebola hysteria: A reflection of American overreaction on other matters too

The American mainstream news media might be extremely partisan when it comes to news and opinion, but one thing is certain when they report on any threat: things are blown out of proportion for the ‘benefit’ of the American public.

Whether it is a matter of ‘national security’ (Iranian nuclear weapons, ISIS on US soil, Russian menace, China rising, etc.), or the recent spread of Ebola virus in some African countries (FYI to American readers: Ebola is not affecting the entire African continent), the American mainstream news media has a particular way of branding a threat that is always presented as a worst-case scenario.

As of October 21, there are eight confirmed cases of Ebola in US soil. However, the proportion of the hysteria it has generated has become out of hand: the isolation of a woman in a Pentagon parking lot; an ill airplane passenger locked in the lavatory due to Ebola-related precaution; an elementary school teacher forced to have a 21-day leave because she stayed in a hotel that is 10 miles away from a hospital that had a confirmed case of Ebola; a principal who went to Zambia (a country with zero Ebola cases) and was told to have a paid vacation leave because she went to Africa; and many more.

Indeed, such hysterical instances are beyond what a Pentagon spokesperson euphemistically described as “out of an abundance of caution.” In actuality, the American mainstream news media is so used to stoking false fears which is already engrained in how they present news and over exaggerated reports.

So the next time you read about Ebola’s mass-extinction threat to Americans, be aware that the same tactics of lying and overreaction have been played out over and over again in the past, just like what went during the terrorist plots, over budget, and less than appealing conditions bashed against the Sochi Olympics in Russia early this year, the Syrian chemical weapons blamed on Al Assad, false reports about ISIS recruits in Mexico who are ‘about to cross the border into the US’, the WMD scare in Iraq, and others.

If America can bypass the Security Council, what more the Syrian Government?

The United States, led by Barack Obama himself, has finally bombed Islamic State (IS) targets inside Syria – a bombing campaign of which is unauthorized by the United Nations and the Syrian government.

The United States has begun an air campaign and cruise missile attacks against IS targets in Syria on Tuesday morning, together with aircraft from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as confirmed by the US Central Command. Just in case the Syrian government poses a risk to the American intrusion into their country, the United States also employed, for the first time, F-22 stealth fighters to evade radar.

Over the past few weeks, the United States claimed it had ‘broad international support’ which is essentially a coalition of the killing repressive regimes in the Middle East. Having an uncanny resemblance to the WMD formula against Iraq a decade ago, Washington’s fear mongering against the IS threat operating in Iraq and Syria is subject to contempt especially given that its ‘broad international supporters’ are they themselves involved in toppling Bashar Al Assad’s government and having the ultimate goal of isolating Iran.

The completely illegal airstrikes has provoked reactions from the international community as it is perceived as a backlash to the United States support for ‘moderate’ Islamists in the Middle East to foster regime change against non-allies.

 In a statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “now that the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (IS) has been appointed United States’ archenemy, I’d like to recall that ISIS militants are the very same people evolved and powerful sponsorship and material support from abroad at the time of the regime change efforts in Libya and later or when the same process was attempted in Syria.”

Referring to Moscow’s efforts to mediate in the now three year war in Syria, Lavrov added that “they never listened to us when we proposed to unite our efforts and help the Syrian government and the moderate, patriotic Syrian opposition to form a united front against terrorists swarming all over the Syrian Arab Republic – they never listened to us.”

As for Obama, in a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, said that the Syria airstrikes are justified because Syria is “unwilling to protect or unable to prevent the use of its territory” by IS. Obama has forgotten that the Syrian government has been fighting these Western-backed terrorists for three years now, where the ongoing destruction of Syria is as a result of Washington’s backing of so-called moderate rebels in Syria and the wider Middle East.

The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Obama’s recent campaign to ramp up militarism abroad, from nuclear weapons modernization, establishing new bases to contain China, increased use of drone warfare to name just a few, went against his campaign of scaling back his predecessor’s global war on terror.

Obama has been sucked into the same military aggression founded on systematic and enduring lies, which is part of its ‘responsibility to protect’ but not against extremism, but rather responsibility to protect its greedy interests. Such arrogant imposition of its interests abroad is hardly surprising as it is perfectly in line with America’s sincere belief in its own exceptionalism, just in different packages.

Obama affirms NATO’s self-fulfilling prophecy to relevance

US President Obama’s visit to the former Soviet republic of Estonia can’t be more timely as talks of establishing a rapid military force to counter the perceived Russian aggression and fighting between the government of Kiev and separatist rebels in the East intensifies.

During the visit to Estonia, Obama announced that the “door to NATO membership will remain open” and reaffirmed the principles that guided NATO, such as strengthening countries outside the alliance, including Ukraine, to improve their military.

The visit comes a day before a NATO summit to be held in Wales. Dubbed as “the most important gathering of NATO leaders in more than a decade”, the summit will discuss issues relating to America’s failure in Afghanistan, the new threat of Islamic extremism, and the situation in Ukraine.

On the one hand, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk flirted with the NATO membership, stating his eagerness in making Ukraine part of the military alliance, “I consider the most correct decision would be to accept Ukraine as a member of NATO.”

Interestingly, France also made news when it changed its mind on the delivery of two Mistral warships to Russia, ordered back in 2011, because of their ‘concern’ over the situation in Ukraine. While all this is happening, four NATO warships from the US, France, Canada, and Spain will reportedly enter the Black Sea sometime this week and a military drill involving US troops will be held in Ukrainian territory this month.

A return to NATO’S core mission

There is no doubt that the situation in Ukraine has ‘reawakened’ NATO’s reason for existing after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Contemporary observers agree that after the Cold War, with no main adversary to confront, NATO faced a nagging existential threat. For its main advocate at least, the United States has made sure wars for profit will continue to emerge, as long as it sticks to its policy of meddling in other country’s affairs.

Indeed, the alliance has come a long way of finding its raison d’etre to exist, from the much opposed Balkan wars in the 1990s to its intervention beyond Europe, namely the failed military adventure of the Afghanistan war. Eyebrows were raised during the surprise war between Georgia and Russia in 2008, but pragmatism prevailed over talks of Georgia’s annexation to the Western military alliance, as doing so might provoke Moscow’s sensitivities.

Needless to say, the situation in Ukraine today is more of an existential threat to Russia’s security than during the Georgian conflict, because of the existence of its Black Sea fleet in the Crimea. If all of Russia’s actions vis-à-vis Ukraine can be summarized in one line, then it definitely would be that Russia’s core security concerns would have been breached if Ukraine were to host the overt stationing of NATO forces there as a result of its membership.

The West’s intervention in stoking regime change in Kiev has finally paid off with the installation of a leader who is bent on welcoming imperialist money and military but with the side effect of rousing the ire of Russia. For his part though, Putin has calmly outlined his 7-step plan to stop hostilities in Eastern Ukraine. Whether his plan will be recognized by Kiev remains to be seen, but it is unlikely to be taken seriously as Ukraine’s leaders are too busy inviting the West for NATO membership.

 In a recent statement, Arseny Yatsenyuk insisted on Western meddling in Moscow’s sphere of influence as if Ukraine was part of the EU, saying “we are waiting for decisions from NATO and the EU on how to stop the aggressor.” He further rejected Putin’s peace plan, stating it is “an attempt of eyewash for the international community ahead of NATO summit and an attempt to avoid inevitable decisions from the EU on the new wave of sanctions against Russia.”

The EU also has not minced its chance to further escalate their relationship with Russia, where incoming European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogheirini announced that a new round of sanctions will be decided within a week.

At the present trajectory of international relations, it is tempting to assume that over the course of 20 years, the West, particularly NATO, has had its way with its relentless expansion towards the East. Indeed, the military alliance has essentially ‘invaded’ former Warsaw Pact members. To Russia’s eyes though, a further expansion to its very borders are a real cause for concern, especially in these days of World War memories, where the wounds from Russia’s involvement in the imperialist wars are still relatively fresh. We can only hope the West does not provoke Russia to act on those memories and fears.

ISIS threat will further confuse America’s Middle East policy

The latest mutation of Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, ISIS is essentially an Al Qaeda offshoot and should be labeled made in the USA. As countless lives have been ruined by this extreme group of Islamists, is it time for the US to roll back this threat which they, in no small part, helped create in Syria?

Not when Obama decides an offensive on ISIS in Syria, where it took root as a rebel force against Assad’s government should be conducted without any cooperation with the Syrian government. Now how arrogant is that when you start planning to eliminate a threat in another country without the consent of that host country’s government?

The choice not to cooperate with the otherwise willing Syrian government seems logical when you consider who the United States supports in the Middle East, most important of which is Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So although the US and Syria have the same enemies by now, openly cooperating with the Syrian government, which Obama pledged needs to go, will further complicate its policy in the Middle East.

From Assad’s perspective, an unauthorized American intervention in their territory could potentially transform the anti-ISIS operation into a covert anti Syrian military offensive. Indeed for the past three years, the United States has had a hard time rallying for an open military operation against Syria, and this ISIS dilemma might present a new opportunity to finally destroy Iran’s main ally in the region.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Moallem already expressed his government’s willingness to fight against the common threat, but warning that any unilateral action in Syria without permission is unacceptable. This was quickly snubbed by the United States, where the State Department said “we are not going to be coordinating with the Assad regime, period” and that “they (Syrian government) have allowed them (ISIS) to grow and we are not going to be working with them to root out this threat.” From this arrogant statement, it seems the State Department has forgotten that its support for “moderate opposition in Syria” in the first place caused this latest Islamic mutation.

A main ally of Syria, Russia expressed their concern regarding the planned bombing of ISIS positions in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying that the US and its allies had “to choose what is more important: to change the regime, and satisfy personal antipathies with the risk that the situation will crumble, or find pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat.”

Washington focuses on media disinformation to offset Ukraine failure

The United States and NATO can’t be more incorrect in their foreign policy than in Russia’s sphere of influence, which happen to include Ukraine. Indeed, the arch rival of the West, standing alone against the combined might and influence of the West, Russia continues to show it is not the easiest rival, be it in the issue of the emerging economies (BRICS) or military interventions in Africa, the Middle East, and most importantly in Ukraine.

The sorry story of the overthrow of Ukraine’s legitimately-elected president Yanukovich in 2013, the economic sanctions, and the Malaysian Airlines tragedy has shown that where Russia might be compromised, the West is there to fuel the fire.

What the West accuses Russia of; the West has done in the past–plain and simple. In their latest disinformation against Moscow, the West is spreading new war mongering news that Moscow is building up troops in Ukraine’s border. Besides the fact that Russia has the inalienable right do anything within its borders, this is nothing new, as fears always play the prime time in the Western press’ psyche: Cold War-style, fear sells.

This week, A NATO official was quoted as saying that Moscow could use “the pretext of a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission as an excuse to send troops into Eastern Ukraine.” These words via email, from NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu, will sound fresh if it was published during the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia, Yugoslavia, or to more contemporary interventions led by the West themselves: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other pseudo-humanitarian interventions around the planet.

Having shown no backing down despite Western pressure, Vladimir Putin is keen to show that the Russian bear is not ready to be pushed and bullied around especially in its own sphere of influence. Now on its 3^rd round of toothless Western sanctions, Moscow has shown that it can rally other emerging players who are willing to avoid the elitist West, pursuing new economic possibilities with South America, more commitment to a new Silk Road to China, and the canceling of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt.

Russia has withstood it all: double-edged economic (and now military) sanctions, NATO exercises in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, Sochi Olympics terrorism fears spread by Western media, and the fateful downing of Malaysian Air flight MH 17, wherein the complex truth is just materializing as we speak.

Indeed, what makes Washington and NATO busy in these days of their empire-centric decline is to at least slowdown their decay down the waste bin of history. Despite having the biggest firepower and military budget in the world, the United States has shown it is not ready to fight a final war with nuclear-armed Russia. Instead, together with its cronies in Europe, the United States is waging its fundamentally envy-centric battle with economic, political, and media war against Russia, and other countries further East (China).

As the infrastructure and experience in disinformation is well established in the West, we can only see this war of words to further intensify as more and more of those born beyond the original Cold War admit a new irreversible rivalry has already taken hold between the West and Russia. As the world pays its respects to the immense heroism and tragedy of World War I, we can only fear history does not repeat itself.

Regardless of the sorrow caused by both World Wars, there are just facts that remain inconvenient to admit for those in the West, including the fact that World War I and World War II have been instigated by Germany and Japan, the latter of which is being encouraged by the United States to change its constitution so it can rearm and military engage its neighbor China. The fact remains that Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler, has been on the right side of history. If past acts make a good lead to the future, then we can only hope that Russia is on the right side of history once more. 

Why not sanction Israel?

1,300 lives and over 7,000 wounded people later, there is no stopping Israel from destroying Gaza and threatening its future existence.

Relentless as the Israeli war machine against Palestinians, Israel has yet to be held accountable for any of the atrocious acts it is committing, in front of millions of viewers worldwide, thanks to the Western mainstream media’s approval of the so-called operation Protective Edge.

In light of the mass recalling of Latin America ambassadors from Israel in condemnation of the US-backed onslaught on Palestine, we are yet to see serious counter propaganda against the war emanating from the West, either from the media giants or from the State Department.

Israel’s biggest foreign donor, the United States, continues to supply it with ‘aid’, the biggest proportion of which goes to research, development and deployment of military hardware, including the much hailed Iron Dome missile defense system. Lauded as an ongoing ‘refinement’ of the missile defense system, Israel has secured additional funding for its development from the Washington.

For its part, the United States has been reaping what it sowed by way of more international criticism regarding its resupplying of ammunition to the unstoppable Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including mortar rounds, grenades and other weapons. This act runs counter to Obama’s claim of ‘concern’ regarding a recent shelling of an UN-run school in Gaza.

Ceasefire Confusion

Last week was marked by the United Nations Security Council’s condemnation of the fighting in Gaza and corresponding ceasefire agreement to finally stop the atrocities committed by both sides. Apparently, a third mediator in the conflict, Egypt, failed to inform Hamas about the ceasefire, the silence of which was interpreted by Netanyahu as a rejection, leaving him “with no choice but to expand and intensify the campaign against it.”

So far in the operational timeline of the conflict, Israel has used the ceasefire to prepare for more savage operations against Hamas and civilians in Gaza, including the July 17 ground invasion after the UN ceasefire proposal, and the more recent 12-hour humanitarian ceasefire which saw the IDF receiving more weaponry from the United States to help destroy even more Palestinian lives.

Such deception and betrayal is not surprising, especially when Israel tried to sugarcoat and justify its bombing campaign when it spread propaganda that Palestinians where ‘informed’ before an impending aerial assault on their city, except that the warning gives residents just 5 minutes to leave their homes.

Western Media Makes Propaganda out of Malaysia MH17 Tragedy

Just hours after the tragic downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukrainian territory, you could believe that the story of who shot down the civilian airline was already concluded, if you have been watching CNN, Fox, Bloomberg and other neo-con infested news outlets.

In stressful moments like this, the last thing you want to hear from the news is a constant barrage of baseless accusations and politicization of tragic events: we can only imagine the distress of the families of the passengers aboard flight MH17, and it is regretful to hear Obama, Hillary, and King ‘comfort’ their viewers with nothing but Russia-bashing garbage.

President Obama’s ‘Russia is responsible’ claims were quickly absorbed by the mainstream news media outlets just a few hours after the tragedy – never mind the evidence and international pressure to gather an independent investigation about the plane’s terrible fate.

Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth

That line, attributed to Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of the Third Reich, remarkably applies to how the Western mainstream news media are spreading and taking advantage of brittle emotions and unanswered questions to disasters like the downing of flight MH17.

Obama was quoted as saying “I want to point out there will likely be misinformation as well. I think it’s very important for folks to sift through what is factually based and what is simply speculation.” Of course, he is referring to how Putin ‘might cover up’ the investigation, but who succumbed to propaganda first Mr. Obama?

Refresher on Ukrainian rebels

As a thousand lies have already been said about how Ukraine evolved into the tragedy that it is now, it is admittedly hard for the non-expert audience to sift through Ukraine’s 2013 revolution, but a quick refresher on who really are the ‘rebels’ is useful, if we are to keep referring to the information that ‘rebels shot down flight MH17.”

Remember that the legitimate government of former Ukraine president Victor Yanukovich was ousted in a Western-backed coup in the lead up to 2014. Today, we have a bunch of loyalists (undeniably pro-Russia too) who are fighting for their own independence from the unwanted coup government in Kiev.

Trusting the ‘intel experts’ again?

How many times have we been fooled by the ‘US intelligence community’ in the past few years alone? From the illegal invasion of Iraq which was based on false intelligence, to the illegal wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, to Edward Snowden’s Internet privacy revelations, and today a tragic downing of a civilian aircraft. Do we really need to trust the ‘intelligence community’ as our firsthand source of information during tragedies like this?

Ukraine government hiding information

An accidental shooting of a civilian aircraft it may seem right now, the fact of the matter is the situation is more complicated than what appears right now. The Ukrainian government has yet to answer a few questions, including:

1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.

Israel Attacks Gaza Anew

While the Israeli military justifies its uncompromising ‘retaliation’ against Gaza, hundreds of Palestinian civilians have died and been injured as a result, with no equivalent casualties in Israel as of press time.

Much has been said in the Western media about Israel’s right to protect itself against aggression, but very few mentions can be found on how civilian targets have been leveled, except for Al Jazeera and Russia’s RT news channel.

It also worrying, though not surprising, that there is less coverage on how disproportionate the Israeli offensive is, according to WSWS, “a total of 180 rockets have been fired from Gaza in the course of the last month, since the crisis first flared following the kidnapping of three Israeli teenage settlers on the West Bank. Most of these primitive rockets have fallen harmlessly in open areas, and about 20 percent have been shot down. Not one Israeli has been killed, and there are few reports even of minor injuries.”

On the one hand, the social media Twitter is abuzz with Israelis shown celebrating rocket fire against Gaza in a beach in Sderot, a city two kilometers from Gaza. An American civilian in Sdreto was also quoted as saying “we are here to see Israel destroy Hamas.”

More destruction to come

In a statement in Beersheba, Israel Prime Minister made sure a ground offensive is imminent, instructing the military to “intensify even further…operation will expand and continue until the rocket fire on our cities stops and quiet returns.”

Indeed that has happened today, when Israel navy commandos raided a suspected missile launch site, as confirmed by IDF’s Twitter page: “BREAKING: IDF forces raided a site used to fire long-range rockets at Israel. The mission was accomplished.” Indeed, with some 20,000 troops mobilized, Israel keeps a full-scale invasion as an option.

Meanwhile, The United Nations Security Council has called for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine on Saturday.

Bombing Iraq to Democracy 2014 Edition

As if not troubled enough, Iraq, the country raped by the United States and Britain, is on the verge of complete mayhem once again as Iraqi security forces withdraw control from regions deemed too violent.

As violence intensifies to new record levels, the fear is that the Iraqi military and police will unable to handle the carnage and then withdraw, and undo ‘progress’ made after the US military officially left in 2011. Of course, calling it ‘progress’ depends on whether you supported the baseless Western invasion of Iraq or not.

And herein lays the problem: will the US invade Iraq once more? Indeed President Obama cannot be more pressured with the Iraq question than today. In the previous weeks the question was whether the US military should be involved in Iraq once more. But as of press time, it was decided to send military advisers to Iraq and Special Forces to help curb the new wave of mayhem.

Tony Blair’s Outrageous Denial

As the Al-Qaeda leftover Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militant group overpowers Iraqi security forces in more and more regions, some of the greatest offenders of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have lashed out the moderates for not doing enough to curb the new wave of ultra-violence.

Last week, Blair denied, to everybody’s astonishment, that the lies-ridden invasion of 2003 was to blame for the present state of Iraq. In a statement with regards to the possible outcome of a Western invasion, Blair insisted “we have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven’t.”

Mr. Blair also had the nerve to call claims contrary to his as ‘bizarre’ and instead blamed the current upsurge in violence to the West’s failure to act in Syria.  "It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis,” in a statement on his website. 

Being among the original fear-mongering Western leaders on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr. Blair still hasn’t changed his stance and strategy regarding ‘inaction’ in Syria, saying If we don't deal with the Syria issue then the problems are not just going to be for Syria and for the region, the problems are actually going to come back and they are going to hit us very directly even in our own country.” You could replace Syria with Iraq easily and it becomes a statement sounding it was 2003.

Obama’s Options in Iraq

Riding on a platform of rejection of the war in Iraq during his first presidency, President Obama now is faced with a decision on how to invade Iraq once more. So far, the options include sending ‘advisers’ into Iraq and carrying out a new wave of airstrikes, Operation Desert Fox style with the sending of the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush to the Gulf.

On the other hand, hawks in the US government establishment are blaming Obama for creating a ‘security vacuum’ by unnecessarily pulling out US troops back in 2011. What unites the Western elites though is the belief in a ‘spillover’ of the Syrian civil war into, of all places, Iraq.

What remains true today are the facts: the lies that initiated the US-UK war against Iraq, the destruction of Iraq society, millions of lives and resources lost, the divide-and-rule strategy that paved the way for sectarian and civil war, all leading to the utter destruction of Iraq. 

Obama finally hails American Exceptionalism

After years of downplaying America’s supposed exceptionalism, Obama’s recent West Point speech finally confirmed once and for all where he stands in this who-gets-to-police-the-world creed.

From a belief in everyone else’s exceptionalism, last week’s West Point speech calls for Obama’s belief in “American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” He elaborated on what this means for the unsuspecting world: the US military has “the power to launch unilateral attacks when America’s interests are directly threatened.” Notice the subtle word changes: from the right to intervene when America’s “security” is directly threatened to “interests” directly threatened.

Indeed it is astonishing how American elections can mask the fundamental differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. It can be remembered Obama distinguished himself (and his party) from McCain’s and Bush-Cheney’s global conquest bidding when he famously decalred “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” in a NATO summit in 2009.

At the time, this disbelief in a sole American exceptionalism and the enduring threat of isolationism ruffled some feathers, especially among conservatives, and was widely interpreted as vindication of Obama’s plan to retreat America from the world. This meant, first and foremost, the rolling back of the US war machine from overseas deployment, especially from the dreaded adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite Obama’s proposal to retreat from the Middle East, it can be recalled that during his first few years in office, he proposed and got Congress approval for an increase in the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan, famously known as the ‘surge’, lasting until 2012. 

Now halfway into his second term, Obama is no longer a wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing – the guessing game on what his intentions for America’s global military domination is finally over: American will remain the sole policeman of the world whether you (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) like it or not.

Another word change worth nothing includes the shift from “war on terror” of the Bush-Cheney years to “the capacity of terrorists to do harm” and from “coalition of the willing” to “mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.”

Obama’s term, marketed as a move away from Bush’s imperialist policies, have so far been defined by more violations of international law and by increases of some kind, including more eavesdropping (even of allied leaders), astronomical increase in the Pentagon budget, the refusal to close illegal overseas prisons, the hijacking of popular uprisings, and support for disputes against its perceived long-term enemies.

Obama ends his West Point speech in a reassuring note, just in case his audience elsewhere doubts his exceptionalism revelation: “the military that you have joined is and always be the backbone” of US “leadership.”

Russia’s Near Abroad Foreign Policy

Much has been going on in Russia’s borders in recent months:  from last year’s violent “Euromaindan” protests sponsored by the West, to the annexation of Crimea, the Eastern and Southern Ukraine’s invalid independence referendum, the sorry (at least in the Western eyes) Sochi Olympics, the relentless economic and political sanctions, and the stepping up of military patrols in Eastern Europe by NATO.

Not long ago did the West portray Russia as rebuilding a “Soviet ‘empire” when it went to war with Georgia in August 2008. Since then, Western politicians and the mainstream media have spread their usual fear-mongering propaganda against Russia.

What’s missing from this narrative is the question of why Russia is forced to tackle its present challenges, especially along its borders. For one, centuries of Russian empire and the 20^th century’s Soviet experiment solely points to the immense and legitimate influence Russia has on its near abroad frontier, be it in greater Eastern Europe or former Soviet republics, which include Ukraine.

What the West fails to understand is Moscow’s right and obligation to protect ethnic Russians outside the country, especially in the former Soviet republics. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, millions of Russian suddenly found themselves second-class citizens in other former Soviet republics, including in Ukraine.

For instance, back in February, one of the first “legislation” of the new illegitimate government of Kiev was to ban Russian language in Ukraine. Seriously, can language alone be of matter national security concern? The judgment and intentions of those in power can be in doubt especially if your country’s new leaders do not even know the right flag for a country he is visiting. And yet the West has the nerve to spread lies about Russia being the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis rather than the other way around.

And how Western politicians and mainstream media portray Russia’s fictitious ambitions is pretty much the same as how they portray China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea: that hot foreign policy conceals and overrides domestic concerns; a way to consolidate public support against a foreign aggressor while forgetting the troubles at home.

And yet all that protection for minorities outside Russia is seen as part of Vladimir Putin’s “empire building", which in contrast to the West’s military and covert interventions abroad pretty much vilifies those accusing the Russian president instead.

Now that Russia is firmly out of the G8, eyes are focused on where Russia’s economic potentials will go instead. Indeed, Russia is part of the greater and more important G20, as well as the economic collective known as the BRICS. For at least the past decade now, Russia and China has been busy building new pipelines to transport energy to countries East of Russia, which will help Moscow diversify its economy to where the global economy is happening most: in the East.

And of course talks of a new Cold War with Russia (and China) has been circulating in the Western mainstream media. Politicians up to the highest levels, including Barack Obama himself, are trying to blame (or deny) the new Cold War. Indeed, for some politicians in the West, the old Cold War with the Soviet Union really did not go away.

 A Reemerging Russia is indeed what they fancy; after all, the fear of enemies abroad means the sustainment of the military industrial complex which Eisenhower feared will sustain America’s insatiable appetite for a permanent war economy.