2016: What is ahead for the world?

By and large the previous year was a year of crisis escalation, brought forth by the emergence of new sources of tension not only in diplomacy but also in actual military conflict. On the one hand, fresh sources of armed engagement and humanitarian issues had world leaders worried overnight (ISIS beyond Syria and Iraq, Russian intervention in Syria, migrant crisis in Europe). These events were not predicted before 2015.

2016 will be marked by an increase in local conflicts, like in Ukraine and in the Arabian Peninsula where the rift between Sunni and Shia Muslims will intensify. In fact, as of press time, Saudi Arabia has cut off all diplomatic ties with Iran, the latter infuriated over the execution of a prominent Shia cleric. It is expected to be joined by other Sunni majority countries in the Middle East. This year might just be the time for the spreading of these conflicts to more states.

The presidential elections in the United States will put on hold major foreign policy decisions, as the American public gets distracted by the convoluted race to the White House. As for the exiting American president, Obama will protect what he has accomplished in 2015, including the rapprochement with Iran and Cuba.

As the United States continues to be rejected in many areas of the world, the leadership vacuum that it will create will give opportunities to other major powers, and with it, a new era of anti-West geopolitics will emerge. The post-American century is an irreversible occurrence now as other major powers like Russia, China, and Brazil take on responsibilities beyond their typical spheres of influence. In the military sphere, Russia has re-entered the Middle East in a big way, while China will now formally launch the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), aimed at rivaling the IMF and World Bank.

The global economy is expected to be ‘disappointing and uneven’ in 2016 because of the continuing slowdown in China, sluggishness in world trade, the threat of rising interest rates in the US, the ongoing fall of oil prices, and the vulnerability of emerging economies to absorb economic shocks, according to the IMF.

General elections will take place in Taiwan, a Western-backed state that is unsure about its identity vis-à-vis China. The emerging leader might give Beijing fresh fears regarding the longstanding One-China policy. The UK public will go to the polls to decide whether to stay or leave the European Union, while in the Philippines, presidential elections will decide whether a future leader will continue to provoke China and further impress the United States for its own benefit.

Islamic State (ISIS) is expected to be put on hold territorially in Syria and Iraq, thanks to Russia’s military intervention. However, it might gain influence beyond the region as other terrorist groups (like Boko Haram in Nigeria, and other groups from Somalia to terror groups in South East Asia) pledge their allegiance to Daesh.

The United States and NATO will further infuriate Moscow as it decides on sending nuclear weapons to Poland, a former Warsaw Pact member. As a result of Washington’s antagonizing policies in Europe, Russia will further invest in its armed forces, which might trigger a new, expensive, and unnecessary arms race in continental Europe.

Europe’s most powerful leader, Angela Merkel, is expected to leave office after three successive terms. What this might mean for Europe is a change in policy towards Russia (sanctions), the migrant crisis, the German commitment to the entire Eurozone project and Berlin’s attitude towards economically and socially troubled states like Spain, Greece, and Italy.

McCain’s anti-reality and hysteria a reflection of the West’s insecurities towards Russian war in Syria

By now, the Russian military’s involvement in the ongoing Syrian Civil War is not breaking news. The facts have been properly laid down and conveyed to the watching world with reports that are verified, and in some cases, in a high-tech kind of delivery. What seems like a constant CCTV feed from the skies and the seas has shown highly accurate weapons raining down on the otherwise common enemy that is the Islamic State (IS).

What is perhaps interesting is how, predictably, the West has downplayed the Russian effort, from spreading slanderous unconfirmed reports of dead civilians to President Putin’s macho-man image reporting in the Western mainstream media. Indeed, even for the West, especially in Washington, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy.

For one, John McCain, the Republican politician who previously lost his presidential ambition to Obama back in 2008, and famous for advocating military aggression and political subversion, has recently shared his hysterical interpretation of Moscow’s war against Islamic State in Syria.

In a chilling, Hollywood-style op-ed published in CNN, McCain blamed the Obama administration’s weakness in confronting its adversaries, most especially Russia. He sees Moscow’s bombing of IS forces in Syria as just an effort to restore Russia’s image in the Middle East. What he does not recognize, and most Americans perhaps, is the fact that the spread of terrorism, which the United States helped foster in the first place, is a major concern for Putin, as the countries plagued by extremism is really not that far from Russia’s southern flanks.

He opined that Putin “must be stopped, not least because he will inflame every aspect of this conflict in the process: the refugee crisis, the mass atrocities and the growth of ISIS.” What McCain overlooked is the fact that if it weren’t for his country’s intervention in the Syrian conflict, ISIS would’ve not strengthened and spread in the Middle East. The fact is that these extremely violent Islamists where the ‘moderate’ rebels they were supporting during the early years of the so-called Arab Spring.

Washington’s brand of frenzied foreign policy is not generous enough for McCain and his Republican panic crew: he’s called for “check(ing) Putin’s ambitions…impose greater costs on Russia’s interests…by striking significant Syrian leadership or military targets.” As a former military man himself, does he understand the possible chain of events that might follow if the United States directly attacked Syria’s military? He seems to have forgotten that Washington’s involvement in Syria is not authorized by the United Nations and thus is an illegal act under international laws.

And then McCain indulges in more disgusting assault, calling for more pressure against Russia ‘where it counts’ including sending more weapons to Ukraine, spreading corruption exposes on the Russian leadership, and even more sanctions against Moscow. He added that the US can find ‘willing partners’ in Europe for another ‘coalition of the willing’ (or killing) to further prop up the ‘moderate opposition.’ Finally, he called America’s intervention as it’s ‘last opportunity to make a difference in Syria and avert a strategic disaster…we cannot afford to squander.”

For their part, the Western mainstream media continues to indulge in spreading and amplifying unconfirmed reports of the alleged victims caused by the Russian expedition inside Syria. For instance, the reported civilian casualties resulting from the Russian air campaign where actually spread even before the first bomber sorties had even begun. Also, the purported landing of Russian cruise missiles in Iran has been confirmed (by Tehran and Moscow) to be just ‘part of the intensified Western propaganda war.’

Such apocalyptic visions and mantra of ‘intervene-now-or-never’ runs contrary to what’s spewing out of the Kremlin. For their part since the beginning, Russia has expressed interest in finding “pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat.” Putin has expressed his country’s interest in establishing a broad coalition to fight Islamic State, from the simple sharing of intelligence (a proposal Washington rejected) to ending the ‘training program’ of ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels in the ground. In fact, the United States has airdropped a fresh supply of weapons, some 50 tons of it, to support their Syrian puppets.

Washington’s obsession with bringing poisoned ‘democracy’ A.K.A. regime change to the Middle East should be stopped for good if the region deserves to be in peace. It has been clear that the ‘must-go’ policy pursued by the United States against Arab dictators has only worsened the situation. The quagmire has exploded out of proportion that even Europe, with the present influx of refugees to the continent, needed to tackle this otherwise non-issue. 

Refugee crisis being used as another pretext for war with Syria

The tragedy that is the exodus of refugees from the Middle East to Europe in recent weeks has already claimed first-order policy concerns from Europe’s capitals. Branded as the ‘worst migrant crisis since World War II” the situation has been blamed on innocent people leaving from ‘war, oppression, and economic uncertainty.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that although the nationalities of the refugees are mixed, Syrians comprise the biggest number of fleeing people for safety into Turkey and the rest of Europe.

Now that the refugee situation has reached European shores and cities, Western imperialist powers have started to claim that the crisis would not have been this appalling if not for American inaction and avoidance of the use of military force. For instance, in an op-ed piece featured in the American government-sponsored New York Times, the author maintained that “American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates. Not doing something is no less of a decision than doing it.”

Such a statement clearly smacks in the face of the Syrian refugees fleeing their country, where their plight can be directly blamed on Western policies that created those ‘moderate rebels’ who have been stubbornly but openly funded by the United States, as a result of Obama’s interventionist policy on Syria. On the one hand, it is interesting to observe that the increase in refugees fleeing the region has coincided with the intensification of NATO’s bombing of ISIS positions in the country. The civil war has been waging for close to 5 years now, and yet this is the only time when the number of people fleeing has reached record levels.

As tragic as it is, this is as a result of the United States’ policy of “Assad must go.”

Back in 2011, when euphoria for the so-called Arab Spring was at its zenith, Western capitals hailed it as the arrival of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to the common peoples of the Middle East, who finally ‘awakened’ to the decades-old tyranny of their ‘despotic’ leaders. In their minds, without sending boots on the ground to topple the region’s dictators, the citizens of these countries have chosen to pursue a peaceful path to a better future. Fast forward to today, and the grim horrors of that triumphalist ‘idealization’ continue to disappoint.

In late 2013, the same strategy of playing the emotional card was employed, when Western media outlets quickly blamed the chemical weapon attacks on the Syrian government, where scores of people where shown to have died as a result. Evidence has since shown that the chemical weapon attack came from the ‘moderate rebels’ whose aim was to use it as a pretext for American military intervention (again), but this time in Syria.

In the past few weeks, American policy makers and their Western European counterparts have been escalating the drumbeat on yet another attempt at bringing boots on the ground to fight Bashar Al Assad, but this time seizing upon the refugee crisis and the supposed “Russian involvement’ inside Syria.

Directly or hidden, Washington’s involvement in Syria is undeniable: from Obama’s ‘responsibility to protect’ excuses to the issuance of no fly zones and now the bombing of extremists which it helped create in the first place. Here’s a stimulating point to think about: as the self-proclaimed defender of ‘freedom’ and ‘humanitarian’ nonsense, what if the United States actually did more for the Syrian people?

What if the United States actually helped the Syrian people by taking in more refugees than, say, Germany and Sweden, both of which have taken in the most number of refugees in continental Europe? Germany alone is expected to receive 800,000 refugees this year. In comparison, the United States has just accepted 1,500 Syrian refugees since the war broke out in 2011, a fact that has caused disdain from many, including from the International Rescue Committee (IRC).

On the contrary, Western media outlets were quick to blame ‘gateway countries’ like Hungary for being lukewarm to this humanitarian catastrophe. Nowhere in the mainstream news media can you hear the role played by the West in perpetuating this suffering, so much so that quietly, those responsible (UK and the US) are contemplating bombing Syria even more.

Regardless of their final decision to bomb Syria into extinction, it is clear that where Western involvement is concerned, the results are nothing short of devastating. What happened to the Middle East in the past five years alone is vindication of the unintended consequences of projecting a dying unilateralism in an age of choice.

On the lost Arab Spring and the influence of politics on policy

It is perhaps fair to say the Arab Spring was such a missed opportunity, and in many ways, it is.

The Arab Spring was supposed to be the vanguard for change in the complex politics of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. It was launched on a platform of Arab democracy (as opposed to American democracy) that will instigate a wave of change, from free speech to economic opportunities.

Despite its disassociation from Western grand plans for the region, the Arab Spring was nevertheless glorified in the West. The revolution took everyone by surprise – including President Barack Obama himself. And it was almost hijacked by the Western mainstream media (BBC, CNN, Fox) as something that the West endorsed, especially with the exaggerated role that technology played to make it happen. They may have supported the revolution at a later point, but certainly did not play a role in its creation.

But some four years since the whole saga began in Tunisia, what we find is a more confused Western, and especially American, policy in the MENA region. For starters, the United States is still a big supporter of whatever Israel does (occasional wars against its neighbors, assassination of foreign leaders); it has a very good military relationship with Sunni Saudi Arabia regardless of Riyadh actions in the region; it used to support ‘moderates’ in such countries as Iraq and Syria where the same moderates have transformed them into extremism and ISIS; and now it is negotiating a historic nuclear deal with Iran, it’s supposed arch-nemesis in the region.

The politics of Obama’s final years in office

Opposed by both Israel and Saudi Arabia, the latest Iranian nuclear deal is being praised as a landmark breakthrough in Middle East policy. Notwithstanding the merits of such a deal, the agreement with Iran requires a deeper look especially since Obama’s days in the office is in 2016.

Before his second term started in 2012, Obama pulled out of Afghanistan in late 2011 – some 3 years later than what he had promised during his fight for presidential candidacy in 2008, and just a few months before he was to reassume office at the White House. Indeed, when policy is at the mercy of politics, things ‘suddenly’ get done.

The rush to accomplish things before the time is out

A clearly defined United States’ policy aside, the upcoming US presidential race will certainly shake things up, with more policies being concluded and other surprises being taken into consideration. For instance, we might see a Cuban breakthrough as America pursues normalization with Cuba, an island nation long been under the economic embargo of the United States. Perhaps we can also see a softening of American policy toward Russia and Ukraine to avoid a political backlash for the Democrats in the upcoming presidential elections, or the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, a promise made by Obama since his 2008 nomination.

On April 12, Hillary Clinton will formally announce her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, a move that will mark the de-fact start of the intense presidential elections. Eight years since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought it out for the nomination, a woman in the White House is no doubt an interesting thing to see. But we are not there yet: big promises are set to entertain again, just like how Obama promised the impossible before. Conversely, the remaining 19 months will be a thrilling time to see what gets accomplished in the final days of Obama’s presidency.

On a related note: The curious case of Netanyahu’s Congress stunt

To gain political ground for his party once more, America’s main ally in the region, Israel’s hysterical Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed his opposition to the US-Iran nuclear deal in a highly emotional speech before the US Congress. The same tactic of ‘getting things done’ at a critical moment persuaded Netanyahu to grandstand in the receptive US Congress to gain political leverage before a major election.

Unfortunately for him, Netanyahu’s Congress stunt did not grain traction among the wider American establishment. Beyond the shock and awe of his emotional speech calling for a strike against Iran (as always), the spotlight went to the fact that his US Congress speech was not endorsed by the White House (he actually bypassed Obama on this), that the war-hungry Republicans invited Netanyahu to make the speech, and that Obama has since pointed out that all foreign policy decisions should be endorsed by the White House. 

Freedom of speech is morally relative, at least for the West

‘Edgy and provocative’ - that is how most people interpret the cartoons that provoked the terrorist attack on the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Indeed, the terrorist attack is a lamentable act of defiance, especially in a world where the supposed champions of liberal democracy bombard the news with who is supposed to express and protect ‘freedom of speech’.

But in a world where the concept of the ‘clash of civilizations’ is screaming its urgency, the political right to one’s opinion is sadly becoming a tool to circumvent what would otherwise be a morally questionable act that is not acceptable in a different culture.

For his part, and despite being absent in the Paris Unity march where some 50 world leaders rallied to defy violence, Obama expressed his “deepest sympathy and solidarity to the people of France following the terrible terrorist attack in Paris”. Earlier, the US president said that “the fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press…a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can’t be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few.”

Thus to sum what he stands for, Obama, and the West made us believe that they are the standard bearer of what a free society should be – a society where the freedom of speech (and criticism) can be in any form, no matter how offensive.

When others are not entitled to defy satirical narrative

Just back in December, a cyber-attack was launched against Sony Pictures when a preview of their satirical movie “The Interview” was leaked and the Western mainstream media quickly branded the attacks as ‘state sponsored terrorism’, which was blamed on North Korea.

In the movie, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is shown to be the target of an assassination. Following the news of the attacks, the US president was quick to blame the cyber-attack to have originated from North Korea.

From a moral standpoint, a society that reacts emotionally to a depiction of their leader as having been a target of harm should be understandable. Simply put, such depiction of harm, even in a satirical manner, is not a laughing matter. How would Americans react if Obama was put in the same satirical narrative?

Freedom of expression should have limitations

For all its complexities, the least that a government should guarantee is to confine, if not limit, the concept of political expression. There is no denying that freedom of speech is one of the qualities of a democratic society. Conversely, to avoid clashing with other cultures, it is best for governments to confine freedom of expression to their own borders – that is to encourage freedom of speech on domestic matters while limiting speech that might provoke other societies. Thus, the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks have shown that out-of-control freedom of speech should have its own limits. In this case, it is clear that Muslims did not ‘buy’ what is supposed to be a ‘joke’.

As opposed to the West’s call for the ‘protection of freedom of expression’, it might be that the opposite should be what their society should pursue: to shut up, mind their own business, and avoid offending others. Indeed, moral relativism has its own perils: the West should start realizing this if they are to avoid harm, in a satirical manner or otherwise.

2015: The World Ahead

It is undeniable that a new calendar year has its own transformational effect on everyone: if only the start of a new year has the power to recalibrate world events to more optimistic trajectories. The year 2014 saw an avalanche of disasters, from wars in the Middle East, to the unrest in Ukraine, to the triple air disasters, to the resurgence of Ebola in Africa and the collapse of oil markets towards the end of the year.

In almost every global issue, 2014 has strained not just the wits of our leaders, but also the resources that were required to tackle them. Indeed, we can only wish that humanity’s problem-solving vigor does not fatigue itself in the year 2015. What then are we to expect for the year ahead?

On the economy front, the United States, still the world’s biggest economy (but not anymore in a few years’ time), is expected to slowly move out of its unemployment woes which in effect will help in improving its GDP. Economists are looking at 3% growth with unemployment going down to a modest 5.3%. They also predict a stronger dollar against the euro and the Japanese yen.

Economists also predict continued growth for China, but at a slower pace in the months ahead. As for Germany, the Eurozone’s economic powerhouse (and savior), its giant trade surplus will likely shrink this year. Already a legitimate and a functioning entity, the Eurasian Economic Union, a rival to the European Union, already came into effect on January 2, 2015. It comprises the initial countries of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Belarus. Despite its potential competition with the EU, the new EAEU called for “start(ing) official contacts between the EU and the EAEU as soon as possible”.

For the rest of the world, most economists agree that the world is headed for a better economic outlook in 2015. For instance, the International Monetary Fund predicts the global economy to expand to 3.8% this year, compared to 3.3% in 2014. Such growth is the fastest since 2011, and the downward spiral of oil prices means businesses and consumers alike will have more money to spend on other things. On the energy side, economists predict still lower oil prices in 2015, thanks to continued oversupply and the reluctance of oil majors to cut production.

Political activity in major European countries like the UK, Greece, and Spain will see an interesting shakeup this year. Starting with Greece, concerns in Brussels will finally see the light (or dark) if a left-wing party challenges the present austerity measures and with it, bring back memories of a Greek exit from the Eurozone. At 24% unemployment, similar public sentiment in Spain will test the euro-wide policy of austerity in the coming Spanish local elections. In the UK, general elections will be held in May as well, where the dissolution of the present Parliament will likely take place, while political rivalries are expected to be ‘neck-and-neck.’

Another notable mention is the expiration of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on December 31, 2015. Discussions as to what will replace it, along with which priorities should be set, are already underway, with some prominent leaders suggesting a focus on broadly the same issues for global development, while others suggest embarking on the newer UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs). Regardless of the global issues that will be focused on, the new goals will represent the most challenge to Ban Ki-moon but also represent the most important legacy as he leaves the UN after his term ends in late 2016.

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.

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.”

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.

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.