Connect with us

Latest

News

CONFIRMED: Russia opposed to Kurdish separatism in Middle East

Russia is comitted to the existing borders of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Published

on

3,319 Views

This morning, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked to clarify the Russian position on a referendum for unilateral secession among ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. Iraq has condemned the move on multiple occasions.

Today, Peskov stated the Russian position in the following way,

“Russia’s position is the one in favour of territorial integrity of regional states”.

This is confirmation that Russia supports the existing borders of all states in which Kurdish militants seek to carve out new political territory. Such states include Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

This is fitting with Russia’s general commitment to the integrity of states globally as well as an indication of Russia’s historically good relations with Turkey and Iran, as well as Russia’s continually good relations with Syria and its restored positive ties with Iraq.

While Russia has generally had good relations with Kurdish groups over the centuries, Russia is clearly prioritising its relationship with states over relationships with non-state bodies.

Turkey which generally had better relations with Iraq Kurds vis-a-vis PKK aligned Syrian Kurds, has recently announced that it will implement sanctions against so-called Iraqi Kurdistan if the referendum, scheduled for the 25th of September, takes place.

With the exception of Israel, all regional powers are opposed to Kurdish separatism. The US has tended to distance itself from the Kurdish referendum in Iraq, in spite of the US having generally good relations with Iraq Kurds.

Currently, the US is in charge of a Kurdish led proxy militia in Syria known as the SDF. It is suspected that while the US will continue to urge dialogue between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds, the US might take a more aggressive line in favour of Kurdish separatism in Syria owing to America’s humiliation in light of the failure of its regime change policy against Damascus.

In spite of international warnings to cancel the referendum, including from the UN, separatists in Iraq have stated that they will proceed with the unilateral vote on the 25th of September.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
colum
Guest
colum

Who were the signataries to the current borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey?

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

Those borders are both recognized and guaranteed by the United Nations. All other questions are irrelevant.

colum
Guest
colum

No they ain’t. Aren’t the UN the same cabal that supported the creation of Israel (Britian was involved with both the UN and the loss of kurdistan). The UN is in the pocket of globalists and is not the peace keeping world police. Kurdistan was conveniently written of the map by a couple of key UN members for imperialist reasons thus it is no surprise the UN care little for the borders (also add the fact the UN came in after Kurdistan was conveniently removed after WW1). Now I know few are going to agree with my views, but my… Read more »

Melotte 22
Guest
Melotte 22

Kurds are ethnic minority in Syria representing approx.10% of Syrian population. Most of them are actually refugees from Turkey, accepted by Syria.
Once ISIS is defeated, it is in their best interest to accept Syria as their country and work with Syrian government for some sort of autonomy. Asking for anything more is going to be disastrous for Kurds. They should also avoid a trap of being a new US puppet in the region, once ISIS is defeated.

Trauma2000
Guest
Trauma2000

It is too late for the puppet thing. They are already being used by the U.$. as ‘canon fodder’ and dumb soldiers so that U.$. soldiers can stay out of harms way.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

“The Kurds deserve at least a greater autonomy if not sovereignty in the areas of their home lands as a protected people.” I totally agree. They deserve a significant degree of autonomy within the context of existing nation states recognized by the UN. While it is a lousy model to site, for various reasons, the US Indian nations have something like that. And some “nations” have made out very well with casinos. Generally, compromise is better than civil war. The Catalans are about to test that theory.

colum
Guest
colum

To ‘cite’ your comment, Compromise is better than bloodshed, but compromise is the very least that must be done, especially by the ruling powers. Ultimately the situation the world over is one of wrongfully displaced peoples that has occurred via imperialism and conquest. I still believe the Kurds should be granted their own land and sovereignty or at the very least something akin to Northern Ireland. They need to be recognised as Kurds with their own culture and (unlike Northern Ireland) a fair represtation in the governments of the ‘supervising’ nations that make up the Kurdish homeland. The kurds cannot… Read more »

Trauma2000
Guest
Trauma2000

@ Colum re: “sovereignty or at the very least something akin to Northern Ireland. They need to be recognised as Kurds with their own culture” It is too late for that. They would end up as a pariah nation, landlocked between 4 other nations that they have ‘burnt’ one way or another. With the current state of affairs in the Middle East, there is ‘safety in numbers’ and the recognition they had as part of Syria was far greater than anything they had anywhere else. Now they are just being used by the U.$. as ‘an excuse for war’ on… Read more »

PJ London
Guest
PJ London

The Sykes–Picot Agreement
Splitting up of the Ottoman empire after WW1.
Try Google.

colum
Guest
colum

And they were?

PJ London
Guest
PJ London

It is spelled “GOOGLE.COM”
About 267 000 results (0,87 seconds)

colum
Guest
colum

I invited that, now tell me the name of the signataries of those who erased Kurdista.

PJ London
Guest
PJ London

There is not, nor has there ever been a ‘Kurdista’. They had been offered a large degree of autonomy under Hussein, Assad, and all the Turkish governments, instead they set about killing and erasing the Arabs, the Turks and to a much lesser extent the Iranians. Their antics have caused the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Turks to be really, really annoyed. Like the Chechens, they are about to be royally spanked. The Kurdish idiots, like the Chechens and the Georgians and a dozen other minorities believed that the Americans would ‘have their backs’. Even the Israelis believe it. They… Read more »

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

“There is not, nor has there ever been a ‘Kurdista'” 100% – until go-ogle or wikip start fiddling with more of our history.
They were always a nomadic tribe, with the same sick habits as their relations in that other occupied territory (where Kurds are also found) who practice ‘ethnic cleansing’
apartheid wherever they decide settle.

Gavin Allen
Guest
Gavin Allen

More pathetic nonsense from ADAM GARRIE… “Russia supports the existing borders of all states in which Kurdish militants seek to carve out new political territory. Such states include Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.” Yeah, right. Adam likes to ignore reality and swim in fiction. In Syria, the “Kurdish militants” project is actually a polyethnic Syrian project to bring real democracy to their society. But of course Adam likes to kiss the murderer Assad’s arse. “the US might take a more aggressive line in favour of Kurdish separatism in Syria” – the DFNS already exists, and is a part of Syria.… Read more »

PJ London
Guest
PJ London

Talk about “pathetic nonsense” there is no such animal as the DFNS. Not now, not ever. Nor will there be a ‘state’ in Iraq’. You think Iran is going to let the Kurds set up a ‘State’? Dream on dummy. The only reason US is in the area is to steal the oil. Iraq and Syria were willing in the past to allow certain autonomy under the control of the countries, but the Kurds (thanks to the Americans) have screwed that up. when ISIL and Nusra have been buried, then SDF and Peshmerga will be next. The Kurds have been… Read more »

Norman
Guest
Norman

You smell bad Gavin Allen.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

Another example of the US shooting itself in the foot. Actually, more like the groin or head. Why not alienate both Turkey and Iraq by supporting the Kurds? ISIS will very soon be defeated in Syria and Iraq. When they are, the last excuse for US presence in northern Syria and Iraq will be gone. At that point, what will the US do? Yes, it can continue to bribe the Kurds financially to maintain their military presence there, but as the Syrians and Iraqis increasingly turn to war against the Kurds to regain what is lawfully theirs, the position of… Read more »

Freethinking Влади́мир
Guest
Freethinking Влади́мир

Iraq is entirely divided and that means the US always will find reasons to maintain their presence. Syria is different: the US will remain present, but in Kurdish occupied territory. The defeat of the US isn’t worth much because the western population doesn’t realize its defeat because it’s not a straightforward one. The masses haven’t learned to think in terms of hybrid and proxy wars, despite their high opinion of themselves.

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Historically, the Kurds were always on the US/Israhell side & they always end it up with the shit end of the stick ?? So as J Wayne said, Life is hard & it’s harder if you’re stupid ??

Freethinking Влади́мир
Guest
Freethinking Влади́мир

They couldn’t have done it without US support. The Kurdish regions are nothing but more forward operating bases for the Americans.

seby
Guest
seby

The truth is, giving the Kurds (which ones?) a state is almost like giving the Romany a State. They indeed have had a sad history wherever they stayed put. It could be said Syria treated them the best. Anyway, we know what this is all about. The old divide and conquer game of imperialists. The biggest absurdity and a giveaway on this truth, is that the zionists (a previous beneficiary of imperial divide and conquer) are ok with giving them a State but not the Palestinians, who really have the most right to one. That is if you use a… Read more »

Trauma2000
Guest
Trauma2000

@ Seby re: “The biggest absurdity and a giveaway on this truth, is that the zionists (a previous beneficiary of imperial divide and conquer) are ok with giving them a State but not the Palestinians, who really have the most right to one. ” And that is the crux of it isn’t it. The Palestinian have MORE right to live in ‘Palestine’ than anyone else; but it was stolen from them under the most horrible of subterfuges. They got lied to on a grand scale. It is a disgrace what has been inflicted on Palestine. But, irony of ironies, the… Read more »

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Reality is that the Kurds, like the Jews (a European tribe), the Wahhabi and Salafists, are nothing but a TRIBE…………..they are not a nation.

Like the Jews and their Wahhabi and Salafist minions, they should NEVER be granted nation status. The decision of the General Assembly, to grant the Jews nation status, in 1947, was catastrophic for the Middle East and a disaster for the world.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending