Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

On North Korea, Trump says ‘Libya model would take place if we don’t make a deal’

Will Trump’s hard ball style of deal-making win the day?

Published

on

1,295 Views

First, John Bolton again opened his big mouth referring to ‘the Libya model’, where a nation that denuclearized experienced a US backed regime change that has left the nation a failed state ever since, right when Washington is supposedly attempting to broker a denuclearization deal with a country that Trump has been threatening to bomb, as well as get a peace settlement established.

Obviously, Bolton’s statements were, by some parties, construed as referring to the regime change program that has made Libya such a successful, modern, slave-trading, violence ridden failed state, rather than the denuclearization process that was accomplished there in 2003-2004.

This week, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has declared that he isn’t continuing with peace talks as long as that means taking a unilateral ‘proposal’ from the US, or, in Trump’s terms, where America gets ‘the better end of the deal’.

In short, as long as the peace talks translate into ‘America First’, Kim isn’t negotiating. Kim is telling Trump that this is about ‘making Korea whole again’, and has a ‘Korea first’ motto, putting the two parties on opposite sides of the arena.

After all, the means cited to spur the denuclearization talks are essentially the same as those that were used with Gadhafi’s nuclear disarmament, and that is the threat of delivering US-made bombs and boots on the ground, whether American or more ‘moderate’ ones.

Following Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Bush made clear that “we have clarified the choices left to potential adversaries”, meaning, get rid of your WMDs or we’re coming after you.

Trump is likewise taking credit for the process that has transpired in the direction of DPRK’s nuclear disarmament by indicating that it was his threats of unleashing nuclear war on North Korea that lit the fire under them to get moving on a program to end their nuclear development and establish peace with the South.

However, it may very well be that it is that very ‘Libya model’ that has led to a stall in progress towards peace and nuclear disarmament on the Korean peninsula, as Libya disarmed, but still got the ‘America first’ treatment, or rather, ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ exported to their country.

However, Trump seems to be well prepared to reimpose it in Korea, definitely referring to Gadhafi’s overthrow and murder, if he doesn’t get what he wants. Once again, more of Trump’s ‘art of deal making’, the ‘take it or leave it’ approach; or, this time, ‘take it or die’. The AFP reports:

US President Donald Trump tried to put his summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un back on track Thursday, offering the North Korean leader guarantees of staying in power if he abandons nuclear weapons.

As prospects for a historic summit next month between the two leaders dimmed, Trump told reporters that if the meeting were to go ahead successfully, Kim “will get protections that will be very strong.”

“He’d be in his country and running his country. His country would be very rich.”

But the pledge came barbed with a warning that if talks fail, Kim could suffer the same fate as Libya’s Moamer Kadhafi, who was overthrown by rebels and murdered.

Trump’s comments came as Pyongyang appeared to cool to the idea of the sit-down in Singapore on June 12, blaming US demands for “unilateral nuclear abandonment.”

Trump suggested Kim’s about-face may have been at the behest of Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“It could very well be that he’s influencing Kim Jong Un,” Trump said, citing a recent meeting between the pair, their second in a month’s time. “We’ll see what happens.”

After months of photo-ops and diplomatic backslapping, a North Korean official was quoted as saying the summit may not go ahead.

The official also groused about Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, who referred to Libya as a model for denuclearization.

In 2003, Kadhafi agreed to the elimination of his country’s nuclear program and chemical weapons arsenal to gain sanctions relief.

But Trump, and Pyongyang, appeared to zero in on what happened a decade later following the Libyan revolution, when NATO-backed rebels ousted the government and killed Kadhafi.

“The Libyan model isn’t a model that we have (in mind) at all when we’re thinking of North Korea,” Trump said while sitting at arm’s length from Bolton in the Oval Office.

“If you look at that model with Kadhafi, that was a total decimation. We went in there to beat him,” Trump said.

“Now, that model would take place if we don’t make a deal, most likely,” he warned Pyongyang.

“But if we make a deal, I think Kim Jong Un is going to be very, very happy.”

Trump has already said that he would ‘walk away’ if he doesn’t think that the talks will go his way, and now he’s adding to that the threat of overthrowing Kim in the manner that the US overthrew Libya’s Gadhafi.

Will Kim use his threat of walking away from this process to force Trump to move in his direction, or will Trump’s threats of not only backing away, but launching hostile initiatives in Kim’s direction, win the day on this process moving forward (if moving can be a description of the present situation, and as if there even will be a forward)?

Of interest here isn’t purely the North Korea angle on this story, but also the casual manner in which the wholesale destruction of a nation and countless crimes against humanity were, and continue to be, committed are being mentioned, and how America is owning its participation in it, while assuming no responsibility for cleaning up its mess, or for the horrors that America has unleashed in North Africa.

Also of interest, note that many of Europe’s migrants are fleeing the failed state that Libya has become, a situation that the White House admits that it created, a problem for Europe that their strategic and defensive ally has handed to them complete with gift wrapping and a bow.

Trump isn’t the start of problems that Europe is faring, they find their origin in American foreign policy, as the Libya situation went down under his predecessor, he’s just putting ‘America first’ in big bold letters for them, and maybe also for the Koreans, too.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Tucker Carlson SLAMS attacks against Donald Trump

“The Cold War is over. The world has changed. it is time to rethink America’s alliances, and to act in our own interest, for once.”

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The fallout from the Helsinki Summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has never seemed so dire. Where before the summit Trump had support from many GOP members and even a good proportion of the anchors and reports at Fox and other conservative-leaning news outlets, the last twenty-four hours saw a radical change.

Even the supportive Fox News website is full of criticism that is almost identical to the cries of “Treason!” given by former CIA director and now CNN-hack James Clapper. Very little objective analysis is featured on this network that prides itself on fair and balanced reporting.

The outrage escalated to such a pitch that Mr. Trump actually caved slightly, by making a carefully worded statement that he “misspoke” in Helsinki about the likelihood of Russia committing election meddling. It takes a slightly careful and fully heard listening to his statement to realize that he really isn’t giving up his position, but just stating it differently. However, the optics of being “broken” by the opposition raise for some the spectre of the great power of the American Intelligence community and their ability to make or destroy anyone they wish.

This, alone is a dire thought for America. Our nation was never supposed to be a police state, and yet, the strongest evidence yet that the conspiracy theorists were right is right before our faces in the mainstream media.

However, a few cooler heads do remain in the US media, and here, we give Mr. Tucker Carlson the stage to express his thoughts about what is happening. Mr. Carlson’s introductory monologue is offered here, with some of his transcribed comments below:

“…You know what they’re saying; that’s exactly what happened – [Mr. Trump] buckled. That happens. This is politics, after all. What is amazing and unusual and ominous is who made him buckle.

The people yelling the loudest about how the Russians are our greatest enemy and Trump is their puppet happen to be the very same people who have been mismanaging our foreign policy for the past two decades:

  • the people who invaded Iraq, and wouldn’t admit it was a mistake.
  • the people who killed Muammar Gadhaffi for no obvious reason,
  • and prolonged the horrible Syrian Civil War and then
  • threw open the borders of Europe.
  • The ones still defending the pointless Afghan conflict, and
  • even now planning brand new disasters around the world, in Lebanon, Iran, and yes, in Russia.

These are the people who have made America weaker and poorer and sadder; the group whose failures got Trump elected in the first place.

You would think that by this late date, they would be discredited completely, and unemployable, wearing uniforms and picking up trash by the side of a turnpike somewhere. But, no, they’re not. They are hosting cable news shows; they are holding high positions of influence at the State Department. They run virtually every non-profit public policy institution in Washington. They are still, in some sense, in charge of our national conversation.

And naturally, they hate the idea of rethinking or correcting any of the countless blunders they have made over the years.

And that is one of the reasons they hate Trump. Because he calls them on those blunders.

Now, being Trump, he can’t always explains precisely what he means to say; sometimes he gets the details wrong, or he gets sidetracked with some personal vendetta, as if anybody cares about that ridiculous Jim Acosta guy (nobody does).

But on the big questions, Trump is indisputably right. The Cold War is over. The world has changed. it is time to rethink America’s alliances, and to act in our own interest, for once.

Russia is not a close friend of the United States. But the question is, “why should we consider Russia a mortal enemy?”

Of course Russia spies on us! So do a lot of countries, some of them far more effectively than Russia. The Russian attempt to meddle in our election was comically amateurish: badly targeted Facebook ads that almost nobody saw.

Compare that effort to:

  • the deep penetration of American industry and the defense sector by the Communist government of China.
  • Or compare to the remarkable sway that the Sunni Gulf States have over our political process.
  • Or the fact that Latin American countries are changing election outcomes here, by
  • forcing demographic change on this country at a rate that American voters consistently say they don’t want.

Those are all major challenges from foreign powers to our American democracy. They are real.

And yet somehow, nobody on cable news seems upset about any of it.

Why is that?

Well, here’s one reason: Many in Washington are getting rich from the Chinese and the Saudis. Latin Americans clean their homes and watch their kids. Those countries can’t be our enemies, in their view. But nobody here is getting rich from Russia. So, therefore Putin must be a mortal foe.

That is what the Neo-cons are telling us we are required to believe. Does anyone actually believe it? Well, no sober person who has read the newspaper this year could recite that talking point without laughing, because it’s stupid.

So, the only option, if you want to force the population to accept something ridiculous, is to make sure they don’t think too much about it – that they are quiet; they do what they’re told.”

Put in this context it becomes very clear what the establishment in the USA and the West is trying to do. The only people that oppose change are those who fear to lose something from it. And President Trump has thrown open the doors showing that massive change is called for and necessary.

Continue Reading

Latest

Mueller indictment of Russian GRUs 100 percent political theater (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 56.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

United States Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted there was no collusion between these supposed Russian GRU agents and any Americans.  That is momentous.  It means that even Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein are admitting that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to leak the DNC/Podesta emails.

Mueller claims that Wikileaks got the DNC/Podesta emails from Guccifer 2.0 (the online persona supposedly created by the 12 GRU officers Mueller has indicted) but says nothing about Wikileaks having any knowledge that Guccifer 2.0 had anything to do with Russia.

Of course this indictment will never be tested in Court. For all we know Mueller has combined information about how the DNC/Podesta computers were hacked with names of certain officers known to work for certain departments of the GRU to give the impression of a much stronger case against them than he really has.

The key point is that even on his indictment it is now clear that there was NO collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to leak the DNC/Podesta emails, which calls into question why this investigation is continuing.

Remember that the key bite behind this indictment is the collusion allegation.  With this indictment and with Rosenstein’s words at his news conference, Mueller and Rosenstein have come closer than ever before to admitting that no collusion took place.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris summarize the real motivation an meaning behind Robert Mueller’s Russian GRU indictment. Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Meanwhile during the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down with Deep State shill, Fox News’ Chris Wallace for an exclusive interview, where Wallace theatrically proceeded to confront the Russian President with a copy of Robert Mueller’s ridiculous indictment of Russian military officials for the hack of the DNC.

Putin rightly brushed off the silly indictment.

Via Business Insider

“Mr. President, one of the issues that is standing in the way of more progress, as you know, are the allegations of Russian interference in the US election,” Wallace said to Putin. “You have repeatedly said, and you said again today, that this was not the action of the Russian state, that if it was anything it was patriotic Russian individuals.”

Wallace referred to Mueller’s indictment of Russian intelligence officers on Friday, in which his team named 12 members of the military intelligence unit GRU for conspiring to infiltrate computers that contained election-related software.

Wallace held the stack of papers in full view of Putin: “I have here the indictment that was presented on Friday from the special counsel, Robert Mueller,” Wallace said.

As Wallace continued explaining the contents of the indictment, Putin let out a laugh.

“And they talk specifically about Units 26165 and 74455, they say — you smiled,” Wallace said. “Let me finish.”

Wallace gestured towards Putin with the indictment and asked if he wanted to read its contents: “May I give this to you to look at, sir?”

After a brief pause, Putin gestured for Wallace to drop the documents on a nearby table. The Russian president then went on to deny all of the allegations made by Mueller and the US intelligence community.

“Russia, as a state, has never interfered with the internal affairs of the United States, let alone its elections,” Putin said. “Do you really believe that someone acting from the Russian territory could have influenced the United States and influenced the choice of millions of Americans?”

Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin just made an unexpected offer to Robert Mueller

Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump responded to Mueller’s Russiagate indictments.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

In the July 16th joint press conference between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the question arose of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officials for allegedly having engineered the theft of computer files from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Here is that part of the press conference, in a question that was addressed to both Presidents (and I boldface here the key end part of Putin’s presentation, and then I proceed to link to two articles which link to the evidence — the actual documents — that Putin is referring to in his response):

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

REPORTER (Jeff Mason from Reuters): For President Putin if I could follow up as well. Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election given the evidence that US Intelligence agencies have provided? Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a US Grand jury.

TRUMP: Well I’m going to let the president [meaning Putin] answer the second part of that question.

As you know, the concept of that came up perhaps a little before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election, which frankly, they should have been able to win, because the electoral college is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans. [That allegation from Trump is unsupported, and could well be false.] We won the electoral college by a lot. 306 to 223, I believe. [It was actually 304 to 227.] That was a well-fought battle. We did a great job.

Frankly, I’m going to let the president speak to the second part of your question. But, just to say it one time again and I say it all the time, there was no collusion. I didn’t know the president. There was nobody to collude with. There was no collusion with the campaign. Every time you hear all of these 12 and 14 — it’s stuff that has nothing to do — and frankly, they admit, these are not people involved in the campaign. But to the average reader out there, they are saying, well maybe that does. It doesn’t. Even the people involved, some perhaps told mis-stories. In one case the FBI said there was no lie. There was no lie. Somebody else said there was. We ran a brilliant campaign. And that’s why I’m president. Thank you.

PUTIN: As to who is to be believed, who is not to be believed: you can trust no one. Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact.

There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful. We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense — just like the president recently mentioned. Yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign. But there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about it. That’s the normal thing.

President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia/US relationship, and it’s clear that certain parts of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathy in different ways. Isn’t that natural? Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?

We heard the accusations about it. As far as I know, this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn’t have a fighting chance in the American courts. There’s no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. So we have to be guided by facts, not by rumors.

Now, let’s get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don’t know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at questioning.

In this case, there’s another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that $400 million claim.] Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

REPORTER (Jeff Mason from Reuters): Did you direct any of your officials to help him [Trump] do that [find those ‘options’]?

PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the US/Russia relationship back to normal.

The evidence regarding that entire matter, of Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act, can be seen in the links and the other evidences that are presented in two articles that I published on that very subject, earlier this year. One, titled “Private Investigations Find America’s Magnitsky Act to Be Based on Frauds”, summarizes the independently done private investigations into the evidence that is publicly available online regarding Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act was the basis for the first set of economic sanctions against Russia, and were instituted in 2012; so, this concerns the start of the restoration of the Cold War (without the communism etc. that were allegedly the basis of Cold War I).

The other article, “Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism”, provides further details in the evidence, and connects both the Magnitsky Act and Bill Browder to the reason why, on 9 June 2016, the Russian lawyer Nataliya Veselnitskaya, met privately at Trump Tower, with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner — the reason was specifically in order to inform them about the documentation on this case, so that Trump, if elected, would be aware of the contents of those documents. She had used the promise of dirt on Hillary so as to enable Trump, who effectively became the Republican nominee on 26 May 2016, to learn about the actual documents in this crucial case.

The Russian government has been legally pursuing Mr. Browder, for years, on charges that he evaded paying $232 million taxes that were due to the Russian government. These private investigations into this matter — regarding whether or not the Magnitsky Act was based on fraudulent grounds — have all found that Mr. Browder has clearly falsified and misrepresented the actual documents, which are linked to in those two articles I wrote. These might be the very same documents that she was presenting on June 9th.

So: this is a matter of importance not only to the validity (or not) of the Magnitsky Act economic sanctions against Russia, but to the Russiagate accusations regarding U.S. President Donald Trump. In my two articles, the general public can click right through to the evidence on the Magnitsky case.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!

The Duran Newsletter

Trending