Connect with us



Trump style regime change: moderate British rebels align with America

Donald Trump Advocates His Own Version of Regime Change. Here’s How It May Happen.




Yes you read that correctly, even though it contradicts much of what Trump has said throughout the campaign and much of what I’ve said about him. But don’t worry, this is a very different kind of regime change. It will be done without violence, it will be done using existing democratic means and most importantly, it will be done according to the will of the people of the country in which the regime will be changed.

The country whose regime Donald Trump may well change, is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As Sergey Gladysh reported, Donald Trump recently met with moderate British rebel Nigel Farage and it isn’t the first time they’ve met. In many ways, when one looks at the political pedigree of both Trump and Farage, it is surprising that they didn’t meet years ago. But to be fair, when Farage was in the European Parliament, railing against the corruption, anti-democratic attitudes and master-slave relationship to countries like Greece that EU leadership employ, Trump was more interested in saying ‘you’re fired’ to his television apprentices, than to the political elite.

But since Brexit, Farage has frequently visited Trump and has shared platforms with him where both men spoke in unison, saying ‘you’re fired’ to the old guard. The lines of communication between President Putin and Trump are open and so too has President Assad’s government extended an olive branch to the America President-elect, one which Trump appears to want to clutch once he enters the White House.

Now, Farage and Trump are all smiles after their victory lap meeting at the gilded Trump Tower.

Although it would have been personally exciting to be part of that meeting, there is a place I would have far rather been. I would love to see the glum, saggy, frowny faces of the British political establishment when they realise that, Trump has met with Britain’s favourite moderate rebel before meeting any of them and that even more importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is set to make the old British establishment look even more foolish than they make themselves look and that is quite an accomplishment.

One is well to remember that this is the same British establishment who cling onto the tired and stupid ‘Assad Must Go’ line, this is the same British establishment who want to sanction Russia over the fact that a group of Obama installed fascists in Kiev have gone to war in Donbass (don’t look for logic in this British policy, there is none), this is the same British establishment whose state owned financially cartel, the Natwest branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group are trying to shut down RT’s operations in Britain.

Well here’s a news flash, Donald Trump is the first US President-elect in history to be interviewed on RT. He was interviewed by RT host Larry King, one of the most respected American journalists of the last thirty years.  How silly do those in Britain feel now that they’re trying to shut down RT when the soon to be President of America is happy to appear on RT? I really hope the great British sense of humour isn’t lost on them at this point, because there really is something Monty Pythonesque about the whole affair.

I can just see members of the Conservative party sitting around a table, happy to act as the 51st state, basing a foreign policy not on British interests but based on ‘truth, justice and the American way’. But the American way has changed and Trump’s version of it is more truthful and more just than that of any of his predecessors.

The moment she came into power, I said that Prime Minister Theresa May would not last very long. Foreign relations is not her area of expertise, she voted to remain in the EU, she is taking far too long to develop her own Brexit strategy and is being far from transparent in allowing others to offer their own suggestions.

Furthermore, she presides over a party that is  deeply divided in several directions over Europe, from remainiacs,  to soft Brexiteers, to hard Brexiteers to Boris Johnson, a man of many principles and if you don’t like those, don’t worry, he’s got plenty of others.

A recent High Court ruling means that May will have to allow Parliament to debate Brexit, this can only be a good thing, but before this is to happen there ought to be a general election, one that reflects the will of the British people to leave the EU. If there was a general election tomorrow, I have no doubt that in spite of organisational problems, UKIP would do very well indeed.

Nigel Farage is the moderate rebel who speaks of millions in Britain who have been let down by globalism, let down by money spent on war rather than the British people, let down by antagonistic foreign policies, let down by the system as a whole.

There is of course the matter of Scotland taking a different view on Europe than England and Wales. Although I believe it to be in the long term interests of everyone in Britain to remain in the UK, if  the Scottish people want to exercise their democratic right to self-determination, they can do so whenever they wish. For all of Britain’s problems and there are many, should Scotland decide to go her own way, I can assure you, there will be no Donbass on the Clyde and those in Scotland will remain a fraternal people with those in England.

Another moderate rebel who will do well is Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party. Whilst Labour still has quite a few pro-war Blairites in the ranks, like Farage, Corbyn, from the left, speaks for millions who have been victims of privatisation and the demolition of great British industry. I believe at this state George Galloway, the prominent socialist, could re-enter Parliament easily. He too is a moderate rebel who speaks for millions more than the broken establishment could dream of doing.

After all, Galloway from the left and Farage from the right shared a Brexit platform as both men in their own way put the peoples’ interests before the interests of those who line the corridors of power. I frankly believe that Jeremy Corbyn could work better with Donald Trump than almost anyone in the Tory party. I say this for the same reason that on issues of protection and anti-globalist economic policies, Bernie Sanders has pledged to work with Trump when possible.

Trump has snubbed the British establishment by meeting Farage, but this is out of his own love for Britain, a country he has visited many times. Bush and Obama had often meet obscure opposition figures from the countries they were about to invade in order to put a local face on their blood-socked regime change policy. The trouble was, these leaders typically spoke for no one but themselves, it was mere window dressing for illegal wars.

By contrast, Nigel Farage speaks for the many and as soon as there is an election, I firmly believe he and those who think like him shall reap the electoral rewards. This, Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama is how regime change is conducted.

With a British establishment looking to cling on to the failed policies of the past, one is seeing the opposite of what one saw during the 1960s. In the 1960s, Prime Minister Harold Wilson refused to follow America into the Vietnam War. No one can now say that this decision was anything but correct. Now the tables have turned. America is behaving sensibly and Britain is still hell-bent on wars and aggression.

With the erecting of new burger restaurants outpacing the construction of new fish and chips shops in London, I have to say, though I never thought I would say it: Make Britain More American Again!

We live in strange times, but politically speaking, they are good times.

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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Vladimir Putin calls new Ukrainian church ‘dangerous politicking’

President Putin said creation of the “Orthodox Church in Ukraine” is against Church canon and that the West drove Constantinople to do it.

Seraphim Hanisch



In an interview with the Serbian newspapers Politika and Vecernje Novosti ahead of his visit to Serbia, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted the creation of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, a schismatic agglomeration headed by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists was “dangerous politicking.” He further noted that:

The establishment of the new religious entity in Ukraine is nothing but an attempt “to legalize the schismatic communities that exist in Ukraine under the jurisdiction of Istanbul, which is a major violation of Orthodox canons.”

“Yet, hardly anyone in the U.S. or in the Ukrainian leadership worries about this,” Putin said.

“Once again, this has nothing to do with spiritual life; we are dealing here with dangerous and irresponsible politicking,” he said.

President Putin had more things to say in the interview, and we present what he said in full here (emphasis ours), as reported on the website:

Question: The Serbian Orthodox Church has taken the side of the Russian Orthodox Church in the context of the ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine. At the same time, a number of countries are exerting pressure on Patriarch Bartholomew and seek to ensure recognition of Ukrainian ”schismatics“ by Local Orthodox Churches. How do you think the situation will evolve?

Vladimir Putin: I would like to remind your readers, who are greatly concerned about the information regarding the split in the Orthodox community but are probably not fully aware of the situation in Ukraine, what it is all about.

On December 15, 2018, the Ukrainian leaders, actively supported by the USA and the Constantinople Patriarchate, held a so-called “unifying synod”. This synod declared the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, with Patriarch Bartholomew signing the tomos (decree) granting it autocephaly on January 6, 2019. Thus, it was attempted to legalize the schismatic communities that exist in Ukraine under the jurisdiction of Istanbul, which is a major violation of Orthodox canons.

Yet, hardly anyone in the US or in the Ukrainian leadership worries about this, as the new church entity is an entirely political, secular project. Its main aim is to divide the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, sowing seeds of ethnic as well as religious discord. No wonder Kiev has already declared ”obtaining complete independence from Moscow.”

Once again, this has nothing to do with spiritual life; we are dealing here with dangerous and irresponsible politicking. Likewise, we do not speak about the independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It is de-facto fully controlled by Istanbul. Whereas Ukraine’s largest canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has never requested autocephaly from Patriarch Bartholomew, is absolutely independent in its actions. Its connection with the Russian Orthodox Church is purely canonical – but even this causes undisguised irritation of the current Kiev regime.

Because of this, clergymen and laymen of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being persecuted and deprived of churches and monasteries, and attempts are made to deny the Church its legitimate name, which raises tensions and only leads to further discord in Ukrainian society.

Evidently, Ukraine’s leaders have to understand that any attempts to force the faithful into a different church are fraught with grave consequences. Yet, they are eager to put interconfessional concord in the country at stake in order to conduct the election campaign of the current Ukrainian President based on a search for enemies, and to retain power by all means.

All of this does not go unnoticed by Orthodox Christians.

Naturally, Russia does not intend to interfere in ecclesiastical processes, especially those happening on the territory of a neighboring sovereign state. However, we are aware of the danger posed by such experiments and blatant interference of the state in religious affairs.

The situation continues to degrade in Ukraine, and though the Orthodox faithful of the Autonomous but Moscow-based Ukrainian Orthodox Church are the hardest hit, worry over Ukrainian lawlessless-made-law has the Jewish community in that country nervous as well. This is perhaps to be expected as the Azov Brigade, a neo-Nazi aligned group that is hypernationalist, is a good representation of the character of the “hate Russia at all costs” Ukrainian nationalists. A parallel piece in Interfax made note of this in a piece dated January 17th 2019:

[A] bill passed by the Verkhovna Rada introducing a procedure by which parishes can join the new Ukrainian church makes it easier to seize places of worship, and supporters of autocephaly have already started doing this across the country, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church said.

“They need this law to seize our churches. You can’t just come with a crowbar to someone else’s barn, but now the law allows you to do so. They aren’t creating something of their own, but are trying to steal what’s ours,” Ukrainian Orthodox Church spokesperson Vasyl Anisimov told Interfax on Thursday.

The religious entity set up in December with Constantinople’s involvement and called the Orthodox Church of Ukraine “in fact doesn’t yet exist in nature. It’s fake. It doesn’t have any parishes of its own or government registration,” he said.

However, “the supporters of autocephaly don’t have plans to create anything of their own at all, so they have chosen the path of takeover, and the authorities are helping them in that,” Anisimov said.

“Hence, the legislation passed by the Verkhovna Rada today is in fact absolute lawlessness,” he said.

“If you pass legislation affecting an industry, you should talk to industrialists, and if it’s legislation on the agricultural sector, talk to farmers. And here legislation on a church is passed, and moreover, this legislation is aimed against this church, it is protesting, and Jews are protesting, too, because this legislation may affect them as well – but nobody is listening, and they change the law for the sake of an absolutely absurd and unconstitutional gimmick. But, of course, it’s the people who will ultimately suffer,” Anisimov said.


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


May survives ‘no confidence’ vote as UK moves towards March 29 deadline or Article 50 extension (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 168.

Alex Christoforou



The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the ‘no confidence’ vote that UK Prime Minister May won with the a slim margin…meaning that though few MPs have confidence in her ‘Brexit withdrawal’ negotiating skills, they appear to have no problem allowing May to lead the country towards its Brexit deadline in March, which coincidently may be delayed and eventually scrapped altogether.

Meanwhile Tony Blair is cozying up to Brussels’ oligarchs, working his evil magic to derail the will of the British people, and keep the integrationist ambitions for the UK and Europe on track.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT

The UK government led by Theresa May, has survived to fight another day, after winning a no-confidence vote, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, following parliament rejecting the PM’s Brexit deal, earlier on Tuesday evening.

The no-confidence vote was defeated by 19 votes – the government winning by 325 to 306. It’s a rare positive note for May’s Tory cabinet after the humiliating Brexit defeat.

Speaking immediately after the vote, a victorious May said she was “pleased” that the House expressed its confidence in her government. May said she will “continue to work” to deliver on the result of the Brexit referendum and leave the EU.

May invited the leaders of parliamentary parties to meet with her individually, beginning on Wednesday evening.

“I stand ready to work with any member of this House to deliver on Brexit,” she said.

Responding to the vote, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the House had “emphatically” rejected May’s deal on Tuesday. The government, he said, must now remove “clearly once and for all the prospect of the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit from the EU and all the chaos that would result from that.”

Labour will now have to consider what move to make next. Their official Brexit policy, decided by members at conference in September, states that if a general election cannot be forced, then all options should be left on the table, including calling for a second referendum.

Liberal Democrats MP Ed Davey also called on May to rule out a no deal Brexit.

The way forward for Brexit is not yet clear and May’s options are now limited, given that the Brexit deal she was offering was voted down so dramatically on Tuesday.

Gavin Barrett, a professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law in Dublin, told RT that May will now have to decide if her second preference is a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum. Her preference will likely be a no-deal Brexit, Barrett said, adding that “since no other option commands a majority in the House” a no-deal exit is now “the default option.”

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


Final Steps in Syria’s Successful Struggle for Peace and Sovereignty

The war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus.



Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

The situation in Syria evolves daily and sees two situations very closely linked to each other, with the US withdrawal from Syria and the consequent expansionist ambitions of Erdogan in Syria and the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover in Idlib that frees the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian aviation to liberate the de-escalation zone.

Trump has promised to destroy Turkey economically if he attacks the Kurds, reinforcing his claim that Erdogan will not target the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) once the US withdraws from the area. One of the strongest accusations made against Trump’s withdrawal by his opponents is that no Middle Eastern force will ever trust the US again if they abandon the SDF to its fate, that is, to its annihilation at the hands of the Turkish army and its FSA proxies. This, however, is not possible; not so much because of Trump’s economic threats, but because of Damascus and Moscow being strongly opposed to any Turkish military action in the northeast of Syria.

This is a red line drawn by Putin and Assad, and the Turkish president likely understands the consequences of any wrong moves. It is no coincidence that he stated several times that he had no problems with the “Syrians or Syrian-Kurdish brothers”, and repeated that if the area under the SDF were to come under the control of Damascus, Turkey would have no need to intervene in Syria. Trump’s request that Ankara have a buffer zone of 20 kilometers separating the Kurdish and Turkish forces seems to complement the desire of Damascus and Moscow to avoid a clash between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the SDF.

The only party that seems to be secretly encouraging a clash between the SDF and Turkish forces is Israel, criticizing Ankara and singing the praises of the SDF, in order to try and accentuate the tensions between the two sides, though naturally without success. Israel’s continued raids in Syria, though almost constantly failing due to Syrian air defense, and the divide-and-rule policy used against Turkey and the SDF, show that Tel Aviv is now weakened and mostly irrelevant in the Syrian conflict.

In Idlib, the situation seems to be becoming less complicated and difficult to decipher. Russia, Iran and Syria had asked Erdogan to take control of the province through its “moderate jihadists”, sit down at the negotiating table, and resolve the matter through a diplomatic solution. Exactly the opposite happened. The HTS (formerly al-Nusra/al-Qaeda in Syria) has in recent weeks conquered practically the whole province of Idlib, with numerous forces linked to Turkey (Ahrar al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki) dissolving and merging into HTS. This development puts even more pressure on Erdogan, who is likely to see his influence in Idlib fade away permanently. Moreover, this evolution represents a unique opportunity for Damascus and Moscow to start operations in Idlib with the genuine justification of combating terrorism. It is a repeat of what happened in other de-escalation areas. Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly requested the moderates be separated from the terrorists, so as to approach the situation with a diplomatic negotiation.

In the absence of an effective division of combatants, all are considered terrorists, with the military option replacing the diplomatic. This remains the only feasible option to free the area from terrorists who are not willing to give back territory to the legitimate government in Damascus and are keeping civilians hostages. The Idlib province seems to have experienced the same playbook applied in other de-escalation zones, this time with a clear contrast between Turkey and Saudi Arabia that shows how the struggle between the two countries is much deeper than it appears. The reasons behind the Khashoggi case and the diplomatic confrontation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia were laid bare in the actions of the HTS in Idlib, which has taken control of all the areas previously held by Ankara’s proxies.

It remains to be seen whether Moscow and Damascus would like to encourage Erdogan to recover Idlib through its proxies, trying to encourage jihadists to fight each other as much as possible in order to lighten the task of the SAA, or whether they would prefer to press the advantage themselves and attack while the terrorist front is experiencing internal confusion.

In terms of occupied territory and accounts to be settled, two areas of great importance for the future of Syria remain unresolved, namely al-Tanf, occupied by US forces on the Syrian-Jordanian border, and the area in the north of Syria occupied by Turkish forces and their FSA proxies. It is too early to approach a solution militarily, it being easier for Damascus and Moscow to complete the work to free Syria from the remaining terrorists. Once this has been done, the presence of US or Turkish forces in Syria, whether directly or indirectly, would become all the more difficult to justify. Driving away the US and, above all, Turkey from Syrian territory will be the natural next step in the Syrian conflict.

This is an unequivocal sign that the war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus. Several countries — including Italy in the near future — will reopen their embassies in Syria to demonstrate that the war, even if not completely over, is effectively won by Damascus and her allies.

For this reason, several countries that were previously opposed to Damascus, like the United Arab Emirates, are understood to have some kind of contact with the government of Damascus. If they intend to become involved in the reconstruction process and any future investment, they will quite naturally need to re-establish diplomatic relations with Damascus. The Arab League is also looking to welcome Syria back into the fold.

Such are signs that Syria is returning to normality, without forgetting which and how many countries have conspired and acted directly against the Syrians for over seven years. An invitation to the Arab League or some embassy being reopened will not be enough to compensate for the damage done over years, but Assad does not preclude any option, and is in the meantime demonstrating to the Israelis, Saudis and the US Deep State that their war has failed and that even their most loyal allies are resuming diplomatic relations with Damascus, a double whammy against the neocons, Wahhabis and Zionists.

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


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...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter