Connect with us

Latest

News

Russia to discuss peace initiatives for Donbass, Syria and Korea at UN General Assembly this week

Russia will also raise the pressing issue of UN organisational reform.

The Duran

Published

on

1,044 Views

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula, a UN peacekeeping mission in Donbas and Syrian civil war could be among the priority issues that the Russian delegation headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will raise during the high-level segment of the UN General Assembly next week.

The bilateral agenda of the Russian delegation is also expected to be eventful, as the Russian foreign minister is scheduled to hold several dozens of such meetings on the sidelines of the General Assembly. The talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are among the most anticipated, as the meeting will be held against the backdrop of the ongoing “diplomatic crisis” between the two countries. Besides, Lavrov is scheduled to meet with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

SIXTH MEETING WITH REX TILLERSON

Lavrov’s talks with Tillerson on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly will become the sixth meeting of the two top diplomats. Earlier this year, they held meetings in Bonn, Hamburg, Moscow, Washington and Manila.

It is expected that de-escalation zones in Syria, the Ukrainian crisis and peacekeepers deployment in Donbas, North Korea’s missile launches, as well as bilateral issues will become the central topics on the agenda of the upcoming meeting.

The upcoming talks will be held against the backdrop of the ongoing standoff regarding the work of the diplomatic missions of both countries. In July, Moscow reduced US diplomatic personnel in Russia to 455 representatives, the same number of Russian diplomatic staff in the United States at the time. In response to the move, in early September, the United States shut down Russia’s Consulate General in San Francisco and trade missions in New York City and in Washington, DC. After Russian diplomats left the diplomatic compounds, US security agents entered the premises and conducted searches there. Moscow has labeled such actions as a “raid” and said it would file a lawsuit over the situation.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov expressed hope that Lavrov and Tillerson would send the international community a “positive signal” on the possibility of solving “at least some of the existing problems” after the meeting.

NORTH KOREA NOT CARING A STRAW ABOUT SANCTIONS

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted its toughest resolution yet against North Korea over its latest nuclear test and repeated missile launches almost simultaneously with the beginning of the 72nd Regular Session of the UN General Assembly. However, just three days after the resolution was adopted, North Korea launched a ballistic missile, that flew over Japan and traveled a total of 3,700 kilometers (2,299 miles), which made it a missile capable to reach Guam, where the US military bases are located.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said on Friday that his country was close to reaching its goal of “completing its nuclear force.”

During an emergency meting on Friday, the UN Security Council condemned recent highly provocative actions of North Korea. Washington called on all countries to unite to address “this global problem short of war”, while Moscow stressed the importance of holding “meaningful negotiations” as soon as possible to resolve the crisis.

The need for resuming the six-party talks on North Korea, which were not held since Pyongyang withdrew from the talks in 2009, has been mentioned in the latest UN resolution. Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also underlined their commitment for such negotiations in the latest phone talks on Monday.

In early September, Lavrov said that Guterres may be involved in mediation efforts within the framework of resolution of the Korean peninsula issue, adding that “this may be useful.” On Wednesday, Guterres said that he would be glad to provide his assistance to the UN Security Council, that was due to decide which political actions should be taken. The UN secretary-general also noted that he intended to involve in the settlement of the North Korea situation his predecessor on the UN chief’s post, Ban Ki-moon.

PROGRESS IN SYRIAN RECONCILIATION

The multilateral meeting on creating a contact group on Syria will be among the most important talks on the sidelines of the General Assembly.

“We believe that it is important to start making a transition to the political phase of the resolution of the conflict in Syria. The issue related to this contact group and its format will be discussed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including Russia, in New York next week,” French Ambassador to Russia Sylvie Bermann told Sputnik on Saturday.

She also announced the plans for meeting between Lavrov and Le Drian on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

On Friday, the three Syrian ceasefire guarantor states – Russia, Turkey and Iran – have made a breakthrough in reducing violence in Syria by reaching an agreement on all four de-escalation zones, including the one in the Idlib province. The sides also agreed that monitoring in the de-escalation zone in Idlib would be carried out by Iranian, Russian and Turkish forces, while the remaining zones would be maintained by Russian military police.

The United States have not made any official statements regarding the results of the sixth round of Astana talks on Syrian reconciliation, however, on Thursday, just a day before the milestone agreement was reached, Tillerson called Lavrov and discussed the situation in Syria, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura said Friday he would consult Guterres and the UN Security Council in New York on the results of the sixth Astana talks on Syria before announcing the date of the next round of Geneva talks. De Mistura added that he would also hold meeting with representatives of the countries, which were having an impact on the process of the Syrian settlement.

PEACEKEEPERS IN DONBAS

The Ukrainian issue and the initiative to deploy a UN peacekeeping mission are also likely to be among the hot topics at the upcoming discussion in the General Assembly.

In early September, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his support for the idea of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine in order to ensure the security of the OSCE observer mission in Donbas. Putin also said the issue should be decided in direct contact with representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics. However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia had flexible position on the deployment of peacekeepers in Donbas.

Guterres said in an interview with RIA Novosti that the United Nations would do everything to help solve the crisis in Donbas if there is consensus regarding the idea to deploy peacekeepers to east Ukraine.

US State Department official told Sputnik on Wednesday that the option of having UN peacekeepers in eastern Ukraine is worth examining, noting that such force should have a broad mandate for peace and security throughout the occupied Donbas region.

Kiev also insists that the UN mission should be deployed up to the border with Russia. It also refuses to coordinate the parameters of work of UN peacekeepers in Donbas with local militias.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Nations Volodymyr Yelchenko said that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was expected to raise the issue of peacekeepers deployment in Donbas on Wednesday during his speech in the UN Security Council.

“The president of Ukraine will address the UN Security Council on September 20, there will be a special meeting on the peacekeepers. I think this will be another opportunity to share our view on the role of the UN mission in Donbas,” Yelchenko told the Radio Svoboda broadcaster.

Kiev and Moscow have already prepared separate draft resolutions for the UN Security Council on deployment of peacekeepers in the Donbas region.

UN REFORM

The issue of UN reform will also be brought on the table during the upcoming high-level segment of the UN General Assembly.

On Friday, US Presidential National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster said that Trump would raise the issue of the UNSC reform at the General Assembly. McMaster noted that the United Nations had huge potential, but is should be used “more efficiently and effectively.”

It was reported on Thursday that the discussion would be held during Trump’s meeting with the world leaders on Monday, a day prior to the US president’s speech at the UN headquarters. Following the meeting, the sides may adopt a declaration on broad reforms, proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Earlier in the day, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya said that Moscow probably would not sign the resolution. He noted that none of the ideas proposed by Washington complied with what had been suggested by the Secretary-General, adding that one could not “undertake the UN reform and change the UN through a declaration.”

Nebenzya stressed that the UN reform should be reformed through the intergovernmental procedures, noting that the document prepared by the United States was a declaration of the countries who shared the same stances on the UN reform, rather that an instruction to the UN Secretary General.

On Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Russia supported the initiative for the UN reform and advocated “adjusting the organization to the realities of today’s world while maintaining the United Nations’ intergovernmental nature and strict compliance with the principle of separation of its main organs’ powers provided for in the UN Charter.”

“We support realistic initiatives to rationalize the activities of the UN General Assembly. We prioritize improving working methods, streamlining of overloaded agenda,” Zakharova told a briefing.

The high-level segment of the UN General Assembly session will be held on September 19-25. It will bring together heads of state, government officials and foreign ministers from nearly 200 countries.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

And that they may finally talk about the UN changing back to an organ where international law is upheld by the UN members!

Walter Dublanica
Member
Walter Dublanica

Putin and Russia talk PEACE which is what the world wants. Our defense secretary is nicknamed ” mad dog”. The world ( most of it) used to like America. No more , much of it dislikes or hates us.

dave3200
Guest
dave3200

Such a shame. Most of the American citizens are not aware of this and would not condone it if they knew.

Shahna
Guest

Twaddle!
All polls show they’re gung-ho happy to go bomb North Korea and their lawmakers refused to end that 9/11 shite that “allows” them to go bomb whom they want, whenever they want and wherever they please. Nothing more than a nation entire of murdering cucking funts!

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

and the rest revile you.

Matt Hol
Guest
Matt Hol

I guess the rebels dont feel that they should take Mariupol ? Hmm.. I think they should leave that option open. If the US sends weapons, take Mariupol and then call it done.

Shahna
Guest

on Friday, the UN Security Council condemned recent highly provocative actions of North Korea.
———————
It’s WAAAAY past time the UBSC (and the UNGA) condemned the provocative actions (AND THE WARS) of the United States!

Latest

Crimea: The Geopolitical Jewel Russia Continues to Polish

As Putin continues to polish his Black Sea jewel, Europe has to decide if it is going to continue playing the U.S’s games over Ukraine or begin the next phase of its independence.

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


With all that is happening in the world Crimea has taken a bit of a backseat recently. Yes, the US, EU and Canada just added more sanctions on Russia via the odious Magnitsky legislation but this is inconsequential.

There’s been a flurry of good news coming out of Crimea and the Black Sea recently that bears discussion. Let’s start with the most important. President Vladimir Putin was in Crimea earlier this week to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the peninsula’s reunification with Russia. There he also officially inaugurated two major upgrades to Crimea’s power grid.

Located in Simferopol and Sevastopol, two new power plants will produce 940 megawatts and secure Crimea’s energy needs for now and into the future.

Power has been Crimea’s Achilles’ heel since breaking off from Ukraine in 2014. It received almost 90% of its power from the mainland. In November 2015, the trunk lines into Crimea were sabotaged by Ukrainian nationalist radicals, encouraged by President Petro Poroshenko plunging it into darkness as winter took hold.

Does this sound familiar? A place that defies US edicts geopolitically is first hit with a full trade embargo, sanctions and threatened militarily by proxies before having its electricity shut off?

*Cough* Venezuela *Cough*

And there are reports that the US has game-planned a similar fate for Iran as well. For Crimea it was easy because of the single-point-of-failure, the trunks from the mainland. For Venezuela it was as well, with the Guri dam, which affected nearly 70 percent of the country.

So, Putin timing the fifth anniversary of reunification with the announcement of the plants moving to full operational status was yet another smooth bit of international political maneuvering.

A not-so-subtle poke in the eye of the Gang Who Can’t Sanction Straight in D.C. as well as lame duck Poroshenko. Elections are at the end of the month and this celebration by Russia and Crimea will not sit well with many Ukrainians, especially the diaspora here in the US which is virulently anti-Putin in my experience.

Secure and stable power generation is a hallmark of a first world territory. Without that economic growth and stability are impossible. This is why to first help stabilize the situation in Crimea after the blackout Russia brought in 400 MW of power across the Kerch Strait from Krasnodor.

Tying Crimea to the mainland via the Kerch Strait bridge was a masterstroke by Putin. The initial power lines were simply a necessity. For those that complain he isn’t doing enough to counter US and European aggression need only look at the Kerch Strait bridge.

Not only did the Russians not seek international approval given the nearly universal refusal to recognize Crimea as Russian they built the thing in a time frame that defies description.

Imagine if this had been an EU project. They would still be debating the initial engineering plans and the political effects on some protected minority.

Not only does it open up the Eastern Black Sea to trade via Crimea but it ends the use of the Sea of Azov as a potential staging ground for naval provocations as last fall’s incident proved. Ukraine is cut off from acting aggressively and cannot count on any help from the US and Europe.

Moreover, Crimea is now permanently Russia’s. And every bit of infrastructure Russia builds there ties the two further together and weakens any bonds Crimea had with Ukraine. The resultant growth and modernization will make its way, economically and culturally back into southern Ukraine and erode the hard border over time.

This is far more important than striking out and metaphorically punching Poroshenko in the mouth, that many of Putin’s detractors wish for.

Presidents change, after all. Patience and attrition is how you beat an aggressive, distant enemy like the US

To remind everyone just how insane the Trump White House has become on matters international, no less than Vice President Mike Pence lobbied Germany to provoke another naval incident at the Kerch Strait.

If there was ever an example of how little Trump’s gang of moldy neocons think of Europe it is this bit of news. In effect, Pence was saying, “We can’t start a war with Russia because it would go nuclear, but you can because Russia can’t live without your trade.”

This coming after the US unilaterally pulled out of the INF treaty and is now flying nuclear bombers to eastern Europe. The message is clear. If the EU doesn’t get with this open-ended belligerent program against Russia and China of John Bolton’s they will be the ones paying the price when chaos breaks out.

On the other side there is Putin; building bridges, pipelines, power plants and roads.

He’s making it clear what the future holds not only for Europe but the Middle East, central Asia and India. We will defend Crimea at all costs, develop it not only into a tourist destination but also a major trade hub as well.

You are more than welcome to join us. But, we don’t need you.

These power plants will raise Crimea’s power output well beyond its current needs, allowing first export of power as well as providing the foundation for future growth.

And as if it weren’t coordinated in any way, the Chinese, on the morning of Putin’s speech, announced that Crimea would be an excellent fit for investment projects attached to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

That’s according to the head of the association of Chinese compatriots on the peninsula, Ge Zhili. “Our organization is bolstering cooperation ties, exchanges and friendly contacts with the Crimean society,” he said at an event dedicated to the fifth anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia, which was held in the Russian Embassy in Beijing on Monday.

It is also ready to contribute to the establishment of “reliable partner ties” and the explanation of legal details of business cooperation with Crimea, Ge Zhili said. “The Chinese society hopes for the development of friendly cooperation with Crimea; we are ready to overcome difficulties for fruitful results.”

Again this is a direct challenge to the US who has Crimea under strict sanctions in the West. China is happy now to move forward with integrating Crimea into its plans. It’s just another example of how Russia and China simply ignore Trump’s fulminations and move on.

I can’t wait until I get to write this article all over again, this time about North Korea, now that Bolton has thrown Russian and Chinese assistance in getting North Korea to the negotiating table back in their face by destroying the Hanoi talks.

This announcement is not to be underestimated given that Chinese Premier Xi Jinping is in Rome this week to open up relations with the new Italian government. Five Star Movement’s Leader Luigi Di Maio said he would welcome becoming a part of BRI, much to the consternation of Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as his coalition partner Lega Leader Matteo Salvini.

It’s already well known that Salvini is interested in ending sanctions on Crimea and re-opening trade with Russia. Italy is desperate for new markets and opportunities, currently stifled under the euro itself as well as Germany’s insistence on austerity hollowing out Italy’s economy and its future prospects.

These issues as well as energy security ones are coming to a head this year with Brexit, the European Parliamentary elections in May and the completion of the Nordstream 2 pipeline later this year.

As Putin continues to polish his Black Sea jewel, Europe has to decide if it is going to continue playing the U.S’s games over Ukraine or begin the next phase of its independence. Salvini will lead a Euroskeptic revolt within the European Parliament in May. It may be big enough to finally defy Merkel and end EU sanctions on Russia over Crimea.

At that point the US will also have a choice, burn down the world economy with even more sanctions, tariffs and acts of war or accept the facts on the ground.

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

Latest

Moment of Truth on Second Referendum: The Plan All Along or a Head Fake?

If we assume a third meaningful vote goes ahead next week that included the provision for a second referendum, and that it passes with a majority, the motivation for extending Article 50 would then be clear.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Steven Guinness:


The news that Theresa May has officially requested an extension to Article 50 until the end of June has been in the making since the European Court of Justice announced in December 2018 that the UK has the right to unilaterally revoke the article at any point prior to the UK leaving the EU.

In an article published at the time, I argued that the ECJ’s decision was designed to begin the process of the government legislating for a second referendum. To quickly summarise what has happened since, in the past three months the Brexit withdrawal agreement was rejected twice by the House of Commons, Theresa May survived a series of no confidence votes, parliament stated its opposition to both a no deal scenario and holding a second referendum before supporting an extension to Article 50, and finally speaker John Bercow announced that the government would only be allowed to put the Brexit withdrawal agreement to parliament again if it contained a ‘new‘ proposition.

Regular readers will know that since last year my position on Brexit has been consistent, in that I believe a no deal exit from the EU is the most likely outcome and that a ‘People’s Vote‘ could be used to facilitate this eventuality.

One explanation for why the Prime Minister has requested only a three month extension to Article 50 is that it would avoid the UK having to take part in upcoming EU parliamentary elections. Whilst this is possible, I do not think it is the primary reason.

Last week, Independent MP Sarah Wollaston tabled an amendment that called for Article 50 to be extended and for a second referendum on Brexit to be held. The amendment was comprehensively defeated, with the majority of the opposition Labour party abstaining from the vote. Elements of the party and The People’s Vote campaign went on record as saying that the timing of the amendment was too soon, and so as a result they did not rally behind it.

As with other supposed set backs to another vote, critics rounded on the news believing that the result killed off any prospect of another referendum from materialising. As I have stressed before, this interpretation is I believe premature.

On the same day as Wollaston’s defeated amendment, parliament voted by a majority to take no deal ‘off the table‘. But this was only in relation to the exit date of March 29th. It did not account for an extension of Article 50 and with that a new exit date.

It also needs to be stressed that the motions against a no deal and a second public vote were non-binding on the government. What neither did is definitively rule out the possibilities.

A month ago I wrote how on March 23rd a ‘Put it to the people‘ march is taking place in London that will call for a referendum on the government’s Brexit withdrawal agreement. With just a couple of days to go, the line from the European Union is that a request to extended Article 50 would only be granted by its 27 member states for a specific purpose. To extend in order to just give more time for negotiations on an non-negotiable deal would not be acceptable.

Tied in with this was House of Commons speaker John Bercow’s announcement that he would dismiss a motion for a third meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement unless it was markedly different from what has already been rejected.

Asked by MP Geraint Davies if a meaningful vote would be ‘intrinsically different‘ if it included the provision for the final say going to a public vote, Bercow responded by saying that he would look at the specifics but would ultimately abide by the principle that the proposition should be ‘different‘ and ‘not the same or substantially the same‘.

In other words, Bercow has left open the possibility. It is highly unlikely that either he or the European Union would reject a proposal that would legislate for an act of ‘democracy‘.

With the last ‘People’s Vote‘ march this Saturday, it appears to now be designed to move sentiment in favour of a second referendum prior to the original exit day of March 29th. Potential evidence for this comes from EU Commission President Jean Claude Junker, who has strongly intimated that a decision on whether to grant an extension to Article 50 will not be taken until next week,which means after the referendum march. Assuming an extension is approved, the EU may then go on to state that it is a one time deal to accommodate a public vote and that it cannot be extended for a second time.

As for Theresa May’s proposal of extending Article 50 until June 30th, EU Council President Donald Tusk has said a short extension is possible but would be ‘conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons‘.

Many parliamentarians who twice rejected the withdrawal agreement have indicated that they would support it a third time round if it included the proposition for the public to have the final say. This seems to be the direction of travel and the only way in which the deal would be accepted by the speaker as a new proposition.

Of more interest to me, though, is the motivation behind an extension to Article 50 that would only last until June 30th.

It was a few of weeks prior to Donald Trump securing the U.S. presidency that I first mentioned how when the 2016 EU referendum took place, it occurred at the same time central bank chiefs were gathering in Basel for the Bank for International Settlements annual conference. This is a conference that always takes place in the latter part of June.

At the start of January I raised the suggestion that a June referendum could become a reality. My suspicion is that if a second vote goes ahead, it would take the form of a streamlined campaign, one that would offer the public the options of supporting Theresa May’s deal (assuming it still stands), remaining in the EU or leaving on World Trade Organisation terms. This would mean a second referendum taking place in around twelve weeks time.

Should this be the case, then the vote would likely coincide with the movements of the BIS once more. And if my prediction of a no deal exit from the EU is proven correct, the economic fallout from this scenario would require close coordination between central banks, given that currency and equity markets would be heavily impacted.

What Brexit and Trump’s victory showed is that in the background key globalist institutions were convening. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that moves to extend Article 50 are coinciding with the EU Council Summit on March 21st and 22nd – the same two days where a meeting in Cambridge is scheduled between the BIS, the Bank of England, Cambridge University and the University of Basel. The topic? ‘New Economics of Exchange Rate Adjustment‘. The Bank of England and the Federal Reserve also meet this week to decide on interest rates.

If we assume a third meaningful vote goes ahead next week that included the provision for a second referendum, and that it passes with a majority, the motivation for extending Article 50 would then be clear.

Something else to consider is that under this scenario, those in parliament who want to remain in the EU would have to vote in support of leaving the union just so they can secure a referendum for which they would campaign to remain in the bloc. The sense of betrayal already felt by swathes of the electorate would only be heightened if they witnessed MP’s using the deal as nothing more than an opportunity to cancel Brexit altogether.

The next round of theatrics would be over the question on the ballot paper. Recall that in previous weeks the likes of Lord Kerr (author of Article 50 and a member of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission), Chuka Umunna, founder of Best for Britain Gina Miller and ex Prime Minister Tony Blair have all raised the prospect of the ballot containing three options – one of which would be for a ‘hard‘ Brexit.

The popular consensus is that another referendum would offer just two options, to either leave with the negotiated deal or remain in the EU. This would eliminate from the campaign the possibility of a no deal Brexit, something which I have reasoned is beneficial to globalists as they would use it to scapegoat the vehicles of resurgent nationalism / protectionism as being responsible for a major impending economic downturn, but also as an opportunity to further centralise power.

For this reason, I expect a no deal option would be presented to the British public. As in 2016, opinion polls all point to the electorate wanting to remain in the EU. They were wrong then and I believe would be wrong again.

A new leave or ‘hard‘ Brexit campaign would play upon the desires of many to ‘take back control‘ of the United Kingdom from the ‘elites‘ and to talk up the prospects of the country, whereas a remain campaign runs the risk of being condescending to the public by pushing the narrative that they were conned the first time round, or worse were ignorant in their societal outlook.

In the middle would sit Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. If indeed it was carried forward to a referendum, it is feasible that it would become a theatrical tug of war between hard ‘Brexiteers‘ and remainers to convert those minded to support the deal over to their side.

Growing public sentiment is that the establishment have been doing everything it can to overturn the first referendum result. Faith in politicians has never been lower than it is today. In such a febrile atmosphere, if you give voters the option of voicing their discontent through the ballot box, the chances are that they will deliver in kind.

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

Latest

Trump Demands Tribute from NATO Vassals

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO are a captive audience.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Regardless of whether one loves or hates President Trump at least we can say that his presidency has a unique flavor and is full of surprises. Bush and Obama were horribly dull by comparison. Trump as a non-politician from the world of big (real estate) business and media has a different take on many issues including NATO.

Many, especially in Russia were hoping that “The Donald’s” campaign criticism of NATO would move towards finally putting an end to this anti-Russian alliance, which, after the fall of Communism really has no purpose, as any real traditional military threats to Europe have faded into history. However, Trump as President of the United States has to engage in the “realpolitik” of 21st century America and try to survive and since Trump seems rather willing to lie to get what he wants, who can really say which promises from his campaign were a shoot and which were a work.

So as it stands now Trump’s recent decision to maintain and build US/NATO bases across the world “and make country X pay for it” could mean anything from him trying to keep his campaign promises in some sort of skewed way, to an utter abandonment of them and submission to the swamp. Perhaps it could simply be his business instincts taking over in the face of “wasteful spending”. Making allies have to pay to have US/NATO forces on their territory is a massive policy shift that one could only predict coming from the unpredictable 45th President.

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO (and other “allies”) are a captive audience, especially Germany, Japan and South Korea, which “coincidentally” are the first set of countries that will have to pay the “cost + 50%” to keep bases and US soldiers on their soil. Japan’s constitution, written primarily by American occupation forces forbids them from having a real military which is convenient for Trump’s plan. South Korea, although a very advanced and wealthy nation has no choice but to hide behind the US might because if it were to disappear overnight, then Gangnam would be filled with pictures of the Kim family within a few weeks.

In the past with regard to these three countries NATO has had to keep up the illusion of wanting to “help” them and work as “partners” for common defense as if nuclear and economic titan America needs countries like them to protect itself. Trump whether consciously or not is changing the dynamic of US/NATO occupation of these territories to be much more honest. His attitude seems to be that the US has the possibility to earn a lot of money from a worldwide mafia-style protection scam. Vassals have no choice but to pay the lord so Trump wants to drop the illusions and make the military industrial complex profitable again and God bless him for it. This level of honesty in politics is refreshing and it reflects the Orange Man’s pro-business and “America will never be a socialist country” attitude. It is blunt and ideologically consistent with his worldview.

On the other hand, one could look at this development as a possible move not to turn NATO into a profitable protection scam but as a means to covertly destroy it. Lies and illusion in politics are very important, people who believe they are free will not rebel even if they have no freedom whatsoever. If people are sure their local leaders are responsible for their nation they will blame them for its failings rather than any foreign influence that may actually be pulling the real strings.

Even if everyone in Germany, Japan and South Korea in their subconscious knows they are basically occupied by US forces it is much harder to take action, than if the “lord” directly demands yearly tribute. The fact that up to this point US maintains its bases on its own dime sure adds to the illusion of help and friendship. This illusion is strong enough for local politicians to just let the status quo slide on further and further into the future. Nothing is burning at their feet to make them act… having to pay cost + 50% could light that fire.

Forcing the locals to pay for these bases changes the dynamic in the subconscious and may force people’s brains to contemplate why after multiple-generations the former Axis nations still have to be occupied. Once occupation becomes expensive and uncomfortable, this drops the illusion of friendship and cooperation making said occupation much harder to maintain.

South Korea knows it needs the US to keep out the North but when being forced to pay for it this may push them towards developing the ability to actually defend themselves. Trump’s intellectual “honesty” in regards to NATO could very well plant the necessary intellectual seeds to not just change public opinion but make public action against US/NATO bases in foreign countries. Japan has had many protests over the years against US bases surging into the tens of thousands. This new open vassal status for the proud Japanese could be the straw to break the camel’s back.

Predicting the future is impossible. But it is clear that, changing the fundamental dynamic by which the US maintains foreign bases in a way that will make locals financially motivated to have them removed, shall significantly affect the operations of US forces outside the borders of the 50 States and make maintaining a global presence even more difficult, but perhaps this is exactly what the Orange Man wants or is just too blind to see.

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