Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Turkey is no longer a US ally

Turkey has made it clear that its interests are linked to those of Russia and Iran, while the US is seen as a common threat that has crossed one big red line, while trampling over many others.

Published

on

10,620 Views

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has slammed the United States in one of his most strongly worded statements to-date. After Donald Trump promised Erdogan personally that the US would cease arming Kurdish militants in Syria, Erdogan has stated unambiguously that this is not the case.

Earlier, Erdogan came down hard on apparent US support for the illegal Fethullah Terrorist Organisation as well as stating that the US is making a grave mistake if it proceeds with recognising Jerusalem/Al-Quds as the capital of Israel.

Turkey threatens to cut ties with Israel

Hours ago, he stated the following,

“Trump stated that the arms supplies from the US to the Kurdish Forces would be ceased after the victory against Daesh. However, this process is continuing. In this case, what is the reason for the growing number of military bases [of the US]? We monitor the process and will act in accordance with the situation’s logic… Turkey has no plan regarding the US. But it is obvious the US has a plan in relation to Turkey. In the Syrian north there is a ‘terrorist corridor’… Why are weapons being delivered to the region? Where and against whom will it be used by the US? Against Iran or against Turkey? Or, in case, they are courageous enough, against Russia?”

This statement confirms that as I wrote yesterday evening, Russia’s recent discussions with Kurdish militants have been conducted after and during consultations with Turkey as part of the wider Astana format for Syrian peace.

Moreover, by allowing Russia a “pass”, better defined as a mutual understanding on Moscow’s own attempts to politically pacify the Kurds through cooperation, Turkey has made it clear that Russia is allowed to respectfully intervene in one of its perennial “red lines”, while the US has already crossed and now literally double-crossed this red line, in the form of Donald Trump’s now infamous broken promise to Erdogan.

Turkey now knows that the US is an unreliable partner on many fronts and that a promise from the US President is self-evidently worthless.

Although Turkey is still technically a member of NATO, Erdogan’s statements about the US and its close allies combined with his words of solidarity with both Iran and Russia, confirm that Turkey can no longer reasonably called a US ally. What’s more is that Erdogan’s behaviour at a geo-political level, shows that his interests are not with the United States any longer but are bound for both pragmatic and personal reasons to Turkey’s fellow Eurasian partners.

Furthermore, the fact that Turkey which itself is not welcome in Syria by Damascus, is still telling the US to essentially leave the country or else play by the rules of the Astana Group, shows a level of confidence and indeed righteous anger on Erdogan’s part that has clearly been attained through a Eruasian partnership he believes in.

New Russia-Kurdish agreement is good for Syria and for Turkey

To understand why the proximate timing of Russia’s “agreement” with Syrian Kurds and Erdogan’s harsh statements about the US represent a Rubicon moment in Turkey-US relations, one must understand what Russia has achieved in Syria, in relation to all parties including Ankara and Kurdish militants. This is of course on-top of Turkey’s many other highly serious grievances with the US and its allies in the EU and Tel Aviv.

As I stated in relation to Russia’s recent deal with Syrian Kurds,

“From a military and logistical standpoint, the agreement is meaningless for two reasons. First of all, there is hardly anyone left to fight in Eastern Syria and secondly, because Russia doesn’t require the kind of “security” the Kurdish militas could attempt to provide in the first place.

The agreement therefore is a political one that is cleverly disguised as a military one. Here’s why: 

1. Taking advantage of US “treachery”

When US President Trump promised Turkish President Erdogan that Washington will no longer send arms to Kurdish militias in Syria, many inclining the Turkish Foreign Minister who announced Trump’s promise to the world, had doubts about America’s sincerity. Statements from both US and Kurdish official subsequent to the statement by the Turkish Foreign Minister, have only increased the distrust.

The brief thaw in Turkey-US relations that stemmed from the phone-call, was at best a 48 hour period when quiet scepticism replaced scathing anti-US statements from major Turkish officials, including President Erdogan. That brief re-honeymoon, is now over.

Because Turkey has clearly decided that Donald Trump’s “promise” was at best incomplete and otherwise a total lie, Erdogan has just slammed the USon several fronts from supporting the hated and illegal Fethullah Terrorist Organization (FETO), to exercising arbitrary justice against Turks in US courts, to threatening Turkey over its lawful relations with Iran–and these are just the highlights.

While Turkey feels betrayed by a USA which still arms the Kurds, the Kurds themselves feel betrayed by a US which openly plays fast and loose with an alliance that clearly is one of convenience for the US, rather than one of meaning or purpose.

Because of this, many leftist Kurds have searched their collective memories and remembered a Soviet Union which was generally supportive and a modern Russia that while not supportive of Kurdish ethno-nationalism, has always been restrained (at times surprisingly so) in condemning Kurdish movements whose existences predates the illegal US invasion of Syria.

In summary, the Kurds have learned what all parties in the Middle East have learned: Russia does what it says and the US does not.

2. Russia helping to solve a Turkish problem 

Turkey continues to position its military against Kurdish forces in and around parts of the Idlib and Aleppo Governorates of Syria and Russia has done nothing to stop them. At the same time, Russia has listened to Turkey when Ankara has stated that it is willing to sit with Kurds at the forthcoming peace conference in Sochi, so long as they are not the PKK aligned YPG/PYD.

While the Kurdish forces Russia is speaking to are YPG forces, Russia may well be preparing to “moderate” the Kurds to the satisfaction of both Syria and Turkey who have an nearly identical disdain for the radical group. If Russia can turn elements of the militarily over-rated YPG into a moderate force that can accept a shallow victory instead of a bloodsoaked defeat, this could be a win-win situation for Turkey and Syria, as well as the more sensible elements of the Kurdish insurgency. Russia is willing to host crypto-Takfiri groups at Sochi for the same reason.

Having previously publicly rejected the idea of forming a nation-state after witnessing the crushing of Iraqi Kurds by Iraqi armed forces with the political support of both Iran and Turkey, Syrian Kurds realise that they cannot accomplish radical secessionism alone, while the Trump phone call means that the US could drop Syrian Kurds as easily as Washington dropped Iraqi Kurds, the moment they feel that Kurdish ambitions are not in-line with US ambitions. Furthermore, Kurdish regions of Syria, are generally far beyond the defined lines of Israeli aggression. Therefore, the Zionist allies of the Syrian Kurds are of little practical use, especially in light of Turkey’s rapidly deteriorating relationship with the Israeli regime.

In this sense, Russia’s respectful relationship with Turkey, is a clearer sign to Turkey of Russia’s sincere intentions to balance all sides in regional conflicts, while the US is, in Turkish eyes (which happen to be correct), both dishonest and duplicitous. In this sense, while Turkey will still neutralise some Kurdish militants west of the Euphrates, the Russian agreement with Kurds east of the Euphrates, shows that Russia is using diplomatic tact to help solve a Turkish problem, however much it might temporarily grate Ankara to see a YPG flag beside any partner.

Turkey is neutralising the Kurds on one side, while to the east, Russia is doing the same thing through compromise and accord. The end result is that Syrian Kurds will be less likely to advocate for a radical position, knowing that the may end up with zero support if they insist on such a position. In other words, if the choice is between survival without extremism through Russia or annihilation by facing Turkey without US help, the choice becomes an obvious one, especially if Syrian Kurds are aware of the Iraqi example, which they most certainly are.

3. Pushing the US out of Syria 

One of the Trump administration’s most prominent bogus rationales for illegally maintaining an occupying force in Syria is to “aid the Kurds”. However, the Kurds now know that the US does not have their “interests” at heart as all it took as a phone call from the Turkish President for the US to declare that the Kurds should no longer be armed.

If the US loses the trust of its Kurdish proxies, while Russia gains a trust that was never specially up for grabs, Russia will have in effect, shown that as a partner of Syria and Turkey, it has never made the Kurds a promise it cannot keep, nor has it ever overtly gone against the Kurds, even when its partners have rightly stood up for their own positions which state that Kurdish ethno-nationalism threatens their security.

In this sense. Russia has partly “taken” a US ally by winning their trust through honesty and realism, all the while neutralising a threat to Turkey and Syria, by co-opting moderate elements among Kurds who may be willing to agree that a respectful agreement is better than the combination of working with a deceitful United States on the one side and getting crushed by superior Turkish forces on the other. Syria itself has recently stated that in a post-war environment, it is willing to engage in peaceful discussions with moderate Kurds about their concerns. Russia is paving the way for just such a discussion.

CONCLUSION: 

While Russia is not a Kurdish “ally”, Russia’s rhetorical neutrality in the face of Turkey’s rhetoric on the Kurds and its realism when it comes to handling Kurds may have pacified the extremist elements within Syrian Kurdish groups, set up a road map for satisfying Turkey and Syria’s security fears, and all the while taking advantage of the US exposing its own disloyalty to its most loyal proxies.

Furthermore, as the primary obstacle to a settlement in Syria is now Israeli aggression in south west Syria, it behoves all powers, to consolidate a peace effort in northern Syria, so as to free the Syrian Arab Army to bolster defences near the illegally occupied Golan Heights.

In short, Russia has turned a dirty game into a a compromise in the making, one which doesn’t make grandiose promises, but keeps the promises that are made”.

The Kurdish issue is a red line for Turkey and this would be as true for the opposition CHP as it is for Erdogan. The fact that Turkey has not criticised Russia for its discussions with Kurds, but criticises the US for its relationship with its Kurdish proxies as well as for a host of other very crucial issues, demonstrates where Turkey’s worries lie and where its partners lie.

If Russia can talk with Kurds and remain a partner but the US is publicly ridiculed for arming those Kurds and then lying about it to the Turkish President, the writing is on the wall in respect of an even further Turkish geo-political pivot away from the west.

Turkey has tacitly acknowledged, through Erdogan’s recent remarks, that he sees his country as facing similar threats as those faced by Iran and Russia. It is clear which side of the divide Erdogan places Turkey, beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

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

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

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

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

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