Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

8 countries America wants in an anti-Russian coalition

America wants to build a broad anti-Russian coalition between unrelated nations with unrelated internal and geo-political problems.

Published

on

1,996 Views

What do Ukrainian neo-fascists, nationalist ultra-Catholic Polish parties, Baltic linguistic nationalists, Georgian kleptocrats, Albanian terrorists,  Serbian liberals and the neo-Ottoman regime in Turkey all have in common?

The answer is that each has been embraced and used by the United States in order to portray false unity in a geo-political movement against Russia.

Each of the political/nationalist factions I’ve listed have been paid visits by John McCain, the poster-boy of a US led anti-Russian coalition, one whose ideological or intellectual unity revolves entirely around whipping up hatred for the Russian state and in many cases also the Russian language, Russian culture and Russian Orthodox Church.

Some of the groups mentioned have few if any practical disputes with Russia, others yet have latent historical tensions with Russia that are exacerbated by US backed local politicians.

Let’s go through each of these examples:

1. Ukraine

Ukraine is an artificial state created by Lenin as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, a constituent republic in the Soviet Union. The borders which expanded to include territories of the Second Polish Republic after 1945 include regions that were historically Russian (east and south-east), Polish, Austrian and then Polish again (north west) as well as regions which were historically Hungarian, Romanian and more recently Czech (south west).

Rather than allowing regions which have very little in common apart from historical hatreds to peacefully part ways and in doing so correct an error of Soviet political geography, the US has been desirous to keep the state impossibly united.

Far from being well intentioned, the US wants an artificially united Ukraine to present itself as an anti-Russian bulwark in the borderland between Russia and the EU. This has been allowed to happen in spite of the neo-fascist ideology for the current, putsch government being almost exclusively representative of views originating from the former Austrian/Polish regions of modern Ukraine.

2. Poland 

Modern Poland shares a small border with the Russian region of Kaliningrad. Poland is an EU and NATO member and Russia has zero ambitions or practical desires to alter that.

Nevertheless, in 2014, the US encouraged Polish politicians from the then ruling Civic Platform party, to help foment regime change in Kiev. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski was present in Kiev during the signing of an agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition parties and famously said that if parties didn’t support the agreement they’d all be dead. 

As it turns out, the flames of death fanned by the Polish Foreign Minister whose husband is the well-known American Russophobe Anne Applebaum, were in fact spread by the leaders of the opposition who the following day, forced Yanukovych out of power. He fled the country shortly thereafter.

The fact that today, many Poles find themselves at odds with a neo-fascist Ukrainian government that celebrates the massacre of Poles in the 1940s should not surprise anyone.

America played on historically tense Polish-Russian relations and the result is that anti-Polish Ukrainian nationalists are now in charge of a country that shares a larger border with Poland than Russia.

3 & 4. Estonia and Latvia

In spite of a sizeable native Russian minority. The Russian language is denied any official status in both Baltic countries. Even more worrying, local  officials in majority Russian towns are being openly persecuted for speaking Russian.

Almost nothing is said about this in the liberal mainstream media.

Furthermore, Latvia and Estonia hold annual parades honouring men who fought in Hitler’s SS during the 1940s. With western European politicians rushing to call almost any allegedly right-of-centre politician a ‘Nazi’, they continue to ignore the glorification of Nazism in the Baltic states.

The west ignores these flagrant acts of race-hatred because it doesn’t fit the narrative of countries being ‘oppressed’ by a Russia which wants nothing to do with them.

5. Georgia

Disgraced former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is best remembered as a man who tried to ethnically cleanse the Russian population of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This led to a Russian intervention which saved the populations of South OSsetia and Abkhazia, much to the disappointment of the west who called Russia’s 5 day humanitarian intervention an act of aggression.

The rest of Georgia got increasingly tired of Saakashvili’s antics and he eventually fled the country in the light of numerous accusations of fraud.

He was later given Ukrainian Citizenship and made the Kiev regime’s puppet governor of the historic Russian region of Odessa between May 2015 and November 2016. His short term in office ended in disgrace.

It is unclear which anti-Russian regime may give him a position next.

In spite of this, many in the US are still hoping to bring Georgia into NATO.

6. Serbia 

Days after Montenegro’s NATO membership was approved by Donald Trump, John McCain flew to Serbia to meet with Serbian President-elect Aleksandar Vucic. McCain is trying his best to pull Vucic towards NATO and the EU, a move which is contrary to the desires of many Serbs who feel little historical affinity to the Berlin dominated bloc but instead favour historically close relations with Russia.

America has been trying to break Serbia’s good relations with Russia through a combination of wooing liberal Serbian politicians whilst simultaneously calling for the partition of Serbian territory, the Serbian province of Kosovo in particular.

7. Albania 

If wooing Serbian liberals is America’s carrot, Albanian terrorism is the stick. For much of the 1990s, the ethnic Albanian terrorist group KLA was named as such by the United States. In 1998 however, the US State Department worked to rehabilitate the image of the KLA from terrorists to freedom fighters.

In 1999 NATO illegally attacked the Yugoslav Republics of Serbia and Montenegro and continues to help radicalised Albanians to occupy the Serbian province of Kosovo.

Not stopping there, a London drafted document called the Tirana Platform calls for the creation of a ‘Greater Albania’ which would see the current Albanian state expand into the territory of Serbia, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This has delighted ultra-nationalist Albanian politicians who increasingly make up the majority of Albania’s ruling elite.

In other words, if Serbia can’t be bought, Serbia must be chipped away and radical Albanians are the preferred method by which to do this.

Although, Albania has had few meaningful relations of anon kind with Russia since the 1960s. Albania is seen as a state which is ready and willing to help America weaken both actual and supposed Russian allies in the  Balkans.

8. Turkey 

Turkey is the most prominent and powerful nation on a list. Long before the United States was a country, the Ottoman and Russian empires fought territorial wars for centuries.

Although Barack Obama was said not to have good personal relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey became increasingly useful in America’s attempt to form an anti-Syrian and by extrapolation anti-Russian and anti-Iranian coalition in Syria.

Now that Donald Trump has decided to attack Syria, Erdogan, like John McCain is calling for more and pledging support.

Because of the Turish economy’s dependence on Russia and because Russia and Turkey share a common Eurasian region, Russia would ultimately be a far better partner for Turkey than the distant US. This is true in spite of centuries of hatred prior to the 1920s when Lenin and the founder of the modern Turkish Republic Kemal Ataturk developed good relations.

But so long as the US appears to back Erdogan’s ambitions in Turkey, Erdogan will try as much as he can to have it both ways and call himself a ‘friend’ of Russia while actively undermining Russian interests in Syria. Russia has expressed anger about this to Erdogan and there are signs Erdogan may be climbing down.

Each country mentioned above has internal issues that are not directly or even indirectly related to Russia. Nevertheless, the US has latched onto these problems in order to paint these very different places as part of an anti-Russian bloc to be reckoned with.

This is an approach which aims at exploiting local and regional issues into a wider Cold War 2.0. Thus far, Russia has not taken the bait. Russia prefers to take each issue on a case-by-case basis rather than pretend that there is a monolith of Russian opposition when in fact, such dots are only connected in the mind of the US.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

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

Latest

This Man’s Incredible Story Proves Why Due Process Matters In The Kavanaugh Case

Accused of rape by a fellow student, Brian Banks accepted a plea deal and went to prison on his 18th birthday. Years later he was exonerated.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by James Miller of The Political Insider:


Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.

In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of (liberal) public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they genuinely believe he’s guilty, but because he’s a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme Court.

It goes without saying: to “sink Kavanaugh even if” Ford’s allegation is untrue is unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to Brian Banks.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks’s classmate, Wanetta Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped her.

Gibson’s claim was false, but it was Banks’s word against hers. Banks had two options: go to trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would “automatically assume” he was guilty because he was a “big, black teenager.”

Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a $1.5 million settlement. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later, long after Banks’s promising football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she’d fabricated the entire story.

Following Gibson’s confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California Innocence Project. Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012 and signed with the Atlanta Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.

Banks’ story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks’s ordeal, Brian Banks, is set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.

Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the screening – and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.

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

Latest

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

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

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

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeltsin told Clinton….

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

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

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

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

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

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

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

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

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

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

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

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

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

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

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

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

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

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

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

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

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

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

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

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

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

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

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

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

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

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

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

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