Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

America has pushed Turkey straight into Russia’s arms

American incompetence and Russian pragmatism has drawn Erdogan to a Russia he often disagrees with but trusts, rather than a west he often acts in accord with but increasingly despises.

Published

on

3,174 Views

In spite of still being on opposing sides in the Syrian conflict with Russia acting as a key member of Syria’s anti-terrorist coalition and Turkey continuing to occupy parts of Syria along with its terrorist proxy group FSA, there are increasing signs that at a wider geo-political level Turkey is moving closer to Russia–slowly but surely.

READ MORE: Putin and Erdogan talk of ‘strategic partnership’ between Russia and Turkey

Simultaneous and indeed related to this, America seems to be placing less and less value on its historic alliance with Turkey which retains the second biggest army in NATO which Turkey joined in 1952.

Turkey’s geo-political re-positioning is due to what is best described as a ‘push-pull factor’.

On the one hand the west is working hard to push Turkey away, while on the other Russia’s door remains both open and hospitable.

Barack Obama had infamously poor relations with Turkish strong-man President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Obama administration’s lukewarm condemnation of 2016’s attempted coup in Turkey along with America’s unapologetic sheltering of Fethullah Gülen, a wanted criminal in Turkey, did nothing to ease tensions.

Donald Trump’s recent hosting of Erdogan in Washington was widely thought to be a disaster. While the public statements of the two leaders looked strained and insincere, it later emerged that Donald Trump was deeply inhospitable to the Turkish leader, something all the more magnified as Trump generally likes to be a good host when in the company of those he respects of values.

READ MORE: Turkey seethes at Trump’s snub to Erdogan

But the most important element in the relationship is America’s continued backing of Kurdish forces in Syria. America has just delivered yet another heavy payload of weapons to the Kurdish YPG dominated SDF operating in northern Syria.

According to a Kurdish source,

“As part of the fight against Daesh (ISIS), the US sent us weapons and armoured vehicles.

Among the weapons received, there are missiles with thermal guidance, which can be used against enemy tanks. In this batch there were no tanks because the US had already sent them earlier”.

The Kurdish source continued,

“It (the US arms) will be used during the operation in Raqqa. We intend to enter the city in June, so our forces are in great need of heavy weapons. The US has already sent us weapons but it is not enough. It is necessary for us to have them in large quantities”.

READ MORE: America’s collision course in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict

If America continues to arm the Kurds and it looks as though America will, this could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in respect of Turkey’s relationship to the United States. Turkey considers the Kurdish forces in both Syria and Iraq as well as the Turkish  based PKK to be terrorists and enemies of Turkey. America is therefore apologetically arming Turkey’s primary regional foe.

Europe’s relationship with Turkey is little better. Germany may be on the verge of stopping flying its jets out of Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, which is also used by the US and UK.

Germany has complained that German politicians have not been granted access to the base in order to inspect German forces there. Turkey has done little to alleviate German tensions. There is no love lost between Turkey and an EU which once promised Turkey EU membership that was always totally unrealistic from any logical point of view. The EU was simply leading Turkey on and Turkey finds this deeply insulting.

Moreover, many key European powers are engaged in a frankly childish ideological war with Erdgoan even since the Turkish sponsored political rallies in Europe prior to the Turkish Presidential Powers Referendum in April were cancelled in countries like Netherlands.

As the US and EU powers push Turkey away, Russia continues to welcome Turkey in a respectful and honest manner.

Turkey and Russia are historic enemies and indeed some would say still are in respect of alliances in Syria. But from a broader perspective, both Erdogan and the Turkish people, including Erdogan’s opposition are aware that Russia has consistently treated Turkey with respect, even in 2015 when both countries stood on the verge of war over Turkey’s shooting down of a Russian military jet near the Turkish-Syria border.

Russian President Vladimir Putin engaged in an important dialogue with Turkey designed to ease tensions and it has largely succeeded. Russia has been able to get Turkey to be a member of the Russian initiated Astana Peace Talks. Iran and Turkey have also started to increase trade. Turkey and Iran’s technically co-equal position in the Astana process has without doubt played some part in easing historical tensions between Iran and Turkey.

Russia and Turkey continue to expand in areas of trade and technological exchange. 2017 also marks a year of Russian-Turkish cultural exchange wherein both countries will host important arts and cultural events.

Where the west’s push of Turkey has been rather aggressive and frankly crude, Russia’s pull has been quiet but steadfast. It is now impossible to ignore. Russia based its policy on respect for Turkey’s status as a powerful and important nation. The west cannot get over its own ideological obsession, let alone its diplomatic incompetence

Turkey’s active participation in China’s One-Belt, One-Road trade initiative, which the US effectively boycotted in all but name, is a further sign that Turkey is increasingly finding itself on the Russian side of the multi-polar global axis.

It’s almost surreal that the US will bend over backwards to insure that the geo-politically weak and deeply inconsequential small states of eastern Europe remain firmly in the US sphere of influence/control, yet are doing almost nothing to prevent Turkey from slipping east.

There are several possible reasons for this.

1. Turkey is too big to control 

Unlike the weak Baltic states of Europe with tiny, decreasing populations, Turkey is a massive regional power with a young and growing population.

The Ottoman Empire is gone, but unlike many former colonial European powers, Turkey remains a vibrant and important player on the world stage. One can hate Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman policies while still admitting that Turkey is a deeply important country whether led by secular Kemalists or led by Erdogan and his allies.

Perhaps America’s own declining power means that it is easier to shove Latvia around than Turkey? America may simply be going for the easy game in this respect.

2. Containment via Kurdistan 

Kurds in northern Iraq are set to hold a referendum on creating an independent Iraqi Kurdistan this year. Iraq and Turkey both oppose this move. Turkey opposes it because it is hellbent on opposing the creation of any Kurdish state and Iraq because it does not want to lose the oil reserves in Kuridsh majority regions of the country and frankly also doesn’t need another blow to its pride after decades of utter hell.

America’s project to keep Iraq together after the illegal 2003 invasion of the country led by George W. Bush and Tony Blair, would also officially be a failure if the Kurds decided to fully go their own way.

That being said, many in the US think that Kurdish separatism in Iraq is inevitable and because of generally good relations between the US and both Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, that the US should and perhaps will ultimately support a Kurdistan in Iraq and perhaps later also even in Syria, though this remains more ambiguous at this time.

With a hostile Kurdistan on Turkey’s borders, Turkey would be either contained by the Kurds or in a constant conflict that could seriously inhibit Turkey’s ability to expand its northern and eastern alliances.

In other-words, why should America worry about Turkey if the Kurds will keep them busy for the foreseeable future?

3. Incompetence

Often times the simplest explanation is the best. America’s foreign policy has become so ideologically driven and so dogmatic that perhaps they simply are ill-equipped to deal with Erdogan and his nation.

Under Obama’s radical schoolboy government, it was easy to be friendly with a neo-liberal EU and easy to a hate a sovereignty minded moderately conservative Russian Federation.

Turkey was and is neither of these things. Under Erdogan Turkey has become a strongman dictatorship in all but name. Democratic institutions have been weakened severely. Yet in spite of this, Turkey is militarily a ‘good guy’ in American eyes. Erdgoan hates secular Arab governments and funds the same kinds of jihadists that the US does.

At the same time Erdogan is deeply unpredictable. One day he’s a self-styled new European the next day he’s a Sultan to rule over conquered Arab subjects. One day he’s friends with Israel, the next day he’s a holy warrior for Palestine.

One day, he’s using his NATO jets to shoot down Russian planes and the next year he’s sitting happily beside President Putin.

The mechanistic, unthinking, under-educated and overly ideological America diplomatic corps may simply not be able to handle such a man and therefore such a country.

The real answer is probably a combination of these three factors, but one is inclined to lean most heavily on the ‘incompetence option’.

America and the west have pushed Turkey away through a combination of stupidity and blind liberal ideology. Russia has embraced Turkey due to its pragmatic policy of respecting all great nations, even those it profoundly disagrees with in key areas.

A man like Erdogan prides himself on  marching to the beat of his own drum, even though the rhythm is often erratic, making it difficult to dance to. But just as Russian ballet dancers mastered the odd rhythms of Stravinsky, so too do Russian diplomats know how to follow the beat of Erdogan’s drum, while America settles for the droning dirge of its own increasingly out of touch ideology.

In this sense America did all the pushing. Russia did some of the pulling and now Erdogan has few options but to work with Russia as best he can. Whether he can work with anyone in the long term however, still very much remains to be seen. Furthermore, there is no danger of Russia abandoning its traditional allies in Orthodox southern Europe to placate Turkey. The west doesn’t know this yet, but Turkey does which is why Erdogan would be wise to stay out of the Balkans and wider Hellenic world.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

‘Iron’ Mike Pence Stares-Down Putin In APEC Showdown

Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Advisor John Bolton were seen shaking hands and chatting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Singapore.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Forget the All-Blacks ‘Haka’, ignore Foreman-Frasier, Drago-Balboa, and Ortiz-Liddell, the honor of the greatest (or perhaps most awkward) staredown in history now goes to US Vice President Mike Pence…

Having been blamed for everything from Trump’s election victory to USA soccer team’s loss to England last week, Russia faced accusations all weekend and was reportedly confronted by the US contingent over “meddling.”

As The Sun reports, Pence and Putin “discussed the upcoming G20 Summit and touched on the issues that will be discussed when President Trump and President Putin are both in Argentina for the summit,” according to the vice president’s press secretary, Alyssa Farah.

An NBC reporter tweeted: “New per the @VP’s Office—> The VP’s office says Vice President Pence directly addressed Russian meddling in the 2016 election in a conversation with Vladimir Putin on Thursday in Singapore.

“The conversation took place following the plenary session this afternoon at ASEAN.”

But, it was the following clash of the titans that caught most people’s attention.

As the Russian president joined the that Pence shook Putin’s ‘deadly’ hand, met his ‘steely KGB-trained’ gaze, and desperately tried not to smile or blink for 20 seconds as Putin appeared to chat amicably with the US VP…

While Putin has (if his accusers are to be believed) grappled his opponents to death with his bare hands (remember he is a sinister KGB agent and jiu-jitsu expert); we suspect the only thing VP Pence has gripped tightly in his hands is his bible.

Sadly, John Bolton then blew the tough guy act (or is he Mike Pence’s ‘good cop’) as he does his best impression of a teenage girl meeting their popstar idol for the first time…

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

Latest

Orthodox Churches begin to respond forcefully to Ukrainian situation

Two jurisdictions, including one with a difficult history with Russia, move to condemn uncanonical acts in Ukraine.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Two local jurisdictions within the Eastern Orthodox Church announced their refusal to accept the legitimization of two schismatic groups in Ukraine, a move authorized by the Ecumenical Patriarch, but spurred by powers in the United States and Petro Poroshenko’s secularist-oriented Ukraine.

On October 11th, 2018, the Ecumentical Patriarch, Bartholomew I of Constantinople, authorized his legates to pronounce two schismatic Orthodox “churches” in Ukraine to be restored to canonical communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and by extension, across the entire Orthodox world.

This move was strongly condemned by the authorities of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has the only canonically accepted church presence in Ukraine, a situation that the Ecumenical Patriarch himself agreed with only a few years ago.

Russia moved to break communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, creating a split in the Orthodox Church, but a split that at first risked Russia standing alone in their statement of disapproval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s actions.

For a time the reaction of the other “local” Orthodox Churches was cautious, with the vast majority (excepting only the Greek Church in the USA) coming out in support of the canonical group in Ukraine, but without taking similar action to Moscow.

That appears to be changing.

On November 12 and 16, respectively, the Churches of Serbia and Poland issued strong statements. They both categorically refused to recognize the Ukrainian schismatic groups and they forbade their clergy to concelebrate with the “clergy” within these groups. The Serbs’ statement on this was as follows:

“The Assembly does not recognize the mentioned figures and their followers as Orthodox bishops and clergy and, consequently, does not accept liturgical and canonical communion with them and their supporters.”

The Polish Church made a similar announcement, but with even more force:

“The Holy Bishops’ Council forbids the priests of the Polish Orthodox Church from having liturgical and prayerful contact with the ‘clergy’ of the so-called Kiev Patriarchate and the so-called ‘Autocephalous Orthodox Church,’ which have committed much evil in the past,” the statement reads.

According to the Polish hierarchs, persons deprived of episcopal and clerical ordination cannot be leaders in establishing peace in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Only the observance of the dogmatic and canonical norms of the Church and the preservation of the centuries-old tradition will protect Orthodoxy from severe ecclesiastical consequences on an international scale. The Polish Orthodox Church prays fervently for the unity of the holy Orthodox Church and for peace for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” the message further reads.

And while yet officially under the omophorion of Constantinople, several Greek monasteries on Mount Athos, the Orthodox monastic republic that is the spiritual center of all of Eastern Orthodoxy, inserted special petitions in their services to pray for Metropolitan Onufry and the people of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – that is, the canonical group that is a highly autonomous, or independent, Church while yet under the Moscow Patriarchate.

This is an interesting situation because in terms of ecclesial jurisdiction, Mount Athos is actually under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, the monasteries there often are known for taking the hardest of hardline stances when even their own Patriarchate takes actions they feel to be wrong:

Thousands of Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians go on pilgrimage to Mt. Athos, which is under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, every year. However, the Russian Church, of which the Ukrainian Church is an autonomous, self-governing part, broke communion with Constantinople on October 15, which the Ukrainian Church confirmed yesterday, due to unilateral Constantinople’s interference in ecclesiastical life in Ukraine.

We know that the majority of the abbots of the Athonite monasteries do not agree with the anti-canonical decisions of the Phanar,” Met. Anthony said.

“In several monasteries—Greek ones, by the way—they have included a special petition in the Litany of Peace in the morning and evening services: ‘For His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry with his suffering flock.,’” he explained, adding, “We are very grateful to the Athonites for their brotherly love and prayers.”

This is a story that it still developing, but the recent moves by Poland and Serbia may be outlining the path that other local Orthodox Churches will take.

That move is to deny recognition to the schismatics that Patriarch Bartholomew lifted the anathemas and depositions for. If this step were to be taken by all the local Churches that have expressed support for the canonical Ukrainian Church, the result would be not much different than where the schismatics were on October 10th:

Filaret Denisenko’s group and Makary’s group would indeed have communion with Constantinople, and presumably the Greek Orthodox Church in the USA, but with no one else.

This move would be a severe repudiation of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s repeated declaration that he has the sole authority to grant autocephaly to anyone anywhere in the Orthodox world (or even to take it away), which is a canonical absurdity.

Given the substantial problems that Filaret Denisenko continues to create, such as refusing to be considered only a Metropolitan (this was the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s order), and to still consider himself a patriarch, blessing a blasphemous “icon” that is really just a monument to Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and secularism (note the neo-Nazi wolfsangel and machine guns in the upper right of this photo:

And given the ideations of Patriarch Bartholomew himself, who is also recently reported to be pushing towards creating unity with the Roman Catholic Church, while acting like a pope himself by insisting that all the local Orthodox Churches will accept his decisions, it does not look like this situation is going to go away by itself.

However, by placing the problem of the schismatics squarely in Patriarch Bartholomew’s hands (since he created the problem), the pressure created by other churches refusing to concelebrate with the Ukrainian schismatics may be enough to isolate the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself, rather than fulfilling the highly likely goal that the US, Ukraine and Patriarch Bartholomew may have had initially – to isolate Russia and create a situation where Russia is made to look like the bad guy, once again.

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

Latest

How George W. Bush Corrupted America’s ‘News’-Reporting

George W. Bush and his Republicans managed to take all of America’s major ‘news’-media, and to turn them into super-prostitutes.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org:


In order to understand today’s demonization of Vladimir Putin, one must go back to US President George W. Bush’s propaganda for “regime-change in Iraq” and demonization of Saddam Hussein at that time. The US regime now has come to recognize that with Putin’s high approval-ratings from the Russian public, the US aristocracy’s dream of fomenting Putin’s ouster by Russia’s voters will not work; and, so, all foreign leaders who cooperated with Russia, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad, were first targeted by the US regime for “regime-change,” so as to isolate Russia and soften it up for the demanded US-takeover (‘democracy’, ‘free market’, etc., which Russia actually now already has, at least as much as America does); and, then, since that hasn’t yet worked, came the US aristocracy’s campaign to ‘protect The West’ by NATO troops and weapons surrounding Russia and forcing regime-change in Russia. It has escalated now to the point where World War III is more likely than ever it was during the Cold War.

Regime-change in Russia will thus either occur by the democratic vote of the Russian public at some distant time and produce a Russian Government that’s likely to be against the US regime in every possible way (which the current Russian Government is not), or else it will require a US-and-allied invasion of Russia, and that would destroy the world (but the US aristocracy want it anyway).

However, America’s aristocracy (or as they call it when referring to the same thing in low-income countries, “oligarchs”) — basically just its billionaires — are very impatient; they want to control the entire planet during their own lifetimes, and care little (if at all) about what will happen to the planet after they’re gone. (Look, for example, at their enormous resistance to doing anything against global burnout; protecting their fossil-fuels investments is ‘more important’.) Their ‘non-profits’ are just tax-avoidance schemes that double as PR operations for themselves and as ways to get their names in print and on big ‘non-profit’ buildings, like the Pyramids were in ancient Egypt. (Those Egyptian aristocrats wanted permanent honors, but today’s American ones want only to be recognized as being top-of-the-heap while they’re still alive; it’s a cultural difference.)

Anyway, here is how George W. Bush and his Republicans managed to take all of America’s major ‘news’-media, which were highly prostituted even before he came into office, and to turn them into super-prostitutes like the very worst of them prior to his Presidency were. That very worst was most prominently recognized as having been the neoconservative (or pro-US-imperialism) Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel. Of course, it’s rotten, today, no less than it was back in 2000, and here’s a representative sample of that, displaying a classic propaganda-operation:

This particular show aired on 5 September 2015 on Fox ‘News’, and interviewed their contracted expert:

TRANSCRIPT, starting at 4:45:

4:45, Interviewer: The other place that nobody seems to want to go these days is Russia and China, and Russia and China are both the two countries that have really gotten behind Assad, and certainly try to prop him up and those kinds of things; and as we look at pictures from China’s military day parade [posted onscreen], how much of this is Russia and China trying to slough off these refugees on Europe and everybody else … to try to gain political and global capital?

McFARLAND: Well, in China I think less so, but Russia, certainly, because we’ve seen even in the last week that Russia has increased its military presence in Syria. Russia is trying to prop up the Assad government, like the Iranians are; and so Russia is sending military equipment; it’s sending it by sea, it’s sending it overland, it’s sending it by air, to try to prop up the Assad government to continue the fighting.

Q: To continue the refugee crisis?

MCFARLAND: Oh, sure, exactly.

They want their suckers to believe that the Government of Syria wants “to continue the refugee crisis” (which actually was resulting from the Democratic Party’s President Barack Obama’s policy, but Republican-Party billionaires want regime-change in Syria as much as Democratic-Party ones do and so this con is a bipartisan one) instead of to restore the peace and modest prosperity that had preceded the US-Saudi-Turkish-UAE-Quwaiti campaign to recruit and arm tens of thousands of jihadists into Syria to overthrow Syria’s committedly non-sectarian and highly secular Government, headed by Assad. They want their fools to believe that Assad instead of Obama sought the overthrow of Assad. But no matter how stupid their pitch is, it’s acceptable by their very conservative audience. Even when Fox News needs to cover-up evils of a Democratic Party regime in order to sic their suckers on hating Assad or any other ally of the arch-demon Putin, they do it, in order to service their Republican Party billionaires, who are just as eager to take over Russia — and its allies such as Syria — as Democratic Party billionaires are. And that’s how bad Fox ‘News’ is, and was. But now they’re all like that.

THE BACKSTORY:

Whereas back in 2002 and 2003, the US aristocracy’s biggest push for “regime change” was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq; and whereas in 2011 the biggest push for “regime change” was to remove Muammar Gaddaffi from power in Libya; and whereas next in 2011 the biggest push for “regime change” became to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria; and whereas in 2013 the biggest push for “regime change” became to remove Viktor Yanukovych from power in Ukraine; the biggest push for “regime change” now is to remove Vladimir Putin himself from power in Russia.

Media-lies have been crucial to them all; and here is how it’s done — by spreading Fox’s garbage over the rest of the major ‘news’ media:

On 2 October 2003, the media-watch organization, worldpublicopinion.org, headlined “Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War:Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War: Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source: Fox Viewers More Likely to Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely.” In fact, the people who received their news primarily through NPR or PBS exhibited the lowest rate of misperceptions at that time, and Fox News Channel viewers exhibited the highest misperceptions-rate: Whereas 77% of NPR/PBS listeners/viewers gave correct answers on all three factual news questions asked, only 20% of Fox News Channel viewers did; and whereas only 23% of the NPR/PBS audiences got one or more of these three factual questions wrong, 80% of Fox’s did.

So, the George W. Bush Administration forced NPR and PBS to adhere more fully to Bush’s (the US aristocracy’s) line. Bush lowered the best of the nation’s news-edia down to the standards that already existed for the lowest.

At NPR’s “Morning Edition” on 20 May 2005, host David Folkenflik reported about the pre-Bush culture at the Corporation for Public Broadvasting and compared it to the new culture there. He said that, the “culture gap became evident as long as two years ago. At oneclosed board meeting, according to two former CPB officials, [the Bush-appointed CPB chief Kenneth] Tomlinson suggested bringing in Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume to talk to public broadcasting officials about how to create balanced news programs.”

Word was now out, among journalists throughout the world, that President Bush aimed to turn his country’s public broadcasting system into a domestic propaganda organ; and so, on May 30thThe New York Times headlined “Ombudsmen Rebuff Move by Public Broadcasting”, and reported — datelined May 27th from London — that: “An [international] association of news ombudsmen has rejected an attempt by two ombudsmen from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to join their organization as full-fledged members, questioning their independence. The Organization of News Ombudsmen, which represents nearly a hundred print and broadcast ombudsmen from around the world, more than half of them from the United States, voted at its annual conference here last week to change its bylaws to allow full membership only to those who work for news organizations,” which excluded representatives from CPB, because “it does not itself gather or produce news.” Observed one member, who happened to be the ombudsman from NPR, “We want members who are responsive to readers, not to governments or lobby groups.”

The Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw took a broad historical view of this matter, headlining May 29th “There’s a ‘Nuclear Option’ for PBS’ Woes” opining that no PBS at all would be better than a PBS that’s a propaganda organ for the White House, and reminding readers: “The Bush administration is not the first to challenge the independence of PBS. Back in the 1970s, the Nixon administration was so estranged by PBS coverage of Watergate and the Vietnam War that it stacked the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with Nixon sympathizers. ‘There were tremendous fights, with the Nixon administration trying to prevent public television from doing any public affairs programming at all,’ Lawrence Grossman, the former president of PBS, subsequently told the New York Times. The Bush administration, which has already accomplished the heretofore seemingly impossible by becoming even more media-averse than the Nixon administration, seems determined to surpass the wizard of Whittier and Watergate in bringing the CPB to heel as well.”

Mr. Shaw, like other major-media commentators about the national media, had previously stood by in silence, during 2002 and 2003, while America’s major media cavalierly spread amongst the US public, as virtually unchallenged, the false rumors coming from the Bush Administration, and from its allies such as the Bush-Administration-financed group of exiles, the Iraqi National Congress, saying that Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein had been proven to be storing huge quantities of weapons of mass destruction and to be working in cahoots with Al Qaeda to threaten the United States. However, now, just a few years later, these very same “news” media were so frightened at the rising extent of this Administration’s control over their “news,” that these commentators were publicizing what those fascists were doing to force them, ‘journalists,’ into a military lock-step. This change in atmosphere was stunning; America’s press were now trying to extricate themselves from the prison they had only recently helped to construct for themselves. They didn’t think that they might get caught up in the prison that they had helped construct to contain the general public.

The United States had entered historic new territory after nearly 50 years of aristocratic/theocratic mass-indoctrination of the American people, which had occurred with the full support and cooperation of the nation’s presslords. There was now doubt; the old arrangements finally started to become questioned. Things were no longer settled. This was a real change of mentality. Only recently, there had been a total passivity of the US press: it propagandized for the President’s Medicaid prescription drug plan; it propagandized for his fabricated accusations against “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction”; it served as an extension of the White House press office on many other of the President’s fraud-based programs. But this passivity was now finally replaced by a rising fear within the press, that the US might be transforming into a fascist state, which could threaten the press itself. The presslords themselves were at last becoming disturbed.

However, this President was already near to his goal of a totalitarian lock-down. Consequently, what could the press do, at such a late date? They had already given him the rope to hang not just the public, but themselves. He took it. The American press that stenographically transmitted to the American public the US government’s lies about “Saddam’s WMD” is continuing as if it hadn’t been sufficiently compliant. America’s great victories in overthrowing Gaddafi and Yanukovych are now supposed to be followed by Assad, and then Putin.

And European nations take this leadership as their own, instead of abandoning the US, abandoning NATO, and abandoning the US-controlled EU; abandoning all the mega-corporate, US-aristocracy-controlled, international-corporate fascist system — and now they willingly take in the millions of refugees from the bombs that the US had dropped in Libya and Syria, and that the US-installed rabidly anti-Russian government in Ukraine is dropping onto the areas of the former Ukraine that have rejected the US-imposed (in February 2014government in Kiev.

And the next target is Putin.

So: that’s the backstory behind the lie that Putin instead of Obama caused those millions of refugees pouring into Europe.

And, in German ‘news’ media, Bashar al-Assad and ISIS are being blamed for it, because practically no German is so media-deluded (like America’s conservatives are) as to think that Putin is to blame for it; and here is a German who states in very clear terms how rotten he thinks Germany’s ‘news’ media are (though America’s obviously are even worse) with those German media blaming “that the reasons for refugee-flows are Syrian President Bashar Assad and ISIS” instead of that “America is the cause of all these problems, American foreign policy.”

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