Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Donald Trump and the Yugoslav Wars

Whilst Donald Trump denies giving the interview to a Serb journalist in which he supposedly apologised for US action towards Serbia, had he done so he would only have given an apology that is deserved and overdue.

Published

on

1,669 Views

Donald Trump alleged gave an email interview, via his campaign staff, to a Serbian magazine called Nedeljnik. In the interview Trump is alleged to have apologised on behalf of the United States for Bill Clinton’s illegal bombing of the then Yugoslavia.

However, the Trump campaign has claimed the interview is a forgery and Nedeljnik have pulled the piece.

In spite of this, Vladimir Rajcic, the actor who claims to have sent the questions and received the answers from the Trump campaign maintains the interview is legitimate and he’ll soon prove so. It remains to be seen.

The Western mainstream media responded with predictable idiocy. They misrepresented the true nature of the civil wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and more importantly neglected to mention why the wars happened. Here are the key facts.

In  1974,  in response to the increased demands of non-Serb nationalities of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav leader Marshal Tito proclaimed a New Constitution which gave further autonomy to the six main federal republics as well as virtually analogous status to two autonomous provinces within the Serb Republic—Kosovo and Vojvodina. 

This went some way to quell the nationalist agitations of Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Slovenians, Montenegrins,  Macedonians and ethnic Albanians—but this came at the expense of disproportionately disenfranchising the Serb population of Yugoslavia. 

In Yugoslavia as a whole, Serbs were the ethnic plurality.  Apart from the Serb Republic, within the Yugoslavian Federation Serbs lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Macedonia.  However because of the republic based voting system enshrined in the 1974 Constitution, substantial Serb minorities in all republics except Serbia effectively had their votes made redundant due to the block votes of other ethnic groups that comprised the majorities of individual republics. 

Compounding this issue was that in spite of their status as provinces within Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina had an autonomous voting position within Yugoslavia that was rather similar to the positions of the official republics. 

So whilst minorities in Serbia were given autonomous provinces which thus amplified their political grievances before Yugoslavia as a whole, very substantial Serb minorities  in places like Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia were afforded no such autonomous status. 

Thus Serbia had to concede part of its political territory and likewise its Federal influence to ethnic minorities within Serbia, but no other republic was required to concede political territory or influence to the Serb minorities within their borders. 

After Tito died in 1980 semi-latent nationalist agitations arose again—but this time it was the Serbs who were agitating as it was they who felt that the 1974 Constitution had enshrined an anti-Serbian bias into Yugoslav politics for the sake of keeping minorities in the Federation. 

Serb grievances came to the fore in Yugoslav politics in the year 1986 when the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts published a Memorandum.  The Memorandum accused the provincialism of the 1974 constitution of disproportionately weakening the political influence of Serbs within the Federation. 

Keen not to fan the flames of any nationalist insurrection which would put at risk the fragile integrity of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb republic’s leader, publicly denounced the Memorandum.  So did Radovan Karadzic.  However formal denunciation by Serb Communist officials did little to palliate Serb fears.

By the middle-late 1980s things became even more ominous as Kosovo became the epicentre of a new political tug-of-war. 

Not content with being an autonomous province within Serbia, the Albanians of Kosovo began agitating with ever more vigour for full republican status.  Coming at a time of growing Serb alienation from Yugoslavia this caused Serb frustration over Kosovo to grow tenfold.  Kosovo being after all the place where Serbia traces its historic origin, it was a gross anomaly for many Serbs that it was not a fully integrated part of Serbia. 

At around this time impromptu Albanian militias in Kosovo began a concerted terror campaign against the Serbs of Kosovo—this over ten years before the NATO war on behalf of the Albanians of Kosovo. 

It was becoming clear that by 1990 that the forces most likely to break up Yugoslavia because of entrenched discrimination were not Slovenians, Croats or Bosnian Muslims but Serbs.  It was the Serbs who were suffering from diminished voice in the affairs of Yugoslavia and who had to face apparent antipathy from other nationalities together with sectarian attacks on Serb civilians.

For a surprisingly long time, Milosevic maintained a rather anti-climactic silence in the face of Serb protests.  Milosevic did at long last move to attempt to ameliorate the Serb grievances as proffered in the 86 Memorandum by putting the leadership of Kosovo, Vojvodina and Montenegro under the direct control of the Serbian leadership. 

This re-organisation in Kosovo led to mass riots and a general strike by ethnic Albanians.  Violence against the Serb minority in Kosovo forced many to flee the province.  It did not help that Croatia and Slovenia supported the anti-Yugoslav and anti-Serb riots in Kosovo. 

By 1990 things had passed the point of no-return.  In attempting to correct the inequities against Serbs inherent in the 1974 Constitution Milosevic was forced to make a Hobson’s Choice.  He could maintain the anti-nationalist Communist line, which in reality buttressed inequities against Serbs within the Federation, or he could promise to do what he eventually did, which was try to defend the safety and security of Serbs within Yugoslavia even if this meant alienating other minority groups throughout Yugoslavia, who were at this time gaining encouragement both from the crumbling of the USSR (Yugoslavia’s friend) and from the rise of a united Germany (in the case of the pro-German Slovenes and Croats) and of international Islamism (in the case of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians). 

In 1974 Tito had been forced to concede Serb rights to minorities in order to save Yugoslavia. 

In 1990 Milosevic was forced to correct the anti-Serb nature of the 1974 Constitution in order to preserve Yugoslavia. 

The methods were different but the aim of both Tito and Milosevic was the same—to preserve the integrity of Yugoslavia.

It was a difficult choice for Milosevic—for he was a man that thought twice before doing what he did—unlike the NATO allies who didn’t even bother to think at all before putting a blood soaked nail in Yugoslavia’s grave.

The fact the word ‘Balkanise’ has entered the English language is testament to the fact that the West’s intervention in the Yugoslav civil wars destroyed a once peaceful and prosperous state, tearing it into a handful of shaky pieces of an ethno-political jigsaw puzzle.

The wars have left a still largely unrecognised Republika Srpska at loggerheads with an impoverished Bosnia-Herzegovina, whose only great achievements since the 1990s has been the building of Wahhabi mosques, funded by Saudi Arabia.

As for Croatia, many beautiful coastal countries have a tourism industry,.   In Croatia it is the other way around. Far-right elements in government and systematic corruption are troubling indeed.

Macedonia has recently seen protests as tensions run rife with a sizeable Albanian minority.

Kosovo, which even some European countries do not recognise as a sate, is best recognised as a mafia state which still has a significant population of totally disenfranchised Serbs who NATO abandoned after the 1999 bombing campaign.

Many in Montenegro regret splitting from their more prosperous neighbour Serbia in a hastily prepared 2006 referendum.

Meanwhile, although Serbia is still tentatively an EU applicant, more and more Serbs see their destination economically and geopolitically with Russia for more reasons than one.

Non-Yugoslav Albania meanwhile has become a NATO member but it remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. So much for expecting wealth as a reward for coming out of ‘splendid isolation’!

Although it is likely that the Trump interview is a fabrication, what’s more important is that Trump could have plausibly said the words ascribed to him.

Whilst the words Donald Trump and ‘humility’ rarely find themselves in the same sentence, Trump’s acknowledgement that the Washington establishment have got it so wrong for so long, is indeed tantamount to an expression of regret, stopping just short of sorrow.

In the mid 1990s, when Bill Clinton began meddling in Bosnia, the then UK Foreign Secretary Sir Douglas Hurd warned John Major not to follow his American counterpart, stating that doing so would ‘only level the killing field’.

Whilst Hurd may be best remembered as the man who voted for the Maastricht Treaty without having read it, cautioning Britain against a Yugoslav military adventure was his finest moment.

Voices of reason like Hurd are largely absent in post-Blair Britain. Perhaps they won’t be in post-Obama America?

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