Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Mosul versus Aleppo: US bombing ‘good, Russian bombing ‘bad’; ISIS ‘bad’, Al-Qaeda ‘good’

The West’s selective indignation concerning Syrian and Russian conduct of the battle of Aleppo, in contrast to Iraqi and US conduct of the battle of Mosul, is not an only an offence against reason and truth. It also excuses Al-Qaeda, which was as responsible for the suffering in Aleppo as ISIS has been for the suffering in Mosul.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,135 Views

Anyone casting their mind back to the Western media’s reporting of the battle to liberate eastern Aleppo from the Al-Qaeda led Jihadis in the second half of last year will remember the vivid reporting of supposed Russian and Syrian government atrocities the Western media and Western governments engaged in during the battle.

Thus the Russians and the Syrians were accused of terror bombings of civilians, of deliberately bombing hospitals, with the Syrians specifically accused of ‘barrel-bombing’ ie. of dropping inaccurate improvised home made bombs to kill civilians.

This vast campaign led to heated debates in the UN Security Council, two passionate debates in the British parliament with calls for British military intervention against Syrian and Russia, a refusal by President Hollande of France to meet with President Putin of Russia during a meeting that Putin planned to make to France – and which he accordingly cancelled – and claims that the Russians were committing war crimes in Syria and in Aleppo, and to demands for prosecutions of Russian officials for war crimes.

The UN Secretariat for its part threw its weight behind this campaign, repeatedly calling for ceasefires in Aleppo that appeared to be intended to leave the Jihadis in control of eastern Aleppo, and for humanitarian convoys to be sent to eastern Aleppo, whose effect if not whose purpose would be to resupply the Jihadis there.

The Russians for their part repeatedly agreed to temporary ceasefires and bombing halts, and repeatedly left what they called ‘humanitarian corridors’ open to allow civilians from the besieged districts and Jihadi fighters to leave eastern Aleppo and for UN humanitarian convoys to enter eastern Aleppo.

In the event, until the final collapse of Jihadi resistance in eastern Aleppo in December, very few Jihadi fighters and civilians did in fact leave eastern Aleppo via these humanitarian corridors, and very few humanitarian supplies ever got through.

Western governments and the Western blame placed the blame for this squarely on the Syrian government, alleging that the Jihadi fighters and civilians were too terrified of reprisals by the Syrian government’s security agencies to dare to leave the besieged eastern districts of the city or to trust the Syrian authorities’ guarantees of safe conduct, and that it was the Syrian authorities who were preventing humanitarian supplies from getting through.

Meanwhile the Syrian rescue group – the White Helmets – were given an inordinate amount of favourable publicity, culminating eventually in a documentary about them which has recently been awarded an Oscar.

Lastly, the population of the besieged districts of eastern Aleppo was throughout the summer and autumn repeatedly said – including by the UN Secretariat and its relief agencies – to number 250,000, with this vast number supposedly collectively facing a humanitarian catastrophe.

During the period of the siege I repeatedly made known my doubts about many of these atrocity stories.

I could never see for example the purpose behind the Russians and the Syrians bombing hospitals, and the claims that they were looked to me like war propaganda.

I was seriously concerned that Western governments and the Western media were suppressing information about who was actually in control of eastern Aleppo, though the fact that the dominant group there was Jabhat Al-Nusra – Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch – hardly seemed contestable.

I was worried that all the claims of Russian and Syrian government atrocities in eastern Aleppo originated entirely from groups controlled by or sympathetic to Al-Qaeda – including the White Helmets – since there were and (because of the nature of these groups) could be no Western journalists present in eastern Aleppo to verify them independently.

I was also concerned that Western governments and the Western media seemed to be largely ignoring reports of atrocities committed by the Al-Qaeda led Jihadis in eastern Aleppo, such as the fact that they appeared to be preventing civilians from leaving the besieged eastern districts of Aleppo so that they could use them as human shields, and regularly murdered civilians who sought to escape from there.

Last but by no means least, I was troubled that Western governments and the Western media seemed to conflate the besieged Jihadi controlled eastern districts of Aleppo with the whole city of Aleppo, ignoring the fact that even if the claim that 250,000 civilians were trapped in eastern Aleppo was true, it would only represent a fraction of Aleppo’s total population, the great bulk of whom were in the government controlled areas and appeared to support the government.

The collapse of Jihadi resistance in eastern Aleppo proved that some at least of the claims made by Western governments and the Western media during the siege were untrue.

It turned out for example that the number of civilians trapped in eastern Aleppo was far less than the 250,000 that was claimed, and that most of them seized the opportunity to flee to the government controlled areas of western Aleppo as soon as Al-Qaeda’s control of the besieged eastern districts of Aleppo weakened.

As for the Jihadi fighters themselves, they were evacuated from eastern Aleppo together with their families and any civilians who wanted to go with them, as the result of an agreement with the Syrian government which was brokered by Russia and Turkey, without the mass reprisals against them and their families and the civilians fleeing with them – which many claimed would happen – taking place.

Since the end of the siege Aleppo has been largely peaceful, with little sign of resistance by its people against the Syrian government, and with increasing signs of life in the city slowly returning to normal, though the task of reconstruction is colossal.

Perhaps the most encouraging sign of all is that there are growing reports of increasing numbers of people who had fled the city during the war returning there, with the UN reporting that as many 500,000 people who had fled Syria during the war returning there in the last few months.

As for evidence to support some of the specific atrocity claims made during the siege, such as the claims about the deliberate bombing of hospitals, this has been hard to find, and since the end of the siege Western governments and the Western media seem to have lost interest in the matter.

Having said all this, there is of course no doubt that huge damage was done to Aleppo during the battle and that many civilians were killed and wounded there, though who was responsible for any specific death or damage is never easy to say.

What is however truly fascinating is to compare what happened in eastern Aleppo last year with what has happened in Mosul last year and this.

Rather than describe it myself I will reproduce one of the many accounts of the devastation of Mosul which have been provided by an actual eyewitness, the British journalist Patrick Cockburn, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other people the single best Western reporter of the recent wars in the Middle East

The people of Mosul got rid of Isis, but at terrible cost to themselves. Great stretches of west Mosul lie in ruins, some areas so badly hit that it is impossible to even visit them because the streets are choked with debris. I was in al-Jadida district where local people all complained that there had never been many Isis fighters, but, whenever a sniper fired a shot from a large building, the troops on the ground would call in airstrikes to demolish it.

One aspect of the war does not come across in much of the media reporting. It is clear, looking at wrecked streets towards the centre of the city, that much of the damage has been caused not by airstrikes, but  by artillery and rocket fire that have knocked chunks out of buildings in a haphazard way. One can see the artillery of the Federal Police, a paramilitary force, near the airport road to the south of Mosul. Much of the bombardment of west Mosul, as opposed to the east, was in the shape of shells and rockets  fired in the general direction of the enemy rather than at specific targets.

Nobody knows how many people were killed, but, talking to survivors, the number must be very large. One unconfirmed report says that civil defence workers have already pulled 2,000 bodies from the rubble. The Airwars monitoring group says that 5,805 civilians may have died in west Mosul between 19 February and 19 June. The authorities may not be trying to very hard to find out the true figure: one observer caustically noted that hundreds of planes, drones and artillery pieces were mobilised to bombard Mosul, but, on one day last week, only a single bulldozer could be found to aid the search for bodies buried under the ruins of the Old City.

The horrific civilian loss of life is explained in part by the merciless determination of Isis to prevent civilians from escaping and depriving them of human shields. Isis snipers shot people who tried to flee and Isis officials welded shut the metal doors of houses with people packed inside. It is difficult to think of any other example of a siege in which civilians have been herded together like this to deter air or artillery attack.

There is a compelling and meticulous account by Amnesty International of the bombardment called At Any Cost: The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul.  Out of thousands of attacks in west Mosul, it investigates and documented 45 attacks that “it had reasonable grounds to attribute to Iraqi government or US-led coalition forces. These 45 attacks alone killed at least 426 civilians and injured more than 100.” The report should be read by everybody interested in why so many died in west Mosul.

“Pro-government forces relied heavily upon explosive weapons with wide area effects such as IRAMs (Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions),” it says. “With their crude targeting abilities, these weapons wreaked havoc in densely populated west Mosul, where large groups of civilians were trapped in homes or makeshift shelters.” This is important because the government officials and the western media sometimes contrast the indiscriminate Russian and Syrian government bombardment of East Aleppo with the accurate and discriminating Coalition backed assault on west Mosul.

The crass response of the leaders of the US-led coalition who orchestrated the attack on west Mosul is telling and shows that we are back in the Vietnam era when American officers were happy to volunteer that they were destroying populated areas in order to save them.

What is fascinating about this account is how it echoes almost exactly many of accusations made against the Syrian government and the Russians during the fighting in eastern Aleppo.

Thus we read of massive and indiscriminate shelling and bombing of civilian areas and general indifference by the Iraqi and US authorities to the plight of civilians, thousands of whom as a result have been killed.

We also read of patterns of behaviour by the ISIS fighters in Mosul which seem in all respects identical to those claimed by the Syrians and the Russians for those of the Al-Qaeda led Jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo.

Thus both the ISIS fighters in Mosul and the Al-Qaeda led Jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo are accused of treating civilians as human shields, preventing them from quitting Mosul and eastern Aleppo, and murdering them in both cases if they attempted to do so.

Given the fanatical ideology of both groups, which is so similar as to be all but identical, that is not surprising.

There are however some verifiable differences in the conduct of the two battles.

Unlike the Syrians and the Russians, the Iraqis and the US never to my knowledge at any point during the fighting in Mosul declared any bombing halts or ceasefires – ‘humanitarian pauses’ – or set up any ‘humanitarian corridors’ to allow civilians and ISIS fighters to flee the city.

The Russians also deny that they ever actually carried out any air strikes on eastern Aleppo, saying that such air strikes as took place there were strictly the work of the Syrian military, and were largely carried out by helicopters.

In a sense therefore Iraqi and US conduct of the battle of Mosul was more ruthless than was that of the Syrians and the Russians during the battle of eastern Aleppo.

The biggest difference is however the completely different ways that Western governments and the Western media have responded to the two battles.

Unlike what happened during the battle of eastern Aleppo, the battle of Mosul has provoked no heated debates in the UN Security Council, no passionate debates in the British parliament, no refusal by President Macron of France to meet with President Trump of the US – on the contrary they have just had a friendly meeting in France – and no claims of the US committing war crimes in Iraq and in Mosul, and no demands for prosecutions of US officials accused of committing these war crimes.

As for the Western media, its reporting of the devastation of Mosul has been relatively scant, in no way approaching the indignant saturation coverage given to the battle of Aleppo last year, with the blame for the devastation laid squarely on ISIS, and with barely any criticism of US conduct at all.

At this point I will make my own position clear: though I am prepared to accept that US and Iraqi conduct of the battle of Mosul is open to severe criticism, I also think that the primary blame for the devastation of Mosul and for the death and suffering of civilians there rests with ISIS.

The same however was equally – or still more – true of the battle of Aleppo last year: the primary blame for the devastation of eastern Aleppo and for the death and suffering of the civilians there rests with Al-Qaeda and the Al-Qaeda led Jihadis who until last year where in occupation of Aleppo’s eastern districts.

It cannot be said sufficiently strongly, or repeated sufficiently often, that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are both fanatical and murderous terrorist organisations, utterly heedless of human life in a way that has not been seen since the defeat of the Khmer Rouge.  When confronting two such completely ruthless organisations massive suffering and devastation is unavoidable if great population centres like eastern Aleppo and Mosul are to be freed from their control.

For this reason, and despite all the criticisms which are being made of the conduct of both sieges, I consider both eastern Aleppo and Mosul liberated territories, and I unequivocally welcome the defeat of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in both places.

What is shocking is that those who recognise this truth in one place – Mosul – pretend to be blind to it in another – Aleppo.

I say “pretend” because I do not believe that those many people in Western governments and the Western media who waxed so indignant about the conduct of the Syrians and the Russians in Aleppo last year are really blind to the truth of it in both places.

Doing so however is not just an offence against reason and truth.

Those who engage in these games of selective indignation, whether because they adhere to some grand geopolitical strategy or because of some visceral hatred they have for Russia, should understand that it is not principally the US and the Iraqis whose conduct in Mosul that they are making excuses for.

Those whose conduct they are principally excusing and defending are Al-Qaeda, which along with ISIS is the organisation which is directly responsible for most of the death and destruction which has happened over the course of the Syrian war.

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