Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

Sergey Lavrov offers Russia’s point-for-point rebuttal of Donald Trump’s UN speech

Russia’s Foreign Minister has rejected almost every point made in Donald Trump’s speech before the UNGA.

Published

on

6,751 Views

Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s long serving Foreign Minister has delivered his country’s address to the plenary session of the 72nd meeting of the UN General Assembly.

The speech which was delivered at a rapid pace, can be characterised as a point-for-point rebuttal of the majority of issues raised by Donald Trump during his deeply controversial speech delivered on the 19th of September.

Below are the main points covered by Lavrov

North Korea

Sergey Lavrov placed a heavy emphasis on the joint Chinese and Russian deep-freeze proposals which call for de-escalation on the Korean peninsula.

Lavrov stated that “military hysteria is not just an impasse but a disaster” in a clear reference to Donald Trump’s threat to “destroy” North Korea, during his address before the United Nations.

Russia’s Foreign Minister condemned “Pyongyang’s missile adventurism” but restated that diplomacy is the only means of solving the crisis.

Iran 

Sergey Lavrov stated Russia’s support for the 2013 JCPOA which is colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal. By contrast, Donald Trump called the deal “an embarrassment”.

Lavrov then said that the JCPOA has been and continues to be effective and that threats against Iran are causing alarm in the wider world.

Venezuela 

Sergey Lavrov said that it is “unacceptable” for any external power to orchestrate riots let alone take military action against Venezuela. He also affirmed Russia’s opposition to sanctions against Venezuela. He explained that unilateral actions in such areas are ineffective and pointed to the failed US embargo of Cuba.

Lavrov condemned the use of ultimatums as a means of settling geo-political disputes and warned that such leads only lead to chaos, instability and refugee crises.

Syria

Sergey Lavrov spoke positively of the defeat of ISIS on the battle field but remarked with surprise verging on disgust that al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) is “being spared by members of the US led coalition”.

He further stated that more efforts are still needed to bring stability to Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

Lavrov then said that any allegations relating to the use of chemical weapons in Syria or elsewhere should be investigated thoroughly and objectively. To this end, the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons should not be undermined.

Sergey Lavrov also praised the work of the Astana Group of Russia, Iran and Turkey to help bring stability to Syria.

Palestine 

The Russian Foreign Minister expressed regret that there has still been no just solution for the people of Palestine. He affirmed that Russia places a strong emphasis on bringing peace to Palestine at the soonest possible date. Specifically, he stated that Russia has always and will continue to attach a supreme importance on achieving Palestinian unity.

Lavrov said that Russia is willing to engage in fostering direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leadership in pursuit of the two-state solution agreed to by the United Nations.

Ukrainian regime’s war on Donbass 

Lavrov stated that it is necessary to deploy UN peacekeepers to Donbass at the soonest possible moment while he deplored the fact that the lawless Kiev regime consistently fails to implement the agreements contained in the MINSK Protocols.

Lavrov devoted this portion of the speech to criticising how the current regime in Kiev came to power through a violent and lawless coup.

Lavrov reminded his audience that the United Nations was founded as a result of the Nuremberg Trials of fascist war criminals and that no one should hide behind the phenomenon of free speech in order to glorify fascism and contemporary expressions of Nazism.

NATO expansion into Europe and anti-Russian racism 

Sergey Lavrov lamented that after the Cold War, the western powers “grew heady” on the heels of history and broke multiple promises to refrain from expanding NATO into parts of Europe which had formerly been part of the Warsaw Pact which was led by the Soviet Union.

He said that “NATO is trying to restore the climate of the Cold War”, something which is unacceptable based on the modern standards of global multi-polarity.

The Russian Foreign Minister further stated that NATO’s expansion into Europe created anti-Russian sentiments throughout the continent and this has led to the nationalistic desecration of monuments to those who won the war against fascism. This is a clear reference to Poland beginning to tear down monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War against fascism. Lavrov stated that the UN must raise these matters with urgency.

Lavrov further stated that the UN must do more to help the human rights disaster of stateless peoples of Europe, many of whom are also the victims of racist laws which prevent them from speaking their native languages. This is a clear reference to the discrimination against Russians in the Baltic states of the European Union.

Sovereignty 

As a country which has always respected the sovereignty and dignity of all nations, Sergey Lavrov said that Russia welcomed Donald Trump’s remarks in favour of respecting all nations rights to sovereignty, but then decried the perpetual “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” attitude of the US led NATO west.

Nuclear weapons 

While Russia is committed to a world free of nuclear weapons, Sergey Lavrov stated that the best way to cut down on the proliferation of nuclear weapons was through realistic and objective dialogue. He stated that an unrealistic approach to nuclear weapons, only pushes the goal of a nuclear free world further away.

Lavrov’s concluding remarks 

Lavrov spoke positively of Russia’s engagement in multilateral organisations such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the BRICS, and the  Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

He stated that the multipolar or “polycentric” nature of the 21st century political map should be welcomed as a positive development.

Lavrov stated that the world must reject military alliances and instead work for collective security, which includes a rational approach to cyber-security.

Sergey Lavrov concluded by quoting the Roman philosopher Seneca who said “We were born to coexist together”. Lavrov stated that the UN founding fathers understood this better than anyone.

Conclusion 

As Donald Trump’s speech opened with warm words about an non-ideological/pragmatic new approach for American foreign policy, one which would respect the sovereignty of nations, Sergey Lavrov offered praise for words which are long overdue from the Russian perspective.

However, just as Trump devoted the remainder of his speech to the antithetical threats to make war and sow conflict among several nations, Lavrov rejected Trump’s account on all parts.

–Whereas Trump threatened war on North Korea, Lavrov said dialogue is the only answer.

–Whereas Trump threatened war and sanctions on Venezuela–Lavrov condemned both and warned against such moves.

–Whereas Trump threatened to axe the JCPOA, Lavrov spoke highly of it.

–Whereas Trump condemned the Syrian government, Lavrov praised measures to bring peace to Syria which respect Syrian sovereignty.

In this sense, Russia and the US have very different ideas of how the world ought to be run. Donald Trump has not changed this, but in many ways, has only served to magnify these differences.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
dave3200
Guest
dave3200

Trump is getting some very bad guidance internally.

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

Terrible advice, and, he is taking it!

Avi Unobtaniumstein
Guest
Avi Unobtaniumstein

That is not advice he is getting, it is instructions.

dave3200
Guest
dave3200

You are absolutely right. I accept the correction. Thank you.

DrFreedom
Guest
DrFreedom

All part of the brilliant Donald Trump plan. Good cop–bad cop. Pretend you are the bad cop so the good cop can get credit for the reasonable approach. This defuses the anti-Russian sentiments that Hillary and the Deep State were trying to use to bring down the Trump administration through “Russiagate.” 🙂

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

Trump has no plan!

DrFreedom
Guest
DrFreedom

That’s what Hillary thought! Ha ha ha! 🙂

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

he can’t even keep up, let alone plan.

santiago
Guest
santiago

WTF are you talking about? You make no sense at all. Read your words you sound like you are infatuated with what you thought Trump represented. Smell the fucking coffee already!

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

Oh if only you were right, but sadly I don’t think you are.
Threatening to annihilate a nation is just plain unacceptable, and the UN was never meant to be a forum for threats. Bush, Colin Powell and the WMD were bad enough, but this is the nadir.
Watch the faces of the reps in the audience, who are alarmed, and then look at Bibi. There’s no doubt who this insanity benefits.

Bevin Chu
Guest

Not really sure if the “good cop” is supposed to talk about “totally destroying” North Korea.

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

Lavrov’s rebuttal of President Trump’s speech is brilliant, passionate, clear and calm.

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

but the ziocons don’t care, and talking logic to sociopaths is just wasted breath.

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

Don’t be deluded by Trump’s reference to “sovereign nations”. The US wants “full spectrum dominance”, nothing less.
I’m sure Lavrov is aware of this.
Trump’s speech was deplorable. Lavrov is ever the diplomat.

Bevin Chu
Guest

“I’m sure Lavrov is aware of this.”

Absolutely.

Some well-meaning but politically naive opponents of US hegemony have mistakenly assumed that Lavrov was “taken in” by Trump’s lip service to sovereignty.

They don’t understand “diplomatese”. Diplomats are masters of ironic understatement. Lavrov was holding Trump’s feet to the fire when he “praised” Trump’s phony advocacy of sovereignty.

Rex drabble
Guest
Rex drabble

I hoped Trump would be different but alas he is just more of the same.It is clear to me that his ego has gotten the better of him.He thinks this is some reality tv show where he will come out on top,he is sadly mistaken.
It has become obvious that in the international arena he is very ill prepared.
The only positive I can see is that he will bring the US down faster than we hoped could happen.

Anne Felippe
Guest
Anne Felippe

I had hopes in Trump which are slowly dimming. I think they are telling him that his polls are up with this pro-war aggressive speech, but it is completely insane……and completely nonsensical. How in the world does trump think the US could ‘destroy NK’ without destroying SK as well, and without China and Russia becoming involved in this, who is advising him to talk like this, obviously someone who doesn’t want him to win in 2020

Rex drabble
Guest
Rex drabble

He is a fool.He has lied to the world about adhering to international law.
America is going down big time,Enough is enough!

Maria M Cummings
Guest
Maria M Cummings

Sergey Lavrov is, without a question, the epitome of what a diplomat should be.
Americans take note. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone in the US that come close to Lavrov. Actually, simply put, there are no diplomats in the US.

Hal Freeman
Guest
Hal Freeman

Well said!

Anne Felippe
Guest
Anne Felippe

I agree, not like the crazy hotheaded niki haley…….

Bevin Chu
Guest

The US today has hatchetmen, not diplomats.

cap960
Guest
cap960

As usual Mr. Lavrov speaking words of wisdom.

Rex drabble
Guest
Rex drabble

Russia is the worlds friend and Mr Lavrov is the best bar none.

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Lavrov is an adult, trump is a spoiled brat with a childs brain in a obese, disgusting body.

seby
Guest
seby

The reality is that a few days ago, the rest of the world and its statesmen had to suffer the embarrassment of listening to the boofhead leader of a military dictatorship.

Anthony Enos Wicher
Guest
Anthony Enos Wicher

This was not primarily a “rebuttal of Trump’s UN speech”. It was primarily a statement of agreement with the principles stated by Trump at the start of his speech about respect for national sovereignty and cooperation between sovereign nations and how this can be implemented at the United Nations. He does not agree with the “rogue nations” belligerent part of the speech, but it seems to me he is focusing more on the positive parts.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Sergey Lavrov – the only adult in the UN room.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

while I agree with you praise for Lavrov, I would include Iran’s and China’s speakers and representatives in that!

Anne Felippe
Guest
Anne Felippe

‘ al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) is “being spared by members of the US led coalition”.’ This is because the US wants to use al-Nusra in their next regime change………

m.Karim
Guest
m.Karim

Sensible pragmatic solution on global situation suggested!

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

“In this sense, Russia and the US have very different ideas of how the world ought to be run. Donald Trump has not changed this, but in many ways, has only served to magnify these differences.”

Super analysis there as this gives nations the pure and honest choices they KNOW they must take NOW: Unipolar (NWO/Zionist-Israel) versus Multi-Polar World (Russia/China) for the survival of sovereign Humanity. Trump is useful in this regard: ripping the curtains wide open to let in the light.

Jo Ann
Guest
Jo Ann

Very important speech…one of many that Lavrov has given in the past. Lavrov is a true diplomat. You do not see Russia and China invading other countries around the world and intervering and conducting covert operations for regime change. No, it is the United States (or rather those who control the United States). It is evident that the Deep State and the Shadow Government is still in control of the United States government, despite what Trump “says” he wants to do. Saying and “doing” are two different things. Trump is controlled by three generals. The Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower… Read more »

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