War Chronicle – Secrets & Lies

War Chronicle 16 Dec 2015

(1) Secrets and Lies: The international affairs issue of moderndiplomacy.eu 13 December 2015; (2) Russia-Turkey relations are slipping into chaos, by Shah Rukh Hashmi; (3) Why is Russia bombing Syria? by Alexey Khlebnikov; (4) Qatar Unplugged, by Ghassan Kadi; (5) Montenegro Not to Forget NATO 1999 Bombings After Accession Invitation; (6) GLADIO:GLOBAL – Gangs and Counter Gangs in Europe, Northern Ireland, Iraq and now in Syria; (7) SYRIA: ‘NATO’s Secret War’ with Russia – What You’re Not Told by the BBC or MPs; (8) Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack; (9) UK Government Prepared War in Syria Two Years Before 2011 Protests; (10) What the New York Times Did Not Tell You About NATO & Montenegro; (11) The Paris Attacks Are Just The Beginning; (12) International military review – Syria-Iraq Battlespace 11 Dec 2015; (13) 16 civilians killed by a terrorist bombing in central Homs city; (14) US “Unofficially” Waging War on Russia Without a Formal “Declaration of War”; (15) U.S. Professor Stephen Cohen in John Batchelor Show; (16) Yemeni Army and Houthis Down the 7th Saudi Naval Vessel; (17) US-Saudi Sponsored Mercenaries in Yemen; Australian mercenary reportedly killed in Yemen clashes; Yemeni Army and Houthis Seize 4 Saudi Villages: Coalition Forces Devastated; (18) Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 1; Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 2; Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 3; Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 4; Sibel Edmonds Answers Your Questions on Gladio B (The War on Terror)



(1) Secrets and Lies: The international affairs issue (of moderndiplomacy.eu) 13 December 2015

Selections from this issue:  Turkey and The Smuggling of Isis Oil; World War Z: Why Russia Fights Daesh Zealots; China’s ‘Pivot’ To The Greater Caspian;  Putting Teeth Into Peace: Making the JCPOA Legitimate;  Unbalanced Balancing: Domestic Support In Iran For The JCPOA;  Additional Considerations On The Iranian Nuclear Power;  Syrians Not Seeking, Syrians Not Welcome.

http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19 (page 10 to page 14)

Turkey and the Smuggling of ISIS Oil


Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York.

According to what disclosed by Russian sources, the fact that Turkey smuggles – on a large scale – oil coming from the Caliphate is – if not certain – highly likely. Al-Baghdadi’s networks have always used the transport routes near the Turkish border where the hydrocarbons – often coming from the Kurdish areas of Kirkuk or Sulemaianiyah – are traded by a network of brokers and intermediaries of various ethnic origins. Furthermore the main oil pipelines are out of order and are also well-known to the Russian, Syrian and Coalition’s air forces.

Some sources say that there are also Western oil companies eager for buying Caliphate’s oil, but it is more likely for the oil of those areas to be admixed or shifted so as to make it impossible to detect and recognize its origin

In fact, on December 2, 2015, the Russian Defence Ministry showed pictures, photos and documents largely proving – according to the Russian political line and storytelling – that there is a “widespread system of oil smuggling between Turkey and the Isis/Daesh’s territories in Syria and Iraq. According to the Russian sources, the routes of the illegal oil smuggling are three: the first going from Syria to the Turkish terminals on the Mediterranean; the second stretching from the deposits in Syrian territory to the Turkish refineries in the city of Batman, a hundred kilometres away from the Syrian border; the third ranging from the Caliphate’s territories up to the Turkish terminal.

(Continue reading this essay at http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19)

Final paragraph of this essay:

Ibrahim Yldirim is the Transport Minister, who has the task of expanding the Turkish large infrastructure, and particularly the route from Beijing to London, which would give to Turkey an extraordinary power vis-à-vis the European Union and Mesopotamia itself. He is a man who had been involved in the great scandal of 2003, but his unshaken loyalty to President Erdogan is the reason for his comeback. Mehmet Simsck, who was appointed Economy Minister, is a Kurdish-Turk and was former Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic and Finance Minister from 2009 to 2015. He, too, comes from Batman and he is an expert of the economy of emerging countries and Europe with the Middle East. He also worked for Merrill Lynch in London, as well as for the German Deutsche-Bender Securities from 1998 to 2000. He had also worked for UBS Securities in New York in 1997. Hence he is a neoliberal technocrat. Berat Albayrak, Erdogan’s son-in-law, was appointed Energy Minister. Albayrak was CEO of Calik Holding, which deals with textiles, energy, construction, finance, logistics and media. He is the cashier and treasurer of President Erdogan’s family. He studied at the London School of Business and at Pace University in New York. He represented Calik in the United States. In short, a government of technocrats linked to an entourage of super loyal aides to the President

http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19 (page 15 to page 20)

Why Russia Fights DAESH Zealots – WORLD WAR Z

BY DR. MATTHEW CROSSTON Senior Editor, Caspian Project Director

Matthew Crosston is Professor of Political Science, Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program, and the Miller Chair at Bellevue University

America has made little progress in Iraq and Syria, something Russia is determined to change apparently. The Obama administration maintains that a lasting political solution requires Assad’s departure, but facing Russian military involvement, Iranian ground troops, Hezbollah military units, many armed jihadist groups, and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the United States confronts a convoluted situation that it seems unable to solve on its own. Because of these seemingly immutable facts, louder voices are demanding that the US basically leaves the ‘Syrian mess’ to the Russians and let it be a de facto ‘Afghanistan Redux.’ More careful consideration, however, reveals that analysis to be misplaced and faulty.

This camp’s basic logic rests on how ‘full-spectrum’ talks would demand the bringing together of so many sworn enemy groups (internal and external) that herding cats would prove more feasible. But there is also sinister realpolitik going along with these arguments: namely, that America should not counter Russian involvement but rather sit back and enjoy watching Russia get sucked into a conflict that might be the only real chance to significantly weaken Putin. While no one should be surprised to hear that major global powers consider their own interests when becoming involved in the conflicts of other states, there is something disturbingly naïve with the above-mentioned arguments: Western commentators have too often brazenly declared across the Middle East and Post-Soviet space Machiavellian strategies in public while still hoping the nobler yet quieter motivations of freedom-enhancement were believed. Alas, they are not. Consequently, it does America no good to ‘hang back’ from Syria while Russia does all the dirty work, hoping the Russian Federation receives a devastating blow to its global power as President Obama talks eloquently about Syrian democracy. The only thing this does in real terms is create an environment of diplomatic insincerity that does far more damage long-term to American legitimacy than the possible advantages of a ‘weakened’ Russian state. On the ground, Russia’s reputation would still be rewarded for making the effort while America and the EU would look rather craven and manipulative.

These are not, however, the most serious errors in strategy. The premise that Russia would get sucked into a Syrian quagmire just as America has in Iraq and Afghanistan misses one very elementary but profound point: Russia is not in Syria to establish ‘freedom and democracy’ for the Syrian people. Rather, it just wants to return the region to a more recognizable status quo where the preferred regime is in place and the potential of radical Islamism seeping into Russia’s southern flanks is markedly reduced. This is what makes the often-heard Western criticism about Russian air strikes hitting not just DAESH strongholds but also well-known rebel areas somewhat odd: Russia has never wavered on its principal position that the key foreign policy element to be handled in Syria is ‘fighting terrorism’. Russia was never interested in seeing the now stagnant‘Arab Spring’reach Damascus. And while it has also freely stated that there is no formal state love or personal preference for keeping Assad in power, Russia does demand that whatever regime is in place needs to be as committed to preventing radical Islamist groups from operating as Assad was

(Continue reading this essay at http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19)

Final 3 paragraphs of this essay:

In the end, the mistake the Western world has made for nearly two decades is that it has drawn up civilizational lines based on geography, political ideology, state/religious boundaries, and even economic strategies. These lines have allowed the world to divide itself into ever-smaller camps, making the civilian undersides of societies ever easier and more susceptible to extremist bloodshed and horror. In this battle Russia feels it should not be seen as the West against the Rest or white against color or the Global North against the Global South. It is about the Modern world fighting the Zealot world.

Until leaders in the West embrace this reality and begin to smash their own self-imposed boundaries of nationalism, statehood, and geostrategy, they will constantly be putting themselves in a limited and exposed position against a radicalized enemy. And scenes like the ones played out in France, Lebanon, and Kenya will only continue. Hope at the moment does not seem bright: already less than two weeks after the Paris attacks and increased pressure from world leaders to consider cooperating in the fight against terrorist zealots, Turkey downed a Russian jet fighter that it claimed did not respond to ‘warnings about crossing into Turkish airspace.’ Worse still, initial reports are that the two pilots successfully ejected from the fighter, only to be shot at while floating to the ground via parachute.

Incidents like this, in the face of a greater common enemy, means the Modern world is not taking the Zealot world as seriously as it needs to. It means that World War Z will continue to be lost.

http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19 (page 20 to page 22)

China’s Pivot to the Greater Caspian


Nenad Drca is a former military trilingual linguist who worked across many nations over eight years. He lived and worked on three continents. This experience gave him a deep appreciation for intelligence community. After graduating with BA in Psychology he returned to work for the US Army as a DOD civilian. He expects to graduate next March with Master of Science in International Security and Intelligence Studies degree.

Due to changes in recent geopolitical events, Russia and China cooperate and coordinate politically, militarily, and economically to an extraordinary degree. This new teamwork almost always carries a tinge of anti-Western and anti-American implications. Russia and China and an assembly of smaller states such as Iran are committed to remove America from its role as sole geopolitical leader in the world. Their collective objective is to capitalize on the lack of an American response to their combined regional and global relevance. The China-Russia Axis now cooperates against American interests in almost every imaginable area. The level of this global cooperation presents a very serious challenge to the global status quo.

The new coordination between China and Russia is not only visible in massive economic agreements that exclude the U.S. dollar but in other areas as well. China has been emulating the Russian strategy of micro-territorial expansion, by claiming various disputed islands in the East and South China Seas. Both nations tend to use their energy resources and other raw materials as strategic leverage in the global economic market. Both Moscow and Beijing have been blamed for large-scale anti-American cyber-warfare, leading to massive intelligence theft and industrial espionage. It is also important to note that China is converting its oil imports into Yuan as opposed to the U.S. dollar and Russia is wholeheartedly behind this maneuver.

This is concerning to America as it is anticipated that China will soon assume the role of the world’s biggest oil importer along with its recent achievement of making the Yuan a world reserve currency. Both Russia and Iran are now using Yuan instead of the U.S. dollar for all oil sales with China. This mutual economic geostrategy is what holds China and Russia together most of all. Their bilateral trade rose to $95 billion in 2014. While the trade numbers are impressive, the reality is that China cannot ignore the fact that U.S. is its top trading partner while the E.U. is (the top trading partner) for Russia. At this time China cannot afford to sacrifice or isolate the lucrative U.S. market entirely. And while the United States is aware of this“axis of convenience” between Russia and China, the primary task ahead for the U.S. is to determine how to reset its relationship with both China and Russia before it is too late. If the current economic geostrategy is not stopped by 2040, then China’s GDP could be 40% of world GDP.

In addition to Russia, China and Iran have negotiated ways to cooperate on civilian nuclear power as well as increasing their mutual oil business interests. It is clear that China is achieving its goal of having Middle East countries turn to Beijing for economic benefits, weapons trade, and technology. In its fight against the American “Pivot to Asia,” China has turned out to be a skilled and capable negotiator. Maybe that aspect of Beijing’s skill set was underestimated by the policymakers in Washington.

While the United States worked diligently to convince allies against supporting Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), China has managed to successfully convince many American allies to support it. The Chinese were proud to announce that not only did American allies like the United Kingdom, France, and Germany sign up as founding members, but Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates did as well. The final insult was the announcement of Iranian membership. That took place while the United States was trying to apply financial pressure on Iran during the final details of the JCPOA. While the Middle East’s pivot to Asia is being positively reciprocated by the Chinese, that itself does not mean that Beijing wants to take on the exact role of the United States in the Middle East. China is not seeking the active role of ‘world cop’ in Middle East conflicts. China would prefer influence by proxy than openly and directly. The risk is easier to estimate and domestic backlash would not be as severe. Beijing has generally avoided the application of hard power thus far in its current era of ascendancy. With the counterstrategy to America’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, it is becoming clear that Beijing understands the true potential of soft power. All of these maneuvers undermine America’s traditional role as global leverager. The conflict in Syria is a perfect illustration.

The United States is trying to engage in very demanding diplomatic talks which include the foreign ministers of Russia and Iran, firm supporters of Assad, and nations such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are opposed to the Syrian regime. It is too early to predict the long-term success rate of these current diplomatic negotiations. The weakness of current diplomatic talks is that they did not produce any agreements to establish areas of collaboration in the air campaigns or to share intelligence or target information in Syria. This lack of military and diplomatic cooperation between Russia and the United States is pushing both sides to resort to the Cold War-style tactics of political agitation and proxy war.

Any potential alignment with Russia could also imply cooperation with Iraq via proxy and that could ostracize Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait. The United States is walking a fine line by attempting to court multiple sides while ensuring certain relationships do not escalate into something much worse than the current status quo. It is difficult to wage war when allies do not agree on the enemy. It is even more difficult when the allies are allies only on the particular conflict in question but are in fact adversaries in many other areas of geostrategy. This article illustrates the complexity and difficulty faced by the United States today, as opportunities to cooperate in one arena are off-set by bigger worries in others. Russia may seek American cooperation in Syria, but is actively working with China to weaken American financial dominance in the global market. America may need positive Chinese relations because of extensive trade and debt holdings, but it also has to make note China’s increasing maneuvers with clear adversaries Russia and Iran. Thus any analysis of the global economic market has to consider Syria, while Syrian analyses have to understand the ebb and flow of Asian capital markets. It is indeed a strange new world of war we live in.

http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19 (page 22 to page 27)

Making the JCPOA Legitimate – Putting teeth Into Peace


Aaron Good is presently a graduate student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program at Bellevue University in Omaha, Nebraska, USA. He is currently employed by the US Department of Justice.

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed on July 14, 2015, a fierce debate has ensued within the United States. While the agreement is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it remains the best option currently available to the U.S. and other world powers to address Iran’s growing nuclear threat. Despite its shortcomings, the deal provides the opportunity for the U.S. to make an essential security impact on the Middle East while potentially improving worldwide relations with Iran.

(Continue reading this essay at http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19)

Here are the final 2 paragraphs of this essay:

(RB’s comment: No mention in this article of Israel’s desire to see the U.S. at war with Iran! But Israeli negotiators with the US should be happy with the hint in the conclusion below that the US would be prepared “to take military action if Iran violates the terms of these agreements”. All Israel will need to do to bring that about US military action against Iran is a false flag event that seems to prove that Iran violated the terms of these agreements! “Engaging threats through multilateral institutions remains the best option, but the U.S. cannot afford to hesitate to use force if diplomacy fails.”)

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent President Obama a letter outlining its support for a strengthened MOU with Israel. Michael Bennet, the ranking member of the committee correctly determined, “These measures are necessary to deter conventional and asymmetric threats to Israel. We also support providing missile defense funding, as necessary and appropriate, to accelerate the co-development of missile defense systems, and increased bilateral cooperation on cyber, intelligence, and research and development for tunnel detection and mapping technologies.” The measures outlined in this letter to President Obama are precisely the kind of enhancements thatshould be added to the MOU. These revisions will give Israel the military assurance that it requires to embrace the JCPOA, while effectively deterring Iran from escalating the regional rivalry. The JCPOA has the potential to supply the world with a promising future, but only if the policies outlined above are adopted. All of these policies are moot, however, if the U.S. does not have the fortitude to take military action if Iran violates the terms of these agreements. Engaging threats through multilateral institutions remains the best option, but the U.S. cannot afford to hesitate to use force if diplomacy fails. For now, the JCPOA is proof that the U.S. has embraced diplomatic options with both its allies and enemies in order to enhance world unity and security. By strictly enforcing the JCPOA, strengthening nuclear treaties, and endorsing Israel’s security, the U.S. can help to assure that the JCPOA is as effective as the world hopes that it will be.


Page 28 to page 35 offer 2 more articles on the JCPOA:

Domestic Support in Iran for the JCPOA – Unbalanced Balance


Sara Dyson is a graduate student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program at Bellevue University in Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

Additional Considerations on the Iranian Nuclear Power


Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York.

http://issuu.com/mdiplomacy/docs/caspianproject19 (page 36 to page 40)

Syrian Not Seeking, Syrians Not Welcome


Troy Baxter is currently a Master’s Student in Bellevue University’s International Security and Intelligence Studies Program in Omaha, Nebraska. He received his Honours Degree in Criminal Justice and Public Policy from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada in 2013.

The primary point of interest here is why Syrians are fleeing their nation and where they are going. The primary reason they are fleeing is relatively obvious: Syria is currently being torn apart by war and its citizens want to be free of the violence, destruction and general unrest. But with increased pressure being placed on western states to accept a larger number of refugees, a secondary reason now also exists.

There is a segment of the population fleeing in the hopes of upgrading their quality of life …

(OK, I’ll leave the rest of the journal for you to investigate further if you like. It looks to me like Troy Baxter has overlooked a few very important reasons why Syrians might be fleeing to the West: the terror from Jihadists destroying and murdering the population of innumerable villages, towns and cities who are not of suitable jihadi material; the chance for jihadists to be welcomed and integrated as sleeper cells into the heart of the West; Syrians with blood on their hands that would not fare well by surrendering to the advancing Syrian Arab Army; and I guess the reader can think of more.)


(2) Russia-Turkey relations are slipping into chaos


Written 11 Dec 2015, by Shah Rukh Hashmi, published 14 December 2015

A confrontation between Russia and a NATO member once seemed unthinkable. But the Syrian conflict threatens to drag in regional actors in ways that were not originally foreseen.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned that cruise missiles “equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads” might be used in the confrontation with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS) – a warning that was immediately seized upon by the Western media that the nuclear option was on the table in the Middle East.

On the top of that, on Dec. 11 Putin ordered Russia’s army to be as tough as possible in Syria and destroy everything that threatens Russia’s Armed Forces in the Middle East, because the terrorism in Syria is the direct threat to Russia, according to him. However, his order seems to be very ambiguous, with no clarity who might pose the threat to Russia’s armed forces in Syria: terrorists or those countries who might down another Russian jet like it was in the case of Turkey.

Russia-Turkey brawl is going on

These warnings come against a deteriorating situation in the region triggered by tensions between Russia and Turkey. Russia recently imposed economic sanctions on Turkey and brought its visa regime for the country to an end. Both measures are outcomes of the accelerated momentum generated by the incident of the Russian Su-24 jet shot down by a Turkish F-16.

The Russian president earlier referred to the incident as a “stab in the back” committed by “accomplices of terrorists,” while the Turks justified their action by emphasizing the claim that the plane was engaged in communication and had neglected several warnings before it was shot down. The incident attracted massive attention, staggered the geopolitical panorama and appeared to be an exclusive example of confrontation between Russia and a member of NATO in the post-Cold War era.

Despite centuries of antagonism and adversarial engagement, Ankara and Moscow succeeded in forging cooperative bilateral relations in recent times. Nevertheless, the shoot-down of the Russian plane shifted the pragmatic engagement into an uncertain pattern once again.

Putting the current confrontation into context, more than three million annual Russian tourists to Turkey could be seeking alternate destinations now, as Russian tour operators have already closed routes to Turkey. The rapidly expanding numbers of restaurants that are serving Turkish cuisine in Moscow are also more likely to be boycotted. Economic sanctions are usually considered less effective, yet it is evident that the ambitious goal of enhancing bilateral trade up to $100 billion by 2023 is out of the question and current trade at a level of $30 billion will be hampered also.

Why Turkey is defiant toward Russia

It’s important to assess why Turkey risked its embryonic relationship with the Kremlin and what might be the motives of Ankara for such maneuvering against a state that is potentially capable of responding firmly.

Back in September, after failing to reach a consensus in the annual session of the United Nations, Russia unilaterally decided to attack, hunt down and dismantle the network of ISIS terrorist groups and rebels fighting Assad’s regime. The move generated a debate in the West: The United States had failed to keep the promises and pledges which were made in its capacity as a global power.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt evacuated the Persian Gulf. Indeed, it was obvious for the allies of the U.S. to be alarmed by the huge military presence of its historical rival – Russia – in the region at a time when the U.S was backing away from the front.

At first, Russia had succeeded in garnering public opinion to its favor as a liberator and peace guarantor in the Middle East. Secondly, the conflict in Syria took the crisis in Ukraine out of the global spotlight and changed the course of action towards the Middle East and Syria, in particular.

The millions of refugees from Ukraine are given little or perhaps no attention because the Syrian refugees have become one of the biggest global issues of contemporary times. The West seems to have adopted a neo-appeasement policy and this choice leads them to ignore the Russian territorial expansion and the annexing of the Crimean peninsula, an event that appears to have fallen by the wayside.

Earlier, when strikes were initiated by Russia to consolidate Assad’s regime and root out rebels, there were several intrusions into Turkish airspace. Ankara not only called upon the NATO council but also summoned the Russian ambassador to Ankara for these violations. The council condemned the intrusions and pointed out that such mistakes could ignite a regional war as the effects of these actions spill into neighboring countries.

Additionally, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave Moscow an ultimatum, stating that if Russia prefers hostility and an adverse relationship with Ankara, the Kremlin would suffer a great loss, adding that any further violations in the future could result in engagement with NATO.

The situation was seen, primarily as either a scuffle between Assad’s regime and groups involved in the Syrian territory or between the U.S. and Russia. At the same time, Turkey and France, having historically larger stakes and a greater impact in the region, were ignored. The Levant – the geographical landmass of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, Palestine and northwest Iraq – remained under Ottoman suzerainty prior to World War I, followed by French control as mandate systems in the post-war settlement. To reiterate, it was Tsar Nicholas I of Russia who referred to the Ottoman Empire as “the sick man of Europe” in 1853 and sought territorial expansion at the cost of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, opening another front in Syria has ignited tensions and fed apprehensions in Ankara, which felt marginalized.

Considering Turkey’s stance in the immediate vicinity and Syria’s as well, the physical positioning of Russian ground and air presence is open to concerns in Ankara. This shifted the balance against Turkey; additionally, the terrorist mayhem in Paris allowed the French to jump in.

Although France and Turkey are both members of NATO, the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century have witnessed great power politics in the territories of the Levant. The actors in that game were none other than Russia, France and Turkey, yet with a different form of statehood – as imperial Tsarist, French and Ottoman powers.

France is striking ISIS in the aftermath of the Paris carnage and bombed the Syrian city of Raqqa two days after the attack on French soil. Reportedly, this was France’s most aggressive strike against ISIS yet. There were possibilities to initiate collaboration amongst the air forces of France, Russia and the United States to dismantle and destroy bases held by ISIS and other rebels.

Such possibilities could have been ignored in the event President Hollande of France hadn’t declared “universal war” against an “army of terrorists.” Alternatively, having an identical enemy in the Turkish neighborhood, Russia and France were more likely to cooperate, while Ankara felt nervous apprehension.

In such an environment, Turkey responded firmly and shot down a military aircraft. Otherwise, it was inevitable that a deeper incursion in Turkish airspace would be made under the excuse of the hot pursuit of rebels and ISIS terrorist groups. Ankara needs the engagement of NATO to sustain the enormous pressure from the Kremlin to normalize the situation.

Slipping into chaos?

However, the newly announced installment of S-400 missiles at the Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, Syria, could cause more unrest and panic in Ankara. Yet, the U.S. Air Force Central Command states its firm and determined position to continue air strikes regardless of the changing scenario. By mid-December, the Persian Gulf will host the carrier USS Truman and four of its escort ships; thus the U.S. presence with a larger fleet will reposition the balance of power.

In any case, an extended war in the region would be lethal, and escalations could flare up in the Near East. Nevertheless, the chances of such an escalation and ignition of a larger war in the region are fairly low. Diplomacy and engagement are the best modus operandi to end up with a stable and lasting solution. In the mutual contest for a zone of imperial influence, Russia had enjoyed greater leverage over Turkey.

This is an undeniable truth of contemporary politics in the Near East also. Multiple actors and their respective interests have to be analyzed and the legitimate concerns of Turkey must not be ignored either by Russia or the coalition forces of the West. In a similar way, there are the apprehensions and reservations from Russia and the West towards Ankara.

Ankara and Moscow must take advantage of any future scenario and negotiate their differences at the diplomatic table, since restraining from diplomatic solutions is hazardous for both parties. The disintegration of Yugoslavia produced a matrix that was uncontrollable and had devastating effects by mushrooming conflicts within conflicts. The same is the case in the territories of the Levant: multiple actors are involved with multi-dimensional links (ethnic, racial and religious). Careful assessment of the conflict is required; otherwise, the ISIS quagmire can encircle the region in violence and conflict.

The opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect the position of Russia Direct or its staff.


(3) Why is Russia bombing Syria?  


               Written on 10 Dec 2015, by Alexey Khlebnikov

Simplification of what’s at stake in Syria and an underestimation of facts such as the growing terrorist threat from the region hinders the West from understanding the real reasons why Russia launched its air campaign in Syria.

Since the very start of the Russian air campaign in Syria, most of the world is still trying to decode the rationale behind Kremlin’s move, the reasons that led to such a decision and the factors that influenced the sequence of events and the outcome.

As Russia and the U.S. are the two key players in the Syrian conflict, it’s important for American pundits, journalists and politicians to understand why Russia made such a move in Syria.

In a recent review of the situation in Syria, Stephen Sestanovich, ex-ambassador and a senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations, explains the three main factors that, according to him, played the key role in defining Russia’s rationale behind the increased involvement in Syria:

  1. Russia’s military ramp-up;
  2. The support that Moscow enjoys from the Syrian Army, Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah on the ground;
  3. The U.S.-led coalition’s disunity on how to deal with the Syrian crisis.

In general, Sestanovich is right about these factors, although these factors alone cannot explain why Russia increased its involvement in Syria. He is also missing several very important points, which cannot be ignored or underestimated.

  1. The growing terrorist threat from the region

Sestanovich does not mention at all the terrorist threat that emanates from the jihadists in Syria. Unfortunately, the majority of the U.S. media and think tanks mainly talk just about two groups: the Islamic Sate of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS) and the “moderate” rebels.

For the first weeks of the Russian airstrikes, major U.S. media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post, used Syrian maps where only ISIS-held areas were depicted along with those held by Syrian official forces, the Kurds and the rebels (e.g. the Free Syrian Army). Such simplification totally avoids the mentioning of other terrorist groups such as the notorious Jabhat an-Nusra, Jaysh al-Fatah, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Ansar al-Sham, etc.

Such a narrative easily created a simplified vision of the conflict in which ISIS is the only terrorist force and the term “rebels” or Free Syrian Army describe all moderates.

It is at least not pragmatic to simplify the division between “moderate” rebels and terrorists in such a way. Syria has long before these months become a magnet for all sorts of extremists from over the globe. This ultimately led to the creation and rise of a large number of terrorist groups and formations.

Russia views the rise of the terrorist threat from the region in a very pragmatic way. Russia cares about domestic stability and internal Muslims unity. Russia considers all jihadist fighters in Syria and Iraq as potential militants, as agents who will further infiltrate into Russia’s Caucasus, Central Volga region (where a large Muslim populations resides) and to the Central Asian republics. Ultimately, they will pose a direct threat to the security of the state. According to Russia’s security services, there are estimated to be more that 2,000 Russians fighting in Syria for ISIS or other terrorist formations. This creates quite a large risk and justifies raising these kinds of concerns.

  1. The absence of any real force on the ground to combat the terrorists

In his review, Sestanovich also does not mention the absolutely fragmented Syrian moderate opposition, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In the words of the former U.S. intelligence chief David Petraeus, the “moderates” had collapsed long ago and currently there is no strong and united force in Syria except the Syrian Army and theKurds that can resist ISIS. Even people inside Syria are very skeptical about the Free Syrian Army and say that, as a uniting structure for rebels, it is simply not viable.

These two above-mentioned factors create huge risks. The first risk is the spread of terrorism in the region and outside of the region to Europe, Russia and Central Asia. The second risk is the absence of any solid and rigid force on the ground to fight the terrorists – with the exception of the Syrian Arab Army and the Syrian Kurds (who actually did not confront Assad and are supported by the U.S.).

This created the situation where the balance of power started to tilt towards the terrorists. It created a risk that the Syrian government and all state institutions together with the Syrian Army could be overrun by the terrorists, which would have led to the total collapse of the state and further destabilization of the region for years to come. This is because a feasible force to replace or fill the “vacuum” after regime change did not exist and does not exist.

It is important to coordinate with the Syrian Army and Kurds militia to fight ISIS. The absence of such coordination is one of the reasons of the low productivity of the U.S.-led coalition strikes against terrorists. Therefore, these two factors seriously affected Russia’s decision to raise the stakes of its involvement in Syria.

  1. The tacit support of the U.S. for Russian airstrikes

Further in the review, Sestanovich misses U.S. and regional actors’ tacit approval of the Russian air campaign. In fact, there was no direct mention of disapproval of Russian involvement. The mere fact that Putin met with U.S. President Obama on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session (along with numerous other Western and Middle East leaders) just two days before Moscow started its air campaign in Syria suggests that two leaders definitely discussed that very possibility and the U.S. gave its tacit approval for such move.

After Sept. 30, when the first Russian bombs hit their targets, the U.S. official position was very soft: it did not harshly criticize Moscow and it did not call for an immediate halt of the campaign. Moreover, Moscow already established direct coordination in the Syrian skies with Israelis, Turks and Jordanians, who are the allies of the U.S. in the region.

Moreover, it must not be ignored that during the summer before the airstrikes started, Russia undertook an unprecedented diplomatic “surge.” It hosted heads of states (in addition to Foreign Ministers and Ministers of Defense) of almost every regional country (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.), and held numerous talks on the level of foreign minister with every country involved in the conflict (U.S., France, Germany, UK). This indicates that Russia kept contact with every state actor involved in the Syrian crisis and communicated its ideas and plans.

So, all these reports that Russia’s airstrikes took everyone by surprise have no factual basis. Certainly, the factors outlined by Sestanovich should be taken into account and should be monitored; however, ignoring or underestimating the above mentioned factors hinders a true understanding of the reasons behind Russia’s Syria air campaign.


(4) Qatar Unplugged                             http://thesaker.is/qatar-unplugged/ 

by Ghassan Kadi, 14 December 2015

When Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, its population was a meagre 100,000. Fifty years or so later, its population has ballooned to nearly 2.2 million, but only 275,000 are actual Qataris. The rest are not migrants, they are not going to be integrated in the population as fully fledged citizens, they are simply hired expats on contracts, performing different tasks, and when they finish their work, they return to their homes.

In the few centuries leading up to its independence, successive Qatari emirs have engaged in fierce battles with rulers of Bahrain and the Wahhabis of Najd (to become later on Saudi Arabia). The Al-Thani family took the throne by the mid nineteenth century, and they continue to do so today.

The peninsula that was marred by regional and tribal conflict was otherwise a quaint pearling centre until oil was discovered in the 1930’s.

When the British declared Qatar as a protectorate, a reciprocal deal was struck between the Qatari rulers and the British, in which Britain wanted to secure safe trade routes whilst the Qataris needed protection from their neighbours and rivals.

The new-found oil wealth might have reduced the need of those warring tribes to continue fighting over limited resources, but their rivalries and hatred towards each other did not go away. As a matter of fact, Qatar refused to join the United Arab Emirates and chose independence instead.

The seemingly united Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in reality a consortium of ancient enemies who were brought together by common fear over their wealth from would-be invaders. Certainly, over and above their fear of each other, they also fear Iran and this fear goes back to the days of the Shah and beyond, and it is much deeper than a sheer sectarian Sunni-Shiite hatred.

Security has always been a Qatari obsession, and it doesn’t take much research effort to read about the many military conflicts that the Qataris have had with their neighbours. It’s a long story of deception, treachery, distrust, invasions and pillaging. And what is interesting is to note that historically speaking, the Qatari rulers had no qualms seeking protection from friends afar against their local neighbours.

But why would a country, which has never been a true state in its own right till very recently, a so-called nation that has a population that is no bigger than that of a single district of Damascus, Aleppo or Baghdad, why would such a tiny insignificant entity want to be a regional leader? And why would it be so adamant about using Islamist Jihadists to destroy much older and bigger states like Iraq, Libya and Syria?

The more one looks into what Qatar is doing, the question of why it is doing so become less significant. The question changes from why is Qatar doing what it is doing to the question of what Qatar really is.

Qatar is not a nation. It does not have the foundations of a nation. Qatar is not even a state when it has the population of a municipality, and it is definitely not a regional leader.

Qatar ought to be seen for what it is. Qatar is simply a very big and rich company. It is not any different from Shell Oil or BP, with the single difference that it has a UN-given mandate that gives it a seat as a UN member and the legitimacy that comes with it, something that private corporations do not have.

This is on the political scene. On the military scene, Qatar is a much more sinister “company”. In this respect, it is not a Western partner, a colony, a vassal state, an agent state or an ally in strategic military alliance.

Qatar is simply an outpost, a precinct, but not for America as first comes to one’s mind.

The rise of Blackwater Security Company to prominence, a couple of decades ago, raised some eyebrows about the nature of future reliance of rich states on hired security. Qatar most certainly depends on the USA for its defence, just like historically it has depended on Britain. Strategically, it has reciprocated favours with the American “Big Brother” when it offered its soil as a base to launch the attacks on Saddam.

Geopolitically, Qatar has played a big role serving the interests of the same “Big Brother” in Syria. It spent billions on munitions to supply Al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations within Syria. Speaking of Syria, one should not forget the huge role that Qatar played in Libya against Gaddafi.

In both Libya and Syria, the role of Qatar was not restricted to financing revolts, but Qatar has also contributed significantly to the propaganda campaign, using its elaborate Al-Jazeera network to ramp up public anger against both Gaddafi and Assad.

Al-Jazeera has gone to the extent of staging events in Hollywood style productions, creating backgrounds that are similar to iconic places in major Syrian towns and filming scenes of actors dressed up in Syrian Army uniforms performing massacres against civilians.

So once again, how and why would such a small “nation” be so adamant on destroying Syria?

And here’s another big question. America has a major ally in the Arabian Peninsula, and this ally is Saudi Arabia, so why does America need another major ally in the same region? Convenience can be an answer to some situations. For example, when the US needed a base on the ground to attack Iraq, it couldn’t have used Saudi soil (being Muslim holy ground) without angering the Muslim street to an extreme, so Qatar was a handy religiously-neutral ground. By why does the US need Qatar in the fight against Syria? And why would America continue to intimidate its Saudi friends by appeasing their Qatari rivals?

A closer analysis clearly shows that Saudi and Qatari policies in Syria have had many congruencies, but some stark differences as well. In Egypt, The Qataris supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi and the Saudis did not. In as much that they both sponsored all terrorist organizations, Saudi Arabia primarily backed the “Free Syria Army” (FSA), The Army of Islam and other minor organizations, whilst Qatar was the main backer of Al-Nusra Front and what later became ISIS.

The polarization of Qatar with Turkey forming an MB-based front against Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi-Salafist front became more obvious when Qatar absconded and refused to attend GCC meetings. Needless to say that the major leadership rival for Saudi Arabia is the Sunni Turkey, not the Shiite Iran.

What is least obvious behind the Turkish-backed support of Qatar is the silent partner; Israel. Now, after the downing of the Su-24, Erdogan wants to build a military base in Qatar. How odd indeed? Why does Turkey need a base in Qatar? And how would America allow having a non-American base in Qatar?

Perhaps the question becomes easier to answer if we ask it in a different manner; if we ask who is it that really needs a military base in Qatar? Again, the only non-Qatari party that would love to have a base in Qatar is none but Israel.

It is easy to allow imagination to fly and go astray, but given the American-Iranian nuclear deal, any Israeli attack on Iran needs a launch pad that is close enough to Tehran, and you cannot get much closer than Qatar. Is the proposed Turkish base in Qatar going to be a disguised Israeli base? This is not a far-fetched speculation.

The relationship between Qatar and Israel is weird, unique, and perhaps the first of its kind. Qatar is not hiring Israel for a fee per se. Israel is protecting the “company” of Qatar and using its UN state membership status to legitimize actions that can only be sanctioned by states; a new type of warfare that not even Blackwater is capable of doing.

Qatar is neither a nation nor a state. It is a major corporation like Haliburton. It has a UN-given guise of a state, but it is a corporation that seeks survival and in doing so, it has contracted its security to Israel. Strategically and geopolitically, Qatar is an extension of Israel in the Gulf, an Israeli outpost and precinct. Its aspirations for regional leadership are just a façade created to hide its actual substance and to mislead observers from what it really is.

A clan with 200,000 subjects who need 2 million foreign expats to look after them, ten expats for each national, in order to make sure that water and hospitals are running, there is food on the supermarket shelves, and teachers are there to teach their children, is not by any measure a regional leader, a self-respecting nation, let alone a nation. A tribe is perhaps a good description of Qatar, but the word “company” hits the nail on the head.

The Al-Thani clan, the owners of the “company” aka Qatar, have gone the full circle. They are back on the track of their treacherous predecessors who were prepared to sign off to the devil in order to guarantee their security. This is exactly what the current Qatari royals are doing with Israel, and the best protection Qatar can get from Israel is by covertly striking a deal with Israel in which Qatar is rendered a military Israeli outpost.

Every other action Qatar does that is not directly related to its security, is simply a cover up and a diversion.


(5) Montenegro Not to Forget NATO 1999 Bombings After Accession Invitation

14-Dec-2015  Ru Travel Media (https://www.facebook.com/RuTravel):

After Montenegro received an invitation to join NATO, protests and rallies have intensified nationwide. The population requires social and economic reforms, resignation of the government headed by Milo Djukanovic, refusal of integration into NATO, and holding a referendum on the issue.

Meanwhile, Montenegrin authorities ignore the demands of the people, harshly beating protesters, dispersing their campsites and arresting opposition leaders. Djukanovic accuses Moscow of spreading discontent and continues his way toward NATO. Any initiatives to resolve the crisis in the country and discuss the issue of joining NATO are suppressed as Montenegrin elite understands that holding a referendum would obviously become a failure for this initiative.

According to the Constitution, Montenegro is a democratic state, but what kind of democracy are we talking about when the will of the people is suppressed in every way? Besides, Djukanovic, who has been ruling the country for 25 years, also does not fit the Western model of “democratic rotation” of the government. This is not to mention the fact that the deprivation of the rights of Montenegrins to decide their political future violates the basic democratic principles of international law.

Despite the fact that 80% of the population strongly oppose the accession of Montenegro into NATO, the government does not intend to consider the prospect of organizing a referendum. The only possibility of public discussion of the country’s eventual membership in the alliance is a vote in the Parliament of Montenegro, which on September 16 had shown that Montenegrins have virtually no hope of being heard. Clan-related system does not allow opposition to ensure the make a decision that is in the interests of the people.

The Parliament of Montenegro has full authority to determine whether a country needs NATO membership. Realizing its impunity, the government neglects the principles of respecting human rights and in general public opinion becomes “the only legitimate source of power.”

Meanwhile, anxiety of Montenegrin rulers and attempts to settle the problem as soon as possible, bypassing the people, are caused by upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for spring 2016. In this case, vox populi can dramatically change the balance of political forces in the country, and people who are tired of stagnation, and misguided expectations will no longer entrust their present and future to the Western puppets.


Former President of Montenegro: the apologies of NATO will not forget the bombings

The invitation of montenegro to nato should not make us forget the bombing of the Atlantic Alliance of 1999, said on Saturday, the former President of the country in 1990-1998, at the time it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, momir.

“citizens ( Montenegro ) should not remain silent in the face of the invitation to NATO, which in 1999 attacked Yugoslavia, bombs fell also on montenegro; you can’t undo it with apologies”, Sentenced Bulatovic, quoted by the chain tvcg, at a rally against the country’s income in the organization.

According to the old montenegrin leader, the alliance invited the Balkan Country to be his member only to “have more soldiers against Russia”

The Center of podgorica was Saturday stage of a protest by the entry into NATO, which brought together, according to local media, some 5.000 people, including leaders of the opposition.

The Past 2th of December, the heads of diplomacy of NATO was invited to montenegro to begin negotiations on their membership in the alliance, that will last about two and a half years.

The authorities of the country, and in particular the Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, catalogued this invitation as a historical fact, while opposition leaders call for a referendum on the subject.


Montenegro Not to Forget NATO 1999 Bombings After Accession Invitation
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151213/1031669335/nato-montenegro-bombings.html#ixzz3uYLvFVaq


(6) GLADIO:GLOBAL – Gangs and Counter Gangs in Europe, Northern Ireland, Iraq and now in Syria                                        14 Dec 2015


“General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, a former commander-in-chief of NATO forces in northern Europe said…that a covert intelligence service was set up in Italy with the help of British agents and the CIA – which also partly funded it. The Italian branch of the network was known as Operation Gladio.” – Richard Norton Taylor, Guardian, 15/11/90

“Gladio was … set up with British help in the 1950’s, operated by the secret services and partly financed by the United States CIA.” – Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian, 16/11/90

To understand today’s geopolitical chaos, we must first understand the methods of instability used by the state, both at home and abroad…

The website Aangirfan describes a asymmetric counter intelligence operation – originally designed as a “stay behind operation” for defending a country, but later turned back in on itself and unleashed to terrorize the ‘Homeland’ (Europe, North America) as a means of manipulating political, social and military outcomes, defense spending – at home. This is not a conspiracy theory – it’s historical fact.

Is this operation still active today? Looking at events at home and away, it certainly looks like it. Once perfected, this covert paramilitary operation can be deployed abroad as a way of destroying a city, country or region, from within:

“The idea of the ‘pseudo gang’ is to murder innocent civilians and then blame the murders on the people that the military wants to discredit.”

“The pseudo gang works for the military but pretends to be a bunch of terrorists.”

In addition to the French, Belgium and Italian branches of Operation GLADIO, there is also the rarely mentioned British contingent – GLADIO’s key component, which seems to be international in scope – bringing GLADIO into a global context. Aangirfan adds here:

“UK Police are being given more powerful guns and extra training to prepare for a possible Mumbai-style terror attack in Britain.

Security chiefs are staging a series of terrorism exercises with police sharpshooters training alongside units of the notorious Special Air Services (SAS). Apparently, the development follows the discovery, in September 2010, of a credible ‘CIA-NATO Gladio-style’ false flag plot.

The SAS have been accused of training ‘terrorists’. Britain’s SAS (Special Air Services) trained the Khmer Rouge. The British Special Air Services (SAS) firm Keenie Meenie Services reportedly trained the Tamil Tigers. (Southern India, Sri Lanka terrorist groups). The SAS trained bin Laden’s Mujahedin fighters in Scotland.”

How is this related to ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria? This depends on whether or not you are willing to join these dots. How much training have the SAS been giving to Jihadist terrorists in Jordan and Turkey?

Listen to this conversation between British radio host Tony Gosling and 21WIRE’s Patrick Henningsen, as they discuss the Paris Attacks, Syria, GLADIO and the recent false flag in San Bernardino, CA. Listen: https://soundcloud.com/21wire/dialectterror-tony-gosling-speaks-to-patrick-henningsen

Patrick Henningsen is the founder of 21st Century Wire a small news service which started as a blog but has begun punching above its weight as a critic of the views we see in the mainstream press. He talks about the geopolitics of the Syria conflict, about the role of Turkey’s president Erdogan and the true aims of the Syria conflict in the NATO countries. Also the possibility of an EU army supplanting the role of an increasingly discredited NATO alliance.

Patrick also talks about the so-called Gladio II attacks in Europe and North America – both the Paris Attacks and San Bernadino shootings look to have been orchestrated by police, secret services and other authorities, possibly with special forces or private military help and not to have been organised by Middle Eastern or Muslim powers at all.

More at: www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/84143

We look at this as a successful, tried and true method of divide and conquer – with fingerprints left all over the world during the 20th and 21st centuries in places like Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Belgium, the Philippines, Kenya, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Columbia, London, Madrid, Los Angeles, New York and later in Iraq, Libya, the Ukraine and now in Syria, and many other places still.

Episode #113 of the SUNDAY WIRE heard host Patrick Henningsen in an incredible in-depth discussion with Irish writer and political affairs analyst Gearóid Ó Colmáin, as they delved into this hidden world of secret wars, gangs and counter-gangs, as outlined in the seminal book on this subject, written by British General Frank Kitson, entitled “Gangs and Counter Gangs“. It’s a near playbook and instruction manual for inducing instability.

In terms of today’s devastating terrorist conclave presently based in Syria and Turkey, readers should note that GLADIO’s ‘stay behind operation’ also laid stakes down in Turkey. When considering the sheer number of rival jihadist and ‘rebel’ gangs, and counter gangs operating in this region right now, it’s not difficult to recognize a common design to this all too familiar mayhem, as well as its real architects.Aangirfan adds:

On 30 January 2010, we learn that NATO generals devised Operation Cage (Cage probe deepens with Poyrazköy indictment) which included the idea of detonating explosives during school field trips to military museums in Turkey. The intention was to kill lots of kids.

The UK’s General Frank Kitson reportedly developed the idea of the ‘pseudo gang’ (General Frank Kitson: Trail Blazing Fake Terrorism).

It happened in Belgium.

In 1984, a squad of US Marines was parachuted into Belgium, and met by a member of the Belgian military intelligence (NATO, Gladio and the strategy of tension. N.A.T.O stay behind).They hid for a fortnight before attacking the police station in Vielsalm. Weapons and ammunition were stolen. A Belgian police officer was murdered.

In 1991, a Belgian Senate investigation proved that this attack was the work of the American and Belgian military.

Further attacks took place in Belgium. More arms and ammunition were stolen in these attacks. This stolen weaponry was handed over to fascist groups. Around this time in Belgium, extremists were carrying out the so-called Brabant Massacres [http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/3303]. These were a group of attacks over a period of two years.”

Groups of armed men would burst into restaurants and supermarkets and start shooting.

Here is a clip from an older documentary on Operation GLADIO, detailing the Brabant Massacres. The testimony is truly terrifying, and yet, this was planned and executed by western intelligence services in concert with criminals for hire, organized crime syndicates – against western citizens. Watch:


Listen to this brilliant interview with author Daniele Ganser, who documented the terrorist activities of the security services through GLADIO in his book, “NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.” What Ganser is describing seems to be exactly what’s been deployed on the ground not only in Paris, but in Syria too, taking the form of al Qaeda ‘Rebels”, ISIS and the like. Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coIJWITJWCs


(7) SYRIA: ‘NATO’s Secret War’ with Russia – What You’re Not Told by the BBC or MPs         13 Dec 2015 http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/gladio/

How poor is the mainstream media and political discourse from reality? After listening to British MPs last week, each making up their own fictional account of how they imagine facts on the ground in Syria – and with zero challenge from media Quislings at the BBC and Britain neutered newspaper sector – we’d say that things are pretty bad indeed.

British radio host and journalist Tony Gosling pulls together an excellent round table discussion this week on the subject…

Investigative reports: Interview with Mehrnaz Shahabi, an Iranian Bristolian, on Syria: Roland Dumas and his claim the British started the Syrian civil war on French TV, Wikileaks documents, and regime change in Syria – witnesses in Syria say Jihadis in crowd at early demonstrations were shooting at demonstrators and police. Interview with Dan Glazebrook, author of ‘Divide and Ruin, about Syria: insertion of extremists funded and trained by West; targeting of Assad; so-called moderate rebels; Frank Field MP – ISIS given free hand as long as fighting Assad; Strategic Russian naval base in Tartus, also Latakia in Syria, which Russia cannot afford to lose – Russia versus NATO; Paris attacks; Libya – failed states help extremists to flourish. Mehrnaz and Martin Summers – bombing of Syria not legal according to UN Security Council Resolution 2249; Turkish army goes into Iraq; Iraq only wants Russia there; Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire on a possible new EU army; West in war against Russia, China, and Iran; Are their similarities between Hitler and ISIS? No. Mehrnaz lists the various different Jihadi groups in Syria that are said by the Western media to be ‘moderate’; Israeli jets bombing near Damascus; Russia bombing The Turkmen or Grey Wolves in Syria who are working with Turkish intelligence; Patrick Henningsen – no forensic evidence of ISIS involved in Paris attacks or San Bernadino – NATO false flag terrorism – West’s motives – gas, oil, military industry, religious – Saudi Royal family; Ghouta chemical attack; balkanisation of region; British officials (MI6?) probably responsible for starting Syrian civil war and now, therefore, possibly World War 3…

Syria: NATO’s ‘secret’ war with Russia but we haven’t been told by the BBC or MPs


Published on Dec 12, 2015

World-class set of independent Syria experts pull Britain’s latest folly apart   https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2015/12/523242.html

investigative reports: Interview with Mehrnaz Shahabi, an Iranian Bristolian, on Syria: Roland Dumas and his claim the British started the Syrian civil war on French TV, Wikileaks documents, and regime change in Syria – witnesses in Syria say Jihadis in crowd at early demonstrations were shooting at demonstrators and police. Interview with Dan Glazebrook, author of ‘Divide and Ruin, about Syria: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2015/12//523243.mp3


(8) Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack


San Bernardino eyewitness Chris Nwadike tells Los Angeles Times reporters what he saw during the San Bernardino shootings at the Inland Regional Center.

San Bernardino Shooting Story Shot Full of Holes, False Flag?


(9) France’s Former Foreign Minister Roland Dumas: UK Government Prepared War in Syria Two Years Before 2011 Protests

(English subtitles)

Published on Jun 15, 2013

France’s Former Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, has stated in a televised program on LCP that UK government officials had told him about preparations for war in Syria two years prior to the start of the 2011 protests and conflict. The reason given for this war is the Syrian government’s anti-Israel stance that made Syria a target for Western-backed regime change.


(10) What the New York Times Did Not Tell You About NATO & Montenegro http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/12/13/bfp-exclusive-what-the-new-york-times-not-tell-you-about-nato-montenegro/

13 Dec 2015, By Filip Kovacevic

The New York Times throws its weight behind those whose global code of conduct is nothing else but the expression of the war-mongering slogan “might makes right.

On December 2, 2015, the foreign ministers of NATO member states, including the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, meeting at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, agreed to grant a membership invitation to Montenegro.[1]

In response to this indisputable historical fact, the New York Times published two articles, a front page article and an editorial, which, due to their selective and biased treatment of the issue at hand, make it impossible for the readers to gain an objective understanding of the complexity of the situation on the ground. Both articles are consistent with the goals of an expansionist U.S. foreign policy and show little desire to engage with the expansionism’s destabilizing consequences not only in Montenegro and the Balkans, but also in Europe and beyond.

The NYT Front Page Article

The front page article, signed by Steven Erlanger, is entitled “NATO Unveils Plans to Grow, Drawing Fury and Threats from Russia.”[2] As is evident, Montenegro is not even mentioned in the title, and this is the treatment of Montenegro and its citizens that Erlanger demonstrates throughout the article. Apparently, for Erlanger, looking down from on high, it does not really matter what the citizens of a sovereign state think about their country’s future. He is more than willing to erase Montenegrin individual and collective subjectivities and present Montenegro as a mere pawn in the Great Powers’ geopolitical chess game. According to him, all that matters is that NATO is on track in implementing “its plans” and that Russia reacted not only negatively, but “in fury.”

The old Orientalist cliché, so well described by the Palestinian-American critical theorist Edward Said, is being repeated here. While the West is presented as cool and rational (making its plans into reality), the East is emotional and unpredictable (reacting with threats and fury). According to Erlanger’s elitist account, here once again we have the case of the “mature” and powerful West scoring against the “immature” and powerless East.

The fact that the ultimate decision about joining NATO will not be made by NATO foreign ministers but by the people of Montenegro themselves is not only disregarded by Erlanger, but it is intentionally presented in the way that falsifies the reality on the ground. Namely, in the only reference to the Montenegrin internal politics in the entire article – and it is no more than a half-sentence -, Erlanger writes that Montenegro is “eager to join.” This is very far from being true.

The majority of people in Montenegro actually prefer the option of military neutrality. However, the government of Montenegro, in order to preserve its undemocratic grip on power, has undertaken an immense and well-financed propaganda effort to convince the NATO decision-makers that the anti-NATO sentiment is losing ground. The Prime Minister Milo Djukanović, a corrupt opportunist well-connected to the shadowy networks of organized crime and intelligence services,[3] in power since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, even called those who are against NATO membership “the enemies of the state.” However, the objective assessment of Djukanović’s tenure can easily show that it is him who is the authentic destroyer of the Montenegrin state, considering that no state institution in Montenegro today is free from the control of his inner circle of family and friends.

Moreover, it is clear that Djukanović is ready to do anything it takes to stay in power. In late October 2015, the special police forces instructed by Djukanović brutally suppressed civic anti-government demonstrations. Anybody found on the street was tear-gassed and beaten without mercy.[4]

None of this is mentioned by Erlanger. It simply does not square well with his account in which NATO figures as the champion of democracy, rule of law, and human rights, protecting the world against evil dictatorships.

The NYT Editorial

The editorial article does not score much better on the scale of fairness and objectivity than Erlanger’s geopolitical propaganda piece. It is entitled “Russia’s Fury Over Montenegro and NATO.”[5] Again, we have the issue of the Russian “fury” and NATO’s “coolness.” We have Vladimir Putin being made the centerpiece of the article, instead of the focus being directed to the people of Montenegro who are the only legitimate decision-makers on the subject of Montenegro’s NATO membership.

Just like in Erlanger’s article, there is only a brief mention of the internal political realities in Montenegro. It is tucked to the end of the article like an after-thought. It refers to the issue of the “sharply divided sentiments among Montenegrins” concerning NATO membership. While this comes closer to the reality on the ground than Erlanger’s “eagerness to join,” it is still misleading. Namely, the sentiments are not “sharply divided,” because there is a clear majority of those who are against membership. The Djukanović’s government is well-aware of this fact and that is why it is trying to find ways to block the initiative for holding the referendum on the subject.

Instead of promoting the right of ordinary people to have a say on matters that will significantly affect their lives, as one would expect from any liberal newspaper, the New York Times throws its weight behind those whose global code of conduct is nothing else but the expression of the war-mongering slogan “might makes right.”

Filip Kovacevic is a geopolitical author, university professor and the chairman of the Movement for Neutrality of Montenegro. He received his BA and PhD in political science in the US and was a visiting professor at St. Petersburg State University in Russia for two years. He is the author of seven books, dozens of academic articles & conference presentations and hundreds of newspaper columns and media commentaries. He has been invited to lecture throughout the EU, Balkans, ex-USSR and the US. He currently resides in San Francisco. He can be contacted at fk1917@yahoo.com


[1] NATO formally invites Montenegro to join alliance, rankling Russia   http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/europe/nato-montenegro-membership-invitation/

[2] NATO Unveils Plans to Grow, Drawing Fury and Threats From Russia  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/world/europe/kerry-nato-syria-russia.html?_r=0

[3] See my earlier BFT article –The citizenship policies of the US puppets: The case of Montenegro’s Milo Djukanovic     http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/02/05/bfp-exclusive-the-citizenship-policies-of-the-us-puppets-the-case-of-montenegros-milo-djukanovic/

[4] Violence in Montenegro’s capital: an overview     http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/violence-in-montenegros-capital-an-overview/

[5] Russia’s Fury Over Montenegro and NATO    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/russias-fury-over-montenegro-and-nato.html



(11) The Paris Attacks Are Just The Beginning


The recent Paris Attacks on November 13, 2015, appears to be the latest in a long series of GLADIO-style false flag operations designed to tighten up police state measures in Europe and North America, while also helping to promote an increase in military intervention in the Middle East and Africa.

In addition to this, there are other internal EU agenda items that are being fast-tracked on the back of the Paris Attacks, including the promotion of Islamophobia in the west, and also to empower a newly emerging reactionary right-wing, pro-fascist political block.

Watch this brief presentation narrated by Aaron Hawkins of Storm Clouds Gathering…

at http://stormcloudsgathering.com/paris-attacks


On the evening of November 13th 2015, Paris was shaken by a series of coordinated attacks. 129 people were killed, hundreds more wounded. An ambience of fear gripped the country. Terrorists could strike anywhere at any time. Nothing was safe. Even the smallest venue could be targeted.

It might be tempting to react to this event emotionally without looking beyond the official narrative, without examining the evidence, without questioning where this is headed. You wouldn’t be alone, but blind indignation lends itself to easy answers, half truths and comforting lies.

Any time a population is attacked (or believes that they have been attacked) by an outside force, the reaction is as predictable as it is dangerous. New wars, and totalitarian laws that would have been unthinkable days before are easily justified, voices of reason are drowned out, and entire nations can be driven towards a cliff. Given the nature of this particular cliff it would behoove you to look a little deeper this time.

There are several moving parts in this story: the Syrian war, ISIS and the push to remove Assad from power, the expansion of a militarized police state throughout Europe, and of course the refugee crisis. All of which has been conveniently tied together, by a passport, carried by a suicide bomber, a passport which miraculously survived the blast unscathed. (Never mind the fact that German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere came forward to say that he had reason to suspect that the passport had been planted.)

Let’s deconstruct this one piece at a time.

Without even looking beyond mainstream sources, we find evidence that the French government knew that the attacks were coming. They were warned by the Iraqi government, they were warned by the Turkish government twice, and according to this article from the Times of Israel (which as since been edited), security officials in Paris were specifically warned of an impending attack that very morning. (The same article goes on to mention that the Bataclan theater had financial ties to the Israeli Military.)

And of course the French government just happened to be running an exercise simulating a mass shooting in Paris just hours before the attacks began. Where have we seen that before?

Could someone please explain how Iraq, and the Turkey government (which are developing countries), were able to see this coming, while the NSA and French intelligence were caught completely off guard? Are we really to believe that this was just incompetence?

Before the dust had even settled, the official narrative was clear. ISIS was responsible. This was war, and France was going to escalate that war, both at home and abroad. A state of emergency was declared, road blocks, border controls and a curfew were imposed, freedom of assembly was restricted, and the military was deployed on the streets. French President Francois Hollande soon announced that he intended to extend the state of emergency for three months (some are even saying it may be extended indefinitely), and to alter the French constitution.

The state of emergency gives the police the power to detain people without trial, search without warrants and to block any website they see fit.

France’s parliament has already voted to extend the country’s state of emergency following the Paris attacks for three months, giving the police powers to keep people in their homes without trial, search the homes of people without a warrant from a judge and block any website deemed a problem.

These powers are already being used! Activists have already been placed under house arrest, and not for crimes that they have been accused of actually committing, but preemptively!

The attacks are also being used as a pretext to justify the establishment of a new European Intelligence Agency modeled after the CIA. See also here.

And speaking of the CIA… let’s not forget who actually created ISIS. (See video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI)

France didn’t seem too concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism when they joined the U.S. in the 2011 regime change operation in Libya. If mainstream news outlets were publishing evidence of jihadists among the CIA backed rebels, (secondary confirmation from the BBC here) it would be utterly naive to think that French intelligence services didn’t know.

France also didn’t seem to mind the fact that Islamic extremists were receiving the lion’s share of the weapons that were looted from Gaddafi’s armories, and shipped through Turkey, and into Syria.

France didn’t stand up or speak out for years as the U.S. government continued arming, funding and training these extremists.

There was no righteous indignation at the atrocities they were committing.

There were no calls for criminal proceedings after those same rebels got caught using sarin gas against thousands of civilians, and the French government has never so much as verbally condemned the numerous state actors which have been caught assisting ISIS and/or its allies logistically (Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia & Israel for example).

Why? Because ISIS serves a purpose. ISIS and its associates, Al-Nusra and the FSA are weakening the Syrian government, creating a pretext for military intervention, and providing the perfect excuse for a massive power grab on the home front.

“Whoah! That’s not fair to equate the FSA with ISIS!”

Really? Then explain this away: ISIS and Al-Nusra have officially formed alliances, FSA commanders have gone on record to say that they cooperate with, and conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra, and it has been well established that the FSA command is dominated by Islamic extremists. Do The Math.

What’s happening in France should not be viewed in isolation. Xenophobic sentiment has been on the rise throughout Europe, and is gaining ground politically. This trend has clearly been exacerbated by the ongoing migrant crisis (which is obviously tied to the regime change policies of the West) but one variable in this equation that no one is talking about is the fact that the way immigration has been handled in Europe is not merely a question of short sightedness, it is a reflection of policy.

In 2012 UN migration chief Peter Sutherland urged the EU to “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states. Such a proposition may sound absurd, unless you take into account that breaking down the national identity of a country makes it much easier to dissolve political boundaries and independence. And that’s precisely what the technocrats in Brussels want.

Hollande has been one of the most outspoken voices in this push to hand over more power to a centralized European government, effectively stripping member states of any meaningful sovereignty. Give that European government a military, it’s own surveillance apparatus and public which is struggling financially, looking for someone to blame, and practically begging for war, and you have a recipe for the rise of overt fascism in Europe.

Many have remarked that recent moves by the French president take several pages from the extreme right. Some have interpreted this as an attempt to prevent the right from capitalizing on the event, but it hasn’t worked out that way, at all. (See also this article)

Taken on its own one might be inclined to interpret this as a political miscalculation, but what if it’s not? Hollande’s actions don’t make much sense if we view him as an independent leader, but they make perfect sense if you understand that he’s just a puppet.

The powers seized by Holland following the Charlie Hebdo and Paris Attacks, are not suited for the political left. The left is held back by the need to maintain a soft spoken, inclusive veneer. Those rising up to replace them will not be.

The right will not scale back these powers. They will expand them, and they will use them, even more than they are being used now.

It’s the left, right, left, right two step to tyranny.

This formula is not new. These tactics are not original, nor are the motives or response. Like the American public following 9/11, it’s going to take the European population quite some time to realize where they are being led, and they’re only going to come to that realization if those who see what is happening have the courage to speak out.

And make no mistake, this is just the beginning. They’ll take it as far as you let them.


(12) International military review – Syria-Iraq Battlespace 11 Dec 2015

(see video at) http://southfront.org/international-military-review-syria-iraq-battlespace-dec-11-2015/


Syrian Arab Army (SAA), National Defense Forces (NDF) and Hezbollah are successfully advancing the in the Eastern parts of Aleppo province. The pro-government forces are now closing in on the terrorists’ positions in the town of Deir Hafer, approaching the town from several directions.

Meanwhile, the Russian strikers heavily pounded the terrorists’ gathering centers in the Darat Izza, Bashkoy, Keshtaar, Kafarina and Azaz regions of the province. Dozens of militants were killed. A large number of weapons and equipment was destroyed. The Syrian airstrikes hit terrorists’ positions in Jarouf, Ein al-Beida, al-Bab and Anadan.

On Wednesday, the SAA killed a senior commander of the “Thuwar al-Sham Brigades” terrorist group in a strategic town of Khan Touman. Abdul Rahim al-Hamoud was a defected lieutenant colonel of the SAA.

The SAA made important advances in the city of Dara’a. The field reports said that the loyalists are in a striking distance of the old Dara’a border crossing with Jordan which is commonly referred to as the Al-Jamrak crossing. Sporadic clashes between the SAA and militants were observed at the outskirts of al-Sheikh Meskeen and Atman.

ISIS militants in Iraq’s Ramadi have destroyed a lock on the Euphrates River which served as a bridge as pro-government forces advance further in the fight to retake the western militant-held city. It was the last bridge which connected the city center. Thus, 300 militants trapped in the city. This week, the Iraqi security forces and local militia seized control of a military complex north of the city and captured the neighborhood of Husaybah on the eastern outskirts of the city. Separately, Iraqi military and allied volunteer fighters cleared almost the whole area of the western neighborhoods of Ramadi.


(13) 16 civilians killed by a terrorist bombing in central Homs city (Totally missed by Western News – Nobody cares if it’s not in Paris)

http://sana.sy/en/?p=63910                  12 Dec 2015

Homs, Syria (SANA News) – A terrorist car bomb attack took place in central Homs city on Saturday, leaving a number of civilians dead.

Governor of Homs Talal al-Barazi told SANA that 16 people were killed and 54 others were injured, some being in critical condition.

Earlier, a source at Homs Governorate said the bombing, which targeted the crowded al-Zahraa neighborhood, was carried out with a car packed with 150 kg of explosives that had been parked by the terrorists in a bystreet near a charity association and al-Ahli Hospital.

Few minutes after the bombing occurred, a gas cylinder exploded inside a nearby shop, injuring a number of personnel of the Internal Security and Civil Defense forces who rushed to the site of the bombing for help.

The source pointed out that the terrorist bombing caused massive damage to a number of houses and cars and the electricity, telephone and water infrastructure.

Video of the terrorist bombing in the crowded al-Zahraa neighborhood of Homs is at https://www.facebook.com/syriafutureagency/videos/2186685304905891/?video_source=pages_finch_main_video&theater



(14) US “Unofficially” Waging War on Russia Without a Formal “Declaration of War”    12 Dec 2015

By Stephen Lendman, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-unofficially-waging-war-on-russia-without-a-formal-declaration-of-war/5495340

Washington’s undeclared war on Russia (and China) is the greatest threat to world peace, risking the unthinkable – possible nuclear war.

Both countries stand in the way of unchallenged US global dominance – allied with NATO partners (mainly Britain, France, Germany and Turkey), Israel and the Middle East regimes led by Saudi Arabia, a metastasizing cancer masquerading as a nation-state.

Two major flashpoint areas risk igniting global war – Ukraine and Syria.

Washington transformed Kiev into a de facto Neo-Nazi regime (for the first time in Europe since WW II) – used as a dagger targeting Russia’s heartland, along with other Eastern European countries close to its border.

Preserving Syrian sovereign independence is the lynchpin of preventing Iran’s isolation and the entire region from becoming a US/Israeli colony, partnered with ruling Saudi tyrants using ISIS and other terrorist groups partnered with Washington to ravage Syria, Iraq and Yemen, ahead of what increasingly looks like an inevitable US/Russia clash.

On December 15, John Kerry will meet with Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov in Moscow. Ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine will be discussed – both countries at odds on resolving them.

Russia’s supports nation-state sovereignty, America wants all independent governments replaced by pro-Western ones it controls – using ISIS and other terrorist groups to achieve its objectives.

Next week’s meeting between US and Russian officials will resolve nothing, not as long as Washington’s hegemonic aims remain unchanged.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry called US/Moscow relations “difficult,” citing Washington’s “confrontational steps…under the pretext of the Ukrainian crisis.” They negatively “impacted cooperation between (both) countries.”

US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere further exacerbated relations. Nothing in prospect suggests positive change.

“…Russia has been consistently stressing the necessity to observe the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference into (the) domestic affairs” of all nations, its Foreign Ministry said.

Moscow’s hope for better US/Russian relations furthered by Kerry’s upcoming visit is more pipe dream than reality.

Kerry heads to Moscow after a planned December 14 meeting in Paris with European and Arab foreign ministers. They’ll discuss ongoing Middle East conflicts, plotting strategy to continue them and ways to subvert Russia’s war on terrorism.

Separately, interviewed by Spanish EFE news on Friday, Bashar al-Assad stressed Washington, its NATO partners and regional allies aren’t serious about fighting terrorism. They’re the problem, not the solution.

Russia’s intervention alone achieved progress, Washington trying to subvert it. The struggle for Syria’s soul continues, along with Putin’s efforts to save humanity from the scourge of another global war. He deserves universal support against US-led pure evil.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2015


12 Dec 2015 – Ms Burriesci is the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary and Screening Coordinating Officer for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security. She has been sent to the Visa Overstay Committee in Congress as an expert on the questions they are asking for the visa waiver program for potential terrorists. It looks like the secret information is in good hands: https://www.facebook.com/askrocco/videos/10153756162167716/?theater


(15)  Professor Stephen Cohen in John Batchelor Show   11 Dec 2015 

Stephen Cohen: Instead of Fighting ISIS, US and NATO Double Down on Cold War vs Russia (Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Cohen frames recent developments in the context of the now nearly month-long proposal by French President Hollande and Russian President Putin for a US-European-Russian military and political coalition against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and possibly Libya.)

Washington is again squandering a historic opportunity for a partnership with post-Soviet Russia – to the detriment of US national security


Even though such an alliance is necessary and might serve also to resolve the Cold War confrontation in Ukraine, Cohen argues, recent US-led or -influenced events suggest that the Obama administration has rejected any such “grand coalition” with Moscow. Each of those events is discussed, including escalation of the Ukrainian crisis and Vice President Biden’s visit to Kiev; the Turkish shooting down of a Russian warplane; NATO’s sudden announcement that it is adding tiny Montenegro to its expansion toward Russia; the IMF’s violation of its own rules in order to give Kiev more billions of dollars; and the establishment media’s continuing vilification of Putin’s leadership, even his six-week air war against ISIS.

The overarching question posed: Is Washington again squandering a historic opportunity for a partnership with post-Soviet Russia, again to the detriment of US national security?


John Batchelor Podcast) U.S. Professor Stephen Cohen in John Batchelor Show


Instead of Fighting ISIS, USA and NATO is now behind the scenes doubling its Cold War against Russia

– Vice President Biden’s visit to Kiev while his son Hunter Biden is heavily involved in the corruption in Ukraine as Director of the national gas company;

– the Turkish shooting down of a Russian warplane;

– NATO’s sudden announcement that it is adding tiny Montenegro to its expansion toward Russia;

– the IMF’s violation of its own rules in order to give Kiev more billions of dollars;

– and the establishment media’s continuing vilification of Putin’s leadership, even his six-week air war against ISIS.


(16) Yemeni Army and Houthis Down the 7th Saudi Naval Vessel

by Al-Masdar news desk on 12 December 12, 2015


The Yemeni army and the Popular Committees managed on Thursday to drown the seventh warship that belongs to the Saudi-led military coalition off Al-Mokha’ coast in Al-Hadida province west of Yemen.

The national army fired a missile that directly hit the warship and killed its 3-men crew on board.

A military source told Al-Massira website that the Yemeni Missile Unit targeted the Faissali landing warship during its participation in combat attacks off the coast of Yemen in Mokha by a guided missile, which set it ablaze and killed all its military crew.

It is noteworthy that the army and the Popular Committees have targeted five warships off the coast of Mokha and Bab al-Mandab since the beginning of the Saudi-US aggression in March 25, and have destroyed the sixth less than a week ago.




(17) US-Saudi Sponsored Mercenaries in Yemen

By South Front, 11 December 2015  http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-saudi-sponsored-mercenaries-in-yemen/5495112 

15 Blackwater mercenaries Killed in Yemen

The commander-in-chief of a mercenary company in Yemen, a Mexican national was killed in clashes with Houthi Ansarullah fighters and allied forces in the Ta’izz Province on Wednesday. According to the reports, the recent fatality has brought to 15 the number of foreign forces with the Blackwater killed in clashes in Yemen since Tuesday. The mercenaries are part of the UAE forces that help Saudi Arabia in its intervention in Yemen.

Yemeni security officials say governor of the embattled southern province of Aden has been assassinated after his convoy came under a rocket-propelled grenade attack. The incident took place when Jaafar Mohammed Saad was travelling with his entourage in the Tawahi district of the port city on Sunday. They said several members of his convoy also died in the act of terror.

Some 1,500 Moroccan soldiers will be dispatched to Yemen to participate in the Saudi aggression against the Arab country. According to the reports, the troopers will assist Saudi soldiers in ground operations against Yemen. We remember, in October, about 6,000 Sudanese forces entered Yemens southern port city of Aden to join Saudi soldiers. Emirati, Bahraini and Qatari soldiers are also participating in the Saudi operations.

See video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNAlisdWbxU      11.12.2015 Yemen Crisis News

Warring factions in Yemen are preparing to observe a week-long truce from December 15 while UN-mediated peace talks take place in Switzerland. A source in the cabinet of Saudi-backed President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi said the truce would last seven days, as specified in a letter sent by Hadi to the UN Security Council. Earlier attempts at ceasefires in the conflict fell apart after the two sides accused each other of violations.

Visit South Front: http://southfront.org/


Australian mercenary reportedly killed in Yemen clashes


Media reports say the man was fighting with Colombians on behalf of the United Arab Emirates in the brutal civil conflict in Yemen

An Australian mercenary has reportedly been killed in clashes in Yemen, alongside six Colombian troops. Guardian Australia understands the Australian commander was named Philip Stitman.

It’s believed he was employed as a mercenary by the United Arab Emirates to lead Colombian fighters against the Houthis in the country’s south.

Local media reports said six Colombian soldiers under the Australian’s command had also been killed. They were reportedly advancing towards the al-Amri area in the heavily contested Taiz province, in Yemen’s south-west.

The mercenaries, including the Australian, were fighting with the private military contractor Blackwater, the reports said.

Read more at: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/09/australian-mercenary-reportedly-killed-yemen-clashes


Yemeni Army and Houthis Seize 4 Saudi Villages: Coalition Forces Devastated       by Leith Fadel on 11 December 2015

In a shocking series of events, the Yemeni Army’s Republican Guard and the Houthis have imposed full control over four Saudi villages and several military posts in the Jizan Region after a violent battle with the Saudi-led Coalition Forces.

According to Al-Masdar’s Tony Toh (follow him @TonyTohCy on Twitter), the Yemeni Army’s Republican Guard and the Houthis captured the villages of Al-Sur, Mahjam, Wasita, and Khadima in the Jizan province of Saudi Arabia, marking one of the most embarrassing defeats for the Saudi-led Coalition Forces since the loss of Rabuah last month.

The Saudi regime and their Gulf allies have attempted to forestall the Yemeni Army’s advance in Saudi Arabia by deploying foreign mercenaries to fight their battles; however, this has proven disastrous, as the Yemeni Republican Guard and the Houthis have gained several kilometers of territory from the Coalition Forces.


(18) Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 1 (The War on Terror)

 Interview took place on 8 Feb 2013; Published on Feb 19, 2013   

Transcript: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=12688

In this ground-breaking interview, famed FBI whistleblower and Boiling Frogs Post founder Sibel Edmonds lays out the thread connecting NATO’s Gladio operations to Turkish paramilitaries and ultra-nationalists, and how the operation continues through cooperation with terrorists and the Islamization of Central Asia and the Caucasus. From Abdullah Çatlı’s remarkable life (and death) to the rise of Fethullah Gulen’s $25 billion (CIA-supported) Islamic network to the NATO takeover of the Afghan poppy crop in the wake of 9/11, you won’t want to miss a moment of this riveting conversation.


Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 2 (The War on Terror)        Interview took place on 8 Feb 2013; Published on 19 Feb 19, 2013


Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com joins us for the second part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. This time we discuss recent events, like the US Embassy bombing in Ankara and the catch-and-release of Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law in Turkey, before going back to the 1990s for more on the roots of the Gladio B operation and its tie-in to stories like that of Yasin al-Qadi. We shine a light on the FBI agents who were working on shutting down terrorist finance networks, and how they were shut down by elements of the State Department and the CIA. We also answer comments and questions from listeners of our first conversation.


Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 3

Interview took place on 15 Feb 2013; Published on 20 Feb 19, 2013

Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com joins us for the third part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. In this edition we discuss the Hood Event, the Gladio A / B transition, Israel’s role in funding both sides of the regional conflict, and how the Kurds have been used and abused by every would-be regional power in the area. Sibel also takes questions on Ayman al-Zawahiri and begins to discuss Huseyin Baybasin (aka “Europe’s Pablo Escobar”) and the NATO-protected heroin operations in Europe.


Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B – Part 4                 

Interview took place on 22 Feb 2013; Published on 22 Feb 19, 2013

Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com joins us for the fourth part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. In this installment we discuss the drug traffickers who have been protected by the NATO Gladio network and the money launderers who help to “clean” the proceeds of this trafficking.


Sibel Edmonds Answers Your Questions on Gladio B

Interview took place on 28 Feb 2013; Published on 28 Feb 19, 2013


After four hours of intense conversation on Gladio B, this week James and Sibel take a step back to consolidate some of the information and answer listener questions. In this interview we discuss specific characters and events as well as the broad scope of geopolitics and the great game of British imperialism and Zionist manipulations.


Thank you Workers Bush Telegraph for hosting the War Chronicles:

Please comment down below