Vladimir Putin recently made comments on the seriousness of global conflicts that can lead to nuclear conflict. Patriots worldwide should pay close attention as the globalists build their dangerous nuclear arsenal.
In stark contrast to attempts in numerous western countries to stifle free speech online, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Internet freedom during a conference...
A prominent Swedish lawmaker asserts that Hungarian billionaire George Soros's influence on European politics and policies make him "one of the most dangerous men,"
Has Erdogan “switched sides again” or is he trying to kick-start the Sochi Peace Conference?
A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie
Turkey’s President Erdogan has apparently conducted an about face just weeks after Turkey confirmed that the Syrian government is no longer considered an enemy.
Moments ago, Erdogan stated,
“Assad is definitely a terrorist who has carried out state terrorism… It is impossible to continue with Assad. How can we embrace the future with a Syrian president who has killed close to a million of his citizens?"
Taken at face value, Erdogan seems to be publically renouncing previous, however subtle steps which pointed in the direction of long-term reconciliation with Damascus as facilitated by the Astana format.
However, there could be something more to Erdogan’s overtly offensive statements.
This week, the terrorist group Free Syrian Army, parts of which have long been under Turkey’s patronage, issued a statement saying that they refuse to participate in the forthcoming Sochi peace conference, to be held under the supervision of the Astana peace brokers which include, Russia, Iran and Turkey.
As Turkey remains committed to this format, it seems that Erdogan might be coaxing the FSA, who ‘look up’ to Erdogan, that it might be a prudent move for the FSA to change their mind regarding Astana. Put another way, if Erdogan and the FSA both go into Astana spouting anti-Damascus rhetoric, the terrorist group might feel less isolated while at the negotiating table.
Of course, this brings into question, the wisdom of any peace conference where terrorists sit at the negotiating table, but the fact remains that Russia has made it clear that it would like Sochi to be the beginning of a long but unambiguous process which will lead to the total cessation of violence in Syria and as such, wants as many factions to agree to a permanent ceasefire as possible.
The question therefore remains: has Erdogan once again “switched sides” or is he giving a signal to his FSA followers to come out of the woodwork and appear at Sochi in what approximates good faith, considering there are a violent jihadist group?
The real answer will only be fully known in time, but logically, these are the only two options and because President al-Assad isn’t going anywhere, Erdogan would be foolish to suggest that this is a possibility among a serious audience.
Therefore, one can conclude that his intended audience was not a serious one—it may well have been the terrorist FSA, a group which is as far from a serious audience as one could imagine.
It is time to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons to crush Idlib’sterrorists
Yesterday in Syria, a L-39 Albatros jet trainer was shot from the sky by terrorists loyal to the so-called Free Syrian Army, a group which incidentally, just hours before, pledged to boycott the Russian organised peace conference scheduled for next month in Sochi.
The terrorists paraded the dead body of pilot, a Syrian martyr, in the back of a truck, like the savages that anyone with a conscience knows that they are.
The shot that brought down the plane was fired form Idlib Governorate and hit the aircraft near the Hama/Idlib border.
This is significant as Idlib is one of the last area in Syria that is still completely controlled by terrorists. Previous evacuations of terrorists from other regions to Idlib, has led to the phenomenon of nearly every terrorist group in Syria having its own base in the dark Governorate, without the government controlling any significant amount of territory.
After today’s downing of a Syrian aircraft, the time has come to eradicate the penultimate hornets’ nest of savagery from Syria using any military means necessary, including that which will send an unambiguous message to the sponsors of terrorism in Syria, including the United States and Israel.
Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov has already stated that the United States is training ISIS fighters evacuated from areas including Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor for further attacks in order to destabilise a situation in Syria where previously, Damscus had begun neutralising the final hotbeds of terrorist activity both in Deir ez-Zor and the Golan Heights.
The terrorists are clearly aware of this and are therefore making ever more use of their hardened positions in Idlib, in order to launch a final stand-off with Syria and her allies.
There can be no excuse for not eradicating fully, the terrorist threat in Idlib. It is for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a failed Governorate whose very existence as a terrorist hotbed threatens the safety and stability of the rest of Syria.
The only solution is to pull all troops away from Idlib as well as all low flying aircraft and instead to mercilessly bomb the entire Governorate, showcasing the most modern weapons available.
A combination of lethal strikes by Syria’s allies Russia and Iran is totally necessary, not only to avenge the loss of the L-39 Albatros, but also to show the United States that it cannot win in Syria because Syria’s allies will no longer hesitate to use the most advanced weapons in order to destroy the terrorist hotbed—weaponry which could just as easily be turned against anyone else.
During the Second Chechen War, Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons upon enemy strongholds in order to both execute a military objective with exactitude, but also to send a message to the American supporters of the jihadists, that any support they could offer their thugs, would ultimately be futile.
This option, along with that of every other major modern weapon must now be fully considered in order to not just win the Battle of Idlib, but to cleanse Syria of a cancer growing on her soil, which infects all of the civilised world.
If such weapons were used in Idlib, it would also send Israel a clear message, that Syria and her allies will be unrelenting in pursuing all means necessary in order to secure her borders.
As for civilians, there should be a clear and orderly evacuation of women and children, just as was executed in Aleppo before the final battle commenced. Of course, no one should be informed as to what is to come at the time of such an evacuation, but once civilian populations are relieved, the world’s largest display of firepower must be released without hesitation.
Syria cannot sit and wait, Idlib must be the red line for all allies of Damascus. Turkey can reposition itself at a later time to attack its Kurdish enemies, without being directly effected by the operation. Turkey is at this stage, behaving pragmatically in Syria. Only the US and Israel continue to play with fire.
Idlib must be reduced to rubble and with it, every terrorist group in Syria. If Idlib is destroyed, so too will terrorism be destroyed.
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) has shocked
many of its followers by failing to nominate long-time party leader Gennady
Zyuganov as their official candidate in the 2018 Presidential election.
Instead, the successor party to the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union has decided to nominate a relatively unknown man with little political
experience, called Pavel Grudinin.
Grudinin “owns” a communist style collective farm on the outskirts
of Moscow with an accompanying village where workers share the profits and live
in a setting that considered ideal among traditional communists.
The Lenin Sovkhoz is
legally registered as a business, but it is internally run as a collective
enterprise by the man who is now vying to be Russia’s next President.
The Lenin Sovkhoz project
The Lenin Sovkhoz is something of an
idealistic project, but it is one that is uniquely functional. The
self-sustained community has schools, hospitals, modern living quarters and is
a large producer of fruits and vegetables which are sold throughout Moscow.
Perhaps oddly, the Lenin
Sovkhoz is considered a “business” success story by outsiders, but for
Grudinin, it is more accurately defined as a communist success story.
While Pavel Grudinin is not even formally a
member of the Communist Party, he is seen as a living embodiment of the
ideology.
The biggest questions that remains are as follows:
Is Grudinin a gimmick candidate designed to attract new attention
to a party whose popularity is traditionally strongest among older Russians? Or
alternatively, is he a kind of communist version of Donald Trump(if you’ll
pardon the paradox)—a political outsider trying to revive life into a party
whose old pro has voluntarily encouraged new blood?
The answer appears to be a mix of the two. Gennady Zyuganov remains
a towering figure in Russian politics, leading the KPRF since 1993 and
contesting 6 Presidential elections in addition to leading the Communists in
the State Duma.
Indeed, if in 1996, the election wasn’t admittedly rigged by US
actors in favour of the neo-liberal Boris Yeltsin, Zyuganov would have likely
been the Russian President in 1996.
At 73 years of age, Gennady Zyuganov is as sharp as ever. His deep
and at times professorial voice will almost certainly be heard throughout the
campaign, as Russians begin to get acquainted with the younger Pavel Grudinin.
In the election, Grudinin will face the incumbent President
Vladimir Putin as well as political veteran Vladimir Zhirinovsky of the Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), as well as independents and candidates from
smaller parties.
In this respect, while people were expecting a battle of three
veterans (Putin, Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov), in reality, the race between the three
main parties will end up as a race between two very famous faces who will be going
up against one man who likely wouldn’t be noticed on a crowded Moscow metro.
In October of 2016, I stated publically that in future elections
(both Duma elections and Presidential elections), the LDPR would emerge as the
strongest challenger to United Russia—the party which endorses Vladimir Putin
in the 2018 election.
The recent battle for second place in the 2016 Duma elections was
a close fight between the Communists and the LDPR, with the former just
squeaking by and coming out with a few more seats than the surging LDPR.
As Vladimir Putin is the strong favourite to win in 2018, it is
likely that the Communists are testing the waters in order to better gauge what
kind of candidate they should put up in future elections.
Because of the existing trend of the LDPR continuing to represent
the foremost challenge to the Putin/United Russia status quo, it is
increasingly likely that Vladimir Zhirinovsky will come number two in the
polls, just behind the consistently popular incumbent Putin.
In this sense, the Communists are using 2018 to test the waters
for the future, while the LDPR will now push hard for a strong second place in
order to convey the importance of its positions to the eventual likely winner,
a man who has always listened carefully to opposition voices, President
Vladimir Putin.
The United Nations General Assembly vote condemning and
nullifying the US decision to recognise Al-Quds as the capital of “Israel” was
said by many to be merely a symbolic showing of solidarity, but in reality the
vote represented much more.
The US scored an own goal when both Ambassador Nikki Haley
and President Trump effectively upped the stakes by threatening to cut off aid
to any country that votes against the increasingly isolated US/Zionist
position.
This had the effect of making the vote, not only one about
Palestine, but one which served as an informal but unambiguous referendum on
Washington’s willingness to isolate itself, including from traditional allies,
over loyalty to the Zionist regime.
Prior to the vote, Nikki Haley upped the stakes even
further. She questioned why “Israel” remains part of the UN even though such an
organisation is in her view anti-“Israel”. She then stated that if the US loses
the vote (which even at that point was a foregone conclusion), it would “make a
difference on how the Americans look at the UN”. The clear implication in this
context is that the US might consider withdrawing membership.
Although such a threat remains unrealistic, it demonstrates
the level of desperation felt by US regime leaders at this time.
Another significant development was the fact that the
“Government” of Yemen represented by the Saudi/UAE backed Hadi regime in Aden,
introduced the resolution. Although every GCC state voted in line with the
wishes of Palestine, many countries ranging from Turkey and Iran to Syria and
factions within Palestine (most especially the Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine), have vocally criticised GCC countries for their lukewarm support
of Palestine. Such fears have been augmented by the unspoken but obvious
partnership that Riyadh enjoys with Tel Aviv.
In this sense, one can see that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are
using the Hadi led regime in Yemen, which is recognised by the UN as the formal
government of Yemen, as the proverbial ‘good cop’ to Saudi, the UAE and
Bahrain’s ‘bad cop’. Assuming Hadi remains in power and continues to be
recognised as the Yemeni President by the UN, such a trend could continue, thus
enabling Saudi and the UAE to have their cake and eat it too.
While the leaders in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi continue to do
their covert deals with the Zionist entity, their de-facto client state in Aden
will take the moral high ground and continue to support Palestine with public
vigour.
Furthermore, South Africa has decided to rekindle the
radical roots of the ruling ANC in agreeing to co-sponsor the resolution at the
last minute. The DPRK (North Korea) made a similar decision. With the ANC
making the decision earlier in the day to downgrade the status of the “Israeli”
embassy in Pretoria, it is clear that South Africa remains ever more committed
to the realities of the bi-polar world while continuing the long association of
the ANC with the cause of Palestinian liberation.
In spite of efforts to blackmail the world into a
pro-Zionist position, the US was left totally isolated. Apart from the US and
“Israel” other ‘no’ votes included the small nations of Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo, as well as Guatemala and Honduras.
Every other country present voted in favour of the
Palestinian position.
In the end, the US attempt to blackmail the world failed and
support for Palestine remained vocal. This is more significant in 2017 than it
would have been at any time since the founding of the United Nations, as in
terms of diplomatic influence, the US is now weaker than it has been at any
time since the founding of the United Nations.
By associating the US with the lost cause of Zionism, the US
has allowed nations to deliver what amounts to a no-confidence vote against
America. The world spoke in fashion that was loud and clear.
Palestine wakes the
sleeping giant that is the UN General Assembly
By Adam Garrie - 19th December 2017
For decades, discussions about reforming the United Nations
have often been more amplified than debates about world peace, poverty
alleviation and disease control, which ought to be the primary topics of debate
at such a body.
That being said, it is not difficult to see why so many
countries are exasperated with the UN. The UN continues to be dominated by the
United States and its allies who sit as permanent members on the Security
Council.
Until 1971, the Security Council was little more than a
consummately deadlocked chamber where four countries typically lined up against
the lone Soviet Union among the five permeant members who wield veto power.
This was due to the farcical situation of Chinese Taipei
(aka the Republic of China/Taiwan) holding the Chinese seat at the UN, even
after the People’s Republic of China became the authentic Chinese state in 1949.
Today’s typically 3 against 1 deadlocked Security Council is
at least slightly more representative than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, when
the PRC had no seat at the UN, but as yesterday’s Security Council vote on
Al-Quds demonstrates, all it takes is one US veto to effectively shatter the
democratic legitimacy of the UNSC.
Yesterday, the entire Security Council voted to affirm the
lack of legitimacy behind Washington’s move to recognise Al-Quds as the Israeli
capital. The only problem is that the US invoked its veto power, thus negating
the democratic will of the rest of the Security Council.
Subsequent to the US vote, Palestinian Presidential advisor Nabil
Abu Rdeneh, slammed the US veto a “provocation”.
Palestine has called
for an emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly to vote on the same matter.
There, the motion rendering Trump’s decision illegitimate will likely pass in a
landslide vote.
The events of the past few days make a strong case for
Libyan Revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi’s argument for total UN reform
which would see the General Assembly becoming the highest constituent element
of the UN, thus incorporating the current functions of the Security Council,
while the UNSC would simply exist as an executive body which would automatically
ratify decisions made by a democratic vote in the General Assembly.
Gaddafi spoke before the General Assembly in 2009 and
proposed the following reform measure,
“This Assembly is our democratic
forum and the Security Council should be responsible before it; we should not
accept the current situation. These are the legislators of the Members of the
United Nations, and their resolutions should be binding. It is said that the
General Assembly should do whatever the Security Council recommends. On the
contrary, the Security Council should do whatever the General Assembly decides.
This is the United Nations, the Assembly that includes 192 countries. It is not
the Security Council, which includes only 15 of the Member States. How can we
be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled by
only five countries?
We are 192 nations and countries,
and we are like Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. We just speak and
nobody implements our decisions. We are mere decoration, without any real
substance. We are Speakers’ Corner, no more, no less. We just make speeches and
then disappear. This is who you are right now. Once the Security Council
becomes only an executive body for resolutions adopted by the General Assembly,
there will be no competition for membership of the Council. Once the Security
Council becomes a tool to implement General Assembly resolutions, there will be
no need for any competition. The Security Council should, quite simply,
represent all nations. In accordance with the proposal submitted to the General
Assembly, there would be permanent seats on the Security Council for all unions
and groups of countries. The 27 countries of the European Union should have a
permanent seat on the Security Council. The countries of the African Union
should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The Latin American and ASEAN
countries should have permanent seats. The Russian Federation and the United
States of America are already permanent members of the Security Council. The Southern
African Development Community (SADC), once it is fully established, should have
a permanent seat. The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a permanent
seat. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a permanent seat.
The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat.
Then there is the G-100; perhaps the small countries should also have a
permanent seat. Countries not included in the unions that I have mentioned
could perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied by them in rotation
every six or twelve months”.
If Gaddafi’s plan was implemented, there is no doubt that
yesterday’s Security Council motion would have been passed overwhelmingly. Even
among traditional US allies, it received votes of support.
The reason that the UN is in the stronghold of the United
States, is because the structure of the Security Council allows certain nations
to hold all others at ransom. The fact that the UN is on US soil, is another
reason for this unfair advantage. Gaddafi likewise proposed moving the UN to a
more globally central and political neutral location.
Ultimately, the current structure of the Security Council
has rendered the UN undemocratic while Gaddafi’s proposals would instantly made
the UN a fully democratic body.
One of the biggest worries in such a situation, is that
Russia and China, who typically vote against the US and its allies, would lose
their veto power. While fears about surrendering an important privilege which
is typically used to prevent aggressive and provocative US drafted resolutions
from gaining ascension, is a real fear, it negates something far more
important.
The majority of the world is more sympathetic to the Russian
and Chinese positions than that of the United States and its increasingly few
allies. Africa, almost all of Asia, southern and parts of Eastern Europe as
well as most of Latin America have only suffered due to the neo-imperial
tactics of aggressive war profiteering that the US attempts to legitimise with
a UN rubber stamp.
In this sense Palestine has awoken the world to the real
potential of the UN which is enshrined in the preamble of the UN Charter but
which is systematically absent in the mechanics and procedural rules of the
UN’s day-to-day operation.
While many deride the UN for not being able to back up its
pronouncements with actions, this is a view that tends to underestimate the
power of a truly global-democratic quorum of nations speaking in a singular
voice.
On the issue of Palestine, the United States has drawn a
line between Washington and Tel Aviv on one side and virtually the entire world
on the other.
It was for just such moments that an unbound General
Assembly could demonstrate that no matter how wealthy, violent or powerful any
nation is, one can still be isolated, rejected and condemned.
When the General Assembly inevitably votes in favour of
justice for Palestine, it will be wise to remember the sage proposals of
Gaddafi who understood the power of actual democracy, far more than the
imperialists who so frequently preach it in order to cover the trail of blood
and tears they have created throughout Asia, Africa, the Middle Eastand Latin America.
Liberteon