Over and over, major U.S. media outlets have published claims about Russia that turned out to be completely false. CNN Journalists Resigned last week was the latest example of media recklessness on the Russian threat. And the New York Times also had to retract about another story.
Below, CNN producer admits that its Russia narrative is bullshit. The problem is that it is not only CNN's, it's mainstream media in general. He might not keep his job much longer after that.
Glenn Greenwald
Mainstream U.S. media is culpable for disseminating fake & deceitful news on Russia
Meanwhile, Israel is taking advantage of the "opportunity" it has created with the USA to attack Syria.
Na noite de segunda-feira passada, a Casa Branca divulgou alegou que serviços de inteligência dos Estados Unidos haviam "identificado preparações potenciais para outro ataque químico" na Síria. Se Bashar el-Assad usasse tais armas, avisava Washington, pagaria um "preço alto".
Levantaram suspeitas dos correspondentes estrangeiros não em relação às tais armas e sim do porquê de tal advertência sem provas.É esquisito como os EUA e sua "comunidade internacional" investigam o uso de armas químicas na Síria. Até esta data, que eu saiba, os inspetores declinaram a visita de Shayrat, o sítio em questão e que os EUA ligaram anteriormente à suspeição de gás sarin em Khan Sheikhou há poucos meses.
Você, leitor, que tem bom senso, deve se perguntar porquê os EUA atrapalham em vez de ajudar, sabendo que o perigo do Daesh é realmente grave.
Eu acho que é porque ainda não desistiram de querer a cabeça de Bashar el-Assad (que Israel não quer ver nem folheado a ouro), e também porque, contra todas as tentativas dos EUA de sabotagem, Putin está sendo eficiente e está resolvendo o problema que os EUA, Arábia Saudita e Israel criaram.
Desde janeiro, cerca de 440.000 pessoas deslocadas no país devastado pela guerra voltaram principalmente a Alepo, Hama, Homs e Damasco. Além disso, mais cerca de 31.000 refugiados nos países vizinhos também retornaram, elevando o número total de 260.000 sírios que voltaram para casa desde o ano passado.
Ainda é pouco comparado com os quatro milhões que se encontram em campos de refugiados no Líbano e em Amman, mas é um bom começo.
Mas a Casa Branca não se regozija com esta boa notícia. Washington gosta de ver sangue, quando não é de estadunidenses, e não suporta empreendimentos russos bem sucedidos. Nem militares nem econômicos.
O problema com os Estados Unidos é o mesmo de sempre, que conhecemos bem na América Latina. Como diz Putin, eles não querem aliados e sim vassalos. Gostavam da Rússia de Yeltsin porque ele era controlável. Detestam Putin porque ele é patriota.
ISIS doesn’t have an airforce nor is there any chance that the lumbering Soviet-era SU-22 was mistaken by the American pilot before it was shot down. No, the Syrian plane was positively identified on a clear day flying over Syrian territory. The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the “de-confliction” hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and –BAM– the Syrian warplane was taken out with two missiles over Ja’Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear provocation.
The downing comes on the heels of three other similar incidents in which Syrian troops were attacked by US-coalition forces in the area around al Tanf near the Jordanian border. All four of these provocations have taken place within the last month suggesting that Washington intends to prevent the Syrian army from liberating its cities and territory in the east where US-proxy militias are operating.
In late May, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) launched Operation “Grand Dawn” which combined the 800th Battalion of the Republican Guards, Hezbollah, Iranian combat troops, and Russian Special Forces (to assist in an advisory capacity.) Grand Dawn, which is the biggest operation of the war, is aimed at clearing the eastern border, liberating ISIS-held cities and territory east of the Euphrates, and reopening the corridor between Damascus to Baghdad. The campaign is an attempt to reestablish the central government’s control over its land, its resources and its population centers in the East.
So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday’s attack (on the Syrian warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward-progress of loyalist troops rapidly advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates.
The surge of Syrian troops poses a clear threat to TEl Aviv-Washington’s operational strategy called Plan B which is aimed at (a) splintering the state into smaller, US-controlled enclaves, (b) blocking the critical landbridge between Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran, and (c) establishing a secure base for training Sunni militants to reenter Syria-proper and engage in future regime destabilizing operations. Seen in this light, the downing of a Syrian SU-22 might have been an attempt by coalition leaders to wave off the Syrian assault which is undermining Washington’s fallback strategy.
The Russian response to the attack was fast and ferocious. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov condemned the action as “a massive violation of international law and military aggression.”
He said: “This strike has to be seen as a continuation of America’s line to disregard the norms of international law….(It is) an act of aggression… designed to help to the very terrorists the US says it is fighting.”
Not surprisingly, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) announced it would end its cooperation with the US military under the terms of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria. In practical terms, that means that Moscow will terminate the use of a military hotline for preventing accidents in Syrian airspace. So while media giants like the Wall Street Journal applaud the reckless attack as “signaling an increased willingness by the Trump administration to directly challenge President Bashar al Assad and his allies”, more sober analysts anticipate that the move will only ratchet up the tensions increasing the probability of a clash between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.
The Russian MoD statement added that, “any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets.”
If the attack was intended to provoke a response, then it appears to have succeeded. If another Syrian warplane is shot down, Moscow will have to retaliate. Was that the intention?
Russia does not want to deepen its involvement in Syria. It’s primary goal is to defeat ISIS, preserve the elected government, and prevent the country from disintegrating into failed state anarchy. Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed this topic recently in an interview where he was asked: “Can you explain why you sent troops to Syria and what your objective was?”
Putin answered: “It’s very easy to explain. We saw what was happening to other countries in the region, particularly Iraq and Libya…. due to the forceful ousting of their governments. The governments were destroyed, not simply ousted from power, and their leaders were killed. We don’t want to see the same thing happen in Syria or the whole region will be plunged into chaos.”
There it is in black and white. Contrary to Israel and the United States, Russia has no territorial ambitions in Syria nor does it have any designs on Syria’s resources , industry or pipelines. This isn’t about money, oil or land. It’s about Russia’s national security which has been greatly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. It’s also about defending “sovereignty”, which is the bedrock principle upon which global security rests. This is why Russia is in Syria.
That said, it’s not in Russia’s interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the war on coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation. Putin does not want to prolong or expand the war, he wants to end it.
What does the US and his European vassals want?
Unfortunately, there are so many players sharing the same, crowded battlespace that even the slightest miscalculation could lead to a serious conflagration, let alone what the US has just done.
It’s going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe through the Syrian minefield without triggering a Third World War. We’ll have to see if Trump and his allies are up to the task or not.
The two leaders plan to meet at a multinational conference in Germany in June. Trump is reportedly eager for a meeting with all the pomp and circumstance of a bilateral meeting. Putin seems less enthusiastic about the idea.
That’s a signal that Trump and Putin’s differences are getting harder to paper over. Those differences are the product of complex geopolitical realities and a legacy of the 200-year-old relationship between the two countries. Putin bristles with resentment over the way the United States ran roughshod over Russia in the 1990s. Trump presides over a divided and dysfunctional government that is actively investigating Russia's role in the 2016 election.
Over time, national interests have a way of trumping personalities. Witness the latest headlines from Syria. Last Monday the White House announced the Syrian government would pay a "heavy price" if it launched another chemical weapons attack against its enemies.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "such threats to Syria's legitimate leaders are unacceptable."
This is not the language of mutual admiration, but of cold geopolitics. Putin’s use of the Russian air force turned the tide in a civil war that Assad was losing. Putin sided with Assad when he denied responsibility for a reported chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Idlib province April 4. Putin is not going to abandon an ally under fire for the sake of a friendship, no matter how chummy.
Putin has long sought U.S. help for a peace agreement that will preserve the Syrian government, if not President Assad, in power. During the campaign, Trump seemed amenable. He savaged the Bush family for lying about the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He denounced Clinton for her hawkish agenda in Syria. When Trump mused in the first week of his presidency about joint U.S.-Russia action against Daesh, Putin had reason to think he would be helpful.
Trump inherited the same policy options as his predecessor. He could do what Obama did: argue long and hard behind closed doors to limit U.S. intervention in Syria and to explore the possibility of a peace talks. Or he could do what Hillary Clinton did: side with Pentagon and CIA officials who advocated aiding anti-Assad rebels and taking control of Syrian air space.
Trump did not hesitate. He jettisoned his campaign
views and is now doing exactly what he told voters he would not do. He is
pursuing Clinton’s aggressive Syria policy agenda in service of Bush’s dream of
“regime change” in the Middle East.
The 45th president has discovered the eternal Washington truth that deferring to the global military machine (now active in 137 countries) is much easier than trying to restrain it. He has also learned that the Washington press corps, agressive with questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election, tends to go soft when it comes to "beautiful" cruise missile attacks on Arab tyrants suspected of having weapons of mass destruction.
Trump’s policy of escalation, however, challenges Putin’s primacy in Russia’s proverbial backyard.
Putin's goal in Syria was—and is—to prevent the emergence of a jihadist bastion or a failed state that could serve as a platform for terror attacks in Russia. Now that success is in sight, Trump is siding with Israel by threatening to disrupt Putin's accomplishment with a war on Iran fought on Syrian soil. That’s not what geopolitical friends are for.
Perhaps the primary reason Putin backed Trump in 2016 was the hope—no, the expectation—that he would lift the sanctions Obama imposed after the Russian invasion of Crimea. The sanctions, which isolate Russia from the international economy, pose a long-term threat to Putin’s autocracy.
Trump has not only failed to lift the sanctions, his Russia-related problems have nervous Republican looking for ways to distance themselves from the erratic chief executive. On June 15, the Senate voted 98-2 to slap new sanctions on Russia and limit the White House’s power to lift them. Putin’s goal of sanctions relief is growing more distant, not more likely.
Putin has every reason to be happy about Trump’s indifference to US's treaty committments to European allies. He can count on Trump's support in his efforts to undermine German prime minister Angela Merkel. But as a transactional politician, Putin is looking for results, not love. On Syria and sanctions Trump has delivered nothing but trouble, and that is not good for the future of a bromance.
The 45th president has discovered the eternal Washington truth that deferring to the global military machine (now active in 137 countries) is much easier than trying to restrain it. He has also learned that the Washington press corps, agressive with questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election, tends to go soft when it comes to "beautiful" cruise missile attacks on Arab tyrants suspected of having weapons of mass destruction.
Trump’s policy of escalation, however, challenges Putin’s primacy in Russia’s proverbial backyard.
Putin's goal in Syria was—and is—to prevent the emergence of a jihadist bastion or a failed state that could serve as a platform for terror attacks in Russia. Now that success is in sight, Trump is siding with Israel by threatening to disrupt Putin's accomplishment with a war on Iran fought on Syrian soil. That’s not what geopolitical friends are for.
Perhaps the primary reason Putin backed Trump in 2016 was the hope—no, the expectation—that he would lift the sanctions Obama imposed after the Russian invasion of Crimea. The sanctions, which isolate Russia from the international economy, pose a long-term threat to Putin’s autocracy.
Trump has not only failed to lift the sanctions, his Russia-related problems have nervous Republican looking for ways to distance themselves from the erratic chief executive. On June 15, the Senate voted 98-2 to slap new sanctions on Russia and limit the White House’s power to lift them. Putin’s goal of sanctions relief is growing more distant, not more likely.
Putin has every reason to be happy about Trump’s indifference to US's treaty committments to European allies. He can count on Trump's support in his efforts to undermine German prime minister Angela Merkel. But as a transactional politician, Putin is looking for results, not love. On Syria and sanctions Trump has delivered nothing but trouble, and that is not good for the future of a bromance.
By the way, many who watched Oliver Stone’s interview with Vladimir Putin were surprised to hear about the military cooperation between the two countries.
Nevertheless, one of the constants in US affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union has been a military-to-military relationship with Russia. After 1991 the US spent billions of dollars to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons complex, including a highly secret joint operation to remove weapons-grade uranium from unsecured storage depots in Kazakhstan. Joint programmes to monitor the security of weapons-grade materials continued for the next two decades. During the American war on Afghanistan, Russia provided overflight rights for US cargo carriers and tankers, as well as access for the flow of weapons, ammunition, food and water the US war machine needed daily. Russia’s military provided intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and helped the US negotiate rights to use an airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. Joint Chiefs have been in communication with their Russian counterparts throughout the Syrian war, and the ties between the two militaries start at the top.
When it comes to tackling Islamic State, Russia and the US would have much to offer each other. Many in the IS leadership and rank and file fought for more than a decade against Russia in the two Chechen wars that began in 1994, and the Putin government is heavily invested in combating Islamist terrorism. Russia knows the Isis leadership and has insights into its operational techniques, and has much intelligence to share. In return, the United States have got excellent trainers with years of experience in training foreign fighters – experience that Russia does not have, besides the ability to obtain targeting data, often by paying huge sums of cash, from sources within rebel militias.
The problem with United States’ policy vis-à-vis Russia is too often unfocused. What they don’t understand it that it’s not about the US in Syria. It’s about making sure Bashar does not lose. The reality is that Putin does not want to see the chaos in Syria spread to Jordan or Lebanon, as it has to Iraq, and he does not want to see Syria end up in the hands of Isis. The most counterproductive thing Obama has done under zionist influence, and it has hurt Putin’s efforts to end the fighting a lot, was to say: “Assad must go as a premise for negotiation.” Putin has been appalled by Gaddafi’s fate. He almost blamed himself for letting Gaddafi go, for not playing a strong role behind the scenes’ at the UN when the Western coalition was lobbying to be allowed to undertake the airstrikes that destroyed the regime. He got involved in Syria for the sake of Russia and its military only base in the region, but also because he believed that unless he got engaged Bashar would suffer the same fate – mutilated – and he’d see the destruction of his allies in Syria.
Putin waited very long before stepping in. Then, his bombing campaign provoked a series of anti-Russia articles in the American and European press. The anti-Russia stories did not abate after the Metrojet disaster, for which Islamic State claimed credit. Few in the US government and media questioned why IS would target a Russian airliner, along with its 224 passengers and crew, if Moscow’s air force was attacking only the Syrian ‘moderates’.
Economic sanctions, meanwhile, are still in effect against Russia for what a large number of Americans influenced by Washington's hasbara/propaganda consider Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine, as are US Treasury Department sanctions against Syria and against those Americans who do business there.
The four core elements of Obama’s Syria policy remain intact today: an insistence that Assad must go; that no anti-IS coalition with Russia is possible; and that there really are significant moderate opposition forces for the US to support. After Paris attacks on 13 November 2015 that killed 130 people, François Hollande flew to Washington to try to persuade Obama to join the EU in a mutual declaration of war against Islamic State.
Assad, naturally, doesn’t accept that a group of foreign leaders should be deciding on his future. For Assad to surrender power would mean capitulating to ‘armed terrorist groups’ and that ministers in a national unity government – such as was being proposed by the Europeans – would be seen to be beholden to the foreign powers that appointed them. These powers could remind the new president that they could easily replace him as they did before to the predecessor … Assad really believes to owe it to his people: he could not leave because the historic enemies of Syria are demanding his departure.
Bottom line, whatever the mainstream media says, Putin is being effective against Daesh. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many Syrian refugees heading back home. And I don't think he will give Assad to the lions. Russia is seen, at least in South America, as loyal to its allies, contrary to the U.S. that only look out for Israel's and its own and only imediate interests.
PALESTINA
. Al Jazeera: Collaborate with Israel or die…
. It's okay to be racist in Israel
. Why is the EU funding Israeli torturers?
. Mondoweiss: Much of the money from PLO fund deemed a terrorist organization by Lieberman goes to Israel.
. The Guardian: A ruling that allows councils to boycott Israel. It's a crucial victory.
BRASIL - DIRETAS, JÁ!
A
U.S. official denied reports that Trump was considering pulling out of
peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinians after a rift opened
up in the first meeting between Trump aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner
and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat reported
Saturday that the meeting between Kushner and Abbas had been “tense.”
Abbas was allegedly furious when Kushner relayed a set of demands from
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a translation of
the report by the Jerusalem Post.
Israeli daily Haaretz reported
that Palestinian officials were “greatly disappointed” following their
Wednesday meeting with Kushner and Jonathan Greenblatt , Trump’s Middle
East envoy.
"They
sounded like Netanyahu's advisers and not like fair arbiters," a senior
Palestinian official told the publication. "They started presenting
Netanyahu's issues and then we asked to hear from them clear stances
regarding the core issues of the conflict."
According
to the report, Kushner and Greenblatt criticized Abbas for failing to
condemn a terror attack in Jerusalem last week that left one dead, and
for refusing to meet Trump’s appointee as U.S. ambassador to Israel,
David Friedman, over his support for the settlement program.
A Palestinian official told Al-Hayat that Kushner will now report back to Trump, who will decide whether there are grounds for continuing talks.
A senior Trump administration official told the Jerusalem Post that reports of the president potentially withdrawing from the talks were “nonsense.”
Trump
previously declared his determination to broker a peace deal between
Palestinians and Israel, telling media after a meeting with Abbas at the
White House, “We will get it done.”
. Al Jazeera: Collaborate with Israel or die…. It's okay to be racist in Israel
. Why is the EU funding Israeli torturers?
. Mondoweiss: Much of the money from PLO fund deemed a terrorist organization by Lieberman goes to Israel.
Ehud Barak.: No one in the world
thinks that we are Switzerland here, but I’m telling you, with full
responsibility, no one in the world understands how come the government of
Israel sees in a Palestinian state which is demilitarized– almost completely
not viable, surrounded by the Israeli forces– the strongest army in the world,
almost a nuclear superpower, backed by America, including technologies that
they didn’t even give to their own soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan– how can
this non-viable state, which is surrounded, be an existential threat on
Israel?… Existential threat on Israel? This sounds like either fabricated or
visionary or completely crazy planning...
. Yakov Rabkin’s devastating critique of zionism …. The Guardian: A ruling that allows councils to boycott Israel. It's a crucial victory.
BRASIL - DIRETAS, JÁ!
Jornalistas Livres (@j_livres) | Twitter
.
Fernando Henrique, que sucateou o Brasil, quer nos convencer que é salvador da pátria? Piada de mau gosto ou pensa que somos bobos?
