Russia Warns US Against Striking Assad


As we reported yesterday, over 50 US State Department officials are now calling for "targeted military strikes" directly against Assad's Syrian government as a means to defeat ISIS.
The irony of course is that we've now come full circle. The US created ISIS in hopes of toppling Assad, and now that the ISIS strategy is losing momentum (due in large part to Russia' relentless pounding of the group), the US now wants to just fast forward to the end game, which is to take out Assad directly (using ISIS as a reason of course).
What has also emerged is that Saudi Arabia has now grown impatient with the fact that Assad is still in power, and have started to press the US to provide more sophisticated weapons to the rebels. 
Saudi foreign minister Adel al Jubeir who is visiting the US just confirmed as much yesterday when he said that "Saudi Arabia supports a more aggressive military approach in Syria to get Assad to agree to a political solution."

In response to calls to take this approach, the Obama administration has expressed concern that attacking the Assad regime could lead to a direct conflict with Russia and Iran, which of course is a rational way to view the situation because Russia has been steadfast in its support of Assad's government, or at least not allowing the US to take it out.
Speaking to Russia's top economic forum, Putin proposed that the Syrian opposition could be offered seats in the Syrian cabinet as part of efforts to encourage dialogue that could lead to new elections being held in Syria. Putin said that creating a new government that will have the trust of most of Syria's population is key to ending the conflict, and that goal can be achieved through drafting a new constitution and holding new elections, something Assad pledged to Putin would happen.

In a sound bite that Putin absolutely must have known would get back to the Obama administration, Putin reportedly said "There is nothing more democratic than elections" - clearly a jab at the US and its hypocrisy of wanting to simply take out Assad militarily as opposed to working with Russia to force Syria holding new elections.

On Friday, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov strongly warned Washington against striking Assad's forces, saying it would "fuel turmoil across the entire region", and that any attempt to topple Assad's government "wouldn't help a successful fight against terrorism and could plunge the region into total chaos."

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said that the calls for a military action against Assad "can't but worry any reasonable person", adding "who would bear responsibility for that? Or shall we see the same Hollywood-style smile as it happened already in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?"
* * *
Of course Konashenkov is right, the US has made a complete mess out of the Middle East and it appears as though Russia is not going to allow yet another debacle to take place in Syria. The question is this, will the US fold and pander to its Saudi "friends" who are pushing to have Assad out, or will the fact that toppling Assad will lead to a direct conflict with Russia be enough to have the US stand down. If all of the recent activity taking place on Russia's borders is any indication, we can get a good sense as to which way the US is leaning.






As we reported in just the past week, not only has NATO accelerated its encirclement of Russia, with British soldiers deployed in Estonia, US soldiers operating in Latvia and Canadians in Poland, while combat units are being increased in the Mediterranean... 

... but even more troubling, was NATO's assessment that it may now have grounds to attack Russia when it announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. 
Specifically, NATO is alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.

Throughout all of these escalations, the popular narrative spun by the "democratic" media was a simple one: it was Russia that was provoking NATO, not NATO's aggressive military actions on the border with Russia that were the cause of soaring geopolitical tension. Ignored in the fictional plot line was also Russia's clear reaction to NATO provocations that it would "respond totally asymmetrically" an outcome that could in its worst oucome lead to millions of European deaths. Still, no matter the risk of escalation, one which just two weeks ago led to assessment that the  "Risk Of Nuclear Dirty Bomb Surges On Poor US-Russia Relations", NATO had to maintain its provocative attitude .

All NATO had to do was assure that all alliance members would follow the lead, and nobody would stray from the party line.
And then everything imploded when none other than the Foreign Minister of NATO member Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized NATO for having a bellicose policy towards Russia, describing it as "warmongering", the German daily Bild reported. And just like that, the entire ficitional narrative of "innocent" NATO merely reacting to evil Russian provcations has gone up in flames.
As AFP adds, Steinmeier merely highlighted all those things which rational persons have known about for a long time, namely the deployment of NATO troops near borders with Russia in the military alliance's Baltic and east European member states. However, since it comes from a NATO member, suddenly one can't accuse Russian propaganda. In fact, NATO has absolutely no planned response to just this contingency.
"What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots," Steinmeier told Bild in an interview to be published Sunday.

"Anyone who thinks you can increase security in the alliance with symbolic parades of tanks near the eastern borders, is mistaken," Germany's top diplomat added.


Needless to say, Russia bitterly opposes NATO's expansion into its Soviet-era satellites and last month said it would create three new divisions in its southwest region to meet what it described as a dangerous military build-up along its borders. This is precisely what NATO wants as it would be able to then blame Russian effect to NATO cause as an irrational move by the Kremlin, one to which the kind folks at NATO HQ would have no choice but to respond in their caring defense of all those innocent people, when in reality it is NATO that is desperate to provoke and launch the conflict with Russia.






With its so-called “peacekeeping” military troops facing outrage worldwide for raping and exploiting children with impunity, the United Nations is launching a major push to expand and further empower its UN “police” force known as UNPOL. At the same time, the controversial global organization is working to usurp more influence over national police forces, with the UN bringing together more than 100 national police chiefs this month at what is its first-ever UN “Chiefs of Police Summit” (UN COPS). The scheming comes less than two years after UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on local police forces in the United States to comply with what he cryptically referred to as “international standards.”

At the center of the UN's efforts to empower its self-styled “Police” force is a new report commissioned by the UN that — surprise! — claims the UN Police need more money, power, and prestige. “In reality, the [UN] Police Division’s current capacity and resourcing is insufficient and has not kept pace with the increased tasks and complexity of police mandates in peace operations,” the report claimed. In other words, hand over more resources — money, power, officers, technology, and more — to keep up with the UN's vision for globalized “law” enforcement. The report also called for a “paradigm shift” in how the UN “polices” people around the world.   

Among the recommendations is that “the current staffing level of the Police Division needs to be increased in order to align proportionally with the expanded role of police in contemporary peace operations.” However, the number of UN “police officers” has already ballooned from 2,000 in 1999 to more than 13,000 today. The report also called for upgrading the UN's “Police Adviser” bureaucrat to “Assistant Secretary-General” status. Finally, the document called for the roll-out of a “strategic framework” that envisions UN police serving as a “substitute for local police,” “helping secure elections,” and even fighting “crime and violent extremism.” The UN has also proudly launched a global war on “ideologies,” including “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

While the report was marketed as an “external” and “independent” effort, it was nothing of the sort. The team responsible for the pro-UN Police empowerment agenda was appointed by UN “peacekeeping” boss Ladsous. It was ordered by UN boss Ban. And it was co-chaired by two UN apparatchiks who owe their living and their bombastic UN job titles to the UN. So it is hardly surprising that, as practically every UN report does, the document was fully supportive of further empowering the UN.
In addition to the new report calling for a more powerful UN police force, the UN is also working hard to expand its influence over national police forces in the nations that have them. At its first-ever UN Chiefs of Police Summit (UN COPS), the UN brought more than 100 national police bosses to New York City. The summit, held in the dictator-dominated UN General Assembly hall where tyrants are given the opportunity to defend tyranny every year in front of their fellow dictators, was dubbed “historic” by multiple UN bureaucrats and propaganda organs. And for good reason — the implications of the effort are massive.   

According to the UN, the global body has more than 12,500 UN “police” officers deployed in 18 different UN “peace” missions around the world. Many of those UN “peace missions” have been noteworthy primarily for the horrifying abuses of women and children by UN forces, as documented extensively in this magazine and even in official UN reports. From raping eight-year old children in Haiti and the Central African Republic in recent years, to persecuting whistleblowers who try to protect the children, to backing Muslim militias that butchered Christians in the Ivory Coast, to trafficking child sex slaves out of Bosnia in the 1990s, to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and medical workers in Katanga in the 1960s, among countless other atrocities, the UN's “peace” forces have rightfully developed an unparalleled reputation for savagery and barbarism with impunity.






Along with the mounting tensions between the United States and China in the Pacific, and the former and Russia in the Atlantic comes a steady buildup of submarines in both respective theaters of naval combat.  The Russians have been accomplishing a great deal in stealth technology, especially with Kilo-class boats converted into stealth subs.  Dubbed “the black holes of the Russian Navy,” these quiet refitted diesel subs with the stealth technology are starting to roll steadily off of the assembly lines.

The Chinese are also upgrading their submarine fleet from a technological perspective (the boat) and also making improvements in their missile systems.  Such actions come on the heels of American positioning in the Pacific.  With all of the tensions escalating and seesawing in the two Koreas, the deployment of the Thaad Anti-ballistic missile systems in South Korea is not seen by the Chinese as a defensive measure: the hypersonic missiles can potentially hit China and alter the balance of its ground forces.  This U.S. ABM-deployment occurred in March of this year.

Now the Chinese are ready to unveil submarines in the Pacific that will be armed with nuclear missiles.  This is a definite game-changer that has its roots in the Senkaku islands dispute between China and Japan, but the U.S. has been flexing its muscles and inserted a fleet in the region.  Also the B-1 bombers have been reactivated and are running route missions, much to the chagrin of the Chinese.  They already have four Jin-class submarines in the South China sea, merely awaiting the order to proceed into the Pacific. Each Jin Submarine can carry 12 Ju-Lang (“Giant Wave”) missiles, and recently its largest missile, the DF-5 has been converted to a multiple-warhead carrying capacity.

Meanwhile in the Atlantic, the Russians are by no means being complacent with their submarine fleet.  The Commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet recently wrote a paper outlining this increased Russian activity in the Atlantic.  Written for the U.S. Naval Institute’s June 2016 issue of “Proceeding,” the article is entitled “The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic.”  Here is an excerpt that characterizes the Vice-Admiral’s viewpoint of the Russian submarine activity:







Today’s United States is a more realistic version of the type of society that George Orwell fictionally described in his allegorical novel 1984.
Like in 1984, the American public don’t know that they’re merely the tools of some unseen aristocracy who manipulate them by fear of ‘the other’, some ‘enemy’ group – manipulate the public via the media, which the aristocracy controls. But the big failing of Orwell’s model as a portrayal of the (when he wrote it) coming fascist-corporate dystopia was that he misunderstood how and why the public would falsely believe that they live in a democracy. His central character Winston Smith worked in an unrealistically portrayed propaganda-mill. But in some other fundamentals, Orwell had it right. 
The public don’t know that their real enemy is their own nation’s aristocracy who are mentally holding the public in bondage by lies systematically implanted into their beliefs, by means of ‘news’ media that are controlled by their own nation’s aristocracy, who own those media and/or control the government by bribery (sometimes subtle) of the politicians whom the aristocracy’s media are being paid to promote. In any case, the aristocracy control the public’s mind to accept the fundamental legitimacy of the regime the aristocrats are imposing. Aristocrats hire the ‘news’ media.





We are at war. The President may not know it or want to believe it, but anyone with half a brain is quite aware that ISIS wants to destroy us and institute a caliphate across the globe based on its twisted, evil ideology.
President Obama is not only philosophically against fighting this war, but he’s also scared to face the enemy. His fear causes him to create a myriad of excuses why he can’t take the helm and crucify ISIS.
The war with ISIS, Mr. President is not a gun control issue or a LGBT issue or some cry for more diversity. We are facing the greatest monsters on the planet since the Nazis paraded through Nuremberg carrying torches to hell.
ISIS must be destroyed. ISIS must be vanquished from the planet for eternity. Every ISIS soldier, terrorist and supporter must be eradicated. Every ISIS stronghold, base, logistics depot, command and control center must be blown to smithereens. We must wage this war to win; for if we don’t, life as we know it in the Western World may be altered forever.
Compounded with Obama’s romantic views of Islam, refusal to take the fight to ISIS and obsession with diversity and political correctness was the discovery this week that organizations like the CIA, FBI and DHS are so hamstrung with political correctness they can’t do their jobs.
This week former CIA and NSA Director, General Michael Hayden, warned that political correctness has become a significant hindrance when it comes to countering the threat of Muslim extremism.
Appearing on CNN, retired Gen. Michael Hayden made the point that the national security strategy is being hindered because there is now a hesitance to pursue some cases for fear of being branded a bigot.





An Egyptian court has sentenced former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to life in prison while simultaneously passing down death sentences for six co-conspirators.
Those who followed the 2011 Islamic uprising in Egypt saw the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton support the Muslim Brotherhood and their candidate Mohamed Morsi.
President Obama was thrilled with the Morsi election and immediately called him with congratulations.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Cairo to express the administration sentiments and well wishes personally.
Unfortunately it did not take long before Morsi began deconstructing the secular social constructs, disbanding the Egyptian court system, and attempting to institute Sharia Law.
Thousands of Coptic Christians were slaughtered after Morsi took control and empowered the Muslim Brotherhood to attack his political enemies.
As president, Mohamed Morsi opened the Egyptian jails releasing hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, including Mohamed Al Zawahiri the brother to al-Qaeda’s leader in Afghanistan Ayman Al Zawahiri.

After a year of brutal dictatorship within Egypt, and with thousands of Egyptians killed as a result of the Islamic terrorists within the Muslim Brotherhood, the people of Egypt reached out to the widely respected General Fattah el-Sisi to restore order and bring peace.
The Egyptian army responded to the call of the citizenry and removed Morsi from power.