Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
For Your Information / A New World Order: That Possible Dream
« Last post by nestopwar on July 30, 2018, 11:19:23 AM »
A New World Order: That Possible Dream
Christopher Black

July 24


   Well, my friends, I started to write an essay about the Brussels Declaration issued by NATO at the end of the American shakedown meeting with its allies on July 11, that, beneath the platitudes about "democracy" and "shared values" "defensive alliance," respect for international law" and layer upon layer of lies about "Russian aggression," is nothing less than a declaration of war. For that is what that document amounts to. Those interested can go to the NATO website and read it for themselves as paragraph after paragraph of fantasy and distortions are set out in that smug tone the war crowd likes to use to fool the rest of us. But be prepared for your mind to be polluted with every word.

So I stopped writing that piece, tore it up, and I stopped because how often can any reasonable person write about the same thing, the same war propaganda dished out with breakfast, lunch and dinner on every TV channel, every radio channel, every newspaper, time after time, without being numbed by it all.

I started to write another piece about the Skripal affair but then news came that the British police claim to have identified two "suspects" in the original incident, and let it be leaked that, of course, they are Russians, no doubt named Boris and Natasha from the Bullwinkle cartoon, though the British government, to draw more attention to the leak, cautioned that the news may not be confirmed. But you can bet it soon will be, maybe by the time you read this. It's difficult to keep up with the propaganda the forces for war are putting out on a daily basis.

I started to write another about the Trump-Putin meeting but once again, only succeeded in making myself depressed as I watched the US news media, from the so called "left" to the right, accusing Trump of treason for talking to president Putin about peace and cooperation instead of war and destruction. All the mass media of the western world, that tragic array of countries led by charlatans, fools, gangsters and crooks that are the real face of capitalism, joined in with their fake gasps of consternation at the antics of the American president, all calling for the head of Vladimir Putin to be put on a spike next to Donald Trump's.

Not since the days of the assassination of President Kennedy have we witnessed such malice and hatred against an American president. Not since the witch hunts of the McCarthy period when American society turned itself inside out has this level of hysteria been generated by the people that control the media and the government machinery. Turn on the news, read a journal, and what you will see is not news but the ravings of secret service officials, interviewed by criminals with the morality of Julius Streicher, the Nazi propagandist hanged at Nuremberg, telling us they are the voice of truth and the rest of us better just shut up and take it. I even heard one of them make the laughable statement that Putin's gift of a soccer ball to Trump at their joint press conference, a mere souvenir of the World Cup, and a reminder to Trump that the Russians presented the best World Cup experience ever, is proof positive that Putin is "playing Trump". I kid you not, and yes, they are that idiotic and that dangerous.

And yet, this same US president, who claims to want to resolve things with Russia, is the same man who bullied the NATO gang members to cough up more money for war preparations against Russia, who supports the on going Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine slaughtering the people of the Donbass, who increases the build up of NATO forces on Russia's borders, who supports the coup attempt against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, against Maduro in Venezuela, who has slapped the Palestinians in the face, arranged for the White Helmet terrorists to be rescued from Syrian justice by Israel, and now Canada, who is harassing China with his navy and is intent on beggaring the world with a trade war so "America can be great, again." One has to wonder whether Trump is a willing dupe in the anti-Russian hysteria contrived by the war fanatics and willingly plays the foil so the hysteria can be raised to a crisis point. Trying to make sense of it all is a maddening affair, unless one goes back to basic principles of how the world works.

In his First Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association on the Franco-Prussian War Marx wrote:

"If the emancipation of the working classes requires their fraternal concurrence, how are they to fulfil that great mission with a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal designs, playing upon national prejudices, and squandering in piratical wars the people's blood and treasure? We defined the foreign policy aimed at by the International in these words: vindicate the simple laws of morals and justice, which ought to govern the relation of private individuals, as the laws paramount of the intercourse of nations."

Yet, where does that exist now? Even president Xi of China recently wrote a letter to Paul Kagame, the mass murderer installed in power in Rwanda by the west, praising him and ignoring the millions of African dead that Kagame, among others, is responsible for. Morality is impaled on expediency and cynical opportunism. The great powers make international agreements and create institutions that temporarily establish how their competition for world plunder will be regulated and the rest of us be damned.

They did it after the First World War. In twenty years that word order resulted in a bigger, more destructive, war. At the end of the Second World War, another world order was established in which the US tried to destroy the socialist movements of the world while the Soviet Union and Red China resisted in war after war after war; until the counter-revolution in the USSR produced the weaker successor state of Russia, China began the slide back towards the rule of capital and the US declared a New World Order in which it planned to dominate and exploit the people of the world. It then attacked Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya, Syria and on and on. But their attempt to create this new order has met resistance in every region of the world and as the situation of the people deteriorates, especially in the USA, the reaction becomes more and more irrational and desperate and dangerous to our survival. Even as our industrial civilization brings us all to the edge of extinction, they bang the drums of war.

These successive world orders are continually upset by the very conditions and circumstances they produce as capital searches for ways to increase its exploitation of resources, including human beings who are seen as just another resource to be used and destroyed, for new ways to secure more profit. And so at each new historical phase, a new balance of world forces is established by fresh military conflict, followed by a fresh set of agreements, followed by new conflicts ad infinitum as the dialectic requires in a logic that only a socialist world order can stop.

International relations are a reflection of the contradictions existing in a world economy of competing national state and the class divisions within those states. The economy is global in character and so the struggle for the appropriation of global profit has become acute among the major economic powers with the United States facing a crisis that seems to be so deep that even world war is actively considered as a way out. Capital has problems the world over, proved by the continuous push to squeeze the workers until we are just dry husks the world over. US capital has even bigger problems as its economy and influence weaken. So it is following the logic of war. If the system doesn't favour you and you have the power to change it, change it to your benefit. That's what they are doing, but in the doing they don't care about life, or morality, or us.

Little the war crowd care about the working classes. They are capital. They are the dictatorship. We are the helots who they spit upon with every false word out of their mouths, who steal our money and who steal our lives so they can gorge themselves until they vomit and then gorge themselves the more. So I did not succeed in writing what I intended but you have to forgive me because I'm beyond fed up with that dictatorship, with that system and their gorging while we starve and suffer their wars and decadence. I'm sure you are too. For there is only one world order that I can accept, that can lead us, the working people of the world, out of the cul de sac we find ourselves in, a new world order founded upon morality and justice than can only come with the great emancipation of the working classes of the world, that possible dream, that only struggle can realise.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel "Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."

12
Evan Davis was at it again on Newsnight.

On the Tuesday evening programme on 24th April, Jonathan Arkush, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was given free rein to vent his concerns over anti-Semitism in the Labour party. It is important to note that the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) never criticises the racist, apartheid Israeli state’s murderous actions and policies against the Palestinians, not even, for example, at the height of Israel’s assaults on Gaza in recent years – indeed, it supports the Israeli state no matter what it does. The BoD is Zionist and attempts (together with the Jewish Chronicle) to police the close-knit Jewish community so that it takes courage and commitment for Jews to speak out against them. Nevertheless, some Jewish groups do so.

The entire piece on the programme was the alleged concern – does anti-Semitism exist in the Labour party? But this is a false premise. Since the Labour party – because of Jeremy Corbyn – now has well over half a million members – it would be surprising if there were not some real anti-Semites within its ranks. Since anti-Semitism, like other forms of racism, does exist in British society, the correct question to ask is whether anti-Semitism within the Labour party is any worse than in the rest of society – or exists at the same level – or is in fact less pervasive.

Those who ask the wrong question – does anti-Semitism exist in the Labour party – do so deliberately. A phony debate can then – and has been – whipped up by those factions who dislike Corbyn and all he stands for.  Thus, a loose assortment of Tories and other right-wingers, Zionists (like Arkush and the BoD, and the Jewish Labour Movement) who realise that Corbyn (rightly) supports the cause of Palestinian human rights, Blairites in the Labour party and Labour Friends of Israel – plus many so-called liberals who, when it comes down to it, are hearty opponents of socialism – can use the false debate as a means of attacking Corbyn’s Labour. (If they had asked the right question, there would have been no debate at all.) They have stirred up things in spades – just prior to the local elections.

Arkush, as a Zionist (and therefore a racist and anti-Semite himself, since the Palestinians are also Semites) deliberately asked the wrong question. And Evan Davis let him do it.

Davis tentatively asked him to comment on the charge of whipped-up accusations of anti-Semitism – Arkush said only that he was there to defend Jews in the Labour party, and commented on the thousands (some say only hundreds) of Jews who demonstrated against anti-Semitism in Labour’s ranks – without mentioning that the major demonstration was by the Jewish Labour Movement – and without mentioning that movement’s very dodgy antecedents (for which see below).

Arkush said that Labour had not done enough to quash the supposed scourge. He specifically mentioned Labour’s rejection of an ombudsman. But very significantly, he made no mention of the range of other actions which the BoD and the Jewish Leadership Council requested of Labour. The most important of these by far was the request that the Labour party formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. This is attached as Appendix A. The points set out in the paragraphs below concern this vitally important definition:

Theresa May announced (at a Conservative Friends of Israel meeting in December 2016) the UK’s  formal adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism agreed on earlier this year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It poses a familiar threat to legitimate criticism of the State of Israel. The points inset below are contained in an article in the Independent of Tuesday 13 December 2016 headed “Theresa May’s new definition of antiSemitism will do more harm than good”:
  • “…The text of the IHRA definition is based on, and very similar to, a draft document first circulated by a European anti-racism agency in 2005, only to be subsequently abandoned as not fit for purpose. That particular definition, drafted with the help of pro-Israel advocacy groups, was the subject of serious critique for its conflation of genuine anti-Semitic bigotry on the one hand, and criticism of or opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel on the other. It is that definition which has now been resuscitated, and endorsed by a Tory government that has already sought to intimidate Palestine solidarity activism and undermine civil society boycotts…”
  • “…In fact, the definition endorsed by May is almost identical to the one at the heart of a free speech furore in the US, pitching pro-Israel senators against groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish Voice for Peace, who oppose efforts they see as intended to stifle pro-Palestine activism…”
  • “…American Jewish commentator Peter Beinart also wrote in December 2016 in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, suggesting that such efforts “to classify anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, punishable by law” are a direct response to the growing number of “progressives” who “question Zionism”…The Israeli government and its friends and allies are desperate to smear and shush – even if it means compromising the fight against genuine anti-Semitism with muddled definitions…”

The Jewish Labour Movement has been one of the main groups on the right wing of the Labour Party whipping up a phony “anti-Semitism crisis” since Corbyn was elected in 2015. A witch hunt was conducted against members who had actually done little more than criticize Israel or defend Palestinian rights. The Jewish Labour Movement has close links to the Israeli embassy, and is constitutionally committed to Zionism. It is involved in the World Zionist Organization, which is strongly involved in the ongoing colonization of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank by Israeli settlers:
  • The Jewish Labour Movement has strongly promoted the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which Israeli lobby groups have pressed legislatures around the world to adopt – see the Appendix for this definition.
  • A previous unadopted Jewish Labour Movement proposal would have allowed the party to discipline members accused of anti-Semitism in cases “where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility” towards Jews. In other words, one politically motivated false accusation of anti-Semitism is all it would have taken for a Labour Party member to be expelled. The Jewish Labour Movement also argued that its original proposal would have rendered it unacceptable “to use Zionism as a term of abuse.”

The Labour Party’s “Race and Faith Manifesto” formally endorses a two-sentence definition of anti-Semitism, contained in the controversial IHRA document, which does not mention Israel: “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It adds that, “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”:
  • This part of the IHRA document does not produce any problem. It is the accompanying “examples” provided by IHRA (see the Appendix) that define criticism of Israel and its Zionist state ideology as anti-Semitism. The Labour manifesto is rightly silent on whether the party accepts or rejects those examples as valid instances of anti-Semitism. A careful reading of these examples reveals what can only be regarded as a sinister attempt to expand the boundaries of what may properly be considered as “anti-Semitism” into very contentious areas, and is in fact an attack on free speech itself – its blatant intent is to close down criticism of Israel as far as possible, and try to legally intimidate Israel’s critics. It is a thoroughly reprehensible document.

But surely, in the interests of the BBC’s famed impartiality, Davis entertained some countervailing voice? Someone like Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, for example, a leading member of the Jewish Voice for Labour group, which supports Palestinian rights, and which held a counter-demonstration against the “attack Corbyn” demonstration organised by the Jewish Labour Movement? She may well have excoriated the BoD president about the nature of the Jewish Labour movement, queried the genuineness of the “Labour anti-Semitism” debate, exposed the real motives behind the BoD’s request for the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and attacked his and the BoD’s Zionism. Davis did nothing of the sort - the unabashed Zionist was allowed, unopposed, to exercise his prejudices and set out his dishonest narrative.

To be fair to Evan Davis and the BBC, he and the corporation were no worse than the rest of the mainstream media (both broadcast and print) as regards the sham respect accorded to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, whose true views on Israel are never reported. But it is up to the BBC, as a publicly-funded broadcaster not susceptible to commercial and financial pressures, to impartially present issues such as the current anti-Semitism debate (and the related Israel-Palestine conflict), and so hold other broadcast media to a standard they may otherwise wish to avoid. In this it shamefully fails, as in the truths it has omitted to tell surrounding the issues discussed above. Davis is a stooge of the pro-Israel lobby and so is the the disgraceful BBC.

John Tinmouth, member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Tuesday, 1st May 2018











APPENDIX - International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism

Bucharest, 26 May 2016

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”


To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
•   Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
•   Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
•   Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
•   Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
•   Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
•   Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
•   Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
•   Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
•   Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
•   Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
•   Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
13
Will Morrow, World Socialist Web Site reprinted in Global Research

April 19, 2018

On Monday, the US and British intelligence agencies released a joint report charging Moscow with unspecified "cyber warfare" against the West. The American media was filled with hysterical warnings that Russia may have hacked "millions" of personal devices as well as critical infrastructure.

The tenor of the media coverage was epitomized by the New York Times, which labelled the intelligence agencies' report a "computer-age version of a Cold War air raid drill, but asking citizens to upgrade their password rather than duck and cover."

The coordinated campaign comes amid the unravelling of the official pretext for Friday night's illegal US-British-French bombing of Russia's ally Syria—the claim that the Assad government carried out a chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta on April 7.

On Sunday, the Independent published an on-the-spot report by well-known veteran journalist Robert Fisk, an expert on Middle East policy, who visited Douma, the town in Ghouta where a gas attack supposedly occurred.

Fisk spoke with Dr. Assim Rahaibani, who works at the medical clinic where the widely publicized videos were filmed showing children being hosed down with water, ostensibly to relieve poison gas inhalation. He quotes Rahaibani as follows:

"I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night, but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of [government] shelling and aircraft were always over Douma at night—but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived.

"People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet,' shouted ‘Gas!,' and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia, not gas poisoning."

This account is in line with statements by Russian authorities, who have charged that the White Helmets, the anti-Assad "rebel" organization funded by Britain, staged the gas attack under orders from UK intelligence to provide its Western sponsors with a pretext for intervention. Fisk notes that by the time he arrived in Douma, the White Helmets had already left to join fighters of the Islamic fundamentalist group Jaysh-al Islam, who fled Douma for Idlib under an agreement brokered with Russia.

Fisk's report is a devastating exposure of the lies of the governments of France, Britain and the US, which have provided no evidence to substantiate their charges against the Assad regime. The imperialist governments' narrative was immediately disseminated by a corrupt media that functions shamelessly as a propaganda arm of the state.

As the World Socialist Web Site insisted from the outset, the incident was a CIA-organized provocation to provide a pretext for imperialist intervention, continuing the seven-year-long US regime-change operation against Russia's ally Assad, during which time Washington has armed and funded right-wing Islamist proxies.

Fisk's report is at the same time a damning indictment of the corporate media, along with various pseudo-left organizations, such as the International Socialist Organization, which regurgitated all of the governments' lying pretexts and made no effort to investigate them. The media has responded to Fisk's report by burying it. In the 24 hours since its publication, neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times, which in 2005 called Fisk "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain," has reported on Fisk's on-the-spot story.

The US government responds to each exposure of its lies by concocting new ones. The chemical weapons charge followed directly after the collapse of the unsubstantiated British and US claims that Russia carried out the attempted assassination on British soil of its former agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, using a nerve agent. Both Yulia and Sergei are now on their way to a full recovery despite having supposedly been poisoned with the most fatal military-grade agent in existence.

Yesterday's report by the FBI and the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), "Advisory: Russian State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Targeting Network Infrastructure Devices," is no more credible. Like previous charges levelled by the intelligence agencies against Moscow, there is not a single piece of evidence contained in the document to back them up.

Out of its 21 pages, approximately 15 provide generic information about computer network security flaws commonly exploited by what the report refers to as "cyber actors." They give generic advice for users and network administrators to improve digital security. These include not using "the same password across multiple devices," avoiding unencrypted communication protocols, and replacing outdated hardware and security software.

The first six pages include the only references to Russia, but provide no details, much less evidence, of any specific activities. Every one of the charges against Moscow begin with phrases such as: "FBI and NCSC have high confidence that"; "the US and UK governments assess that"; they "have received information from multiple sources that ," etc.

None of this has prevented the media in both the US and UK from dutifully amplifying the latest charges. A front-page article published by the New York Times, "US-UK Warning on Cyberattacks Includes Private Homes," cites the comments of Rob Joyce, a special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator for the National Security Council, declaring that Russians are "seeking to exploit the increasing popularity of Internet-connected devices" that "you and I have in our homes."

Revealing more than it intended, the article states that the government document "had been in the works for a long period" and was "not a response to any recent events." In other words, the intelligence agencies were awaiting the opportune moment to publish it. Its release serves several purposes.

First, to create a mood of panic in the population so as to facilitate a major escalation of the confrontation with Russia. Second, to counter the popular distrust in the media and disbelief of what is widely seen as the latest pretext for yet another war against a Middle Eastern nation, and, third, to suppress anti-war sentiment and legitimize the crackdown on democratic rights and censorship of the Internet, under the banner of combating Russian cyber warfare and "fake news."

The connection between the drive to war and Internet censorship was made clear by the statements of Pentagon officials following the attack on Syria. US Defence Secretary James Mattis warned Friday that there would be a rise in Russian "disinformation" in response to the US and allied strikes. Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White stated that Russian claims that Syrian air defence missiles had shot down 71 of the 105 missiles fired on Syria were part of a disinformation campaign "that has already begun." She said there had been a "2,000 percent increase in Russian trolls" over 24 hours.

These claims are aimed at identifying any statements that contradict the official narrative of the US government and military as foreign "disinformation" and essentially treasonous.

The FBI report is no doubt also aimed at fuelling the ongoing campaign by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party demanding that Trump further escalate the confrontation with Russia. The Times and the other Democratic Party-aligned media denounced the Trump administration's announcement yesterday that the US will not at this time impose further sanctions on Russia, contradicting the statements of Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, over the weekend.

The Times quoted Democrat Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who said,

"I am outraged that President Trump pulled back sanctions on Russia for its support of the Assad regime."

Times columnist Nikolas Kristof, who has made his career promoting imperialist wars in the name of "human rights," praised the arch-reactionary Haley against Trump in an appearance on MSNBC, declaring that she was "much better regarded than almost any other member of the administration in foreign policy."


14
Syria 'chemical attack' staged to provoke US airstrike, London pushed perpetrators – Russian MoD
RT

The Russian Defense Ministry has presented what it says is proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.”


During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.


In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.

“Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage,” said ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov.

“The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta,” the general added, referring to the neighborhood of which Douma is part. “We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were preparing.”

According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces, which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.

The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them “grotesque,” “a blatant lie” and “the worst piece of fake news we've yet seen from the Russian propaganda machine.”

One of the interviews published by the ministry showed a man who said his name was Halil Ajij, and who said he was a medical student working at Douma’s only operational hospital. This is how he described the origin of the footage:

“On April 8, a bomb hit a building. The upper floors were damaged and a fire broke at the lower floors. Victims of that bombing were brought to us. People from the upper floors had smoke poisoning. We treated them, based on their suffocation."

Ajij said that a man unknown to him came and said there was a chemical attack and panic ensued. “Relatives of the victims started dousing each other with water. Other people, who didn’t seem to have medical training, started administering anti-asthma medicine to children. We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.


Read more

Douma, the suburb of Damascus recently recaptured from anti-government forces.‘They can go anywhere they want in Douma’: OPCW team arrives in Syria to investigate alleged attack
The first photos claiming to show the aftermath of the alleged chemical attack on April 7 were published online on the same day, and featured the bodies of many people, including children, some with foam around their mouths and noses. Footage from the hospital was released on Sunday, with the sources behind it claiming that it had been shot on Saturday.

Konashenkov said Russia hoped that international monitors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is due to investigate the circumstances of the incident, will help establish the truth. He added Eastern Ghouta is currently trying to return to peaceful life after being liberated from militant groups by Syrian government forces. He called on other nations and international organizations to provide humanitarian aid, which is badly needed in the area. Russia is already supplying food, medicine, building materials and other essential supplies to the neighborhood, he said.

Residents of the neighborhood, who previously fled violence, are returning to their homes now that the area is relatively safe, the Russian official said. The latest reports from the ground say about 63,000 people have returned, which is over half of the displaced residents, he added.

The reported chemical weapons attack escalated tensions over Syria, just as Damascus was about to seize full control of Eastern Ghouta. The US and allies such as the UK and France threatened military action in response to what they claim is an atrocity committed by the Syrian government. Russia insists the incident was staged and said it reserves the right to counter any attack on Syria.

RT spoke about the Russian claims with Lord Alan West, a retired officer of the British Royal Navy. He said he had strong reservations about taking allegations against Damascus at face value, because it didn’t make much military sense.

“It seems to be utterly ludicrous for the military that is in the process of taking over an area to go and do something with chemical weapons, which will draw the wrath of the larger enemy down upon them,” he said. “If I was advising the opponents of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, I would be delighted to kill a few people there. Let’s face it, [the insurgents] don’t care if they kill women and children.”

“I am not willing to accept tweets. We need to see incontrovertible truth about what has happened there and make a decision on that basis,” he added.
15
‘Attack on Syria would be attack on entire UN system’ – Bolivia’s UN envoy

The threat by the US to use force in Syria undermines international law and the entire United Nations system, Bolivian Ambassador to the UN Sacha Llorenti, who called a Security Council meeting over the issue, told RT.

By threatening to act against Damascus with or without the UN’s blessing, Washington is putting itself above all other nations, flaunting international law, the UN Charter, and the UN system as a whole, Llorenti said.

“The problem is that the United States believes and it acts as if it’s above any law. They believe they have their own rules and it’s not the case,” the ambassador said.

READ MORE: 'We're exceptional, Russia is not': Pompeo takes hard line in Senate pitch

On Wednesday, Llorenti asked the UN Security Council (UNSC), of which Bolivia is a non-permanent member, to convene on Thursday to discuss the “escalation of rhetoric regarding Syria and these threats of unilateral military action.”

This follows Monday’s threat by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley that Washington might go to war in Syria alone if it can’t secure approval in the UN due to what she called “obstructionism” from Russia. “Either way, the United States will respond,” Haley said.

Llorenti argued that while the UNSC faces many problems of its own and is in need of reform, its main priority for now should be “to unite and to create an independent mechanism in order to investigate the alleged chemical attacks.”


Even if countries can’t agree on a mechanism, this does not mean the US is allowed to do whatever it wants in Syria, Llorenti said, and at this point, “there is no conclusive investigation on the chemical attack.”

“So, whatever happens, if the United States takes unilateral action, it will be a violation of international law and the UN system should, of course, not accept that,” Llorenti stressed, noting that a potential military strike “will not be an attack against Syria, but an attack against the whole United Nations System.”

Llorenti echoed an earlier statement by the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, who said that with its threats against Syria, the US is already violating the UN Charter, which prohibits threats to international peace and security. The Russian ambassador also said that the “immediate priority” of the UN should be finding a way to avoid a war.
16
Al-Jaafari: Western threats to attack Syria will not dissuade it from confronting any aggression regardless of its source
 SANA 
April 11, 2018
 
 Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari stressed that the threats by Western states to launch an aggression on Syria and their maneuvers, misdirection, lies, and terrorism will not dissuade Syria from preserving its sovereignty and territorial integrity and from confronting any aggression regardless of its source, adding that Syria will not allow any of the permanent or non-permanent member states to do in Syria what they have done in Iraq or Libya.

Speaking during a session of the Security Council on the situation in Syria on Tuesday, al-Jaafari said "The US representative said that there is a single monster today which stands in the face of the whole world, and it is a monster which has armed and financed terrorists for more than seven years in Syria, and I say that this monster is the US, Britain, and France who sponsored terrorism in Syria and before it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya."

He clarified that in a response to the campaign of allegations launched by some Western states against the Syrian Arab Republic regarding the alleged chemical attack in Douma city, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry on Tuesday sent a formal invitation to the OPCW to send a team from the fact-finding mission to visit Douma and to investigate the alleged accident.

Al-Jaafari added that Syria welcomes the visit of a fact-finding team and it asserts its commitment to cooperate fully and its readiness to provide all the required help to allow this mission to do its work and to guarantee the safety of its members, stressing that Syria hopes the mission will perform its work with transparency and professionalism based on credible evidence.

He reiterated that those who proposed the US draft resolution are not seeking to uncover the truth, because the truth will prove that they are guilty along with their terrorist pawns on the ground.

"I affirm that the reality that the US, Britain, and France are the ones who caused the failure of what was called the Joint Investigative Mechanism due to their insistence on politicizing its work and exerting pressure on its leaders," al-Jaafari said, stressing that what is happening in the Council during this session is similar to what happened a year ago when the US used false and fabricated excuses about the use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun to attack al-Shairat Airbase.

He called on the Security Council's member states to shoulder their responsibilities in supporting the international legitimacy and in protecting international peace and security from the terrorism which is being used by the aforementioned three permanent member states who seek to undermine the stability of the states and to decide the fate of their peoples.

Al-Jaafari reiterated that the Syrian Arab Republic strongly condemns any use of chemical weapons by anyone and under any circumstances, and that it is fully committed to cooperating with the OPCW to uncover the reality of the allegations.

He concluded by saying that the threats of some Western parties to launch an aggression and their maneuvers, misdirection, lies, and terrorism will not dissuade Syria from preserving its sovereignty and territorial integrity and from confronting any aggression regardless of its source.

In a phone call with the Syrian TV al-Jaafari described what took place at the Security Council as "being similar to a play," indicating that the West has suffered successive failures at the Security Council and it can't achieve any progress neither there nor with exploiting terrorism.

He noted that the Western states don't want the OPCW fact-finding mission to reach Douma because they don't want it to reveal the falseness of their allegations.
 
17
For Your Information / US to Launch a Sustained Operation in Syria
« Last post by nestopwar on April 12, 2018, 10:26:11 AM »
US to Launch a Sustained Operation in Syria
 Arkady Savitsky, Strategic Culture Foundation 
April 11, 2018

 The events in Syria are likely to escalate into a regional conflict. USS Donald Cook already deployed in the Mediterranean can deliver a limited missile attack against Syria but a large-scale operation is unlikely to be launched until USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group (CSG) arrives in roughly 10-14 days. The CSG left the home base in Norfolk on April 11. The land strike-capable USS Porter can reach the Syria's shore pretty soon. USS Laboon and USS Carney, two more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, as well as USS Georgia and USS John Warner submarines, are in close proximity to add more punch if an order to strike is given.

The composition of the carrier group includes at least five warships (one cruiser and 4 destroyers) capable of cruise missile attacks against land targets. Each US destroyer or cruiser can carry over 50 land attack missiles. It could be more, depending on the mission. USS Georgia is an Ohio class submarine (SSGN) to carry 154 land attack missiles. USS John Warner is a Virginia-class submarine to carry 12 Tomahawks. The USS Iwo Jima amphibious strike group can deploy to Syria in a few days from the Arabian Sea.

The UK, France, perhaps some other NATO and Middle East allies, including Israel, will join a US-led operation in Syria. The British Air Force can operate from Cyprus. A RAF KC2 air tanker is already there. The talks between the US, the UK and France are underway. Syrian armed forces are taking precautionary measures expecting strikes any time now.

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Hailey, sounds like if a sustained operation, not a one-off strike, is a done deal. The envoy says America will strike with or without a UN resolution. The voices are heard calling for striking Syrian command and control sites as well as "regime's political centers", despite the fact that where Russian advisers could be there. That's something the US military has not done before.

A proposal to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to contain Moscow without military actions has been floated. No actual war, but Russia will be considered an enemy. John Bolton's warnings that an Islamic State ouster would allow Syrian President Assad to remain in power, with Iranian influence intact in Iraq are remembered to bolster the calls for action. In 2015, the newly appointed national security adviser called for carving out an independent Sunni Muslim state in northeastern Syria and western Iraq. He has his chance now.

A US-led multinational operation in Syria has become a predominant idea in Washington. On April 10, President Trump postponed his visit to Latin America because of the events in Syria. One can assume that the provocation in Douma was staged to make President Trump reconsider the decision to pull forces out in favor of confronting Russia, Syria and Iran. Those who did it hoped the US president would bite it. And bite he did.

There is no way to get rid of Assad but launch an international invasion. Washington's global standing has received a strong blow after the unimpressive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A US-led intervention could boost it if it were a success. America would present itself as a defender of Syrians suffering from the "atrocities of Assad's dictatorship". Heading an international coalition would help restore America's image as the world leader. This is the way to make Washington a friend of Sunni Muslims who allegedly need protection from Tehran.

Invading Syria is the way to weaken Iran's influence in Iraq. Such an operation would meet the goals of the Russia containment policy. An intervention could bring the US-led force and Turkey together in their desire to oust Assad. That would distance Ankara from Moscow, which will not leave its Syrian ally in lurch. From Washington's view, these are the pros to bolster the plan to invade.

And now about the cons. After the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, you name it, the US would once again get tied up in the messy situation in the region. It may need to go beyond the Syria's borders. For instance, the US-led coalition would have to strike Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a big chance the US and its allies would get involved in another protracted bloody war with no final victory in sight.

Suppose, the intervention ends up as a quick, victorious operation in purely military terms, what about the prospects of winning war to lose peace, like in Iraq? Washington will be responsible for the outcome of nation building in a country divided along religious and ethnical lines. The US will be rebuked for failure and accused of depriving Syria of the chance provided by the Astana peace process. Invading Syria means fighting Iranians. The Washington's goal is to incite them to rebellion. An invasion of Syria could backlash to make all Iranian people united behind the ayatollahs' regime.

Finally, invading Syria is a great risk as Russia would not stand idly if the lives of its servicemen were threatened there. The possibility of clash will grow immensely. But if the US-coalition applies de-confliction efforts, there will be no containment. To the contrary, the world will see that Moscow cannot be ignored. It isn't now. Despite all the tensions souring, Russia's Chief of General Staff will meet the NATO Supreme Commander in a few days. No doubt, they will discuss Syria.

If Iran gets united and stronger, Russia remains to be an actor to reckon with, nation building fails and Assad keeps on fighting back to make the coalition suffer casualties, then there will be only cons with no pros. And that will take place against the background of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Risks are too great to ask the question – why should the US get involved in the faraway Syria's conflict at all? By no stretch of imagination could such an operation be considered a move to enhance US and West's security and meet the goals of "America First" policy.
 
18
Douma Chemical Attack: Another Link in the Chain of Staged Provocations
Peter Korzun, Strategic Culture Foundation

April 9, 2018


   What happened in Syria on April 7 had been expected. While raising hue and cry over the alleged chemical attack in Douma, a rebel-held suburb of the capital, Western officials and media wasted no time to put the blame on the Assad government.

The US State Department issued a statement saying that by shielding Damascus Moscow has breached its international commitments. The administration immediately called on Russia to cease its support of Syria's government. President Trump wants an international action. As usual, few people in the West raised their voices to emphasize the need to investigate first and make conclusions afterwards.

It strikes the eye that Moscow's warnings about a CW provocation being prepared to dash the rising hopes for peaceful settlement in Syria appear to be forgotten! The Defense Ministry shared the information that the ringleaders of Jabhat al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army were plotting false flag chemical attacks in areas under their control. Moscow warned but the West did not listen.

It's the same old song and dance. Last year, the Syrian government was blamed for a sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhun that prompted a US cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base. The American president's approval ratings went up as a result. This time, the alleged attack occurred right after the Russia-Turkey-Iran summit that took place in Ankara on April 4 to promote the Syria conflict settlement.

As before, all "evidence" boils down to White Helmets' report and a video going viral that does not look or sound very convincing. There was no independent verification. The White Helmets have iffy reputation, to put it mildly. The organization is known to pursue political interests of outside actors.

No explanation was given to a simple question: what does Syria's government need this attack for? It is victorious everywhere and the operation in Eastern Ghouta has been a success. Douma is the last remaining stronghold still controlled by rebels in the area and will be liberated soon. It's a matter of a few days. The army's combat actions are supported by Russian aviation. What does Syria's government stand to gain by using CW? Nothing.

Syria army units are operating in Douma. By launching an attack, the Syrian government would hit its own troops, This argument appears to be largely missing in Western media reports. President Trump has recently promised to withdraw American forces from Syria. Why would President Assad give him a pretext to renege on his word?

But the world "indignation" against Russia-supported President Assad benefits the extremists a lot. They are cornered and need time to take a breath and receive support. Actually, the ballyhoo raised in the West is their only chance to at least slow down the offensive. A government forces' victory in Douma would deal a heavy blow to terrorist groups, sounding the death knell for the rebellion. Sounds simple but that's what it is. There is each and every reason to believe the incident was staged by terrorists.

Right after the alleged attack, they asked for talks. The ringleaders believe that this is their chance for a negotiated truce. The militants keep their fingers crossed hoping that NATO member states which clandestinely support them will get involved one way or another. Just last February, Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned Syria of "dire consequences" if it executed chemical strikes. French President Macron said he would order strikes if CW were used. It's worth noting that today the US president's National Security Team is led by a person known as a trigger happy hawk advocating the use of force as a foreign policy tool.

The US and France have been harboring plans to launch a joint operation in Syria for some time. Only a few days ago, a contingent of French forces arrived in Manbij to join American allies there. Actually, a NATO operation has been launched leaving Turkey, a bloc's member, out in the cold. It's an open secret that the US-led coalition pursues the goal of partitioning Syria to "contain" Russia, roll back Iran, win the support of rich Persian Gulf Arab states to boost lucrative arms trade and bolster the US and France's clout in the Middle East.

It would be naïve to think that the chemical attack in Syria and the Skripal scandal are two separate events. They are links in the same chain. With the spy poisoning case leading nowhere, the anti-Russia campaign needs a new impetus. The alleged CW attack is a good pretext to spur the efforts. But any strike in Syria would pose a risk to the lives of Russian servicemen. It could make Moscow respond. The US-led coalition is playing with fire. And as in the Skripal case, the reaction is the same – blame first, wait for the results of investigation second. It just shows that the West is not interested in the truth. It's looking for new pretexts to damage Russia's reputation and thus reduce its global clout.
19
South Tyneside Stop the War / Tools of the state? - No. 1173426 Evan Davis
« Last post by John Tinmouth on April 05, 2018, 01:26:26 PM »
One night on Newsnight last week, the presenter Evan Davis interviewed Lord Levy.

Lord Levy, Blair's financier and a man with first-class contacts with those at the head of the Zionist, racist regime in Tel Aviv, is of course a rabid Zionist himself. That is, he fully supports, without any criticism, that regime in its racism, its intransigence in the face of world opinion, its arrogance, and its murderous and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people.

So what does Evan do, does he castigate the noble Lord and his repugnant views? No, he allows Levy to detail a (truly antisemitic) email that he, Levy, has received. The effect was to show this prominent Zionist in a sympathetic light - truly disgusting.

But kow-towing to the Zionist racists is standard fare at the BBC. Occasionally, when the BBC is vigorously shamed and prodded, and when events like the "day of rage" in Gaza are too big even for the BBC to ignore, then Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen bestirs himself, and the Corporation (reluctantly) reports the event.

Of course, it has been said that the American Anti-Defamation League is in town with a brief to take on critics of Israel. Just as The Israeli Defence Force is really, really, really an Israeli Attack Force, so the Anti-Defamation League is really, really, really a Defamation League - its brief is to intimidate and get the dirt on Israel's critics. We know from the book by the American professors Walt and Meisenheimer on the pro-Israel lobby in America that these people don't pull any punches, they get up to some very nasty tricks to silence people. Could this have happened to Evan? We don't know.

Tools of which state? Well, the British state (as opposed to the British people) is - against all morality, strongly supportive of the state of Israel. So, a tool of both the British state and the state of Israel? Or perhaps just a victim.

John Tinmouth, member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Tuesday, 3rd April 2018

20
For Your Information / The West's New Front-Line State
« Last post by nestopwar on March 26, 2018, 05:38:45 PM »
The West's New Front-Line State
German Foreign Policy
https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/7572/
03/22/2018


   LONDON/BERLIN/BRUSSELS (Own report) - Fierce power struggles over EU foreign policy orientation and leadership accompany western threats against Russia following the Salisbury poison assassination attempt. With its accusations of Russia, London has succeeded in imposing "a united western foreign policy approach under British leadership," a leading German daily has noted. Great Britain has become the "West's new front-line state." After leaving the EU, the UK is presently setting course for its ensuing European policy, by focusing not only on a military treaty with France, but also another with Poland, aimed against Russia. Berlin is maneuvering: On the one hand, it is closing ranks against Moscow and, on the other, it is not willing to cede leadership of EU foreign policy. "Good and close collaboration between Russia and Germany" is very "important," the German president declared, thus marking a first counterpoint to British policy.

German-British Military Cooperation

Shortly after the Brexit referendum, the UK government began restructuring its future foreign and military relations with the EU27. London is, to some extent, seeking military policy cooperation with Berlin. This is met with approval in Germany, because it is well aware that future European military forces can hardly do without the UK, which - alongside France - is currently Western Europe's strongest military power. Already in February 2017, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared that also in the future, Berlin and London "want to maintain very close ties" in the field of armament and military policy.[1] In July 2017, Britain's defense ministry announced that an agreement had been reached on a "Joint Vision Statement" for future cooperation, which will be signed officially by the German side after the new government is formed.[2] Following her meeting with her British counterpart Gavin Williamson, in late February this year, von der Leyen confirmed Berlin's desire to continue cooperation.[3]

The New Entente Cordiale

On the European continent, however, UK military policy is relying primarily on cooperation with France, rather than with Germany, also because, for many years, Berlin has strictly followed the plan to establish an EU-Army demanding military deployments in regions of Germany's interests - the first being in contradiction to British, the latter to French strategy. Due to the conflicting interests with Germany, London and Paris were seeking to open alternative options for military policy and military cooperation and signed the Lancaster House Treaties on November 2, 2010, initiating a close bilateral cooperation in armament and military policy. This cooperation was put to a test in the aggression against Libya, mainly led by France and Great Britain. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[4]) The new British-French cooperation soon began to worry Berlin. The German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), for example, wrote in an analysis that "a new Entente Cordiale" is obviously being formed in the West - alluding to the 1904 British-French alliance during World War I.[5] Since then, Germany attached increasing importance to close ties with France. In mid January 2018, however, the UK and France consolidated their armament and military policy cooperation with a new agreement. In their joint communiqué they alluded to the First World War, "when our troops fought side by side in defense of our shared belief in freedom and resistance against aggression."[6]

World War Allies

Alongside the bilateral cooperation agreement with France - hitherto the only one with an EU country - Great Britain has concluded a bilateral treaty on military cooperation with Poland in December 2017. This treaty not only includes defense industry cooperation but also cooperation in areas such as joint military training and intensive information sharing.[7] It also includes cooperation in enhancing cyber security and to launch a joint propaganda war against Russia, which will also be directed against Belarus: London and Warsaw announced their support for the improvement of Belsat, a Polish-funded TV channel, providing pro-Western orientation for the Belarusians. London is placing its treaty with Poland also in a historical context: "We will never forget the Polish soldiers who fought with our troops in North Africa and on mainland Europe in World War II, nor the Polish pilots who braved the skies alongside us, standing up for freedom and democracy in Europe," Prime Minister Theresa May said in a statement on the signing of the treaty.[8]

Old Strategies

The new military agreements also reflect old basic elements of British strategy. On the one hand, Great Britain has always sought to prevent the emergence of an integrated continental power, which could pose a basic threat to the British Islands. On the other, London has always sought to prevent a close German-Russian cooperation that could also pose a threat to the UK.

Under British Leadership

The Salisbury poison assassination attempt offers London the possibility of rallying the support of EU powers behind its foreign and military policy, in spite of the impending Brexit. Immediately following the attack, the British government called on its EU and NATO partners to declare their solidarity and systematically intensified the pressure with unprecedented accusations against Moscow. "The allies' reaction" has been perhaps "the most important (side-?)effect of Britain's resolute stance," according to an editorial of a leading German daily. Berlin, Paris, the EU and Washington quickly backed the government in London. "A joint foreign policy approach of the West under British leadership," that is more than London could have dreamed of in Brexit times."[9] Great Britain has thus become the "West's new front-line state."

The First Counterpoint

Berlin is maneuvering: On the one hand, it is closing Western ranks against Moscow and, on the other, it is unwilling to cede leadership of EU foreign policy. Whereas London is escalating its accusations against the Russian government - regardless of the fact that the Salisbury poison attack has not yet been solved - German heads of state and government are already again signaling to Russia the possibility of some extent of cooperation. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was the first western head of state to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his electoral victory. "The bilateral relations between our countries have traditionally been close, relying on a solid foundation," he wrote. "We have always seen close cooperation between Russia and Germany ... as an important pillar for common European efforts to establish and strengthen a long-term common world order on our continent."[10] He "hopes and wishes," Steinmeier writes, "that we will be able to counter alienation on our continent." This marks the first counterpoint to the current, presumably only short-term, British leadership in EU foreign policy.

Please read also: More Aggressive.

[1] Patrick Donahue, Matthew Miller: Germany Forging Post-Brexit Defense 'Road Map' With the U.K. www.bloomberg.com 19.02.2017. See also A Dangerous Game.

[2] Andrew Chuter, Sebastian Sprenger: Amid Brexit, Germany and UK to expand defense cooperation. defensenews.com 21.07.2017.

[3] George Allison: Germany seeks 'stronger defence relationship' with UK amid German armed forces crisis. ukdefencejournal.org.uk 28.02.2018.

[4] See also The New Entente Cordiale.

[5] Ronja Kempin, Jocelyn Mawdsley, Stefan Steinicke: Entente Cordiale. Eine erste Bilanz französisch-britischer Zusammenarbeit in der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. DGAPanalyse No. 10. August 2012. See also The New Entente Cordiale.

[6] United Kingdom-France Summit Communique. Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 18 January 2018.

[7] PM announces landmark new package of defence and security cooperation with Poland. gov.uk 21.12.2017.

[8] PM press statement in Poland: 21 December 2017.

[9] Jochen Buchsteiner: Die Würde der Demokratie. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 21.03.2018.

[10] Bundespräsident Steinmeier gratuliert Wladimir Putin. bundespraesident.de 19.03.2018.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10