Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 05, 2015

Russia "Violated" Turkish Airspace Because Turkey "Moved" Its Border

Russian planes in Syria "violated Turkish air space" the news agency currently tell us. But an earlier report shows that this claim may well be wrong and that the U.S. pushes Turkey to release such propaganda.

Reuters (Mon Oct 5, 2015 7:54am BST): Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace

A Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Saturday, prompting the Air Force to scramble two F-16 jets to intercept it, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

The Foreign Ministry summoned Moscow's ambassador to protest the violation, according to an e-mailed statement. Turkey urged Russia to avoid repeating such a violation, or it would be held "responsible for any undesired incident that may occur."

AFP (10:20am · 5 Oct 2015): Turkey 'intercepts' Russian jet violating its air space

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.
Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.

Here now what McClatchy reported on these air space violations in a longer piece several hours before Reuters and AFP reported the Turkish claim:

ISTANBUL - A Russian warplane on a bombing run in Syria flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space, Turkish and U.S. officials said Sunday.
A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace.

But a U.S. military official suggested the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation. Reading from a report, he said the Russian aircraft had violated Turkish air space by five miles and that Turkish jets had scrambled, but that the Russian aircraft had returned to Syrian airspace before they could respond.

The Turkish security official said he could not confirm that account.

So it is the U.S., not Turkey, which was first pushing the claims of air space violation and of scrambling fighters. The Turkish source would not confirm that.

But how could it be a real air space violation when Russian planes "flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space". The Russian planes were flying in Syrian airspace. They "may have crossed" is like saying that the earth "may be flat". Well maybe it is, right?

Fact is the Russians fly ery near to the border and bomb position of some anti-Syrian fighters Turkey supports. They have good reasons to do so:

The town, in a mountainous region of northern Latakia province, has been a prime route for smuggling people and goods between Turkey and Syria and reportedly has functioned as a key entry for weapons shipped to Syrian rebels by the U.S.-led Friends of Syria group of Western and Middle Eastern countries.

One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above "violations" is because Turkey unilaterally "moved" the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:

Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

If Syrian rules of engagement would "move" its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the "new" Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one.

It would also be no good reason to start a NATO-Russia war just because such a plane might at times slightly intrude on the Turkish side due to an emergency or other accidental circumstances. Do we have to mention that the U.S., France, Britain and Jordan regularly violate Syrian airspace for their pretended ISIS bombing? That Turkey is bombing the PKK in north Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi government? What about Israels regular air space violations over Lebanon?

But what is this all really about? Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. stationed some Patriot air defense systems in Turkey to defend Turkey and its Islamist storm troops in north-Syria. These systems were announced to leave or have already left. Are these claims about air-space violation now an attempt to get these systems back into Turkey? For what real purpose?


Posted by b on October 5, 2015 at 9:44 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Pardon the politically incorrect expression, but this is so "gay" on the part of the West, it's pathetic. It's tantamount to a football player complaining to the refs that an opposing player stepped on his toe. Just who is The West appealing to with this desperate propaganda at this point? Those who have never cared anyway and haven't a clue and never will certainly can't be the audience, and everyone within and around the realm of political power knows the score even if they don't know the game, so what's the point? It just makes them look so utterly feckless and pussified. But, what do you expect literally months after the White House was awash in rainbow colors? This, that's what. Pettiness on steroids. "Ref, he stepped on my toe and muddied my pretty pink shoes. He doesn't care about the victims of breast cancer."

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 5 2015 10:28 utc | 1

Erdogan just should have stayed neutral. He stands to loose so much due to his foreign policy.

Posted by: James lake | Oct 5 2015 10:32 utc | 2

Hopefully, sensible Turks will see this as yet another indicator that Erdogan's a great danger to their interests and will vote him out in November.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 5 2015 10:45 utc | 3

I doubt if the Russians will be much bothered. They were reported as calling it a navigational error, I think.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 5 2015 10:49 utc | 4

There are apparently great rewards known and unknown for being a useful tool for US Israeli conquest, colonialism and full spectrum dominance. So many tools.

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 5 2015 10:52 utc | 5

Justin Bronk, research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute:

The Russian forces now in place make it very, very obvious that any kind of no-fly zone on the Libyan model imposed by the US and allies is now impossible, unless the coalition is actually willing to shoot down Russian aircraft.”

“The Russians are not playing — they are just saying, ‘keep out of our way’.

Posted by: Harry | Oct 5 2015 11:10 utc | 6

This reaction to Russia's cleaning house in Syria is not good.

Just look at the information coming out of the US government and MSM like the Wall Street Journal, about Russia's involvement in Syria. It is just overwhelming. One can not talk about spinning information anymore, rather it is an all out, full-tilt combo of falsehoods and lies. For example they say that it is wrong for Russia to help keep this democratic elected government in Syria in power and that Russia should also not bomb the moderate types trying to destroy Syria. Russia will extend the war and make ISIS stronger, etc. Who makes this stuff up? And why no out-cry from the citizens?

In any case, this is disturbing news since this is the type of behavior one would expect to a ramp up to WWIII. Between the coming fall of the petrol dollar, overwhelming debt loads, zero interest money, no growth, resource depletion, derivatives, and no-value assets being valued on the books at banks and the FED for trillions, I am afraid that this might be the big one. I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I just do not have a good feeling about this one. I was really hoping for an American back down. Time will tell.

I guess the new york, london, jerusalem power axis crowd just does not like a multi-polar world.

Posted by: Peter B | Oct 5 2015 11:27 utc | 7

Great work b.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 5 2015 11:45 utc | 8

Peter B @ 7

Agreed, the push back is on. Check out our friend Mike Gordon's piece in the NYT (How I miss Judy Miller). Turns out we were just about to ramp up our ISIL offensive anyway. How fortuitous.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Oct 5 2015 12:23 utc | 9

@Peter B #7:

this is disturbing news …

I guess the new york, london, jerusalem power axis crowd just does not like a multi-polar world.

All of this is to be expected. It is part of the process of the US and its satellites adjusting to the new reality. Of course they don't like it, but as Lavrov said on several occasions, there is a historical inevitability to the US losing its hegemonic status. And it never was "the sole superpower". To be sole superpower, no one else must have nuclear parity with you. If there is a second nuclear superpower that is weaker in all respects than the first superpower, but is not a complete basket case, then that second power is still a superpower.

I think we're seeing the same thing with the Anglosphere now that we saw with Hitler and the rest of the Nazis. Because of their ethnocentric hubris, both underestimated Russia. And Russians very much do see this in historical terms, as just another attempt by the West to destroy Russia, the previous one being the Nazis'.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 12:27 utc | 10

ConsortiumNews: The Power of False Narrative

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 5 2015 12:37 utc | 11

This really seems to be a crisis for the Washington bubble. They really take this exceptionalist c**p seriously.
It's as if Russia really hurt their pride as God knows they could not give two hoots for Syria!

Out side here in the real world ( I am in the UK) we would rather our govt shut up and let the Russians pound ISIL and all associated terrorists.
It's a black and White issue terrorists or Assad
All this media attack on Russia will prove to be nonsense when the Russians clear Syria of these western supported terrorists. Facts will be made on the ground
Then what will the media say to the public?

Posted by: James lake | Oct 5 2015 12:39 utc | 12

I am afraid that the US is looking for any way to get another "let's you and him fight" scenario going. I can see the US ambassador in Turkey pulling Erdogan's collar and asking "are you just gonna take that from those Russians??"

The US needs a way to bring down a Russian plane or hit the Russian bases without itself being involved (except as the obvious inciter). Just to show the Russians that there are "costs". And they'll do anything to do it I imagine.

@Demian You're certainly right. When Russia pulled the plug on the USSR the West imagined it could do the same to Russia itself. I'm sure there are some maps in some Pentagon filing cabinet someplace of Russia split into one very poor, populous "Russia" and seven large and oil rich (but sparsely populated) countries waiting to be pounced on by Western oil companies.

@CNH The wonders of modern medicine. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 5 2015 12:40 utc | 13

Demian @10: Well said.

I agree that a military response is inevitable, but the West can't sell a war on Russia with "An Attack on Our Al Qaeda Allies is an Attack on America!" Especially not with the image-obsessed Obama as President. He wants to be a quiet lame duck and just get through the next year and half in peace.

It's a challenge, but probably post-Obama the U.S. might pull a black op that ties Russia 'directly and unequivocally' (in the very loud US media) to a major act of terror. Perhaps in Ukraine, where the US already has a lot of intelligence operatives and Nazis willing to carry out such acts for the right price/cause. The US will then need to quickly (before the truth is exposed) use that incident to justify attacking Russia in Syria. 'Give them a bloody nose, show them who's boss, for what they did in Ukraine.' Lame, but that's all you need in the present Western media environment if you move fast enough to war.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5 2015 12:45 utc | 14

Seems the Russians have put their hands up for this one:

"The Russian embassy in Ankara told the BBC that a Russian plane did violate Turkish airspace on Saturday."

"Russia said the incident was a "navigational error" and it has "clarified" the matter to Ankara."

Though this isn't to say that Turkey isn't looking for justification to maintain the deployment of the Patriot systems which, b, as you rightly added to the end of your post, are slated for removal this month. It's a last ditch attempt from the Turks to get the US to show its commitment to their sectarian, neo-Ottoman aspirations in Syria.

But the US has had enough. The Iran nuclear deal seems to have clinched it, and it's game over for the man-eating Neanderthals. If Syria was always about putting Iran's nuts in the vice, then with the nuclear agreement it all falls into place.

The plan to train the "moderates" has gone beyond failure and descended into an embarrassment - the show's been cancelled. The CIA trained groups on the ground have bitten their handlers and run off with their Al-Qaeda lovers. As Andrei Kartapolov from the Russian army's General Staff put it bluntly

"The Americans told us during discussions, that no one apart from terrorists were in that region," referring to the area where Russia's Air Force was active, according to Interfax.

Ignore the ramblings of insane McCain and the hysterical noises in the media which regurgitates and manipulates the desperate screams from terrorists in Syria as cries for help from the defenceless. This is not Government policy. It's irrelevant guff.

When Putin met with the Saudi defence minister in June, he recognised that only two states remained sure that Assad could be beaten militarily - Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He convinced the Saudis that this was not the case. It was off the back of this meeting that, quite spectacularly, Syrian and Saudi intelligence officials met.

But Turkey still needed convincing. Isolated, facing a Kurdish political revolution and staring at the death of his dreams to be Sultan, Erdogan was informed by Putin that the Russians were going in. Assad would not be defeated militarily. With a tear in his eye, Erdogan accepted this fact and performed a staggering turn around by admitting Assad could be part of the solution.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Oct 5 2015 13:03 utc | 15

Like a snake under your foot, the West is writhing at the notion of being challenged in their "superpower" superiority complex. Erdogan is ready for another chauvinistic attempt to regain his footing, and is looking for a pretext, any, to launch into a nationalistic tirade to gather round his lost support. The US knows that and will push him like a dog to the fight. The Russians, however, have already sized-him up and will not play into his ever-growing ego.

Good take on the incident, b, thanks for keeping us ahead of the game.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 5 2015 13:06 utc | 16
Russia escalating Syria war by targeting moderate opposition: U.S.

Posted by: okie farmer | Oct 5 2015 13:06 utc | 17

Yes russia may have flaws in there own back yard and some eu foes. but Finally enough of this bs thats been going on for decades with the usa and the west . invasion then supply to rebuld the economy only to have another resurgence come up and take usas military equipment. then another invasion another so called rebuilding program . the revolving cycle has gone on too long.. . Russias lets wipe them out attitude is quite remarkable .the usa never saw it coming or if they did they were playing pin tail on the donkey.this is a huge global assurgence and direction.. usa needs to realise that this is what the future holds. china with there massess but a leader whom maturity isnt advanced enough to be realistc in his desires long term.ill be interested indeed to see what china and nth oreas impression of russias actions are in the bigger contex.. i hope england australia new zealand etc. dont try and advocate usas crys for injustice for being bullied out of the top spot.Putin you may be a rough cold man at times but you def know how the cause a rift in this pathetic life consuming game thats being going on for so long

Posted by: gawain | Oct 5 2015 13:22 utc | 18

@guest77 #13:

When Russia pulled the plug on the USSR the West imagined it could do the same to Russia itself.

I actually think that the US government did not initially have plans to finish off Russia after the collapse of the USSR. I read a piece yesterday – unfortunately I can't find it, because it was an RSS feed – which made a convincing case that James Baker and Helmut Kohl were being honest with Gorbachev when they assured him that NATO would not expand eastward beyond the reunified Germany (which was not really reunified of course, because Versailles Poland still has a lot of territory that was stolen from Germany).

I think that what happened with the end of the Cold War was that the US establishment simply could not adjust to the new reality and come off a war footing. I think there was an honest, if half-hearted, effort to do so on the part of US elites. But it did not work, because: (1) once you have bases all over the world, it seems like a shame to close them down; (2) the Anglosphere simply did not have the cultural resources to understand how to continue its own economic development without dominating and exploiting the rest of the world; (3) the neocons wanted to exploit US power for their Zionist agenda.

@fairleft #14:

probably post-Obama the U.S. might pull a black op

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not very worried about US/NATO black ops directed at Russia anymore. MH17 was a huge one, but it didn't achieve its objective – to get Russia into line – and the objective it did achieve, which was more sanctions on Russia, has hurt European countries more than Russia. (You can't say they hurt the EU, since the EU is just another artificial construct like NATO that the US uses to keep Europe down, and has nothing to do with actual European interests.)

I think we have seen a kind of "phase change" since Russia started bombing after Putin's speech. Water cools down or heats up gradually without anything really noticeable happening, but suddenly it freezes over or starts boiling. I think the new US/NATO propaganda line – that Russia is still bad, because now it is bombing good terrorists, who are good because they are our terrorists – means that the Western narrative has become "overdetermined", and so is not going to work anymore. The bombing of the Afghan hospital while denouncing Russia for bombing civilians is just another nail in the coffin of the effectiveness of Western propaganda.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 13:25 utc | 19

I heard the beginning of a BBC report on this event in the car as I was parking. I contemplated staying to hear more but realised it wasn't urgent and continued with the business at hand.
I've started a score card to keep track of the current International Russian Roulette Championship Match, and expected the score to have risen from 0 : 0. Events which don't involve the likelihood of soiled underwear, at least, don't count. So its still 0 : 0.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 5 2015 13:36 utc | 20

The response of the representatives of the Russian Defense Ministry is unclear, but apparently, the general sense was that "We can not discriminate between the different shades of 'crap'. So we will hammer everyone who shoots at the soldiers of the legitimate government of Syria, at whose request we are here".

And the Americans had to accept it. Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said that the U.S. government will not use U.S. air power to protect the "moderate rebels".

Posted by: brian | Oct 5 2015 13:52 utc | 21

@7 "And why no out-cry from the citizens?"

Because most people have been subjected to a barrage of misinformation. They aren't stupid...just numb, and wary of seeming unpatriotic.

Posted by: dh | Oct 5 2015 13:53 utc | 22

ANALYSIS: Drone deals heighten military ties between Israel and Russia

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Oct 5 2015 13:57 utc | 23

@Louis Proyect #23:

I never thought I'd say this, but it appears that criticism of Israel can after all be a sign of antisemitism. Why shouldn't Russia and Israel act on their mutual interests? The only reason I can think of why they shouldn't is that Israel is not a legitimate country. And why would Israel not be legitimate? Again, the only reason I can think of is the belief that Jews shouldn't have their own country.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 14:11 utc | 24

Sounds like that the US "Security State" wants more war in Syria and are trying to do everything to shift public opinion into more support for escalating the war in Syria.

Posted by: Willy2 | Oct 5 2015 14:35 utc | 25

Demian @19: The 'Assad has chemical weapons' black op failed in part because Obama got cold feet, but something similar (just as lame) under the next President would be good enough to set off a hot war. The US military-industrial complex is restless, as it hasn't had a 'feel good' hot war since 2003. The only limited, 'winnable' one that would be seen as directed at Russia would be in Syria, and taking out Assad and creating chaos is what Israel wants too. Look at this "Sponsored by Raytheon" US Senator and tell me he wouldn't make a fine, 'do whatever it takes' Secretary of Defense for Hillary, Jeb, Marco Rubio or whoever? Follow the military contractor money ....

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5 2015 14:39 utc | 26

Jackrabbit @ 11: Thanks for the CN article. Bush 43 had one relevant comment, " you have to catapult the propaganda". To counteract that fact, we have read, and reread, obvious truths, like the CN article from time to time. Thanks.

Posted by: ben | Oct 5 2015 14:54 utc | 27

If you always assume that whatever the US government says is agitprop and disinformation you will always be nearly 100% right.

The US government, Wall Street, Academia, Hollywood, the MSM, are all liars, manipulators, and sociopaths.

Their hands drip rivers of blood.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Oct 5 2015 15:02 utc | 28

The 'Arc of extremism' as Bush and Blair called it, has suddenly grown much bigger, after his meeting with Putin in Moscow President El-Sisi called for a coalition to combat terrorism in the middle east, that means the 'Arc' now consists of Iran,Syria,Iraq,the Kurds,Hezbollah and now Egypt.
Plus of course Russia, with the backing of China. Something tells me the West is on the wrong side of history. Maybe Samantha Power will call for R2P when the Saudi perverts are cornered.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 5 2015 15:04 utc | 29

Omaigoard! Its Turkish airspace now pregnant?

Posted by: Ali Karim | Oct 5 2015 15:09 utc | 30

Another comment from Russia's foreign minister exposing the propaganda farce on the existence of Free Syrian army, moderate and radical rebel forces fighting Assad.

IMO Turkey's claim of airspace violation sets the pretext for entry of Turkey, and hence NATO, to escalate the situation. See link below of Russian fighter jet shot down

Posted by: curious | Oct 5 2015 15:11 utc | 31

dh @ 22:

I used to think that Americans weren't stupid, just numb. I also believed that alternative information could change their blind patriotism. But then I began to realize that the way things are, even the most venal, are precisely what Americans want. It has been so since the first european colonists ... the only difference is that then it 'was only the native americans' but now, it is anybody else who is not US. We, as a society, want it all, everywhere. We, as exceptional and indispensable, are destined to rule the world because the world belongs to us ... our god says so ... the same god who says that only jews are worthy to worship him/her/it.

For what it may be worth, I do appreciate the Putin - Lavrov approach: if it looks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, and acts like a terrorist - then it is a terrorist. Therefore if you want to rid a place of terrorists you have to take them all out ... no matter who trained them, funds them, or arms them.

It is sad, really, that we can't get along ... but so long as we want what they have there will be war, wars, and more wars.

Smedley Butler had it right ... and C Wright Mills has been regurgitated because he hit the nail on the thumb. Since we didn't care to listen because we ultimately aspired to MacMansions and lots of stuff, even if it was shoddy crap, is reality.

Posted by: Rg an LG | Oct 5 2015 15:16 utc | 32

I had a dream that America had a responsible free press that critiqued our leaders mishaps as they should,instead of a Zionist foreign interest media of criminals intent on destabilizing and destroying the world for Zion.
Hey,when the Zionists attacked Mavi Marmara,did the US cry out for Turkish sovereignty?And TPP,another trade steal is foisted on the world by a bunch of crooks tone deaf to their constituents wishes,like everything else we touch,it turns to sh*t.
And the Palestinian situation goes bonkers again,but the MSM will never expose the real monsters to actual investigation,another sign of the terrible media,and its members,all tribal wackos.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 5 2015 15:18 utc | 33

One day a false flag is going to become a smoking gun that implicates its sponsor as a war criminal. If a false flag is all the US has left in its arsenal, and the US is bold enough to try it under Russia satellite and radar, then this may be the time that the ancient tactic of false flag finally goes to its grave. One prefers no action at all from the US, but if there be some, let it be increased failure, visible to the world. Please.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 5 2015 16:01 utc | 34

@fairleft #26:

The US military-industrial complex is restless, as it hasn't had a 'feel good' hot war since 2003. The only limited, 'winnable' one that would be seen as directed at Russia would be in Syria, and taking out Assad … Follow the military contractor money

I don't think military contractors itch from time to time to have hot wars. All they're interested in is making lots of money. Hyping up threats helps them do that, whereas getting into a shooting war with a superpower (I can now drop the qualifier "nuclear"!) would be counterproductive.

I really don't see how the US can take out Assad any more. Whenever the US does regime change (or just regime/state destruction) through military means (Iraq, Libya) (as opposed to when it can get by with a color revolution, as in Ukraine), it has control of the airspace. But Russia now controls Syrian airspace, not the US. The US can't establish a no-fly zone over Syria any more, because the Russian air force is now in Syria. Since Russia is in Syria by invitation but the US isn't, the US can't just start shooting down Russian jets, because even in Washington (as opposed to Warsaw) no one is so crazy as to be willing to be responsible for starting a nuclear war which wipes out Western civilization. (The Poles would be happy to do it, just so long as they could say that Poland still exists on paper.)

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 16:42 utc | 35

Demian @35: What you write is actually pretty reassuring. But, you don't think like a neocon, and they increasingly 'understand' Russia as an existential threat to the US world empire. (They likely also think that attacking out at the Syrian periphery is unlikely to lead to a nuclear exchange.) Anyway, weapons sales in the NATO countries are set to decline this year despite the relentless anti-Russia fearmongering, in part because the public discounts media fearmongering when it sees no threatening acts.

So, says Raytheon, something has to be done! We'll see; I hope you're right.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5 2015 17:06 utc | 37

thanks b.. insightful post with questions at the end from you. your supposition at the end is most likely correct.

good media observations on the usa being the first to raise this issue and wanting to turn it into a major public relations event in support of nato and the re-stationing of the air defense systems..

regarding the next black op.. i still think folks/countries know who did mh17 in, but they just aren't sharing it.. perhaps this information can be used when the next black op pops up..

passing example of dis-info video in the news today..

Posted by: james | Oct 5 2015 17:13 utc | 38

Obviously, Russians should announce that they don't recognize any Turkish or any other "buffer zones" in Syria and keep flying anywhere they want in internationally recognized Syrian airspace, since they have legitimate Syrian government's consent. Turks will never be allowed by NATO to fire on Russian planes, because by doing so Turks will place Paris, London and New York at risk of nuclear annihilation.
Some communication line where Moscow could inform Ankara about its intentions to fly near Turkish border - something similar to the one it presumably has with Israel - would be helpful, too.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 5 2015 17:19 utc | 39

Turkey has always been a thorn in Russias side, from Jupiter missiles in 61 to this. Personally i think any nation who claims to be "islamic" yet can sleep with delilah (israel) while she is responsible for all sorts of atrocities, is nothing but a pimped out punk

The reason why most of Europe deteste Muslims is bec lf the ottomans behaviour

Erdogan is finished !!! I hope so anyways

Posted by: Deebo | Oct 5 2015 17:24 utc | 40

@fairleft #37:

you don't think like a neocon, and they increasingly 'understand' Russia as an existential threat to the US world empire.

I think it might be useful here to define "neocon" a bit and to separate out different reasons why US policymakers see Russia as an "existential" threat.

First, I think we should take the "neo" in neocon seriously. The neocons were something before they became neo. What was that? They were Democrats. (According to some accounts, they were Trotskyites.) What is the constant for the people who became the neocons? Concern with Israel above all else. Thus, the way I understand the term "neocon" is that it is "code" for a Jewish Zionist who is intent to use US power for (what he or she sees as) the benefit of Israel. Since Russia and Israel appear to be making efforts to maintain good relations despite events in Ukraine and Syria, I think we can conclude that there is a substantial group of foreign policy makers in Israel who do not see Russia as a threat to Israel.

Thus, it seems to be an obsession of Jewish Zionists in the US that Israel needs US power to survive. It is quite possible that policy makers in Israel do not see things that way. If things go on as they are now going without the security of Israel being noticeably affected, neocons will become increasingly less influential both in the US and in Israel.

A second strand of US thought according to which Russia is an existential threat to the US is based on the continental vs. sea power idea which goes back to Halford Mackinder. But Mackinder was English, and England was a sea power. The US, in contrast, is both a sea and a continental power. Thus what was true for Britain – that Russia was an existential threat to its empire – need not be true for the US (for its status as a great power, anyway, if not for its status as world hegemon). Since Carter, the US has based its policy towards Russia on the ideas that Brzezinski stole from Mackinder without attribution. Since – unlike Brzezinski – most US foreign policy makers are not Polish, one can expect that the US foreign policy establishment as a whole will be able eventually to accept the return of Russia to the role in the world it had at the end of WW II.

The third reason why US elites see Russia as an existential threat is that they are no longer able to imagine how the US could be self-reliant, as opposed to existing economically by exploiting and dominating the rest of the world. But the Americans are a creative and dynamic people, and one can expect that eventually, US policy makers will drop their neoliberalism and neoclassical economic orthodoxy. What we are seeing now is a period of cultural lag, as happens in the case of the decline of all empires.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 17:54 utc | 41

Russia and Turkey have a long history of wars, and it actually was Europe that saved Ottomans many times in the past from Russian onslaught. Right now, Russo-Turkish relations are very good, and would be excellent if not for the Syrian issue. Turks can't afford to completely alienate Russians, because Erdogan already managed to destroy his country's ties with the rest of the neighborhood.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 5 2015 17:56 utc | 42

hMOSCOW, Oct. 5 (Xinhua) -- Russian air force stationed in Syria has conducted 25 new missions in the last 24 hours hitting nine facilities of Islamic State (IS) terrorist group, the Russian Defense ministry said Monday.

One command center was destroyed in Syria's central province of Hama and another near Syria's main coastal city of Latakia, according to an online ministry statement accompanied by a video footage.

Also two ammunition depots and a communications center were blown up in the central province of Homs, as well as a terrorist training camp in the northwestern province of Idlib.

Three artillery pieces, around 30 automobiles and armored vehicles including T-55 tanks earlier seized by the IS from the Syrian Army, were demolished in the operation, the statement said.

Posted by: okie farmer | Oct 5 2015 18:30 utc | 43

I think Obama is secretly happy to see the Russians coming in. Because of the USA's intimate relation with Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, he can't drastically cleanup Syria from ALL Islamists militias that are funded and supported by these countries such as ISIS, Al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and all the small 'moderates' rebels groups gravitating around these groups and benefiting of the largesse of the GCC.

Iran would have been a powerful proxy to do so but Iran does not want to get involved militarily. Enough that it is supporting Hezbollah who have protected Lebanon's borders.

As for Turkey, after it broke its relation with Israel, and after its blunt interference in Egypt through its alliance with the Moslem Brotherhood, Erdogan is looked upon with suspicion and anyway he is not ready to get involved militarily.
Therefore Russia is the only left and willing convenient proxy to act decisively on all the Islamist militias infesting Syria.
To hide his satisfaction, Obama is making a lot of noise, throwing dire predictions, promising weapons to the rebels but making no threats. All this is intended for the Sunni audience to show off that the USA is on their side while the USA's secret intention is to weaken the Sunnis to force them to accept a deal with Iran. That's also the purpose of the Yemen war that is paralyzing Saudi Arabia.
We will hear lots of analysis demonizing Russia but at the end of the day, the region will be cleaned up and the Sunni terrorists fleeing Syria may end up in... Turkey and Jordan!

Posted by: Virgile | Oct 5 2015 18:50 utc | 44

Turkey will not, REPEAT: WILL.NOT. "attack" Russian anything, especially when so many nasty Russian weapons are so near. This is pathetic, emasculate American chest thumping.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Oct 5 2015 18:57 utc | 45

Demian @41: Just on your first point, it's a combination of close and corrupting "sponsored by Raytheon" ties to the arms industry PLUS the 'whatever Israel wants it gets' obsession. So the bipartisan policy of supporting an uncompromising and paranoid 'Greater Israel' (and the chaos and blowback that generates) becomes leverage for the fearmongering that for bigger arms expenditures, in Israel, the US, and to some extent in Britain and France. This is a very stupid policy on almost every level except that it puts lots of money in the pockets of arms company execs and investors.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5 2015 19:00 utc | 46

@Virgile #

Iran would have been a powerful proxy to do so but Iran does not want to get involved militarily. Enough that it is supporting Hezbollah who have protected Lebanon …

Russia is the only left and willing convenient proxy

Russia as Obama's proxy? That's pretty insulting.

Russia does not intend to send ground troops in. But you can't wipe out an insurgency with air power alone. You need to recapture territory. The Syrian army probably can't do that alone. Iranian soldiers have been fighting both in Iraq and in Syria already, haven't they? Why shouldn't Iran increase its level of deployments in Syria? It's not as if it would be acting as anyone's "proxy". It would be acting in its own interests.

Turkey's foreign policy seems to be in a shambles at this point. Erdogan or no Erdogan.

@fairleft #46:

I guess that what you describe is certainly a major part of what's going on, but I don't follow that side of things. (I oversimplify by seeing everything through the US/Russia geopolitical struggle these days.)

Posted by: Demian | Oct 5 2015 19:19 utc | 47

I guess Russia does not have to announce whether it recognizes "no fly zones" or not. Turkey may threaten to be sad, or really, really sad (to parents: that sometimes works with small children, and it is also diplomatic; rather than "I will not play with you/read a book etc. because you were naughty", you can explain that the misdeeds made you too sad to play, a child can conceptualize it better than an arbitrary penalty). The bottom line is that they can retaliate by running arms and eager jihadists through the border, but this is what they were doing to begin with. Cracking down on weapon traffic must be a core part of strategy, and I do not imagine Putin loosing appetite when Erdogan is driven to distraction.

Another aspect is that it could help a lot if Erdogan is eliminated, i.e. if he stops controlling Turkish government. He does it as the de-facto head of the ruling party, AKP. Part of AKP voters are Islamic militants who may be discouraged by "gutless response", "betrayal" etc., and every one percent of the Turkish vote in the elections three weaks from now may help kissing AKP-only government good bye. AKP will most probably remain the dominant party, but it will have to choose a coalition partner, with three choices: HDP, Kurdish party, enough said; CHP, a "social-democratic party", strangely enough, most of their voters are Alevi, which is not the same as Syrian Alawites but very close; MHP, these guys are basically Islamo-Turanian fascists, so in the sense of policies they should agree with AKP now, but in the same time they probably hate Erdogan most (in part because of "good reasons", in part because of their vision of the world that consists of three parts, "we", "enemies", "traitors").

Erdogan thrives projecting the image of a strong leader. I would guess that Putin does not need a primer how one can build, or undermine such an image. (Obama does not need it either, it would be like violin lessons to a tone deaf.)

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2015 19:24 utc | 48

With the US Empire shrinking in power, and with Russia and China starting to assert themselves, neo-con control of the US Empire will be almost assured going into the future.
Their claim to be leaders of the US will have these neocon sociopaths screaming from the top of their lungs for America to be number one again, and most of the people in the US will be cheering for it.

In terms of a false flag, in let's say in Syria for example, all the US would have to do is send just one of its jets into fighting a Russian plane in Syria as disposable cannon fodder (just like US leaders sees all of its low ranking military members ), and when the US plane gets shot down, the avalanche of propaganda against Russia will be immense. We will see an intensity of Russia hate propaganda like nothing we've ever seen before.
And that one incident and one US pilot death alone, could be the PR used for the economic separation of US puppet European states from Russias economy, and if the US chooses, as the start of a possible hot war.

I can guarantee you that, this has already been thought of by members of the US Empire, and the only thing left is to see is if they use a similar example of their own, or at what point do they decide to use it in the future.

Back in 2012 when Obama wanted to eviscerate Syria, if that had actually gone through, we could see ISIL and Al Qaeda in control of Syria now and then relentlessly Attacking Hezbollah. Do not under-estimate how pissed off and regretful the evil US Empire is that it didn't happen that way, and that they are determined to not make similar mistakes in the future.
With the US losing the game of military musical chairs in Syria, attacking Syria now with Russia there, is a lot harder now and also a lot riskier.

Posted by: tom | Oct 5 2015 19:32 utc | 49

Why? Because they know where all the supply lines are and they're cutting them off at the border crossings that facilitate them. I was always amazed that the so called anti-ISIS coalition didn't do more work on those supply lines.

Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 5 2015 19:48 utc | 50


(According to some accounts, they were Trotskyites.)

They were Trotskyites, many of them coming from the anti-Stalinist left, and it will be impossible to understand the neocons drive for "regime change," "color revolutions," regional "springs," and the utterly failed PNAC, without an understanding of Trotsky's "theory of permanent revolution" and its adoption and conversion by neocon theoreticians, who, literally, turned it on its head.

What we are seeing now is a period of cultural lag, as happens in the case of the decline of all empires.

An epistemological crisis is quite possible, understanding crisis as defined by Gramsci, "where the old hasn't die and the new hasn't been born." A main goal of neocon theory was to finish with liberal democracy's "uncertainty of purpose," and if what we are witnessing is the crumbling of the neocon-made "world," a dangerous cultural vacuum can follow. And I mean, dangerous.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 5 2015 19:59 utc | 51

Not to be a brown noser or a suck up, but I think it's also important to express gratitude and admiration often, especially for people who do volunteer work for the common good, which is, I think, what is happening on this site.

So b, I thank you so much for what you do. I would be completely buried in bullshit propaganda and as confused as hell if not for your posts on Syria over the past few years. You're really an extraordinary fellow. Thanks.

Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 5 2015 20:08 utc | 52

I think may here are confusing the whole 'NATO Patriot missiles in Turkey' gambit. This was NEVER really about protecting legitimate Turkish assets, themselves, from Syrian missiles or aircraft. They were never threatened by Syria.

Some of you fossils might recall the Ho Chi Minh Trail running through Laos and Cambodia to supply North Vietnamese troops and equipment to Vietnam. Psychopathic Defense Secretary McNamara at the time was absolutely infuriated that this was happening. At first, he tried to build a barbed-wire and minefield barrier (The McNamara Line, IIRC) inside Vietnam in 1967 to block these supply routes. That was a colossal failure. Next came the covert Operation Commando Hunt starting in 1968 - direct (and quite illegal) attacks and bombing runs all up and down the trail in two countries that were not party to the war. The Ho Chi Minh campaigns lasted for years and only had the most marginal of effects.

Turkey and Jordan have similar rat lines going into Syria since the start of the war of terror. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia feared in 2013 that Syria might intervene directly against the FSA/'Moderate Rebel'/an Nusra supply lines or warehouses IN Turkey with aircraft or missiles. The NATO Patriot batteries were meant purely as a deterrent to keep the Turkish Ho Chi Minh Trails open. No other purpose despite media spew to the opposite. Of course Turkey requested the Patriots - they were making a lot of money on the side trading sanctioned goods, trafficking terrorists and refugees, running CIA arms shipments and buying/selling oil. They didn't want those cash cows threatened by Syrian air attacks.

The Patriot SAMs became useless as Assad's air force was degraded and started running out of munitions. They became an absolute danger when the U.S. and it's so-called coalition started their bombing campaigns in Syria and Russia started beefing up airlifts. Too many chances for inadvertent screw-ups. Today, the U.S. has one battery remaining at Incirlik to protect its operations there.

Turkey and the U.S. still wants the rat lines protected (mostly from Russia) so they keep hoping for some kind of No-Fly zone, but that's just an old, sad joke to Putin. Once Idlib and Latakia are relatively secure, Putin will concentrate an enormous amount of effort to the Syrian-Turkey border. The refugee 'Safe Zone' is exactly where Turkey and the U.S. run most of their rat lines.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 5 2015 20:21 utc | 53

@53 Plus that is the area where barbers will be most busy shaving beards and making jihadis look respectable on their way to Germany.

Posted by: dh | Oct 5 2015 20:44 utc | 54

@41 and @51
I don't disagree on the neocon history but I don't think we should limit ourselves to just the neocons when we're considering the war going on within the US and allies (that's not a typo, I do think there's an internal war in addition to the external quagmire).

I think we should expand the term neocon to the "war party" with its different factions. The only factions that are well defined are the neocons and the R2P interventionists.

But I think there are other factions that belong to this war party alliance. For instance, is Petraeus really a neocon or an R2Per? What about the NATO Strangelovians? And those like zbig or other people, often with an Eastern European history? Plus the factions abroad in Europe. And the Israeli, Saudi and other ME states though maybe they don't really belong in the "war party" definition.

It would be great to see more analysis of this alliance, a sorting out of what the war party is.

I think it's also worthwhile to consider the 1992 BBC documentary about the post-WW2 NATO stay behinds that used to be called Gladio. There are some people out in indy media who say they're still operating (especially in Turkey), just morphed into Islamist extremist militias instead of extreme nationalist militias.

Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 5 2015 20:56 utc | 55

Re 53: Once Idlib and Latakia are relatively secure, Putin will concentrate an enormous amount of effort to the Syrian-Turkey border. The refugee 'Safe Zone' is exactly where Turkey and the U.S. run most of their rat lines.

We should read maps before offering thoughts like that. Idlib and Latakia provinces ARE on Turkish border, and this is how the bulk of supplies to the northern rebels comes through. After shooting down a Syrian plane on the border, de-facto "safe zone" was established, marred mostly by mutual strife between jihadists. And it is not safe anymore, as Turks have no confidence that their countermeasures against Russian air-to-air missiles are effective enough. One problem for Russians is that the border in Latakia/Idlib area is quite twisty, following mountains, and reaching the border in some spots can be difficult for a fast plane. In the longer term, we will see how effective Russian spy drones are, they should be able to observe the border 24/7 and track the supplies.

The remainder of the Syrian-Turkish border is Northern Aleppo and YPG cantons. The soon to be forgotten "Safety Zone" was supposed to be in Northern Aleppo, but on the ground we have seen only expansion of ISIS over there, what should become SZ was 80% in ISIL hands and now it is more like 85%. It was a monumental flop IMHO. The mechanics of YPG gaining enough from NATO air support to take over country side around Kobane and Tel Abyad, and inability of the moderate rebels to do the same will have to be explained by historians.

Right now, Russians need to show some movement on the ground to maintain psychological momentum, and according to the latest moves, they shelved the plans to attack ISIS in favor of northern Homs.


In the real of information warfare and the battle of commentariats nothing of note happened, usual stuff from usual suspects. Assad regaining territory will change the discourse, would it happen. However, Putin has some potential valid excuses if it does not happen very soon, namely that the weapon upgrade of SAA has to take some weeks. Right now, in my opinion the new activity is mostly confusing the opponents, nothing much happened in Palmyra and near Kuiweres Air Base.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2015 21:00 utc | 56

It seems that "No-fly zone" acquired a new meaning: a zone that does not fly (e.g. Hurriet Daily News headline "Turkey’s Erdoğan calls on EU to share refugee burden, calls for no-fly zones".)

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2015 21:35 utc | 57

Interview w/ former head of DIA Michael Flynn on RT. Worth watching (do resist the urge to strangle "Kevin" the RT interviewer tho)

Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 5 2015 21:50 utc | 58

@42 MMARR.. i agree with you..

@ gemini33 ditto both of your earlier posts @50/52

Posted by: james | Oct 5 2015 22:24 utc | 59


LOL. Good one.

@ 58
The only problem I found with Kevin "The Interviewer" was him letting this Flynn character to avoid answering the simple question of 'who the Free Syrian Army is?" (after playing Lavrov characterizing FSA as a nebulous outfit with very little info about it). That was a rather unambiguous question, yet Mr.Flynn promptly changed the subject and went on a tangent, and Kevin utterly failed to extract the relevant answer.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 5 2015 22:39 utc | 60

@52 gremini

I certainly agree on the value of b's efforts, especially on Syria. And I certainly don't say - Thanks b - often enough. I've started following the Russian Insider cut-and-paste blog. I don't know how often they avail themselves of b's content, but they know the real thing when they see it ... Russia 'Violated' Turkish Airspace Because Turkey 'Moved' Its Border

Posted by: jfl | Oct 5 2015 22:50 utc | 61

Erm, what's that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that all NATO members are signatories to?

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."


If you hear funny scratchy noises, that would be the US and Turkey scraping the bottom of a barrel for any excuse for NATO to launch a full invasion of Syria.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 5 2015 22:51 utc | 62

@61 jen

I wonder if the Europeans will be on board for that? Or will NATO be ... US/Turkey + KSA ... vs Russia?

I do remember one flight made by the French to bomb ISIS ... anything else along that line? Some people point out that there are two fronts to this 'war', altough one is potential - in Ukraine, or coming out of Ukraine. Will the Europeans jump on board for war with Russia on the basis of a US/Turkey or possibly KSA provocation?

In the midst of Russian Syria successes, Merkel concedes Crimea. That is just one Sputnik report, but think about it ... do the Europeans really want to go war over US(Israeli)/Turkish tumescence for Syria? Or do they want to start putting things back together in Europe?

If the US starts in Syria/Ukraine its going to be really horrible. They might do just that, of course.

I hope that realists are emerging in Europe who insist on jaw, jaw, jaw over war, war, war. No chance the Tory Brits will do so. Or is there? They've shut up too, haven't they? In the meantime the Russians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians can put the place in order, put some new facts on the ground to talk about.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 5 2015 23:33 utc | 63

Curious @ 31,

Looks like they set Lavrov up, with those comments on the FSA. The US has reinvented the defunct FSA and roped the Syrian Kurds in too:

The Eurphrates Volcano (Burqan al-Furat) command of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) supports Russia's military operation in Syria and for help in battling ISIL, the command's official spokesman Servan Devrish told Sputnik.
Euphrates Volcano is the joint command of the FSA and the Kurdish YPG (People's Protection Units) operating in northern Syria, primarily against the Islamic State. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov previously said that Russia is willing to make contacts with the Syrian armed opposition Free Syrian Army, but requested further information on it from the United States, referring to the FSA's "phantom nature."

Read more:

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 5 2015 23:34 utc | 64

@Demian #41

IIRC the Trotskyists who later aligned with the neocons were largely followers of Max Schachtman, who after the Molotov - Von Ribbentrop Pact declared that the Soviet Union was forming an axis with Nazi Germany and no longer a "workers' state." Leon Trotsky himself denounced that point of view in his final publication, In Defense of Marxism. Most of the adherents of that point of view went on to form the International Socialist organization (which went on to serve as an incubator for Christopher Hitchens but otherwise was completely insignificant) but a significant number ended up in the Cold War liberal camp, which gave rise to neoconservative ideology.

The Cold War liberals, embodied by Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, et al. were a tangle of contradictions. On the one hand, many of them came from the New Deal, the labor unions, and ethnicities that defaulted to the Democratic Party because the Republican Party was a WASP organization that didn't welcome them. They also had an international outlook inherited from the Roosevelt Democrats who conflicted with the nativist, isolationist, and fervently anti-Communist Republican conservatives (the tendency that we now refer to as paleoconservative). But the raison d'etre for their internationalism - the building of international coalitions and organizations in the interest of stability and human rights - would become inverted under the ideologies of the Cold War and Zionism. Soon the post-colonial world became something not to be elevated but subjugated into neocolonialism, through military power and Dollar-based international financial structures. The transition from Cold War liberals to neoconservatives was completed by their self-interested advocacy of the domestic corporate hegemonist state (aka neoliberalism) that matches the international hegemonism that arose from the Cold War and various economic interests. With that ruling class consensus, the only challenges come from paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump, and from an extremely disorganized and weak left diaspora. Some neoconservatives put a "social liberal" veneer over what is otherwise distinguished from "conservative" only by tactical differences over hegemonist objectives.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Oct 5 2015 23:41 utc | 65

@63 Penelope

Isn't it as likely that the Kurds, mindful of the US' multiple betrayals and sincere in their welcome of Russia into their war against ISIS, have been joined by 'the FSA" ... Running. Fleeing like the wind! ... from the Russians?

Posted by: jfl | Oct 5 2015 23:49 utc | 66

Nuts! The think tanks must be working overtime making up this stuff & getting it out to their proxies. Bomb faster, guys.

"More than 40 Syrian insurgent groups including the powerful Islamist faction Ahrar al-Sham have called on regional states to forge an alliance against Russia and Iran in Syria, accusing Moscow of occupying the country and targeting civilians.

"The insurgents, including rebel groups under the umbrella of the Free Syria Army, said such regional cooperation was needed to counter "the Russian-Iranian alliance occupying Syria".

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 5 2015 23:52 utc | 67

Wars are not cheap both in term of human lives and money. Amerikka spends billions and trillions around the world for endless wars. Russia needs to win this one to stops the endless killing. Can anyone provide reliable info how much it will cost in Syria and will it bankrupt Russia Federation as it did to USSR in Afghan?

A new prospective, Joseph Daher and Jennifer Loewenstein argue that Russian and US interests in (TRNN) The Real News Network:



Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 6 2015 0:08 utc | 68

Piotr Berman@56

"...We should read maps before offering thoughts like that. Idlib and Latakia provinces ARE on Turkish border, and this is how the bulk of supplies to the northern rebels comes through..."

Which ones - CNN's maps? Latakia and Idlib's crossings are mostly under Islamic Front / Levant Front / Shamiya Front (or whatever their current title is) head-chopper control, not the FSAs. A handful of others are under al Nusra. Bab al Hawa *was* always claimed as FSA controlled, but the head-chopper Levant Front runs everything in Idlib with the exception of the patches of al Nusra turf.

Nobody - not even the CIA - can sneak weapons, explosives or ammo through any of the Idlib crossings (legal or illegal) and claim that they are destined exclusively for 'the FSA' if that even exists anymore. Shamiya Front are the headchopper mafia in charge and own anything coming in. All gangs (except al Nusra) work under it's control. The U.S. has long given up moving anything important through Idlib to the FSA or CIA mercs.

I'm afraid your 'northern rebels' west of Aleppo has been mostly a myth since the middle of this year. Shaiya Front are not 'northern rebels' - they are nearly all takfiri head-chopper extremists and mercenaries. I know CNN likes to show maps with big blotches of color in Idlib that are labeled 'rebel controlled', but that fails by the many accounts of the Shamiya mafia running everything. 'Former' FSA may control certain towns, but they work directly for the Shamiya Front now or will be killed by them.

If the CIA or DoD still wants to send something directly to the small groups of FSA left in and around Aleppo (and most of them switched to Shamiya this summer) then it's coming from the north through Kilis and Azaz. Apparently that isn't even safe any more as Shamiya looted the last batch of U.S.-trained rebels of most of their weapons and pickups before they quit.

...One problem for Russians is that the border in Latakia/Idlib area is quite twisty, following mountains, and reaching the border in some spots can be difficult for a fast plane...

Which is why killing all anti-Assad forces in Latakia and Idlib is the best way to start - it eventually eliminates the eastern supply routes to Aleppo. The city of Aleppo will then fall as soon as the northern supply routes are cut off, but that's still months away.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 6 2015 0:16 utc | 69

"I think that what happened with the end of the Cold War was that the US establishment simply could not adjust to the new reality and come off a war footing. I think there was an honest, if half-hearted, effort to do so on the part of US elites."

So sorry, but that made me giggle.

The fact is that as soon as it was clear the USSR was going to try and accord itself with globalism and the IMF, the US went for the real world prize - the Middle East and Saudi Arabia under the guise of the Gulf War. Europe would come later.

The far right had big, big plans for Eastern Europe, and long standing alliances (through the Germans) with all sorts of left over fascists in the Eastern Europe and Russia.

They no more wanted to give the American People the much ballyhooed "Peace Dividend" than a pit bull wants to give up a meaty bone.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 6 2015 0:32 utc | 70

Posted by: curious | Oct 5, 2015 11:11:04 AM | 31

IMO Turkey's claim of airspace violation sets the pretext for entry of Turkey, and hence NATO, to escalate the situation. See link below of Russian fighter jet shot down

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 6 2015 0:39 utc | 71

@70 jack smith... bogus info from penny.. she used to come by here.. check my example of dis-info video @38...

Posted by: james | Oct 6 2015 0:59 utc | 72

"Syria Ground War Imminent? U.S. Accuses Russia Of Launching Syrian Land Campaign"

Accused?? Like it was not planned to be a war? I guess US is going to object if there's any non-Syrian troops.

jfl, Here's your JAMMING EQUIPMENT:

"The officials also said that Russia has moved electronic jamming equipment into Syria. Both a truck-mounted system and a number of pods that can go on aircraft have been observed. This could potentially give the Russians the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft"

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 6 2015 1:00 utc | 73

okay, i see penny acknowledged that further down in her blog..

Posted by: james | Oct 6 2015 1:01 utc | 74

First of all, Afghanistan campaign didn't bankrupt USSR. It was ideologically bankrupt, not economically. Economic bankruptcy followed later, after the whole governmental structure imploded under the weight of what Marxists call "internal contradictions".

And second, how could Russia be bankrupted by a few airplanes (that it produces) dropping sorties (that it also produces)? Only on Obama's imaginative mind, maybe. For any reasonable person even a question is nonsensical.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, can certainly be bankrupted by a war in Yemen, or by supplying their proxies in Syria. It already runs massive budget deficit, and whatever military equipment and materiel it needs, it has to buy abroad.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 6 2015 1:27 utc | 75


No space for brown nosers here buddy, but I second your heartfelt gratefulness. Thanks to b who provides the context, we have an outstanding forum to debate, be REALLY informed in REAL time, and question everything under the sun. I haven't seen Paveway IV and Thirdeye before, but their contributions are outstanding. Welcome!

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 6 2015 1:36 utc | 76

"Again, the only reason I can think of is the belief that Jews shouldn't have their own country."

Jews shouldn't have Palestine. Maybe they can find some real estate on another planet for their Jewish state. This one is already pretty overbooked.

Posted by: RudyM | Oct 6 2015 2:16 utc | 77


Over 3,000 militants from the ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and Jeish al-Yarmouk have left Syria for Jordan after the start of the Syrian army's new wave of attacks and advances and the Russian airstrikes on ISIL positions," a military source said

Sunday: Gunmen from the Jeish al-Fatah coalition of extremist groups are pulling out their forces from Idlib and other towns in Northwestern Syria, media reports said.
The radical group started moving towards the Turkish border on Saturday after having experienced "the efficiency of the Russian aerospace forces’ strikes," the As-Safir Arabic-language daily reported.

"Intelligence information received by the security forces in Anbar revealed that leader of the ISIL Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi decided to replace all foreign and Arab leaders in Ramadi with others from the Sons of Ramadi,” the sources told Iraqi news.
“The replacement decision came due to fear of al-Baghdadi from the ISIL foreign members' intention to leave the group in Ramadi, that is surrounded by the Iraqi forces from different flanks," the sources claimed.

ISIL militants, most of them from the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Chechnya, together with their families have left Raqqa province for Iraq," a local source told FNA on Monday.
The source noted that at least 220 ISIL families have fled to Iraq, and said, "Notorious terrorists such as Abu Talheh Hejazi from Saudi Arabia and ISIL religious police chief Abu Abdullah al-Akidi are among the militants who have fled Raqqa province."
Meantime, about 160 militants were reportedly killed during the fighting in Deir Ezzur province.

"Blizzard military operations [SAA] which will be of decisive importance will soon start in Idlib, Jisr al-Shughour and Aleppo in the North," Ali Maqsoud told FNA on Monday.
He noted that the army plans to destroy the enemy convoys that are on the move from Damascus to Homs and from there to Lattakia, Idlib and Hama in the operations.
Maqsoud, meantime, said the terrorist groups might increase their attacks on the Syrian army in the next few days as well, "but underlined that the US and Israeli plots are being defused in the region rapidly, and efforts to uproot terrorism in Syria have started".

Russia's Black Sea Fleet may be used in Syria to blockade the Syrian coastline and deliver armaments, as well as possibly deliver artillery strikes, the head of Russian State Duma's defense committee and former Black Sea Fleet commander Vladimir Komoyedov said.

YEMEN. Massive withdrawal. Military sources revealed on Monday heavy defeats and withdrawal of the pro-Hadi and Saudi forces in the province of Ma'rib.
"Saudi troops started their withdrawal from Ma'rib on Sunday morning after sustaining a heavy defeat," popular forces commander Qeis al-Salami told FNA today.
He noted that the Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini troops withdrew from the oil-rich al-Safer region after they were badly defeated. "The Ansarullah fighter backed by the Yemeni army forced the pro-Saudi troops to withdraw by attacking them with different kinds of heavy and semi-heavy weapons," he added.
Al-Salami also said that the Yemeni forces repelled an attack by pro-Hadi militias on al-Balaq region and killed tens of them in heavy clashes.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 6 2015 2:43 utc | 78

Damien @41 and Thirdeye @64

The best description of neoconservativism that I know of is from a guy who literally 'wrote the book' on neoconservativism (entitled "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea"). The description is here: Bradley Thompson: Neoconservativism Unmasked. Its a MUST READ for anyone that is unfamiliar with neocons. Excerpts:

What, then, are the core principles of neoconservatism?
1. Neoconservative Metaphysics: The neocons take the “political community” or what Irving Kristol called the “collective self” as the primary unit of moral, social and political value.... The actual content of the “public interest” is whatever wise and benevolent men say it is, which is precisely why it should never be defined. The highest task of neoconservative statesmanship is to superimpose ideological unity on the “collective self” in the name of an ever-shifting “public interest.”

2. Neoconservative Epistemology: Neoconservatives begin with the Platonic assumption that ordinary people are irrational and must be guided by those who are rational.... The highest truth in Strauss and Kristol is restricted to the philosopher, while the common man is and must be limited to “knowledge” of a different sort: to myth, revelation, custom, and prejudice. Neoconservatives believe the opinions of the nation must therefore be shaped by those who rule. To control ideas is to control public opinion, which in turn is to control the regime as a whole. Ultimately, the vulgar must be ruled by faith and by faith’s necessary ally, force.

3. Neoconservative Ethics: If you believe, as Straussianized neocons do, that there are “different kinds of truth for different kinds of people,” then you must believe that there are and must be different moral codes as well. Ordinary people need ... ordering myths by which to live (such as piety and patriotism).... [And their] Morality is therefore [re-]defined as overcoming one’s petty self-interest so as to sacrifice for the common good [i.e. the national interest - as defined by the neocon philosopher-kings].

4. Neoconservative Politics: Central to the neoconservatives’ philosophy of governance is the conceit that it is possible, in the words of Kristol, for a small elite “to have an a priori knowledge of what constitutes happiness for other people.” Because common people cannot possibly know what they really want or what constitutes their true happiness, it is entirely appropriate for a philosophically trained political elite to guide them to their true happiness and to prevent them from making bad decisions. The highest purpose of neoconservative statesmanship is therefore to shape preferences, form habits, cultivate virtues, and create the “good” society, a society that is known a priori to those of superior philosophic wisdom. The neocons therefore advocate using government force to make “good” choices for America’s non-philosophers in order to nudge them in certain directions—that is, toward choosing a life of virtue and duty. As Strauss made clear in his most influential work Natural Right and History, wise statesmen must learn to use “forcible restraint” and “benevolent coercion” in order to keep down the selfish and base desires of ordinary men.

...I worry that the neocons are paving the road to a kind of soft despotism that might even lead one day to a type of fascism. They make us feel comfortable with certain fascist principles by Americanizing them—by draping them in traditional American manners and mores and in the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln.
The neoconservatives are the false prophets of Americanism. Those who wish to defend America’s Enlightenment values and the individual-rights republic created by its revolutionary Founders must therefore recapture from the neocons the intellectual and moral highground that once defined the promise of American life.

So the neocons basically believe that they are akin to philosopher-kings and unbound by traditional morality. When THEY lie and deceive, it is OK because they have a (mysterious) higher purpose. Neocons start from the premise that ordinary people will never understand 'what needs to be done' or willingly accept the sacrifices that doing 'what needs to be done' entails. It is the ultimate 'in-group' philosophy for world domination. An exceptional! philosophy for exceptional! people doing exceptional! things.

You can see Brad Thompson delivering this talk on Youtube (with neocon rebuttal).

PS Notice the focus on national greatness and compare/contrast to the rhetoric of Donald Trump.

PPS I finally discovered the 'Preview' button.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 6 2015 2:53 utc | 79

Posted by: norman wisdom | Oct 5, 2015 10:34:02 PM | 77

I humbly disagree, been following Panetta since Clinton presidency and bewildered he's neither the lesser nor the most evils, keep changing clothings. Don't trust any Repug and even more the Democrats.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 6 2015 2:58 utc | 80

@Thirdeye #64:

Thank you for that very informative survey.

@guest77 #69:

Yes, I guess I make myself giggle. What you write certainly makes more sense than what I wrote.

The sad thing is that I was just posting a comment on a blog, whereas by believing James Baker, Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze gave up an empire, receiving virtually nothing in return.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 6 2015 3:02 utc | 81

Demian @ 41, Thanks for your comments about sea power vx land power. I'd like to add 2 comments to your theme:
--Since a great deal of trade is sea-based and US has control of the sea lanes w potential to blockade coasts/ports at will, China seeks her land-based Silk Road. Idea for this is decades old, originated w Lyndon LaRouche, who called it "the Landbridge".

--Syria's position on the Mediterranean: " Mediterranean Sea has been one of the world’s most strategic waters. It joins Middle East oil and gas with markets in the European Union. It joins Indian Ocean shipping, increasingly from China, India, South Korea and the rest of Asia to European markets and to the Atlantic Ocean through the Egyptian Suez Canal. It joins the vital Russian Black Sea Fleet naval base in Crimea to both the Atlantic and Indian Ocean. In brief it connects Europe, Eurasia and Africa."
First appeared:

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 6 2015 3:05 utc | 82

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 5, 2015 9:27:29 PM | 74

Am not disagreeing with your overall assessments, but a waterfall start with a single drop of water when you deal with combine NeoCon and Neoliberal forces.

Please watch The Real News Networks videos a refreshing views.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 6 2015 3:07 utc | 83

Thirdeye @ 64: Pretty good synopsis, although, I think here in the US today, most of our political class falls into two groups, pro-corporate or pro-electorate.

Posted by: ben | Oct 6 2015 3:12 utc | 84

I propose the USSR disintegrated mainly because:

1. It was lacking structural cohesion compared with peers:

- many more ethnicities than peers
- many more languages than peers
- more religions than peers
- more time zones than peers

2. The USSR was situated on the mainland in Asia. Remember "never fight a land war in Asia?" Too much to contend with, at all times.

3. The leading Western nations and historical empires are, were, and have always been oligarchies, explicitly (kingdoms) or implicitly (crony capitalists). When oligarchs have to choose their possible allies from among a group of communists, fascists, kings, dictators, whatever, they choose any of the others regardless of how brutal or corrupt they are. They were "out to get" the USSR, by any means possible. It's the one "threat" that made the oligarchs of all other countries work together to defeat. They made life difficult for the USSR with no apparent care for the consequences, just like you see them do capriciously with many small countries around the globe up through today.

Posted by: yoh | Oct 6 2015 3:14 utc | 85

@65 How can the kurd leadership be tursted? They're like abused wives to USA demands - they'll probably allow smuggling of arms into the country to 'rebel' fighters after getting a brow-beating from the USA

Posted by: bbbbb | Oct 6 2015 3:23 utc | 86

A more relevant excerpt to MoA readers:

The neocons’ national-greatness philosophy is also the animating force behind the their foreign policy. Indeed, neoconservative foreign policy is a branch of its domestic policy [Note: I'd say it is the other way around - see note below]. The grand purpose of national-greatness foreign policy is to inspire the American people to transcend their vulgar, infantilized, and selfish interests for uplifting national projects. The neoconservatives’ policy of benevolent hegemony will, according to William Kristol and Robert Kagan, “relish the opportunity for national engagement, embrace the possibility of national greatness, and restore a sense of the heroic.” In other words, the United States should wage war in order to combat creeping nihilism. In the revealing words of Kristol and Kagan, “The remoralization of America at home ultimately requires the remoralization of American foreign policy.” Going to war, sacrificing both treasure and blood in order to bring “democracy” to strangers—this is a mission worthy of a great nation.

The neocons therefore believe that a muscular foreign policy—one that includes military intervention abroad, war, regime change, and imperial governance—will keep the American people politicized and therefore virtuous. By [While] saving the world from tyranny, America will [also] save herself from her own internal corruption [that is, the moral corruption that comes from the lax and lazy lifestyle of those who are too comfortable]. And there’s more. By keeping America perpetually involved in nation-building around the world, neoconservative rulers will have the opportunity to exercise their statesmanlike virtues. There can be no statesmanship without politics and there can be no truly magnanimous statesmanship without war, so the neocons fear and loathe moral principles that might deny them this outlet. A condition of permanent war, a policy of benevolent hegemony, and the creation of a republican empire means that there will always be a need for politics and statesmanship.

It is important to understand that foreign engagement is primary in neocon thinking. 'National purpose' follows in a 'tail wagging the dog' manner. Neocons were ready to fill the power vacuum after the fall of the Soviet Union. The MIC and other powerful interests joined with the neocons for 'fun and profit' in the early 1990's.

Note also that the "political outsiders", Trump's and Sanders, are each very acceptable to the neocons. Trump talks of 'making America great again', while Sanders specifics and Sanders focuses his campaign on domestic issues (which are secondary - maybe even tertiary - to the neocons).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 6 2015 3:46 utc | 87

Gemini33 @ 55,

I'll give you my two-bits on the factions in the US.

The Hawks have been in power since Geo Bush , Sr: Bushes, neocons, Petraeus, Gen. Allen, Nuland, Hillary, Mc Cain, Cheney, most of CIA: not sure which of the banking families are the decision-makers, planners behind this faction. I would guess Gates and Soros, maybe the biggest Vanguard shareholder, which seems to have been very important in the Ukraine Maidan & coup.

2d faction has the same goal of a global oligarchy, but is more prudent as to methods: Rockefeller family, CFR, TriLateral Commission, Some of the Pentagon/Military, Obama, Kissinger, Brzinski.. This faction has been trying for some time to rein in the Hawks. They set that honey trap for Petreus & Allen, but weren't strong enough to KEEP them out of power. Both returned!

It appears the more prudent faction has now become dominant w the loss of Syria. The project of a global oligarchy will now be pursued via extending the supranational institutions which usurp the powers of national sovereignty. These are financial and trade institutions: IMF, WTO, World Bank, BIS, all sorts of trade treaties (called trade partnerships so as to avoid the 2/3 vote necessity). TPP, TTIP & TiSP are crucially important since their provisions all override national laws. Various UN programs and the climate change hoax will also be used to decrease economic progress continue reducing population.

I don't know where the Rothschilds are in all of this. The men who control the BIS are probably at the very top of the pyramid & I don't know who they are.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 6 2015 4:03 utc | 88

Jackrabbit @ 79,

Thanks for posting that Neocon's Philosophy. It's a good summary of the Straussian ideas which are an animating principle for the oligarchs and their underlings in govt and the upper level military (sometimes). It is very like the ideas of the Illuminati: that they alone are rational and need accept no moral limits.

Both factions that I wrote about subscribe to this philosophy. As proof that they are above ordinary morality they often break moral taboos, especially sexual, which is why you so often hear about pedophilia among people high up in the govt.

At if you look at Sinister Sites, you can see some of their artwork-- creepy.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 6 2015 4:25 utc | 89

No Russian ground troops planned for Syria, according to Speaker of Federation Council Valentina Matvienko. Looks like US media lied yet again, time will tell.

Another moronic article here, strictly for laughs:

In it senile Zbig Brzezinski says that America could "disarm" Russians in Syria.
Of course, he wouldn't elaborate on how...
I guess we are going to be bombarded by this crap for as long as Russians keep dispatching jihadis to the Allah.

Steel yourselves.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 6 2015 4:33 utc | 90

I also want to thank b for this site. It is a bright light in the midst a dark sea of agitprop. Being old and a participant in the First Cold War, I am much more apocalyptic than the commenters here. All I can say is that the number of screw-ups since 2001 is incomprehensible. A regional religious war is underway in Syria and Northern Iraq between minority Shiites, Alawites and Christians against militant Sunni Muslims. Two nuclear powers; Russia and the USA, are in combat on opposing sides. Three if you count Israel’s support of Jihadists in the south of Syria. This is simply out of control. We are one mistake away from World War III.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 6 2015 5:18 utc | 91

Penelope @88

I've seen this 'Petraeus honeypot' speculation before but I don't buy it. Here's why:

1) I don't know how the scandal served any powerful interest. The prime candidate in this speculation seems to be Israel/neocons but I haven't see much consternation from these groups toward Petraeus. And if they DID "take Petraeus & Allen down" then why would Petraeus and Allen now be pimping for neocons?

Also, if bring Petraeus down was suppose to influence the election, then neocons/Israel would've made certain that it was revealed BEFORE the election?

2) Paul Broadwell revealed info in her college talk about Benghazi. I don't get the sense in that speech that she did so with any malice or agenda. (Though I'm no expert.)

3) The affair had been going on for many months,maybe years. Broadwell could've slipped up long before so as to make the affair come to light (if so wished by ...whomever). But if that were the case then wouldn't the fact that she had Petraeus trust and confidene be more valuable to ...whomever?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 6 2015 5:36 utc | 92

Top US and NATO Commanders Admit They Cannot Oppose Russian No-Fly Zone

In the US the two parties argued for a long time and could not agree, about a no-fly zone, and Putin just went ahead and did it,” sarcastically said the author of the article on Bloomberg.

And the Americans had to accept it. Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said that the U.S. government will not use U.S. air power to protect the “moderate rebels”.

And now the Americans are just lost because they do not know how to behave with those who are able to realistically fight back.

Found the above at Russia Insider, which claims its from Fort Russ, but cannot find it there.

At anyrate, the reason Putin could set up a no-fly zone so quickly was because he was in the country, at the invitation of the legitimate government, at whose request he was taking what measures he could to help Syria repel the terrorist invasion mounted by the USA/KSA/Turkey who, by way of contrast, were arguing among themselves over whether they could sell the war crime of creating a no-fly zone over the country they were invading.

The flip side of their moaning about their inablility to counteract what Putin/the Russians does/have done is that the Russian armed forces are primarily defensive, whereas the US/NATO/KSA forces are nearly exclusively aggressive. Defending territory from attack from wherever is the entire focus of the Russian armed forces. The aggressive US/NATO/KSA forces are at a complete loss ... robbed of the abilty to open an engagement with 'shock and awe' death, devastation and destruction, they're left scratching their heads. Their hubris and proclivity for institutionalized waste, fraud, and abuse have taken taking their toll.

In a very real sense this parallels the globalized, neoliberal West's bankruptcy across the board. Their world of finance is fundamentally aggressive and completely out of touch with the real world, just as their relationship to the real world environment is fundamentally aggressive and out of touch with the world beneath their feet.

The awakening must be traumatic indeed. They have pissed away everything they had of real value and have nothing ... nothing but disaster ... to show for it.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 6 2015 5:59 utc | 93

Penelope @

I don't fully accept your description of the factions but in terms of hawk and 'more prudent', I'd say you are wrong when you say that 'more prudent' faction has won "with the loss of Syria".

I think the hawks have won because they were pushing for doing more faster. The 'more prudent' faction wanted to secure the Iran nuclear agreement first. The hawks are now complaining loudly that the go-slow approach was weak and provided an opportunity for the Russians to spoil the years-long effort.

On the other hand, With Russia's entry, the Sunni jihadi movement - which 10 years ago was directed principally against the USA - is now directed against Russia. So the hawks are crying all the way to the bank (to withdraw funds for the jihdis, of course).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 6 2015 6:06 utc | 94

norman wisdom @77,

"...nice info but you are wrong i was speaking to leon panetta recently and he told me these groups are stronger than hitler and anyone taking them on would be at min at least 30 years war..."

Well he should know - he's partially responsible for destabilizing Syria, fomenting a coup and bloody civil war that's killed a quarter million Syrians and creating, enabling and arming the ISIS and al Nusra head-choppers. Who am I to argue with than kind of expertise?

Jack Smith @80 - I'm pretty sure norman was being sarcastic. I like your observation about Panetta thought. I would call him a consummate career federal bureaucratic psychopath. If nothing else, he's painfully predictable. Want to know what he thinks about Russia in Syria today? Read his interview by Spiegel Online from last February and just change a few words around:

Leon Panetta Interview: 'You Have To Deal with Russians from Strength'

You know, the one single quality of Putin that I admire the most is his apparently clear understanding of the nature of Washington's bureaucratic psychopaths. I think he is aware of the power they have and the dangers they pose to the world, but he treats them like the sick people they are - respectful with patience and tolerance, but only to a point.

I have heard Russians say that Putin may not be the greatest leader of Russia in it's entire history, but he is exactly the kind of president they needed right now - today. I have to say that Putin is also the exact kind of Russian president that the U.S. needs today. He has exposed the psychopathic nature of the U.S. government and the psychopathic ruling class that infests it far better than anyone else has in my lifetime.

It's comforting to know that people all around the world see this and agree. The U.S. government is mostly immune to the protestations of it's own little people subjects, but thanks to the internet I can see that little people everywhere see the same thing. If the U.S. citizens can no longer control their government, then maybe the rest of the world will get together and put it on a shorter leash.

Putin is not perfect, but he's the right guy in the right place at the right time to point out how broken, dangerous and psychopathic the U.S. government has become. People like Panetta sees this as Russia's attempt to dominate the world. The rest of the planet looks at the U.S. and agrees with Putin: none of them want a crazy bully neighbor like the U.S. running amok around the globe. If they're building fences, it's not to dominate the world but to keep the crazy U.S. out of their yard.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 6 2015 6:38 utc | 95

Penelope # 85
Strange as it may sound, Neocon’s Philosophy in so many ways resemble Philosophy of Velayat e Faghih of Imam Khomeini (Guardianship of Jurists).
Neocon philosophy is influenced by Strauss. Strauss himself was influenced by Maimonides. Maimonides where influenced by Al-Afarabi. Khomeini’s VF doctrine is greatly influence by Al-Farabi.

Posted by: Niawaran | Oct 6 2015 7:22 utc | 96

Important details in Badhrakumar's analysis of the Turkish border incidents

Posted by: Mina | Oct 6 2015 7:53 utc | 97

EU-crats were quietly planning a new Palestine in northern Syria, and the Israelis are doing their best to launch an Intifada3.

"Le gouvernement turc préconise pour l’instant la création d’une « zone de sécurité » dans le nord de la Syrie, aux confins de sa frontière avec la Turquie : trois « villes » de 100.000 habitants seraient construites par les Turcs et financées par l’Union européenne. Mais les représentants de cette dernière ne sont pas chauds pour cette solution, tout en ne pouvant refuser d’en discuter."
(On Erdogan's visit to Brussels)
None of the articles talking on the possibility the EU would take an extra 500,000 refugees from the Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian camps ever mention the Palestinians.

Posted by: Mina | Oct 6 2015 8:29 utc | 98

@Jackrabbit #79

That looks like a paleocon critique of the neocons.

I should have added that every Democratic President since Jimmy Carter has been neoconservative in substance. You'd think someone might catch on that the hypocrisy of wrapping what is essentially an elitist program in high-minded, inclusivist rhetoric is a political loser, since each was followed by a massive turrnoff of the electorate (albeit with two out of three such Presidents re-elected by playing off against the neanderthal character of their opposition).

@Penelope #82

Maybe LaRouche was aware of Mackinder's thesis (link under Demian #41) and claimed credit for it.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Oct 6 2015 8:40 utc | 99

years ago MoA talked about Dennis Hastert; now Sibel Edmonds has stepped up and gone on the record about Hastert, at some personal risk—her Sept 20 and Sept 30 columns spell it all out, and her personal statements have been opened up to the public as podcasts, available at BFP:

Posted by: Cu Chulainn | Oct 6 2015 8:52 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.