|
Russia Again Disciplines The Wannabe Sultan
The Russians just gave (again) a public lecture of how to handle the wannabe-Sultan Erdogan.
Turkey entered Syria to end al-Assad’s rule: President Erdoğan – November 29
The Turkish military launched its operations in Syria to end the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Nov. 29.
“In my estimation, nearly 1 million people have died in Syria. These deaths are still continuing without exception for children, women and men. Where is the United Nations? What is it doing? Is it in Iraq? No. We preached patience but could not endure in the end and had to enter Syria together with the Free Syrian Army [FSA],” Erdoğan said at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul.
“Why did we enter? We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice. We entered there to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror. [We didn’t enter] for any other reason,” the president said.
If Turkish troops were in Syria to remove its President, instead with the flimsy excuse of fighting ISIS under a badly fitting UN mandate, they would be a hostile invasion force and a legitimate target for Syria and its allies. The remark was thus stupid. It weakened the Turkish position.
Erdogan was immediately told so:
Kremlin asks Erdogan to clarify ‘anti-Assad’ goals in Syria – November 30
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement that his goal in Syria was to end the rule of Bashar Assad has caused consternation in the Kremlin, with officials saying it contradicted previous assurances and was out of sync with Moscow’s take on the situation.
"The statement was indeed news, this is a very serious statement. [It] is in discord with the previous [statements] in general and with our understanding of the situation," Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday.
"We hope that in the near future there will be explanations on this from our Turkish partners," he said, adding that Russia is the only country whose armed forces are in Syria on a legitimate basis – at the direct request of the Syrian authorities.
The emphasized part is a hardly hidden direct threat. Erdogan put his forces in Syria into immediate jeopardy.
Erdogan tried to save the situation, promising a retreat from his statement for at least some gain for the Jihadis he supports.
Erdogan and Putin discuss #Aleppo for the third time this week: Disagreement over ceasefire? – November 30
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan discussed the grave situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by phone on Nov. 30 for the third time in a week, with the two “agreeing on the need for a ceasefire,” presidential sources said.
The sources said the two leaders agreed to step up efforts to stop clashes in Aleppo and deliver humanitarian aid to civilians in the besieged city.
That was the Turkish version of the call. The Russian statement on that call was sparse and did not mention any ceasefire.
Thus this translation from Diplomatese:
"I will take that statement back if you give me a ceasefire deal in Aleppo," Erdogan told President Putin.
"Screw you," was the response.
Turkey, Russia see need for Aleppo truce but divisions remain – December 1
Lavrov said the bloodshed must stop in Syria and the region, that Moscow was ready to talk to all parties in the war, and that it would continue cooperating with Turkey. But he also vowed Russia would continue its operations in eastern Aleppo and would rescue the city from what he described as terrorists.
Erdogan's statement, aimed at his supporters in Turkey and elsewhere, created a legal mess for his troops. The attempt to sell a retreat from it for some gain was harshly rejected by Russia. Now all Erdogan could do was to take his statement back with no gain at all. This was quite a loss of face for him – a well deserved one.
Operation in Syria only targets terror, Erdoğan clarifies – December 1
Turkey’s military operation in Syria is not against any country or person but terror groups in general, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said, in contrast to earlier remarks that Turkey’s objective was to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad following.
“The aim of the Euphrates Shield Operation is no country or person but only terror organizations. No one should doubt this issue that we have uttered over and over, and no one should comment on it in another fashion or try to [misrepresent its meaning],” Erdoğan said at a 30th gathering with village chiefs at the Presidential Palace in Ankara on Dec. 1.
Hahaha – see how that dog pulls its tail between its legs – whining in retreat?
The game Erdogan tried would probably have worked with Merkel, or some other EU politician. Russia will have none of it. No means no. When Russia says stay out of Al-Bab it means stay out of Al-Bab. With regard to Syria Erdogan now has to do what he is told to do. He was just publicly lectured about that again. Still, I doubt that he really learned the lesson.
@64
First of all I don’t give a rat’s ass about Hillary and/or Obama! Can we get that out of the way for good? And whatever criticisms or flaws you find in them – I’m fine with, I’m not going to disagree with. I didn’t go far enough for you in my criticism of them? My bad. How’s this?: Trump, Hillary, Obama, Democrats, Republicans – they’re all beholden to and working for the same Zionist bosses, the shadow government, deep state cabal whatever people wanna call it. They’re all, with minor, very minor exceptions in each party bought and sold prostitutes for Zionism! So can we finally put to bed your argument that I’m some hasbara trolling for the Democrats? It’s really insulting.
As reasonable as you attempt to appear @55, you’ve already shown your bias with the hysteria and exaggeration of previous comments. Trump is not anti-Jewish so you label him as Zionist; he is not anti-military so you label him a warmonger.
Oh, so because my comment @55 appears reasonable, because God forbid for your cause it is reasonable; your best argument is to discredit me with previous comments that others reading this won’t bother to check on to see if they were reasonable or not, as you think, people are that stupid, they’re going to believe you, who has no argument but to diminish me with your own personal opinion minus proof. Well FYI I’ve had some pretty positive feedback from others on my comments. So there goes your argument.
Hello??? I don’t care if Trump’s not anti-Jewish! I only care that he grovels at the altar of Zionism and has extremist Zionist and Neocon advisors like David Friedman and James Woolsey and other Neocon/Zionist loons advising him and kisses the real President of the U.S., Netanyahu’s ass! Trump: Ohhh, Obama treats Netanyahooo sooo badly. – gee he could have fooled me; they seem to fall over each other bending over for Israel. So Obama snubbed Netanyahu for trying to out-stage him the day Bibi gave his state of the Israel union address to Congress? Well, finally Obama’s big, fat ego served the right purpose! Too bad it was merely unintended.
Trump’s not anti-military…tell me something I don’t know for a change. Hey, you think the MIC is doing the American people a favor? Think again. Trump is sending a trillion or more their way; and a big F.U. to people sleeping under bridges who could really use a trillion-dollar break, some of whom almost gave their life for the MIC and another F.U. to the children of others who’ll continue to die for the MIC the second most powerful cabal in the U.S. – and for the cause of Zionists being the first cabal.
Everyone here knows the problems with Trump and are skeptical enough of power to be concerned.
Well, some honesty; how refreshing!
Okay, I don’t know this rufus guy’s history here to comment one way or another, but I’ve seen his spamming and although I understand that sometimes it’s frustrating to elicit honesty and sometimes, I don’t know, I’m just speaking for myself, but sometimes it’s hard to be swimming against the tsunami of ignorance and delusion that afflicts America in general; so I get that frustration but I disagree with this individual’s tactics; it’s unfair to spam a board with pages from the fall of the Roman empire although the simple analogy would have sufficed to make the point; but again the delusion one must deal with on different blogs is beyond laughable at times to the point of total derision.
You will wait and see; okay, that’s fair. I don’t have to wait because once a candidate is anointed by the Zionist Lobby; there’s nothing left there to see, they scorch all hope and the promise that might have been.
And you know, the yellow hair, orange tan and blowhard attitude really doesn’t help to gain my confidence either. It just spells snake oil salesman to me. Kind of makes me suspect he was hand-picked straight out of the casino by Adelson himself; tacky meets future Zionist self. Oh, and I remember at one of the debates that toad Guiliani another Islamophobe loon and Zionist stooge on Trump’s team of advisors who I have to agree is the spitting image of Nosferatu, was doing the ritual detour by Adelson’s throne on way to his seat in the hall and Adelson didn’t even get up out of his chair to shake his hand until Giuliani kissed the ring of the Zionist queen next to the Zionist financier and it was like he was suddenly ejected from his seat. That was funny; and sickening, all in one. It literally makes one cringe and want to throw up in their mouth at that level of bootlicking that Zionism induces. Just thought I’d throw that anecdote in for comic relief.
And there’s another bone I have to pick with you. I’m not impressed with your false argument that because Trump’s campaign manager is suspected of being a supremacist sympathizer and Trump an enabler they’re somehow incompatible with Zionists. On the contrary, and the proof is that when Trump appointed Bannon to his cabinet this caused a fake uproar and temporary schism among Zionists. While the ADL who have a fake image to protect, criticized the choice, the Zionist Organization of American came out defending the choice and Bannon and even inviting him to their annual gala. That’s because although the ADL will never admit it, Zionism is in fact a racist, supremacist ideology and ZOA were totally unequivocal and credible in their defense of Bannon because they share an appreciation of their mutual supremacist nature, while the ADL a watchdog front for Zionism were merely covering their ass having to unequivocally condemn all forms of bigotry. Obviously, the ADL had an image to protect while ZOA had nothing to lose in that regard. Meanwhile the Lobby did what it usually tries to do, stayed in the shadows because Trump was really their first choice and Hillary was second. As I stated before Zionists hedge both sides but usually have a favorite. So really, Zionists completely relate to Trump’s team and supremacy and they’re all birds of a feather in the same supremacist nest.
So hopefully, I demolished this incompatibility argument of yours for good as it has no legs and is total bull and Trump and Zionism are much more than just strange bedfellows.
I’m glad you appreciated #55 as being somewhat reasonable…I think. Hey, it’s a start coming from someone like you.
Posted by: Circe | Dec 2 2016 18:39 utc | 74
It’s becoming a multipolar world. That changes everything, all the old narratives are now suspect. First let’s consider the old narrative:
1) With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the U.S. and its NATO partners had two choices: dissolve NATO and pursue a peace dividend, or expand NATO and seek a “to the victors go the spoils” attitude. The latter choice was made; eastern Europe and Central Asian ex-Soviet satellites were to be brought into the NATO “sphere of influence” – and their natural resources, especially oil, were to be used to enrich bankers in Wall Street, London, Zurich, etc.
2) This agenda was spelled out by the neoconservative PNAC (Project for a New American Century) in 1998, and has been pursued throughout the Bush and Obama administrations. Under Obama, it was promoted by neoliberal think tanks like CNAS (Center for a New American Security); these two groups have close alliances with the Bush and Clinton circles, who merged into the neolib-neocon alliance that backed Hillary Clinton. A key element of their agenda was to turn Iraq, Syria and Iran into client states of western interests, in the model of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, etc.
3) The essential elements of the PNAC plan in the Middle East: invade and take over Iraq, turning it into “America’s aircraft carrier/oil tanker” in the Middle East; fill it with American military bases, which would be used in the next phase, invasions and occupations of Syria and Iran; with the end goal being that the entire Middle East region would be an American protectorate/client state.While this plan utterly failed, Obama’s efforts at regime change in Syria in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Jordan and Turkey represented a continuation of the PNAC plan by other means (covert regime change and secret ISIS support, instead of Iraq-style invasion and occupation by U.S. military forces). Israel and Saudi Arabia were to play supporting roles in this game.
4) The other elements of the PNAC plan: turn all the Central Asian ex-satellite states, the ‘stans, into American protectorates; and incorporate all the eastern European states into NATO via “color revolutions” as in the Ukraine. The common theme there is control of pipeline zones and oilfield zones, as in the Middle East. That was supposed to be the basis for global world empire for the next 100 years, with America as the world’s only superpower. And then there was the Asian angle, containing China, etc.
It was really all just a pile of megalomaniacal bullshit, in the end.
So, what next? Some people think Trump will continue with the PNAC plan by trying to overthrow Iran, but really, the PNAC plan seems as dead as Hitler’s Thousand-Year-Reich. What’s the debt load so far from these stupid empire games? $6 trillion or so? The domestic problems in the United States are directly related to this – crumbling infrastructure, gross wealth inequality, Brezhnev-era Soviet Union-type corruption rampant across government and on Wall Street – it’s game over for the American Empire, just as it was for the Soviet Union (collapsed in late 1980s) and the British and French Empires (collapsed 1950s). That’s the new reality, but a lot of people are having a hard time adjusting to it, and are still thinking in terms of the old narrative, on all sides of the American political spectrum.
Posted by: nonsensefactory | Dec 2 2016 19:11 utc | 75
@79,
I understand the viewpoint you profess, but I think there are some problems with it. Yes, Israel has a lot of political influence in the United States – but they were backing Hillary Clinton and that effort really failed. Where Israel has less influence than Saudi Arabia is on economic issues – the Saudi lobby is just as large as the Israel lobby, but much quieter. Obama signed off on over $100 billion in arms sales to the Saudis; the Saudis are dedicated to the petrodollar system and to banking with London and Wall Street, as is Qatar and the rest of the GCC coalition. It’s also the case that the Saudis have a quiet cooperation arrangement with the Israelis; both supported the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria (and notably underreported in the U.S. media, Israeli Defense minister Ya’alon said he’d prefer to see ISIS overrun Syria than have Assad, an Iran ally, remain in power.). So it seems pretty clear that Israel and Saudi Arabia have similar levels of influence over the United States government, in a bipartisan manner.
Here’s a great photo on that issue: McCain and Pelosi chortling together as they go to greet the Saudi dictator:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/files/2015/03/arabia-mccain-polesi-1024×712.jpg
And here is a similar picture, of Pelosi and Boehner with Netanyahu in the U.S. Congress:
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer4/2015/02/05/5861498/2479676299284640360no.jpg
So arguably, going to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the king is not very different from inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress. But this whole alliance is on increasingly shaky ground. The PNAC plan really did fail; Iran has far more influence with the Iraqi government than any other country right now, Syria is not going to turn into a Saudi proxy caliphate, and any notion of regime change in Iran is highly, highly implausible. The neocons and neolibs are on their way out; corporate Democrats are in the doghouse right now, and establishment Republicans are not so far behind. I don’t see a return to the neocon-neolib bowing and scraping to Israeli and Saudi leaders in the future; that would have been the Hillary Clinton route, but that’s over and done with.
As far as Trump’s criticism of the Iran deal, it seems to be that it was not economically favorable to the U.S., and “renegotiating” would be more about those issues, not about trying to go on with the PNAC plan. I can see Trump pushing for a trade deal with Iran on very favorable terms, for example – regardless of whether that upset Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, Israel is in trouble on numerous fronts – they will face increasing global pressure to open up their nuclear weapons program to IAEA inspections in the future, their efforts to maintain sanctions against Iran are not gaining global traction, the BDS movement in the United States has been a huge shock to AIPAC and similiar outfits – not looking too good. There’s no “two-state solution” in the works, so the long-term result could be what? The collapse of apartheid as in South Africa and voting and land ownership and immigration rights for all Palestinians, and coming clean about their nuclear weapons program?
Saudi Arabia also has major, major issues. They’re entirely reliant on oil to support the luxury lifestyles of the House of Saud; they’ve got big problems with domestic economic issues (food imports, jobs for their population, etc.), they’ve got the Shiite minority and Yemen to worry about – and if oil demand plummets, there goes the House of Saud, it could very very easily be a replay of the 1979 Iranian revolution with the royal family fleeing the country for Europe with as much loot as they can carry. At the very least, it would result in a parliamentary system replacing the House of Saud, who’d then become ceremonial-British-type Royals.
Sure, that’s speculative, but the trend seems obvious; Iran will probably become the region’s biggest economic powerhouse, and Saudi Arabia and Israel will have to cut some kind of peace deal with Iran, while the U.S. and Russia, hopefully after working together to defeat ISIS, will likely play minimal long-term military roles in the region. That’s what a more multipolar world would look like, in any case.
Posted by: nonsensefactory | Dec 3 2016 2:20 utc | 86
|
