Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News April 13, 2017

Apr 13 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, April 13, 2017: “This issue contains only two articles but both are very informative concerning the recent allegations of Syrian gas attacks and an illegal US missile attack instigated by the President. They are long article but for those interested in the issue, well worth reading.”

Table of Contents

 

  • White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor
  • A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor

April 12, 2017

RT

A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in Syria is now questioning the Trump administration’s narrative blaming the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town of Khan Shaykhun.

On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on civilians in the rebel-held town.

The report “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft,” wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday.

I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun,” wrote Postol.

A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government’s conclusions.

“I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct,” Postol wrote.

It is “very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said that doubting the evidence would be “doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this.”

The report offered by the White House, however, cited “a wide body of open-source material” and “social media accounts” from the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and Gulf Arab governments.

Postol was not convinced by such evidence.

“Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real,” he wrote. “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.”

Instead, “the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.”

“We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report,” he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.

“What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true,” Postol wrote, “and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.”

On Tuesday, Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy questioned the “authenticity” of media reports concerning the attack. He said that using social media to reconstruct the course of events raised “serious doubts” not only among the Russian military but also “among many respected experts and organizations.”

Rudskoy noted that, under the 2013 agreement to give up its chemical weapons, the Syrian government destroyed its stockpiles at 10 sites that were under its control. This was verified by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, the remaining two facilities were in territory controlled by the rebels, he said, and it remains unclear what happened to the chemicals stored there

 

April 11, 2017

A Quick Turnaround Assessment of the White House Intelligence Report Issued on April 11, 2017  About the Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria.

Theodore A. Postol Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dear Larry: I am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on April 11, 2017. I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017. In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4. This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House. However, if one assumes, as does the White House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides. The only undisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity. The report instead repeats observations of physical effects suffered by victims that with very little doubt indicate nerve agent poisoning. The only source the document cites as evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun. I have located this crater using Google Earth and there is absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft. The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement. The data cited by the White House is more consistent with the possibility that the munition was placed on the ground rather than dropped from a plane. This conclusion assumes that the crater was not tampered with prior to the photographs. However, by referring to the munition in this crater, the White House is indicating that this is the erroneous source of the data it used to conclude that the munition came from a Syrian aircraft.

Analysis of the debris as shown in the photographs cited by the White House clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load of sarin. Since time appears to be of the essence here, I have put together the summary of the evidence I have that the White House report contains false and misleading conclusions in a series of figures that follow this discussion. Each of the figures has a description below it, but I will summarize these figures next and wait for further inquiries about the basis of the conclusions I am putting forward herein.

Figure 1 shows a Google Earth image of the northeast corner of Khan Shaykhun where the crater identified as the source of the sarin attack and referred to in the White House intelligence report is located.  Also shown in the Google Earth image is the direction of the wind from the crater. At 3 AM the wind was going directly to the south at a speed of roughly 1.5 to 2.5 m/s. By 6 AM the wind was moving to the southeast at 1 to 2 m/s. The temperature was also low, 50 to 55°F near the ground. These conditions are absolutely ideal for a nerve agent attack. When the temperature near the ground is low, and there is no sun and very slow winds, the dense cool air stays close to the ground and there is almost no upward motion of the air. This condition causes any particles, droplets, or clouds of dispersed gas to stay close to the ground as the surrounding air moves over the ground. We perceive this motion as a gentle breeze on a calm morning before sunrise. One can think of a cloud of sarin as much like a cloud of ink generated by an escaping octopus. The ink cloud sits in the water and as the water slowly moves, so does the cloud. As the cloud is moved along by the water, it will slowly spread in all directions as it moves. If the layer of water where the ink is embedded moves so as to stay close to the ocean floor, the cloud will cover objects as it moves with the water. This is the situation that occurs on a cool night before sunrise when the winds move only gently.

Figures 5 and 6 show tables that summarize the weather at 3 hour intervals in Khan Shaykun on the day of the attack, April 4, the day before the attack, April 3, and the day after the attack, April 5. The striking feature of the weather is that there were relatively high winds in the morning hours on both April 3 and April 5. If the gas attack were executed either the day before or the day after in the early morning, the attack would have been highly ineffective. The much higher winds would have dispersed the cloud of nerve agent and the mixing of winds from higher altitudes would have caused the nerve agent to be carried aloft from the ground. It is therefore absolutely clear that the time and day of the attack was carefully chosen and was no accident.

Figure 2 shows a high quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser of the nerve agent. The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.  As shown in the close-up of the pipe in the crater in the pipe looks like it was originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was suddenly crushed inward from above.

Figure 4 shows the possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated. The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures. If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.

Figure 8 shows the improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in Damascus.  At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not been vetted by competent intelligence experts. This same situation appears to be the case with the current White House intelligence report. No competent analyst would assume that the crater cited as the source of the sarin attack was unambiguously an indication that the munition came from an aircraft. No competent analyst would assume that the photograph of the carcass of the sarin canister was in fact a sarin canister. Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it. All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report, was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed. I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward. I am available to expand on these comments substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community. This is a very serious matter. President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.” The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee! We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report. The Congress and the public have been given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all would not trust as evidence. It is late in the evening for me, so I will end my discussion here. I stand ready to provide the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.

Sincerely yours

Theodore A. Postol Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Email: postol@mit.edu

Cell Phone: 617 543-7646

 

 Appendix Quotes from the White House Report

 

The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin We have confidence in our assessment because we have signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence, laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims, as well as a significant body of credible open source reporting, that tells a clear and consistent story. We assess that Damascus launched this chemical attack in response to an opposition offensive in northern Hamah Province that threatened key infrastructure. Senior regime military leaders were probably involved in planning the attack. Shaykhun at 6:55 AM local time on April 4 Our information indicates that the chemical agent was delivered by regime Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria’s chemical weapons program were at Shayrat Airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in Northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack. Hours after the April 4 attack, there were hundreds of accounts of victims presenting symptoms consistent with sarin exposure, Commercial satellite imagery from April 6 showed impact craters around the hospital that are consistent with open source reports of a conventional attack on the hospital after the chemical attack.  An open source video also shows where we believe the chemical munition landed—not on a facility filled with weapons, but in the middle of a street in the northern section of Khan Shaykhun. Commercial satellite imagery of that site from April 6, after the allegation, shows a crater in the road that corresponds to the open source video. observed munition remnants at the crater and staining around the impact point are consistent with a munition that functioned Last November, for instance, senior Russian officials used an image from a widely publicized regime chemical weapons attack in 2013 on social media platforms to publicly allege chemical weapons use by the opposition. We must remember that the Assad regime failed to adhere to its international obligations after its devastating attacks on Damascus suburbs using the nerve agent sarin in August 2013, which resulted in more than one thousand civilian fatalities, many of whom were children. The regime agreed at that time to fully dismantle its chemical weapons program, but this most recent attack

The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin, against its own people in the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib Province on April 4, 2017. According to observers at the scene, the attack resulted in at least 50 and up to 100 fatalities (including many children), with hundreds of additional injuries. We have confidence in our assessment because we have signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence, laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims, as well as a significant body of credible open source reporting, that tells a clear and consistent story. We cannot publicly release all available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods, but the following includes an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of this attack.

 

Summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Assessment of the April 4 Attack

 

The Syrian regime maintains the capability and intent to use chemical weapons against the opposition to prevent the loss of territory deemed critical to its survival. We assess that Damascus launched this chemical attack in response to an opposition offensive in northern Hamah Province that threatened key infrastructure. Senior regime military leaders were probably involved in planning the attack.  A significant body of pro-opposition social media reports indicate that the chemical attack began in Khan Shaykhun at 6:55 AM local time on April 4. Our information indicates that the chemical agent was delivered by regime Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft that took off from the regime-controlled Shayrat Airfield. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan Shaykhun approximately 20 minutes before reports of the chemical attack began and vacated the area shortly after the attack. Additionally, our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria’s chemical weapons program were at Shayrat  Airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in Northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack. Hours after the April 4 attack, there were hundreds of accounts of victims presenting symptoms consistent with sarin exposure, such as frothing at the nose and mouth, twitching, and pinpoint pupils. This constellation of symptoms is inconsistent with exposure to a respiratory irritant like chlorine— which the regime has also used in attacks—and is extremely unlikely to have resulted from a conventional attack because of the number of victims in the videos and the absence of other visible injuries. Open source accounts posted following the attack reported that first responders also had difficulty breathing, and that some lost consciousness after coming into contact with the victims— consistent with secondary exposure to nerve agent.

By 12:15 PM local time, broadcasted local videos included images of dead children of varying ages. Accounts of a hospital being bombed began to emerge at 1:10 PM local, with follow-on videos showing the bombing of a nearby hospital that had been flooded with victims of the sarin attack. Commercial satellite imagery from April 6 showed impact craters around the hospital that are consistent with open source reports of a conventional attack on the hospital after the chemical attack. Later on April 4, local physicians posted videos specifically pointing out constricted pupils (a telltale symptom of nerve agent exposure), medical staff with body suits on, and treatments involving atropine, which is an antidote for nerve agents such as sarin We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and other reporting of chemical attacks. Doing so would have required a highly organized campaign to deceive multiple media outlets and human rights organizations while evading detection. In addition, we have independently confirmed that some of the videos were shot at the approximate times and locations described in the footage. Further, the World Health Organization stated on April 5 that its analysis of the victims of the attack in Syria showed they had been exposed to nerve agents, citing the absence of external injuries and deaths due to suffocation. Doctors without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres; MSF) said that medical teams treating affected patients found symptoms to be consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin. And Amnesty International said evidence pointed to an air-launched chemical attack. Subsequent laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims detected signatures of the nerve agent sarin.

 

Refuting the False Narratives

 

The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks. Initially, Moscow dismissed the allegations of a chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, claiming the attack was a “prank of a provocative nature” and that all evidence was fabricated. It is clear, however, that the Syrian opposition could not manufacture this quantity and variety of videos and other reporting from both the attack site and medical facilities in Syria and Turkey while deceiving both media observers and intelligence agencies. Moscow has since claimed that the release of chemicals was caused by a regime airstrike on a terrorist ammunition depot in the eastern suburbs of Khan Shaykhun. However, a Syrian military source told Russian state media on April 4 that regime forces had not carried out any airstrike in Khan Shaykhun, contradicting Russia’s claim. An open source video also shows where we believe the chemical munition landed—not on a facility filled with weapons, but in the middle of a street in the northern section of Khan Shaykhun. Commercial satellite imagery of that site from April 6, after the allegation, shows a crater in the road that corresponds to the open source video.

Moscow has suggested that terrorists had been using the alleged ammunition depot to produce and store shells containing toxic gas that they then used in Iraq, adding that both Iraq and international organizations have confirmed the use of such weapons by militants. While it is widely accepted that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has repeatedly used sulfur mustard on the battlefield, there are no indications that ISIS was responsible for this incident or that the attack involved chemicals in ISIS’s possession. Moscow suggested this airstrike occurred between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM local time on April 4, disregarding that allegations first appeared on social media close to 7:00 AM local time that morning, when we know regime aircraft were operating over Khan Shaykhun. In addition, observed munition remnants at the crater and staining around the impact point are consistent with a munition that functioned, but structures nearest to the impact crater did not sustain damage that would be expected from a conventional high-explosive payload. Instead, the damage is more consistent with a chemical munition. The Syrian regime has used other chemical agents in attacks against civilians in opposition held areas in the past, including the use of sulfur mustard in Aleppo in late 2016. Russia has alleged that video footage from April 4 indicated that victims from this attack showed the same symptoms of poisoning as victims in Aleppo last fall, implying that something other than a nerve agent was used in Khan Shaykhun. However, victims of the attack on April 4 displayed tell-tale symptoms of nerve agent exposure, including pinpoint pupils, foaming at the nose and mouth, and twitching, all of which are inconsistent with exposure to sulfur mustard. Russia’s allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the regime and attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents. Russia and Syria, in multiple instances since mid-2016, have blamed the opposition for chemical use in attacks. Yet similar to the Russian narrative for the attack on Khan Shaykhun, most Russian allegations have lacked specific or credible information. Last November, for instance, senior Russian officials used an image from a widely publicized regime chemical weapons attack in 2013 on social media platforms to publicly allege chemical weapons use by the opposition. In May 2016, Russian officials made a similar claim using an image from a video game. In October 2016, Moscow also claimed terrorists used chlorine and white phosphorus in Aleppo, even though pro-Russian media footage from the attack site showed no sign of chlorine use. In fact, our Intelligence from the same day suggests that neither of Russia’s accounts was accurate and that the regime may have mistakenly used chlorine on its own forces. Russia’s contradictory and erroneous reports appear to have been intended to confuse the situation and to obfuscate on behalf of the regime. Moscow’s allegations typically have been timed to distract the international community from Syria’s ongoing use of chemical weapons—such as the claims earlier this week—or to counter the findings from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-United Nations (UN) Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), which confirmed in  August and October 2016 reports that the Syrian regime has continued to use chemical weapons on multiple occasions long after it committed to relinquish its arsenal in 2013. Russia has also questioned the impartial findings of the JIM—a body that Russia helped to establish—and was even willing to go so far as to suggest that the Assad regime should investigate itself for the use of chemical weapons. Moscow’s response to the April 4 attack follows a familiar pattern of its responses to other egregious actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community.

 

International Condemnation and a Time for Action

 

The Assad regime’s brutal use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and poses a clear threat to the national security interests of the United States and the international community. Use of weapons of mass destruction by any actor lowers the threshold for others that may seek to follow suit and raises the possibility that they may be used against the United States, our allies or partners, or any other nation around the world. The United States calls on the world community in the strongest possible terms to stand with us in making an unambiguous statement that this behavior will not be tolerated. This is a critical moment— we must demonstrate that subterfuge and false facts hold no weight, that excuses by those shielding their allies are making the world a more dangerous place, and that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons will not be permitted to continue. We must remember that the Assad regime failed to adhere to its international obligations after its devastating attacks on Damascus suburbs using the nerve agent sarin in August 2013, which resulted in more than one thousand civilian fatalities, many of whom were children. The regime agreed at that time to fully dismantle its chemical weapons program, but this most recent attack—like others before it—are proof that it has not done so. To be clear, Syria has violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the UN Charter, and no drumbeat of nonsensical claims by the regime or its allies can hide this truth. And while it is an embarrassment that Russia has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions that could have helped rectify the situation, the United States intends to send a clear message now that we and our partners will not allow the world to become a more dangerous place due to the egregious acts of the Assad regime.

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

April 11, 2017

The Saker

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.  And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack.  Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV.  For the rest of us, there are three options:

a classical US-executed false flag

a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin.  This option requires you to believe in coincidences.  I don’t.  Unless,

the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase.  There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas.  As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed.  There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past.

The attack:

American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.  The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning.  At this point the accounts begin to differ.

The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets.  The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield.  The others are “unaccounted for”.  Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit.  Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours.  36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target.  That is a fact.

It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile.  In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa).  While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014.  The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable.  There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned.  I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just “for show” and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean.  That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia.  I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain  why in the political analysis below.

Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles.  Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions).  Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector.  Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don’t know if they did).  However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to “fry” and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles.  I do believe that this is the correct explanation.  I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.  What I am sure of is that 36 advanced cruise missile do not “just disappear”.  There are two reasons why the Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles: first, it provides them “plausible deninability” (at least for the general public, there is no doubt that  US signal intelligence units did detect the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it allowed them to keep their  air defense missiles for the protection of their own forces.  Can the Russian really do this?

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail.  I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences.  But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

I would note that those who say that the Russian air defense systems did not work don’t know what they are talking about.  Not only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked with the protection of the Syrian Air Space.  That is a task for the Syrian air defenses.  The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to protect Russian personnel and equipment.  This is why the Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes.  And this is hardly surprising as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel.

However, this might be changing.  Now the Russians have withdrawn from their agreement with the USA and, even more importantly, have have declared that the Syrians urgently need more advanced air defense capabilities.  Currently the Syrians operate very few advanced Russian air defense systems, most of their gear is old.

Legal aspects of the attack:

The US attack happened in direct violation of US law, of international law and of the UN charter.  First, I would say that there is strong legal evidence that the US attack violated the US Constitution,  Presidential War Powers Act and the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) resolution.  But since I don’t really care about this aspect of Trump’s criminal behavior, I will just refer you to two pretty good analyses of this issue and just simply summarize the argument of those who say that what Trump did was legal.  It boils down to this: “yeah, it’s illegal, but all US Presidents have been doing it for so long that they have thereby created a legal precedent which, uh, makes it legal after all“.  I don’t think this kind of “defense” is worthy of a reply or rebuttal.  So now let’s turn to international law.

Most people think that crimes against humanity or genocide must be the ultimate crime under international law.  They are wrong.  The ultimate crime is aggression.  This is the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trial on this topic:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

So, following the long and prestigious list of other US Presidents before him, Donald Trump is now a war criminal.  In fact, he is a “supreme war criminal”.  It only took him 77 days to achieve this status, probably some kind of a record.

As for the UN Charter, at least for articles (1, 2, 33, 39) ban the kind of aggression the USA took against Syria.

I think that there is no need to dwell on the total illegality of this attack.  I would just underscore the supreme irony of a country basically built by and run by lawyers (just see how many of them there are in Congress) whose general population seems to be totally indifferent to the fact that their elected representatives act in a completely illegal manner.  All that most American people care about is whether the illegal action brings victory or not.  But if it does, absolutely nobody cares.  You disagree?  Tell me, how many peace demonstrations were there in the USA about the totally illegal US aggression on Yugoslavia?  Exactly.  QED.

Political consequences (internal)

My son perfectly summed up what Trump’s actions have resulted in: “those who hated him still hate him while those who supported him now also hate him“.  Wow!  How did Trump and his advisors fail to predict that?  Instead of fulfilling his numerous campaign promises (and his own Twitter statements) Trump decided to suddenly make a 180 and totally betray everything he stood for.  I can’t think of a dumber action, I really can’t.  I have to say that Trump now appears to make Dubya look smart.  But there is much, much worse.

The worst aspect of this clusterf**k is how utterly immoral this makes Trump appear.  Think of it – first Trump abjectly betrayed Flynn.  Then he betrayed Bannon

Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.?  Today, Trump has shown us his true face.  Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation.  This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about reality.

The worst aspect of that is that by betraying people left and right Trump has now shown that you cannot trust him, that he will backstab you with no hesitation whatsoever.  Would you ever take a risk for a guy like that?  Contrast that with Putin who is “notorious” for standing by his friends and allies even when they do something really wrong!  There is a reason why the AngloZionists could not break Putin and why it only took them one month to neuter Trump: Putin is made of titanium, Trump is just an overcooked noodle]

And now Trump has betrayed HIMSELF by turning against everything he, himself, stood for.  This is almost Shakespearean in its pathetic and tragic aspects!

During his campaign Trump made a lot of excellent promises and he did inspire millions of Americans to support him.  I personally believe that he was sincere in his intentions, and I don’t buy the “it was all an act” theory at all.  Just look at the total panic of the Neocons at the prospects of a Trump victory and tell me this was all fake.  No, I think that Trump was sincere.  But when confronted with the ruthless opposition of the Neocons and the US deep state, Trump snapped and instantly broke because he is clearly completely spineless and has the ethics and morals of a trailer park prostitute.

So what we really have is a sad and pathetic version of Obama. A kind of Obama 2.0 if you want.  The man inspired millions, he promised change you can believe in, and he delivered absolutely nothing except for an abject subservience to the real masters and owners of the United States: the Neocons and the deep state.

Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising him.  And nobody is calling him a “Putin agent” any more.  None of which will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way.  He chose a quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days.  How totally stupid of him.  He apparently also chose the option of an “attack for show” to begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history, probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show?  A few flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters.  Pathetic if you ask me.

Ever since he got into the White House, Trump has been acting like your prototypical appeaser (it makes me wonder if his father was an alcoholic).  How a guy like him ever made in business is a mystery to me, but what is now clear is that the Neocons totally submitted him and that they will now turn him into political roadkill.

I am afraid that the next four years (or less!) will turn into a neverending Purim celebration

.Political consequences (external)

Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US collaboration with Russia of any kind.  Worse, he has also destroyed any hopes of being able to defeat Daesh.  Why?  Because if you really believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want to sell you bridges all over the world.  It ain’t happening.  What is much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton.  Let me explain.

The following are the measures with Russia has taken following the US attack on Syria:

Denunciation at UN (to be expected, no big deal)

Decision to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)

Decision to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)

Decision to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won’t be able to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something)

The combination of decisions 2, 3 and 4 does not mean that the Russians will shoot the next time, not by itself.  The Russians will still be restricted by their own rules of engagement and by political decisions.  But this will dramatically affect the US decision-making since from now on there will be no guarantee that the Russians will not shoot either.  The Russians basically own the Syrian airspace already.  What they want to do next is to give a similar capability to the Syrians.  Not only will that allow the Syrians to defend themselves against any future US or Israeli attacks, it will provide the Russians plausible deniabilty the day they decide to shoot down a US aircraft or drone.  Finally, the Russians are rushing back some of their most advanced ships towards the Syrian coast.  So after giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, the Russians are now returning to a Obama-times like posture in Syria.  Bravo Trump, well done!

Yes, I know, Tillerson is expected to meet Lavrov this week.  This was discussed ad nauseam on Russian TV and the consensus is that the only reason why the Russians did not cancel this meeting is because they don’t want, on general principle, to be the ones to refuse to speak to the other side.  Fine.  Considering that we are talking about a potential international thermonuclear war, I can see the point.  Still, I would have preferred to say Lavrov telling Tillerson to go and get lost.  Why?  Because I have come to the conclusion that any and all types of dialog with the United States are simply a meaningless and useless waste of time.  For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.  Over the past week or so we saw both Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson completely contradict themselves over and over again: “no we don’t want to overthrow Assad.  Yes we do want to overthrow Assad.  Yes we do. No we don’t“.  This is almost painful and embarrassing to watch.  This just goes to show that just like the Obama Administration, the Trump people are “недоговороспособны” or “not agreement capable”.  I explain this term in this analysis (written about Obama!  Not Trump):

The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”.  What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement.  While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.  For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state.  But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic.  It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal.  Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”.  That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit.  This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

This is bad.  Really bad.  This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.  What this also means is that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States.

That applies only to the official Kremlin.  Independent Russian analysts are not shy about expressing their total contempt and disgust for Trump.  Some of them are suggesting that Trump decided to show how “tough” he is in preparation for the Tillerson trip to Moscow.  If that is the case, then he is badly miscalculating.  For one thing, a lot of them as saying that what Trump has engaged in is “показуха” – a totally fake shows of force which really shows nothing.  What is certain is that demonstrations of force are very much frowned upon on the Russian culture which strongly believes that a really tough guy does not have to look the part.

Personally I don’t think that impressing the Russians was Trump’s plan.  Nor do I believe, like some, that launching that attack during the visit of Chinese Premier Xi was a deliberate affront or some kind of “message”.  In fact, I don’t think that there was much of a plan at all beyond showing that Trump is “tough” and no friend of Putin.  That’s it.  I think that the so-called “elites” in charge running the USA are infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible.  I don’t buy the “managed chaos” theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their dis-order.  Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it’s not part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant.

I have already explained in my previous analysis why Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is a non-starter and I won’t bother repeating it all here.  What I will say is that Erdogan’s endorsement of Trump’s attack is equally stupid and self-defeating.  I really wonder what Erdogan is hoping to achieve.  Not only did the Americans almost kill him in a coup attempt, they are now working on creating a semi-independent Kurdistan right on the border with Turkey.  Yes, I know, Erdogan wants to get rid of Assad, fair enough, but does he really believe that Trump will be able to remove Assad from power?  And what if Assad is removed, will Turkey really be better off once the Emirate of Takfiristan is declared in Syria? I very much hope that after the referendum Erdogan will recover some sense of reality.

What about the Israelis, do they really believe that dealing with Assad is worse than dealing with this Caliphate of Takfiristan?!  But then, we can expect anything from folks with such a long history of making really bad decisions.

Still, it really looks like the all have gone completely insane!

Then there is the embarrassing standing ovation coming out of Europe and the Ukraine.  I really am embarrassed for them.  They are rejoicing at the attempted removal of one of the last mentally sane and secular regimes in the Middle-East.  Don’t these European “leaders” realize that if Syria is replaced by a Caliphate of Takfiristan all hell will really brake loose for Europe?  I am amazed at how blind these people are…

Now let’s look at what happened from the point of view of China and the DPRK.  First, as I mentioned, I don’t think that Xi felt that the attack during his visit to the USA was a slap or an affront.  From another civilized country, maybe.  But  not from the USA.  The Chinese are absolutely under no illusion of the total lack of sophistication and even basic manners of US Presidents.  That is not to say that they were not outraged and very concerned.  It goes without saying that they also noticed the “coincidence” that The USN has canceled planned port calls in Australia for the USS Carl Vinson and is instead sending the aircraft carrier and attached group towards the Korean Peninsula.  They also noticed that this move has been given maximal visibility in the US propaganda machine.  One “show of force” in Syria is now followed by another “show of force” in East Asia.

Typical, isn’t it?

If anything, this move will only strengthen the informal but very strong and deep partnership between China and Russia.  Just like the Russians, the Chinese will keep on smiling and make very nice statements about international peace and security, negotiations, etc.  But everybody who matters in China will understand that the real message of out Washington DC is simple: “now it’s Assad – but you could be next”.

Which leaves the DPRK.  I am no mind-reader and no psychologist, but I ask myself the following question: what is worse – if the Americans fail to really scare Kim Jong-un or if they successfully do?  I don’t have the answer, but considering the past behavior of the DPRK leaders I would strongly suggest that both scaring them and failing to scare them are very dangerous options.  The notion of “scare” should not be included in any policies dealing with the DPRK.  But instead of that, the dummies in DC are now leaking a story (whether true or not) that the US intelligence agencies have finalized plans to, I kid you not, “eliminate Kim Jong-un“.  And just to make sure that the message gets through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC threatens the DPRK with war.

Have they all really gone totally insane in Washington DC?

Do I really need to explain here why war with the DPRK is a terrible idea, even if it had no nuclear weapons?

Conclusion: what happens next?

Simply reply: I don’t know.  But let me explain why I don’t know.  In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a “rational actor”.  The Soviets sure where.  As where the Americans.  Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions.  You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)?  I don’t know.  To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types.

Some readers might think that this is hyperbole.  I assure you that this is not.  I am dead serious.  Not only do I find the Trump administration “not agreement capable”, I find it completely detached from reality.  Delusional in other words.  You think Kim Jong-un with nukes is bad?  What about Obama or Trump with nukes?  Ain’t they much, much scarier?

So what can the world do?

First, the easy answer: the Europeans.  They can do nothing.  They are irrelevant.  They don’t even exist.  At least not in the political sense.

Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage.   Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do,

And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent.  No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.

What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.  But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China.  So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).  This needs to change.  China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia.  All Russia has are superb military capabilities.  China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money.  Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria.  The problem is not Assad.  The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh.  If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next.  Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next.  Everybody in Russia understands that.  But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.  So here is my central thesis:

You don’t want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.

I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors.  Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.  And if Russia is not the world’s policeman, neither is she the world savior.  The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!

Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear.  That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.

So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind Russia.  This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources.  If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia,that would not be a problem.  Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia.  But he can’t.  Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.  I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

The Russians are afraid of war.  The Americans are not.

The Russians are ready for war.  The Americans are not.

The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness.  This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one.  And she is very much alone.  European are cowards.  Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA.  India hopes to play both sides.  Japan and the ROK are US colonies.  Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON/FIVE EYES gang.  Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks.  It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more.  The only actor out there who can do something in China.  If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of “Obama-style nightmare” it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.

In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine line between various bad options.  Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy.  Alas, it appears that Trump has “figured out” that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria).  That won’t work.

Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise.  If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won’t have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things?  Could President Pence be better than President Trump?  I am afraid that it might.  Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.

The next four years will be terrible, I am sorry to say.  Our next hope – however thin – for somebody sane in the White House might be for 2020.  Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will run on a campaign promise of peace and truly draining the swamp?  Maybe “America first” will mean something if Gabbard says it?  Right now she seems to be pretty much the only one refusing to accept the “Assad did it” nonsense.  So maybe she can provide the mix of peace and progressive social policies so many Americans really want?  Maybe she could become the first woman President for all the right, rather then wrong, reasons. I don’t know.  2020 is still very, very far away, let’s just hope we all make it to that date before some imbecile in DC decides that war with Russia is a good idea.

What is certain is that the Democrat vs. Republican and Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy only serves to perpetuate a system which manages to betray the values of BOTH the Left and the Right.  This is paradoxical because it is pretty darn clear that most Americans want their country to be at peace, to stop being constantly at war, and with civilized social and labor standards.  Sure, the hardcore libertarians still believe that laisser-faire is a great solution, even if that hands all the power to corporations and even if that leaves the individual citizen defenseless against the oligarchy.  But bet you that even hardcore libertarians would prefer “statism” (as they would say) with peace than “statism” with war.  Likewise, many hardcore progressives want to severely limit the freedoms of many Americans (small business entrepreneurs, gun owners), but even they would prefer peace without rules and regulations than war without rules and regulations.  So I think that the possibly unifying platform could be expressed in the notion of “peace and civil rights”.  That is something which the vast majority of Americans can agree upon.  Even the Black Lives Matter folks should agree to that kind of “peace and civil rights platform”.  That, I think, ought to be the priority of the Federal government – dismantle the war machine and dismantle the state repression machine: a full pull-out of US forces deployed worldwide combined with a full restoration of civil and human rights as they were before the 9/11 false flag.  And let the States deal with all the other issues.

Alas, I am afraid that the plutocracy in power will never allow that.  The way the crushed Trump in one month tells me that they will do that to anybody who is not one of their own.  So while hope is always a good thing, and while I like dreaming of a better future, I am not holding my breath.  I find a sudden and brutal collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire followed by a break-up of the USA (as described here) far more likely.

We better prepare ourselves for some very tough times ahead.

Our only consolation is that all the dramatic events taking place right now in the USA are signs of weakness.  The US elites are turning on each other and while the Neocons have broken Trump, this will not stop the fratricidal war inside the US plutocracy.   Look at the big picture, at how the empire is cracking at every seam and remember that all this is taking place because we are winning.

Imperialism will die, discredited and hated by all those who will have to live through the upcoming collapse of the US-based Anglo-Zionist Empire.  Hopefully this time it will be the last empire in history and mankind will have learned its lesson (it would be about time!).

The Saker

Comment: The Saker is an ex-military analyst who was born in Europe to a family of Russian refugees. He now lives in Florida where he writes the Vineyard of the Saker blog and is a regular contributor to Russia Insider. The international community of Saker Blogs includes, besides the original Saker blog, French, German, Russian, Oceania and Serbian members. Saker falcon (Falco cherrug), a species of falcon ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No responses yet

Leave a Reply