Rejecting TPP Deal Would Hinder US to Advance Objectives in Asia Pacific

Rejecting the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement would be a gigantic self-inflicted wound for the United States as it would slow growth and prevent fully advancing US interests in the Asia Pacific region, US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

Kerry called on the US Congress to approve the TPP agreement and said rejection of the agreement would be a conscious turning of our backs on the Asia Pacific at the very moment the United States ought to be linking arms.

 “[It would be an] act that would hurt American workers, slow the economy, hinder our ability to advance the full range of US objectives in a region that is by common sense with five of the fastest growing nations in the world,” Kerry at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in the state of Illinois on Wednesday.

The TPP would link the US with the economies of 11 other Pacific Rim nations in a trade zone with lower tariffs and fewer import restrictions. Critics of the TPP agreement claim it undermines domestic companies, laws, regulations and institutions through an extra-judicial process that stacks the deck in favor of multinational corporations.

Kerry explained one of the main benefits of the TPP deal lies in mandating a level playing field between private sector and state-owned companies in addition to abolishing 18,000 foreign taxes on American goods and services.

To maintain a growing economy, Kerry added, the United States has be able to sell its goods to places where 95 percent of the world’s customers live.

“If we’re going to live up to our responsibilities in Asia… if we’re going to do what’s necessary to protect our interests, we have to maintain a steady and reliable presence in that region,” Kerry maintained.

‘Proportional Response’: Did The White House Just Threaten To Hack Russia?

Four days after publicly accusing the Russian government of hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Obama Administration has announced plans for what it terms a “proportional” response.

On Friday, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement formally accusing Moscow of attempting to influence the US election by hacking into servers belonging to the DNC. It followed a series of informal accusations against Russia for the hacks, also made without evidence.

 On Tuesday, the White House offered some idea of how it plans to respond.

“There are a range of responses that are available to the president and he will consider a response that is proportional,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

“The president has talked before about the significant capabilities that the US government has to both defend our systems in the United States but also carry out offensive operations in other countries.”

 He added that whatever action the US decides to take will not be announced to the public in advance.

Speaking to Radio Sputnik, Ohio State University Professor Emeritus of International Law John Quigley pointed out that the basis for the decision is largely ungrounded.

“Well, it seems a bit ambiguous. The statement said that it is consistent with methods used which is a formulation that falls short of saying that they definitely know what is going on,” Quigley said.

“Speculation a week or so ago was that the United States would not come out with these accusations because it raises the question of what it could do next,” he added. “The likelihood is that it will not do much. I think that probably the president wanted to make this information public but that he doesn’t really have in mind any specific countermeasure.”

 The Russian government has dismissed the allegations against it as part of a “hysterical campaign.” Speaking to Russia’s Channel One broadcaster, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated, ‘When I discussed the issue with US Secretary of State [John] Kerry last time, I told him that we have had some consultations. After all, we also do not want our nationals to engage in cybercrime. This can be turned against Russia.”

“We do not want to cause any damage to other countries as well,” Lavrov detailed, adding, “It is funny, that there is quite a hysterical campaign underway in the context of the elections debates [suggesting] that we have hacked the sites of the Democratic Party and Pentagon.”

Lavrov said that Kerry expressed interest in bilateral consultations over the issue, but apparently the White House derailed the overture.

Losing in Syria, US Resorts to Threatening Russian Cities With Terror Attacks

Washington looks to have shifted its approach to Russia to language of intimidation and threats. On Wednesday, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said that if the Syrian army’s offensive does not stop, Russian cities may be faced with the threat of terror attacks. Russian terrorism experts respond, commenting on the implicit threat.

Speaking at a press briefing, Kirby suggested that if Russian-supported Syrian military operations aren’t halted immediately, “extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.”

The Syrian Army’s successful offensive against the eastern, militant-controlled portion of the city of Aleppo is the reason for this new aggressive tone, according to Russian observers. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed that his counterpart, John Kerry, had threatened to halt cooperation with Russia unless the Syrian military’s offensive, backed by Russian air power, was stopped.

Svobodnaya Pressa columnist Andrei Polunin suggested that Washington’s concerns are entirely understandable, even if their rhetoric is unacceptable. “If Bashar Assad’s army manages to capture Aleppo, Syria’s second city, it will mean a turning point in the war, resulting in Damascus regaining control over the country’s strategic centers. This, in turn, will be a huge blow to the opposition forces supported by Washington.”

Naturally, this scenario does not suit the White House, Polunin added. In addition to Secretary of State Kerry’s warning, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest threatened “additional sanctions” against Russia in the event that hostilities are not stopped.

On Thursday, Reuters reported, citing anonymous officials, that the US response might include allowing Gulf States to supply the rebels with more sophisticated weapons, or even a deliberate US Air Force attack on a Syrian air base.

In this situation, Polunin suggested that Kirby’s threats “appear to be a kind of final warning. The question then arises: What is behind his words? Let’s begin with the fact that a limited Russian continent has been fighting in Syria for over year, and terrorist attacks inside Russia have yet to occur. Why would they start now? Is Washington threatening to give the go-ahead for the groups it controls in Syria to hit Russian territory?”

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova couldn’t help but get the sense that this may very well be the case. In a Facebook post on Wednesday, she noted that all this “ventriloquism about ‘body bags’, ‘terrorist attacks in Russian cities’ and ‘loss of aircraft’ sounds more like a ‘get ’em’ command, rather than a diplomatic comment.”

Speaking to Svobodnaya Pressa, Alexei Filatov, a retired FSB Lieut. Col. and vice president of the International Association of Veterans of the Alpha Anti-Terror Unit, suggested that first and foremost, it’s necessary to understand that “terrorism has long been a business.” Accordingly, “terror attacks and the threat of terror attacks have been used to deal with many serious economic and political issues.”

This reality of global geopolitics began to emerge with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, which eventually mutated into the Taliban, “not without the participation of foreign ‘investors’, including the United States,” and also includes terror groups al-Qaeda and Daesh, the analyst explained. “I believe that even Daesh was a direct consequence of policy pursued by NATO countries, led by Washington.”

In the current situation, Filatov suggested that any Russian action in Syria will necessarily result in a reaction. “Only a blind man cannot not see the connection between the beginning of our campaign in Syria and the destruction of the Russian Airbus A321 over the Sinai Peninsula. I think, unfortunately, that these are related events. The explosion onboard the aircraft was [Daesh’s] response to our active participation in the Syrian conflict. Moreover, I think that the more serious our participation, the higher the probability that various attacks against Russian citizens will be planned.”

With regard to Kirby’s remarks, the FSB officer suggested that “they sound like a direct threat. I have good reason to suppose that some terrorist acts planned by Daesh or the remnants of the Caucasus Emirate can take place with a certain level of participation by US agencies responsible for fighting terrorism.”

“In the best case, these US structures will not react to signals about imminent terror attacks on Russia; at worst they may even fund such activities. Again, I cannot exclude the possibility our foreign colleagues becoming involved in the preparation of terrorist attacks on Russian territory.”

Ultimately, Filatov emphasized that Russia’s security forces have had over 20 years of experience fighting terror. “Our experience in this area is huge. Russia today practically does not face the threat of complex, large-scale terrorist attacks. This speaks to the fact that our security services have learned how to deal with terrorism effectively. On the other hand, unfortunately, no security service can guarantee 100% protection against terror, especially in a situation where the risk of terror attacks is increased for political reasons.”

For his part, Stanislav Tarasov, director of the Middle East – Caucasus Research Center, suggested that Kirby’s words were extremely undiplomatic, to say the least, especially considering that Moscow still maintains a level of anti-terror cooperation with the United States.

“It’s worth recalling that Americans have been victims of acts of terror for which radical Islamists were responsible. But instead of cooperating with Moscow, including on the Syrian track, Washington arranges such provocations,” the analyst complained.

Ultimately, Tarasov suggested that Kirby’s statement seemed a kind of “a sign of the death throes of American policy in the region, and of US foreign policy in general.”

In any case, the analyst suggested that if Washington’s plans involve shifting militants from Syria to Russia, the recently reestablished cooperation between Ankara and Moscow, including anti-terrorist cooperation, should undermine such plans. “It’s necessary to understand that today, Moscow and Ankara are not interested in each other’s destabilization. Besides, relations between Turkey and the US today are not so trouble-free as they were before,” Tarasov noted.

Battle for Aleppo: US-Backed Rebels Shut Off Water for 1.5 Million Civilians

The so-called “moderate” rebels turned off the water to 1.5 million civilians living in West Aleppo in retaliation for a Syrian Army airstrike on East Aleppo that allegedly left 250,000 residents without water setting the stage for an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.

The city of Aleppo is “dying” according to United Nations officials after a fierce wave of bombing last night by the Syrian Army in an attempt to break the stalemate in what once was the economic capital of the country but is now left to rubble after years of combat between the Assad government and rebels.

Last night’s airstrikes according to early reporting by the United Nations left 115 dead as hostilities have intensified following the collapse of the ceasefire earlier this week resulting in large part from a US-led coalition airstrike on a Syrian Army base in Deir Ez-Zor that left 62 dead and hundreds injured “paving the way” for a major offensive by Daesh (ISIS) terrorists and over 300 ceasefire violations by the rebels.

The rebels signaled in the day before the ceasefire that they would not comply with the agreement brokered by the United States and Russia with the second largest rebel group Ahrar al-Sham even saying that it was “impossible” for the group to breakaway from al-Nusra Front terrorists (formerly Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate prior to a rebranding effort) because the two groups had become too entangled fighting under the common banner of the Army of Conquest.

With hopes for peace on hold Syrian airstrikes have escalated which the rebels claim undermined attempts to repair a water pump supplying rebel-held districts in East Aleppo with water allegedly blocking the flow of the vital resource to some 250,000 residents.

In an act of reprisal, the rebels switched off the Suleiman al-Halabi pumping station that provides water to 1.5 million Syrian civilians in government controlled West Aleppo raising the possibility of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in what has already turned into the largest displacement of civilians in human history.

Kieran Dwyer, spokesman for the UN Children’s Rights & Emergency Relief Organization (UNICEF) explained that the Bab al-Nairab pumping station supplying rebel-held parts of Aleppo was allegedly damaged on Thursday and subsequent strikes rendered repairs impossible.

“Then in retaliation for that attack a nearby pumping station that pumps water to the entire western part of the city – upwards to 1.5 million people – was deliberately switched off,” said Dwyer.

 UNICEF fears that families in West Aleppo will be forced to use contaminated liquid carrying waterborne diseases to which children are particularly vulnerable as a result of the intentional act of terroristic sabotage by the rebels in contravention of international humanitarian standards.

“Aleppo is slowly dying, and the world is watching, and the water is being cut off and bombed – it’s just the latest act of inhumanity,” said UNICEF Deputy Director Justin Forsyth.

Defense Secretary Carter, Gen Dunford Lash Out at Obama Over Iran Ransom Payment

Defense Secretary Ash Carter joined by leading defense officials say that they were not consulted before President Obama made the decision that they feel has sullied the name of the armed forces and emboldened Iranian forces.

The Obama administration faces yet another fracture in the tenuous alliance among political, diplomatic and military staffers as the fallout of President Obama’s controversial decision to send $400 million in cash to Iran amid the Iranian nuclear negotiations in order to free US naval personnel held hostage after drifting into Iranian waters continues to develop.

According to US Defense Secretary Ash Carter neither President Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry consulted either he nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford before making the ill-fated decision that has top US military officials up in arms.

In response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) regarding the decision to proffer $400 million in cash to Iran as a condition for the release of hostages, Carter made clear that he was not invited to the decision making process.

“We weren’t involved in this,” Carter said. “I don’t know all the details of it, and the chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law-enforcement and diplomatic [agencies], and I would refer you there.”

General Joseph Dunford reiterated this reality in his testimony before the Senate committee saying, “I am not trying to be evasive, but I don’t know the details of that arrangement and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money, and I don’t think it’s appropriate that I comment on that.”

The statements made by top Pentagon officials directly contradicts the earlier Obama administration position laid out by State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner who said, “There’s always an inter-agency discussion around any decision like this, and every relevant agency weighs in.”

© Flickr/ Huge Scandal: Obama Used Pseudonym in Secret Memos on Hillary’s Private Server Statements by the Pentagon officials before Congress in contradiction to the official line show a chasm opening once again between the defense and diplomatic establishment within the administration.

The US President’s decision to fully exclude the military branches from the discussion along with recent revelations by Politico that the White House had been wiring cash to Iranian banks before the cash delivery have set the stage for division among the administration’s ranks likely to last through the final months of Obama’s term.

US ‘Betrayal’ in Syria Lead Moscow and Damascus to Develop New Strategy

Hawks in the US foreign policy establishment appear to have succeeded in their effort to rip the Russian-US Syrian ceasefire agreement to shreds. However, according to independent political observer Albert Naryshkin, the ‘war party’ should remember the proverb ‘be careful what you wish for…’, because Moscow and Damascus aren’t backing down.

Last Saturday, just over a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry succeeded in hammering out a comprehensive Syrian ceasefire agreement, US-led coalition jets struck Deir ez-Zor, a government-controlled city in eastern Syria which has been besieged by Daesh terrorists for nearly two years. The attack left over 60 Syrian servicemen dead, and wounded over 100 more.

More than anything, Syrian and Russian officials were incensed by the fact that immediately after the airstrikes took place, Daesh began an offensive. Lavrov made sure to highlight this amazing ‘coincidence’ in his speech before the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

“And here an amazing thing happened,” Naryshkin noted, in his analysis for PolitRussia. “The US, which never apologizes for anything or to anyone, suddenly expressed regret, and apologized for the death of Syrian troops.”

Soon afterward, US media began buzzing that the Pentagon was “furious over the fact that someone was apologizing and officially calling its actions mistaken or regrettable.” But at that moment, the journalist added, the situation evolved further, widening the rift between Washington on one side and Moscow and Damascus on the other.

“On the one hand,” Naryshkin recalled, “after the meeting between Lavrov and Kerry at the UN General Assembly, we didn’t hear anything to the effect the truce agreement was ruined, or that the US would abandon its commitments. However, other events allow us to characterize the current status of the treaty as nothing more than a ‘phantom’.”

This comes down to three facts, according to the journalist. First and foremost, it stems from the brazen attack on Deir ez-Zor, which was not only a violation of the truce, but proof that there are at least elements in the US political establishment who are “ready to revive the idea of direct military operations against Assad’s forces.”

Secondly, there is fact that some militants, including Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra) never had any intention of halting the fighting. Finally, Naryshkin noted, there was the Syrian Army’s decision to withdraw from the ceasefire, which its high command justified by pointing out that militants had violated the truce over 300 times in a single week. The Russian General Staff soon declared it support for the decision, stating Monday that it made no sense for the Syrian Army to observe the ceasefire if militants were not willing to reciprocate.

In other words, “the Pentagon seems to have achieved its goal, and dealt serious damage to the agreement reached at Geneva. Even if it has not been formally announced, the agreement has already been violated and is not being adhered to, and its future looks tenuous. But this was the Pentagon’s step – how will Moscow and Damascus respond?”

The answer, Naryshkin noted, is quite simple: the two countries aren’t going to give up to US military pressure.

“Damascus began its response with a show of force. The Syrian Army and allied militias launched a massive offensive in northern Hama province, where militants [from the Jund al-Aqsa, a subunit of al-Nusra] are holding on to a small enclave. Knocking them out of the suburbs of Homs, the Syrian Army would be able to ensure safety in three major urban settlements: Damascus, Homs and Hama.”

“Fighting is now taking place near the village of Koukab, with advance units moving toward Taibat al-Imam…Before that, the Syrian Army returned to the positions from which it had previously withdrawn to respond to attacks by the terrorist forces that had refused to comply with the truce.”

Moscow, for its part, “decided to raise the stakes, and to send the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier cruiser to the Mediterranean Sea. The ship will join the group of Russian ships in the eastern Mediterranean.”

 “Currently, the Russian naval group in the eastern Mediterranean comprises six warships and three to four support vessels from all of Russia’s fleets. In order to strengthen the combat capabilities of the group, we plan to include a naval aircraft carrier group with the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser in its composition,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu explained.

Aircraft aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov will carry out strikes against the jihadists between October and January.

In effect, Naryshkin noted, the Syrian and Russian military response to the Pentagon’s provocation means failure for the hawks’ attempt to squeeze Moscow and Damascus into submission.

But at the same time, the journalist emphasized that waiting for an even ‘tougher’ response, absent another provocation from Washington, is not worth it, either. “Moscow will continue calmly supporting Syrian troops as they finish squeezing [militants in] Aleppo, and cleaning out the suburbs of Hama and Homs,” but will not escalate.

“In this way, Russia demonstrates that it will not reject peace initiatives — nor will it close the door for the implementation of the signed agreements, which can always be returned to; at the same time, Moscow shows that every provocation will be met with a serious operation inside Syria itself. And this will very quickly deplete the Pentagon’s ‘arsenal’, since it will force it to make a choice about whether to engage directly in an open military confrontation with Assad and Russia – something they vowed not to do, and wouldn’t be allowed to do.”

This is especially true given the fact that President Obama’s term is almost up, and lame duck presidents generally can’t afford to risk launching major new military operations.

Ultimately, Naryshkin suggested that even if individuals like Secretary of State Kerry could be counted on for having the good sense to stick to agreements signed with Moscow, Russia cannot sit back and hope that the president and the Pentagon will have the same wisdom. Moscow requires a ‘new strategy’ in Syria – one which it has been implementing in recent days.

According to the journalist, that strategy consists of always leaving the door open to peace negotiations, while demonstrating the will “to clear the terrorists out of Syria entirely…Washington only made concessions and agreed to talks because the opposition was beginning to run out of steam. And if the US does not want to or cannot participate in a peaceful solution, the conflict will continue to be resolved as it has over the past year, when consistently, one after another, hundreds of settlements and militia groups signed on to our proposal for a truce, while the government liberated large areas of territory, and surrounded Aleppo in a ring.”

Lavrov, Kerry Holding Talks in New York, Syria Main Topic Under Discussion

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is holding talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. NEW YORK (Sputnik) – Syria is the main topic of the Wednesday talks between Lavrov and Kerry.

The meeting is the second between the two on the sidelines of the 71st UN General Assembly. On Tuesday, Lavrov and Kerry had a short bilateral discussion ahead of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting.

US In Denial Over Sponsoring Terrorism Is Why War On Syrian Rages On

By Finian Cunningham

Marathon 10-hour talks this weekend between the US and Russia in Geneva failed to produce a comprehensive plan to end the brutal Syrian war.

Cutting through diplomatic jargon, the fundamental problem is that the US remains in denial about its criminal role in fueling the war.

It is this role by the US and various foreign allies in supporting illegally armed groups that ensures the continuance of the conflict, which has been running for nearly six years with hundreds of thousands killed.

Washington and its allies – in particular this week Turkey – claim to be fighting terrorism. But the myriad global networks of weapons, cash, oil smuggling and military intelligence all testify to systematic state sponsorship of terrorism in Syria – in spite of random apparent anti-terror operations by these same sponsor-states.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said they were continuing to work on details for a breakthrough to end the violence. These precise details were not revealed, but it is reported that American and Russian military and technical experts are liaising on resolving them.

Kerry and Lavrov have obviously good personal rapport, and there seems to be an earnest mutual respect between the diplomats to find a solution in Syria. But how can a solution be found when one of the parties is part of the problem? Not only that, but the guilty party is in utter denial about its nefarious role.

In this way, the discussions between Kerry and Lavrov are more resembling of the relationship between a patient and a therapist, in which Lavrov is having to painstakingly work through the details about which Kerry suffers cognitive dissonance.

Part of the logistical problem in implementing a ceasefire in Syria is the ongoing failure by the US to provide any distinction between terrorist groups and militia that it claims are “moderate rebels”.

That is a main factor for why the earlier ceasefire called in February fell apart. Syrian government forces and their Russian ally maintain that they have the legal right to continue attacking internationally recognized al Qaeda-linked terrorist brigades. For which Washington then turns around and accuses Syria and Russia of targeting “moderate” insurgents.

However, absurdly, Washington has not or cannot provide Russia with any maps or locations showing where its “moderate” militias are.

On August 26, #Lavrov held talks with @JohnKerry in Geneva: main events https://t.co/sQEhk1YMvnpic.twitter.com/LNqDxZCq6W

— MFA Russia (@mfa_russia) August 28, 2016

In a press conference with Lavrov in Geneva, Kerry ducked a question on how a modality could be found for making such a distinction. Kerry gave this tellingly vague response: “It is not a helpful situation, and we’re expressing concern about it with the Russians and working on ways to deal with it.”

In other words, Washington hasn’t a clue about any realistic distinction between the plethora of armed groups trying to topple the Syrian government.

That vacuity from Washington vindicates the Syrian and Russian assessment as essentially correct: the vast majority of the anti-government opposition are terrorist entities. They may have countless different names, but they share the same extremist ideology and methods; and ultimately they share the same sponsors among foreign states for weapons and funding. Chief among these sponsors is Washington, Britain and France, as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies.

The Western media indulge in the same bankrupt, mendacious thinking by referring to “inter-mingling” between “moderates” and “extremists”. This is plainly a delusional narrative that has no bearing on reality in Syria. More than this it is a psychological operation of deception to conceal criminality of governments from their citizens.

The disclosure by former US intelligence chief Lt General Michael Flynn that the Obama administration was well aware from as early as 2012 that its covert support to anti-government militants in Syria was fomenting jihadist terrorism was a rare moment of honesty. Obama’s Secretary of State at that crucial time was Hillary Clinton. In that regard, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is right to say that Obama and Clinton “created” Islamic State and other related jihadist terrorist groups.

But Clinton’s successor John Kerry remains in apparent blissful denial of this systematic link between US foreign policy, regime change in Syria and the sponsorship of terrorism. Kerry arrogantly equivocates with diplomatic language about vague details for ending the conflict, without the slightest sign of shame over his nation’s culpability in fueling that conflict.

Associated Press quoted US officials who said that it is imperative that Russia pressures the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad to concentrate its military attacks on Islamic State and the other main al Qaeda-linked organization, Al Nusra.

“For their part, US officials say they are willing to press rebel groups [sic] they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and Al Nusra,” reported AP.

That sounds like the American side is prepared to give nothing but the same old empty procrastination over “un-mingling” of terror brigades.

Nevertheless, there are indications that Lavrov’s “therapy” is succeeding in incrementally nursing the American side towards some truth acceptance.

Reuters reported on the latest Geneva encounter thus: “Assad’s future is not part of the current talks. Instead, discussions are focused on finding an effective and lasting solution to end the violence, which would open negotiations on a political transition in Syria.”

That “Assad’s future is not part of the current talks” is a significant concession by the Americans. No doubt, Washington still wants its prize of regime change – which is the original objective for inciting this war. However, it is notable that Kerry reportedly has now dropped the “Assad must go” mantra in his meetings with Lavrov.

Russia has consistently told the Americans that the issue of Syria’s president and government is a sovereign matter for the Syrian people alone. That is an inviolable legal principle underpinned by UN resolutions.

On that score, Washington appears, at last, to be overcoming its cognitive disconnect by finally shutting its mouth on illegal demands about the Syrian presidency.

Now the next phase of diplomatic “therapy” from Lavrov will need to coax his American patient into coming to terms with the truth of its complicity in terrorism. The causal connections between policy makers in the Obama administration and CIA weapons supply to terrorist clients are documented and disclosed, as in the case of Lt General Flynn.

What is needed is for people like John Kerry and other Western government leaders to stop living in denial and to realize the truth: They are part of Syria’s problem, not the solution.

And their problem stems from criminal covert support to terrorist proxy armies in their equally criminal intrigues for regime change in Syria.

Without this systematic accountability for Washington and its various allies over the conflict in Syria, all diplomatic talk about “ending the violence” is just futile nonsense.

The ceasefire first announced six months failed because of this Western mentality of denial and deception. There is no reason to think that new efforts for another ceasefire will somehow succeed.

Because the delusional minds of the terror sponsors so far seems to be beyond any form of remedial influence – despite the best efforts of Russia’s top diplomat Sergey Lavrov.

A good dose of Western public anger demanding prosecutions for war crimes might help provide some remedy though, and bring an end to Syria’s torment.

Former Deputy Undersecretary of US Navy Predicts War with China is ‘Inevitable’

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China’s strength in the meantime.

“A key component of the next president’s foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size,” said Seth Cropsey. “Obama has not made this imperative any easier.”

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing’s claim to the South China Sea’s disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration’s response to the decision saying it “wholly ignored the military character of China’s actions to date in the South China Sea.”

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless “continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing’s intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands.”

He surmised that China’s foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing’s former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s a fact.”

Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the “rule of law” or “accepted norms of international behavior,” but rather the country’s power to ignore international law altogether.

The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that “China does not respect international law” whereas “Japan and the United States do” before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because “the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America’s continued role as a great Pacific power.”

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war – a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.

Putin Blasts Western ‘Democratization’ Saying it Causes Terrorism, Failed States

The Russian President leveled his most fierce blow yet against interventionist foreign policies arguing that productive societal change must begin at the ground level from within rather than being imparted by outside liberators.

President Putin opined in an interview with Bloomberg at the Eastern Economic Forum that events from the last decade and a half show that the budding Western foreign policy theory of humanitarian interventionism, wars of liberation and outside efforts to bolster opposition to autocratic conditions result in fertile breeding grounds for terrorists and destabilize nation-states – with Iraq, Libya and Syria being the most prominent and graphic examples.

“I’ve always been of the opinion that you can’t change things from the outside, regarding political regimes, power change,” Putin explained. “I’m sure – and the events of the past decade add to this certainty – in particular the attempts at democratization in Iraq, Libya, we see what they led to: the destruction of state systems and the rise of terrorism.”

The Russian President himself has faced challenges from Western foreign policy thinkers who claim to espouse a theory of outside intervention to facilitate a culture of increased democratization – such as Open Society Foundations’ George Soros who had invested heavily in opposition media and entities inside of Russia which many in Moscow see as a thinly veiled effort to destabilize the government.

A similar cascade befell the regime of Viktor Yanukovych, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, whose regime was ousted by the same “fifth column” forces of disruption that the leaks of George Soros files showed that the Hungarian-born billionaire advocated for and ultimately funded the creation of.

 “Do you see any elements of democracy in Libya? Perhaps they will develop one day, hopefully. Or the ongoing civil war in Iraq – what is the future of Iraq in General? These remain big questions,” said Putin in laying out his case. “The same goes for Syria. Every time we hear that ‘Assad must go’ (because someone from outside believes so), I can’t help but wonder: What is that going to lead to?… Isn’t it better to warm ourselves with patience and promote structural changes in society?”

The idea comes full-force with the regime change efforts in Iraq and Libya with former President George W. Bush calling the military campaign an effort to “liberate the Iraqi people” from the despotism of the violent dictator Saddam Hussein. A similar motive animated the Obama administration’s push, an effort spearheaded by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to force regime change in Libya so that pro-democratic forces could lead the country – instead it is a failed state controlled by Daesh (ISIS).

Speaking about democracy from the depths of despotism, Putin argued that “this won’t happen today or tomorrow, but perhaps therein lies the political wisdom: holding horses and not leaping ahead, but gradually pursuing structural changes, in this case, in the political system of society.”

The Russian President’s argument makes sense even under Western political theology which is based on the notion of the rule of law and freedom of speech with a major precondition of being trust in institutions that are left stable enough to adapt to the needs and demands of the people.