by Pepe Escobar for Sputnik International
Let’s cut to the chase; Hillary Clinton is ready to go to war against Russia in Syria – with inbuilt, potentially terrifying, thermonuclear consequences.
Anticipating an outcome of the US presidential election as a remix of the 1972 Nixon landslide, Hillary has also coined, George “Dubya” Bush-style, a remixed axis of evil: Russia, Iran and “the Assad regime”.
That’s not even counting China, which, via “aggression” in the South China Sea, will also feature as a certified foe for the Founding Mother of the pivot to Asia.
And if all that was not worrying enough, Turkey now seems on the path to join the axis.
President Putin and President Erdogan met in Istanbul. Moscow positioned itself as ready to develop large-scale military-technical cooperation with Ankara.
That includes, of course, the $20 billion, Rosatom-built, four-reactor Akkuyu nuclear power plant. And the drive to “speed up the work” on Turkish Stream – which will de facto strengthen even more Russia’s position in the European gas market, bypassing Ukraine for good, while sealing Ankara’s position as a key East-West energy crossroads.
In addition, both Moscow and Ankara back UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura’s position that “moderate rebels” (the Beltway’s terminology) holding eastern Aleppo hostage must be eradicated.
The geopolitical game-changer is self-evident. As much as Erdogan may be a whirling political dervish, impossible to fathom and trust, while Putin is a master of the strategic long game, Moscow’s and Ankara’s interests tend to converge in the New Great Game; and that spells out closer integration in the dawn of the Eurasian Century.
Quite a cup of hemlock for Hillary Clinton, who has already equated Putin with Hitler.
Regime change or hot war?
In the appalling spectacle that turned out to be round two of the interminable Trump/Clinton cage match, Donald Trump once again made a rational point – expressing his wish for a normalized working relationship with Russia. Yet that is absolute anathema for the War Party, as in the neocon/neoliberalcon nebulae in the Beltway-Wall Street axis.
The Clinton (Cash) Machine-controlled Democrats once again condemned Trump as a tool of Putin while bewildered Republicans condemned Trump because he goes against “mainstream Republican thinking”.
Here’s what Trump said; “I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS.”
Trump’s outlook on Southwest Asia relies on only one vector; destroy ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. That’s what adviser and former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) director, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has been infiltrating into Trump’s notoriously short attention span.
Flynn may have admitted on the record that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh’s progress was a “willful” decision taken by the Obama administration. Yet in his disjointed book Field of Fight, Flynn insists that, “the Russians haven’t been very effective at fighting jihadis on their own territory”, are “in cahoots with the Iranians”, and “the great bulk of their efforts are aimed at the opponents of the Assad regime.”
This is a neocon mantra; unsurprisingly, the co-author of Flynn’s book is neocon Michael Ledeen.
From dodgy American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) armchair “experts” to former counselors at the State Department, they all subscribe to the laughable view that the remixed axis of evil – now fully adopted by Hillary – is useless against jihadis; the good guys doing the difficult work are “the US-led coalition”. And damn those who dare criticizing the “relative moderates” backed by the CIA.
What Trump said is anathema not only for establishment Republicans who despise Obama for not fighting against the Hillary-adopted remixed axis of evil. The real mortal sin is that it “disregards” core US foreign policy bipartisan assumptions held to be as sacred as the Bible.
Thus the success of the neocon Ash Carter-led Pentagon in bombing the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal which would imply coordinated airstrikes against both ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and the Front for the Conquest of Syria, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al Qaeda in Syria.
Neocons and mainstream Republicans blame lame duck Team Obama for the “unholy reliance” on Russia and Iran, while neoliberalcons blame Russia outright. And high in the altar of righteousness, hysteria rules, with the neocon president of the NED http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45643.htm
calling for the US government to “summon the will” to pull a Putin regime change.
Ready to go nuclear?
Hillary Clinton continues to insist the US is not at war with Islam. The US is de facto at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan’s tribal areas; involved in covert war in Iran; and has totally destroyed Libya. It’s not hard to do the math.
In parallel, the deafening talk about Washington now advancing a Plan C in Syria is nonsense. There has never been a Plan C; only Plan A, which was to draw Russia into another Afghanistan. It did not work with the controlled demolition of Ukraine. And it will not work in Syria, as Moscow is willing to supply plenty of air and missile power but no boots on the ground of any consequence. That’s a matter for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Iran and its Shi’ite militias, and Hezbollah.
Ash Carter has threatened Russia with “consequences”. After blowing up the ceasefire, the Pentagon – supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff – now is peddling “potential strikes” on Syria’s air force to “punish the regime” for what the Pentagon actually did; blow up the ceasefire. One can’t make this stuff up.
Major-General Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, sent a swift message to “our colleagues in Washington”; think twice if you believe you can get away with launching a “shadow” hot war against Russia. Russia will target any stealth/unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets – and they will be shot down.
The only serious question then is whether an out of control Pentagon will force the Russian Air Force – false flag and otherwise – to knock out US Air Force fighter jets, and whether Moscow has the fire power to take out each and every one of them.
So in this three-month window representing the “death throes” of the Obama era, before the likely enthronization of the Queen of War, the question is whether the Pentagon will risk launching WWIII because “Aleppo is falling”.
Afterwards, things are bound to get even more lethal. The US government is holding open a first-strike nuclear capacity against Russia. Hillary firmly supports it, as Trump made clear he “would not do first-strike”. The prospect of having axis of evil practitioner Hillary Clinton with her fingers on the nuclear button must be seen as the most life-and-death issue in this whole circus.
“Hillary Clinton is ready to go to war against Russia in Syria – with inbuilt, potentially terrifying, thermonuclear consequences.”
It always takes two to tango. So even if Hillary is ready to pull the nuclear trigger, let’s make sure that Russia will be wise enough to not let the situation escalate that far. Remembering the perspicacity and courage of people like Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, I have hope that this will be possible.
It may well take two to tango, but that has absolutely nothing to do with war. A better analogy would be, “It only takes one person to knock another down unexpectedly and kick his head until he is certainly dead”.
I have never been able to understand the mentality of people who allege that it takes two to start a war. It’s so utterly obvious that it doesn’t. Whether the Americans launch or not is something over which the Russians have absolutely no control or even influence. The best they can do is try to convince the Americans that any attack would be met with a crushing, devastating response. But nothing the Russians can do could stop the US President from launching an attack.
Sure, I agree that it only takes one to *start* a war, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was concerned with the nuclear button only.
” I was nowhere talking about *starting* a war, I was concerned with escalation to nuclear.” Which is certainly a real concern- but do you give any credence to the claims that nuclear weapons have ALREADY been employed in the Middle East?- and it is as if everyone pretends not to have seen it. By this I mean stories about the use of a “small” neutron bomb in Yemen. It is really incredible. If everyone pretends not to notice a small nuclear weapon going off, how about a medium one? And who do you think was killed when the U.S. used missiles on those radar stations (the story is it was in retaliation for Houthi missile attacks on U.S. ships, which sounds as fantastic as the one about North Vietnam taking on the U.S. Navy, but, in re an equally press-ignored, but definitely verifiable incident, some one used guided missiles to destroy a large Saudi high-speed aluminum catamaran craft(they don’t seem to have gotten the message, from the HMS Antelope ion the Falklands, about the flammability of aluminum boats,) and it sure looks like the U.S. was sending a message to Russia.
In a sudden access of esprit d’escalier, it occurs to me that it takes two to make love – but only one to commit rape. I think the analogy is a good, close one.
Good point. In the Syrian case, however, the lecher is the weaker party. So, all he’ll gete is a kick in the pants, what…
Dear Mr./ Ms. Saibot, with all due respect, you are talking utter nonsense here. No, it does not take two to start a war; all major wars have been started by one side. Please read up some history from your children’s text books. The side that gets attacked either commits suicide by laying down or fights back.
I totally agree with that, and there’s no need to insult me. As I already said in reply to Tom Welsh, I was nowhere talking about *starting* a war, I was concerned with escalation to nuclear.
We all know Clinton is a depraved war-monger, and that Trump – as a right-wing liberal’ outsider – will slow down US war plans in comparison, making him the no-brainer choice regardless of your previous political persusasion. So let’s look at another, insanely important aspect of the Clinton Trump ‘fight’.
Trump was recently ‘exposed’ as a ‘dangerous sexist’ by the British TV producers intimately involved in Trump’s TV show- The Apprentice. This means MI5 ‘exposed’ Trump- be in no doubt. However my point is in a different direction. Anyone with a brain knows that *all* ‘alpha males’ who seek such extreme positions of power have conversations like this (and very few follow up by behaving in reality in such a criminal way- Bill Clinton being a prime example of such a monster).
Big talk. Locker room talk. Male fantasy bragging. But if ever prospective male candidate does this, and Google, Facebook, and others who directly serve the NSA and GCHQ collect this evidence, then ‘selective prosecution’ (a crime against natural justice) can be used to take out any candidate the Deep State doesn’t like. Obviously the ‘sins’ of their prefered candidates will remain ‘secret’.
Worse again is the idea that this severely disadvantages male candidates against female ones, since equivalent ‘locker room’ talk by women is considered ‘quaint’ and ‘funny’ by the SJW monsters who dominate mainstream media opinion. Males, just by being males, are neatly all put in the ‘abuser’ category by the SJW movement promoted by Deep State propagandists.
What are the goals of Total Dominance spying on all the world’s electronic communication, as set in motion by the Demon Tony Blair.
1) read the ‘mind’ of the general population in real time so propaganda campaigns can be perfected by near real-time feedback
2) gather blackmail material on *every* Human for future use when required
3) identify emerging grass-roots movements and leaders *before* they go mainstream for co-opting or elimination.
*This* is what Google was created for- and what Facebook may do even better. Clinton’s media war against Trump – pure demonisation – shows the NWO total surveillance society in motion. The *only* thing that protects us from this power is the number of ‘awake’ people – but for people under 30 this percentage is almost zero.
If Trump was up against an ‘Obama’ type, Trump would already be guaranteed to lose. Clinton is only running because the Demon refused to back down after losing her primaries to Obama years back- her pride and bitterness drives her. Even if Trump wins, next time the Deep State will run a ‘reasonable’ candidate, and the media propaganda machine, and demonisation of the opponent, is 100% certain to win out.
Nothing that happens within the Anglo-Zionist Empire can now save us. This is why it is so essential that Putin finally steps up (which must begin with Russia disowning Israel and Saudi Arabia).
“which must begin with Russia disowning Israel and Saudi Arabia”
SA is just a colonial gofer, like poland, neutralise israeli-american power, and they’ll be something that used to be. As for israel, use the things till they are no longer useful, then discard.
Usually I find articles by this pundit to be to be obfuscatory and too reliant on zio-west propaganda. Not this time, though. Decent article.
Escobar was a big supporter of Tahrir protests and cheered the downfall of Arab secular dictators. So he cheered the same jihadists whi he now dispises. Escobar is just a babbler from latin america who doesnt understand the middle east or how the west controls it.
Certainly a prominent part of the debate that centers upon upcoming election involves “fitness to serve” in the office of the President. And in the outline beneath the names of the candidates, there is a side debate which concerns the handling of e-mail while Hillary Clinton was holding the office of State Secretary. There are two basic sides to this issue: on the one hand are those who argue this was not only illegal, it compromised national security. On the other hand, those who support Clinton fail to see why this is such a big deal, and hasten to add that it boils down to a witch hunt by conservative Republican haters who don’t want a woman to be President.
The facts speak for themselves. Director Comey has as much admitted that a private e-mail server was involved and that she did not have in place adequate security and practices to preserve the record. There is also the fact, in black and white, that according to Federal law, this was felony committed that bars her from holding public office. Those who argue on the side of lawfulness and national security understand the grave implications, but they stop short of demanding her indictment, arrest and trial. You would have to do far better than to buy the “Hillary For Prison – 2016” T-shirts. The trial would be a short one, and the facts supporting a conviction based on the letter of the law, which Hillary Clinton can be expected to be fully cognizant of, are too numerous to ignore.
Yet, the campaign continues. Hillary Clinton is still in the running, and she still expects people to vote for her. But if anyone votes for her, despite the obvious violations of federal law which renders her ineligible, doesn’t that make them just as lawless as the person they vote for? If you know that federal law has been violated, and you take action that not only ignores the violation, but repudiates law that makes it a violation, doesn’t that make you an accomplice? That’s what I’m wondering. It seems to me, that this is so egregious, no one should be willing to treat in such cavalier fashion, just to satisfy political whim. But that’s what is happening. What about those state’s boards of elections who still have her name on the ballot? Are they also accomplices, after the fact? A lot of people complain about the lawlessness in Washington DC. But those same people are not doing anything about it. I think that is precisely why the lawlessness exists, is burgeoning, and not going away anytime soon, at least until it causes our country to collapse.
So, that is the stuff of my opinion on the e-mail-gate matter. Apparently, I’m not the only one thinking this. I wonder how many of you here are thinking similarly? Today I checked the boards at State of the Nation blog and looky what I found. You should read it.
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=51452#more-51452
Seems to me, there are grounds here for demanding a lawsuit. They are the ones who ginned this law which was written to apply directly to themselves. We should hold them to it, not give a pass to those who are of a certain gender and political affiliation.
And, here’s a quote taken from the end of that piece:
“Yes, it [18 US Code, section 2071] explicitly states “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Shouldn’t voters know that? The media won’t tell them. So it’s up to us.
Can you help hold Hillary accountable?
Pass this on, please.”
I wonder why Trump felt he had to say that he didn’t like Assad. Has he ever met the man, I wonder? And if he knows that some of the lies about Aleppo are lies, why doesn’t it occur to him that all the lies about Syria and Assad are probably lies too?
Trump is trying to win an election without alienating low information voters, so he is saying what is necessary to placate the idiots.
Whenever Hillary Clinton compares Mr Putin to Hitler, I wonder how people manage not to notice how very, very much more like Hitler she herself is. Grandiose self-image – check. Belief in one’s own “Master Race” – check. Belief that one’s own nation is “exceptional” and “indispensable” – check. Determination to make all foreigners and foreign nations bow the knee and do what they are told – check. Ranting speeches – check. Habit of using false flag events to justify unprovoked aggression – check. Utter ruthlessness, coupled with willingness to use whatever degree of violence seems necessary – check. Above all, predilection for “the Big Lie” – check.
Google “narcissistic” and “borderline” personality disorders. This woman seems to fit many of the characteristics.
“The US government is holding open a first-strike nuclear capacity against Russia”.
Talk about a “first strike policy” or a “first-strike capability” are pure hot air. Once a nation has a WMD capability, as the USA and Russia have, the decision to launch is purely tactical. It’s a matter for the President and a tiny handful of others, all of whom report to whom and owe her their unquestioning obedience as Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, the only question that would be in their minds would be, “Can we get away with this?” In the sense of, “Can we destroy them without suffering a crippling response?” That is a purely technical question; the only other question that is remotely relevant is one for the President alone: “Should we do this?” (in the ethical sense). President Eisenhower is said to have forcefully rejected proposals that he take advantage of the USSR’s temporary lack of a nuclear deterrent to destroy it – presumably on ethical grounds. Are we all confident that President Clinton would be as pure of heart?
There is no political aspect to the decision at all. Obviously, it makes no difference whether the President has previously said, “It is our policy to launch a first strike” or “It is not our policy to launch a first strike”. To someone prepared to kill over 100 million people, and gamble with the lives of 330 milion more, telling a lie would not be an insuperable hurdle.
And equally obviously it doesn’t matter a hang what the citizens think, or for that matter the Congress or the judiciary. Just that handful of people whom the American nation has entrusted with a weapon that can destroy the human species, to use as and when they choose.
You fellas seem to miss the central point of the article, and worse (!) than that – the evident implication in Strategy or Game Theory…
I’ll explain here, but I want to first remark that “it” does not “take two to tango” in the situation at hand. I wish it did…
Here’s why: Ivan sits, smoking, on a crate of nitro. He’s holding a grenade with the pin out. Facing Ivan sits Sam. Sam’s on a crate of nitro too, and has his grenade. Behind each man lie thousand of tons of crates of nitro. Sam has more crates than Ivan.
Now, does it matter who drops the grenade? Would it matter if Ivan put the pin back? Or if Sam did? So they sit and smoke. Is this a stable situation? Sooner or later “lightening” will strike. Ivan falls asleep and drops the grenade, or Sam does. Maybe one of them goes nuts. Or maybe they’re struck from outside… Does this matter?
So, does it take two, or can one party alone do the vile thing? Obvious. And sad. The only duality in the set is that of predator and prey…
But to the matter of Central Point and Implication…
Central point is that Pepe asserts and argues that the Lady in question is nearly sure to attack overtly and directly well-armed sovereign states. She is nearly sure to be anointed as el presidente.
The material implication according to stated policy and logic is to avoid the attack by preempting it. The specific methodology of the mooted preemptive move remains to be seen, but it has been suggested that this might involve the destruction of “Sam’s Boats” with then a pause while the Lady considers a new situation….
Maybe… Who can say? It’s war already…there are dead Russian soldiers, dead American soldiers – officers too – and frankly that matters.
I have read that the Able-Archer drill in 1983 (?) elicited a Soviet response that involved a “decapitation” via a “suitcase nuke” and a team of Soviet Sappers in or near DC. I do not believe that story, but it might be true.
It is legend wisdom among men of the fighting classes, the rough classes, and even among some of the upper class men, legend wisdom that when somebody is coming to get you, you get them first. Comrade President is clearly aware of this truth – he’s said so. No rational actor would assume, further, that his opponent does not also know this legend wisdom… So – who is going to go first?
So, according to a best-guess Occam’s razor sort of view, what Pepe has said means that we may expect a big fat surprise sometime soon. It may well be the last thing we see.
Pax fellas.
Delmar Bolshie
You write,
” Ivan sits, smoking, on a crate of nitro. He’s holding a grenade with the pin out. Facing Ivan sits Sam. Sam’s on a crate of nitro too, and has his grenade. Behind each man lie thousand of tons of crates of nitro. Sam has more crates than Ivan. Now, does it matter who drops the grenade? Would it matter if Ivan put the pin back? Or if Sam did? So they sit and smoke. Is this a stable situation? Sooner or later “lightening” will strike. Ivan falls asleep and drops the grenade, or Sam does. Maybe one of them goes nuts. Or maybe they’re struck from outside… Does this matter?”
A good analogy for M.A.D.
Frightening.
And there are people who want this unstable, lethal situation to exist and continue to exist.
How can the grenades and crates of nitro be disposed of so the unthinkable does not ever occur?
Siotu
Truly exceptional points being made in this part of the comment thread. I hope readers will take note. I believe the implications made here go far beyond commenting on the surface situation, beyond this planet, the solar system, the galaxy even. IOW ~ it’s huge. because the nuclear arms race is but the micro manifestation of a much larger and heretofore unseen picture which at some point we will have to acknowledge.
better to make sure sam is locked in a closed secure room that is explosion proof so no-one can hear his screams, or sadly sacrifice one of the planets desert islands for him to live on.
Yep, Delmar.
Too much testosterone is building up in Killery and her bossom buddy hater, General Breedwar, wound up for Armageddon by their Satanist mind controllers in the Illumi-naughty covens of the Occult Bureaus of British Intelligence and the CIA.
And the boys in the missile barracks are mostly dreading the order: “Grab your socks and drop your c*cks!”
They’re really not that keen on the NWO and bringing release to Satan’s rocks. Or overloaded rock-ets. But it’s all set up to run automatically as soon as anyone sneezes. Oh, help us, Jesus!
Pepe:
Make this go viral, we gotta change the zeitgeist
Before the whole nearly damned world is sacrificed!
Since the voters are in a TV reruns maze
Let THIS remind them of better days,
And get them off their griping couch,
To jail Killery, via the Donald grouch:
Book ‘er, Dono!
/moveable-feast-cafe-2016-10-10/comment-page-1/#comment-283679
Scroll past the Willie Nelson song, if Time is Short.
Actually, it IS short, and we’ve a horrible war to abort!
It takes two to tangle
But only one to mangle.
So, Book her, Dono….. /moveable-feast-cafe-2016-10-10/comment-page-1/#comment-283524
Buttons, bumper stickers, whatever it takes!
Rein in Hitlery! There are no higher stakes.
Turkey has also detained about 400 officers associated with NATO. A large number were based in NATO establishments in Europe. They were ordered to return home and were then arrested. This may cramp NATO’s grip on the Turkish establishment.
https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/bmpd.livejournal.com/2178077.html
The assumption in MAD theory is sane players…so what about the Lady?
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/if-hillary-wins-will-she-kill-us-all/ri16905
Then there is the fear of free news media…
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/west-gunning-russian-media-ban/ri16995
Everything indicates proximate catastrophe. All the historical prerequisites seem present. It seems that the die is cast…
If the Lady were to visit the Oracle at Delphi… Well imagine the riddled things they’d say, rather as the witches spake to Macbeth…
Pax.
I didn’t know wehre else to post this here. It’s an interesting analysis of the various groups vying for power in post-coup Turkey, some of which you are unlikely to be familiar with.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/10/turkey-power-struggle-between-islamists-and-secularits.html
@ Delmar Boshie,
Thank you for the link of psychopathic Hell-iry. I have forward it to many.
Her soul is so un-Godly is frightening.I wonder at times, what kind of parents did she have? What did she witness, learn to have such a soul?
God help us all in the world.
Regards,
Carmel by the Sea
@ Mr Carmel:
On her beat as Sect of State, Hillary Clinton told an audience of besotted Asian women that – despite her busy schedule invading a country here or regime changing another elsewhere – she still found time to phone her mom who was 96 at that time.
For a culture that values filial piety and respect for the aged, that went over well.
But then Hillary also claimed that she once bravely dodged bullets in some war zone, so who knows?
The point is, outside USA, the world is enamored by the idea of a woman cracking the glass ceiling to lead the world’ s leading superpower.
History doesn’ t repeat, but it rhymes, as Mark Twain opined.
Hillary will be to USA what Empress Dowager Cixi was to dying Qing China: Cixallary.
Like Cixi, she and reactionaries will dig in fiercely and resist change despite the realities of the world outside.
Cixi encouraged an uprising against foreigners that totally exposed Qing China as a carcass to be divided.
Qing lasted 244 years: ” they came in with the roar of a tiger and left like tail of snake”.
From 1776 to 2020 – on Cixallary’ s beat – the American Empire will also mark 244 years.
My bad. Qing China lasted 268 years from 1644 to 1912. But close to the life span of neo- con America.
The Empress Dowager however is credited ( or blamed) for the regime ‘ s extended shelf life through her ruthless rule as regent.
Both these women share personal and political traits.
Well so right. Watch this! : https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY