Russia Furious As U.S. Navy Destroyer Approaches Syria Without Notification

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Late on Monday we reported that US Navy Destroyer, USS Donald Cook (DDG-75), equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as the Aegis missile defence system, was approaching the port of Tartus in Syria, which doubles as the location for the Syrian logistics base of the Russian Navy. According to CNN Turk, the US destroyer was at at a distance of 100 km from the port, as of Monday.

The destroyer, which left the Cypriot port of Larnaka and was headed for the Syrian shore, was reportedly buzzed by Russian warplanes which circled above the US warship four times.

#USSDonaldCook departed #Larnaca, #Cyprus April 9, 2018, after completing a scheduled port visit April, 7, 2018. #SteadyPresence @USEmbassyCyprus https://t.co/BnCxx21OHt

— Naval Forces Europe (@USNavyEurope) April 9, 2018

To be sure, Russia is concerned, and seemingly angry, that another showdown may be imminent. According to Pravda, the Chairman of the State Duma Defence Committee Vladimir Shamanov said that the United States did not notify Russia of the approach of the group of US warships to the Russian naval base in Tartus.

“A group of ships of the US Navy has appeared at a distance of 150 miles from the Tartus region. It is common in international practice potential participants of events in the area should be notified accordingly in advance. We have not been notified, although we had legally ratified the agreement on two bases in Tartus and Khmeymim,” the official said.

“Moreover, US President Donald Trump said that he would think about the missile attack on Syria despite any resolutions at the UN Security Council. All this smells of something are outside the framework of universally recognised international norms,” Shamanov added, suggesting that Russia is preparing for a Syria attack.

More troubling is that also on Monday, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzia said that the Americans would have to deal with “serious consequences” should they attack Syria.

“We have repeatedly warned the American side about highly negative consequences that may follow if they apply weapons against the legitimate Syrian government, and especially if the use of these weapons – God forbid, affects our military men, who legally stay in Syria,” the Russian Ambassador to the UN said at a meeting of the UN Security Council.

However, after yesterday news that the office of Trump’s personal lawyer was raided by the FBI and that attorney-client privilege between Trump and Cohen may be compromised, it now appears that in a desperate diversion attempt from his domestic troubles, a military response against Syria by Trump is now inevitable, especially following today’s news that the president is canceling his trip to Peru’s Summit of the Americas in order to “oversee” the Syria Military Response.

Retired Green Beret: “Give All Of Washington D.C. and Congress An Enema To Drain The True Polluting Substance From The Swamp”

So, let’s cite a few passages from President Trump’s National Security Speech:

“Throughout our history, the American people have always been the true source of American greatness. Our people have promoted our culture and promoted our values. Americans have fought and sacrificed on the battlefields all over the world. We have liberated captive nations, transformed former enemies into the best of friends, and lifted entire regions of the planet from poverty to prosperity. Because of our people, America has been among the greatest forces for peace and justice in the history of the world. The American people are generous. You are determined, you are brave, you are strong, and you are wise.”

Determined, brave, strong, and wise. Certainly, the President wasn’t referring to most of the population? Maybe he was in Wal-Mart, looking at these determined, brave, strong, and wise citizens:

But the generosity? Here is the “generosity” in a nutshell, for those can see it for what it is, just after that section:

“Fourth and finally, our strategy is to advance American influence in the world, but this begins with building up our wealth and power at home. America will lead again. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but we will champion the values without apology. We want strong alliances and partnerships based on cooperation and reciprocity. We will make new partnerships with those who share our goals, and make common interests into a common cause.”

Here’s some more generosity, of the “Black Friday” type…with the determined, brave, strong, and wise, once more:

Yes, it sounds very similar to the imperial hubris we have heard parroted for the past half a century and more.  Look at this oxymoronic sentence:

“We will not allow inflexible ideology to become an obsolete and obstacle to peace.”

Not allow inflexible ideology? And if our government is the unbiased “factor” to determine what ideology is inflexible, perhaps it should examine itself, first, as we are the ones not to compromise. Just the statement “we will not allow inflexible ideology,” is an inflexible statement; ergo, perhaps the government should fold.

We are at a very important juncture right now. The President made this speech to galvanize public opinion and support with ratings at about 60% disapproval. There is no clearly defined (let alone productive) foreign policy, with gross inconsistencies throughout this first year of the President’s term. Praising Russia for cooperation and sharing of intelligence to thwart a terrorist attack, just months after we expelled all Russian diplomats from the Russian embassy in California, as well as forcing them to vacate properties…in under a week.

Granted, all embassies (American and foreign nations) are full of spies, however, such a forced eviction has not improved relations with the Russians. The North Korean situation takes center stage:  as mentioned before, North Korea only has two options. They can either relinquish their nuclear weapons and submit to western hegemony as another IMF and World Bank vassal, or they can continue in their present course.

The punch line: they possess nuclear missiles with the capabilities of delivering an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack, or a nuclear strike against American cities. The President of the United States just stated (as printed above) “America will lead again.” What better leadership example than to do a 180-degree turn, and try…make the attempt…to extend full diplomatic courtesy to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un? What better strategy than to roll out the red carpet, and treat him with the courtesy of a leader of another nation…one with nuclear missiles…and show yourself to extend the hand of diplomacy?

The President owes that much: owes a legitimate attempt to help to protect the 320 million people of this country, who do not have a Mt. Weather or a Cheyenne Mountain to retreat to. He owes it to 320 million American people who are in the crossfire. And if Un is unresponsive? Then the attempt was made. Lead by example and take the first step, for the welfare of the millions…ours, and yes, theirs.

Any who may be smirking will lose such skepticism if the city their family lives in suddenly becomes a dust cloud spiraling into the upper stratosphere.

There was much the President said that was worthwhile, but he said most of it in the present tense…as if we are “there” already, and not that we have a long way to go. To credit him, the Obama years almost destroyed this country. We are now as the hollowed-out exoskeleton of a cicada…clinging to the Tree of Liberty, but emptied, with barely a pulse.

Determined, brave, strong, and wise? The teleprompter told him that: he certainly wasn’t looking out of the window and viewing actual people. Our people have promoted our culture and our values? And just what would those be?  Reality T.V. shows and professional football players who take a knee in a foreign country, and refuse to stand for the anthem of the United States, but will stand for Britain’s anthem?

Yes, there is our value system: not even pride or loyalty to respect the U.S. when in a foreign land… a nation that we fought two wars against, then saved in World War II.

Their right to “take a knee” exercised their right to freedom of speech, while they also exercised the freedom to make complete jackasses out of themselves. Such freedom was earned for them and is maintained for them by their betters…

Pat Tillman was one of those betters: standing for something he believed in, and remembering that he was an American…something he held higher in importance than being a professional football player in the NFL. We can learn much from the example that he set.

It’s from the ground up that we need to return to our basics, and give all of Washington D.C. and Congress an “enema” to drain the true polluting substance from the “swamp” of D.C.  We are long past the tipping point, and possibly past the point of no return, but we still must try. From the President of the United States down to the rest of us…all of us…We the People. Hopefully we’ll have one more example to go by. Lead from the front, Mr. President, and be a Statesman…and act as the Commander-in-Chief as a last resort.

You have the power, Mr. President, to destroy many nations and enter a war, but do you have the strength to not do this? Remains to be seen. If you care about the American people and the United States as much as you say you do, then the choice is simple, even though the execution of it will be tough.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Is U.S. Or China The World's Economic Superpower?

Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the world has had one undisputed economic superpower: the United States.

But while the U.S. has enjoyed its moment in the sun, the balance of power has been slowly shifting towards the inevitable rise of China. It’s been a long time coming, but, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins notes, China now has the manpower, influence, and economic might to compete at a similar level – and if you ask people around the world, they’ve certainly taken notice.

ECONOMIC SUPERPOWERS

The United States and China combine for 39% of global GDP, 53% of estimated economic growth in the coming years, and 23% of the world’s population.

But which one is perceived as the more dominant economic power?

According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, the vary wildly depending on the people and country surveyed. However, on an aggregate level that uses the results from the people in 38 countries surveyed, Pew determined that a median of 42% of people list the United States as the world’s leading economic power, while 32% name China as top dog.

While the U.S. maintains a narrow lead in aggregate, things get much more interesting when we look at individual countries.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Do America’s closest allies view it as the clear global superpower? What about the countries that neighbor China – surely, they must witness China’s economic might firsthand.

Weirdly, the dominant perspectives in these places are not as obvious as one would think.

More people living in Canada, Australia, and major European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and the United Kingdom tend to view China as the global economic superpower.

Meanwhile, the majority of people in South American and African countries see the United States as the world’s major economic power – and people in countries near China (such as South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam) all tend to agree with that sentiment as well.

Even Some Allies Fear America

While Machiavellian disciples argue that for a leader it"s better to be feared than loved, the United States often sees itself as a benign hegemon, holding its shielding hand over the world, ever since she won the Second World War.

In fact, as Statista"s Dyfed Loesche notes, many people around the world today fear that the United States isn"t always a force for good in international politics.

According to Pew Research Center, the United States" standing in the world has gone down overall.

You will find more statistics at Statista

Surprisingly, people in allied countries, such as NATO-member Turkey, or partner countries in East Asia, such as South Korea and Japan, feel threatened by American might.

On the other end of the scale, people in India, Israel and Poland have a more positive outlook on America"s role in the world.

Trump Sells Out, Proves Loyalty to Terrorist Nations with Massive Weapons Package

President Trump appears to be swiftly bending knee to the militarized foreign policy establishment, as he intends to approve weapons packages for Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The two Middle East dictatorships – with a long history of human rights abuses and violent crackdowns on dissent – are crucial to the strategy of U.S. military hegemony and the profits of weapons makers.

According to The Washington Times, U.S. officials and congressional sources confirmed $300 million worth of precision-guided missile technology is destined for Saudi Arabia, while Bahrain will get a multibillion-dollar F-16 deal. All is ready to go, awaiting clearance from the Trump administration.

“These are significant sales for key allies in the Gulf who are facing the threat from Iran and who can contribute to the fight against the Islamic State,” an anonymous official remarked. “Whereas the Obama administration held back on these, they’re now in the new administration’s court for a decision — and I would anticipate the decision will be to move forward.”

Bahrain, a small but oil-rich country strategically located in the Persian Gulf, is home to the U.S. 5^th fleet and Central Command. As we reported in Dec. 2015, Bahraini security forces have cooperated with ISIS, and several ISIS recruits have come directly from Bahrain’s military.

In June 2014, Bahrain’s Information Minister, Sameera Rajab, tweeted that the advancing ISIS force might represent “a revolution against the injustice and oppression that has reigned over Iraq for more than 10 years.”

Bahrain’s Sunni monarchy has a history of brutally suppressing pro-democracy movements, using torture and other human rights violations to maintain power. In 2011, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to help squash the Shia Muslim revolt.

READ MORE:  State Now Claims It Owns the Wind -- Taxing Renewable Energy "Out of Existence"

The suppression of Shiite minorities is the common denominator with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom is a hotbed of support for ISIS, which has to do with the fact that the state-sanctioned religious clergy teaches a radical form of Islam known as Wahhabism.

The Saudi monarchy is the number 1 beheader in the world — yes more than ISIS — racking up 100 public executions since January 2016, including 47 people in one day. Despite all of this, the U.S. has enlisted Saudi Arabia to carry out a proxy war in Yemen, where they have killed an untold number of civilians and bombed hospitals and schools.

President Trump appears eager to continue and expand this partnership with the Sunni dictatorships, where Trump also happens to have business ties. The unifying goal with all three players is maintaining the dominance of Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East and countering the influence of Shiite-dominated Iran.

Team Trump has expressed a particular vehemence for Iran, with National Security Advisor Mike Flynn stating Iran is “on notice,” although no evidence of actual threats posed by Iran has been provided. It is widely assumed among Americans that Iran poses some kind of danger to the U.S., even though they haven’t attacked anyone in 200 years and have agreed to a historic nuclear deal with the five members of the U.N. Security Council.

The unfounded hostility toward Iran demonstrates the effectiveness of the U.S. propaganda machine, which must always have a bogeyman to justify military hegemony in the Middle East. The claim that Iran is the biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is absurd when we consider the decades of wars and interventions carried out by the U.S. in the interest of securing the flow of oil.

READ MORE:  Commercial Militarism is Pricey: Uncle Sam Paying Millions to NFL to Promote Warfare State

There is significant bipartisan resistance in Congress to the weapons for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, but that will likely be overcome as a renewed hostility toward Iran takes shape, and the purveyors of endless war see new opportunity with the Trump administration.

Efforts to block sales have failed, though, as the military-industrial complex has spread its manufacturing facilities all over the U.S. in order to secure support from as many lawmakers as possible.

The anonymous U.S. official, in an expert use of doublespeak, used the Saudi violations in Yemen to justify the new arms sale.

“While we’re very concerned about Saudi actions in Yemen in terms of the civilian casualties, we believe a more accurate partner is a more effective partner and results in fewer casualties,” said the official. “If they’re going to drop stuff, it should be precision-guided rather than dumb.”

While Trump’s eagerness to fan the flames of U.S. military hegemony and continue enriching the military-industrial complex is disappointing, it is a continuation of the status quo. Obama “offered more than $115 billion worth of weapons to Riyadh in 42 separate deals between 2009 and 2016 — more than any U.S. administration in history.”

The American populace is routinely fed the line that U.S. actions in the Middle East are noble – to spread democracy – but the reality is one of propping up dictatorships that make it easier for U.S. hegemony to thrive.

The United States And The Race For Global Hegemony

Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via Strategic-Culture.org,

The previous article focused on the definition of an international order, globalization, geopolitical theories and how this has changed the notion with which a nation exercises control over a foreign country. In this second part I intend to examine the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States have undertaken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance.

The Strategy Of Rimland

Keeping in mind the geopolitical theories discussed in my previous article, we understand that in order to achieve control over the so called-Heartland, Washington has often resorted to the Spykman theory (Rimland). This is because the US has repeatedly found it extremely difficult to directly control the powers that occupy the geographical space described in the Heartland theory of Mackinder, namely Iran, Russia and China.

The US has repeatedly tried to ensure that nations composing the Inner Circle (Rimland) remained under their control so as to indirectly control the Heartland and encircle it.

In this sense, Europe was conquered thanks to the Second World War and the American intervention against Nazi Germany. The end of World War II saw Europe become an integral part of the US Atlantic system, an important part of surrounding the Heartland.

The expansion and conquest of other areas of the Rimland (Inner Crescent) continued during the Cold War in Asia through wars in Korea and Vietnam. But its failure left serious doubts about Washington"s ability to sustain its military power projection so far away from home, trying to occupy foreign countries with troops on the ground. There were limits to seeking to rule the world.

In the Middle East, another area of paramount significance, Washington has always had as its primary goal the prevention of post-revolutionary Iran conquering the area. For this reason the Saudis have always been great American allies. They are the chosen regional power, thanks to oil and the financial system of petrodollars, with the purpose of ensuring a constant pressure on Iran and surrounding nations in the interests of Washington’s against Heartland nations such as Iran. In this sense, Turkey is unsurprisingly a NATO member incorporated into the Western system of power.

The final strategy has always been the same: to control nations neighboring the Heartland (Rimland countries) through direct military intervention, economic and financial terrorism, or cultural soft power -- all for the purpose of putting pressure on Russia, Iran and China.

The American unipolar moment began in earnest following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, thereby offering the American elite the crazy idea of seeking to achieve total global hegemony by conquering the nations of the Heartland, especially through economic and military means.

During the Cold War, the more realistic goal was to prevent other nations from forming an alliance that would manage and occupy the heart of the land. With the end of the Soviet Union, the main occupier of the Heartland and main rival to the United States had collapsed. This led to the idea of world domination by Washington becoming reality.

From Mahan to MacKinder

The United States has always placed great importance on Mahan’s theory, considering it a complement to physical invasion by land as well as economic domination of the countries composing the Heartland and Rimland. For nearly a century it has been a fundamental pillar of American doctrine in matters of foreign policy.

The US Navy has often played a decisive role in US victories from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the First and Second World Wars included. In the years that followed, its decline has had direct consequences for the implementation of the plan for global domination based on the three geopolitical theories analyzed above, practically setting aside Mahan’s theory in particular in order to focus on domination of land.

From 1990 to 2005, the importance of aircraft carriers and air support during the many US wars have been fundamental. Nevertheless, the bulk of the work has always been done by ground troops. Fighting took place not between countries or between ships or aircrafts but on the ground with the assistance of ships and aircrafts. It is a fundamental difference.

Since 1989, the influence of Mahan’s theory has been gradually decreasing in the strategies employed by policy-makers in the Pentagon, favoring instead land invasions, such as with Iraq and Afghanistan, or favoring the so-called soft power approach in the form of revolts, coups or armed insurrections as in Ukraine, Libya and Syria. The relative decline of the US naval fleet has therefore been a predictable consequence.

Forget about Mahan, here is MacKinder + Globalization

A powerful instrument for subduing the nations of the Heartland, in addition to boot on the ground and the dollar, has been globalization. To work, world globalism requires the absence of sovereignty for individual nations, regardless of whether they are allies or not, as well as massive economic interdependence, dictated by a financial system based on the dollar and completely arranged in favor of Washington and the Federal Reserve. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States forged ??a global neo-liberal model, based on the concept of consumerism and a parasitic capitalist economy, in combination with the unbridled use of military power.

With the collapse of the former Soviet republics, Washington began to move closer to the Heartland, mainly over land, increasingly moving up to the borders of the Russian Federation. The EU widened the membership of these countries in 2004, then incorporated them into NATO.

To achieve global domination Russia has to be controlled in virtue of the position it occupies in the Heartland. Given the military power of the United States in 1989, lacking any credible rivals, the MacKinder theory began to take shape in terms of a strategic approach from Washington’s perspective. This happened to the detriment of the Spykman theory, which preferred focusing on the Rimland countries and seas and oceans surrounding them using the Mahan theory of sea power to control the commerce and routes of rimland countries, thereby indirectly controlling the Heartland. This change in approach, with less naval power and more boots on the ground, together with economic power, continued to expand until the Obama administration.

With the ultimate goal of controlling Russia, the economic war by the Western elites in the early 1990s, thanks to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, ought to be revisited. This attitude revealed the intentions of Western elites, and only after a blatant refusal by Putin in 2000 to surrender the sovereignty of Russia to bow down before Washington, relations plummeted. Putin opposes economic and financial globalization, a western ploy to obtain a military surrender by getting the gobalists’ hands on the most valuable piece of the Heartland: Russia. With this concept in mind, it is easy to understand why Putin is so misrepresented by the Western media, all owned by large publishing groups, part of the international financial oligarchies.

The war in Afghanistan, the opening of NATO bases around Russia’s borders, the use of soft power in Ukraine for regime change through a coup, and destabilization using terrorism in Asia and in the center of the Caucasus, are part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia, with goal of forcing Moscow to cry uncle and be incorporated into the Atlanticist network, by hook or by crook.

The ultimate goal always leads back to the question of being able to control the heart of the earth and its resources, represented largely by Russia, Iran and China. The ultimate goal is to gain a stranglehold on the rest of the continents, from Europe to Asia, enabling virtual control of the entire globe. The mission is always the same. It never changes. It is world domination. The approach alone changed once the Berlin Wall fell. The United States’ confidence in its own cultural, economic and military resources from 1989 has led it to construct an international system based on the principle of corrupt turbo-capitalism in combination with a strong dose of military bullying. Washington’s neoliberal ideas have often enjoyed strong momentum and huge support thanks to the military. Washington found itself in a position to intervene in almost every global situation using tools like soft power in regime change (Ukraine), the Arab Spring (Tunisia and Egypt), and even resorting to hard power through military aggression in so-called nation-building projects (Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan).

The aim, as always, is to put the Heartland under pressure coming from every direction, until its economic collapse and the final military conquest.

Even the US military bases follow this logic, surrounding the Heartland through the nations of the Rimland. Not surprisingly, Iran, China and Russia appear to be completely surrounded in a land-based approach a la MacKinder. Another example is the ABM Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile) targeting China, Russia and Iran in order obviate their ability to inflict casualties on the United States in the event of war.

In this sense, another vital nation for US Interests is Japan, which represents a formidable containment towards China. On the island of Okinawa alone, about 400 kms from the Chinese coast, about thirteen US military bases are hosted. Similarly, all the countries overlooking the seas bordering the Rimland are strategically important countries for Washington. No wonder panic has been induced by Duterte’s victory in the Philippines. Special attention continues to be given to the nations of Southeast Asia, like Vietnam and Malaysia. Washington fears having fewer allies in its strategy of subduing the Rimland in order to contain China.

Looking at a map it is easy to see how the American empire pushes towards the Heartland from all directions, directly or indirectly, together with its allies. Against the Republic of China there is pressure from the south-east, courtesy of Japan and the US naval presence in the China Sea. From the west pressure is exerted against Russia by expanding NATO/EU. From the south-west, pressure is brought to bear on Iran through the Saudis, Qatar, and US bases in the Middle East. To the south, in addition to NATO member Turkey, Washington would like to team up with India to complete the encirclement of Russia, representing a huge missing piece that makes clear the importance of New Delhi in American strategy.

The last twenty-five years were dominated by policy makers in the US who, firstly, had the idea that direct conquest of the Heartland nations (and some Rimland nations) was possible and, secondly, that it was preferable to pursue a conquest by land of the relevant area and that this was the perfect historical moment to do so. Hitler thought the same way. Not only cultural and economic control was being suggested, but a real military approach to impose a solution acceptable to the elites in Washington. The countless wars since 1989 -- Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq -- have been a strategic choice employing ground forces for the purpose of conquest. At the same time we must not forget the soft power used during the Arab Spring and in Ukraine. These are complementary approaches, updating a hundred years later the theory designed by MacKinder to the technology now at our disposal, while offering the military option to conquer the nations of the Heartland. This doctrine has placed to the side the naval approach, theorized by Mahan, which provided the use of ships to block commercial routes, and using the supremacy of the seas to contain the Rimland, thereby dominating the Heartland and mastering the world.

The most recent doctrines, from the administrations of Bush to Obama, have used a mix of MacKinder’s theory in combination with the latest tactics that apply human rights, known as soft power. The consequences of this approach have led to unimaginable disaster for the United States, where we see the Middle East sinking deeper into chaos and increasingly pushing countries of the region into a Shia alliance. This has led to increasingly united objectives for nations like Iran, China, India and Russia (a complete failure of the the Cold War objective that aimed to prevent an alliance between China and Russia). More generally, India still remains an ally of Moscow and on good terms with Washington, deciding not to openly side with one or the other.

The next article will focus on the reactions that Iran, China and Russia have adopted over the years to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty, and how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of America"s unipolar moment, giving birth to the multipolar reality in which we live. The fourth and last article will focus on the new Trump administration, and how it will probably change the approach to US foreign policy that has prevailed over the last 30 years – a throwback to the last century.