Мы представляем вам сегодня материал из серии «Забаненные публикации» (ЗП) НВО. Данный материал впервые был опубликован на сайте издания 10.09.14 и по какой-то «странной» причине отсутствует в поисковой выдаче Google. Учитывая тот факт, что данная статья остается актуальной и сегодня, позволяя читателю лучше понять главные тренды мировой геополитики, редакция посчитала возможным опубликовать её повторно. В случае если и этот материал пропадет из поисковой выдачи, не стоит сомневаться в том, что редакция вновь повторит публикацию данного материала, если же тот все еще будет актуальным на момент публикации.

Доктор Кристоф Леманн, независимый консультант по вопросам урегулирования конфликтов, в своей новой статье проводит расследование крушения малайзийского Боинга над территорией Украины в июле этого года. Автор отмечает, что ясности в обстоятельствах крушения авиалайнера за последний месяц не прибавилось, несмотря на то, что расследование проводят эксперты целого ряда стран. В виду того, что большая часть жертв крушения имела голландское подданство, расследование трагедии было поручено Совету по Безопасности Нидерландов. Декларируемая Западом непредвзятость данной организации остается под вопросом, учитывая тот факт, что она же отвечает за вопросы безопасности в случае военных конфликтов и является одной из структур НАТО.

Что касается экспертов ICAO, то после более 150 телефонных звонков туда, которые автор сделал за прошедший месяц, в этой организации не нашлось ни одного эксперта, который мог бы внятно объяснить, согласно какому правилу расследование трагедии было передано не малайзийским властям, а голландской военизированной организации. Украинские власти утверждают, что любая из сторон расследования может наложить запрет на публикацию каких-либо деталей крушения, что полностью противоречит международной практике и нормам  ICAO.

Автор считает, что трагедия малайзийского Боинга  является воплощением плана “Нортвудс”, который  3 марта 1962 года министр обороны Роберт Макнамара представил на рассмотрение Джону Кеннеди. Согласно этому плану американские спецслужбы должны были уничтожить гражданский самолет над территорией США, обвинив в этом кубинских сепаратистов. Это должно было подготовить общественное мнение к американскому военному вторжению на Кубу. Учитывая тот факт, что расследование трагедии окутано не меньшим количеством загадок, чем сама трагедия, складывается ощущение, что американские спецслужбы решили достать из-под сукна давно забытый “гениальный план”.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь. 

BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 10.09.14. For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time.

July 17, 2014. A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 on flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur plunged out of the sky in eastern Ukraine. The crash resulted in the death of all 298 passengers and crew. Malaysian Premier Najib Razak lashed out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the tragedy. An independent journalistic investigation was stonewalled with strategies ranging from ignoring calls and mails to an attempt to infect our PC with mal-ware via an e-mail sent from Ukraine. All of that, of course, in the interest of an international flying public who is expected to shut up and trust that they won’t win in the lottery of death. The MH17 tragedy reeks of operation Northwoods.

The Plane, Malaysia Airlines, and Malaysian PM Najib Razak.

Malaysia Airlines (MAS) stated that the 19 year-old Boeing 777-200 had a perfect maintenance and safety record. There was, in other words, no apparent reason why the plane should suddeny disintegrate in flight and plummet out of the sky with 298 souls on board. The immediate response was an international positioning and blame-game that prompted a visibly shaken Malaysian Premier Najib Razak to lash out at ”those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the disaster”, adding:

”As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict that cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim? Najib Razak’s words were ominous and reflected precisely the sentiment of millions of people worldwide. People who depend on air traffic for business, for holidays, for being reunited with loved ones, and the fact that all of them are being held in the dark about what happened on that fateful day.

A lot of Speculation and very little Evidence.

Speculations ran wild from day one and both the USA, Ukraine and Russia provided what was described as “evidence”. The problem is, non of the “evidence” was made available to independent media for independent analysis. The flightaware software showed that MAS MH17 had flown a more southernly route in the days before the tragedy and that the route was changed to a more northernly route on July 16.On July 17, the route was changed even farther to the North, directly over a conflict zone and air-space that according to MAS and the Ukrainian government had been closed to an altitude of 32,000 ft. When the pilot of MH17 filed a flight plan in Amsterdam, he requested an altitude of 35,000 ft, reported MAS, adding that Ukrainian air traffic controllers had contacted the Boeing 777-200 crew when it entered Ukrainian air space and designated an altitude of 32,000 ft. The US State Department claimed that it possessed evidence, showing that so-called “pro-Russian rebels”had shot down the plane. Ukrainian authorities released Youtube videos, including one that allegedly showed rebels driving a self-propelled rocket launcher with one of the rockets missing. The Russian Foreign Ministry then released a statement showing that the video was shot in a region that was controlled by troops loyal to Kiev. The Russian Foreign Ministry also released a video showing a screen shot from a radar station in the Rostov region plus satellite images. The radar screen shot showed MAS MH17 rapidly deviating from its course in northeasterly and then again in southeasterly direction before it lost speed and disappeared from radar. The radar images also showed that a plane with primary radar return only ascended towards MAS MH17. The fact that the plane gave aprimary radar return only, led to speculation that it may have been a SU-25 from the Ukrainian air force.

The satellite images released by the Russian Foreign Ministry showed that BUK missile systems had been driven to the region in the days prior to July 17, that their radar systems had been active, and that the missile launchers were removed again after July 17 and the crash of MAS MH17. It is also noteworthy that Malaysian PM Najb Razak praised the authorities of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic for securing the so-called black boxes and for the fact that they handed them directly over to to Malaysian air crash investigators. Malaysian air crash investigators confirmed that the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder both were intact and that they had not been tempered with.

The decision was made that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) should lead the investigation. The decision was justified by stating that the majority of the deceased were Dutch citizens. Malaysian investigators passed the black boxes on to the Dutch Safety Board which sent them to the UK for analysis.

Hitting a Wall.

The ICAO:I made some 15or more phone calls to the ICAO in Switzerland to ask which ICAO regulations would apply in the case of MAS MH17. One of the questions would for example be which part of the ICAO regulations permit that it is the Dutch Safety Board and not Ukrainian authorities or Malaysian authorities who lead the investigation. The result of the long-distance phone calls was multiple transfers from the switchboard operator to “experts”whose phones were answered by an answering machines. Another result was that the operator made several promises to assure that the ICAO would have an expert who could answer our questions call us back as soon as possible. That was in July. It is September now and and we are still waiting for their call and explanations.

The Ukrainian Authorities: We made several phone calls and wrote several e-mails to the Ukrainian Ministry of Infrastructure, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of the Interior. Our questions were ignored. We did, however, receive an e-mail from a Ukrainian email address associated with a Ukrainian “blogger”. The mail arrived one day after our call to the Interior Ministry and it had several files attached. Our software flagged the files as containing an aggressive mal-ware that could have ruined our computer if we had not followed our standard safety procedures.

We would, among others, have liked access to the radar data files from the Ukrainian radar stations who tracked MAS FH17 as well as copies of air controllers communications with the plane. The communications are crucial evidence. Besides knowing what communication took place between the air traffic controllers and the pilots we would have liked to sent these files to an expert who could have analyzed whether the files have been tempered with.

The Russian Authorities:The Russian Foreign Ministry, admittedly, was the one that came closest to fulfilling the publics’ need for information. However, our call to the Foreign Ministry gave no result and our e-mail in which we requested access to the raw data files from the radar stations or information whom to contact to apply for these files remained unanswered.

The US Authorities:We called the US. State Department and asked if they could help us with identifying the military authorities who allegedly had evidence for the involvement of “pro-Russian rebels”. The answer was no, and they could not send us a written explanation why it was impossible for them to do so either. We called the US Department of Defense and got the same response.

The Dutch Safety Board:We contacted the Dutch Safety Board which promised that a preliminary report was to be published in late August. We asked the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) if they could release the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) Files from the flight data recorder of MH17. The answer was that they could not do that and that any of the details of the investigation were classified.

We then asked whether the Dutch Safety Board would want to state that it is independent and asked where it receives its money from. We also asked whether the Dutch Safety Board, which was an official institution of the Netherlands which is a NATO member, wants to maintain that it can act independently. The reply was that the DSB was neither dependent on the Dutch Government nor on any “organization”. Presumably, that referred to NATO. Ironically, the Dutch Safety Board is also responsible in cases of military emergencies, already that fact seems to be inconsistent with their stetement.

We sent a copy of the declassified“Northwoods” memorandum to the DSB to explain why it was that we thought our questions were not only justified but that it was our obligation as news-media to ask questions about the DSB’s neutrality and Dutch NATO membership. For those who are unaware about the memorandum, it is a memorandum by the US Chairman of the The Joint Chiefs of Staff L.L. Lemnitzer to the US Secretary of Defense, dated 13 march 1962.

In the memorandum, Lemnitzer suggested that a US passenger plane could land at a secret US military base and be substituted by a remote controlled passenger plane which then could be shot down by fighter jets. The incident would then be blamed on Cuba, and serve as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. The full memorandum is published here.

We sent our latest set of questions, including a copy of the Northwoods memorandum to the Dutch Safety Board on August 21 and sent two reminders to the DSB since then. We received receipts showing that the DSB received our e-mails but no reply. Apparently the DSB’s propaganda experts don’t really know how to respond to obvious questions.

NATO: We wrote to NATO and asked whether NATO could forward the contact details of a spokesperson who was authorized to answer questions pertaining NATO’s role in the Ukraine, including NATO’s operation Gladio, and the eventual implications with regard to the UNA-UNSO, Pravy Sector, their respective militants and the downing of MAS MH17. We received a series of confirmations that our e-mail has been received and read, but so far, we have not received any response.

Beyond Geopolitics. In the Interest of the General Public.

The governments of Ukraine, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands have according to a statement published by the Ukrainian UNIAN news agency agreed that any of these countries could veto the publication of evidence from the investigation into the death of 298 people and the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The investigation into the incident is according to a statement by the Dutch Safety Board conducted in accordance with ICAO regulations and Dutch law.

We asked a tenured professor who is lecturing in air safety, air crash investigations, and related legislation at an internationally renown university. Speaking to us on condition of anonymity and fearing “serious repercussions”if his name is mentioned, this expert told us that there, to the best of his knowledge, was no section in the ICAO regulations that permitted countries who were potentially involved in mass murder by bringing down a passenger plane to agree on keeping the evidence classified.

The general public, especially the flying public has a need to know the truth, regardless of its geopolitical implications. The Northwoods Memorandum proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the military chiefs of NATO member states are capable of contemplating the downing of passenger jets to create a pretext for a war. The MH17 tragedy “reeks” of Northwoodsand the foul smell of cynical mass murder. The public has not only a need to know, the public has a right to know, and the right to bring criminals to justice, who ever they are. When legal systems become coopted by criminals, the public may sooner or later have to find alternative functions for lamp posts.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Мы представляем вам сегодня материал из серии «Забаненные публикации» (ЗП) НВО. Данный материал впервые был опубликован на сайте издания 27.10.14 и по какой-то «странной» причине отсутствует в поисковой выдаче Google. Учитывая тот факт, что данная статья остается актуальной и сегодня, позволяя читателю лучше понять главные тренды мировой геополитики, редакция посчитала возможным опубликовать её повторно. В случае если и этот материал пропадет из поисковой выдачи, не стоит сомневаться в том, что редакция вновь повторит публикацию данного материала, если же тот все еще будет актуальным на момент публикации.

Доктор Кристоф Леманн, независимый консультант по вопросам урегулирования конфликтов, в своей статье рассказывает о том, что многие западные банковские эксперты уверены в практически неизбежности мирового финансового кризиса.

При этом часть из них утверждает, что кризис этот может произойти внезапно уже в самое ближайшее время, в конце этого года или начале следующего. Не случайно в 2013 году  заместитель председателя китайского Центрального банка Йи Ганг заявил, что Китай не хочет экономических войн, но при этом он полностью к ним готов.

На протяжении всего нынешнего года страны-члены БРИКС старательно укрепляли свое экономическое взаимодействие, договорившись также создать банк развития БРИКС, на что Запад ответил санкциями против России и кризисом на Украине. В довершение ко всему, Китай открыл свой рынок для иностранных инвестиций, что породило в Австралии, Таиланде и Малайзии множество внутренних противоречий, которые были вызваны неспособностью выбрать между следованием в фарватере западной политики в регионе и открывающимися экономическими перспективами в Китае.

Так почему Восток стал привлекательней Запада?

Автор отмечает, что декретные деньги, которые не обеспечены золотым запасом государства, не всегда являются более рискованным предприятием, чем денежные знаки, которые этим самым золотом обеспечены. Золото, как и любое другое национальное богатство на планете, является ресурсом конечным, а потому его распределение между государствами может быть неравномерным. С другой стороны, когда валюта золотом не обеспечена, её стоимость определяется в привязке к производимым продуктам. А потому у государства, которое обладает внушительной военной мощью, появляется желание прибегнуть к жульничеству в определении количества этих самых продуктов, навязав своим оружием мнение другим. Чем, собственно, США успешно пользуются, как это было в случае с Ираком. Впрочем, не с Ираком единым.

Проблема ликвидности, которая существовала в США долгое время, усугубилась, когда в 2013 году в Федеральный резерв США приехали немецкие проверяющие с целью провести аудит золотых запасов своей страны, которые хранятся в США. Проверяющих к осмотру золотого запаса своей страны так и не допустили, что стало причиной отзыва Германией своих резервов из американских хранилищ.

Не долго думая, Вашингтон заявил, что будет возвращать слитки до 2020 г., но предварительно «им придется их переплавить». Без нумерации слитков аккуратные немецкие банкиры полноценный аудит провести не смогут. Кто знает, может им присылают золото, украденное США в Ливии в 2011 году?

Автор уверен, что золотые запасы других государств Вашингтон давно распродал, а потому кризиса не избежать, так или иначе. Единственная надежда продлить «век процветания» в США, уверены западные политологи — это непрекращающиеся попытки отрезать Европу от поставок энергоносителей из Ирана и России, чтобы снабжать её собственным сланцевым газом. Однако даже эти меры не способны остановить неизбежное.

Проблема западной финансовой системы не в каких-то фундаментальных противоречиях, заложенных в её основе, и даже не в безудержном авантюризме западных экономистов. А в том простом факте, что сегодня все больше стран во всем мире хотят иметь дело с цивилизованными партнерами, которые не тычут в них дулом при первой удобной возможности, как это привыкли делать американские ковбои.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 27.10.14. For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time.

A global economic collapse has become unavoidable, said former chief economist of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) William White in response to the BIS’ quarterly report in September 2013. Experts forecast that a global economic collapse may occur, overnight, some time at the end of 2014 or in 2015. The fact that private interests are holding the US Federal Reserve and the Central Bank of England as well as the Bretton Woods institutions in a state of capture makes it improbable that the governments of the USA, UK and EU could prevent a collapse.

Their policies have remained largely unchanged since early 2013, when the Deputy Governor of China’s National Bank, Yi Gang, stressed that China does not look forward to an economic war, but that it is prepared for it. BRICS member states have since then capitalized the BRICS Development Bank; the US/UK axis and the EU have launched a war of sanctions against Russia and a civil war in Ukraine. In 2014, China began opening its banking sector for foreign investments and banking at an unprecedented scale; Australia is in a quagmire between US pressure and the trend to make use of attractive and safer Chinese opportunities.

Thailand, Malaysia and other economies are increasingly encouraging their traders and investors to study the Chinese market. With the Bretton Woods system at the brink of possible collapse and conflicts looming, gold and the new gold-based economies are catching the, in some cases more, in some cases less hesitant attention of governments worldwide. The trend is, however reluctantly it is accepted, impossible to ignore. China overtook the U.S.’ as the world’s leading economy measured in buying power and is poised to become No.1 measured in GDP within a bout one year too, reports the IMF.

Avoiding Confusion of Principles. Fiat vs. Gold.

Fiat currencies are not necessarily more unstable than commodity-backed currencies. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Commodities, for example gold, have an inherent value due to the physical presence and the value of labor that has to be invested in mining and refining gold. One problem with gold is that it is as finite as other commodities and that it is not equally distributed across the globe. Gold is, in other words, no panacea against resource-driven geopolitics and conflict. Fiat currencies are, in principle, not finite. To infinitely print fiat currency without backing it with values like commodities, goods, labor force, or by means of a production potential implies that powers with greater military might may be tempted to force others to accept an, in principle, valueless fiat currency that could as well be counterfeit. The US, its militarily backed geopolitics and the fact that it repeatedly forced other nations like Iraq to either accept the dollar for international settlements or face war, while the US is basically producing counterfeit to settle its bills; the use of euphemisms like quantitative easing to cover-up a failed counterfeit-like policy is a good example for fiat currencies inherent problems and risks.

While fiat currencies are not necessarily better or worse than gold-backed systems, the greatest problem with using fiat currencies for economic settlements between nations is rather the fact that some national banks are privately-owned; That is, that its owners are part of rogue networks which hold the government in a state of capture. The same holds true with regard to the Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Other national economies run well on fiat currencies, provided that the national bank is actually national and that the currency is not created as debt. The current “run” for gold is, in other words, not caused by inherent and superior advantages of gold-backed economies, but rather by the conflict-based dynamics of current international politics.

An Illusion that a Market under Pressure can retain Liquidity.

The realistically pessimistic Quarterly Report of the Bank for International Settlements, in September 2013, pointed at the US Federal Reserve Bank’s and European Central Bank’s quantitative easing as one of the primary factors which could cause a global economic collapse. Experts agreed that the Federal Reserve and the European Central Banks had lost control over the deluge of money and debt which they create. The BIS report noted, in so many words, that it had become impossible for the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Banks to get the paste back into the tube again while the, at that time, Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke continued stepping on the tube.

The former BIS Chief Economist William White warned, unequivocally, that the world is headed for an unavoidable global economic crash. White noted that the global credit bubble was about to burst and that the percentage level of extreme risk loans was at an all-times-high of 45 percent in the middle of 2013. That is, the interest for extreme risk loans was ten percent higher than it was at the onset of the global economic crisis in 2007. Speaking with The Telegraph, White added that the situation in 2013 was worse that it was prior to the crash of Lehmann Brothers. The newspaper quoted White as saying “All the previous imbalances are still there. Total public and private debt levels are 30 percent higher as a share of GDP in the advanced economies than they were then, and we have added a whole new problem with bubbles in emerging markets that are embedding in a boom bust cycle”.

White forecast that an economic collapse could come overnight, adding that the trouble is, that the US’ financial policy has become unpredictable, and that it is an illusion to believe that a market under stress can retain its liquidity.

US liquidity problems also became obvious in 2013, when the Federal Reserve rejected German auditors who had come to audit Germany’s gold reserves in the United States. In 2013, Germany, like many others, began hedging against the expected economic crash by attempting to repatriate the lion share of its gold reserves. The German Federal Bank and the government responded to the rejection by demanding the repatriation of the German gold from the US to Germany. The U.S. responded by informing Germany that it only could deliver the gold back in portions, final delivery by 2020.

The US has since begun delivering portions, but informed the German Federal Bank that it had to smelt the bars before delivery. The gold bars Germany has since received could, in other words, not be identified by the serial numbers. The re-refinement process also removed the chemical fingerprint by which the gold otherwise could have been identified as being the gold Germany had deposited in the United States. It could, in other words, just as well have received gold that was stolen from Libya in 2011.

An ironic article, entitled “Germany’s Gold and the Fed for Dummies” describes the situation by using an allegory. A biker mugs the owner of a Ferrari, crushes his bones, then steals the car, saying, “look how dangerous the world is, let me take care of that beautiful Ferrari for you”. When the owner has recovered and asks to get his car back he’s first rejected. After that, he’s allowed to see the engine, without serial number, then a steering wheel, and at the end he gets back spare parts which may, or may not come form his car. Final part plus car key to be delivered in seven years.

Needless to say that the US lacks liquidity. Many analysts note that the US sold off most of the gold it was supposed to keep in store for other nations. The theft could be covered up as long as it was possible to maintain the status quo of the (f)ailing Bretton Woods system.

China prepared for an Economic War.

The Deputy Governor of China’s National Bank, Yi Gang, stated earlier that year, that China was fully prepared to face a currency war, if necessary. The Chinese Xinhua news agency quoted Yi Gang as saying: “China is fully prepared in terms of monetary policies and other mechanisms, to deal with a possible currency war, and China will take full account of the quantitative easing policy conducted by the central banks of some countries”. China has since then, prudently, begun to shed US dollars by using dollars to secure valuable assets in western economies, expanded the scope of its import of strategic resources, invested in partnerships to secure resources and production partnerships in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and all of that at a previously unprecedented scale.

While the US, the United Kingdom and the EU continued their “quantitative easing”, their exit strategy to escape the looming collapse was, generally speaking, the creation of conflict as a means to perpetuate that failing glorious New American Century a little bit longer.

The US/U K’s project to prevent the building of the Iran – Iraq – Syria gas pipeline with the goal to create insecurity about the delivery of Iranian gas to Europe; The deep state involvement in manufacturing the crisis in Ukraine, aiming at the creation of insecurity about the delivery of Russian gas to Europe; The attempt to force Europe into a dependency on US -American shale gas and shale oil deliveries while containing Moscow; All of the above are illegitimate responses to legitimate economic problems. They are also, responses which are inherently dangerous and inherently unlikely to result in a successful prevention or at least mitigation of a global economic meltdown and the end of the Bretton Woods monetary system.

Also in 2013, while experts warned that a global economic collapse had become unavoidable and while others already noted that the US/UK failure to win the Syria war by July 2012 would lead to a conflict in Ukraine, the BRICS member states met on the sidelines of the G20 in St. Petersburg, Russia, and agreed to establish a BRICS Development Bank as complement to the IMF and World Bank systems. In July 2014, the BRICS Development Bank was capitalized with 100 billion US dollar. Moreover, the conflict in Ukraine had brought Russia and China closer together with regard to cooperation in the economic sector, the energy sector, as well as with regard to security.

China’s Opening: Gravitating towards the New, Gold-backed Economies.

China responded to the plausibility of the global economic crash by relatively swift and comprehensive deregulation with regard to foreign investment and trade. China was, however, prudent enough to secure the State’s control over the national economy and over the currency. China’s opening did not go unnoticed. In July 2014, the Assistant Governor of the Financial Market Operations Group of the Bank of Thailand (BOT), Chantarvan Sucharitakul, for example, held a seminar for Thai investors and businessmen. Chantarvan encouraged Thai investors, saying that they should investigate the advantages of the use of the yuan in terms of payments when doing business with China. Chantarvan said:

“Presently the use of the Chinese yuan in Thailand is not widespread since only 1 percent of the total14 percent of Thailand’s trade activities with China is traded by using the renminbi (RNB)… However, this rate is increasing fast, and therefore Thai investors should learn how to use the additional trading channel because the yuan’s importance and popularity will increase in the future even though it is not widely accepted and fully liberated at the moment”.

Similar developments are seen in Malaysia, Indonesia and several other Asian countries. This development does not happen without stiff US resistance. Thailand went through a severe crisis in 2014, when popular opposition against the government of Yingluck Shinavatra and the government’s defiance with regard to passing an amnesty law for her brother Taksin Shinawatra developed into a protracted standoff and ultimately a majority-backed intervention by Thailand’s military. Former PM Taksin Shinawatra, who admitted that he was governing the country from abroad via his sister Yingluck, fled Thailand after he was sentenced on charges of corruption. The development was met with a failed attempt to create a civil war in Thailand, backed by Wall Street and London elites and the imposition of US sanctions.

The United States as well as Wall Street and City of London lobbies are less blunt when it comes to nations like Australia. Arguably, the fact that a predominantly Caucasian populated/dominated nation like Australia is treated with a soft-power approach while the US/UK perceive it as more legitimate to attempt to subvert Thailand by means of violence is a sign of the entrenched racism that is observable in the UK as well as in the USA.

Soft power or not; US pressure against Australia’s attempt to act in the best interest of Australians is putting the Australian government into a quagmire. In October 2014, Australian journalist Michelle Grattan would report that senior Australian cabinet members are believed to be divided over whether Australia should sign up to an internationally funded infrastructure development bank that China is set to launch in November 2014. Grattan noted that:

“Australia has been under pressure from the United States not to participate in the new bank. … The Chinese plan is being viewed internationally in the wider geopolitical context of Chinese-US competition in the region. The Americans, who see the bank as potentially a way of China increasing its clout with countries in southeast Asia, have been strongly lobbying to keep out of it”.

China, for its part, announced that it would offer funds to underdeveloped countries in the region for projects in the energy, telecommunication and transport sectors. China stated that it will initially fund the regional development bank with 50 billion US dollar, not yuan or the renminbi.

The signals are clear. China is one of the greatest owners of US debt and dollars. China is shedding the dollar as fast, and as much of it as it can without tipping the (f)ailing dollar economies over the edge. Most importantly, China is investing these dollars in the strategic development of regional partnerships by aiding the economies of weaker nations like Laos, by opening its markets for investors and traders from Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, by fostering energy and security cooperation with Russia, by using Hong Kong as the basis for its economic opening.

The 2014 conflict about political self-determination in Hong Kong must be seen within the perspective of China’s prudent, but rapid opening of its economy for foreign capital. Not unsurprisingly, it were the National Endowment for Democracy, the soft-power wing of the US State Department and the CIA which supported Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” movement.

The stage is set for a transition, whether it comes in the form of an overnight collapse or not. The one most significant driver of this transition is, arguably, not the inherent weakness of the US/UK’s and the Bretton Woods institutions debt-based monetary and economic system.

The primary driver is, arguably, the fact that the governments of countries like Venezuela, Mozambique, Laos, Myanmar, and others perceive the soft-power approach of China as much less problematic and above all much less lethal and devastating than the envisioned “New American Century”. It’s like the choice between gold and gunfire.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/14/bc-gold-or-gunfire-hedging-against-the-collapse-of-the-dollar/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/11/zp-blizhnij-vostok-hitrospletenie-geopoliticheskih-interesov/ https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/11/zp-blizhnij-vostok-hitrospletenie-geopoliticheskih-interesov/#comments Mon, 11 Nov 2019 05:40:54 +0000 https://ru.journal-neo.org/?p=124761

Мы представляем вам сегодня материал из серии «Забаненные публикации» (ЗП) НВО. Данный материал впервые был опубликован на сайте издания 05.08.15 и по какой-то «странной» причине отсутствует в поисковой выдаче Google. Учитывая тот факт, что данная статья остается актуальной и сегодня, позволяя читателю лучше понять главные тренды мировой геополитики, редакция посчитала возможным опубликовать её повторно. В случае если и этот материал пропадет из поисковой выдачи, не стоит сомневаться в том, что редакция вновь повторит публикацию данного материала, если же тот все еще будет актуальным на момент публикации.

В своей новой статье независимый консультант по вопросам урегулирования конфликтов доктор Кристоф Леманн отмечает, что сегодня Ближний Восток стал центром противостояния различных политических интересов.

В то время как Сирия теряет свои позиции, во многом из-за действий Израиля и Турции, удары США по боевикам запрещенной в России террористической организации ДАИШ на территории Сирии вынуждают их двигаться в сторону Дамаска. Турция продолжает поддерживать радикальные курдские организации в Сирии и Ираке, одновременно оказывая давление на курдов, которые проживают на территории Турции.

Мало кто сомневается, что планы Белого дома по созданию независимого курдского государства рано или поздно должны увенчаться успехом, но Турция, которая является членом НАТО, не торопится расставаться с частью своей территории, надеясь на создание «уменьшенной версии» Независимого Курдистана.

Если Турция все-таки потеряет часть своей территории, то для интересов России подобное развитие событий может иметь непредсказуемые последствия. С одной стороны, международное право говорит о праве людей на самоопределение, с другой – защищает территориальную целостность государств. В итоге решения о том, что можно делать, а что нельзя ложатся на Совет Безопасности ООН, который раз за разом становится площадкой для противостояния различных геополитических сил, но никак не местом, где страны ищут консенсус.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 05.08.15. For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time.

Developments in Syria and Iraq are in an dynamic phase where day to day developments can distract from the assessment of probable midi- to long-term developments. Operand factors in this assessment are Russian – Turkish relations, a redirection of Russian Middle East policy, the accord on Iran’s nuclear energy program, the Kurdish discourse, and long-term US strategy with regard to the wider Middle East.

The Syrian government’s control over the nation has suffered substantial setbacks since early 2015. The recent establishment of a safe zone in northern Syria – equivalent to a no-fly-zone – in Syria along the Turkish border has challenged Damascus’ capability to provide air support for ground operations against insurgents of the Islamic State, Al-Nusrah and other insurgents.

US-led air-strikes against Islamic State are largely displacing ISIS towards Damascus and Baghdad. US and Turkish air-strikes in Syria have provided a safe-haven for the separatist Kurdish YPG. Predominantly Turkish air-strikes against militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Iraq, on the other hand, are keeping vital supply routes for the Islamic State open while PKK fighters are dislodged and have to seek strategic depth in the predominantly Kurdish north – northwest of Syria.

Along with the United States and Turkey’s policies with regard to Kurdish autonomy and the eventual establishment of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq, these policies and strategies are largely consistent with long-established plans to create a Kurdish federation of a Kurdish State with breathing straw access to the Mediterranean. Considering that the various Kurdish parties and paramilitary organizations don’t have converging policies, strategies, aims, and for that sake regional and international allies, the establishment of a Kurdish construct, whether as a federation or as a State will be lasting for anything between 5 – 25 years. The establishment of a Kurdish dominated region that includes northern Iraq and northern Syria is well underway. US policy aims at expanding this development into northern Iran.

Conflicting Principles in International Law

The Kurdish people are, arguably, the world’s largest ethnicity or people without a nation. International law provides the right to self-determination. This principle of the right to self-determination is conflicting with the equally valid principle of a nation’s right to territorial integrity. Both principles are lacking enforcement mechanism that are based in coherent law. Currently any enforcement of these principles would either have to be based on one actor, usually supported by one of the superpowers, to establish a de-facto situation, or by a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council. Both situations are equally problematic and questionable and based on policy and power rather than in law. The situation about the establishment of a Kurdish State is being further complicated by Turkey’s support of Syrian and Iraqi Kurds while Turkey is careful not to include Turkish territories in a future Kurdish construct. That situation may change if the pro-Kurdish parties in Turkey gain additional momentum while nationalists continue to suffer election losses. Ironically, a potential breakup of the Turkish Republic, a NATO member, poses a potential threat to Russia.

The Situation in Southern and Western Syria

Damascus is increasingly having difficulties to assert sovereignty over the region along the Lebanese border, the Golan Heights and at its border to Jordan. Israel has, by supporting Jabhat Al-Nusrah and associated brigades via the Golan Heights and the Sheeba farm area achieved two major objectives. It has weakened Damascus, but it has also weakened Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s capacity to resist against Israel. Israel has, by implication, weakened Teheran’s sphere of influence. Long-term Israeli policy aims at the permanent annexation of the Golan Heights and the Sheeba Farm area. Weakening Damascus and Hezbollah was one of the main stumbling stones Israel is about to have overcome. Considering the strength of the Israeli military, it will have no problems with dislodging Al-Nusrah and others from the Golan once that becomes opportune. This move would ultimately further weaken Damascus and Hezbollah.

Syria has long been Moscow’s primary ally in the Middle East. The naval base in Tartous was Moscow’s sole Mediterranean naval base. Russian policy and strategy had, however, to adjust to the developments in Ukraine and Syria. Moscow was, in other words, confronted with the problem how to secure its export of gas to Europe via Ukraine while searching for alternatives. It is here that Turkey is playing a key role. Even though it is possible to compartmentalize energy policy and geopolitics, this option is inherently risky. The more secure option is to combine the two. Developments in Russian – Turkish relations suggest that Turkey and Russia may be approaching a consensus with regards to both gas pipelines, the Kurdish question as well as the question about at least parts of Kurdish – Syrian territory.

Moscow has redirected its naval presence by agreement with Cyprus as well as by attempting to gain leverage via developing and repositioning Russian – Egyptian relations. Also this ultimately suggests that Moscow is thinking in terms of – the inevitable – development of a Kurdish construct and a substantially weakened Syria.

An additional, largely ignored factor is that Russia is not dependent on importing energy from the Middle East. The Russian Federation is, to the contrary, aiming at the export of energy. Long-term Russian Middle East policy will have to be based on this consideration.

Iran – Not to become a Wild Card

An additional factor in the midi- to long-term considerations pertaining the Middle East is Iran. It is noteworthy that the United States and Russia compartmentalized their otherwise tense relations and cooperated with regard to finding a solution to Iran’s nuclear energy program. Neither the United States nor Russia are interested in an Iran that could develop nuclear weapons capabilities within a relatively short time span; that is 7 – 24 months. Where Washington’s and Moscow’s policies don’t converge is the reason why they share this common goal. All Iranian political posturing for consumption in foreign media set aside, one only has to follow statements by the leadership of the Iranian National Guard in Parsi to understand that the development of nuclear weapons capabilities is boiling underneath the surface of lack-luster diplomacy.

The United States, for its part, is aiming at a continuation of a strategy that aims at weakening Iran, starting with diminishing Teheran’s influence as regional player and ultimately aiming at destabilizing at least northern Iran. This policy is consistent with midi- to long-term US goals to establish low-intensity conflicts along the southern border of the Russian Federation, Russia’s CSTO allies as well as along China’s southern borders.

Russia, for its part, is acutely aware of the US’ midi- to long term strategic goals. To counter this strategies, Moscow requires a stable Iran, but also an Iran that does not develop its own nuclear capabilities. In other words, Moscow needs Iran for strategic depth and Moscow depends on Iran as a stabilizing force that prevents or at least weakens or delays the spread of Islamist militant organizations along its southern borders.

The New Middle East Inevitable

The irony of the situation is that all of the permanent UN Security Council members argue that the current borders in the Middle East are an artifact of colonialism. A divergence between Washington, London, Paris on one hand and Moscow and in part Beijing arises due to the question whether these borders are invulnerable. One could also say that the divergence arises in the discussion about the primacy of the invulnerability of the territorial integrity of nation States vs the right to self-determination. Which ever principle the one or the other nation choses depends – for all of the involved parties – on utility, not on international law. A comparison between 2015 and 2025 maps of the Middle East is likely to be equivalent to comparing a 1980 map of Yugoslavia with a 2015 map of the Balkans. The tragedy is that the UN and the Security Council are failing the nations and the people of the Middle East as much as the League of Nations has failed those Middle Eastern and African nations who would suffer the consequences of two European Wars.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Мы представляем вам сегодня материал из серии «Забаненные публикации» (ЗП) НВО. Данный материал впервые был опубликован на сайте издания 10.09.14 и по какой-то «странной» причине отсутствует в поисковой выдаче Google. Учитывая тот факт, что данная статья остается актуальной и сегодня, позволяя читателю лучше понять главные тренды мировой геополитики, редакция посчитала возможным опубликовать её повторно. В случае если и этот материал пропадет из поисковой выдачи, не стоит сомневаться в том, что редакция вновь повторит публикацию данного материала, если же тот все еще будет актуальным на момент публикации.

Доктор Кристоф Леманн, независимый консультант по вопросам урегулирования конфликтов, в своей новой статье проводит расследование крушения малайзийского Боинга над территорией Украины в июле этого года. Автор отмечает, что ясности в обстоятельствах крушения авиалайнера за последний месяц не прибавилось, несмотря на то, что расследование проводят эксперты целого ряда стран. В виду того, что большая часть жертв крушения имела голландское подданство, расследование трагедии было поручено Совету по Безопасности Нидерландов. Декларируемая Западом непредвзятость данной организации остается под вопросом, учитывая тот факт, что она же отвечает за вопросы безопасности в случае военных конфликтов и является одной из структур НАТО.

Что касается экспертов ICAO, то после более 150 телефонных звонков туда, которые автор сделал за прошедший месяц, в этой организации не нашлось ни одного эксперта, который мог бы внятно объяснить, согласно какому правилу расследование трагедии было передано не малайзийским властям, а голландской военизированной организации. Украинские власти утверждают, что любая из сторон расследования может наложить запрет на публикацию каких-либо деталей крушения, что полностью противоречит международной практике и нормам  ICAO.

Автор считает, что трагедия малайзийского Боинга  является воплощением плана “Нортвудс”, который  3 марта 1962 года министр обороны Роберт Макнамара представил на рассмотрение Джону Кеннеди. Согласно этому плану американские спецслужбы должны были уничтожить гражданский самолет над территорией США, обвинив в этом кубинских сепаратистов. Это должно было подготовить общественное мнение к американскому военному вторжению на Кубу. Учитывая тот факт, что расследование трагедии окутано не меньшим количеством загадок, чем сама трагедия, складывается ощущение, что американские спецслужбы решили достать из-под сукна давно забытый “гениальный план”.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь. 

BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 10.09.14. For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time.

July 17, 2014. A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 on flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur plunged out of the sky in eastern Ukraine. The crash resulted in the death of all 298 passengers and crew. Malaysian Premier Najib Razak lashed out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the tragedy. An independent journalistic investigation was stonewalled with strategies ranging from ignoring calls and mails to an attempt to infect our PC with mal-ware via an e-mail sent from Ukraine. All of that, of course, in the interest of an international flying public who is expected to shut up and trust that they won’t win in the lottery of death. The MH17 tragedy reeks of operation Northwoods.

The Plane, Malaysia Airlines, and Malaysian PM Najib Razak.

Malaysia Airlines (MAS) stated that the 19 year-old Boeing 777-200 had a perfect maintenance and safety record. There was, in other words, no apparent reason why the plane should suddeny disintegrate in flight and plummet out of the sky with 298 souls on board. The immediate response was an international positioning and blame-game that prompted a visibly shaken Malaysian Premier Najib Razak to lash out at ”those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the disaster”, adding:

”As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict that cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim? Najib Razak’s words were ominous and reflected precisely the sentiment of millions of people worldwide. People who depend on air traffic for business, for holidays, for being reunited with loved ones, and the fact that all of them are being held in the dark about what happened on that fateful day.

A lot of Speculation and very little Evidence.

Speculations ran wild from day one and both the USA, Ukraine and Russia provided what was described as “evidence”. The problem is, non of the “evidence” was made available to independent media for independent analysis. The flightaware software showed that MAS MH17 had flown a more southernly route in the days before the tragedy and that the route was changed to a more northernly route on July 16.On July 17, the route was changed even farther to the North, directly over a conflict zone and air-space that according to MAS and the Ukrainian government had been closed to an altitude of 32,000 ft. When the pilot of MH17 filed a flight plan in Amsterdam, he requested an altitude of 35,000 ft, reported MAS, adding that Ukrainian air traffic controllers had contacted the Boeing 777-200 crew when it entered Ukrainian air space and designated an altitude of 32,000 ft. The US State Department claimed that it possessed evidence, showing that so-called “pro-Russian rebels”had shot down the plane. Ukrainian authorities released Youtube videos, including one that allegedly showed rebels driving a self-propelled rocket launcher with one of the rockets missing. The Russian Foreign Ministry then released a statement showing that the video was shot in a region that was controlled by troops loyal to Kiev. The Russian Foreign Ministry also released a video showing a screen shot from a radar station in the Rostov region plus satellite images. The radar screen shot showed MAS MH17 rapidly deviating from its course in northeasterly and then again in southeasterly direction before it lost speed and disappeared from radar. The radar images also showed that a plane with primary radar return only ascended towards MAS MH17. The fact that the plane gave aprimary radar return only, led to speculation that it may have been a SU-25 from the Ukrainian air force.

The satellite images released by the Russian Foreign Ministry showed that BUK missile systems had been driven to the region in the days prior to July 17, that their radar systems had been active, and that the missile launchers were removed again after July 17 and the crash of MAS MH17. It is also noteworthy that Malaysian PM Najb Razak praised the authorities of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic for securing the so-called black boxes and for the fact that they handed them directly over to to Malaysian air crash investigators. Malaysian air crash investigators confirmed that the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder both were intact and that they had not been tempered with.

The decision was made that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) should lead the investigation. The decision was justified by stating that the majority of the deceased were Dutch citizens. Malaysian investigators passed the black boxes on to the Dutch Safety Board which sent them to the UK for analysis.

Hitting a Wall.

The ICAO:I made some 15or more phone calls to the ICAO in Switzerland to ask which ICAO regulations would apply in the case of MAS MH17. One of the questions would for example be which part of the ICAO regulations permit that it is the Dutch Safety Board and not Ukrainian authorities or Malaysian authorities who lead the investigation. The result of the long-distance phone calls was multiple transfers from the switchboard operator to “experts”whose phones were answered by an answering machines. Another result was that the operator made several promises to assure that the ICAO would have an expert who could answer our questions call us back as soon as possible. That was in July. It is September now and and we are still waiting for their call and explanations.

The Ukrainian Authorities: We made several phone calls and wrote several e-mails to the Ukrainian Ministry of Infrastructure, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of the Interior. Our questions were ignored. We did, however, receive an e-mail from a Ukrainian email address associated with a Ukrainian “blogger”. The mail arrived one day after our call to the Interior Ministry and it had several files attached. Our software flagged the files as containing an aggressive mal-ware that could have ruined our computer if we had not followed our standard safety procedures.

We would, among others, have liked access to the radar data files from the Ukrainian radar stations who tracked MAS FH17 as well as copies of air controllers communications with the plane. The communications are crucial evidence. Besides knowing what communication took place between the air traffic controllers and the pilots we would have liked to sent these files to an expert who could have analyzed whether the files have been tempered with.

The Russian Authorities:The Russian Foreign Ministry, admittedly, was the one that came closest to fulfilling the publics’ need for information. However, our call to the Foreign Ministry gave no result and our e-mail in which we requested access to the raw data files from the radar stations or information whom to contact to apply for these files remained unanswered.

The US Authorities:We called the US. State Department and asked if they could help us with identifying the military authorities who allegedly had evidence for the involvement of “pro-Russian rebels”. The answer was no, and they could not send us a written explanation why it was impossible for them to do so either. We called the US Department of Defense and got the same response.

The Dutch Safety Board:We contacted the Dutch Safety Board which promised that a preliminary report was to be published in late August. We asked the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) if they could release the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) Files from the flight data recorder of MH17. The answer was that they could not do that and that any of the details of the investigation were classified.

We then asked whether the Dutch Safety Board would want to state that it is independent and asked where it receives its money from. We also asked whether the Dutch Safety Board, which was an official institution of the Netherlands which is a NATO member, wants to maintain that it can act independently. The reply was that the DSB was neither dependent on the Dutch Government nor on any “organization”. Presumably, that referred to NATO. Ironically, the Dutch Safety Board is also responsible in cases of military emergencies, already that fact seems to be inconsistent with their stetement.

We sent a copy of the declassified“Northwoods” memorandum to the DSB to explain why it was that we thought our questions were not only justified but that it was our obligation as news-media to ask questions about the DSB’s neutrality and Dutch NATO membership. For those who are unaware about the memorandum, it is a memorandum by the US Chairman of the The Joint Chiefs of Staff L.L. Lemnitzer to the US Secretary of Defense, dated 13 march 1962.

In the memorandum, Lemnitzer suggested that a US passenger plane could land at a secret US military base and be substituted by a remote controlled passenger plane which then could be shot down by fighter jets. The incident would then be blamed on Cuba, and serve as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. The full memorandum is published here.

We sent our latest set of questions, including a copy of the Northwoods memorandum to the Dutch Safety Board on August 21 and sent two reminders to the DSB since then. We received receipts showing that the DSB received our e-mails but no reply. Apparently the DSB’s propaganda experts don’t really know how to respond to obvious questions.

NATO: We wrote to NATO and asked whether NATO could forward the contact details of a spokesperson who was authorized to answer questions pertaining NATO’s role in the Ukraine, including NATO’s operation Gladio, and the eventual implications with regard to the UNA-UNSO, Pravy Sector, their respective militants and the downing of MAS MH17. We received a series of confirmations that our e-mail has been received and read, but so far, we have not received any response.

Beyond Geopolitics. In the Interest of the General Public.

The governments of Ukraine, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands have according to a statement published by the Ukrainian UNIAN news agency agreed that any of these countries could veto the publication of evidence from the investigation into the death of 298 people and the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The investigation into the incident is according to a statement by the Dutch Safety Board conducted in accordance with ICAO regulations and Dutch law.

We asked a tenured professor who is lecturing in air safety, air crash investigations, and related legislation at an internationally renown university. Speaking to us on condition of anonymity and fearing “serious repercussions”if his name is mentioned, this expert told us that there, to the best of his knowledge, was no section in the ICAO regulations that permitted countries who were potentially involved in mass murder by bringing down a passenger plane to agree on keeping the evidence classified.

The general public, especially the flying public has a need to know the truth, regardless of its geopolitical implications. The Northwoods Memorandum proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the military chiefs of NATO member states are capable of contemplating the downing of passenger jets to create a pretext for a war. The MH17 tragedy “reeks” of Northwoodsand the foul smell of cynical mass murder. The public has not only a need to know, the public has a right to know, and the right to bring criminals to justice, who ever they are. When legal systems become coopted by criminals, the public may sooner or later have to find alternative functions for lamp posts.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Kurdish parties, militants and their alliances have developed into major factors in the Syrian, Iraqi as well as Turkish war theaters. Although Kurds have been a significant regional factor since the mid-1980s, their role in the region became more prominent in 2015 and increasingly so after the attempted military coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016. This article attempts to analyze available intelligence to add perspective to a situation that is mired in confusion and wrapped in misinformation.

The primary actors.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in the semi-autonomous, predominantly Kurdish region of northern Iraq and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. The Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), including its political and military wing. The PKK splinter group the Kurdistan Freedom Hawks. The Democratic Union Party of Syria (PYD) and its military wing the YPG and its all female YPJ. The YPG/YPJ constitute the majority of the forces which are fighting under the banner of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which also include fighters from other ethnic groups including Armenians.

The KDP government in northern Iraq, led by Massoud Barzani, as well as Peshmerga fighters have, since the overthrow of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, been supported by the United States, primarily, and by several EU and other NATO member States, secondarily.

The KDP regional government has also been one of the primary beneficiaries of the Islamic State’s trafficking of stolen Syrian oil via northern Iraq to Turkey and beyond between 2013 – 2016. It is noteworthy that this oil business, that weakened the Federal Iraqi government in Baghdad as well as the Syrian government in Damascus got a significant boost after the European Union, in April 2013, lifted its ban on the import of Syrian oil from “rebel-held Syrian territories”.

In mid-August 2016 Massoud Barzani stressed that independence of Kurdistan was the only remaining option.

Iran has, since the invasion of Iraq by ISIS in 2013 tentatively approached the KDP administration politically, and to some degree coordinated Peshmerga fighters’ and Iranian-trained Iraqi popular militia in the struggle against ISIL.

U.S., European and Turkish support of the KDP aimed at several strategic objectives. The destabilization of the federal government of Iraq and the division of Iraq into three States. The overarching NATO strategy that aims at challenging Russia and Russian influence from the eastern Mediterranean, along Russia’s relatively soft and resource rich southern flank, to Pakistan.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party of Turkey (PKK). The PKK began its armed insurrection against the Turkish State in 1984. That is, before the end of the cold war and the discontinuation of the Soviet Union. The PKK’s struggle was launched with the goal to establish an independent Kurdish State. Its political philosophy is non-dogmatic, non-sectarian democratic socialism.

The PKK has, since its inception, been supported by the Soviet Union and it continues to enjoy goodwill from Russia today, although that support is not overt. As a historical footnote it is worth mentioning that SIPRI reported that Germany, after its reunification, presented East German, Soviet-made armored personnel carriers and large-caliber machine guns to Turkey under the condition that the equipment only be used against the PKK.

The logic and strategy behind Moscow’s alliance with the PKK is that the PKK could function as a Soviet / Russian version of what NATO would describe as “stay behinds”. The PKK could, in other words, be used to challenge or contain NATO and NATO member Turkey in the case of a conflict.

Former Turkish Military Intelligence Chief Haki Pekin and other hard-core Turkish nationalists stated to this author that the PKK is “an agent of the USA and Israel” and cooperates with the AKP government and the USA to “Balkanize” Turkey. The author has, however, not seen any conclusive evidence that would substantiate the claim. It is also always advisable to be cognizant of the fact that “former intelligence chiefs” and others, often have an undisclosed agenda that determines what information they disseminate and when. General (retired) Pekin and other Turkish ultra-nationalists were strongly against the AKP government’s peace talks with the PKK which broke down in July 2015.

Another interesting piece of intelligence are documents this author recently received, that show that the federal government of Iraq has several hundred PKK fighters on its payroll, paying about 1,000 US dollar per months per fighter.

These documents appear, as far as this author can discern genuine, but it is difficult and extremely costly to have them independently verified. The source whom this author received these documents from purports that Baghdad supports PKK fighters in northern Iraq so as to weaken the influence of Massoud Barzani, the KDP and Peshmerga. This policy would plausibly be consistent with the interests of both Moscow and Tehran, but it is important to distinguish between intelligence and analysis.

The Kurdistan Freedom Hawks is a PKK splinter organization that primarily focuses on small-scale attacks, terrorist attacks, bombings. Its resources are severely limited and its membership is estimated at maximum 200. The organization is, according to this authors sources in Turkey infiltrated and in part controlled by both Turkish and NATO intelligence and used as an instrument to discredit the PKK as well as the HDP. Relatively minor attacks attributed to this organization have repeatedly been used as a pretext for Turkish military operations in southeastern Turkey and crackdowns against advocates for the Kurdish discourse in Turkish politics.

The Democratic Union Party (PYD), the YPG, YPJ and the SDF.

Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD) also has its roots in the mid-1980s. The PYD and its military wings, the YPG and the all female YPJ are traditional allies of the PKK. The PYD’s and PKK’s also share their in-dogmatic approach to democratic socialism. It is noteworthy the the Syrian Baath Party government in Damascus never “approved of” the PYD but that the PYD – YPG – YPJ nexus was part of Moscow’s and Damascus’ “containment strategy” directed against Turkey and NATO. It is also noteworthy that relations between the PYD and the Iraqi KDP , despite occasional pragmatic cooperation, are as tense as relations between the PKK and the KDP.

Relations between the Baath Party government in Damascus and the PYD soured after the YPG /YPJ began receiving military aid including military advisers, special forces and “volunteers” from the United States, and the PYD began aiming at an independent State construct in northern Syria. Russia, for its part, recognizes that the YPG / YPJ and the Syrian Democratic Forces have been among the most efficient fighters against the presence of the Islamic State (ISIL) at the Turkish – Syrian frontier. Moscow has repeatedly called for the inclusion of Kurds in the Geneva talks on Syria.

The Turkish AKP government denounces the PYD and its militants as PKK-allied terrorists and strongly opposes their presence along Turkey’s southern border. Sources on the ground in northern Syria reported to this author, days in advance of Turkey’s invasion of Syria’s Jarablus region, that ISIL fighters were withdrawing from the district. Information received after Turkey’s cross-border invasion with participation of units of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) detailed that the Turkish military and the FSA were, indeed, fighting Kurdish forces rather than ISIL.

The Fog of War and Law

Needless to say that the situation pertaining all of the Kurdish parties in the region is complex. Utilitarianism and Realpolitik are the parents of the strangest bedfellows. It is worth noting that Kurds are the largest ethnic and national group that has no State. It would take another article to explain the situation of the Kurds and their aspirations for independence from a perspective of international law.

Briefly, the Kurdish discourse pits the internationally guaranteed right to self-determination against the equally valid principle of States’ right to territorial integrity against each other. Simplified; The UN General Assembly’s 1970 Declaration of Principles stipulates that both principles are equally valid but that the one cannot be implemented if it violates the other and vice versa.

In practical terms this means that Kurds depend on the five Permanent UN Security Council members (P5) who have the mandate as well as the obligation to resolve the issue of Kurdish sovereignty and self-determination versus the territorial integrity of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, as well as Iran. The problem is that the principle players at the UN Security Council use Kurds as geopolitical pawns. That said, who could blame Kurdish parties for forging alliances based on similar utilitarianism, Realpolitik, and for continuing their struggle, using all available means and purported “partners” that are at their disposal to achieve a long-term strategic objective.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The gun control debate in the United States, and beyond, has been derailed and needs to be put back on the right track.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America prioritizes the citizens’ right to carry firearms second only to the right to the freedom of speech. The Constitution of the United States of America has its philosophical and political roots in the post-French revolution period of enlightenment that clearly defines the people as “the sovereign”. In the USA the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The derailed debate.

U.S. Administrations in Washington D.C., as well as administrations in the constituent States, media, as well as NGO’s have, over the past decades, consistently misrepresented the 2nd Amendment, gun ownership, gun violence, militia, and related issues. Both Democrats, Conservatives and their satellite NGO’s and media consistently portray gun-ownership as being associated with crime, violence, terrorism, and as a threat to personal and national security. Isolated shootings like high-school shootings are represented in a fashion that is targeting the “audience” emotionally rather than logically.

An NGO like the National Rifle Association, for its part, is also misrepresenting the discourse as if it was a debate about whether the people should have the right to keep and bear arms to go hunting or for personal protection alone. Hegelian Dialectics are used by both Democrats and Conservatives alike, positioning those who defend the 2nd Amendment for the right reasons as “right wing neo-Nazi” extremists or as “Socialist / Communist subversives”.

Unilateral Disarmament of the Sovereign and Government Violence.

Again, let’s recall that the right to keep and bear arms as specified in the 2nd Amendment has its roots in the definition of “the people” as “the sovereign”, and the understanding that the people need a means to defend the United States, its constituent States, and themselves against foreign and domestic enemies. This includes a government or military that has gone rogue. Historically, it have been unilaterally disarmed populations that have been at greatest risk for mass murder, committed by a rogue government or associated militants. To mention but a few isolated examples:

The mass murder of Germans and Europeans by Germany’s National Socialists. The mass murder of Soviet people under the regime of Joseph Stalin. The mass murder against Cambodians carried out by the Khmer Rouge. We could continue ad nauseam.

The common denominator is that the people have been unilaterally disarmed before the mass murders could occur. The French revolution could not have succeeded unless people had stormed the Bastille and armed themselves.

The 2nd Amendment makes the unilateral disarmament of the citizens of the USA unconstitutional, and for very good reasons. Unilateral disarmament leaves law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed, violent criminals. Most importantly however, is that it deprives the people from the right and ability to resist tyranny.

One may argue that the USA is “the beacon of freedom and democracy” and that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, that there no longer is a need to maintain the right to keep and bear arms. Those who believe this to be the case may consider – nontransparent Continuity of Government provisions – the U.S. President’s assumed right to put people worldwide, including U.S. citizens on “kill lists” – the so-called PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act – Extraordinary Rendition – Secret Prisons – and so forth.

Two American Thinkers, their Reasoning and the Ban of Military Grade Weapons.

James Madison: “Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, a right which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”.

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of the citizen may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, and for self-defense”.

The principle reasoning with e.g. Madison and Adams is that the body of the people is able to mount a force that is greater than any military force that the government can raise against it. Madison, Adams and the 2nd Amendment invalidate the ban on automatic, military grade weapons and high-capacity magazines. Moreover, one may notice that the vast majority of gun-related crimes are being carried out by people who are using handguns and non-military-grade weapons. The ban on automatic, military-grade weapons is, in fact, specifically targeting the people’s right and capability to form the very militia that enables the people to resist tyranny.

The Militia – How it is regulated.

In the United States “the militia” consists of all able-bodied men with personal firearms. That is, it does not consist of conscripts or professional soldiers. The militia has the purpose to guarantee a free State by repelling foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and Federal Government Tyranny. The US Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – 15-16 stipulates:

The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union (not to be confused with the Federal Administration in the District of Colombia) to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. It is the duty of the militia to execute the laws of the Union. … To provide for organizing army and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States of America, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

It is important to notice that the “National Guard” is not “The Militia” but that the militia is the people. More specifically, the militia is regulated in Section 57 in the Officer’s Guide of the National Defense Act. The Act stipulates that:

The Militia of the United States consists of all male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are more than 18 years of age and not more than 45 years of age, and the Militia shall be divided into three classes. The National Guard which our forefathers described as the Select Militia, separate from the term “The Militia”, the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia.

The Unorganized Militia – Not Unregulated or Irregular.

It is especially the latter, the “Unorganized Militia” that Madison, Adams and others were referring to when they stressed that “the people” have the right and ability to resist against tyranny. The Constitutions of the constituent States of the USA vary with regard to the age and gender, some specify military age between 17 – 45 years of age, others specify the military age up to 64 years, others again do not implicitly exclude women.

Citizens in all States of the United States have the constitutional right to form registered units of the Unorganized Militia, to possess and bear military-grade weapons provided that these militia units are well-regulated.

This implies that members of militia units are well-trained and well-educated. This includes military training as well as it does education about the rights, obligations and duties of the Unorganized Militia. Of special importance is that militia units have to be educated about and adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that it trains and operates overtly instead of covertly.

Closing Remarks – International Implications.

The unilateral disarmament of a population is one of the most important preconditions for the establishment of tyrannical governments regardless whether they be socialist, right-wing, sectarian, non-sectarian or other. Switzerland is one of the world’s oldest democratic systems and people who have served in the military are expected to keep weapons in their homes. Switzerland does not have a higher rate in gun-related crimes than e.g. the United Kingdom, Germany, France or other European countries where populations have been unilaterally disarmed.

One may argue that gun-ownership implies the risk of accidental shootings. While this is correct, most accidental shootings occur with handguns. The incidence of accidental shooting in the USA is less than the incidence of accidental suffocation from food. Let’s close down McDonalds and Stabucks, right? – Even though – I might be tempted to allow exemptions for them.

Finally, let us consider the much-advertised link between terrorism and gun-ownership. In November 2015 two gunmen stormed a theater in Paris where a rock concert was in progress. Two persons succeeded at shooting and killing about 100 “unarmed / disarmed” people. That death toll would have been significantly lower had there been citizens at the theater who had not been deprived of their right to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny and all forms of terrorism.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.