The
Russian trade mission in Washington has been closed and its staff
barred access, Russia’s US embassy spokesman said, adding the US
State Department is formally leading the searches in the building.
Meanwhile the BRICS are meeting in Beijing
RT: BRICS countries need to get out of the shadow of western media
With
the world obsessing over every increasingly childish outburst in the
daily back and forth between Trump and Kim Jong-Un, another conflict
which has so far gone largely unnoticed by the global media continues
to grow on the border between India and China.
As
reported yesterday, in the most recent escalation between the two
nuclear powers, the Indian Army ordered the evacuation of a village
close to the Doklam India-Bhutan-China tri-junction amid to a
standoff between Indian and Chinese soldiers. This takes place just
days after China turned the war threat amplifier up to '11' by
threatening India (in an article published a Chinese state-controlled
newspaper) that it could conduct a "small-scale military
operation" to expel Indian troops from a contested region in the
Himalayas.
For
those who need a reminder, the latest geopolitical standoff between
India and China started in June, after Chinese troops started
building a road on a remote plateau which is disputed by China and
Bhutan. Indian troops countered by moving to the flashpoint zone to
halt the work, with China accusing them of violating its territorial
sovereignty and calling for their immediate withdrawal.
After
adding a large number of troops to the region, China then sharply
escalated when a Chinese Ministry of Defense warned explicitly that
Indian troops must leave the contested area if they do not want war.
Then,
earlier this week, tensions escalated further when as the Independent
reported, the Chinese
state-owned Global Times quoted a research fellow at the Institute of
International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences
who said China
is preparing to initiate a "limited war" to push Indian
soldiers out of the area.
To
this, the Indian response was the abovementioned forced evacuation of
a few hundred villagers living in Nathang, who were asked to vacate
their houses immediately, according to News18.
Nathang is 35 km from the site of the two-month old standoff.
Which
brings us to today, and the latest
report by PTI India,
according to which in a strategically key move, India
has poured in more troops along the entire stretch of its border with
China in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh in the face of heightened
rhetoric by Beijing over the Dokalam standoff, according
to senior government officials on Friday.
Furthermore, the
"caution level" among the troops has also been raised, the
officials told PTI.
The
Indian officials said that the decision to increase the deployment
along the nearly 1,400-km Sino-India border from Sikkim to Arunachal
Pradesh was taken after carrying out a detailed analysis of the
situation and considering China's aggressive posturing against India
on Dokalam.
"The
troop level along the border with China in the Sikkim and Arunachal
sectors has been increased," said the officials on condition of
anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information. The
Army's Sukna-based 33 Corps as well as 3 and 4 corps based in
Arunachal and Assam are tasked to protect the sensitive Sino-India
border in the eastern theatre.
However,
the officials declined to give any figure or percentage of increased
deployment, saying they cannot disclose "operational details."
According
to defence experts, roughly
45,000 troops including personnel having completed the weather
acclimatisation process are normally kept ready along the border at
any given time, but not all are necessarily deployed. The
soldiers, deployed over 9,000 feet, have to go through a 14-day-long
acclimatisation process.
The
officials, however, said there is no enhancement of troops at the
India-China-Bhutan tri-junction in Dokalam where around 350 army
personnel are holding on to their position for nearly eight weeks
after stopping Chinese troops from constructing a road on June 16.
Bhutan
and China have competing claims over Dokalam, and are negotiating a
resolution. Meanwhile, China has been ramping up bellicose rhetoric
against India over the last few week - in many aspect echoing either
side in the US-North Korea conflict - demanding immediate withdrawal
of Indian troops from Dokalam. Both the Chinese and Indian state
medias have carried a barrage of critical articles on the Dokalam
stand-off slamming India.
India's
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj recently said both sides
should first pull back their troops for any talks to take place, and
favoured a peaceful resolution of the border standoff. India also
conveyed to the Chinese government that the road construction would
represent a significant change of status quo with serious security
implications for it.
So
far, not only has neither side pulled back troops, but as today's
latest news of increasing deployment suggests, a full blown conflict,
one whose consequences could be far more devastating than a US
military intervention in North Korea, looks increasingly likely with
every passing day.
China
is not afraid of fighting a war against the United States in the
South China Sea, a state-run newspaper with links to the Communist
party has claimed.
Beijing
is attempting to build artificial islands, while other states in the
region are looking to the US to flex its military muscle on their
behalf
Twenty-four
hours after Washington challenged Beijing’s territorial claims in
the region by deploying a warship to waters around the disputed
Spratly archipelago, the notoriously nationalistic Global Times
accused the Pentagon of provoking China.
“In
[the] face of the US harassment, Beijing should deal with Washington
tactfully and prepare for the worst,” the newspaper argued in an
editorial on Wednesday.
“This
can convince the White House that China, despite its unwillingness,
is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region, and is
determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”
The
People’s Liberation Army Daily, China’s leading military
newspaper, used a front-page editorial to accuse the US of sowing
chaos in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Cast-iron
facts show that time and again the United States recklessly uses
force and starts wars, stirring things up where once there was
stability, causing the bitterest of harm to those countries directly
involved,” the newspaper said, according to Reuters.
Tuesday’s
manoeuvre, which saw the guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen sail
close to artificial Chinese islands, came after Barack Obama and
Chinese president Xi Jinping failed to find common ground over the
issue during recent talks at the White House.
US
defence secretary Ash Carter warned that further “freedom of
navigation” operations in the region were planned. “We will fly,
sail and operate wherever international law permits,” he told a
congressional hearing.
China
reacted to Tuesday’s long-anticipated mission by hurling a barrage
of accusations at Washington.
“The
United States has been very irresponsible,” defense ministry
spokesperson Yang Yujun said, according to Xinhua, China’s official
news agency.
“We
will take any measures necessary to safeguard our security.”
Lu
Kang, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said China would “resolutely
respond” to any deliberate provocations but declined to be drawn on
any potential military response.
“I
advise the US not to make a fool out of themselves in trying to be
smart,” Lu said.
But
despite the angry rhetoric coming out of Beijing, experts say China’s
response has been relatively muted.
“It
seems like China’s reaction – at least initially – has been to
respond in a restrained, operational way. The Chinese have absolutely
no interest in sparking a tactical crisis or any kind of
confrontation with the Americans,” said Ashley Townshend, a South
China Sea expert from the University of Sydney’s United States
studies centre.
China’s
military buildup in the South China Sea – including the
construction of a 3km runway capable of supporting fighter jets and
transport planes – has become a major source of tension between
Beijing and Washington.
China
claims most of the South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest sea
lanes, although Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan
have rival claims. Beijing says the islands will have mainly civilian
uses as well as undefined defence purposes.
But
satellite photographs have shown the construction of three
military-length airstrips by China in the Spratlys, including one
each on Mischief and Subi reefs.
Washington
hoped Tuesday’s mission would encourage Beijing to step back from
its controversial island building campaign, which China claims is for
civilian purposes but critics believe is an attempt to use military
power to cement its grip over the region.
However,
Townshend warned that sending US warships to the South China Sea
could have the opposite effect.
“I
think these freedom of navigation missions may play into the hands of
the hardliners in the [Chinese] military or in the regime … It will
be harder for moderates in the regime to say no to People’s
Liberation Army hawks and others if the Americans are [seen as] being
provocative.”
Townshend
said the US mission may have temporarily strengthened Washington’s
hand. “[But] there’s an element of you win the battle but you
lose the war if actually these freedom of navigation missions make
China more determined to militarise these islands,” he added.
“These
islands are not going away – unless global warming takes them out.”
Battle
Over China's Artificial Islands Has Just Begun
After months of
internal debate, the White House permitted the Defense Department to
sail one ship near a reef in the South China Sea that China claims.
The Chinese reaction shows Beijing has no intention of backing down.
Now the Obama administration is debating what to do next. Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter confirmed on
Tuesday that the Lassen, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer,
traveled Monday within 12 miles of the Subi Reef, which was
underwater until the Chinese government built it into an artificial
island. Under questioning from the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Carter said the U.S. has the right to operate near the Chinese
structures. He expressed support for doing such a “freedom of
navigation operation” again.
“What you read in
the newspaper is accurate, but I don’t want to say when, whether or
how we operate anywhere in the world,” he said. “These are
operations that we should be conducting normally.” Carter has publicly
asserted U.S. access to these waters since
his speech in May at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
Admiral Harry Harris, the head of Pacific Command, has advocated that
right as well, within the administration. But other senior officials
pushed to delay the sail-by, fearing it would provoke Beijing and
hurt other areas of cooperation, U.S. officials told me. Territorial
Disputes The White House
decision to move forward came after several meetings at the National
Security Council Principal Committee level, where the timing was a
sticking point. White House officials wanted to wait until after
President Obama’s summit
last month with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which
Xi said publicly that China did not intend to militarize the
artificial islands. Secretary of State John Kerry argued for delaying
the operation until after the Paris Climate Change conference, U.S.
officials said. It ends in December. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry reacted
swiftly Tuesday, calling the U.S. move a “deliberate
provocation” and summoning the U.S. ambassador to China, Max
Baucus, to protest the action. The foreign ministry spokesperson said
China might conclude it had to "increase and strengthen the
building up of our relevant abilities." The Chinese Defense
Ministry said the
ship’s activity was a “coercive action that seeks to militarize
the South China Sea region." U.S. officials told me
Tuesday that the Chinese reaction was as expected and that the Obama
administration had publicly signaled for months that the freedom of
navigation operation would take place. There is no expectation that
one ship’s action will deter the Chinese expansion in the South
China Sea. Instead there is a new internal debate over what the U.S.
should do next and when. Officials said Carter
had told Pacific Command to come up with a detailed plan for
conducting freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea
that could include deploying more naval forces to the western Pacific
to routinely conduct these exercises out of Clark Air Base in the
Philippines with support from P8 surveillance aircraft. The
official in charge of developing the plan is Rear Admiral Mark
Montgomery, the head of Pacific Command operations. Carter and the top
brass support that strategy, U.S. officials briefed by Carter's staff
said, but others in the Pentagon -- , including Admiral John
Richardson, the new chief of Naval Operations -- favor less
confrontation and more engagement with the Chinese People’s
Liberation Army Navy. Pacific Command will submit its proposal to an
interagency process. It could be debated for months before the
president makes another decision. Some Republican
lawmakers expressed support for the freedom of navigation patrol --
and said the Obama administration must do more to stand up to Chinese
aggression.
“This cannot be a
one-off occurrence," said Senator Cory Gardner, the chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations East Asia Subcommittee. "This must
continue. It must be regular.” Representative Randy
Forbes of Virginia, who has urged the administration to travel within
12 miles of China’s artificial islands, told me that the White
House is still coming up short in its promise to shift U.S. focus to
East Asia. He said China's claims in the South China Sea show that
need.
“Instead of a
strategy to prevent these actions, they are in a position where they
react,” Forbes said of the Obama administration. “Now we have to
just wait and see what the next steps are.” Asia experts who are
sympathetic to this view point out that the administration has
responded to provocations from China with finite reactions, lacking
follow-up. For example, when China declared an Air Defense
Identification Zone last year in the East China Sea, the U.S. made a
show of flying B52 bombers through it one time. The U.S. has not
pushed back since then, and America’s regional partners have
largely acquiesced to Chinese claims to the one.
“If the U.S. just
sends in one destroyer, it’s flamboyant and it doesn’t do
anything to say the nature of the balance is shifting back in our
direction,” said Michael Auslin, an Asia scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. “The Americans have been forced into a
reactive stance. And it took them a year to figure out what to do in
the first place.” If the buildup in the
South China Sea continues, in a few years China will have cemented
its control over the territory, he said. In addition to regular
freedom of navigation operations, Auslin thinks the U.S. should
encourage other regional allies to join the U.S. in physically
challenging Chinese maritime claims. Patrick Cronin,
director of the Asia Pacific Security Program and the Center for a
New American Security, said that the administration does have a
multi-pronged approach to dealing with China’s assertiveness in the
South China Sea. Part of it is to build partnerships with Southeast
Asian allies and push for a code of conduct that China will sign to
govern all nations’ actions there. But the Obama
administration needs to do more to prevent China from changing the
power dynamics in the South China Sea, he said.
“Over all, the White
House wants to secure its legacy of managing a stable U.S.-China
relationship despite differences. But even within that approach,
we’re going to have to flex some muscle,” said Cronin. “These
operations are not fixing the problem. These operations are to
demonstrate our interests that we are working toward.” Senator Ben Cardin,
the ranking Democrat on the Asia subcommittee, told me that the
administration is right to weigh the risks of escalation with China
while reinforcing American commitments and policies. “What the U.S.
is doing is calculated,” he said. "We don’t want to cause
unintended consequences." U.S. officials and
outside experts agree that China’s militarization of artificial
islands in the South China Sea is a problem that is not going away
and will require a robust U.S. strategy for the foreseeable future.
There is also a consensus that although changing China’s behavior
is difficult, the U.S. and its allies still need to impede the
Chinese as they try to consolidate control of disputed territory. However, there is no
consensus in Washington about how to do that. The U.S. government has
a range of tools -- diplomatic, economic and military -- to push back
against the Chinese strategy. The question is whether the U.S. will
use those tools effectively before China’s control of the South
China Sea becomes a fait accompli. (Corrects location of
base for Pacific operations in eighth paragraph.
Australia, which is arguably reliant on China for its very existence plays its part in the build-up of Sino-western tension in the South China Sea Australian
Media Spies Imaginary Weapons in South China Sea
As tensions
continue to rise in the South China Sea, Australian media outlets are
reporting that China has installed weapons on its artificial islands.
This despite citing no evidence, and despite the fact that Beijing
has consistently stressed that the islands will be used for peaceful
purposes.
On
Tuesday, Japan announced that it would join in the Talisman Sabre,
joint military exercises typically conducted by the United States and
Australia. The newly formed trifecta of Pacific allies was largely
seen as the latest in an attempt to bolster defenses against an
alleged Chinese threat.
While
Japan’s participation in the drills demonstrated Tokyo’s concern
over the Beijing’s construction of islands in the South China Sea,
Australia seems to have taken even more of Washington’s bait. A
number of Australian media outlets are now reporting that China has
moved weaponry onto artificial islands in the South China Sea.
While
these claims, if true, would represent a major shift in Chinese
policy, and a major escalation in the ever-growing tensions between
regional stakeholders, the outlets have not provided any evidence.
Many
of these reports could stem from the Australian government’s
growing concerns about their own trade routes, as Washington
continues to stoke fires about their imagined Chinese threat. While
Australia had previously remained neutral in all South China Sea
disputes, it appears to be changing its tune.
"Give
the size and modernization of China’s military, the use by China of
land reclamation for military purposes would be of particular
concern," Australia’s top defense official, Dennis Richardson,
said during a forum in Sydney.
The
Chinese government has repeatedly insisted that the islands lie
within its sovereign territory, and that it has every right to build.
On Tuesday, Defence Ministry Spokesman Yang Yujun compared the land
reclamation efforts to the construction of roads and homes on the
mainland.
"From
the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference,"
he told reporters. This echoed earlier statements made by Foreign
Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying, who emphasized that the islands
would help maritime search and rescue, disaster relief, environmental
protection, and navigational security.
"Some
external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea
affairs," a Chinese policy document, released on Tuesday, reads.
"A tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance
and reconnaissance against China."
This
was taken as reference to the efforts of the United States. Despite
the fact that the US has no territorial claims in the region, it has
consistently heightened efforts to incite unrest in the sea, staging
military exercises with the Philippines and Indonesia, and launching
patrol missions over the land reclamation projects.
"China’s
actions are bringing countries in the region together in new ways,"
US Defense Secretary Ash Carter said during a military ceremony on
Wednesday. "They’re increasing demand for American engagement
in the Asia-Pacific. We’re going to meet it."
"We
will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for
decades to come," he added.
With
nearly $5 trillion in trade passing through its waters annually, the
South China Sea is a hotly contested region. While China lays claim
to most of the area, there overlapping claims from Vietnam, Taiwan,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the Philippines.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
China moves weapons on to artificial islands in South China Sea
Reclamation: A satellite image taken in April shows a Chinese airstrip under construction on Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea. Photo: Reuters
China has moved weaponry onto artificial islands that it is building in contested areas of the South China Sea, adding to the risks of a confrontation with the United States and its regional security partners including Australia.
Australian officials are concerned that China could also introduce long-range radar, anti-aircraft guns and regular surveillance flights that will enable it to project military power across a maritime expanse which include some of Australia's busiest trading lanes.
Fairfax understands that these concerns are prompting discussions in senior military circles that could lead to Australian naval officers and air force pilots embarking on "freedom of navigation" missions to demonstrate that Canberra does not accept Beijing's hardening claims.
The options, which include fly-throughs, sail-throughs and exercises involving various regional partners, are expected to crystallise after officials deliver a personal briefing to Prime Minister Tony Abbott during the next fortnight.
Already, diplomats have dropped "talking points" about Australia not taking sides in the multi-layered territorial contest, which Chinese officials have used as evidence of Australian support.More
substantially, Australia's intelligence agencies are upgrading the
strategic threat assessments which will inform the Abbott
government's first Defence White Paper, according to government
sources. Late on Wednesday, Australia's top defence official, Dennis
Richardson, brought Canberra's growing concerns into public view by
telling a Sydney forum that China's "unprecedented" land
reclamations raise questions of "intent" and risks of
"miscalculation".
"It
is legitimate to ask the purpose of the land reclamation – tourism
appears unlikely," said Mr Richardson, delivering the annual
Blamey Oration at the New South Wales state Parliament.
"Given
the size and modernisation of China's military, the use by China of
land reclamation for military purposes would be of particular
concern," he said.
The
Defence Secretary's comments were the most detailed and forthright
from a senior Australian official since China began building its
audacious network of airstrips, deep-water ports and other
military-capable infrastructure on previously submerged reefs in the
Spratly Islands last year.
China
says the new sand islands will be used for humanitarian,
environmental, fishing and other internationally-minded purposes.
But
it warned this week in its own Defence White Paper that it would
gradually expand "offshore waters defence" to include "open
seas protection", adding that it would not tolerate other
countries "meddling".
In
Canberra, Fairfax understands that China's frenetic building activity
has prompted the Defence Intelligence Organisation and Office of
National Assessments to adopt a more hawkish tone since they each
delivered major strategic threat assessments to the National Security
Committee of Committee (NSC) mid-last year.
Their
revised strategic assessments, due to be submitted to the NSC in
coming weeks, will show how the reclamations could enable China to
greatly amplify threats of coercive force in order to play a
gate-keeping role across hotly-contested maritime areas, if left
unchecked.
What
Australia should do about the challenge is a more difficult question.
Australian
military officers and officials have discussed a need to demonstrate
that they do not recognise any 12-mile territorial zone or more
expansive economic zone that China may unilaterally claim around its
freshly-minted islands. But they are grappling with the need to avoid
inflaming a potential confrontation Australia's largest trading
partner.
Last
week the United States demonstrated its position with a flyover by a
P-8 surveillance plane, which carried a CNN journalist.
The
voice of an Australian can be heard over the aircraft's radio.
Senior
officers and officials have speculated that Australia could join a
humanitarian or military exercise with the United States or one of
several regional partners including Japan, Malaysia and Singapore.
Such
a move has been discussed in Washington and key capitals in the
region but no proposal has yet been put to Canberra, it is
understood.
It
could also dispatch naval vessels or air force planes through a
contested area on route to a routine destination.
Officials
say that any such "demonstration" is likely to be conducted
with minimal publicity, to avoid inflaming China's reaction.
Mr
Richardson, in his Sydney address to the Royal United Services
Institute, said the area of previously-submerged atolls that China
has reclaimed in the past year is nearly four times as large as that
which the five other claimant states have achieved over several
decades.
And
he critiqued the nebulous nature of China's claims which, on some
readings, cover more than 80 per cent of the entire South China Sea.
"It
is not constructive to give the appearance of seeking to change facts
on the ground without any clarification of actual claims," he
said.
"It
is legitimate to raise such questions and express such concerns
because tensions and potential miscalculations are not in anyone's
interest."
Going
back a few years now (in fact right back to Crossing the Rubicon),
Mike Ruppert foresaw that there would be tension (and war) in the
area we are seeing it today – in the South China Sea.
Moscow
‘can’t help thinking’ the recent terrorist attack in Macedonia
has something to do with the country’s objection to anti-Russian
sanctions and participation in the Turkish Stream gas pipeline
project, the Russian foreign minister said.
Sergey
Lavrov was referring to the events in the city of Kumanovo not far
from the Kosovo border, where a raid by gunmen last week resulted in
street battles that left 18 people dead, including eight police
officers. At least 30 people, most of them Kosovar Albanians, have
been charged over the attack in the ethnically diverse city with a
strong Albanian presence.
“We
are greatly concerned with the latest events in Macedonia, and the
situation in Kosovo does not give us any ground for optimism,”
Lavrov said on Friday during his visit to Serbia. “We are seriously
concerned that those were the result of a well-planned terrorist
act.”
The
EU “should not play ostrich and try to present the case as if there
were no organizational force behind it,” he added, saying officials
in Brussels are apparently embarrassed that all their efforts to
stabilize the situation in former Yugoslavia have been ineffective.
“Objectively
speaking, the events in Macedonia are unfolding against the
background of the government’s refusal to join the policy of
sanctions against Russia and the vigorous support Skopje gave to the
Turkish Stream gas pipeline project, to which many people oppose,
both in Brussels and across the ocean,” he said.
“So
we can’t help but feeling that there is some sort of connection
here.”
Both
Lavrov and his Serbian counterpart Ivica Dačić criticized the idea
of so-called Greater Albania, an Albanian nationalist notion to
gather all lands with an Albanian population under one government. It
would include Kosovo and other parts of Serbia that are currently
under Belgrade’s control, as well as parts of Macedonia, Montenegro
and Greece.
“The
idea of Greater Albania is not criticized in either Washington or
Brussels,” noted Dačić. “The policy of Albanian nationalism
must be condemned. It’s about terrorism.”
Mirroring
Lavrov’s statements, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused the West
of masterminding the violence in Macedonia. The ministry cited
reports in the Serbian media that said a Montenegro national was
arrested in Macedonia for assisting “Kosovar Albanian extremists,”
saying it proved that there was a plan in motion to “destabilize
the political situation in that country and plunge it into the abyss
of a colored revolution.”
“This
also proves that Western masterminds of such catastrophic scenarios
prefer proxies for implementing them, using citizens of countries
like Montenegro, which were tempted by NATO lures, in Ukraine and now
in Macedonia,” the statement on Saturday said.
It
added the reigniting chaos in the Balkans would pose a direct threat
to Europe.
On
Sunday, a massive anti-government rally is expected in Skopje.
Opposition leaders are demanding the resignation of the Macedonian
government, accusing it of illegally wiretapping Macedonians and
covering up the killing by police of a 22-year-old man back in 2011.
The
U.S. and Russia are currently involved in heated competition amidst
the New Cold War, with their latest rivalry threatening to turn hot
over Macedonia. They had already duked it out over Ukraine (and still
are, to a large extent), and a deadly stalemate has now settled over
Syria as the U.S. covert war on the country drags through its
fourth year.
The
latest flare-up between the two Great Powers is now gearing up to be
for Macedonia, with the U.S. following the template it’s learned in
the previous two cases to throw the country into chaos during the
forthcoming 17
May Color Revolution offensive.
The terrorists intercepted
last weekend in
Kumanovo were supposed to have coordinated
their attacks with the Color Revolutionaries during
this Sunday’s destabilization, which would have symbolized the
strategic merger between the Color Revolution and Unconventional War
elements of the U.S. regime change toolkit.
With
all eyes on Macedonia to see what will happen this Sunday, it’s
worth recalling the previous two rounds of their confrontation in
better understanding how Round Three represents the seamless
continuation of their New Cold War rivalry.
Same
Scenario, Different States
What’s
occurring in Macedonia is incontestably the continuation of
tried-and-tested American destabilization tactics, and it follows the
exact same scenario as what occurred in Syria and Ukraine before it.
Theme:
The
underlying theme connecting Syria, Ukraine, and now Macedonia is that
they’re proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia, with Washington
playing the destructive offensive role while Russia holds the
stabilizing defense.
To
explain, the U.S. strives to force regime change on those targeted
states, while Russia actively works to reinforce their governments in
resisting the attack. Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Syrian strategic
collaboration during their regime change crisis is well-known, but in
the case of Russian-Macedonian relations, ties are much more
sensitive and lurk mostly in the shadows. Due to Macedonia’s
‘official’ policy of wanting to join NATO and the EU, its
government and intelligence services cannot be publicly associated in
cooperating with their Russian counterparts, hence why such
relationships are kept in the shadows.
Czech
President Milos Zeman (L) and Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov (R)
in Kremlin, 09 May 2015
While
one may doubt whether such ties exist, they can only help but wonder
whether Russian intelligence helped expose the massive wiretapping
coup attempt to the Macedonian government, especially since
adroit foreign
(read: Western) intelligence is
to blame for the conspiracy. Additionally, the appointment of
an alumni
from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations as
the Macedonian Ambassador to Russia speaks loudly about Skopje’s
intention to deepen ties with Moscow. On top of that,
Russia supported Macedonia
when the Gosince
terrorist test-run occurred
and later voiced strong
condemnation of
the Kumanovo terrorist attack and Zaev’s Color Revolution attempt.
Macedonia
was also one of the few European countries to send
its President to
Moscow to attend the Victory Day celebrations and not
enact sanctions against
Russia, and during the visit of Gjorge Ivanov to the Russian capital,
he had the honor
in meeting with Patriarch Kirill,
a privilege typically reserved for important Russian partners.
Taken
together, one can see that Russia has rapidly cultivated influence
with the Macedonian state as part of its larger Balkan
Stream plans,
and it should be taken as a given that intelligence collaboration and
counter-Color Revolution support is also involved.
Pattern:
The
U.S. has patterned a distinct
template of regime change that’s
visibly discernable in Macedonia, after having of course been
perfected in Syria and Ukraine first. When a country is targeted for
asymmetrical attack, the U.S. deploys a Color Revolution attempt in
order to promote ‘soft’ destabilization (which as can be seen
from the Syrian and EuroMaidan innovations, actually involves quite a
lot of bloodshed). Should this tactic fail to dislodge the
democratically elected and legitimate government, then the U.S.
begins pursuing an Unconventional War (terrorism and insurgency) to
pile on the pressure and hope that it’s enough to topple the
authorities. The final scenario in all cases is to provoke a
conventional military intervention if the previous two regime change
attempts are unsuccessful, although such a force is nowadays expected
to be disguised as a ‘humanitarian intervention’/’responsibility
to protect’/’anti-terrorism’ operation.
The
U.S. succeeded in overthrowing Ukraine’s government with a Color
Revolution, but this didn’t come to pass in Syria, hence the
escalation to an Unconventional War. The same thing is happening in
Macedonia right now, even down to the ISIL-trained fighters. The
Color Revolution is flailing, ergo why it’s morphing into an
Unconventional War.
The
U.S. has purposely resurrected one of the most dangerous terrorist
groups in the Balkans, the Kosovo Liberation Army, in order to incite
ethnic divisions between Albanian and Slavic Macedonians and
facilitate its regime change plans. At the same time, however, it’s
taking a somewhat novel approach by keeping the Color Revolution on
life support and attempting to integrate it into the
Unconventional War.
The
strategy here is to apply dual mechanisms of pressure that can engage
in ‘friendly competition’ with one another in seeing which can
overthrow the government first. The only reason that this concept is
even considered and that the Color Revolution hasn’t totally
fizzled out by this time is because it’s gained some support
from dissatisfied
youth groups who
have been manipulated into joining the anti-government protests.
With
the Color Revolution kept alive by a collection of youth and their
heavily publicized tweets and protests,
and the Unconventional War dependent on terrorism, the regime change
operations’ social foundations are extremely weak, yet they have
the potential for massive expansion if the 17 May destabilization
events can gather more adults and Albanians (either
through enticement or provocation).
Isis
fighters in Syrian with US weapons and tank captured from US trained
and armed Iraq army.
Scorecard:
In
preparation for the ‘next round’, let’s take stock of where the
two contenders stand thus far:
2011-Present: Syria
The
U.S. began a local Color Revolution in Syria along the lines of
the regional
theater-wide one code-named
the ‘Arab Spring’. After being resolutely defeated by the
patriotic population, it transformed on command to an Unconventional
War directly supported by the country’s treacherous Turkish,
Israeli, and Jordanian neighbors.
Right
now the situation is at a standstill as the U.S. and its allies pump
more terrorists, guns, and money into the conflict and Russia
continues equipping its decades-long Syrian ally in fighting back
against the aggression.
2013-2014: Ukraine
Like
in Syria, the U.S. began a Color Revolution in Ukraine against the
government, but this one was a lot more successful. Within a few
months, it toppled the government and swept to power in Kiev,
representing a symbolic American victory against Russian interests.
However,
the subsequent reunification with Crimea and civil war over Donbass
makes one question whether or not this was a pyrrhic victory for
Washington, and the final verdict has yet to be handed down.
2015-Present: Macedonia
Following
its template, the U.S. began with a Color Revolution and is now
calling up its Unconventional War cavaliers to enact a hybrid regime
change push against the government. Russia has made large strides in
expanding its partnership with Macedonia in recent months, but the
most fruitful portion of their interactions focusing on the
intelligence services and counter-Color Revolution strategies will
likely never be able to be fully assessed.
Right
now, all sides are racing to position themselves in anticipation of
17 May when the Color Revolutionaries and Unconventional Warriors
prepare to face-off against the government and its citizens, in a
date that will ‘formalize’ Round Three in the US-Russian
geopolitical New Cold War.
From
Energy Wars To Hot Wars
All
three of the geopolitical conflicts in the New Cold War are
intertwined with the US’ energy strategy in Eurasia and
Washington’s will to dominate key transit routes in
the supercontinent:
Syria:
President
Bashar Assad had agreed to create the Friendship
Pipeline with
Iran and Iraq in order to transport Gulf gas to the burgeoning EU
market. This clashed with Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s plans for
a rival
pipeline to
go through Jordan and Syria and support the EU with their own
non-Iranian resources. After President Assad rejected the Gulf
Monarchies in favor of his long-standing Iranian allies, the decision
was made to overthrow his government and the Color Revolution and
related Unconventional War were launched a few years later after the
supportive infrastructure had been established.
As
of now, the Friendship Pipeline hasn’t been built and the plethora
of challenges physically standing in its way might mean that it
likely won’t be any time soon. This in turn keeps the EU within the
unipolar sphere of U.S. influence since Washington prevented a major
multipolar energy source from directly exporting to its proxy bloc.
The next step was thus to neutralize the only non-American-controlled
supplier feeding the EU, Russia, by hijacking one of its most
important geostrategic routes and placing it under the control of
the U.S.
Ukraine:
In
this battle, the U.S. maneuvered to gain control over critical
pipelines traversing Ukraine’s territory, knowing that this would
put it in a position of influence over both the EU and Russia; the
former would be dependent on an American proxy for supplies, while
enormous amounts of the latter’s budget
revenue reaped
through the said pipelines would immediately fall under American
geopolitical influence.
While
the U.S. did succeed in gaining control of Ukraine’s geostrategic
transit area and scuttling South Stream, it didn’t anticipate that
Russia would counter these moves with Turkish/Balkan
Stream and
mandate that all Ukrainian-destined energy exports bediscontinued
by 2019.
In one grand move, Russia reversed the US’ geo-energy (but not the
geo-military) successes from its coup in Kiev.
Macedonia:
As
a direct consequence of the US’ War on Ukraine and Russia’s
Turkish/Balkan Stream countermeasures, the War on Macedonia has
begun. The U.S. is adamant about destroying Turkish/Balkan Stream,
seeing its very existence as a slight to America’s strategic
calculations and ‘success’ in Ukraine.
On
top of that, it wants to do whatever it can to prevent Russian
influence from taking hold in the Balkans via the pipeline plans,
fearing that such a development could trigger a ‘multipolar coup’
in the EU’s strategically vulnerable backdoor region. Geopolitics
dictate that Macedonia is the chokepoint for any North-South
integration through the Balkans, hence the frenzied competition
between the U.S. and Russia over its stability and
strategic trajectory.
The
future of the Balkans quite literally runs
through Macedonia,
and its disposition towards either the unipolar or multipolar world
will have continental-wide reverberations and directly influence the
nature of US-EU and EU-Russian relations.
The
Never-Ending Struggle
All
conflicts in Eurasia essentially come down to being between
the Exceptionalists
and the Integrationalists,
with the examined context finding the former represented by Greater
Albania and the latter by the Balkan Stream countries.
Russia
is preparing to use the pipeline as a springboard for intensifying
full spectrum cooperation with all the countries along its route,
thereby meaning that Balkan Stream is more than just a piece of
physical energy infrastructure, but is instead an attractive
alternative to haphazard EU integration and a magnet for
multipolarity. Moscow’s refreshing recognition of its partners’
sovereignty and independence sets it apart from Washington and
Brussels, hence why it’s gaining such wide support in the region
over such a short period of time.
Faced
with such a surging and well-received competitor, the unipolar world
decided to sabotage its rival by finally activating the ticking
time bomb of Greater Albania,
which would throw the region into chaos and disrupt the multipolar
integration taking place beyond its control.
This
template — a multipolar anchor pursuing independent integrational
projects that contravene the existing unipolar order — is being
repeated all across Eurasia by Russia, China, and Iran: Moscow is
pursuing the Balkan Stream and Eurasian Union; Tehran attempted to
build the Friendship Pipeline, wants to build
a pipeline to India,
and is now in the process of constructing
a Chinese-financed pipeline to Pakistan;
and China is pursuing the Silk
Road Economic Belt and Maritime Road.
The
combined pan-Eurasian scope of these three multipolar anchors’
integrational projects means that there’s scarcely any place in the
supercontinent that isn’t a potential battleground between the
Exceptionalists and the Integrationalists. As such, due to the
convergence of interests between Russia, China, and Iran in
reinforcing Eurasian stability as the most solid guarantee of
facilitating their grand integrational strategies, these three
civilization-states must absolutely intensify
their trilateral relations and
cooperatively work together in helping one another actualize
their plans.
A
unified full-spectrum framework of assistance to each of their
partner states presents the most surefire method in guaranteeing
their security and counteracting any conventional and asymmetrical
destabilizations that the unipolar world bears upon them in wrath.
Concluding Thoughts
The
unipolar and multipolar worlds are once more clashing in Eurasia,
this time in the tiny Balkan country of Macedonia. A major proxy war
is unfolding between the U.S. and Russia over this geostrategic
state, and it’s following the exact same patterns of the previous
conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. As with the prior two, the U.S. once
more wants to gain control of a key energy route and preempt it from
becoming a platform for multipolarity, and it’s resorting to a
Color Revolution and Unconventional War to attain its objective.
Russia,
on the other hand, is again on the defensive, once more indirectly
supporting a beleaguered partner in surviving the unipolar onslaught.
Everything is coming to a head on 17 May when the Color
Revolutionaries/Unconventional Warriors have planned their next
regime change push, and it’s up to Macedonians and their government
(with Russian intelligence and strategic guidance) to repulse the
aggressors and protect their homeland from destruction.
Given
the enormous long-term strategic stakes involved (liberating Europe
with multipolarity or keeping it shackled in unipolarity), the Third
Round of the US-Russian geopolitical confrontation might be its most
climactic one yet.
Two
Turkish F-16s has shot down Syrian aircraft that allegedly violated
Turkey’s airspace in the southern province of Hatay. Syria says the
target was a small unmanned surveillance plane, while Turkey claims
it was a helicopter.
According
to Turkey's Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz, a helicopter went seven
miles into Turkish territory, for a period of five minutes, before
the two jets fired two missiles into it.
Locals
reported seeing the aircraft break into several parts, then hitting
the ground on the Syrian side of the border.
Turkey,
which has staunchly opposed the government of Syrian president Bashar
Assad since the start of a rebellion against him four years ago,
regularly scrambles jets on its 900 km border with Syria. A Turkish
F-16 shot down a Syrian MiG-25 in March last year.
After
four years of bloody civil war in Syria, severely affected by
external interference, it appears that the regime in Damascus has
begun to crack, despite the fact that the Syrian army has scored one
victory after another on the field of battle. Yet there’s no
visible prospect of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Moreover,
there are signs of the actual collapse of the Syrian state, which can
quickly be torn into a number of semi-independent entities. Should
this happen the massacre of the Syrian people will only intensify.
The grip of the government of Bashar al-Assad is weakening as
Damascus becomes increasingly dependent on its allies from abroad,
especially volunteers from Iran and Iraq. Traditionally the most
effective support Syria has is from the Lebanese Shia organization
Hezbollah.
The
military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water
supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, writes Nafeez
Ahmed. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming
the damage on Gaddafi himself. Since then, the country's water
infrastructure - and the suffering of its people - has only
deteriorated further
Islamic
State militants were forced to leave the main government building in
the Iraqi city of Ramadi, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing the
city's mayor and a tribal leader. The government complex in Ramadi
was seized earlier this week by the extremists, who also raised their
black flag over the police HQ in the strategic capital of Iraq’s
Anbar province. According to the official, the militants were forced
to retreat after air strikes by a US-led coalition, although there
has been no immediate independent confirmation of the reports.
The
US wants to play a greater role in the implementation of the Minsk
peace agreement, America’s top diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland
said during her visit to Kiev. The assistant secretary of state
arrived in Ukraine in a gesture of support for the Ukrainian
government to meet top officials, including President Petro
Poroshenko, Parliament Speaker Vladimir Groisman, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk and key ministers in his cabinet..
US
special operations forces have conducted a military operation in
eastern Syria, targeting a senior Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL) commander and his wife, the US defense secretary has
announced. The terrorist leader was killed in the raid.
Abu
Sayyaf, a senior Islamic State leader, was killed by US forces,
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Saturday, adding the terrorist
was involved in the group's military operations, as well as helping
to direct its "illicit oil, gas and financial operations."
Croatian
President Kolinda Grabar Katarovic paid an unannounced visit to the
site of the killings of pro-Nazi collaborators at Bleiburg, repeating
the manner of last month's likewise uannounced visit to the site of
the Jasenovac concentration camp.
Despite
the wishes of a number of US lawmakers, a plan is moving forward to
transition control of the Internet away from the US government and
under the supervision of a global body. According to the web’s
current key holder – and most of the world – that’s a good
thing.
Russian
and Chinese warships have crossed the Bosporus – Dardanelles
passage and arrived in the Mediterranean from the Black Sea, RIA
Novosti reports. The vessels, including the Black Sea Fleet’s
flagship, guided missile cruiser the Moskva, were replenishing
supplies at meeting points in the Mediterranean, Captain Igor
Dygalo,Navy spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry, said. Ten
warships from Russia and China will participate in joint excercises
in the region between May 17–21.
Seymour
Hersh's lengthy piece in the London Review of Books ripped
apart most of the US’ official narrative surrounding the
killing of bin Laden by Navy SEALS in 2011. While some
- particularly Max Fisher writing at Vox — were
quick to pick his claims apart, the CIA itself and other
journalists have come forward to corroborate parts of Hersh's
story. And he is refusing to backtrack on his claims.
The
White House called Hersh's story "baseless" and CNN dubbed
it a "farrago of nonsense," even as the CIA
confirmed to NBC
news that one of the major claims of the story was true —
namely that Pakistan knew bin Laden’s location before the
al-Qaeda founder was killed — and even as other
reporters and expertscame
forwardsupporting
or corroborating claims in Hersh's story
Posts
