Thursday, June 2, 2016

More Isolation For The U.S., As China Spends $1 Trillion On 'Silk Road' To Surpass U.S. On World Stage




China Spends $1 Trillion on ‘New Silk Road’ to Surpass US on World Stage


Beijing looks to garner international favor through a massive investment effort in Europe and Asia.

China is now nearly three years into Xi Jinping’s cooperative development strategy with European partners known as “One Belt, One Road,” or the “New Silk Road.” The plan is part of China’s push to leverage their economic potential to maximize geopolitical influence.

The plan has two parts – the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt and the oceangoing Maritime Silk Road.

The land-based project includes countries situated along the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, and calls for greater integration with the hopes of developing a cohesive economic zone.

The complimentary Maritime Silk Road Initiative expands the project through several contiguous bodies of water, including the South China Sea, the South Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean, as a means to blunt US inroads into China’s regional economic hegemony.  

The centerpiece of the project is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a corollary to the US-backed World Bank, that provides China an outlet to influence regional policy while granting European investors opportunities for investment.

In its first years, over $200 billion of infrastructure projects have been planned for construction and another $1 trillion in projects are on the horizon, dwarfing US foreign investment by several orders of magnitude.

A proliferation of economic prosperity to purchase political goodwill is not novel, as many compare the Chinese effort to the post-World War II Marshall Plan, an enormous investment effort into Europe ostensibly to prevent the continent from becoming communist and becoming a satellite region in the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence.
More recently, China has employed a similar strategy in Africa, leading many of the continent’s countries to support Beijing’s positions in the United Nations and, in Afghanistan, to garner Kabul’s support for China’s territorial positions in the South China Sea dispute.

As the US continues to expend resources to maintain its sphere of influence in the West by bankrolling NATO, despite growing economic deficits, regional advances by China leave Washington scrambling.

As part of the effort to counter Chinese influence, US President Barack Obama spent last week on a tour of Asia, offering concessions to Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang in the form of eliminating a five-decade arms embargo and bowing to Japan’s Shinzo Abe while apologizing for the atomic holocaust visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On Thursday, Radio Sputnik sat down with New York University professor Ann Lee, an expert in China’s economic relations, to discuss Beijing’s ongoing moves to checkmate Washington on the global stage.

​"China is using its influence as a means to an end, which is political influence, but that is the long game," explained Lee. "China is following what the US did with the Marshall Plan, which was an economic measure to boost Europe’s economic activity, but it was also a means to an end to prevent Europe from falling into Communism and Russia’s sphere of influence politically, and so this has a lot of precedence and China is basically following in the same footsteps."

Lee explained that the US and Europe are engaging in financial statecraft throughout the world, citing IMF and World Bank loans that require recipient countries to agree to terms that include opening up their financial markets, adopting certain governing principles, and adhering to human rights standards.

Lee suggested that Europe has a lot to be gained by the arrangement, given the continent’s stagnating economy and the desire to explore emerging markets.
"China is offering a way for Europe to reach these markets, so for both sides it is a win-win, and it is fair to say that both sides would only engage in these negotiations if they see benefits to themselves," said Lee.



EU Softening Stance Towards Russia: 'Diplomatic Breakthrough' - Will This Leave The U.S. Isolated?



Sooner or later the EU had to take a more pragmatic approach towards Russia and the so-called sanctions haven't served to benefit anyone. In what looks like a breakthrough indeed, it looks like the EU may be departing from the U.S. policy of attempting to punish and isolate Russia. If this trend continues, the U.S. will be the ones isolated in the ongoing efforts to demonize Russia:









European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has agreed to attend an event in Russia in June, a Commission spokeswoman announced on May 30, in a move that may stir debate on the EU's fraught relations with Moscow. «President Juncker has been invited and plans to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on 16 June», the spokeswoman stated. «He will use this opportunity to convey to the Russian leadership as well as to a wider audience the EU's perspective regarding the current state of EU-Russia relations», she added.

The annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will be held on June 16-18. This year’s topic is «Capitalizing on the New Global Economic Reality». 

The annual event brings together politicians, business leaders and think tankers. This time Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, Greece’s Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura, former French Foreign Minister Hubert VĂ©drine and Europe’s former Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson are on the guest list. Major US investors will take part in the forum.

According to our information, the leading investors will attend the Russian forum. American companies will be among them. The policy of ignoring the forum has failed. Interested companies, in any case, will attend and no one will hinder them», said Russian Embassy in Washington spokesman Grigory Zasypkin.

Several countries – including the UK and the US as well as some Baltic and Central European nations – have privately expressed unease that Juncker’s participation in the event would bolster the Russian position at a decisive moment of the sanctions debate.

Those who oppose the anti-Russian sanctions point out that they have proven politically ineffective and economically harmful for both Russia and European countries.

Some EU countries, including France and Italy, have pushed for more engagement with Moscow and even called for the lifting of the punitive measures.



For instance, France’s Senate will debate a draft resolution calling for the easing and gradual lifting of anti-Russia sanctions on June 8. The authors of the resolution also stressed that the policy of sanctions is no longer viable. The French Senators called for the immediate lifting of personal sanctions imposed against Russian MPs and stressed that Moscow remains a strategic partner both for France and Europe. The draft resolution has already been supported by the body’s Committee on European Affairs. «Deteriorating relations between Russia and the EU are only causing regret. We believe that gradual easing of sanctions imposed against Russia is necessary, particularly in the field of economy», said Yves Pozzo di Borgo and Simon Sutour, the two senators who introduced the draft resolution.


On April 28, a similar resolution was passed by the French Assembly, which is the lower house of the French Parliament.
On May 19, a council in Italy’s northeastern Veneto region has adopted a resolution recognizing Crimea as part of Russia and urging the Italian government and the EU to lift sanctions.
On May 25, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest is set to stand against the automatic extension of sanctions imposed on Moscow by the European Union, after he met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Hungary’s capital
«We are aware that resistance in the EU to extending the sanctions towards Russia has increased», said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
According to the latest estimates by the German-Russian Chamber of Commerce (AHK), two-thirds of the 134 German companies working in Russia said they have suffered from the sanctions. 

Unnamed diplomatic sources told American magazine Politico, the US fear Juncker’s visit would strengthen Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position before a crucial decision on renewing the restrictive measures.


EU member states recognize that the sanctions in question are a divisive issue. The upcoming visit of Jean-Claude Juncker shows that the existing unity is fragile. Russia’s economy is on the way to full recovery and European companies will miss out on taking advantage.

Russia can buy most goods produced in the EU from elsewhere. There is a growing realization in Europe that sanctions have failed and reality dictates different approaches. The decision of the President of the European Commission to visit Russia before the EU summit (June 28-29) proves this fact. No doubt his presence at the forum will be a major breakthrough in the Russia-EU relationship.






Wednesday, June 1, 2016

ISIS Faces Major Assaults On Two Fronts, NATO Ready To Respond To 'Assertive' Russia, Twitter Users Revolt Against 'Orwellian' EU



Islamic State faces major assaults on two fronts in Iraq, Syria


Islamic State insurgents faced major assaults on two fronts in both Iraq and Syria on Wednesday in what could prove to be some of the biggest operations to roll back their caliphate since they proclaimed it in 2014.
In Syria, U.S.-backed militia with thousands of Arab and Kurdish fighters were reported to have captured villages near the strategically-important Turkish border after launching a major operation to cut off Islamic State's last access route to the outside world.
In Iraq, Prime Minister Haider Abadi ordered his troops to slow an advance at the gates of Falluja, Islamic State's closest redoubt to the capital Baghdad, to limit harm to civilians, two days after the army poured into rural areas on the city's outskirts.
Both operations are unfolding with the support of a U.S.-led coalition that has been targeting the ultra-hardline Sunni Muslim militants, who proclaimed a caliphate to rule over all Muslims from territory in the two neighboring countries.
The Syrian operation includes American special forces operating in advisory roles on the ground. In Iraq, the U.S.-led coalition has provided air support to government forces who are also assisted by Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia.
While there is no indication that the two advances were deliberately timed to coincide, they show how a variety of enemies of Islamic State have been mobilizing in recent months in what Washington and other world powers hope will be a decisive year of battle to destroy the group's pseudo-state.
The Syrian operation, which began on Tuesday after weeks of preparations, aims to drive Islamic State from the last stretch of the frontier with Turkey it controls.
"It's significant in that it's their last remaining funnel" to Europe, a U.S. military official told Reuters. Islamic State has used the border for years to receive material and recruits from the outside world, and, more recently, to send militants back to Europe to carry out attacks.
An 80-km stretch of terrain north of the town of Manbij is the only part of the Turkish frontier still accessible to the militants after advances by Kurdish fighters and President Bashar al-Assad's government elsewhere.
The assault is being carried out by an alliance known as the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), which is composed of a powerful Kurdish militia called the YPG, and Arab combatants that have allied themselves with it.

Falluja has been a bastion of the Sunni Muslim insurgency against both the Shi'ite-led Baghdad government and U.S. troops, who fought the biggest battles of their 2003-2011 occupation there. Islamic State fighters, also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh, raised their flag in the city in 2014 before sweeping through Iraq's north and west.
Abadi first announced plans to assault Falluja 10 days ago. But with 50,000 civilians still believed trapped inside the city, the United Nations has warned that militants are holding hundreds of families in the center as human shields.






Russian airstrikes have severely damaged oil facilities controlled by the terrorist group Daesh, also known as IS/Islamic State, in Syria's al-Hasakah Province, according to the Russian military.

"The Su-34 struck an oil refinery, situated on territory controlled by Daesh near the village of Ras al-Ain, in al-Hasakah province," reads a bulletin posted to the website of the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The strikes caused a large fire to break out in the factory.


On Tuesday, Russian Su-34s destroyed a series of oil production facilities near Raqqa, the terrorist groups self-proclaimed capital and an alleged waypoint for illegal oil making its way into Turkey.










NATO confirmed its intention to rotate groups of troops through Central and Eastern Europe to ward off fears about Russia, its secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, said in Warsaw on Tuesday, while stressing the alliance doesn’t want a “new Cold War” with Moscow.

Stoltenberg was in the Polish capital to make preparations for the July NATO summit, which will tackle the issue of how to allocate alliance forces to better protect new member countries worried about the security threat posed by Russia.

“We see a more assertive Russia, intimidating its neighbors and changing borders by force,” Stoltenberg said at a joint press conference with Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz.

The Polish minister confirmed that Poland and the Baltic states would host four rotating battalions and that he talked with Stoltenberg about permanently stationing weapons stores in Poland, “which is crucially important for us and strengthens our sense of security.”


Speaking later at Warsaw University, the NATO chief said: “Our military planners have put forward proposals for several battalions in different countries in the region. We are now discussing the exact numbers and the exact locations. And we will take those decisions at the summit in Warsaw. This enhanced forward presence, combined with the ability to deploy NATO forces quickly, will send a clear message. An attack on Poland — or any other ally — will trigger a response from the entire alliance.”


Stoltenberg said NATO isn’t looking for a confrontation with Russia. “We don’t want a new Cold War,” he said. “Our aim is a more positive and a more cooperative relationship with Russia. At the very least, we must work towards a relationship that is more predictable.”

NATO has already enlarged its quick reaction force and added eight new small headquarters in the east of the alliance, he said.







Twitter users are expressing their support for people’s right to use so-called “hate speech” on social media, after the European Union (EU) announced they are working with Facebook and others to censor unwanted online speech within 24 hours.

Yesterday, it was reported that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have “signed up” to a new European Union (EU) “Code of Conduct”, pledging to censor and “criminalise” perceived “illegal online hate speech” as well as “promoting independent counter-narratives” that the EU favours.
Members of the European Parliament were swift to tell Breitbart London that it was “Orwellian,” digital freedom groups pulled out of discussions with the EU, and by the end of the day Index on Censorship, the National Secular Society, the Open Rights Group, and the U.S.-based Free Press all slammed the “Code of Conduct”.
Now, everyday users of the platform Twitter are having their say under the trending hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.

The definition of “hate speech” given in the EU document is: “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.
The arguments against it given on Twitter can be roughly divided between those who did not trust the EU to not politicise their definition of “hate speech”, and those who believe that in a free society even the most ugly, offensive speech should be protected –  free speech fundamentalism.
The late Ronald Dworkin, a free speech fundamentalist, philosopher, defender of the 1st Amendment and critic of “hate speech” laws, argued in the wake of the Danish cartoon controversy that people’s right to grossly offend in a multicultural society should always be defended, otherwise the democratic legitimacy of the government was forfeited. He wrote:

“Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display.
“Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
“Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
“… If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect.
“Whatever multiculturalism means– whatever it means to call for increased “respect” for all citizens and groups – these virtues would be self-defeating if they were thought to justify official censorship.”






 The number of Syrian refugees admitted into the United States jumped to 1,037 during May – an increase of 130 percent over the previous month – but the proportion of Christians among them remains miniscule: two Christians (0.19 percent) compared to 1,035 Muslims.
May’s figure of 1,037 Syrian refugees brings the total number since the beginning of 2016 to 2,099 – compared to 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Earlier years since the Syrian civil war began saw much smaller numbers arriving – 20 in 2011 (dated from mid-March); 41 in 2012; 45 in 2013; and 249 in 2014.

Of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians, 2,043 (97.3 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 50 are 17 (0.8 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.4 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.47 percent) Yazidis.

Similar proportions are seen in the number of Syrian refugees having arrived in the U.S. since the start of fiscal year 2016: 2,773 in total, comprising 12 (0.4 percent) Christians, 2,703 (97.4 percent) Sunnis, 17 (0.6 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.1 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.3 percent) Yazidis.















Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Tech Giants Vow To Tackle Online Hate Speech: In Reality Forming 'Virtual Superstate'




Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours



U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.

Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies. The companies said it remains a “challenge” to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and hate speech in the self-generated content on online platforms.






In the article linked on the Drudge Report, Bloomberg revealed how Facebook and Twitter are working with the European Union to ban on-line commentators from spreading “hate speech,” but Bloomberg watered down the news so badly it made censorship sound like a great idea.
So let’s break down the Bloomberg article to reveal what’s really going on. From the article:

U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.


First off, the European Union is an unelected oligopoly designed to operate as a superstate which overrides the national sovereignty of its member countries.
As economist Ryan McMaken with the Mises Institute points out:
“The EU, of course, is an anti-democratic organization, which one speaker in the film notes is designed to be nearly totally insulated from the will of the voters in the member countries. The EU is run not by political appointees and the unelected European Commission. 

 A conglomeration of dozens of faceless, secretive commissions, offices, and ministries, the EU is a bureaucrat’s paradise where powerful people remain largely anonymous and safe to carry out their endless array of schemes without any fear of retribution from the voters anywhere. Virtually no one can name any of the most powerful people in the EU, whether one of the EU’s five presidents, or other powerful members of the EU organizations.”

In other words, unelected, anonymous bureaucrats will decide what constitutes “hate speech,” which to them is anything that doesn’t fit into their agenda to gain more power over the population.


Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.


But who are these “online intermediaries” that will help EU bureaucrats eradicate “hate speech?”

Well, in Feb. Twitter announced it was organizing a “Trust & Safety Council” with feminist and Islamic groups to “prevent abuse, harassment, and bullying,” which, of course, leads to mass censorship.

The organizations taking part on the council include Feminist Frequency, GLAAD and even an Islamic advocacy group.

“Most of the groups listed are merely collections of people with an axe to grind, and my, how the lefties do love their acronyms,” a commenter at the Free Republic stated. “They also love their oxymorons: ‘outreach’ and ‘shutting down expression’ are a contradiction in terms yet Twitter is determined to conflate them and to enforce that conflation.”
To sum it up, this war on “hate speech” is nothing more than a program to control not only what people say but also what they think.

“No matter how implausible an idea [open borders, gun control, global government, etc.] may seem, it can gain acceptance in the minds of the citizens as the forces of PC relentlessly hype the idea in the public square [such as Facebook or Twitter],” former intelligence officer Stella Morabito revealed, with my own comments added for context. “Simultaneously, the voices that might challenge and analyze the idea must be suppressed — accusations of bigotry and hatred often do the trick — so that the PC idea has a chance to incubate and then affect public opinion.”

And that’s it in a nutshell: Facebook and Twitter are working with globalist bureaucrats and their “social justice warrior” puppets to sway public opinion on their virtual, one-world “empire” that would ultimately erase the importance of real nation-states.



Appeals Court Delivers Devastating Blow to Cellphone-Privacy Advocates


COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY are grappling with a key question for the information age: When law enforcement asks a company for cellphone records to track location data in an investigation, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment?
By a 12-3 vote, appellate court judges in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday ruled that it is not — and therefore does not require a warrant.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld what is known as the third-party doctrine: a legal theory suggesting that consumers who knowingly and willingly surrender information to third parties therefore have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information — regardless of how much information there is, or how revealing it is.

Research clearly shows that cell-site location data collected over time can reveal a tremendous amount of personal information — like where you live, where you work, when you travel, who you meet with, and who you sleep with. And it’s impossible to make a call without giving up your location to the cellphone company.
“Supreme Court precedent mandates this conclusion,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in the majority opinion. “For the Court has long held that an individual enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection ‘in information he voluntarily turns over to [a] third part[y].’” The quote was from the 1979 Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland.
The 5th, 6th, and 11th circuits have reached the same conclusion.

However, there’s been a lot of disagreement within the lower courts and among privacy advocates that the third-party doctrine is consistent with the way people live their lives in the digital age — primarily on their cellphones.

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit in fact first ruled last August that getting cell-site records in bulk did constitute a search, triggering a warrant requirement. In the case, United States v. Graham, the government obtained 221 days’ worth of records belonging to a robbery suspect in Baltimore.
The panel’s opinion relied heavily on a separate legal theory, called mosaic theory, to come to that conclusion: the argument that even if one instance of evidence gathering doesn’t count as a search, asking for a large number of data points can eventually amount to one.
For a while, it looked like there might be a split in the lower courts that would require the Supreme Court to reconsider the third-party doctrine.
But now that the 4th Circuit has ruled, that seems less likely.

Privacy advocates were disappointed:


Syrian Border Chaos, Turkey Invades Syria - Clearly Supporting ISIS, Weapons Being Tested In Syria



Syrian Border Chaos as NATO Aims to Win Proxy War


An engineered drama unfolds along the Turkish-Syrian border as terrorists armed and backed by a US-led coalition including NATO-member Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar allegedly battle both the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and Syrian-backed “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) near and around the Syrian city of Azaz.

Reuters in a recent article titled, “Islamic State advance near Turkish border, civilians trapped,” reports that:

Islamic State fighters captured territory from Syrian rebels near the Turkish border on Friday and inched closer to a town on a supply route for foreign-backed insurgents fighting the jihadists, a monitoring group said. 

The hardline group has been fighting against rebels in the area for several months. The rebels, who are supplied via Turkey, last month staged a major push against Islamic State, but the group counter-attacked and beat them back.

Reuters, however, leaves out very crucial information – information that if concludes, would raise suspicions about the entire narrative alleged across Western media outlets like Reuters.
If rebels are being directly supplied across the Turkish-Syrian border by a multinational coalition, how is it possible that ISIS forces are somehow better equipped and able to overwhelm these forces? The length of any ISIS logistical line supporting its fighters in this alleged battle – if not also extending over the Turkish-Syrian border in the immediate vicinity of the fighting, must be hundreds of miles long and in itself an immense strain on ISIS’ fighting capacity.

It would be rather remarkable, in fact, unbelievable for ISIS to somehow not be being aided and abetted from directly across the Turkish-Syrian border where allegedly “foreign-backed insurgents” are allegedly receiving aid from nations like the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

And in fact, ISIS, as well as Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, are accused of receiving such aid via Turkey – most recently with the Russian General Staff accusing Al Nusra of receiving “daily arms shipments across the border from Turkey.”

For Syria, securing its own borders has been infinitely problematic. Attempts to approach and retake territory along the borders has been met not only by obviously Turkish-backed terrorist forces, but also by NATO-backed Turkish military provocations. Turkey regularly shells Syrian territory. Its aircraft and anti-aircraft systems have regularly been deployed along the border attempting to deter first Syrian, then Russian aircraft from targeting the streams of supplies being sent into Syrian territory to sustain terrorist groups including ISIS and Al Nusra.

Attempting to avoid a more direct and costly confrontation with Turkey has forced Syria and its allies to take a more indirect means of securing the borders, using SDF fighters to occupy and face off against Turkish and NATO forces without implicating Damascus directly.

Conversely, the use of these irregular forces has given NATO apparent leeway to make incursions of its own into Syrian territory – as they can claim they are not fighting Syrian forces, but merely “Kurdish terrorists.” While this chaffs directly with America’s alleged support of Kurdish groups elsewhere in the country, this is mitigated by a feigned political fallout between Washington and Ankara – despite US forces still graciously being hosted in Turkey and the two still clearly working in tandem toward the destruction of neighboring Syria.

A multinational peacekeeping force placed along Syria’s northern border or Syrian-Russian bases placed further north may force one of two moves by the US and its collaborators. Directly attacking peacekeepers or Syrian-Russian bases from Turkish territory risking a wider war, or using proxies in Turkish territory, but at the cost of further exposing Washington and Ankara’s hands in propping up and perpetuating Al Qaeda and ISIS.





Turkey has reportedly launched a ground invasion of Syria over the memorial day weekend. Their army units are currently being spotted in vicinity of Aleppo.

Reports first broke Friday on the Al Mayadeen TV Channel that Turkish soldiers had set a checkpoint near the city of Afrin, a predominately Kurdish city located 60 km Northwest of Aleppo province. Prior to the troop movement, Turkish artillery had barraged areas of the Syrian Aleppo province including Menagh Military Airbase (50km from Aleppo), a captured ISIS airbase occupied by Kurdish People’s Protection Units near the city of Azaz. Pravda reported the strikes hit civilian homes.

On Monday, Ahmet Arac, a member of the Democratic Majlis of Syria and of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PDS) confirmed to Sputnik the validity of previous reports Erdogan’s forces had crossed the Turkish-Syrian border Friday.

“Yesterday the Turkish Army carried out rocket attacks on the positions of Democratic Forces of Syria,” Arac said. “Two days ago, the Turkish military entered the village of Hamam in Afrin area. We are ready to repel any attack. Meanwhile, FSA units are suffering serious defeat in clashes with Daesh. They have already lost control of 12 villages. If Daesh comes to Azaz, ‘Democratic Syrian Forces’ will repel the jihadists, and not allow them to enter the city.” Arac warned.

On Tuesday FARS News Agency, Tehran’s unofficial mouthpiece, reported that several units of the Turkish Army had crossed the border with Aleppo province in Northern Syria and have deployed forces in vicinity of Azaz and Marea. FNA quoted Sputnik’s Monday source, Ahmet Arac, as saying that “hundreds of the Turkish soldiers crossed the Syrian border at Bab al-Salameh border-crossing and deployed their forces in al-Shahba’a region near Marea and Azaz.”

Arac also said the Turkish Army had carried out rocket attacks Sunday on the positions of Democratic Forces of Syria and that on Saturday Turkish military forces had once again crossed into Syria, were heading toward the Northern province of Aleppo, and had set up a checkpoint in the region.
The FNA article also stated that a large number of Turkish soldiers, accompanied by several armored vehicles, entered the territory of Syria from Jandires region, 700 meter away from the Northwestern lands of Aleppo, and set up a military checkpoint to monitor civilians’ movements in the border region.


ERDOGAN’S LINK TO ISIS


If true, these latest moves by Erdogan’s regime constitute an outright invasion of Syrian sovereignty. Syrian President Bashar Assad has previously condemned Turkey as a complicit arm of ISIS, and has said that the insurgent forces are receiving physical aid from the government of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia.


In an interview with Sputnik on March 31st Assad said:


“..Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia, have crossed all possible red lines, possibly from the first weeks of the Syrian war. Today, the war against Erdogan and against Saudi Arabia is a war against terrorists. The Turkish army, which is not even Turkish, is Erdogan’s army that is fighting today in Syria. Everything that Ankara and Riyadh have done from the very beginning can be considered aggression. Aggression in a political sense or in a military sense – providing terrorists with arms – or direct aggression with the use of artillery, and other military violations. 

Erdogan is directly supporting the terrorists as he allows them to move into Turkish territory, to carry out maneuvers with tanks. 

But if true, what exactly does Turkey look to accomplish by this land incursion and directly supporting ISIS? Andrei Manoilo, Doctor of Political Sciences and a Professor at Moscow State University told Pravda that:

“I think that Turkey is going to unblock a part of the Syrian-Turkish border, because the Russian and Syrian forces, as well as Kurdish units, intend to take the Syrian-Turkish border entirely under their control to cut the channels of illegal arms supplies from Turkey to the terrorist group in Aleppo. Storming a large city is always extremely difficult. Terrorists from Jabhat en-Nusra and ISIL still hold a half of the city. If they are deprived of supplies, if their channels are cut, then the group in Aleppo is doomed to destruction. Turkey does not like such a prospect, so they intend to change the situation – they need to push the Syrian troops away from the border.”





This February Russia deployed a new version of the Pantsir S2 air defense system to its Khmeimim airbase in Syria.
This is the newest short-to-medium range, mobile, fully autonomous system in Russia’s inventory designed to protect infrastructure and troops. 
The system is an “engagement cupola” with a 40 km radius and a 15 km height. The combined missile + 30 mm autocannon setup makes it an effective weapon against aircraft, cruise missiles, helicopters, anti-radiation missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets and even artillery shells. The list includes high velocity targets flying at over 3600 km/h, “stealth” aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).  
The armament consists of 12 surface-to-air guided missiles and two 30 mm automatic guns. The reaction time is 4–6 seconds.
The new 57E6-E missile installed on the Pantsir SM2 version can shoot down airborne targets flying up to Mach 3 (1,000 m/s) at ranges between 1.2 to 20 kilometers and altitudes varying from 5 to 10,000 meters. Minimal range is 1 km. Maximum altitude is 8 km. Also noteworthy is the heavy weight of the warhead (16–20 kg) at the small launch weight of the missile (90 kg), along with the employment of rod subprojectiles in the warhead ensuring positive engagement of a broad class of targets. The warhead has a form of “continuous rod”. The effectiveness of elongated rod warhead is proportional to warhead length and inversely proportional to warhead diameter. The missile is believed to have a hit probability of 70–95% and have a 15-year storage lifetime in its sealed containers.