‘US desperate to isolate Russia on all fronts’

Pepe Escobar’US desperate to isolate Russia on all fronts’

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.

Published time: March 28, 2014 13:36
 
A G7 summit at the official residence of the Dutch prime minister in The Hague on March 24, 2014 on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS). (AFP Photo / Jerry Lampen)

A G7 summit at the official residence of the Dutch prime minister in The Hague on March 24, 2014 on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS). (AFP Photo / Jerry Lampen)

Here I outlined some reasons why Asia won’t isolate Russia. And here some reasons why the EU cannot afford to isolate Russia. Yet the Obama administration is relentless, and bound to keep attacking on three major fronts – the G20, Iran and Syria.

First, the G20. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop threw a balloon, speculating that Russia and President Vladimir Putin could be barred from the G20 summit in Brisbane in November.

The reaction of the other four BRICS member-nations was swift: “The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all member-states equally and no one member-state can unilaterally determine its nature and character.”

US-subservient Australia had to shut up. For now.

The BRICS, not by accident, are the key developing world alliance inside the G20, which actually discusses what matters in international relations. The G7 – which ‘expelled’ Russia from its upcoming meeting in Sochi, transferred to Brussels – is just a self-important talk shop.

Sanction to sanction

Then there’s Iran. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov made it very clear that if the US and selected European minions would slap economic sanctions over the Crimea referendum, we will take retaliatory measures as well.” And he meant it in relation to the P5+1 negotiations over the Iranian nuclear dossier.

Here’s a fairly accurate depiction of the US establishment’s view on the Russian role in the negotiations.

It’s true that the 2009 revelation of a secret, underground Iranian uranium enrichment facility did not sit well with Moscow – which in response cancelled the sale of the S-300 air defense system to Tehran.

But more crucial is the fact Moscow wants the Iranian nuclear dossier to be kept under UN Security Council umbrella – where it can exercise a veto; any solution must be multilateral, and not concocted by psychotic neo-cons.

Conflicting political factions in Iran may harbor doubts about Moscow’s commitment to a just solution – considering Moscow has not done much to alleviate the harsh sanctions package. And yes, both Russia and Iran are in competition as energy exporters – and sanctions do punish Iran and reward Russia (50 percent less Iranian oil exports since 2011, and not even qualifying as a major exporter of natural gas).

But if the American sanction obsession engulfs Russia as well, expect fireworks; as in Moscow accelerating a swap of up to 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude in exchange for Russia building another nuclear power plant; extra Russian moves busting the Western sanctions wall; and even Moscow deciding to sell not only the S-300 but the S-400 or the ultra-sophisticated, upcoming S-500 air defense system to Tehran.

It’s false flag time

Finally there’s Syria. Once again, the BRICS are at the forefront. Russian Ambassador-at-Large Vadim Lukov nailed it when he stressedFrankly speaking, without the BRICS position, Syria would have long ago turned into Libya.”

The BRICS learned their lesson for Syria when they let their abstentions at a UN vote open the way for NATO’s humanitarian bombing of Libya into a failed state. Subsequently, Russian diplomacy intervened to save the Obama administration from bombing Syria over a senseless, self-inflicted ‘red line’ – with potentially cataclysmic consequences.

Now the plot is thickening again. UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has spun that the resumption of the Geneva II peace talks is “out of the question” for the moment. In a briefing to the UN Security Council in early March, he blamed the Syrian government for this.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (C) opens the so-called Geneva II peace talks next to UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi (L) on January 22, 2014 in Montreux. (AFP Photo / Fabrice Coffrini)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (C) opens the so-called Geneva II peace talks next to UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi (L) on January 22, 2014 in Montreux. (AFP Photo / Fabrice Coffrini)

That’s absurd. The myriad, bickering, opportunistic opposition factions never wanted a negotiation in the first place; only regime change. Not to mention the jihadi nebulae – whic until recently has been imposing facts on the ground fully weaponized by Gulf petrodollar funds.

Now rumors abound of the Obama administration getting ready to ‘isolate’ Russia – and by extension the BRICS – on Syria.

The Obama administration, via proverbial unnamed ‘officials’, has been positioning disinformation‘reports’ about jihadists attacking Western interests, based out of north and northeast Syria. That could be the prelude for a perfect false flag, then used to justify a Western intervention – obviously bypassing the UN. Those warmongering dreamers of a no-fly zone over Syria have never stopped dreaming.

This scenario also neatly dovetails with the current Erdogan administration scandal in Turkey – as what was unveiled on YouTube is exactly a national security conversation on how a NATO member, Turkey, could set up a false flag and blame Syria.

The bottom line is that NATO has far from given up on regime change in Syria. There are enticing symmetries at play. A putsch in Ukraine. A false flag in Syria. A NATO push in Syria? A Russian push in eastern Ukraine. It may not sound as far-fetched as it seems. And then, all bets are off.

The whole New Great Game in Eurasia is getting so warped that now we have constitutional law expert Obama legitimizing the invasion and occupation of Iraq (“America sought to work within the international system, we did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory”) and wacko warmongers in Think Tankland preaching an oil embargo against Russia, Iran-style, with Washington using their minions Saudi Arabia to make up for the shortfall.

After lecturing Europeans in The Hague and Brussels over ‘evil’ Russian designs, and parading in Rome like a New Caesar, Obama finishes his triumphal tour exactly at his Saudi satrapy. We should all get ready for a nasty box of chocolates ahead.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Pepe Escobar: Obama’s military solution is desperate Hail Mary pass

Vídeo

Publicado em 24/02/2014
More than a thousand protesters in London chanted Hands off Syria – that was before Obama left no doubt that the country will be target. There were similar.

Daily All News Plz Subscrib for Latest English Arabic World News Today Daily All News Plz Subscrib for Latest English Arabic World News Today More than a tho.

More than a thousand protesters in London chanted Hands off Syria – that was before Obama left no doubt that the country will be target. There were similar.

Thx.. To Pepe Escobar for his tireless investigating. This man knows what is really going on !

Subscribe to newsmediaonline ! we watch the News for you ! daily uploads+updates ! stay informed ! subscribe !

Syrian News-CrossTalk Israel vs Syria ft. Pepe Escobar)

Vídeo

This video is [FAIR USE] under COPYRIGHT LAW it is: 1 noncommercial 2 trans-formative in nature 3 not competitive with the original work 4 not effecting its market negatively FAIR USE NOTICE: This video contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.syrian news,syria.syria war,The US Secretary of State John Kerry has pledged 123m in new non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition. Kerrys announcement comes after meeting with opposition leaders at a Friends of Syria in Turkey on Saturday. The Syrian National Coalition has been calling for weapons and a no-fly zone to help defeat president Bashar al-Assads forces. But Kerry insists that a political solution is the primary focus. Al Jazeeras Dominic Kane reports.no description availableUN human rights investigators have spoken to the victims of Syrias civil war and gathered medical testimonies which point to the fact that Syrian rebels have used sarin nerve gas, while any allegations of its use by the government remain unsubstantiated.

Syrian News-CrossTalk Israel vs Syria ft. Pepe Escobar)

Vídeo

This video is [FAIR USE] under COPYRIGHT LAW it is: 1 noncommercial 2 trans-formative in nature 3 not competitive with the original work 4 not effecting its market negatively FAIR USE NOTICE: This video contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.syrian news,syria.syria war,The US Secretary of State John Kerry has pledged 123m in new non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition. Kerrys announcement comes after meeting with opposition leaders at a Friends of Syria in Turkey on Saturday. The Syrian National Coalition has been calling for weapons and a no-fly zone to help defeat president Bashar al-Assads forces. But Kerry insists that a political solution is the primary focus. Al Jazeeras Dominic Kane reports.no description availableUN human rights investigators have spoken to the victims of Syrias civil war and gathered medical testimonies which point to the fact that Syrian rebels have used sarin nerve gas, while any allegations of its use by the government remain unsubstantiated.

O melhor de Pepe Escobar no Corbert Report

Vídeo

Publicado em 12/10/2012
DOCUMENTATION: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=5472

Corbett Report Radio #204

Following our conversation with Pepe Escobar earlier this week, tonight we dip into The Corbett Report archives to highlight some of our previous conversations with the Asia Times Online correspondent. Tonight we look at pipeline politics, the Palestinian bid for UN membership, and the R2P humanitarian bombing paradigm.
Fonte: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAgt5Eroz3I

2013: o que mudou de fato no mundo?

O mais importante foi a mudança de clima no cenário mundial. Desde o triunfo na guerra fria, os EUA militarizavam os conflitos. Não foi assim com Síria e Irã.

Por Emir Sader

Como sempre, se acumulam uma quantidade de fatos – entre mortes, eleições, sublevações, etc. – que se destacam jornalisticamente no mundo, mas dificultam a compreensão das alterações nas relações de poder, as que efetivamente contam na evolução da situação internacional.

No emaranhado de acontecimentos, o mais importante foi a mudança de clima no cenário internacional. Desde que triunfou na guerra fria, os EUA tem tido como postura diante dos conflitos internacionais, sua militarização. Transferir para o campo em que sua superioridade é manifesta, tem sido a característica principal da ação imperial dos EUA. Foi assim no Afeganistão, no Iraque, por forças intermedias na Líbia. E se encaminhava para ser assim nos casos da Síria e do Irã.

De repente, pegando ao Secretario de Estado norteamericano, John Kerry, pela palavra, o governo russo propôs ao da Síria um acordo, que desconcertou o governo norteamericano, até que não pôde deixar de aceitar. Isto foi possível porque Obama não conseguiu criar as condições políticas para mais uma ofensiva militar dos EUA. Primeiro o Parlamento britânico negou o apoio a Washington.
Depois, foi ficando claro que nem a opinião publica, nem o Congresso norteamericano, nem os militares dos EUA, estavam a favor da ofensiva anunciada ou do tipo de ofensiva proposta.

O certo é que os EUA foram levados a aceitar a proposta russa, o que abriu as portas para outros desdobramentos, entre eles, combinado com as eleições no Irã, para a abertura de negociações políticas também com esse país por parte dos EUA. No seu conjunto, se desativava o foco mais perigoso de novos conflitos armados.

Como consequência, Israel, a Arábia Saudita, o Kuwait, ficaram isolados nas suas posições favoráveis a ações militares contra a Síria e até contra o Irã. Foi se instalando um clima de negociações, convocando-se de novo uma Conferência na segunda quinzena de janeiro, em Genebra, para discutir um acordo de paz. Uma conferência que não coloca como condição a questão da saída do governo de Assad, como se fazia anteriormente.

A oposição teve que aceitar participar, mesmo nessas condições. E ainda teve a surpresa que os EUA e a Grã Bretanha suspenderam o fornecimento de apoio militar aos setores opositores considerados moderados, que foram totalmente superados pelos fundamentalistas, apoiados pela Arabia Saudita e pelo Kuwait.

Como dois pontos determinam um plano, as negociações sobre a Síria abriram campo para as negociações dos EUA com o Irã, aproveitando-se da eleição do novo presidente iraniano. Desenhou-se, em poucas semanas, um quadro totalmente diverso daquele que tinha imperado ao longo de quase todo o ano. Os EUA passaram da ofensiva à defensiva, a Rússia, de ator marginal, a agente central nas negociações de paz, a ponto que a Forbes, pela primeira vez, elegeu Vladimir Puttin como o homem mais forte do mundo, na frente de Obama. Isso se deve não ao poderio militar ou econômico da Russia, mas ao poder de iniciativa política e de negociação que o país passou a ter.

Fonte: CartaMaior

Vitórias da multipolaridade mundial

O que parecia impossível há 3 semanas, agora é uma realidade consolidada. O Conselho de Segurança da ONU aprovou o acordo da Rússia com os EUA para a crise síria.

O ultimo obstáculo foi superado, de forma favorável à Rússia, concedendo apenas formalmente aos EUA, à Grã Bretanha e à França. Foi incluído um capitulo do regulamento da ONU, que prevê ações armadas, caso o governo da Síria não obedeça as demandas do acordo. Mas a Rússia conseguiu o essencial para ela: só haveria uma ação armada produto de uma nova decisão, o que possibilitaria a Rússia de exercer o seu direito de veto.

A Russia e a China aprenderam do caso da Líbia – que poderia ter sido evitado, como o está sendo o da Siria -, quando os EUA, a Grã Bretanha e a França se valeram de uma vaga resolução do Conselho de Segurança, autorizando ações de “proteção da população civil”, para que a OTAN bombardeasse indiscriminadamente o país durante meses, até a queda do regime.

Desta vez a Rússia e a China se opuseram a algo similar, até que o governo russo pegou pela palavra do Secretaria de Estado John Kerry, formulou uma proposta de acordo e conseguiu o apoio do governo sírio.

A proposta prosperou porque Obama não conseguiu gerar as condições políticas para o bombardeio, com o qual já tinha se comprometido, com o apoio solitário da França. De repente, foi se consolidando um marco de negociação entre a Russia e os EUA – este, depois de suspender reunião de Obama com Puttin, pelo caso Snowden, teve que se dirigir, mesmo a contragosto, à reunião de Kerry com o Ministro de Relações Exteriores da Rússia.

Somado a essa grande vitória das soluções politicas, pacificas, negociadas – que o Brasil, entre outros países, sempre pregou -, está a retomada de relações entre os EUA e o Irã. Juntos, configuram um novo cenário internacional, com o avanço da multipolaridade, em detrimento das vias bélicas usadas pelos EUA.

Perdem Israel, a oposição síria, a Arábia Saudita, o Qatar. Ganham os que pregam o enfraquecimento da hegemonia norte-americana em favor da multipolaridade mundial.

Por Emir Sader

Fonte: CartaMaior

 

Pepe Escobar: Obama wants to take credit for Syria chem weapons plan

Vídeo

Publicado em 16/09/2013
Officials from countries on the UN Security Council are meeting for consultations, ahead of the main debate in New York. World leaders have applauded the Syrian chemical disarmament deal, agreed on by Russia and the US. But investigative journalist Pepe Escobar says Washington’s now trying to twist the narrative in its favour.
Fonte: Russia today ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8509WMn6B_k )

Pipeline Politics and the Syrian War – Pepe Escobar on GRTV

Vídeo

Publicado em 03/09/2013
Roving correspondent and frequent guest Pepe Escobar of Asia Times Online joins us once again to discuss the geopolitical machinations behind the latest developments in Syria. We discuss the possibility of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline and how the regional players react to such a proposal, and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia’s role in the current conflict.

US Strike on Syria Staved Off Vijay Prashad: China and Russia will be very cautious and will not permit a Chapter VII resolution – a military attack on Syria –

Vídeo

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore. And welcome to this edition of The Prashad Report.
Now joining us is Vijay Prashad. He is the Edward Said Chair at the American University of Beirut, and his most recent book is The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
Thanks for joining us, Vijay.
VIJAY PRASHAD, EDWARD SAID CHAIR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, BEIRUT: Pleasure. Thank you, Jessica.
DESVARIEUX: So, Vijay, let’s talk about the latest news coming out of Syria. We have five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They’ve met to discuss a resolution on disarming Syria of its chemical weapons. The U.S., France, and U.K. are demanding a precise timetable for the disarmament. They’re also looking to include a threat of military action in the final resolution. So do you think if there is a final UN resolution to disarm Assad of all of his chemical weapons, that this will eventually prevent the U.S. from striking Syria?
PRASHAD: Well, I think that, you know, an agreement was reached in Geneva between the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov, and the American Secretary of State, John Kerry. That agreement had Syria on a timetable. Syria within a week was to go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That’s the UN body that oversees or at least administers the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Syria did submit its paperwork to the OPCW, and that has gone forward into the UN’s process. So it’s going to take about a month for an audit to be done. Then inspections will be conducted. Certain sites will be sealed. Perhaps other weapons will be removed and destroyed. You know, this is going to run–this process will run perhaps into next year. So that’s one part. That’s the deal that was conducted in Geneva.
Now, the French and the Americans and the British are eager to have a UN Security Council resolution as a sort of added insurance to make sure the Assad regime complies with the agreement that was signed in Geneva. They would like this UN resolution to have a so-called Chapter VII protection for the UN. In other words, it would come with the use or the threat of the use of military force. If Syria breaks the agreement, then the member states of the UN, which means basically the United States, will be able to conduct a military strike on Syria.
Russia and China, ever since the resolution that the UN Security Council put out on Libya, you know, UN Security Council Resolution 1973, has been–they have been very cautious and will not permit permit a Chapter VII resolution. Instead, they might permit at most a Chapter VI resolution, which has as its punishments sanctions and other economic kind of, you know, leverage against a party that offends the Security Council’s judgment. So that’s the most that can happen.
But we should not confuse two things. The Kerry-Lavrov agreement in Geneva was not premised on any Security Council resolution. That was an agreement between the United States and Russia which had Syria say that they would go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and begin the process of entering the no-chemical-weapon regime. So that is happening separate from anything in the Security Council. So these two things are not actually linked directly.
DESVARIEUX: And what about this argument that some are making that even if we disarm Assad of all of his chemical weapons, it’s no assurance that the rebels, for example, who may have possession over chemical weapons will use them in the future? What do you make of that?
PRASHAD: Well, you know, there’s no guarantee that Mr. Assad well relieve himself of all his weapons, either, or sections of the military will relieve themselves. You know, there’s simply no guarantee when any country comes in to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And, of course, if there are non-state actors involved, you know, among the rebels and suchlike, there is no guarantee, because they will not be party to this agreement with the OPCW. I mean, the fact is that the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, these are organization set up to do deal with state actors, not with non-state actors. So, you know, the short answer, Jessica, is there is simply no prohibition in this particular agreement.
DESVARIEUX: Let’s talk about the UN report that came out on Monday. Do you anticipate that the UN might go to the ICC with this report in a way to hold Assad responsible, even though it wasn’t explicitly said that Assad was responsible for these chemical attacks? Do you see them going to the ICC to try to get some sort of–to get Assad–to have Assad be held responsible?
PRASHAD: Well, you know, when the committee was put together to go and investigate in Ghouta in east of Damascus, the chemical weapons or the attack initially on August 21, you know, their remit (in other words, what they were tasked to do) was to see if chemical weapons indeed were used in that attack over August 21. And in order to, you know, get the, basically, support of all the members of the Security Council, to get the support of the government in Damascus, the secretary-general had to insist that the remit be very narrow: only to see whether chemical weapons had or had not been used on that day.
And so the three-person team arrived in Ghouta with their staff, they conducted tests, and they came away with material which demonstrated to them that indeed sarin gas had been used. They also were able to make the case that conventional rocket shells had been used to carry the sarin gas. And they suggested that those rocket shells came from the north, northwest of the Ghouta plane, which suggests somewhere from Damascus.
Now, that’s as much as the report says. The report doesn’t make any claims on who might have conducted the attack. Based on the kind of information in the report, various people are interpreting it to suggest that it could have been nobody else but the regime. But this is an open-ended question. I mean, this is not settled by this report. It could have been the regime. It could have been rogue elements with the regime. It could perhaps have been the rebels. I mean, it could have been anybody. That’s not affirmed by this report.
So now the question is that the Russians and others are asking for further investigation and, you know, to see who might have conducted this attack. And, you know, so in–the UN report can be used in two ways. One, the secretary-general or other powers can ask the International Criminal Court to open a file, to start collecting information whether war crimes were committed by, you know, Mr. Assad, his generals, etc., just to open a file, to start building a case.
Secondly, the UN secretary-general can ask another investigative team to go and study whether they can find out who fired the weapons. That’s basically where we are.
And the Russians have been quite obdurate. They do not want any kind of precipitous analysis, you know, an analysis which is based on this information. They say more evidence is required, they say more investigation is needed, and they say that this investigation should include not only whether the regime conducted the attack, but perhaps it should look into the question of the rebels as well.
We are a long way from a settled opinion on what happened on August 21, at least as far as the United Nations and its specialized agencies are concerned.
Fonte: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10732