Türkei macht langsam Kurswechsel um 180 Grad oder doch nicht?

Sicht 1:

Submitted by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,

Until the July 15th US-backed (or so the Turkish government alleges) coup-attempt to overthrow Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, Erdogan was trying to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, whom the US regime likewise wants to overthrow.

However, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin saved Erdogan’s Presidency, and probably Erdogan’s life, by contacting him hours prior to the pending coup and thus enabled him to plan and prepare so as to overcome the attempt, and crush the operation.

Putin wouldn’t have known ahead-of-time about the coup-plan unless Russian intelligence had provided to him intelligence that it was coming. This intelligence might have included information about whom the source of it was. If Putin had intelligence regarding that matter, then he presumably shared it with Erdogan at that time – prior to the coup.

Promptly on July 16th, Erdogan announced that the source of the coup was his long-time foe (but former political supporter) Fethullah Gulen, who in 1999 had relocated himself and the headquarters of his multibillion-dollar Islamic organization to Pennsylvania in the United States. Erdogan said that he would demand Gulen’s extradition to stand trial in Turkey. However, the US State Department said it had not yet received a «formal extradition request».

On August 4th, «Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said Ankara had submitted a second extradition request», but the US ‘Justice’ Department was «still trying to evaluate if the documents can be considered a formal extradition request».

The ‘Justice’ Department is still trying, 16 days later, as of the present writing.

Meanwhile, on August 9th, Erdogan flew to Moscow to meet privately with Putin – the man who had saved his Presidency if not his life. Presumably, Erdogan wanted to see all of Russia’s intelligence on the matter. After that meeting, he may be presumed to have seen all of the intelligence on it, both from Turkish and from Russian intelligence agencies.

Erdogan continued his demand that the US extradite Gulen. Evidently, after his having seen all of the intelligence from both Turkey and Russia, he remained convinced that Gulen was behind it.

Putin is determined to prevent what the American-Saudi-Qatari-Turkish alliance have been demanding on Syria: the ouster of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad prior to any election being held in Syria. The repeated demand by Putin has instead been that only the Syrian people themselves, in a free and fair internationally monitored election, can decide whether or when to terminate Assad’s present term of office, and that Russia will accept whatever the voters of Syria decide as to the identity of Syria’s President going forward.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he supports Putin’s position on this, and that there would be no legitimacy for a forced ouster of the current Syrian President.

On Saturday August 20th, the AP bannered «Turkey: Assad can be part of transition in Syria», and reported that «Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Saturday his country is willing to accept a role for Syrian President Bashar Assad during a transitional period but insisted he has no place in Syria’s future… ‘Could Syria carry Assad in the long-term? Certainly not… The United States knows and Russia knows that Assad does not appear to be someone who can bring (the people) together’».

Of course, Russia does not «know» that (and, in fact, more than 50 % of Syrians even when polled by western firms, want Assad to continue being President of Syria, and more than 80 % blame the US for backing the jihadists), but Turkey’s statement that Russia does «know» it, will help the Turkish public (whom the Erdogan regime has indoctrinated to consider Assad evil) acclimate to thinking of Assad’s ally Russia as being actually a friend, no foe, of Turkey; and this will, in turn, assist Erdogan going forward, especially if he’s aiming to, for example, remove Turkey from the NATO alliance and align with Russian foreign policy.

What’s happening here is the setting of the terms for the next Presidential election in Syria. Washington and its allies (which used to include its fellow-NATO-member Turkey) demand that the Syrian ‘democratic revolution’ (or foreign invasion by fundamentalist-Sunni jihadists hired and armed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE) succeed and establish a fundamentalist-Sunni leader for Syria, who will then, perhaps, hold elections, which, perhaps, will be ‘democratic’ instead of imposing Sunni Islamic law. But Assad, and Russia, demand that there be no such overthrow prior to the election; and, now, Turkey has stated that this would be acceptable to them. That’s a big change in Turkey’s international relations.

How seriously should one take Turkey’s continuing demand that «Certainly not» could the Syrian people re-elect Assad to be their President? One should take it with a grain of salt that would easily be washed away if Assad does win that election.

In other words: Turkey has announced, on August 20th, that, at least on the Syrian issue, it’s no longer an ally of the US

An earthquake had thus happened in international relations.

*  *  *

And so then, on Monday, August 22nd, the United States government — which demands the overthrow of the internationally-recognized-as-legal government of Syria — officially announced that America’s military forces in Syria will continue to occupy Syrian land, no matter what the Syrian government says, and will shoot down any Syrian planes that fly over U.S. forces there and attack them.

As reported on Monday by Al-Masdar News:

The Pentagon has announced that the USA is ready to down Syrian and Russian planes that they claim threaten American advisers who by international law are illegally operating in northern Syria.

 

On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis claimed that US jets attempted to intercept Syrian planes to protect the American advisers operating illegally with Kurdish forces in Syria after Syrian government jets bombed areas of Hasakah when Kurdish police began an aggression against the National Defense Force.

 

On Monday, another Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, said, “We would continue to advise the Syrian regime to steer clear of those areas.”

 

“We are going to defend our people on the ground, and do what we need to defend them,” Cook told reporters.

This means that the U.S. government will not allow the Syrian government to expel or otherwise eliminate U.S. forces in Syria. The Syrian government never invited U.S. forces into Syria, but the U.S. now officially dares the Syrian government to assert its sovereignty over the areas where America’s troops are located.

Al-Masdar continued:

When pushed further about Russia, Cook made it clear that the US would make the same aggression against Russian jets who are operating legally with the Syrian government’s approval and coordination.

 

“If they threaten US forces, we always have the right to defend our forces,” Cook said.

This means that the U.S. not only is at war against the legitimate government of Syria, but that the U.S. government will also be at war against Russia if Russian forces (which the Syrian government did invite into Syria) defend Syrian forces from attacks in Syria by U.S. forces — forces that are illegally there.

These U.S. forces number only 300, of whom 250 were sent to Syria on April 24th to serve as advisors to other illegal military forces in Syria.

The vast majority of the illegal military forces in Syria are jihadists who had been hired by the Saudi government and the Qatari government, and supplied with U.S. weapons, to overthrow the Syrian government. Most of the other illegal forces in Syria are Kurdish forces, supported by the U.S. government to break Syria apart so as to create a separate Kurdish state in the majority-Kurdish far north-eastern tip of Syria.

The primary U.S. goal in Syria is to overthrow the Syrian government, which is led by the Baath Party, Syria’s secular Party. Many Arabs insist upon Sharia, or Islamic law, but Syria’s Arabs are an exception; the Baath Party is and has always been supported by the majority of the Syrian people, including by most of Syria’s Arabs. Most Syrians are strongly opposed to Sharia law. Syria is the most secular nation in the Middle East.

For example, when Western-sponsored polls were taken in Syria, after the start in 2011 of the importation of jihadists into Syria, those polls showed that 55% of Syrians want Bashar al-Assad (the current leader of the Baath Party) to remain as Syria’s President, and “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’.” Furthermore, only “22% agree ‘IS is a positive influence’,” and that 22% was the lowest level of support shown by Syrians for any of the presented statements, except for, “21% agree ‘Prefer life now than under Assad’” — meaning that Syrians believe that things were better before the U.S.-sponsored jihadists entered Syria to overthrow Assad.

Clearly, when “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’,” very few people in Syria support the 300 U.S. forces there. Not only is the U.S. an invader, but it (and especially the forces that the U.S. supports in Syria — most especially the jihadists, who are the vast majority of these forces) made life far worse (and far shorter) for virtually all Syrians.

Furthermore, that same poll found: “70% agree ‘Oppose division of country’.” Consequently, the Kurdish separatists are likewise opposed by the vast majority of Syrians.

The Syrian government, from now on, is in the uncomfortable position of having invaders on its territory, and of being warned that one of them — the U.S. — will be fully at war against Syria if Syria tries to expel them.

Russia too is now under warning from the United States, that, if Russia, an ally of Syria, takes any action to expel or kill any of the U.S. invaders in Syria, then the U.S. will also be at war against Russia.

The U.S. government is now also daring the Russian government. Perhaps the U.S.strategy here is to force Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, either to back down, and abandon its Syrian ally, or else to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. If Putin backs down, that would greatly diminish his support from the Russian people, which is above 80% in all polls, including Western-sponsored ones. Perhaps this is the strategy of U.S. President Barack Obama, to drive Vladimir Putin out of office — something that might occur if the U.S. drives Bashar al-Assad out of office.

As Seymour Hersh reported, on 7 January 2016, “the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then [in the summer of 2013] led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya,” and so Dempsey quit, and Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, was fired over the matter. “The DIA’s reporting, he [Flynn] said, ‘got enormous pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.’”

Flynn is now a foreign-affairs advisor to the Republican Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who is being criticized by the Democratic Presidential candidate, for being soft on Russia and insufficiently devoted to the U.S. goal of overthrowing Assad.

You decide what happens if Hillary is elected…

 

Sicht 2:

Erdogan Calls Putin as Russia Seethes at Turkey’s Syrian Incursion

Note by the Saker: I have to admit that I still am rather puzzled by the Turkish “invasion” of Syria.  There are several hypotheses about what the Turks are really up to and what their real goal is.  Since my friends Alexander Mercouris and Mark Sleboda seem to have a much better understanding of what is happening than I, I submit to your attention their analysis rather than to exposes you to my confused guesses.

The Saker

——-

The DuranErdogan Calls Putin as Russia Seethes at Turkey’s Syrian Incursion

by Alexander Mercouris for The Duran

Russia furious at Turkish move to set up rebel “safe zone” inside Syria to assist Jihadi rebels there, putting the recently announced “normalisation of relations” between Russia and Turkey in jeopardy.

In the immediate aftermath of the Turkish capture of Jarablus in Syria Turkish President Erdogan telephoned his “friend Putin” on Friday 27th August 2016.

The Kremlin’s account of the conversation is remarkable even by its standards for its terseness

“The two leaders discussed the development of Russia-Turkey trade and political and economic cooperation in keeping with the agreements reached in St Petersburg on August 9.  Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan exchanged opinions on developments in Syria and pointed out the importance of joint efforts in fighting terrorism.  They agreed to continue their dialogue on the issues of the bilateral and international agenda.”

The true subject of the discussion will in fact have been the Turkish capture of Jarablus in northern Syria.

Whilst it seems the Turks did inform the Russians of this move in advance, it is clear that the Russians are to put it mildly unhappy about it.  Though the Turks appear to have tried to arrange talks with the Russian military leadership presumably to discuss this move – even announcing a visit to Turkey by General Gerasimov, the Chief of the Russian General Staff – no such talks are taking place, with the Russians denying that a visit to Ankara by their Chief of General Staff was ever agreed, and the Turks now saying that the visit has been postponed.

The Russian media meanwhile is carrying articles making clear the extent of Russian anger.  An article in the Russian newspaper Kommersant, which is clearly based on official briefings, is accusing Turkey of “going further than promised in Syria”.  That this article reflects official thinking in Moscow is shown by the fact that the semi-official English language Russian news-site “Russia Beyond the Headlines” has republished it in English

The article makes it clear that Turkey did not coordinate the Jarablus operation with Moscow or Damascus, and that it was much bigger than Moscow was led to expect.  The Russians are also clearly annoyed by the extent to which the operation has been coordinated by Turkey with the US, which is providing air support.

“For Moscow, Ankara’s operation was an unpleasant surprise, demonstrating that the expectations for a convergence of the countries’ positions on Syria that emerged after the meeting between Putin and Erdogan were premature.  In deciding about the operation in Jarabulus, the Turkish leader has sent a signal that relations with the U.S. remain a priority for him, and he prefers to act in the framework of the antiterrorist coalition led not by Moscow, but Washington.”

(Bold italics added)

I have repeatedly warned against over-high expectations that the recent rapprochement between Turkey and Russia amounted to any sort of realignment.  I have also said that despite Turkish annoyance with the US over the recent coup attempt, Turkey remains a US ally, continues to be committed to regime change in Syria, and is not going to throw the US out of Incirlik or allow Russia to use the base.  My only surprise is that judging from this comment it appears there were some people in Moscow who thought otherwise.

The Kommersant article then continues ominously

“According to Kommersant’s information, in case of aggravation of the situation, the Russian military and diplomats are ready to employ bilateral channels of communication with their Turkish counterparts, as well as express their concerns to the U.S. if necessary.  According to Vladimir Sotnikov, director of the Moscow-based Russia-East-West centre, Ankara’s actions could seriously affect the process of normalisation of bilateral cooperation that was agreed by presidents Putin and Erdogan in St. Petersburg”.

(Bold italics added)

That suggests that behind the mild public language strong complaints have been made in private by Moscow to Ankara.  Erdogan’s call to Putin looks like an attempt to assuage Russian anger, to reassure Moscow about Turkey’s intentions in Syria, and to keep the “process of normalisation” between Turkey and Russia on track.  The terse Kremlin summary of the conversation suggests that Putin in response made Russian feelings and concerns perfectly clear, and that there was, in the diplomatic language of the past, “a full and frank exchange of views” ie. a row.

Why are the Russians so angry about the Jarablus operation?

Here I acknowledge my heavy debt to the geopolitical analyst Mark Sleboda who over the course of a detailed and very helpful discussion has corrected certain errors I have previously made about the Jarablus operation and has greatly enlarged my understanding of it.

In my two previous articles discussing the Jarablus operation I said that it looked to be targeted principally at the Kurds, whose militia, the YPG, has over the last year significantly expanded the area in north east Syria under its control.  I also discounted the possibility that the Turkish seizure of Jarablus was intended to affect the course of the battle for Aleppo by providing supplies to the Jihadi fighters trying to break the siege there.  In my latest article I said the following

“….. it is not obvious that the rebels actually need a “safe zone” in this area.   They already have a corridor to send men and supplies to Aleppo through Idlib province, which they already control.  Why add to the problems of setting up a “safe zone” much further away in north east Syria when the rebels already control territories so much closer to Aleppo?”

Mark Sleboda has explained to me that the principal corridor to supply the rebels in Syria has always been through the area of north east Syria around Jarablus.  In his words

“Idlib is not an acceptable supply route from Turkey to forces in Aleppo province because the Turkish-Syrian border in Idlib is mountainous terrain – small and bad roads and then long routes all the way through Idlib past SAA held territory into Aleppo province. The Jarablus Corridor north of Aleppo is and has always been absolutely vital for the insurgency,. That’s why Turkey, Brookings, etc have always placed so much priority on a no fly zone there. Now its come to realisation.”

In other words the Turkish capture of Jarablus before it could be captured by the YPG was not primarily intended to prevent the linking together of two areas within Syria under Kurdish control – though that may have been a secondary factor – but was primarily intended to secure the main supply route (or “ratline”) Turkey uses to supply the Jihadi fighters attacking Aleppo.

Beyond that it is now clear that Turkish ambitions go much further than Jarablus.  Various Turkish officials have over the last two days been speaking to the Turkish media of Turkey establishing a large rebel controlled “safe zone” in this area of Syria.   Moreover – as Mark Sleboda says – they have now secured US support for it, as shown by the very active role the US air force is taking in supporting the Turkish move on Jarablus. 

As Mark Sleboda has also pointed out to me, creating this rebel “safe zone” within Syria has been a declared Turkish objective for over a year.  The Turks have up to now been prevented from realising it because of US reluctance to provide the necessary support, and because of concern in Washington and Ankara about a possible Russian military reaction.  With the move to Jarablus and beyond now carried out with US support and through Russian acquiescence obtained by stealth, the Turks have now achieved it.

What implications does this have for the war in Syria and for the continuation of the Russian – Turkish rapprochement?

Going back to the war in Syria, my own view remains that this will not in the end decide the outcome of the battle of Aleppo, where reports suggest that the Syrian army is continuing to gain ground despite the uninterrupted – and in fact increasing – flow of supplies to the Jihadi fighters across the Turkish border. My longer term view also remains that if the Syrian government succeeds in recapturing the whole of Aleppo and eventually Idlib, then it will have won the war.  However what this episode shows is that the war is far from won, and that the Turks and their US backers are still prepared to go on escalating it in order to prevent the Syrian army winning it. 

Beyond that I think the British reporter Patrick Cockburn may turn out to be right, that by trying to establish a “safe zone” within Syria Turkey is overplaying its hand and is taking a step that

“….would embroil Turkey in the lethal swamp lands of the Syrian-Iraqi war.”

Already there are indications that the Turkish move is provoking a local reaction from the YPG and the Kurds.  Despite earlier reports that the YPG was withdrawing all its forces back across to the eastern bank of the Euphrates, there are now credible reports of scattered resistance to the Turkish move by Kurdish militia aligned with the YPG, and there are also reports of mobilisation against the Turkish move in the Kurdish areas of Syria.

In my recent article I made the following point about the potential ability of the YPG to wreck any scheme to set up a rebel “safe zone” in this part of Syria

“North east Syria is a bitterly contested area in which the dominant force is not the rebels but the YPG.  It does not look like a credible “safe zone” for the rebels or a credible launch area from which to launch attacks on Aleppo.  On the contrary an attempt to create a rebel “safe zone” in this area would antagonise the YPG, and would restore the alliance between the Syrian government and the YPG to full working order, leading to constant fighting in the area of the so-called “safe zone” between the Syrian rebels and the YPG.  That would surely defeat the whole purpose of the “safe zone”, rendering it unsafe and effectively worthless as a “safe zone”.   Of course the Turkish military could try to garrison the area to defend whatever “safe zone” it created inside it.  That would however require an incursion into Syria that went far deeper than the one to Jarablus, and which would risk the Turkish army becoming bogged down in a lengthy guerrilla war on Syrian territory with the YPG.  I doubt Erdogan, the Turkish military or the US would want that.”

In his article discussing the Turkish incursion Patrick Cockburn makes essentially the same point

“Turkey may be able to prevent the Kurds permanently extending their rule west of the Euphrates, but it would be a very different and more dangerous operation to attack the de facto Syrian Kurdish state, which has spread itself between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers since the Syrian Army largely withdrew from the region in 2012.”

Setting up a rebel “safe zone” inside Syria in the teeth of the opposition of the YPG is however what Erdogan and the Turks – backed by the US – have now decided to do.

In recent days there has been some renewed talk of Russia becoming bogged down in the war in Syria.  In my opinion the country that runs by far the greatest risk of getting bogged down in Syria is not Russia but Turkey, which already has to deal with an Islamist terrorist campaign and a Kurdish insurgency on its own territory – both in large part consequences of the war in Syria – and which cannot afford to add a war between the Turkish army and the potentially Russian backed YPG in Syria to its mounting problems.  That however is what Turkey by its latest move now risks.

There remains the outstanding puzzle of US policy.  The US actively encouraged the YPG to capture the town of Manbij – which lies west of the Euphrates – from ISIS, and provided heavy air support for the YPG operation to the capture Manbij.  It is now demanding that the YPG withdraw from Manbij and from all areas west of the Euphrates, and is providing air support for a Turkish military operation that is at least in part targeted against the YPG.

It is impossible to see any logic in these moves.  As I said in my previous article

“It is impossible to see any coherent strategy here.  Rather it looks as if CIA and military officials on the ground in Syria have been going their own way, encouraging the YPG to expand as fast as it can, heedless of the larger consequences.  The political leadership in Washington, when it finally woke up to what was happening, then had to take disproportionate steps to bring the situation back under control.”

Regardless of this, the Turkish move into Syria should bury once and for all any idea that Turkey is in the process of undertaking a geopolitical realignment away from the West and towards the Eurasian powers.  Not only is Turkey still a US and NATO ally,  but it is now conducting an illegal military operation against Russian opposition in Syria with US military support.  That is not the action of a country in the process of carrying out a realignment and preparing to switch alliances from the West to Beijing and Moscow.

The Russians and the Turks are now talking to each other, which for several months they had stopped doing.  The Kremlin’s summary of Friday’s conversation between Putin and Erdogan shows that they are still talking about improving their trade links and economic ties.  However, as the Kommersant article shows, even that limited progress now appears to be in jeopardy as the two countries’ conflicting stances in the Syrian war once again threaten to pull them apart. 

In other words Turkey remains, as it has always been, an ally not of Russia and the Eurasian powers, but of the US and the West, and its actions in Syria are a clear demonstration of that.

Advertisements

Türkei und Syrien Ende August 2016

Türkei kämpft in Nordsyrien gegen die PYD (Kurden in Syrien), um zu verhindern, dass diese zu stark werden und eine durchgängige Einflusszone entang der türkischen Grenze haben, die sie kontrollieren.

Der syrische Staat bombardiert ebenfalls kurdische Stellungen, die mit US-Agenten und Helfern verstärkt sind. Die USA hat hierbei bei Russland und Syrien protestiert, weil sie „Verbündete der USA im Kampf gegen den IS“ angreifen.

Was sind hier die Beweggründe hinter der Bühne?

Russland und die Türkei haben sich erneut angenähert und arbeiten wieder näher zusammen. Russland und die USA andereraeits haben die Kurden gegen den IS gestärkt als Verbündete, während wiederum die Türkei auch den IS (indirekt Waffen, direkt Ölabkauf/Schmuggel) unterstützt hat.

Es sieht so aus, als ob die Kurden in diesem „Spiel“ unter die Räder kommen und von ihren Verbündeten aus Machtpolitischen Erwägungen heraus geopfert werden.

Die Türkei ist der stärkere Partner als die Kurden und es kann Russland nicht daran liegen, einen unabhängigen Kurdenstaat zu generieren, der dann Gebiete des Iran, der Türkei, Syriens und Iraks abschneidet. Eher noch liegt es im Interesse von Israel und der USA einen zentralen Keil innerhalb dieser wichtigen regionalmächte zu haben, wo man Militär stationieren kann und von wo heraus man Nachbarländer beeinflussen kann. (Kosovo 2.0)

Die Regionalmächte um die Kurdengbeiete herum wären dadurch geschwächt und liessen sich problemlos in neue Konflikte reinziehen.

Die Türkei zumindest scheint sich etwas von ihrer NATO Mitgliedschaft und US-Hörigkeit zu entfernen. Sie fordert die USA ebenfalls auf (zum 2ten Mal) Gülen, der den Türken als Drahtzieher des Coups gilt, auszuliefern.

D.h. die Türkei ist sich offensichtlich sicher, dass indirekt die CIA hinter dem Umsturz steckt und soweit Russland dankbar, die Erdogan evtl. den Tipp gaben. => CIA wollte drohen weil Erdogan zu unabhängig im Konflikt operiert und hat nun unfreiwillig die Position Erdogans gestärkt.

Oder: es waren die Russen, die dadurch die Türkei wieder näher an sich binden können, obwohl es in einer NATO trainierten und in USA ausgebildeten Offizieren schwierig sein dürfte russenfreundliche Umstürzlerzu finden. 

Turkey’s New Relationship with Russia — and Assad

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

Until the July 15th U.S.-backed (or so the Turkish government alleges) coup-attempt to overthrow Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, Erdogan was trying to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, whom the U.S. regime likewise wants to overthrow. 

However, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin saved Erdogan’s Presidency, and probably Erdogan’s life, by contacting him hours prior to the pending coup and thus enabled him to plan and prepare so as to overcome the attempt, and crush the operation.

Putin wouldn’t have known ahead-of-time about the coup-plan unless Russian intelligence had provided to him intelligence that it was coming. This intelligence might have included information about whom the source of it was. If Putin had intelligence regarding that matter, then he presumably shared ihinter dem versuchten Umsturz steckt undt with Erdogan at that time — prior to the coup.

Promptly on July 16th, Erdogan announced that the source of the coup was his long-time foe (but former political supporter) Fethullah Gulen, who in 1999 had relocated himself and the headquarters of his multibillion-dollar Islamic organization to Pennsylvania in the United States. Erdogan said that he would demand Gulen’s extradition to stand trial in Turkey. However, the U.S. State Department said it had not yet received a “formal extradition request.”

On August 4th, “Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said Ankara had submitted a second extradition request”, but the U.S. ‘Justice’ Department was “still trying to evaluate if the documents can be considered a formal extradition request.”

The ‘Justice’ Department is still trying, 16 days later, as of the present writing.

Meanwhile, on August 9th, Erdogan flew to Moscow to meet privately with Putin — the man who had saved his Presidency if not his life. Presumably, Erdogan wanted to see all of Russia’s intelligence on the matter. After that meeting, he may be presumed to have seen all of the intelligence on it, both from Turkish and from Russian intelligence agencies.

Erdogan continued his demand that the U.S. extradite Gulen. Evidently, after his having seen all of the intelligence from both Turkey and Russia, he remained convinced that Gulen was behind it.

Putin is determined to prevent what the American-Saudi-Qatari-Turkish alliance have been demanding on Syria: the ouster of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad prior to any election being held in Syria. The repeated demand by Putin has instead been that only the Syrian people themselves, in a free and fair internationally monitored election, can decide whether or when to terminate Assad’s present term of office, and that Russia will accept whatever the voters of Syria decide as to the identity of Syria’s President going forward.

The U.N. Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he supports Putin’s position on this, and that there would be no legitimacy for a forced ouster of the current Syrian President.

On Saturday August 20th, the AP bannered “Turkey: Assad can be part of transition in Syria”, and  reported that “Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Saturday his country is willing to accept a role for Syrian President Bashar Assad during a transitional period but insisted he has no place in Syria’s future. … ‘Could Syria carry Assad in the long-term? Certainly not. … The United States knows and Russia knows that Assad does not appear to be someone who can bring (the people) together.’”

Of course, Russia does not “know” that (and, in fact, more than 50% of Syrians even when polled by western firms, want Assad to continue being President of Syria, and more than 80% blame the U.S. for backing the jihadists), but Turkey’s statement that Russia does “know” it, will help the Turkish public (whom the Erdogan regime has indoctrinated to consider Assad evil) acclimate to thinking of Assad’s ally Russia as being actually a friend, no foe, of Turkey; and this will, in turn, assist Erdogan going forward, especially if he’s aiming to, for example, remove Turkey from the NATO alliance and align with Russian foreign policy.

What’s happening here is the setting of the terms for the next Presidential election in Syria. Washington and its allies (which used to include its fellow-NATO-member Turkey) demand that the Syrian ‘democratic revolution’ (or foreign invasion by fundamentalist-Sunni jihadists hired and armed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE) succeed and establish a fundamentalist-Sunni leader for Syria, who will then, perhaps, hold elections, which, perhaps, will be ‘democratic’ instead of imposing Sunni Islamic law. But Assad, and Russia, demand that there be no such overthrow prior to the election; and, now, Turkey has stated that this would be acceptable to them. That’s a big change in Turkey’s international relations.

How seriously should one take Turkey’s continuing demand that “Certainly not” could the Syrian people re-elect Assad to be their President? One should take it with a grain of salt that would easily be washed away if Assad does win that election.

In other words: Turkey announced, on August 20th, that, at least on the Syrian issue, it’s no longer an ally of the U.S.

An earthquake has thus happened in international relations.

 

Guccifer 2.0 und WordPress

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/

Worddpress gehört einer amerikanischen Firma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automattic) mit Sitz in San Francisco. Wieso wählt der Hacker überhaupt einen beliebten Blog Dienst anstatt einen sichereren Server in einem anderen Land?

Würden die geleakten Daten, welche Guccifer auf WordPress verteilt, in irgendeiner Weise Interessen der mächtigen Lobbys und der Geheimdienste zuwiderlaufen, wäre die Site sofort gehackt und nicht mehr funktionstüchtig. Wir dürfen also annehmen, dass die Leaks durchaus im Interesse jener liegen, die die Möglichkeit haben, solche Veröffentlichungen zu unterdrücken. Ist Guccifer gar nicht der „Russe“, sondern schlicht ein (unzufriedener) Teil der US-Geheimdienste oder Polizei.

D.h. Hillary Clinton ist/bleibt so erpressbar oder aber wird demontiert zugunsten anderer Kandidaten.

 

 

 

Misswirtschaft und Betrug – Dies erklärt, warum das US-Militär an seinem Riesenbudget hängt und keine Kontrolle will

Shocking Government Report Finds $6.5 Trillion In Taxpayer Funds „Unaccounted For“

Tyler Durden's picture

Last week, we first touched on a topic which, in any non-banana republic, would be a far greater scandal than what Ryan Lochte may or may not have been doing in a Rio bathroom: namely, government corruption, falsification and potential fraud and embezzlement, which has resulted in the Pentagon being unable to account for up to $8.5 trillion in taxpayer funding.

Today, Reuters follows up on this disturbing issue, and reveals that the Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced. The Defense Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the Army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the Army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.

As a result, the Army’s financial statements for 2015 were “materially misstated,” the report concluded. The “forced” adjustments rendered the statements useless because “DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.”

For those wondering, this is what $1 trillion in $100 bills looks like.

Now multiply by 6.

This is not the first time the DoD has fudged its books: disclosure of the Army’s manipulation of numbers is the latest example of the severe accounting problems plaguing the Defense Department for decades. The report affirms a 2013 Reuters series revealing how the Defense Department falsified accounting on a large scale as it scrambled to close its books. As a result, there has been no way to know how the Defense Department – far and away the biggest chunk of Congress’ annual budget – spends the public’s money…. The Army lost or didn’t keep required data, and much of the data it had was inaccurate, the IG said.

In other words, it is effectively impossible to account how the US government has spent trillions in taxpayer funds over the years. It also means that since the money can not be accounted for, a substantial part of it may have been embezzled.

“Where is the money going? Nobody knows,” said Franklin Spinney, a retired military analyst for the Pentagon and critic of Defense Department planning, cited by Reuters.

The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defense spending amid current global tension; the only issue is that more spending may not be necessary – all that is needed is less government corruption and theft.

An accurate accounting could reveal deeper problems in how the Defense Department spends its money. Its 2016 budget is $573 billion, more than half of the annual budget appropriated by Congress. The Army account’s errors will likely carry consequences for the entire Defense Department. Congress set a September 30, 2017 deadline for the department to be prepared to undergo an audit.

What’s worse is that the „fudging“ of the numbers is well known to everyone in the government apparatus. For years, the Inspector General – the Defense Department’s official auditor – has inserted a disclaimer on all military annual reports. The accounting is so unreliable that “the basic financial statements may have undetected misstatements that are both material and pervasive.

Not surprisingly, trying to figure out where the adjustments are has proven to be impossible.

Jack Armstrong, a former Defense Inspector General official in charge of auditing the Army General Fund, said the same type of unjustified changes to Army financial statements already were being made when he retired in 2010.

 

The Army issues two types of reports – a budget report and a financial one. The budget one was completed first. Armstrong said he believes fudged numbers were inserted into the financial report to make the numbers match.

 

“They don’t know what the heck the balances should be,” Armstrong said.

Meanwhile, for government employees, such as those at the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), which handles a wide range of Defense Department accounting services, the whole issue is one big joke, and they refer to preparation of the Army’s year-end statements as “the grand plug,” Armstrong said. “Plug”, of course, being another name for made-up numbers.

Finally, how on earth can one possibly „not account“ for trillions? As Reuters adds, at first glance adjustments totaling trillions may seem impossible. The amounts dwarf the Defense Department’s entire budget. However, when making changes to one account also require making changes to multiple levels of sub-accounts. That creates a domino effect where falsifications kept falling down the line. In many instances this daisy-chain was repeated multiple times for the same accounting item.

The IG report also blamed DFAS, saying it too made unjustified changes to numbers. For example, two DFAS computer systems showed different values of supplies for missiles and ammunition, the report noted – but rather than solving the disparity, DFAS personnel inserted a false “correction” to make the numbers match.

 

DFAS also could not make accurate year-end Army financial statements because more than 16,000 financial data files had vanished from its computer system. Faulty computer programming and employees’ inability to detect the flaw were at fault, the IG said.

DFAS is studying the report “and has no comment at this time,” a spokesman said. We doubt anyone else will inquire into where potentially trillions in taxpayer funds have disappeared to; meanwhile the two presidential candidates battle it out on the topic of tax rates when the real problem facing America is not how much money it draws in – after all the Fed can and will simply monetize the deficit – but how it spends it. Sadly, we may never know.

Erklärung, warum nur die 2 Parteien (Dems und Reps) im Fernsehduell erscheinen

The Commission on Presidential Debates bestimmt, welche Anforderungen für das Fernsehduell an die Kandidaten gestellt werden. Darunter ist, dass die Kandidaten in 5 aufeinander folgenden nationalen Umfragen über 15% erreichen müssen. Dabei ist diese nationale Bekannheit ohne Geld und massive Fernsehunterstützung kaum möglich zu erreichen. Also können Medien und die grossen Parteien durch Geld und Berichterstattung die kleineren Parteien und deren Präsidentschaftsbewerber „verhindern“. Wessen Partei und Ideen nicht bekannt sind, hat keine Chance, auch von den Leuten gewählt zu werden.

 

 

Thesen zu Weltwirtschaft, Elite und Trump

Für den Hinterkopf, Smith scheint Anhänger der Idee von NWO: Brexit und Trump sind von der Finanzelite gewollt, weil sie dadurch einen Sündenbock haben für den kommenden Crash und das Ziel, eine Weltwährung und einen globalen Markt zu schaffen.

 

 

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Political and economic events tend to swing like a pendulum, or move like the tides.  What you think you know today, according to the mainstream mood, can swiftly change tomorrow.  Sometimes this is mere random coincidence, but often it is engineered by the powers that be.  When discerning coming trends, the only assumption I recommend people operate on is that the globalists will play the long game; the short game is only relevant as far as it serves the long game.

What is the long game?  The globalists have openly admitted their goal in numerous mainstream publications, but my favorite example is the January 1988 issue of the Rothschild run magazine The Economist.  The issue pronounces boldly that investors should “get ready for a global currency” by 2018.  I examine this issue in detail in my article The Economic End Game Explained.

The Economist article mentions the sacrifice of “some” economic sovereignty of nation states, the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the rise of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket currency mechanism as a “bridge” to a single global currency.  None of these changes can be accomplished without certain parts of the world suffering severe financial instability first.  Not only is this a mathematical inevitability, such crisis is also a useful tool for elitists to mold the public’s collective psychology.

So, let’s make this crystal clear — the long game is the total and OPEN centralization of economic and geopolitical power into the hands of a select few financial elites.  Not the pulling of strings behind the curtain.  Not shadow governance.  OPEN governance of the world by the elites, accepted or even demanded by the people.

There are a lot of assumptions floating around economic conditions and election developments right now that do not take into account this long game.  The first being that globalists “are losing their grip on the situation.”

I would have to disagree.  In terms of political leaders (East and West) and surface economic indicators, the elites have more control than ever.

The argument of the “bumbling globalists” became rather popular the days after the initial success of the Brexit referendum.  This was of course based on the assumption that the Brexit is damaging to the globalists rather than helpful to them.  I outline why the Brexit is a perfect scapegoat for a fiscal downturn engineered by the elites in my article Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out, Or Something Else?, published before the Brexit vote took place.

Since the referendum, central banks and politicians around the world have begun calling for a single monetary and fiscal policy initiative meant to “head off any ill effects of the Brexit.”  That is to say, the open calls for one economic authority to rule them all have now begun.

The numerous warnings by the financial elites of a coming crisis event have most people in the mainstream and even many alternative analysts scratching their heads.  For those that hyper-focus on stock markets, all seems to be well.  Of course, these people only have an attention span that lasts until the next market ticker opens for the day.  They aren’t looking at the bigger picture.

To be fair, though, the mainstream media is really laying on the fake-out propaganda thick.

July and August have produced considerably strange behaviors from stocks so far, with a record number of days positive, followed by a near-record number of days negative.  I would consider this a form of volatility that should not be overlooked.  The media have so far shrugged off these developments and only noted that stock valuations are still high despite the Brexit “surprise.”  Their assertion has been that the Brexit “had no effect;” completely ignoring the fact that such events can have long term consequences rather than immediate consequences.

Oil prices have plunged back towards lows last seen at the beginning of the year, something I stated would eventually occur after the predictable failure of the OPEC meeting in Doha.  Low global demand continues and production has not slowed in any meaningful way.

There has been a steady correlation the past year between oil and stocks.  The current decoupling is unlikely to last very long and stocks should track down to oil by September as speculators give up trying to hold crude offshore in a useless effort to drive prices higher.  The mainstream has said little to nothing about this decoupling or its eventual consequences.

The past two months of employment numbers have been an epic farce, with the media playing up the supposed number of jobs added while mentioning nothing about the nearly 95 million working age Americans removed from the rolls and no longer counted as unemployed.  That’s almost one third of the U.S. population, and around half of all working age Americans that have no job.

The Bureau of Labor’s claim when cornered by this statistic and the fraudulent nature of their primary employment percentages?  “Those people don’t want to work, therefore they should not be counted…”

The better than expected jobs reports have so far allowed markets to levitate.  I would assert, however, that stocks are merely treading water at the deceptively calm center of a hurricane.

The reality is, they cannot hide an economic collapse forever.  Negative financial effects are going to touch ground somewhere, and the data is going to sneak through.  Case in point; U.S. productivity is now at 37 year lows despite government statistics claiming fully recovered employment.  You would think that in such a happy labor environment portrayed by the BLS productivity would grow.  This is not the case.  Perhaps a total unemployed population of over 100 million people may be contributing to the implosion of U.S. productivity…?

Outside of the U.S., European banks are on the verge of a breakdown, and central bank stimulus measures and rate cuts are adding minimal extra boost to markets.  They aren’t currently falling much, but they aren’t rallying much either.  In essence, equities are becoming stagnant due to artificial support from central banks and there is little incentive for investors to participate any longer.

In light of the latest manipulations of economic data and the jawboning of stocks since March, some alternative analysts have pronounced that the central banks plan to prop up markets “indefinitely,” or at least until Hillary Clinton can win the election.

This is an unfortunate assumption by the alternative crowd…

I remember before the Brexit vote a vast majority of independent economists and liberty analysts argued that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass — that they had the power to rig the vote however they pleased.  If this is the case (and I agree it is the case), then clearly the elites WANTED the Brexit to pass.

It would serve alternative analysts well to recall specifically the rigged polling numbers in the weeks leading up to the Brexit which showed a definite win for the “Stay” crowd.  Interesting how that all turned out, isn’t it?

I am consistently reminded of the Brexit surprise when I look today at the polling numbers on the U.S. election.  The erratic and inconsistent polling shows Trump climbing, then suddenly sinking days later, then climbing again without any clear catalysts.  Many polls contradict each other, just as the polls did before the Brexit, and, the same kind of circus atmosphere is present, if not more prevalent.

It may be possible, if not certain, that this is all a game.  The Brexit outcome was predetermined, which is how elites like George Soros scored successful investment bets on the referendum passing, and the reason why the Bank for International Settlements gathered central bankers from around the world as the vote was taking place.

I believe that the U.S. presidential election has also been predetermined; with a Trump win.  Some people might be confused by this concept.

Trump’s campaign has been consistently compared to the Brexit campaign by globalists in the media, as well as by mainstream pundits.  They call it a „dangerous“ trend of rising populists.

The propaganda surrounding the Brexit asserts that the referendum will eventually lead to global economic crisis; and already, central banks and politicians are attempting to tie the Brexit to anything that might go wrong fiscally in the near future.

The propaganda surrounding Trump is the same; that Trump is unfit to lead America and that his economic policies will end in global financial ruin.

One constant connects the Brexit referendum and Trump — both are supported by conservative movements with anti-globalist leanings.

I submit that there is in fact a wider economic crisis on the way, and that the elites plan to use the Brexit and Trump as scapegoats for this crisis.

I have stated this before, but I think the idea needs repeating:  The globalists need the economy to turn unstable in order to create a rationale for a centralized economic authority and a single global currency system.  This is why they have consistently called for a “coordinated global central banking policy” after the Brexit.  This is why they continue to warn of a fiscal crisis even though stock markets remain at all-time highs.

If Hillary Clinton, a well known globalist puppet deep in the bedrock of the establishment, wins the election only to have the economy tank, then the globalists will get the blame.

If Trump is either allowed in office, or is placed in office, and the economy tanks, CONSERVATIVES, the primary enemy of the globalists, will get the blame for the resulting crisis.

To reiterate, the globalists have created the conditions by which an economic crisis can be triggered at the time of their choosing (within certain limits).  They are then either supporting the success of seemingly conservative based movements and candidates, or simply refusing to interfere with them.  This is being done so that the globalists can then blame the crash they created on conservative movements.

This allows them to demonize not just conservatives, but the conservative philosophy in general; labeling it a poisonous ideal akin to fascism.  Their solution?  Erase all elements of conservatism and sovereignty from society for the sake of the “greater good” of the collective.

This is part of the long game.

As I noted after the U.K. referendum, I believe the Brexit to be part of a “one-two-punch combination,” and that the second punch has not arrived yet.  My view appears to be supported by the number of financial elites warning investors to pull out of markets today before it is too late.  Obviously, they know something the rest of the financial mainstream does not.

This sets up the elites as “prophets” rather than criminals, as economic perception turns negative and the public begins looking for answers.

In the meantime, I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election takes place, most likely starting in September.  This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say.  I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data.  The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge.”

Many claim the Federal Reserve will not raise rates in 2016 with the election threatened by a Trump candidacy.  I believe the Fed will in fact raise rates, as they always do going into major recessions.  If they do not raise rates before the election, they will most certainly raise rates in December if Trump is in the White House.

I realize that many will argue that Trump will “never be allowed to win,” just look at how the media demonizes him.  But this is what people argued before the Brexit, and they were wrong.  I suggest that this demonization campaign is much like the doom and gloom used by globalists before the UK referendum — it is not meant to stop the event.  It is not meant to prevent Trump from getting into office, it is meant to make Trump and conservatives a scapegoat for an impending crisis once he is IN office.

While I certainly am not advocating Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, I have to point out that a Trump presidency serves the globalist long game better than a Clinton presidency

First, the elites need an international financial crisis to encourage the public to support a single central bank policy and authority.  They can blame such a crisis on Trump and the Brexit and divert attention away from themselves.

 

Second, the elites need to remove the philosophy of conservatism as an obstacle to global collectivism and the destruction of national sovereignty.  Again, conservatives will be blamed as participants and co-conspirators in the fiscal crisis, and painted as so devilish that no future generation would want to be a associated with conservative thought.

 

Third, the elites need to kill the dollar’s world reserve status.  And yes, even this could be blamed on Trump as Saudi Arabia moves away from the dollar as the petro-currency and multiple nations begin to protest Trump’s “isolationism” by dumping the dollar.  In October, China (with the approval of the IMF) begins spreading SDR-based liquidity around the world, launching the next phase of the end of the dollar as world reserve right before the U.S. election climax.

 

Fourth, the elites need internal conflict within the U.S. and/or martial law in order to justify international intervention.  A Trump presidency will most likely be met with accelerated violence from social justice activists and general riots from the entitlement class.  I believe Trump will use martial law measures, though he probably will not label this „martial law“.  There may even come a day when globalist “leaders” will assert that Trump cannot be allowed access to a nuclear arsenal, and that he must be stopped.

If Trump turns out to be anti-constitution, and the liberty movement acts to stand against him — we will be accused of working for the social justice miscreants, or we will ironically be accused as agents of the globalists.  If we fight against a globalist intervention or the social justice mobs, we will be accused as fascists by the international community.  Truly, with Trump as president, many doors open for the elites.

That said, this does not mean the elites will be ultimately successful in their endeavors.  There are always unknowns to any grand scheme.  As Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”  I believe the elites will be surprised by some sizable punches in the mouth.  Until then, though, their current strategy appears to be running on schedule.

III Türkei Putsch – Entwicklung, Überlegungen

Erdogan und Putin treffen sich in St. Petersburg und haben nun ein wieder herzliches Verhältnis (Realpolitik) , nachdem vor 8 Monaten durch den Flugzeugabschuss Russland verschiedene politischen und wirtschaftlichen Strafaktionen anordnete.

Bei Putsch als auch beim Abschuss der russischen Militärmaschine wird von Einigen die USA bzw. deren Geheimdienste vermutet. im ersteren Fall sollte Russland gegen die Türkei aufgebracht werden evtl. mit Kriegsfolge und NATO Bündnisfall. im letzteren Fall sollte Erdogan von der Macht entfernt werden bzw. es sollte eine Drohung/Einschüchterung sein, dass Erdogan gefälligst nach der Pfeife des Westens zu agieren habe, da er sonst nicht mehr lange an der Macht bleiben würde. Die Russen sollen erdogan dann rechtzeitig gewarnt haben.

Da allerdings Russland vom Putsch gegen Erdogan profitiert und die Beziehungen zur Türkei wieder normalisiert werden und die wichtige Pipeline Turkish Stream wieder aufs Tapet kommt, wäre natürlich ein vom russischen Geheimdienst inszenierter Putsch ebenfalls denkbar.

Nicht nur die US Geheimdienste beherrschen die verdeckte Kriegsführung. Allerdings ist es fraglich, wie stark russische Agenten in einem NATO verbundenen türkischen Militär einen Putsch auslösen könnten. Die Offiziere gehen alle in die USA, um dort aus- und weitergebildet zu werden.