Geopolitical analysis- "Looking for the scapegoat"

>The conflict opposing the US to russia and china is evolving on two fronts: on one side, washington is looking for an eventual scapegoat on which they could blame the war on syria, on the other, moscow, whom already linked the syrian and yemenite cases, is trying to tie them to the ukrainian question.

>Washington, looking for a scapegoat

>To be able to disengage while keeping their head up, the US must blame their crimes on one of their allies. They have three possibilities: they can blame Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or both. Turkey is present in Syria and Ukraine, but not in Yemen, while Arabia is present in Syria and Yemen, but not in Ukraine.

>turkey

>We now have verified information on what really happenned the last 15th of july in Turkey; information which forces us to revise our initial judgement.
>First of all, it was so that to leave the management of the dhihadists hordes to turkey after the attack on saudi prince bandar bin sultan would not come without its load of problems: indeed, if bandar was an obedient intermediary, erdogan followed through with his own strategy to create the 17th turco-mongol empire, which brought him to use the djihadists outside of his mission.

1/7

>>79985

>However, the US could not sanction erdogan who was economically getting closer to russia while he was a member of nato.
>Finally, with the global power crisis, erdogan was becoming the ideal scapegoat to get out of the syrian crisis.
>from the american point of view, the problem is not turkey, who is an essential regional ally, neither, the MIT of hakan fidan who organized the djihadists' movement in the world, but erdogan.
>Consequently, the national endowment for democracy (ned) first tried in august of 2013 a colored revolution (the "one armed man revolution") by organizing protests in the gezi parc of istanbul. The operation failed and washington decided otherwise.

2/7

>>79987

>The decision was taken to overthrow the AKP islamists through the ballots. The CIA, on the one hand, organized the transformation of the HDP into a real minority party and prepared an alliance between the HDP and the CHP. The HDP adopted a program open to the defense of ethnic minorities (kurds) and social minorities (feminists and homosexuals) and included an ecological aspect. The CHP was reorganized both to mask the over-representation of alevis amongst it and in aim to promote the candidacy of the last supreme court president.
>However, even though the AKP lost the elections of july 2014, it was not possible to make the DHP-HDP alliance. In consequence, new legislative elections were held in november 2014 but they were coarsly rigged by erdogan.
>Therefore, washington decided to physically eliminate ergodan. Three assasination attemps took place between november 2014 and july 2016. Contrary to what has been said, the operation of the 15th of july 2016 was not a coup attempt, but an attempt to eliminate erdogan. The CIA used industrial and military turco-US conections to recruit a small team in the air army in order to execute erdogan during his vacations. However, this team was betrayed by islamist officiers (which represents a quarter of the armies) and erdogan was forewarned an hour before the arrival of the commando. He then was transfered under the escort of military men loyal to istanbul. Conscious of the foreseeable consequences of their failure, the conspiracy started a coup d'état without preparations while istanbul was still swarming with people. They obviously failed. The following repression did not only aim to arrest the assasination team, or even the military men who joined the improvised coup, but the whole of the pro-US: the kemalists laics, the islamists of fetullah gulen. In total, over 70000 people were put to trial and it was necesarry to free prisoners in order to incarcerate the pro-US.

3/7

>>79989

>The folie des grandeurs of erdogan and his crazy white palace, his rigging of the elections and his repression without limit made him the ideal scapegoat for the errors commited in syria. However, his resistance to a colored revolution and four assasination attemps made it clear that it would not be easy to eleminate him quicky.

>Saudi Arabia

>SA is as much essential to the US than turkey is. For three reasons: first of all, its huge oil reserves (even though washingont doesn't need them for consumption, they want to control the selling), then for the liquidities of which they dispose (even though their revenu fell 70%), which enabled the financing of secret operations outside of the control of congress, and finally, for their grip on the sources of djihadism. Indeed, since 1962 and the creation of the world isamist league, riyad finances, for the CIA, the muslim brotherhood and the naqchbandis, the two brotherhoods from which come the totality of the djihadists leaders in the world.
>however, the anachronical character of this state, which is the private property of a family of princes to whom the common principles of freedom of speech and faith are strange, requires radical changes.
>So, the cia organized, in january 2015, the succesion of the king abdallah. The night of the passing of the king, the majority of the incapables were removed from their positions and the country for completely reorganized according to a pre-established plan. From then on, the power was separated between three main clans: the king salmane (and his dear son the prince mohamad), the son of the prince nayef (the other prince mohamad) and finally the son of the late king (the prince mutaib, general of the national guard).

4/7

>>79990

>In practice, the king salmane (81 years old) is letting his son, the prince mohamad (31 years old) govern in his stead. The latter increased the saudi engagement against syria, and started the war on yemen. However, he also started a vast program of social and economical reforms corresponding to his "vision for 2030".
>Sadly, the results are not there: the kingdom is stuck in syria and yemen. The latter war is turning against SA with the incursions of the Houthis on its territory and their military victories. On economic matters, the oil reserves are thining and the defeat in yemen is preventing them from exploiting the "empty quarter" which is to say the region in between the two countries. The fall of oil prices allowed to remove a number of competitors, but it also dried the saudi treasury which is now forced to borrow on international markets.


>Arabia has never been so powerful and fradile. The political repression reached new heights with the beheading of the opposition leader, the cheikh Al-nimr. The revolt is not only brewing in the shiia minority, but also in the sunni provinces of the west. On the international level, the arab coalition is surely impressive, but is taking water from all sides since the egyptians left. The rapprochment with israel against iran created an outcry in the arab and muslim world. It illustrates the panic which took hold of the royal family, now hated by all.
>From the point of view of Washington, the moment has come to choose the element which are to be saved in SA and the ones which should be done away with. Logically, there should be a comeback to the partition of power between the sudeiris (but without the prince mohamad bin salman who proved himself incapable) and the chammars (the tribe of late king abdallah).

5/7

>>79991

>The best case scenario, for washington as well as the saudis, would be that the king salmane passes away. His son mohamad would be removed from power and the other prince mohamad (the son of nayef) would seize it. All the while, mutaib would keep his position. This succesion would be easier to manage for washington if it happened before the investiture of the next president, the 6th of january 2017. The applicant could then bkame all his mistakes on the late king and announce peace in syria and yemen. The CIA is currently working on this project.
>In arabia as in turkey and other allied countries, the CIA is looking to maintain the status quo. In order to achieve this, they are trying to covertly organize leader changes, without touching the structure. The cosmetic aspect of these modifications allows the invisibility of this work.

>Moscow is trying to negociate the middle east and ukraine together.

>Russia managed to link the syrian and yemenite battlefields. If their forces have been publicly deployed in the levant for a year, they have unofficially been present in yemen for three years and participate actively in the conflict. By negociationg the cease fires in aleppo and yemen, it managed to compel the US to link those two scenes. In those two countries, it managed to to show the superiority of its armies in term of conventionnal war against the US, all the while avoiding a direct confrontation with the pentagon. This maneuver prevented moscow from getting involved in irak, despite its historical precedents in this third country.

6/7

>>79993

>However, the origin of the fight between the two greats is fondamentally linked to the interruption of the two silk roads in syria and in ukraine. Logically, moscow is trying to link those two files in its negociations with washington. It is all the more logic that the CIA itself already created a link between those two battlefields through turkey.
>When he went to berlin, the 19th of october, the russian president vladimir poutine and his foreign affairs minister, sergey lavrov, meant to persuade germany and france, for want of the US, to link those files. They exchanged the lenghtening of the cease fire in syria for a break up of the ukrainian blockage of the minsk treaty. This barter can only irritate washington who will do everything it can to sabotage it.
>Of course, berlin and london will eventually align themselves on their nato suzerain. However, from the point of view of moscow, a frozen conflict is better than a defeat (in ukraine, as ni transnitrie for example), and everything that eats at the unity of nato is an anticipation of the end of the american suprematism.


7/7

>>79984
Nice blog post, faggot. Your source is a radical leftist French version of Alex Jones who has an agenda. What you've posted is an opinion piece at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan

Read the goddamn /news/ sticky next time and lurk moar before you post.

>>79996
All news is tainted with opinion. This piece is an article of geopolitical analysis.

I read the sticky, and this article fits the rules perfectly.

The fact that you dislike thierry meyssan (who has absolutely nothing in common with alex jones) is relevant only to you.

bye bye.

Thanks for the translation. What is a suzerain?

>>80026

a lord, a ruler.

>>80026
you're welcome by the way, thanks for your interest.

>>80003
>All news is tainted with opinion.
Wrong. News is a statement of a series of facts that aren't colored by opinion.
>This piece is an article of geopolitical analysis.
It's Mr Meyssan's opinion written in the form of a blog post.
>The fact that you dislike thierry meyssan (who has absolutely nothing in common with alex jones)
Really? Did you even read his background at all?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan
>He is the author of investigations into the extreme right-wing (particularly about the National Front Militias, which are the object of a parliamentary investigation and caused a separation of the extreme right-wing party), as well as into the Catholic Church (Opus Dei, for example).
Also:
>Meyssan's book 9/11: The Big Lie (L'Effroyable imposture) challenges the official account of events of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Sound a hell of a lot like the Left Wing version of Alex Jones to me.

>I read the sticky, and this article fits the rules perfectly.
You obviously did NOT read the sticky, if you had you would have seen the part that says:
>When starting a thread you must include the complete URL of a news article from a credible news site (for instance, a newspaper, news magazine, or a news TV channel).
>Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.
>News articles must be recent!
>Nothing older than 48 hours please.
Next time post your tl;dr shit on
>>>/pol/ with the rest of the political opinion.

>>80035
>News is a statement of a series of facts that aren't colored by opinion.

The very selection of what "facts" you decide to present and how you present them is tainted by opinion. There is no such thing as objective news.

>blog post.
This is not a blog post, it's an article from a news website that makes over a million clicks a day.

>thierry meyssan's background
I know his background very well. He is a political consellor and a journalist, he was in lybia trying to help khadafi before he was assasinated, was nearly assasinated himself by the french secret service, and is now in syria counselling bachar al assad and writing articles, after the iranian secret service saved his life. He's a journalist who doesn't blink at the thought of going in war torn countries to resist oppression and write relevant articles. He's not making a buzz show trying to sell water filters.

>sticky rules
I respected all the rules

Listen pal, I don't really care if this article offends your partisan mind. You can whine all you want, it's not gonna make it go away.

Now, if you're not going to post anything relevant to the thread, you might as well stop posting.

>>80036
How about instead you fuck off back to /pol/ where you belong and then we can go on talking about actual news on this board instead of some far-left French guy's political opinion like you would have us do here.

>>80037
Like I said, the fact that this article doesn't fit your partisan mind will not make it go away.
bye bye, have a nice day.

>>80038
It isn't an article, it's a blog post. voltairenet.org is not a news site and frankly it's hilarious that you're trying to pass it off as one. Further, I'm starting to think that you ARE Mr. Meyssan and not just an average shitposter, and that you have a business interest in seeing your blog post stay up here as long as possible.

>>80039

http://www.voltairenet.org/article150341.html

>Voltaire Network International is a web of non-aligned press groups dedicated to the analysis of international relations.

>>80040
>Voltaire Network International is a web of non-aligned press groups dedicated to the analysis of international relations.
Why would you ever believe what they say on their website? Of course they're going to say that. They have to PRETEND to be credible even if they aren't.

Meanwhile, in the real world:
>In 1994, Meyssan became a staff member of the Radical Party of the Left (PRG), a center-left political organization, and he participates in the campaign of Bernard Tapie (1994 European elections) and Christiane Taubira (2002 presidential elections).

>In 1994, he founded the Voltaire Network and also created Project Ornicar, associations promoting freedom of expression and thinking, of which he is currently president.

Yeah right, because somehow Voltairenet is free from bias with the guy who insists the pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 in charge.

>>80035
>Wrong. News is a statement of a series of facts that aren't colored by opinion.
Sadly, that isn't the case for a long, long while now. These 'facts' are now being filtered to exclude unnecessary or damaging info on colluding parties, or focusing positive and constructive view on said colluding parties. Then the presentation of these 'facts' are now heavily biased in a way to favor or create a narrative, hence becoming mere opinion pieces altogether.

Journalism is now a weapon of choice among those who can wield it.

Thanks for posting OP.
Very interesting.
Gonna share it at a few places.
Peace.

>>80045
All I'm saying is that OPs source is a blog post, and further that it's hilarious that he's trying to claim voltairenet.org is a non-opinionated news source sanctioned by the /news/ sticky. I don't care about Mr. Meyssan or his opinions, I'm sure they would be quite popular on /r/conspiracy or on godlikeproductions.with the other tinfoilfags.

>>80048
Fuck off, you're part of the problem.

>>80049
You're good.

>>80051
Welcome to /news/.

This shit makes too much sense.

>>80048
my pleasure

>>>/pol/

>>80148
>>>/reddit/

Voltairenet is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. Just saying.

>>80176
>>>/r/thedonald

>>80255
Voltairenet is a herald for all those opposed to expansionism and imperialism, regardless of the country practicing it.

>>80256
>>>/r/funny

>>80300
>>>/r/nicedubs

>>80299
>opposed to expansionism and imperialism
as long as it is not russian expansionism and imperialism

>>80313
russia is not expansionnist, nor is it imperialist.

The only nations which are still expansionnist and imperialist today are israel, the united states, turkey, and saudi arabia. It just so happens that these are the same country that support, fund, arm and organize terrorism.

>>80314
t. Vladimir Vasilyevsky

>>80341
t. hillary clinton

>>80314
>Russia not imperialist

Invading Georgia isn't being imperialistic? Annexing Crimea isn't being Imperialistic?
Fighting 2 proxy war against the west (Ukraine, Syria), thus meddling in the national affairs of other nations, isn't being imperialistic?

Are you literally retarded? Russia is just as imperialist as any other powerful nation in the world. Just because the U.S. holds the bigger dick doesn't make Russia's dick any less flapping in the face of the world.

>>80370
>Invading Georgia
defending national interest
>Annexing Crimea
once again, defending national and ethnical interest
>Fighting 2 proxy war against the west (Ukraine, Syria
Ukraine: helping the people to resist a coup set up by the US (they tried to put nazis in charge, couldn't give a fuck as long as they were pro-us and against the silk road)
Syria: syria is not the west, they're not fighting against the west by going to syria. Also, this may come as a surprise to you, but the Syrian Arab Republic, aka the elected governement of syria, aka the syria people, INVITED russia, they asked him for help. However, they NEVER invited the usa or any member of nato, these people just decided syria was their land now.

>>80370
We can talk all day, I get it, you want the USA and nato to control the whole world and you feel like it's your right to rule over everyone. You're a child, it's okay.

But please don't try to twist the facts around.

Does Russia have thousands of military bases all around the world? Has Russia been overthrowing elected governements all around the world since the 60s? Does Russia break every international treaty that it signs, without exception?

No. Only the US does that.They feel (like you) that they are righteous in ruling the world in total impunity, without having the legal authority to do so.

This reign of terror is coming to an end. We can be happy or sad about it, but it's over now. Time to move on.

>>80370
Has Russia ever told the world: "You're either with us, or you're against us!" like Bush junior told the world?

Do you even know the definition of imperialist?

From out of the brown, a turd emerged from her anus.

>>80448
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1892%E2%80%931917)

>>80447

>Does Russia have thousands of military bases all around the world?

Russia has 10 international bases.
For fun I counted up a rough estimate of United States international military installations (sans Afghanistan and Iraq because whoever wrote up that list decided to count every place place that a US soldier hung out for 10 seconds as a patrol base) at 275 across 29 countries. However, that is also a gross overestimate because each branch counts their bases separately and I didn't bother to see which bases overlapped between branches. It is also notable that most of these bases are concentrated in (western) Germany which was a notable hot spot during the Cold War, South Korea which still needs the United States stationed there as deterrence vs its northern neighbor, and Japan which was occupied post-war and continues to be a logistics hub for Pacific operations and to counter Chinese interests in the region. The rest are just refuel points like the ones Russia has (the US just has a bigger patrol area).

>Has Russia been overthrowing elected governements all around the world since the 60s?

Russia instead enjoyed crushing revolts against tyranny in neighboring countries or simply letting their allies get slaughtered by Nazis. Also fuck you for setting the cutoff as the 60's, since that basically removes the rise of all communist powers including the installation of Soviet puppets in the entirety of eastern Europe. That's like claiming that Britain was never an imperial power by setting the cutoff date as 1999.

>Does Russia break every international treaty that it signs, without exception?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

So you're saying the United States has broken EVERY SINGLE ONE of these treaties? Wow, with that track record it's amazing that anyone is stupid enough to sign a treaty with them!

>This reign of terror is coming to an end.

Pleas tell me how post-Cold War NATO control has been terrifying.

>>80448
"With us - against us" ideals has nothing to do with imperialism, you autistic mongrel.

>>80445
>"Defending national interest"
>literally the ultimate imperialistic excuse to invade foreign countries.

Russia is being very imperialistic. Just like the U.S. Do I even need to bring up the amount of times the U.S. "protected American interests in [insert oil rich country here]"?

>>80469
thank you for confirming my point that the US has the most military bases all over the world.

If you don't like the 60s, we can say after the 90s, since that's the begginning of the contemporary era, once again, the conclusion is the same. Thanks for confirming my point.

Yes,I'm saying that the US has broken every bilateral treaty it signed. Countries continue to sign treaties with them because either they're bullied into it or are puppets of nato.

If you want to know how nato has been terrifying, just ask chileans, iraqis, lybians, lebanese, syrian and so on.

>>80478
it has everything to do with imperialism you autistic mongrel.

>>80479
The difference being that since the break up of the soviet block, a lot of ethnic russians live in what are now countries neighboring russia. Defending the interest of those people is not imperialism.

However, when the US "defends its interests" by invading iraq, for example, which has no ethnic or historic ties to them, that's being imperialistic.

>>80501
that would mean nearly everyone in the world is imperialist except crazy hermits and cuckolds

>>80503
we could argue that imperialism is institutionalized suprematism. And, it's true that a big part of the population of the earth is suprematist.

However, when we look at contemporary history, all those people's behaviour have been socially engineered by either the british of the american.

For example, in the case of muslims, the british helped create wahabism in the 17th century, which is a form of suprematism. Muslims weren't suprematist before that (or, not in a instituzionalied way, at least). The US kept on doing the same thing in afghanistan and later created isis, which is the imperalisit form of islam.

Long story short, if there wasn't war, there would be peace. The question is, who is keeping the war alive nowadays? Who arms, funds, trains and organizes terrorism?

the answer is nato and friends.

>>80344
I never said the US state isn't expansionist or imperialist. I am just saying Russia's state is also expansionist and imperialist.

Democracy doesn't ensure your leaders have your interests in mind, it just restricts their actions to a degree.

>>80505
Apparently you're hellbent on defining Russia as imperialist and expansionist, which has really not been the case since the fall of the soviet union.
However, I don't think you can deny that the US is in yet another league of imperialism and expansionism. The mischiefs of Russia and the US really cannot be compared.

You can have the point of view that you want on Russia, I'm not an apologist and I'm not even pro-russian. I'm simply opposed to imperialism, expansionism and terrorism (which I hope you are, too) and, therefore, my biggest concern is the policy and actions of nato member states and their allies, to which I am opposed.

>>80500

>thank you for confirming my point that the US has the most military bases all over the world.

If you want to maintain global trade routes and are an integral part of the defense plan of your allies, then damn well you're going to have bases all over. The Soviets had a similar number of bases back in the day, the difference is the Soviets fell from power while America has kept on chugging, maintaining defensive commitments to its allies and continuing anti-piracy. When you get a bigger share of global responsibility, you also get a bigger stick to go with it. If you want less US global military presence, then you should convince others to pick up the slack.

More bases does not always equate to imperial aggression, since a crapload of those bases are cold-war leftovers that have simply continued be useful (Germany and Japan) while some are critical to maintaining peace (bases in South Korea mean an attack on SK is an attack on the US, a useful deterrent vs North Korean aggression).

>after the 90's

And now you're trying to cut out the good part of American interventionism (stopping ethnic cleansing in the Balkans) while leaving out Russia's hilarious disasters (Chechnya).

>Yes,I'm saying that the US has broken every bilateral treaty it signed.

Do you not see that massive fucking list? You'd better tell me how the US has broken a significant number of those treaties instead of just making blanket statements with literally nothing to back it up.

>chileans, iraqis, lybians, lebanese, syrian and so on.

None of those are NATO actions (an important distinction since it places the blame on only the US and a few allies) and only Iraq, Libya, and Syria are post-cold war. All three are/were ruled by dictators; Libya and Syria were supporting already in-motion rebel actions. While the aftermath hasn't been pretty, I don't think the citizens of those places were happy with their old situation either, so I hardly call any of that a "reign of terror."

>>80513

>you need our protection
fear mongering

>people who are not our vassals are evil dictators

wew

>>80504
>>80508
>The mischiefs of Russia and the US really cannot be compared.
America is more powerful so you are right to pay more attention to it for practical reasons.

HOWEVER

Thierry imagines he is a caped crusader who has uncovered a grand conspiracy. In reality when you declare "tee hee gubmint did 9/11" with only "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" tier evidence you are not accomplishing anything, you are more like Don Quixote fighting windmills.

>all those people's behaviour have been socially engineered by either the british of the american
Either anglo social engineering is as powerful as mind control and the sole source of "suprematism" (supremacism?), or maybe the nature of evil is different to what you imagine.

>you're hellbent on defining Russia as imperialist and expansionist
I'm not defining anything. I'm saying it out loud. Russia is imperialist and expansionist. The same applies to every other state of course, the US, Russia, all of them. This isn't a controversial opinion, it is the way of the world, people capable of restraining themselves when there are no consequences to their actions are a minority. As Thucydides said "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Did the CIA try to assassinate Erdogan? Maybe they did, but no one knows for sure, I don't know, you don't know, Thierry doesn't know, using it as the basis for a longwinded conspiracy theory is irrational. If you were an actual caped crusader who gave a shit about uncovering corruption you wouldn't be irrational because that would reduce your effectiveness.

>>80519
>
your whole argument is
>conspiracy theory
>what I've heard the most often, from sources of which I choose not to see the obvious interests in creating a narrative, is the truth

ok then. nice talking to ya.

>>80521
I am skeptical of mainstream news.

I am just also skeptical of Thierry.

>ok then. nice talking to ya.
;) bye bye now tee hee, you're a retard

>>80541
by all means, you're retarded as well.

>>80514

Your arguments are weak, mostly because they're not actually arguments but ridiculous simplifications.

>you need our protection
>fear mongering

Like they say about paranoia, it's not fear mongering if you have legitimate enemies who threaten you on a regular basis. North Korea continues to threaten the South Koreans, and without the US stationed in the South, the North would have comparatively little to lose by rolling in. Somali pirates are still a thing that need to be dealt with regular naval patrols, many provided by the US Navy. China continues to aggressively build island bases to shore up their claims on international waters, and without the US trying to form a unified front none of the other regional powers would have the strength to counter it. Finally in Europe the US stands by in NATO bases so they can react quickly to a potential call for mutual defense (far less likely now that the cold war is over, but you never know when Russia decides to annex more territory for "ethnic protection...").

These places are safer because they know the US has their back if some shithead decided to start a fight. And if they want the US out, they are free to actually spend money on their own military instead of outsourcing it to America.

[1/2 I'm tired of trying to be under the character limit]

>>80559

[2/2]

>people who are not our vassals are evil dictators

You are wildly extrapolating everything to the extremes: anything friendly to the US are puppet "vassals" and everything against the US is "evil dictators" with nothing in between in an attempt to make the US sound like an medieval kingdom. Maybe the truth is simply that the US only strikes out against those bad enough to be worth of the effort, after all you don't attack dudes who you disagree with but are alright otherwise (just like any other nation). Similarly, not everyone who is on your side is your "vassal," and you can see US allies working against US interests all the time for their own benefit (case in point, few NATO allies spend the required 2% on military).

Fun fact, we can do the same "vassals" and "evil dictators" analogy with Russia, but instead of "evil dictators" for the opposition, we can call them "corrupt" and "imperialist."