Helsinki
after Singapore! The summit Trump-Putin will hopefully take place this
month in the Finnish capital, after being delayed and delayed for ages.
We had expected the two strong men to meet right away after Trump’s
historic election, but the summit didn’t take place, for Trump had been
besieged by Mueller’s Gestapo and accused of being a Russian agent. This
frivolous accusation is still floated every time Trump is doing
something sensible, but things changed with Trump-Kim summit, an event
that grows in importance in perspective almost daily.
Trump before
Singapore and after Singapore are entirely different creatures, like a
boy before and after his first kiss. Before, he was a Mr Big Mouth, a
ruler of his own Twitter account and of preciously little beside it.
After the summit, he became Prometheus Unbound, the regal President of
the mighty US. By meeting Kim, he denied the wiseguys in the media and
in the deep state; he refused to take their orders and did what he
thought right. By meeting Putin he will turn his disobedience into full
scale revolt.
His adversaries, the Masters of Discourse, were alarmed by Kim summit and horrified by approaching Putin meet.
Let us have a brief look at their reaction to Singapore. (Here
you can find a lot more). The Senate Minority leader Chuck (“the
Guardian of Israel”) Schumer has expressed “extreme concern”, saying
that
“Trump has drawn a false equivalency between the legitimate joint military exercises by South Korea and the US, and illegal North Korean nuclear testing (“How can you compare!” – a standard Jewish response) … Nothing should be given to N Koreans until “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program.”… Trump has given “a brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it has long craved.”
Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times complained
that Trump ‘made a huge concession — the suspension of military
exercises with South Korea’ while he got nothing in return – “nothing
about North Korea freezing plutonium and uranium programs, nothing about
destroying ICBM, nothing about allowing inspectors to return, nothing
about North Korea making a full declaration of its nuclear program,
nothing about a timetable, nothing about verification etc”. Noah Rothman, co-editor of the neocon magazine Commentary, called the summit “a disgrace”.
And the
“humanitarian interventionists”, that is, the leftists for intervention
on humanitarian grounds, have already rolled out complaints of defectors
from North Korea to the front pages, and they expectedly demand to
never consent to any peace without a complete change of regime,
lustration and international control.
President
Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sign a joint
statement | June 12, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Joyce N.
Boghosian)
President Trump has been presented with a united front of media and experts alarmed with any progress towards peace. For them, the only way to deal with N Korea is the Libya way: disarm first, intervene and bomb later,
for it is much safer to bomb a disarmed country. The Korean leader
understands that; he is not likely to go the Gorby way. The last Soviet
leader disarmed his country, dismantled the Warsaw Treaty, gave East
Germany to the West and allowed the US inspectors into the most secret
Russian installations after a friendly chat with President Reagan. Kim
won’t do it, and China won’t allow him. The last thing Chinese (or
Russians) need is an American protectorate in North Korea, a rather
short drive from Beijing, Harbin, and Vladivostok. But warm relations
between N and S Koreas and the US are certainly possible, if President
Trump were to stick to his Singapore line.
However, a few
weeks after Singapore, it seems that the naysayers prevailed, as they
usually do. The US refused to work towards lifting sanctions in the UN
Security Council, and had rejected the Russian-Chinese proposal to begin
their dismantling, while the Western media began working up its roll of
Kim’s transgressions. Thus the aura of unreliability again surrounded
the head of American president.
Putin’s meet had brought forth similar responses. OMG, peace is breaking!
“Fears grow over prospect of Trump ‘peace deal’ with Putin, editorialised The Times.“Britain
fears that President Trump will undermine NATO by striking a “peace
deal” with President Putin… Cabinet ministers are worried that Mr Trump
may be persuaded to downgrade US military commitments in Europe… NATO
figures fear that Mr Trump could seek to replicate his “peace agreement”
with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, which generated positive coverage. One cabinet minister said:
“What we’re nervous of is some kind of Putin-Trump ‘peace deal’ with Trump and Putin saying, ‘Why do we have all this military hardware in Europe?’ and agreeing to jointly remove that.”
Other media sources, and politicians are equally unhappy and worried.
“European allies hugely worried over Trump’s summit with Putin”, says MSNBC; so does the Atlantic, the Guardian etc.
The nearest to a positive attitude to the Singapore meeting had been displayed by the observer of the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, British Jewish journalist Anshel Pfeffer:
of course, an agreement with the bloody tyrant (Kim) is undesirable,
but there is a hope that, having reconciled with Kim, Trump will go to
war with Iran more easily. He comforted the warmongers that their loss
of a Korea war will be made up by a war on Iran. This is the line the
comforters take on the Helsinki meeting: Ta rump-Putin summit could be
forgiven if it would lead to war on Iran. This is the alternative as
presented by the Western MSM: warmongers condemn both summits,
comforters say ‘not all is lost, there is still Iran’.
In order to understand why unwilling Americans are being led into war, we shall turn to a recent important piece by Ron Unz. It is a part of his American Pravdaseries investigating modern American history and its [mis]presentation in media and in public memory. Our Great Purge of the 1940s, despite the title, is a decoding of secret codes in American and British public discourse in 20th
century. After going through an immense number of newspapers and
magazines, Unz discovered that whoever in American public life sided
against wars, usually had found himself marginalised, expelled,
forgotten, or even assassinated.
In a touching
personal way, he tells of his discovery that writers he believed were
marginal radicals actually had held supreme positions in MSM and
politics of their times, until they were marginalised and presented as
extremists.
An example is H.E. Barnes,
a highly esteemed and popular commentator on most prestigious tribunes,
until “By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of
America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently
“disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media
outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into
abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May
1940.” He disappeared from memory, says Unz.
A political example is Charles Lindbergh,
strong voice for peace in the end of 1930s – beginning of 1940s. Just
once he mentioned that three groups in particular were “pressing this
country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt
Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media
attacks and denunciations, writes Unz. That was the end of Lindbergh’
political career, and the US entered the WW2.
In the battle
for Hollywood (a very important tool of mass propaganda), the only
Gentile studio owner, Disney, a staunch pro-peace force, had his
premises occupied by the US Army, tells Unz, on the day after Pearl
Harbour.
Was it good or
bad, from our present point of view? We should make a strict distinction
between the time before and after the beginning of hostilities in
Europe. Before, the peace platform was right, for the WW2 could be
avoided altogether: if Poland (with British and American encouragement)
wouldn’t provoke Germany, Hitler could stay at home and try to turn his
country into Nazi paradise. As the war began in earnest, the US had to
intervene in Europe to prevent a German victory and subsequent German
domination of the whole Eurasian landmass, from English Channel to
Vladivostok. As for the war with Japan, it could be avoided if the US
didn’t provoke Japan by its oil embargo.
Unz writes that
the Jews and the Roosevelt administration prevailed on Britain and
Poland to take a strong anti-German line. The Jews were certainly
anti-Nazi, and they were willing to take chances of the world war. But
F.D. Roosevelt had been elected because he promised peace and
neutrality, – and when elected, he made a U-turn and went to war.
It appears to be
a permanent feature of American politics: presidents get elected
promising peace, and choosing war after their election. F.D. Roosevelt
supported the Neutrality Bill, but ushered the US into WW2. G.W. Bush
promised “humble foreign policy” and went on to conquer Afghanistan and
Iraq. B.H. Obama had been so keen on peace that even received his Nobel
in advance, but continued to carry war in Libya and Syria. And now we
have Donald Trump, whose election campaign included the promise of ‘no
more regime change’ and friendship with Russia, but his presidency
(meanwhile) will be remembered by war threats to Iran and N Korea.
Unz in the
mentioned article refers to Iraq war, too. Those who objected to this
most meaningless and destructive war were marginalised and ostracised:
Phil Donahue had high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan was similarly blacklisted from the media for his opposition to the Iraq War. Numerous prominent media voices were “disappeared” around the same time, and even after Iraq became universally recognized as an enormous disaster, most of them never regained their perches.
So there is a
force that pushes for war consistently, at least since 1914 till our
days. This force coincides with the main vector of American politics,
and since 1991, with the Western politics at large. It has a strong
Jewish component based in media and universities; a new Church of the
West trying to embrace the world. Its wars are ‘crusades’ (מצווהמלחמת,
‘wars for faith’ Joshua-style). That’s Jewish drive for world
domination. Jews are shy of admitting that, but once, Jews will admit
and recognise it; especially as their drive is intertwined with the
American drive for world domination (called Manifest Destiny), and the
British ‘White Man’s Burden’.
One of the
reasons the Jews parted their company with Russians is the latter’s lack
of aggressiveness. Whether in football or in war, the Russians are
usually defensive players. Even Josef Stalin, whose name still scares
people, hardly ever initiated an aggressive war; he never dreamt to
conquer Europe or the world. Other Russian rulers were even more
defensive, at best. This does not suit the Jews, who prefer more action.
For
Anglo-American civilization has its intrinsic aggressiveness, too. This
is not a value judgement, not a condemnation per se: there are
grass-eaters and carnivores; we like and make pets of cats and dogs, the
predators, not of timid lambs and calves. However, the aggressiveness
has to find its limits, otherwise the world will be destroyed. This
limit is now being sought, and President Trump who floated trial
balloons of leaving NATO and dismantling other aggressive alliances is
doing just that.
The Syria Deal
There are hints
that Trump wants to do in Syria what Nixon did in Vietnam, namely, to
get out of it. This is a wise step, if he will be allowed to take it.
According to media reports, Trump has two conditions to be discussed
with Putin.
The first
condition, Iran. The US wants Russia to limit its collaboration with
Iran or even oust Iran from Syria. For that, the United States is
proposing to drop its “Assad must leave” demand; to stop insisting that
Syria should be governed by a new provisional government without Assad.
The US is ready to agree that the elections in Syria will take place in
2021, and until then this topic will be removed from the agenda.
Moreover, the US tempts Russia with lifting some sanctions on Russia
proper. This bargain had been proposed to the Russians a few weeks ago,
and it had been elaborated upon ever since.
Iran is the enemy of choice for Israel. Donald Trump
had made a temporary alliance with Zionists, a Jewish group that is
interested mainly in the Middle East, as opposed to the ‘Liberal’ Jews
who are after world domination. Liberal Jews are strongly opposed to
Trump; while for Zionist Jews the liberal agenda in the US and Europe
(immigration, gender, outsourcing, free trade) is less important, while
the Middle East (Israel, Iran, Syria) is more important. Trump tries to
satisfy Zionist appetites hoping that they will limit their brethren’s
attacks on him, in return. Provided that Putin is also friendly to
Zionists while the Liberals are hostile to him, two presidents can find
an acceptable compromise. But it won’t be what Israel dreams of.
Russia does not
intend to quarrel with Iran; it can’t possibly oust Iran from Syria,
even if it would like to. As soon as this issue was discussed in the
press, there appeared a lengthy interview with President Assad, in which
he stressed that Iran’s alliance is most important for him. After all,
the Iranians fought on Assad’s side when the Russians were onlookers.
But the Iranians
are in a quandary. They do not want confrontation with Russia, nor with
the United States, neither with Israel. When Putin launched his trial
balloon, saying that all foreign troops should withdraw from Syria, the
Iranians did not object, but said: “We can leave, if we are asked”. The
Iranians can leave Syria, but Damascus does not want this.
However, Iran
agreed not to participate in the current struggle for the south-west of
Syria, for the territory adjacent to the borders of Jordan and Israel.
There, the legitimate army of Syria is conducting a successful offensive
against the rebels with Russian aerial support and without Iranian
participation.
Perhaps, this
absence of Iranians near Israeli borders will be presented by Trump to
Israel as his achievement. Trump wants Russia to create an exclusive
Iranian-free zone next to Jordanian and Israeli borders. Russia does not
control the situation in Syria to such an extent that it can undertake
it. But Russia can negotiate with the Iranians to prevent the Shiite
militias from entering this region. They did it once: when the Syrian
troops approached the Israeli border in Kuneitra area, Israel demanded
that the Shiite militias stay 50-70 km away. The Russians said: “No, but
we’ll arrange for you a few kilometres of separation.” Hence, this kind
of agreement is possible, if the parties are flexible enough, but there
will be no “Russia betrayed Iran” kind of deal.
The second is the fate of the rebels.
Trump does not
want the withdrawal of American soldiers to be accompanied by a blood
bath. While the US representative to the United Nations accused Russia
of violating the ceasefire and not observing the deconfliction zone, the
White House said that America would morally support the rebels, but it
would not fight for them. “You should not base your decisions on the
assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us”, was the
message.
This was a signal of approaching end of rebellion. Robert Fisk thinks
their collapse is imminent. The Russians won match and set. Some rebel
groups already surrendered and went over to the Damascus’ side. The
stubborn ones in their thousands retreated to Israeli and Jordanian
borders, but neither Israel nor Jordan intends to let them in.
Trump reasonably
does not want them to be slaughtered. He does not need screaming media
reporting on massacred Syrian freedom fighters and their children and
pregnant women betrayed by the Russian agent Trump. He needs an
agreement that the Syrian troops will behave and allow the rebels to
reconcile with the legitimate government or leave unharmed. This demand
suits Russia. From the very beginning and to this day Russians believed
and insisted that it is necessary to drag the disparate rebel bands to
the side of Damascus. And it suits Assad, for wherever the Syrian troops
came as liberators or conquerors, whether in Eastern Ghuta or in
Aleppo, they did not indulge in revenge or debt-settling. I am sure that
President Putin will help President Trump to leave Syria without losing
face.
I understand
that for many of my readers it is difficult or impossible to support
Trump. The tragedy of Richard Nixon may yet be repeated, for the
president who made peace with China and Vietnam had been hated by
warmongers and by all media-influenced Americans, and was forced to
retire. He was the last independent and peace-loving president; those
who condemned him were punished by a long run of inferior rulers. Trump
has many faults, but he still wants to avoid a great war. He deserves a
chance.
As for Putin, I
am certain he will be friendly and charming with the American, and
mercifully he won’t be tempted to make big concessions to Trump, for
Trump’s powers are still quite limited; his decisions are likely to be
blocked by the Congress and possibly overturned by his successor. Only a
rash person would make with him a complicated long-term deal, and
prudent Putin probably will be satisfied with ad hoc dealing.
*
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from the author.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Israel Shamir, Global Research, 2018