Newsletter by F. William Engdahl: The Endless Wars about Oil and the Control of Oil: Russia and Cheneys Oil Wars

Schermkopie-3744 2018.11.14

As I did before, again I would like to share William Engdahl’s latest newsletter. This time the subject is ‘The Endless Wars about Oil and the Control of Oil: Russia and Cheneys Oil Wars’. After the introduction (if you want, read or skip it) you can read chapter 12 of William’s book Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. What’s chapter 12 all about? Here’s a small passage:

The Bush-Cheney Administration, which held power in Washington from early 2001 to 2009, had one clear strategic mission—to engineer control of the vast, mineral-rich Eurasian continent by dividing Russia from China, by militarizing the region from the Middle East to Georgia to Afghanistan, and controlling oil and energy pipelines across the entire Eurasian landmass.
The Pentagon called it Full Spectrum Dominance—control of all land, sea and air space, as well as outer space and even cyberspace. To accomplish such a grandiose plan, they used all available tactics — from outright military invasion to more subtle Color Revolutions — to create Washington-friendly regime changes, even in places such as Georgia and Ukraine.

So, let’s go.

Dear readers,

Since the blatant CIA-led coup d’etat in Ukraine in early 2014 the demonization of Russia by intelligence circles in NATO has taken unprecedented intensity. In this regard it is useful to examine the background of Washington operations following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s to control the vast oil and gas resources of the former Soviet Union, not because NATO countries were in need of oil. Rather it was to deny control of that oil to the emerging Russia and prevent Russia’s economic emergence from seven decades of Cold War and Soviet economic stagnation. The US 2003 war against Saddam Hussein, a Cold War ally of the USSR was not about alleged weapons of mass destruction as a cabal of neo-conservative warhawks around the Bush Administration claimed. It was about oil and control of oil. The following from my book, Myths, Lies and Oil Wars, should provoke some thought about the endless wars today in Syria, Yemen, and key oil regions masked behind so-called war on terror or religion wars. 

If you find my reports here and on my website informative, consider making a donation on my website to help me continue to offer my content gratis.

Best regards,

F. William Engdahl

Reader Reviews of Myths, Lies & Oil Wars:

“Everyone has to read this book. Period!!!” – Peter B.
“This book is a weapon of mass awakening” – Michael Ivey
“…a must read” – NeoFeudalSerf
“Very interesting…” – D. Russell
“…excellent book…” – Ryan
“Eye opening” – Sean C. Markus
“…most amazing documentation…” – Robert E. King
“A stunning book” – Norman
“… I cannot stop reading…” – Stephen
“An outstanding read.” – Financial Foghorn

Click here to buy the book:  
I Want It!

Schermkopie-3746 2018.11.14

Chapter Twelve: Russia and Cheney’s Oil Wars

Going ‘where the oil is’

“You’ve got to go where the oil is. I don’t think about it [political volatility] very much,” Cheney told a meeting of Texas oilmen in 1998 when he was still CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil services company.[1]

The Bush-Cheney Administration, which held power in Washington from early 2001 to 2009, had one clear strategic mission—to engineer control of the vast, mineral-rich Eurasian continent by dividing Russia from China, by militarizing the region from the Middle East to Georgia to Afghanistan, and controlling oil and energy pipelines across the entire Eurasian landmass.

The Pentagon called it Full Spectrum Dominance—control of all land, sea and air space, as well as outer space and even cyberspace. To accomplish such a grandiose plan, they used all available tactics — from outright military invasion to more subtle Color Revolutions — to create Washington-friendly regime changes, even in places such as Georgia and Ukraine.[2]

Iraq and the China danger

Months before the events of September 11, 2001 – which conveniently provided the pretext for a war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — Vice President Dick Cheney had been giving a lot of thought to going ‘where the oil was.’ The Bush Administration’s primary agenda was to implement the PNAC plan for Iraqi regime change through war; Dick Cheney was its leading advocate inside the Bush Cabinet.

On January 23, 2001, just three days after George W. Bush’s inauguration, newly appointed Secretary of State Colin Powell was advised that US policy was to topple Saddam Hussein.[3]

The situation was becoming critical for Washington’s hawks and for the major US and British oil companies. UN economic sanctions had been imposed in 1990 initially to force Saddam Hussein’s troops to leave Kuwait, where Washington had manipulated the Iraqi invasion to force Kuwait to allow permanent US bases and to push the oil price up. Now, more than a decade after the end of the first Iraq war, as Cheney himself admitted, those sanctions were being seriously undermined, both by Saddam Hussein and by oil-hungry countries eager to secure a chunk of Iraq’s vast undeveloped oil riches.

Washington was facing rising international pressure through the UN and across the world to lift the Iraqi sanctions. Ending the sanctions that had kept Iraqi oil controlled since 1991 was a major reason for the timing of the war, as Cheney himself implied after the US invasion was a fait accompli. [4]

On the eve of the invasion, Cheney also confirmed that Iraq held the world’s second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Some oil experts believed it could even be larger than Saudi Arabia’s. Moreover, Iraqi oil was extraordinarily cheap to extract, at a cost of less than $1 a barrel.[5]

By the end of the 1990s most of Iraq’s unexploited oil had been contracted out to select foreign oil companies by a cash-strapped Saddam Hussein. The major prospects went to three foreign oil companies—Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total and China’s National Petroleum Company. The three companies had all signed major exploration contracts with Saddam Hussein’s government, including production-sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National was granted North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.[6]

Not surprisingly, France, Russia and China, as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, and with support from an increasing number of other countries, pressed for an easing of US-led sanctions. Since Iraq had first nationalized its oil company in 1972, privately owned British and American oil companies had been prohibited by Iraqi law from doing business in Iraq – a primary reason Cheney and company clearly wanted Saddam Hussein out. A sanction-free Iraq able to do major oil business on its own with China, Russia and France was clearly not part of Washington’s blueprint for sole global superpower hegemony.

‘It was about oil…’

In October 2002 — some five months before the Bush Administration launched its near-unilateral invasion of Iraq — The New York Times revealed that Halliburton had prepared a confidential 500-page document on how to handle Iraq’s oil industry after an invasion and occupation of Iraq. This, said the Times writer, was “a plan [Halliburton] wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan.” [7]

As Washington well knew, the minute the stringent US-imposed economic sanctions against Iraq would be lifted by the UN, France, Russia, and above all, China stood to gain enormous oil provinces in the country. The US and UK had been able to keep those contracts inoperable so long as sanctions were in place, but as pressure grew to lift sanctions for humanitarian and other reasons, Washington clearly decided the risk of losing Iraqi oil to China and Russia and France was far too great strategically.[8] War was the only option they saw.

The Iraq ‘regime change’ policy, which became active after the collapse of the World Trade towers, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or September 11 events, though Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other hawks in the Bush national security team argued that a false propaganda campaign linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden should be invented to justify to the American people the forced invasion of Iraq. [9]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz admitted only weeks after the collapse of Iraq in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was not about terrorism. It was about oil.[10]

The Iraqi war in 2003 was about creating a permanent chain of US military bases in Iraq from which to control and police the entire oil-rich Persian Gulf, as Cheney so poetically put it, “where the oil is.” [11]

In June 2003, Wolfowitz told a conference in Singapore, “The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.” [12]

By 2009, six years after the initial US invasion – now an occupation — Iraqi oil production had not yet reached its pre-invasion output levels.[13] Washington and the US and British Big Oil majors were not interested in a flood of Iraqi oil depressing the oil prices that had just begun rising after the US invasion. Exxon and Chevron had been among the strongest voices pressing the Bush Administration for a military occupation of Iraq and its oilfields.[14] They wanted to cut Iraqi oil flows for a considerable period and to control it as well. It was the implementation of Cheney’s 1999 London remarks about the need to, in effect, bring control into private—read Anglo-American oil giants’—hands and out of the control of Middle East governments.

War on Terror or War on Oil?

The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were centerpieces of a new, long-term US strategy to militarize the entire Eurasian land space.

Back in 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Adviser and former executive director of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, revealed the new US global strategy:  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US goal was to prevent, at all costs, the emergence of a Eurasian economic rival to American hegemony. Formulating this strategy at a time when Russia was struggling to survive, and well before the emergence of China as an economic giant, Brzezinski stated it in the boldest possible terms:

Eurasia is home to most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world’s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world’s overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world’s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia’s potential power overshadows even America’s.

Eurasia is the world’s axial super-continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy….[15]

Brzezinski was revealing that US foreign policy was, in fact, based on the axioms of British geopolitics founder, Sir Halford Mackinder, who had long ago figured out the central geopolitical importance of Eurasia for empire builders. Brzezinski even mentioned Mackinder by name in the book version of his essay.[16]

As Brzezinski clearly stated, US foreign policy — defending “America’s global primacy” — left no room for rival power blocs, above all not in Eurasia where a strategic partnership between China and Russia could deal a major blow to Washington’s agenda of total geopolitical control. He stressed, “it is on the globe’s most important playing field —Eurasia—that a potential rival to America might at some point arise.”[17]

The new energy wars

The wars in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and in Iraq after 2003 — wars which ultimately cost US taxpayers more than $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) by 2010 [18] — were but the opening shots of a series of geopolitical oil and energy ‘pipeline wars’ — undeclared wars, but wars in every sense of the word. They were wars, covert and overt, spanning territory that stretched from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia to the South China Sea, from the Indian Ocean on down to the Persian Gulf and deep into Africa.

The energy wars were fought with bombs, with terror tactics and with devastating new remote-controlled pilotless drones. They were often also fought with sophisticated new methods of political destabilization of uncooperative regimes through what were called Color Revolutions.

The goal was simple: Pentagon control of all significant global oil deposits in order to be able in the future to control the emerging Eurasian economic colossus, especially China and Russia. The goal would be achieved by any means necessary.

By 2003, the most urgent strategic priority for Washington — now that Iraq had been militarily occupied by US and (mainly) British forces — was the control of Russian oil and gas and Russian energy pipelines.

A major oil pipeline that could take the vast oil reserves of Azerbaijan’s Baku region to Western markets, independent of Russian pipelines, was a Washington priority. For that to happen, a coup in the tiny Republic of Georgia was deemed essential, as well as a similar coup in Ukraine.

If pro-US regimes could be installed in both countries, not only would the military security of Russia itself be mortally threatened, but also Russia’s ability to control the export of its natural gas and oil to Western Europe would be severely hampered.

Brzezinski’s pipeline

Zbigniew Brzezinski, no mere ivory tower academic, acted as a semi-official representative of the geopolitics he espoused, even though he was no longer a government official. He became, in effect, an oil lobbyist.

In 2005 Brzezinski showed up to celebrate the opening of the very costly — and politically motivated — alternative pipeline that would pump Caspian Sea oil from offshore Baku in Azerbaijan, formerly part of the Soviet Union, to Western Europe. Azerbaijan, as noted earlier, was a priority focus of Washington after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Strategically located in the South Caucasus region at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, it was in the heart of Eurasia.

Azerbaijan was bordered by Russia to the north, Georgia to the northwest, Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. It also sat on huge reserves of oil, as Dick Cheney knew from his days as CEO of Halliburton. In 1998 the US State Department had officially estimated that the Caspian region had reserves of oil and gas of 178 billion barrels or more, potentially making it one of the largest untapped oil regions then known. Such numbers were significantly higher than previous estimates during the Soviet era, as new data had been collected using advanced 3D seismic survey technology.

By comparison, the United States had known reserves of some 21 billion barrels, while the North Sea oil fields held an estimated 16 billion barrels. [19]

The world’s largest oil reserves were in Saudi Arabia, at that time estimated officially at 261 billion barrels. In short, Caspian Sea oil, like the oil in Iraq, was yet another “prize” worth grabbing, to use Cheney’s term.[20]

Soon after the first public euphoria about Caspian Sea oil riches, the US State Department began to dramatically downplay the significance of Caspian oil. In a May 1998 broadcast, the US Government’s Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty began a campaign to discredit talk of the Caspian Sea being a new Saudi Arabia in order to discourage investment in the region. [21] The less people realized the importance of oil in the region the better, thought Washington.

Meanwhile, British and American oil majors moved quietly and swiftly to take control of Caspian oil and gas resources. Along the northeastern shore of the Caspian Sea in Kazakhstan, Condi Rice’s old company Chevron took the major share of the huge Tenghiz field, while BP-Amoco, the British-US oil giant, dominated development in Azerbaijan’s part of the Caspian Sea around Baku.

By 2001 the Caspian Sea, the largest enclosed body of water on Earth, was rapidly becoming an Anglo-American lake in terms of oil control. Only Iran remained beyond their grasp and they were working on changing that, as well.

The problem in controlling the Caspian oil was building a secure pipeline from the Caspian oil fields that would bypass Russia and further weaken their former Cold War rival as a re-emerging Eurasian power.

Here Brzezinski stepped in to lobby hard for Washington investment in a major US pipeline running from Baku overland through the new Republic of Georgia, and from Tbilisi in Georgia over to NATO member Turkey and its Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. This would become known as the ‘BTC pipeline.’

Washington’s Rose Revolution

Now serving as the chief paid lobbyist for BP, Brzezinski used his impressive Washington connections to push the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline even though costs were vastly more than would have been the case if the pipeline had been laid along existing Russian routes, including through Chechnya.

Brzezinski had been a consultant to BP since the late 1990s, during the Clinton era, when he first urged Washington to back BP’s Baku pipeline project, even acting as Clinton’s unofficial envoy to Azerbaijan to push the deal. He was on the board of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC), whose chairman was also President of ExxonMobil Exploration.

Other USACC Board members included Henry Kissinger, and James Baker III, who in 2003 went to Tbilisi to tell the President, Edouard Shevardnadze that Washington wanted him to step aside in favor of the US-trained Mikheil Saakashvili. Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to George H.W. Bush, also was on the board of USACC. Dick Cheney was also a board member before he became Vice President. A more high-powered Washington team of geopolitical fixers would be hard to imagine. Caspian Sea oil control was clearly high on the Washington agenda.

In November 2003, Brzezinski’s geopolitical oil agenda moved forward as the US State Department and a group of Non-Governmental Organizations it influenced — including the National Endowment for Democracy, the Freedom House and several others — orchestrated a bloodless coup in Georgia.

In January 2004, the so-called Rose Revolution put into power Washington’s candidate for President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili. He had been clearly groomed for the job while studying at Columbia Law School. Saakashvili’s first call as President was for Georgia to join NATO, a demand that did not go down well in Moscow. [22]

With the pro-NATO Saakashvili firmly installed as their man in Tbilisi — euphemistically called a democratic revolution — BP and the Anglo-American oil consortium moved swiftly to complete an 1800 kilometer pipeline from Baku via Tbilisi to Ceyhan in Turkey’s Mediterranean, at a cost of some $3.6 billion, making the BTC pipeline one of the most expensive oil projects in history. BP’s controversial chairman, Lord Browne, a close adviser to Britain’s Tony Blair, played a key role in wooing Azerbaijan to the British oil company.[23]

With construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline for BP’s Baku/Caspian oil, a major part in the weakening of Russia’s oil and energy independence appeared in place.

Tbilisi to Kiev: Ukraine’s Orange Revolution

Within weeks, Washington moved even closer to Moscow’s doorstep by financing what CNN and other western media called the “Orange Revolution.” In November 2004, eight months after the Georgia coup, Viktor Yushchenko—whose wife was an American citizen who had served in the Reagan Administration—became Ukraine’s controversial new President. The US State Department reportedly spent more than $20 million to get their man in as President.[24] Another ‘democratic’ revolution.

Ukraine, far more even than Georgia, was of utmost strategic importance for Russia’s national security. To begin with, Russia and Ukraine shared centuries of interwoven history, culture and language, with Kievan Rus being considered the birthplace of modern Russia. Political control of Ukraine could potentially give Washington control of most of Russia’s Soviet-era natural gas pipelines. Ukraine’s pipelines brought Russian natural gas from Siberia to Germany and other parts of Western Europe — in return for desperately needed dollars or euros for the government of Vladimir Putin. Moreover, because of the nature of Soviet economic integration during the Cold War, the state economies of Ukraine and Russia were organized as virtually one large entity. To cut that at the Ukrainian border dealt a devastating blow to Russia at a time when it could ill afford such a loss.

With Poland already in NATO, a NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia would almost completely encircle Russia with potentially hostile neighbors, creating an existential threat to the very survival of Russia itself.

Putin knew this, but his options were limited. Washington knew what the stakes were, and it was doing everything short of open war against a nuclear opponent to push the agenda.

As of 2004, the very heartland of Eurasia was under threat of becoming swallowed up by NATO in a new, if undeclared, Cold War — this one being fought over energy pipelines rather than over ICBMs.

US and British oil companies had gained control over most of the vast oil of the Caspian Sea from Kazakhstan to Azerbaijan. The British oil giant BP had wrangled a strategic joint venture with a major privatized Russian oil company, Lukoil, Russia’s second largest and in 2003 created TNK-BP, a joint venture with Russian partners and creating one of the ten largest private oil companies in the world. ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell had secured major rights to develop vast oil and gas reserves in the Russian Far East on Sakhalin Island, where they began drilling in 2003. Those deals had been secured during the chaotic, ultra-corrupt Yeltsin days just after the collapse of the Soviet Union when American dollars could literally buy anything for a song.

The Bush-Cheney strategy of controlling “all oil everywhere” seemed well within reach as Russia, the world’s second largest oil producer and by far the largest natural gas producer and exporter, appeared to have become encircled by a web of hostile regimes.

While Moscow tried to counter the Washington energy strategy with its own energy initiatives, in most strategic respects Moscow appeared significantly under ‘containment’ by 2004.

Meanwhile, what began to preoccupy Washington increasingly at that point was the other major, rapidly growing Eurasian power—The Peoples’ Republic of China — fast emerging as the world’s economic colossus. Oil would be used as a weapon of control there, as well, but in an entirely different manner than with Russia.


[1] Dick Cheney, as cited in Kenny Bruno and Jim Valette, Cheney & Halliburton:

Go Where the Oil Is, Multinational Monitor magazine, May 2001, accessed in

[2] For a detailed description of the Pentagon’s military agenda following the collapse of the Soviet Union, see F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, Wiesbaden, edition.engdahl, 2009.

[3] Edward S. Walter Jr, Information Memorandum to Secretary Colin Powell on Origins of the Iraqi Regime Change Policy, January 23, 2001, reprinted in National Security Archives, The Iraq War — Part I:  The US Prepares for Conflict, 2001, accessed in

[4] Dick Cheney, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney’s Remarks in Wilmington, Ohio, October 26, 2004, accessed in

[5] Tim Russert, Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC ‘Meet the Press,’ Transcript for March 16, 2003, accessed in

[6] James A. Paul, Oil Companies in Iraq, Global Policy Forum, November 2003, accessed in

[7] Maureen Dowd, cited in Dilip Hiro, Greenspan’s Oil Claim in Context, TomDispatch,

September 25, 2007, accessed in

[8] Global Policy Forum, Oil in Iraq, accessed in

[9] Dan de Luce, Bush Officials Intent Early on Iraq Invasion Papers Suggest, AFP, September 23, 2010.

[10] In a September 6, 2003 interview with the London Guardian, the just-fired UK Environment Secretary Michael Meacher declared that the reason for Tony Blair’s unflinching backing of Bush and the Iraq war was pressure from BP to get a major piece of the oilfields of southern Iraq. See Michael Meacher, Oil: The Great Unmentionable, July 15, 2010, accessed in

[11] US General Jay Garner who headed the first Iraq occupation administration after 2003, openly admitted that establishing a permanent network across Iraq of US military bases was a prime reason for the war. See Jim Lobe, Chalabi, Garner Provide New Clues to War, February 21, 2004, Inter Press Service, accessed in

[12] George Wright, Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil, The Guardian, London, June 4, 2003. Some years after retiring as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan also admitted that oil had been the reason for invading Iraq. Greenspan stated in his memoirs, The Age of Turbulence, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” (see Dilip Hiro, op. cit.).

[13] Gina Chon, Iraq’s Oil Minister on Defense, The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2009, accessed in

[14] James A. Paul, op. cit.

[15] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York, Basic Books, 1998, p.31.

[16] Ibid, p. 38.

[17] Ibid, p. 39.

[18] National Priorities Project, Total Cost of Wars Since 2001, accessed in

[19] Adil Baguirov, Caspian Oil Reserves, Azerbaijan International, Summer 1998 (6.2), p. 58, accessed in

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, 2009, edition.engdahl, Wiesbaden, pp. 41-43.

[23] Indicative of how the British Blair government and BP got the lucrative Baku oil rights, Les Abrahams, a former BP executive who admitted being hired also to work for British MI-6 intelligence, told the British media in 2007 that he spent £45 million over just four months of negotiations with Azerbaijan’s state oil company. In a revealing article, the UK Daily Mail recounted Abrahams’ story: “Armed with a no-limit company credit card, he ordered supplies of champagne and caviar to be flown on company jets into the boomtown capital, Baku, to be consumed at the ‘sex parties.’ The hospitality continued in London, where prostitutes were hired on the BP credit card to entertain visiting Azerbaijanis. Mr Abrahams, an engineer by training, joined BP in 1991, just as the disintegration of the Soviet Union had triggered a ‘new gold rush’ by oil multi-nationals seeking a share of the 200 billion barrels of oil reserves beneath the Caspian Sea. While employed by BP, Mr Abrahams says he was persuaded to work for MI6 by John Scarlett, now head of the service but then its head of station in Moscow. He says he was passing information to Scarlett in faxes and at one-to-one meetings in the Russian capital. He also claims that BP was working closely with MI6 at the highest levels to help it to win business in the region and influence the political complexion of governments.” (Glen Owen, Hookers, spies, cases full of dollars…how BP spent £45m to win ‘Wild East’ oil rights, UK Daily Mail, May 13, 2007, accessed in Lord Browne himself ended his career as head of BP abruptly in 2007 when a UK judge issued a court ruling upholding testimony of Browne’s jilted boy lover, a young Canadian named Jeff Chevalier, that gave details of Browne’s secret extravagant gay life. (London Evening Standard, Damning judgement that finished Lord Browne’s career, 2 May 2007, accessed in

[24] F. William Engdahl, op. cit., p. 46.

Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203



VPRO Tegenlicht: De nieuwe zijderoute (en het verval van het oude Europa)

Schermkopie-3495 2018.09.06

Vanochtend keek ik (toevallig) naar deze zeer boeiende aflevering van VPRO Tegenlicht van 26 februari 2017 ‘De nieuwe zijderoute‘.

Op de website van Tegenlicht staat bij deze aflevering de volgende intro.

Tot vandaag was de wereldgeschiedenis een westers gecentreerde onderneming, gebaseerd op de stelling dat iedereen zou moeten zijn zoals wij, of tenminste zo zou moeten worden. Volgens de Britse historicus Peter Frankopan, schrijver van de wereldwijde bestseller ‘De Zijderoutes’, heeft het Westen zich op die manier volledig vervreemd van de rest van de wereld. Het oude Europa is in verval en de economische voorspoed in Azië, Afrika en Zuid-Amerika gaat aan onze neus voorbij. Het machtscentrum verschuift langs de lijnen van de nieuwe zijderoute, van west naar oost. Hoe zullen wij ons aan die nieuwe wereldorde moeten aanpassen? Volgens Frankopan is het hoog tijd voor een herijking van onze werkelijkheid. Voordat we kunnen begrijpen waar het naartoe gaat met de wereld en voordat we daarop kunnen reageren, moeten we anders naar onszelf leren kijken. Door terug te kijken, ver terug te kijken, houdt hij ons een spiegel voor, die uiteindelijk haarscherp laat zien dat we ons zullen moeten aanpassen, of we nou willen of niet‘.

Eerder schreef ik zelf een stuk over dit onderwerp ‘A New World Awaits?‘ gebaseerd op het artikel ‘Russian Actions in Syria Part of Radical Remaking of Global Oder: A New World Awaits‘.

Het onderwerp heeft veel zo niet alles te maken met de geopolitieke puinhoop waar we momenteel in zitten. Een puinhoop waar het westen en, als we kijken naar de afgelopen decennia, met name de VS debet aan is.

Wie eerder mijn stukken las en mij volgt op Twitter en GAB weet dat ik de afgelopen jaren een stevige bloedhekel heb gekregen aan de VS (Deepstate, Neocons en hun oorlogsmisdadige puppet presidenten zoals George W. Bush en Barack Obama). Ook ben ik absoluut geen fan van de EU en, laat ik daar ook duidelijk over zijn, ik moet ook niets hebben van de islam. Maar ik snap inmiddels wel dat veel islamitische landen ook een bloedhekel hebben aan met name de VS. Peter Frankopan heeft het onder andere over de revoluties in Iran, het land dat nu weer onder vuur ligt van de VS en Israel. De agenda laat zich raden. Meer over die revoluties in het stuk ‘From Shahs To The CIA: The History Of Western Intervention In Iran’ (deel 1 en deel 2).

Na het zien van deze aflevering blijf ik bij mijn advies aan Europa: neem afscheid van de VS en zoek aansluiting bij Rusland en China.

Ik hou het, voor mijn doen, een keertje kort. Zoals ik al zei, een boeiende aflevering. Kijk zelf maar.

Holland Releases Dubious MH-17 Report on Eve of Russia World Cup (by F. William Engdahl)

As a Dutchman, interested in geopolitics and thus also very interested in the research on the downing of flight MH-17, I would like to share with you a newsletter, written by F. William Engdahl, in which he shares his july 2014 article ‘Ukraine MH-17 is CIA False Flag and it Ain’t Flying‘.

You can find the original article via the author’s website and many other very interesting articles.

Why share it with you? Well, from the beginning I was and I still am convinced that the downing of MH-17 was a US/Kiev false flag backed by EU and NATO countries. Engdahl’s article confirms my opinion. I case you are not yet convinced I hope you will be after reading the article.
Why share it now? Well, check the title above (a dubious MH-17 report from Holland).

Note: some links at the end of the newsletter don’t work or don’t exist anymore. How can that be?

Here we go, F. William Engdahl’s newsletter dated 18.07.2018:

“Dear Readers,

For this issue of my newsletter I want to share something I wrote in July, 2014, shortly after a Malaysian airliner en route from Amsterdam to Malaysia was shot down over Ukraine. The piece is especially timely in light of the May 27 release of an investigative report in Holland alleging to have “definite” proof that the MH-17 airliner was shot down by a Russian BUK missile. That May, 2018 report presents no definitive new forensic evidence. Rather it relies on assertions and speculations by sources, including the UK-based Bellingcat, an intelligence operation receiving funds from among others, the NATO-linked Atlantic Council, where he is listed as “Nonresident Senior Fellow.”

In 2014 Bellingcat first engaged in assertions of Russian shooting of the MH-17 that were fraudulent and today would accurately be called fake news. Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins posted a photo on July 14, 2014 under the headline, “Found: The Buk Missile Launcher That Downed Flight MH17.” Higgins wrote that the photo had been taken in the town of Snizhne. It was actually proven to have been taken in the town of Torez and under weather conditions significantly different to those on the day of the MH-17 crash. Higgins claimed it was unimportant when the photograph was taken or where…

Further, in the initial attempt to blame Moscow, on July 19 2014, Kiev’s Security Service (SBU) published photos online that it claimed showed ‘Russia’ secretly withdrawing a BUK-M surface-to-air missile system from the Ukraine civil war zone. At the time SBU Chief Vitaly Naida declared to press “The SBU … is getting clear evidence of Russian citizens’ involvement in the terrorist attack (on the Malaysian Airlines Boeing)”. However, bloggers immediately spotted the photos were of a Kiev air-defense system no. 312, previously pictured in March that year. With this background in mind, the latest attempt to reuse the badly discredited Bellingcat blog as investigative source for the latest attempt to again cast blame on Moscow, is highly revealing. With this in mind, I thought it worthwhile to reprint for you my initial investigation of the MH-17 affair written in July, 2014.


Censorship? One important note to all of you readers to underscore how the internet is being increasingly censored and critical websites or authors such as yours truly are coming under increasing attack. In March this year, 2018 I self-published via a subsidiary of Amazon, my newest book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. For the first two months, sales were building strongly. Then in early May just two hours after a major interview on the book on a very popular critical media in the US, I received an email, unsigned, from the Amazon publishing company announcing that my book had been delisted. Reason given was a vague claim the book contained information available for free on the internet and that their customers do not like to pay when they can get it free. They gave no prior notice or chance for me to defend against their charges. I replied, “Please explain what you refer to.” Reply was the same vague nonsense, again unsigned. I wrote again asking how we could clear this as soon as possible. Finally, after the book had been delisted for a week, they wrote “congratulations,” that I could reproof and upload it again. Since then sales have dropped dramatically despite favorable reviews. It is impossible to prove that Amazon’s company censored my book just when a burst of sales would be expected, but the case shows how vulnerable free speech has become and how real internet censorship is becoming.

I mention this incident to underscore how important it is to support independent critical voices especially now, and to ask you to consider buying the book if you have not done so, or making a support donation on my website, I want to continue providing my work free of charge and not behind a paywall. To do that I need your support.

Thank you,

William Engdahl

Click the cover to buy the book on amazon:

Schermkopie-3399 2018.07.23

Ukraine MH-17 is CIA False Flag and It Ain’t Flying

By F. William Engdahl                                                                               26 July, 2014

The world has seen all this theatre before. We saw it with the false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident during the Vietnam War. We saw it with the CIA-Saudi faked Sarin gas episode in 2013 that brought the world to the brink of a world war. We saw it in the fake Niger uranium yellowcake episode that was used to bully a US Congress into war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003—the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were found. Now the world is seeing it again in the frantic efforts of the US State Department and elements of the CIA to try to blame Putin’s Russia for allegedly giving the East Ukraine separatist rebels highly sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft weapons allegedly used to shoot down the Malaysian Airlines.

Putin, so charges Secretary of State John Kerry on five (!) US talk shows on July 20, is de facto guilty for not controlling the east Ukraine rebels. The proof of it all? “Social media,” according to the State Department official press spokesperson.   

The good news for those sober souls who are not eager to see a World War III pitting China-Russia and the BRICS against a US-led NATO and turning Westzern Europe into a devastated Trümmerfeld for the third time in a century, is that this attempt to blame Putin’s Russia is backfiring even as this is being written.

Unanswered questions

One of the most shocking features of western mainstream media coverage of the MH17 event is the utter lack of serious, cautious investigative journalism of the variety which used to exist only a few years ago. Rather than err on the side of caution before rushing to judgment in a situation that could easily trigger a new Cold War or worse, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and most EU media including German simply quote Kiev government officials, even neo-nazi ones, as if they were credible. Real inquiry must look at the unanswered questions.

First we should begin with several very vital unanswered questions before making judgment what happened to MH17 Boeing 777 aircraft on July 17.

Number one is why Kiev Air Traffic Control, a part of the Ukraine Ministry of Aviation, ordered the MH17 to deviate from its scheduled route that avoided the war zone in eastern Ukraine? According to the initial reports of which tracks all civilian aircraft online, on Thursday, July 17 Malaysian Airways Boeing 777 Flight MH17 from Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport to Kuala Lampur Malaysia, deviated significantly in altitude and trajectory route from all other commercial flights which since outbreak of the civil war in eastern Ukraine in April have flown south of the conflict region. The key questions before giving blame to anyone, which have been completely ignored by the Ukrainian government in Kiev, by the Obama Administration in Washington, by most Western media are why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan? Why did he fly above restricted airspace? And just what, if any instructions, did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic explosion?  [1]
Source: screenshot images from compiled by from Vagelis Karmiros who collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked by FlightAware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the Sea of Azov, it was only July 17 MH17 tragic flight that passed straight overhead Donetsk.

Curiously, after the FlightAware data was initially published, the site changed its version of the trajectory of MH17. Were they pressured to do so? If so, by whom? By NATO? By Washington? It’s implausible to imagine it could have been pressure from an isolated Russia.

Kiev’s fake ‘Smoking Gun’ Video

Most of Obama Administration arguments about who is responsible for MH17 rely on citing Kiev government officials as if they were credible. Yet they have lied repeatedly since their US-backed coup d’etat on February 22, 2014 brought them illegally into power at the barrel of a gun. Just hours after the news of the downing of the plane, Ukrainian Secret Intelligence released what it claimed was “proof” that MH17 was shot down by Russian-trained separatists under direct orders from Russia. The 2:23 minute YouTube purported to prove that “militants of “Bes” group using a Russian anti-aircraft missile shot down a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 passenger jet heading from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

Ukrainian intelligence presented what it alleged were recorded conversations, first of all between a pro-Russian separatist and his coordinator Vasyl Geranin, said to be a colonel of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. They talk about the “downing of a jet.” There is no distinction whether this is a civilian or a military jet, and may well refer to a shot down Ukrainian Su-25 which was shot down some hours earlier in the civil war fight. In the You Tube there is no way to prove the audio was not simply two actors in a studio reading a script given them by Kiev or CIA handlecredibility of Kiev officials who have lied about almost everything since day one. rs. The entire Kiev “smoking gun” You Tube vanished from the media when diligent IT researchers discovered the time/date stamp to the YouTube showing that the video was put online on 2014-07-16 at 19:10 pm Kiev time, a full day BEFORE the downing of MH17. Ooops! Back to the Langley drawing board, boys.

So much for the  credibility of the Kiev government, which has lied about pretty much everything since day one in office.

US NATO Maneuvers simultaneous

Now we come to a highly interesting coincidence. Just as was the case during the World Trade Center attacks of September, 2001 and the so-called Boston Bombers attack and numerous other terror incidences, there were relevant NATO-Ukraine maneuvers taking place just on the days before and right after the MH17 event.

According to Washington NSA “whistleblower” Wayne Madsen, NATO and the Ukraine military were making ten days of joint military “exercises,” code-named Sea Breeze,” that included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). SEA BREEZE, according to Madsen, included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. From the Black Sea, “the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Black Sea as well as any missiles fired at the plane.” As well, US AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 fly-over of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats. [2]

The NATO exercise coincided with the July 17 MH17 downing only 40 miles from Russia’s border. “NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance.” [3]

(One very curious footnote is the recurring central role of Vice President Joe Biden in the Ukraine events. Biden has been personally involved since the beginning of the protests. And unusually, it was not NATO but the website operated by Vice President Joe Biden’s office that first announced US SEA BREEZE and RAPID TRIDENT II military maneuvers on May 21, 2014. As well, in a brazen conflict-of-interest, Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is a newly-named director of the Ukrainian natural gas and oil company Burisma Holdings, Ltd., owned by IhorKolomoisky, the Ukrainian-Israeli mafia oligarch, whose is known as the «Chameleon»). [4]

The burning question is why has the US Government not released the exact tracking images for the flight MH-17 on July 17 to show precisely when it flew and from precisely where it was hit? Could it be they are afraid to reveal what they have for fear it would boomerang on Washington’s warhawks?

Not only do the US agencies have satellite data on the MH17 flight, they also have precise images of the likely rocket missile battery that fired the missile that destroyed MH17. And the images clearly show soldiers wearing….Ukrainian uniforms.

According to award-winning former Newsweek journalist Robert Parry, one reliable whistleblower source told Parry that, “US intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.” [5]

Could this be the reason why even until today, the Obama Administration has not released detailed evidence to prove their assertions that Ukrainian “rebels backed by Moscow” fired the deadly rocket?  It would show in fact the opposite, that it was Kiev-tied forces.

US State Department changes story

The official propaganda war against Russia on the MH17 downing is being run, just as was the Maidan Square coup, by a cabal of neoconservatives in the US State Department around neoconservative Assistant Secretary Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Ambassador to NATO, whose neo-conservative husband Robert Kagan was one of the founders of the Bush-era war document, Project for a New American Century, that set out the plan for US war on Iraq in September 2000, a full year before September 11, 2001. [6]

Nuland’s Deputy Press Spokesperson, a former CIA press spokesperson, Marie Harf, in a July 21 Washington press briefing, faced unusually persistent and critical questions from several journalists. They asked why, if Secretary John Kerry and the US Government possessed “irrefutable” evidence of Russian and rebel involvement in MH17, did they refuse to make it public as they did in earlier instances such as the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis.  Defensive and irritated by the questions, Harf retorted, referring to July 20 statements by Kerry, she declared, “our assessment that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory.” But, incredibly, what was the proof the journalists were demanding? Harf replied, “that we know – we saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft…” [7] Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen for gasping. “We saw it in social media afterwards…we saw photos of pro-Russian separatists bragging…” Has the CIA developed talking photographs too?

Apparently feeling mounting pressure to produce some shred of evidence, a day later on July 22, CNN, a loyal mouthpiece for the US State Department, announced that the US Government had published satellite evidence. Finally! What was it? This drawing below, which any photo-paint novice could have made, showing nothing real or provable at all in any independent UN or other independent evidential inquiry:

Schermkopie-3400 2018.07.23As pressure built by the hour for the US Administration to release its reconnaissance photos as well, it began to look more and more that the “evidence” held by CIA satellite images indeed showed not pro-Russia rebels manning the BUK anti-aircraft in East Ukraine, but rather Ukrainian uniformed soldiers as Perry’s intelligence source maintained. Not good for the warhawk faction in Washington.

With Russian government and military intelligence releasing more of its own evidence, the Obama Administration has gone into a frantic “damage control” mode. At 5:57 pm Washington time on July 22, they decided to organize an anonymous press briefing by “unnamed senior officials.” “Unnamed senior officials” usually refers to very high level cabinet or assistant secretary level officials.

Several “unnamed senior US officials” held a press briefing in Washington. The US intelligence officials stated that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, “the US had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.” [8] This was new from Washington.

The US intelligence officials went on to say they didn’t know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were “not certain” that the missile crew was trained in Russia…In terms of who fired the missile, they stated, “We don’t know a name, we don’t know a rank and we’re not even 100 percent sure of a nationality…” [9]

Looking like goofy characters in a bad remake of a Hollywood Laurel & Hardy film, the “senior” US intelligence officials, when asked for details on their evidence, repeated the State Department mantra of Marie Harf. The intelligence “seniors” had the chutzpah to state that they were, “relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government,” even though they openly admitted that they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile. But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be. [10]

That last bit of the press briefing is astonishing because it meant that some briefing officer, perhaps CIA or State Department, briefed the President of the United States (who presumably has little time to do his own investigations…) who then went on nationwide TV on July 21 to charge that the Malaysia Airlines plane, “was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine.” He also said Russia has both trained the separatists and “armed them with military equipment and weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons.” That speech brought the entire world one giant step closer to an open Cold War with Russia that easily could become a hot war. A day later, somebody very senior inside the US Administration apparently decided to deescalate the confrontation massively.

Kolomoisky’s Private Army: Who did down MH17?

That begs the question of who did then down the MH17. Here the waters get very rough and very ugly. The specific area where the fatal missile was fired at MH17 is in fact not under control of the “pro-Russia rebels,” but under control of a neo-nazi private mercenary army, organized and armed by Ukrainian billionaire Ukrainian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky.

Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of at least US and Israeli intelligence services. He holds both Ukraine and Israeli passports and operates his business empire from Switzerland, not Kiev. In the past months, Kolomoisky has raised his own mercenary army, complete with the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17. Kolomoisky, the Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine, has threatened terrorist attacks against Russian-speaking officials in eastern Ukraine, including assassinations.

Kolomoisky, estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, also has strong connections inside Kiev’s Borispol International Airport, where it has been reported that Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops stormed the air traffic control tower shortly before MH-17 was shot down.[11]

Was that storming of the Kiev Air Traffic Control Tower just before the MH17 strike done by Interior Ministry troops commanded and ordered by new Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov—a man earlier wanted by Interpol for fraud and a staunch ally of former Prime Minister and Russia-hater, Yulia Tymoshenko and of Ihor Kolomoisky? Avakov first designated the east Ukraine rebels as “terrorists,” a label that ostensibly allows committing of any atrocity against innocent civilians very much as Israel in Gaza today. [12]

In a personal interview, Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief Jeffrey Silverman pointed to the possible complicity of the company Inmarsat in the MH17 case. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, today has most international air traffic control communications systems under their purview. In the earlier disappearance of Malaysian MH-370, according to Silverman, the flight was “lost” due to Inmarsat turning off their signals and refusing until today to release their data. [13]

In an interview just after the downing of MH-17, a Spanish national identified only as “Carlos” told ETN, an online news service, that his private evaluation, and basing it on military sources in Kiev, was that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. He said that Kiev radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down and all foreign employees in the Traffic Control in Kiev were released immediately. Carlos also reported that the very same MH-17 plane was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets until 3 minutes before it disappeared from radar. [14]

We may never hear more details from Carlos as just after his report was posted in the internet, he disappeared, his social media accounts wiped and no one seems to know his whereabouts.

There are speculations rampant inside Ukraine that there is a deep split between the bitter and electorally defeated Tymoshenko and Chocolate King billionaire President Petyr Poroschenko, whose business empire depends to a large extent on economic ties with Russia.

Kolomoisky, nominally Jewish and ostensibly sympathetic to Israel or at least holding that passport, supports tactics of neo-nazis more reminiscent of Himmler’s SS or the Nazi Gestapo. Kolomoisky’s forces are armed with advanced weaponry, obtained both from Ukrainian weapons inventories and from purchases on the black market. They reportedly possess the BUK surface-to-air missile system said to have shot down the MH-17.

Kolomoisky’s forces comprise Ukrainian regular military personnel; neo-Nazi units from west Ukraine; foreign mercenaries, including Georgians, Romanians, and white supremacists from Sweden and Germany; ex-Israel Defense Force Blue Helmet commandos. They are organized into four battalions: the Azov Battalion; the Aidar Battalion, the Donbass Battalion; and the 2,000-strong Dniepr-1 (or Dnipro-1) Battalion, which was responsible for the deadly May 1 fire-bombing of the trade union building in Odessa and the burning alive of people trapped inside the Mariupol Police Station on May 9. Dnipro-1 also maintains a 20,000-member reserve force.

At the heart of Kolomoisky’s Army is a Nazi «Brownshirt»-style force of ardent Kolomoisky loyalists who have used guns, iron bars, and batons to seize control of factories and offices in Ukraine that Kolomoisky has expropriated from so-called «separatist» sympathizers.[15]

Georgian mercenaries in Kolomoisky’s Army have reportedly been trained in the use of BUK missile systems that an earlier Ukraine government of Viktor Yushchenko sold to then-Georgia Predisent, US-backed Mikheil Saakashvili. Kolomoisky has now used ex-President Saakashvili’s «consulting services» in Dnipropetrovsk in the military and political campaign against the breakaway people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, according to Madsen.[16]

If the gang behind Kolomoisky was in fact behind the MH-17 disaster, it would explain why the neoconservatives and Israel lobby in Washington and around the world, especially in the media has so vehemently pointed the finger away from Kolmoisky and to Russia’s Putin. Kolomoisky apparently has indirect access to the highest levels of power within the Department of Defense, NATO, and the US Intelligence Community.

A serious truth-seeking investigation ought to start with Kolomoisky and his international network. But at this point it is clear the attempt to pin MH-17 on Putin’s Russia, a classic CIA “false flag” operation, an attempt to try to blame the enemy for what you have actually done, has badly backfired. This is however far from the last of it, it’s very clear to this writer.



[1] Marc Koutzarov, Why did it deviate the route which both KLM and MA where flying all week? Successive screen shots with time and dates from, posted Friday, July 18, 2014, 9:06 am, accessed in also Tyler Durden, Was Flight MH17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?,, 07/17/2014 23:55 -0400, accessed in air space.png.

[2] Wayne Madsen, MH17 Beware of the “Chameleon”, Wayne Madsen Report, 21.07.2014, accessed in

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Robert Parry, What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?, July 20, 2014, accessed in

[6] Wikipedia, Victoria Nuland, accessed in

[7] US State Department, Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, July 21, 2014, accessed in

[8] AP,  US: No link to Russian government in Flight MH17 downing, July 22 2014, 5:57 pm,|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D505510

[9] Ibid.

[10] Wayne Madsen, op. cit.

[11] Ibid.

[12]  Wikipedia, Arsen Avakov, accessed in

[13] Personal email exchange with the author and Jeffrey Silverman, July 18, 2014. For information on Inmarsat, see the official company website at

[14] ETN, Ukraine air traffic controller suggests Kiev military shot down passenger plane, July 17, 2014, accessed in

[15] Wayne Madsen, op. cit.

[16] Ibid.

Click the cover to buy the book on amazon:

Schermkopie-3399 2018.07.23
Strasse der Republik 17
Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203
Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

Russia did it or was it ‘just’ another Western False Flag (English version)?

Schermkopie-3117 2018.03.28

This morning I saw Robert van der Roer at a Dutch TV news show WNL. He’s a Dutch diplomacy expert. No doubt you have guys like that in your country. Of course it was about Russia and Putin. For a moment I thought ‘I’m going to write a column like Jan Dijkgraaf (a Dutch professional buttkicker) often does, a letter from Niek to Robert’. I won’t do it that way. Jan always knows how to keep his columns short. Again I won’t be able to do that, although I will try to do it at this point in writing.

The reason to write this column is not Robert (he only triggered me) but a documentary I saw recently. A subject that I often talk about and which I also wrote about earlier. The reason to write about it again is the controversy about the poisoning of Mr. Skripal and his daughter by, as Theresa May proclaimed, ‘highly likely’ the Russians and so Putin.

I have read quite a bit about it on different websites (other than the MSM) and on my favorite website On this site I read the following article: Four Days to Declare a Cold War. Because proof apparently no longer has any value in the West, I assume that it is highly likely that the Skripal case again is a Western false flag (here the definition and a list of 58 admitted false flags). The false flag described in the article is much more likely to me (and hopefully to you) than the lie of Theresa May.

Picture from my Tweet dated march 23

Why is that false flag much more likely? What has already been suggested by many, what is the importance of this attack for Putin and Russia? Who really does have an interest? You don’t know? Didn’t you read the article in which the 58 admitted false flags are described? Oh, you are not convinced yet?

Then it is time to go to the documentary that I mentioned at the beginning. Sit down and relax, it takes 1 hour and 42 minutes but it’s worth it and don’t be bothered by the title. Read instead of New World Order (Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Gorbachev talk about it in the docu) Globalization because that’s what it’s about. The long way to this Globalization is clearly explained in this docu. Especially the second part shows a lot about recent history. The documentary was published in October 2013, so the events of recent years (including the proxy war in Syria and the regime change in Ukraine) have not been incorporated. After seeing the docu you will hopefully be able to better understand these events and the current situation we are in (the further isolation of Russia and possibly further escalation).

After seeing this docu, the question remains, where are we going with the world? I see two scenarios, one more positive than the other:

  1. Russia and China oppose (I think rightly) against the globalization forced by the West.
  2. Russia and China play along with the ‘game’ towards the globalization desired by the ‘elite’.

In scenario 1, there seems to be some hope. I wrote about that earlier in my column A New World Awaits? English version. This scenario is disastrous for the West, especially the US. The US has built up a government debt of more than 20 trillion US$. The demise of the so-called PetroDollar means the downfall of the US and Europe. From this column the following quote about the PetroDollar:

‘Related to oil there’s yet another problem for the US, the PetroDollar (article in Dutch, video’s in English). This article also gives a good insight into the criminal role of the US in the world. Shortly summarized, oil can only be paid with US Dollars. With the rise of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the PetroDollar is increasingly under pressure because these countries (want to) pay oil in currencies other than the US Dollar. Renounce the PetroDollar, as Iraq, Libya and Syria wanted to do, you will regret that and pay a high price, especially small countries. A quote from the article about the PetroDollar:

According to many, there are forces in the United States who even want to start a third world war to maintain its power. Moreover, China, Iran and Russia don’t want the PetroDollar Debt anymore and work on a cautious dismantling of the PetroDollar. The problem is that there is a Debtbomb stuck on it. When the PetroDollar is bumped of her throne this will have unprecedented, enormous consequences for our financial system, particularly in the West. The US will therefore make every effort to maintain the PetroDollar, thus providing terrorism and the war industry further service. Again, the War on Terror and the PetroDollar are feeding each other

In scenario 2, the disaster will be even greater. Sometimes it’s called a ‘Global reset’. I also wrote (translated) the following document (longread) All Wars Are Well Planned Banker Wars, Including World War 3. Much of what is written in this article (dated may 2014, just after the US-orchestrated coup in Ukraine) is also mentioned in the documentary. From the article the following quote:

‘Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.

World War 3 Timeline

These are, I believe, the stages of the planned Third World War:

  • Prelude – The events leading up to the start of World War Three, including Sept 11, 2001.
  • Act 1 – The Middle East. Widespread conflict to bring the entire region into the flames of war, possibly triggered by Iran or militants in Pakistan using North Korean supplied nuclear arms. The first Scene in this Act is the US Invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003.
  • Act 2 – Israel at War — Against her Arab neighbors, possibly Palestine. A Palestinian State will be established, so that all Israelis will be fully separated from Palestinians (listen out for mention of a 7-year treaty to be confirmed by a World Leader – probably a Bush), only for Israel to viciously attack Palestine shortly thereafter.
  • Act 3 – Far East — “Hair-raising nuclear confrontation that threatens mankind’s existence” – Peter Lemesurier, author of The Armageddon Script, p. 223, written in 1981. Includes China invading Taiwan and a nuclear eruption on the Korean Peninsula.
  • Act 4 – Erosion of Confidence in ‘The System’ so severe citizens will be panicked into giving up liberties and Constitutional form of government. The plan calls for the dissolution of the US Constitution, triggered by a significant enough ‘terrorist’ attack.  The ultimate intent is to introduce a global government and one-world religion.
  • Act 5 – The collapse of the US, and other Western economies and morals.
  • Act 6 – Significant population reduction using natural and man-made disasters.
  • Curtain. Who can tell how this war will end?

Both Biblical prophecy and the Illuminati plan state that Israel is the key. The Third World War is planned to begin when Israel goes to war against her Arab enemies. Then, and only then, will all the other elements begin to occur and they will do so in rapid succession. The plan is to have one disaster following another in such rapid succession that, before people can mentally and emotionally handle one disastrous news event, they will be hit with another. It is also accurate to say that until ALL of the elements for WW3 are in place, the plan will not commence.

While it would be naive to suggest a specific timeline for the events leading up to and including World War 3, we do know that the plans for World War 3 are well advanced, and our leaders involved in this secret plan are waiting only for the right signal before all-out war begins’.

Which scenario it will be? I have no idea. Rather 1 than 2. That it will be one of those two is now almost certain for me. But is there no other, third scenario possible? Ultimately a successful globalization resulting in peace, well-being and prosperity for everyone? Looking at our ‘leaders’ and what is going on right now, I do not believe in it (Utopia). Do you?

In conclusion, I would like to return to Robert van der Roer, and also to other experts, journalists and politicians. What do they know what we don’t know or what do some of us know what they don’t seem to know?

To get that clear, or at least trying to do that, I use the following 4 (somewhat arbitrary, generalizing) categories (whoever fits the shoe……is that also an English saying?):

  1. People who don’t care about what’s going on in the world.
  2. People who follow and believe the MSM (people who can easily be influenced by mainstream newsstations and newspapers).
  3. People who are critical of the MSM, consult various alternative sources, know reasonably or very well what is really going on and oppose the plans of the ‘elite’.
  4. People who know reasonably or very well what is going on but who consciously keep the truth hidden (forced or unconstrained), go along with the MSM narrative or direct them in their reporting. By me a.k.a. ‘elite’ puppets.

It is often quite easy to determine who belong to the groups 1, 2 or 3. In case of group 4, I find that a little more difficult. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, our ‘leaders’ clearly belong to group 4. So, to which group do people like Robert van der Roer and other experts belong? And if you look at some journalists and politicians? And to yourself?

We can still ask Robert (and others), right?


Photo May and Trump via
Photo Theresa May via





Russia did it or was it ‘just’ another Western False Flag?

Schermkopie-3117 2018.03.28

Vanochtend zag ik Robert van der Roer weer bij WNL (voor de liefhebber vanaf 1 minuut 30), je weet wel die diplomatie deskundige. Het ging natuurlijk over Rusland en Poetin. Even dacht ik ‘ik ga een stukkie schrijven zoals Jan Dijkgraaf dat vaak doet, dus briefje van Niek’. Ik doe het toch maar niet op die manier. Jan weet het altijd zo lekker kort te houden. Dat gaat mij vast weer niet lukken al neem ik me op dit punt van schrijven voor dat wel te proberen.

De aanleiding om dit stuk te schrijven is niet Robert (hij triggerde mij slechts) maar een documentaire die ik onlangs heb gezien. Een onderwerp waar ik het wel vaker over heb en waar ik ook al eerder over schreef. De reden om er weer over te schrijven is dus de ophef rond de vergiftiging van meneer Skripal en zijn dochter door, zoals Theresa May dat verkondigde, ‘highly likely’ de Russen en dus Poetin.

Ik heb er inmiddels aardig wat over gelezen op verschillende websites (anders dan de MSM) en op mijn favoriete website Op die site las ik o.a. het volgende artikel: Four Days to Declare a Cold War. Omdat bewijs blijkbaar geen enkele waarde meer heeft in het Westen ga ik er vanuit dat het highly likely is dat het in de zaak Skripal alweer om een Westerse false flag gaat (hier de definitie en een lijst van 58 toegegeven false flags). De false flag die in het artikel wordt omschreven is voor mij (en hopelijk voor u) vele malen aannemelijker dan de leugen van Theresa May.

Plaatje uit mijn Tweet van 23 maart

Waarom die false flag veel aannemelijker is? Wat door velen al is aangedragen, wat is het belang van deze aanslag voor Poetin en Rusland? Wie heeft er dan wel belang bij? U weet het niet? Heeft u het artikel waarin de 58 toegegeven false flags worden beschreven dan nog niet gelezen? O, u bent nog niet overtuigd?

Dan wordt het nu tijd om naar de documentaire te gaan die ik in het begin noemde. Ga er maar goed voor zitten, duurt 1 uur en 42 minuten maar dan heb je ook wat en laat je niet hinderen door de titel. Lees i.p.v. New World Order (Bush senior, Bill Clinton en Gorbatsjov hebben het daarover in de docu) maar Globalisering want daar gaat het over. De lange weg daar naar toe wordt in deze docu helder uit de doeken gedaan. Vooral het tweede deel laat veel zien over de recente geschiedenis. De docu is gepubliceerd in oktober 2013 dus de gebeurtenissen van de afgelopen jaren (w.o. de proxy oorlog in Syrië en de regime change in Oekraïne) zijn er niet in verwerkt. Na het zien van de docu zult u ook die gebeurtenissen en de huidige situatie (het verder isoleren van Rusland en mogelijk verdere escalatie) hopelijk beter kunnen plaatsen.

Na het zien van deze docu blijft wat mij betreft de vraag, waar gaat het heen met de wereld? Ik zie twee scenario’s, de één iets positiever dan de ander:

  1. Rusland en China verzetten zich (m.i. terecht) tegen de door het Westen opgedrongen globalisering.
  2. Rusland en China spelen het ‘spel’ mee op weg naar de door de ‘elite’ gewenste globalisering.

In geval van scenario 1 lijkt er nog wat hoop te zijn. Ik schreef daar eerder over in mijn stuk A New World Awaits? Dit scenario is voor het Westen, met name de VS, desastreus. De VS heeft inmiddels een staatsschuld van meer dan 20 triljoen US$ opgebouwd. De ondergang van de z.g. PetroDollar betekent de ondergang van de VS en Europa. Uit dit stuk hierover het volgende citaat:

‘Gerelateerd aan olie speelt er voor de VS nog een ander probleem, de PetroDollar (ook dit artikel geeft een prima inzicht in de criminele rol van de VS in de wereld). Kort door de bocht gezegd, olie kan alleen worden betaald met US Dollars. Met de opkomst van de BRICS landen (Brazilië, Rusland, India, China en Zuid-Afrika (South Africa) komt de PetroDollar meer en meer onder druk te staan omdat die landen olie (willen) betalen met andere valuta dan de Dollar. Afstand doen van de PetroDollar, zoals Irak, Libië en Syrië dat wilde doen, komt je, zeker als klein land, duur te staan. Een citaat uit het artikel over de PetroDollar:

Volgens velen zijn er krachten in de Verenigde Staten die het tot een Derde Wereldoorlog willen laten komen om haar macht te behouden. Bovendien hebben China, Iran en Rusland geen trek meer in de Petro Debt Dollar en werken aan een voorzichtige ontmanteling van de PetroDollar. Het probleem is dat er een Schuldenbom aan vast zit. Wanneer de PetroDollar van haar troon wordt gestoten zal dit ongekende, enorme gevolgen hebben voor ons financieel systeem in vooral het Westen. De VS zal er dan ook alles aan doen om de PetroDollar te behouden en daarmee het terrorisme en de oorlogsindustrie een verdere dienst bewijzen. Nogmaals de War on Terror en de PetroDollar voeden elkaar! ‘.

In geval van scenario 2 zal de ramp nog groter zijn. Soms wordt het wel een ‘Global reset’ genoemd. Ook daarover schreef (vertaalde) ik het volgende stuk (longread) Wordt 2017 het jaar van verandering of dendert de globalisering door? Veel van wat in dit stuk staat (het originele artikel dateert van mei 2014, vlak na de door de VS georkestreerde coup in Oekraïne) komt ook ter sprake in de documentaire. Uit dit stuk het volgende citaat:

‘Sinds de terreur aanslagen van 11 september 2001, tonen gebeurtenissen in de wereld, in het bijzonder in het Midden-Oosten, een groeiende onrust en instabiliteit tussen modern zionisme en de Arabische wereld. Dit is volledig in lijn met de oproep voor een Derde Wereldoorlog die wordt uitgevochten tussen die twee, en hun bondgenoten aan beide kanten. Deze Derde Wereldoorlog moet nog komen en de recente gebeurtenissen tonen ons dat het niet ver weg is.

Tijdlijn Derde Wereld Oorlog

Dit zijn, geloof ik, de fasen van de geplande Derde Wereldoorlog:

Inleiding – De gebeurtenissen in aanloop naar de start van de Derde Wereldoorlog, met inbegrip van 11 september 2001.
Act 1Het Midden-Oosten. Wijdverbreid conflict in de hele regio met als doel een vlammende oorlog, mogelijk veroorzaakt door Iran of militanten in Pakistan die gebruik maken van door Noord-Korea geleverde nucleaire wapens. De eerste scène in deze akte is de Amerikaanse invasie van Irak op 20 maart 2003.
Act 2Israël in oorlog – tegen haar Arabische buurlanden, misschien Palestina. Een Palestijnse staat zal worden opgericht, zodat alle Israëli’s volledig worden gescheiden van de Palestijnen (let op een vermelding van een 7-jarig verdrag dat wordt bevestigd door een wereldleider – waarschijnlijk Bush), met als enig doel kort daarna een venijnige aanval van Israël op Palestina.
Act 3Verre Oosten – ‘huiveringwekkende nucleaire confrontatie die het bestaan van de mensheid bedreigt’ – Peter Lemesurier, auteur van The Armageddon Script, p. 223, geschreven in 1981. Betreft het binnenvallen van Taiwan door China en een nucleaire uitbarsting op het Koreaanse schiereiland.
Act 4 Erosie van Vertrouwen in ‘Het Systeem’ zo ernstig dat burgers in paniek afstand zullen doen van hun vrijheden en de constitutionele vorm van de overheid. Het plan roept op tot de ontbinding van de Amerikaanse grondwet, getriggerd door een omvangrijke ‘terroristische’ aanval. De uiteindelijke bedoeling is om één wereldregering en één wereldreligie te introduceren.
Act 5De ineenstorting van de Verenigde Staten en andere westerse landen,  economisch en moreel.
Act 6Aanzienlijke vermindering van de bevolking met behulp van natuurlijke en door de mens veroorzaakte rampen.
Afloop. Wie kan vertellen hoe deze oorlog zal eindigen?

Zowel de Bijbelse profetie als de plannen van de Illuminatie stellen dat Israël de sleutel is. De start van de Derde Wereldoorlog is gepland op het moment dat Israël ten strijde trekt tegen haar Arabische vijanden. Dan, en alleen dan, zullen alle andere onderdelen optreden en elkaar in een rap tempo opvolgen. Het plan is om de ene ramp na de andere te laten ontstaan in een zodanig opeenvolgend tempo dat, voordat mensen mentaal en emotioneel met het rampzalige nieuws kunnen omgaan, ze al weer worden geraakt door een volgende ramp. Hierover nog de opmerking dat zolang ALLE onderdelen voor WW3 nog niet aanwezig zijn, de uitvoering van het plan niet zal worden gestart.

Hoewel het naïef zou zijn om een specifiek tijdschema te suggereren voor de gebeurtenissen die leiden tot en met de 3e Wereldoorlog, weten we dat de plannen voor die 3e Wereldoorlog in een vergevorderd stadium zijn en onze leiders, die betrokken zijn bij dit geheime plan, alleen wachten op het juiste signaal voor de totale oorlog begint’.

Welk scenario het wordt? Geen idee. Liever 1 dan 2. Dat het één van die twee wordt is voor mij nu vrijwel zeker. Maar is er dan geen ander, 3e scenario mogelijk? Uiteindelijk toch een succesvolle globalisering met als resultaat vrede, welzijn en welvaart voor iedereen? Kijkend naar onze ‘leiders’ en wat er gaande is geloof ik daar (Utopia) niet in. U wel?

Tot besluit toch nog even terug naar Robert van der Roer maar ook naar andere deskundigen, journalisten en politici. Wat weten zij wat wij niet weten of wat weten sommige van ons wat zij niet (lijken) te weten?

Om dat helder te krijgen, althans dat te proberen, hanteer ik de volgende 4 (beetje arbitraire, generaliserende) categorieën (wie de schoen denkt te passen……..):

  1. Mensen die het geen bal interesseert (de RTL en SBS brood en spelen kijkers).
  2. Mensen die de MSM volgen en geloven (de makkelijk door o.a. de NOS, RTL nieuws, Nieuwsuur, Buitenhof en NRC te beïnvloeden mensen).
  3. Mensen die kritisch zijn op de MSM, diverse alternatieve bronnen raadplegen, redelijk tot goed weten wat er werkelijk gaande is en zich verzetten tegen de plannen van de ‘elite’.
  4. Mensen die redelijk tot goed weten wat er gaande is maar die de waarheid bewust (gedwongen of ongedwongen) verborgen houden, mee blaten met de MSM of die juist sturen in hun berichtgeving. Ik noem ze ook wel trekpoppen van de ‘elite’.

Vaak is vrij makkelijk vast te stellen wie behoren tot de groepen 1, 2 of 3. Voor groep 4 vind ik dat wat lastiger. Wel zeker is, wat mij betreft, dat onze ‘leiders’ overduidelijk bij groep 4 horen. Welke schoen zou Robert van der Roer en sommige andere deskundigen passen? En als u kijkt naar sommige journalisten en politici? En naar uzelf?

We kunnen het Robert (en anderen) alsnog vragen, toch?


Foto May and Trump via
Foto Theresa May via



Donald Trump, you’re full of shit (English version)

59b19672fc7e93cc558b4567From the RT article: US President Donald Trump with Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in the East Room of the White House in Washington, US, September 7, 2017 © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Some time ago I read the following article on RT about Donald Trump. During a meeting with the emir of Kuwait, Trump said, among other things, the following:

“We would be extremely upset if Assad used chemical weapons” said Trump at a joint conference with Sheikh Sabah IV Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in Washington DC. However, “we have very little to do with Syria, apart from killing ISIS,” he added”.

Another bizarre pronunciation by ‘our’ Donald. I could’t resist to throw in the following Tweet.

I Tweeted “You’re full of shit @realDonaldTrump, I’ll explain later“. So here’s my explanation (Dutch version here). But first this:

When Trump stepped up and won the elections, I was quite excited about him. He seemed to oppose the, in my view, criminal geo-political policy of his predecessors Obama and Bush and his opponent Hillary Clinton. The remarkable promise Trump made during his inaugural speech sounded promising. I began to believe in better relations between the West and Russia and the end of the war in Syria. However, that proved to be short-lived. Not even a month after Trump’s inauguration, I had my first doubt. It was about the statements made by Nikki Haley (United States ambassador to the United Nations) about sanctions against Russia because of the occupation (liberation) of Crimea and the misery in Eastern Ukraine. Misery the Americans, in cooperation with the EU, caused (read the backgrounds here). I assume that Nikki Haley spoke on behalf of Trump and his government.

Recently, relations between the US and the EU and, on the other hand, Russia have not improved. And as usual that’s not the intention of the Americans (the Neocons) at all (more on that later). In addition to Ukraine, Syria is also a US-created mess (as it has done with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, among others). Another reason for further doubt was the Trump-commanded cruise-missile attack on a Syrian base, based on alleged use of poison gas (longread) by Assad troops. There are several, if not many, stories about this atrocity. In view of the circumstances (the US regime change coalition is on the losing side), it is almost certain that this was also a false flag operation, as they did before in 2013.

Formentioned is the reason that Trump’s statement “We would be extremely upset if Assad used chemical weapons” pissed me off. And also the second statement “We have very little to do with Syria, apart from killing ISIS” had the same effect on me. 

We have very little to do with Syria? God damn, again they started another war for power, oil and other dubious goals. Thousands of people killed, displaced and fled.
Apart from killing ISIS? A terrorist group they created themselves. Hé Donald, the job isn’t finished yet!

VS creatie IS

You don’t believe it? For convenience, I refer to my column “Where would we be without the United States of America?“. Please check the sources listed at the end of the column under the heading ISIS, Iraq, Syria.

The job isn’t finished yet and as I said at the beginning, that’s not at all the intention. Even though Assad, supported by Russia, seems to be winning, the Americans won’t give up.
According to this article, they are currently on a conquest for the oil-rich province of Deir ez-Zor:

“Maloof believes the US is intentionally using the Kurds to permanently entrench themselves in the oil rich Syrian province that is bordering Iraq”.

And according to this article, the weapon supplies to the Syrian rebels ‘simply’ continue in the coming years and will cost a lot of money (in addition to more deaths, refugees and other misery):

“The Department of Defense has budgeted $584 million specifically for this Syrian operation for the financial years 2017 and 2018, and has earmarked another $900 million of spending on Soviet-style munitions between now and 2022. The total, $2.2 billion, likely understates the flow of weapons to Syrian rebels in the coming years”.

All this is perfectly in line with the objectives of the Neocons, “more regime change wars” as described in this article about the Kagen Family, you know, Victoria Nuland, who took care of the coup in Ukraine and helped choosing The post-coup leaders (she is the wife of Neocon Robert Kagan.)

My question is, does Donald Trump know everything about this? And if so, does he agree or not? If I try hard enough, I can imagine that he does not agree but keeps his head down because he doesn’t want to end up dead like John F. Kennedy. If he knows about and agrees with it, I will definitely hang on to my statement “You’re full of shit Donald Trump“.

Too bad, because I hoped that he would keep his promise:

“We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow”.

Make that promise and do the opposite, then you must be full of shit!



Donald Trump, you’re full of shit

59b19672fc7e93cc558b4567Uit het RT artikel: US President Donald Trump with Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in the East Room of the White House in Washington, US, September 7, 2017 © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Alweer een tijdje terug las ik het volgende artikel op RT over Donald Trump. Tijdens een bijeenkomst met de emir van Koeweit zei Trump onder andere het volgende:

“We would be extremely upset if Assad used chemical weapons” said Trump at a joint conference with Sheikh Sabah IV Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in Washington DC. However, “we have very little to do with Syria, apart from killing ISIS,” he added”.

Weer een bizarre uitspraak van ‘onze’ Donald. Ik kon het niet laten de volgende Tweet er tegen aan te gooien.

You’re full of shit @realDonaldTrump, I’ll explain later” Twitterde ik. Bij deze dus, mijn explanation (English version here). Maar eerst even dit:

Toen Trump opkwam en de verkiezingen won was ik redelijk enthousiast over hem. Hij leek in te gaan tegen het, wat mij betreft, misdadige geo-politieke ‘beleid’ van zijn voorgangers Obama en Bush en zijn opponent Hillary Clinton. De opmerkelijke belofte die Trump deed tijdens zijn inauguratie speech klonk veelbelovend. Ik begon een beetje te geloven in betere betrekkingen tussen het Westen en Rusland en het einde van de oorlog in Syrië. Dat bleek echter van korte duur. Nog geen maand na Trump’s inauguratie sloeg bij mij de eerste twijfel toe. Het ging om de uitspraken van Nikki Haley (Amerikaanse ambassadeur bij de VN) over sancties tegen Rusland n.a.v. de bezetting (bevrijding) van De Krim en de ellende in Oost Oekraïne. Ellende die door de Amerikanen, in samenwerking met de EU, zelf is veroorzaakt (lees hier de achtergronden daarvan). Ik ga er van uit dat Nikki Haley sprak namens Trump en zijn regering.

De afgelopen periode zijn de betrekkingen tussen enerzijds de VS en de EU en anderzijds Rusland er niet beter op geworden. En zoals we van de Amerikanen (m.n. de Neocons) gewend zijn is dat ook helemaal niet de bedoeling (ik kom daar later nog op terug). Naast Oekraïne is ook Syrië een door de VS gecreëerde brandhaard (zoals ze dat o.a. ook hebben gedaan met Afghanistan, Irak en Libië). Een volgende reden voor nog meer twijfel was de door Trump bevolen aanval met kruisraketten op een Syrische basis n.a.v. een vermeend gebruik van gifgas (longread) door de troepen van Assad. Er zijn meerdere, zo niet vele, lezingen over deze gruweldaad. Ik ben er, mede gezien de omstandigheden (de VS regime change coalitie is aan de verliezende kant), vrijwel zeker van dat het ook hier ging om een false flag operatie, zoals ze dat al eerder in 2013 deden.

Voorgaande is de reden dat de uitspraak van Trump “We would be extremely upset if Assad used chemical weapons” bij mij in het verkeerde keelgat schoot. En ook die tweede uitspraak “we have very little to do with Syria, apart from killing ISIS” volgde dezelfde weg

We hebben weinig te maken met Syrië? Ze zijn daar g.v.d. een zoveelste oorlog begonnen voor macht, olie en andere dubieuze doelen. Duizenden vermoord, ontheemd en gevlucht.
Behalve het uitroeien van ISIS? Een terreurgroep die ze zelf hebben gecreëerd. Hé Donald, the job isn’t finished yet!

VS creatie IS

Je gelooft het niet? Gemakshalve verwijs ik dan maar even naar mijn stuk ‘Waar zouden we zijn zonder de The United States of America?‘. Check vooral de bronnen die ik aan het einde van het stuk heb vermeld onder het kopje ISIS, Irak, Syrië.

The job isn’t finished yet en dat is, zoals ik in het begin al aangaf, ook helemaal niet de bedoeling. Ook al is/lijkt Assad, gesteund door Rusland, aan de winnende hand, de Amerikanen geven het niet op.
Volgens dit artikel zijn ze momenteel uit op de verovering van de olierijke provincie Deir ez-Zor:

“Maloof believes the US is intentionally using the Kurds to permanently entrench themselves in the oil rich Syrian province that is bordering Iraq”.

En volgens dit artikel gaan de wapenleveranties aan de Syrische rebellen de komende jaren ‘gewoon’ door en dat mag wat kosten (naast nog meer doden, vluchtelingen en andere ellende):

“The Department of Defense has budgeted $584 million specifically for this Syrian operation for the financial years 2017 and 2018, and has earmarked another $900 million of spending on Soviet-style munitions between now and 2022. The total, $2.2 billion, likely understates the flow of weapons to Syrian rebels in the coming years”.

Dit alles is perfect in lijn met de doelen van de Neocons, “more regime change wars” zoals beschreven staat in dit artikel over de Kagen Family, u weet wel, Victoria Nuland, die voor de staatsgreep in Oekraïne zorgde en hielp bij het kiezen van de post-coup leiders (zij is de vrouw van Neocon Robert Kagan.)

Mijn vraag is, weet Donald Trump hier allemaal vanaf?  Zo ja, staat hij er dan wel of niet achter? Ik kan me, als ik m’n best doe, voorstellen dat hij er niet achter staat maar zich gedeisd houdt om niet te eindigen zoals John F. Kennedy. Weet hij er wel van en staat hij er achter, dan blijf ik zeker bij mijn uitspraak “You’re full of shit Donald Trump“.

Wel jammer, want ik heb zo gehoopt dat hij zijn belofte zou nakomen:

“We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow”.

Dat zeggen en het tegenovergestelde doen, dan ben je wat mij betreft full of shit!