Associate of Joseph Mifsud Was Described By EU Parliament As A ‘Reliable Ally” To George Soros

Over the past few months, many questions have been asked regarding the “mysterious Maltese Professor”, Joseph Mifsud and his involvement in the “Trump – Russia” conspiracy. Disobedient Media’s Elizabeth Vos first reported on both professor Mifsud and Russiagate’s many connections to British Intelligence, as well as the findings of Chris Blackburn, who recounted evidence of Mifsud’s close relationship with Italian Senator Gianni Pittella.

In July of 2016, during the heat of the 2016 Presidential election, Pittella attended the Democratic National Convention where he was interviewed by TIME Magazine. In the interview, Pittella formally endorsed then candidate Hillary Clinton, stating: “I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

Pittella continued, stating: “This campaign is special…This campaign is not between Democrat or Republican. It’s between democracy and no democracy in the U.S. It’s between having a relationship between the U.S. and the E.U. and the U.S. and other countries, or not. And Italian citizens, together with the world, have the duty not only to intervene, but to act, to support Hillary’s campaign.”

Pittella also spoke at the DNC in Philadelphia, decrying the “virus of populism”, stating that the U.S. “[has] the same virus in your society. And this virus is represented by Donald Trump.”

However, according to internal documents from George Soros Open Society Foundation leaked in 2016, Pittella is considered to be a close ally of Soros. The 127-page document by the Open Society European Policy Institute, titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019), lists the names of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. Included among the names of 226 MEPs is that of Gianni Pittella.

According to the document, Pittella is one of six members of the EU’s Conference of Presidents, the highest political decision-making body of the European Parliament, whom are deemed to be among the Open Society Foundation’s reliable allies in the EU.

Using his influence as a highly regarded member of European Parliament, Pittella inserted himself into American politics during the 2016 Presidential race.

Lee Smith of Real Clear Politics, later reported on Chris Blackburn’s exceptional research, including Mifsud’s relationship with Pittella.

Disobedient Media will continue to follow this story as it develops.

CIA Undermines North Korea Summit By Leaking Report To Media Asset

Just as it was reported that the summit between the United States and North Korea was back on and that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea was on his way to New York to meet with officials in preparation for the June 12 summit, the CIA leaked an intelligence assessment concluding that “North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon.” The timing of this leak is striking, as it seems to be an effort to undermine negotiations between the two nations and comes just days after ranking members of the Democratic Party and Republican hardliners attacked President Donald Trump over his efforts to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The identity of the reporter who helped break the story also raises serious questions about whether or not a faction within the CIA deliberately attempted to undermine diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. According to NBC News, the report was leaked to none other than NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian, known as “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man.”

In 2014, The Intercept reported on Ken Dilanian’s correspondence and relationship with the CIA while Dilanian was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.

According to The Intercept, “Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.”

According to the Huffington Post, while writing for the Los Angeles Times, Dilanian also reported a CIA claim as fact by stating that “there was no collateral murder in a 2012 drone strike on Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.” Dilanian’s article was directly disputed in an Amnesty International report.

In the aftermath of the revelations about Dilanian’s ties to the CIA, he was disavowed by the Los Angeles Times. The disclosure of Dilanian’s collaboration with the CIA also led his former employer, David Lauter of the Tribune Washington to believe Dilanian could have violated Tribune news policy. Lauter acknowledged that Tribune policy dictates that reporters “not share copies of stories outside the newsroom.” Lauter further stated that he was “disappointed that the emails indicate that Ken may have violated that rule.”

Dilanian has not shied away from pushing articles written by former CIA officials who continue to perpetuate the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative without any regard to facts, such as Steven Hall’s Washington Post article titled: “I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.”

Ken Dilanian on Twitter

Perspective | I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.

Wikileaks has also pointed out Dilanian’s agency connection and his pushing of the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative, tweeting: “CIA’s ‘mop up man’ Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election.”

WikiLeaks on Twitter

CIA’s “mop up man” Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election

In the aftermath of recent revelations concerning the CIA’s collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 US Presidential Election the fresh leaks continue to show a pattern of rebellion that has long run rampant in the US intelligence community. While the CIA’s apparent violations of ethical considerations concerning surveillance of candidates running for public office was serious enough, their interference drags the reputation of the agency to a new (and in the case of Korean peace negotiations, more dangerous) low amid their conflictwith the sitting President of the United States.

However, despite these attacks, preparations between the two countries have continued for the upcoming June 12 summit. President Trump announced earlier today via Twitter that: “We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!

Newly Discovered Guccifer 2 Chat Shows He Was Wikileaks’ Source

An Associated Press (AP) journalist has released a chat with Guccifer 2.0. 

Raphael Satter released a previously unpublished chat he had with Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 stated, in reply to a question about why Guccifer 2.0 is sending documents directly to a journalist instead of waiting for Wikileaks to publish them, that “I don’t know when or if they gonna publish them.” According to Satter, “@raffiwriter argues @Guccifer _2’s handlers were impatient with @Wikileaks as summer wore on. My 8/22 convo with G2 seems to support that.”  

Satter is referencing an article in the New Yorker magazine by journalist Raffi Khatchadourian, which was reviewed extensively by RightSideNews in the article, Did Wikileaks Directly Receive Information from Guccifer 2.0? The New Yorker article lists three important interactions that display Guccifer 2.0 being impatient with Wikileaks, including:

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” An article by Joe Uchill from July 13 quotes Guccifer 2.0: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) On July 17, Assange “originally planned” to publish the files, but did not. Instead, Guccifer 2.0 leaked a batch of documents to Uchill on that very day.

4) On July 22nd, Wikileaks published the documents, and on that same day Guccifer 2.0 wrote, “At last!”

5) On August 22nd, exactly one month later, Guccifer 2.0 in his chat with the AP’s Raphael Satter expresses impatience with Wikileaks’ release of files.

According to Uchill’s July 22 article, “The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack.”

The implication of Guccifer 2.0 directly working together with Wikileaks is that Guccifer 2.0 had in his possession the documents that Wikileaks later leaked, which contradicts the narrative put forward on the Guccifer 2.0 research website,, that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source for Wikileaks. Raphael Satter is encouraged to release screenshots of his entire chat with Guccifer 2.0.

Roger Stone: Schiff and Speier Say that DNC Handed Over Their Server


Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26, is claiming that Congressman Schiff and Speier told him at the hearing that the DNC did, in fact, give over its server to the FBI. This contradicts James Comey’s testimony, when he stated that the DNC never handed over the server for investigation.

Answering the questions of Infowars as he apparently was leaving the hearing, Stone said: “The FBI Director… testified before this committee that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine their servers. Mr. Schiff intimated today that that was not the case and claimed that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI.”

In another interview, this time with the The Gateway Pundit, Stone was quoted as saying:

“The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC. When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’ Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”

The question is, did the DNC turn over its server during the summer recess?

Questions the DNC Don’t Want Asked on Guccifer 2.0 And Their Claim He Took Only Two Files

The Washington Post article, National Security Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump” from June 14, 2016, states that the hacking group known as Fancy Bear “broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said.” The article then states that “The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.” The article continues, quoting DNC lawyer Michael Sussman of the Perkins Coie firm: “But at this time, it appears that no financial information or sensitive employee, donor or voter information was accessed by the Russian attackers,” he said.

However, in the subsequent article the following day, June 15, entitled “Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack“, the Washington Post reports that Guccifer 2.0 posted to a website some of the allegedly stolen documents. They included a file titled “Donald Trump Report,” dated Dec. 19, 2015, and a list of what was purported to be million-dollar-plus donors to the Democratic Party.”

Questions the DNC must answer are, 1) Why did the DNC say that only two opposition research files were taken, and not donor information, when Guccifer 2.0 did indeed take both the opposition files and the donor files? 2) Why did Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research files, when those files could prove to be harmful to Donald Trump, if he was indeed a hacker on a mission to elect Donald Trump? 3) Did the DNC collude with Guccifer 2.0 in directing him to release the opposition research files? 4) Why did Guccifer 2.0 continue to release opposition research files, when he later released an archive of Sarah Palin’s Twitter messages on July 14, and the first page of the Trump Foundation’s income tax form and the Trump financial report on October 18, if he had already proven that he had hacked the DNC? and 5) What specific part of the software Crowdstrike used to analyze the DNC server would show that only two files were taken, when presumably hackers were in the DNC system for weeks on end?

If the answer is that the DNC or Crowdstrike did not have full visibility into the scale of intrusions on their security infrastructure, is it a coincidence that the only files the DNC or Crowdstrike thought were missing at the time were the two opposition research files, which if released would be damaging only to Trump and not Clinton, and that Guccifer the next day did indeed release those two opposition research files that are harmful to Trump but not Clinton? Those two files were entitled “Donald Trump Report” and “2016 GOP presidential candidates” in the releases. Are these opposition files that Guccifer 2.0 released the same ones that the DNC is referring to, or was Guccifer 2.0 holding on to even more harmful information, and released the Trump report and GOP report to deflect from it? All of the information from the Trump report comes from public sources. On the other hand, why would Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research if he was supposed to be helping Donald Trump, if he could prove that he has hacked the DNC by sharing any of the 38 other files he subsequently leaked in later months?  

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Full transcript: Trump and Turnbull’s phone call

Trump Trurnbull Transcript

Full transcript: Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull’s phone call
The Prime Minister told US President Donald Trump during their heated January phone call America did not have to accept any of the refugees held on Nauru or Manus Island.

Read the full transcript of their call below.

Turnbull: Good evening.

Trump: Mr. Prime Minister, how are you?

Turnbull: I am doing very well.

Trump: And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?

Turnbull: He is a great mutual friend yes.

Trump: Well you say hello to him. He is a very good friend. By the way thank you very much for taking the call. I really appreciate it. It is really nice.

Turnbull: Thank you very much. Everything is going very well. I want to congratulate you and Mike Pence on being sworn in now. I have spoken to you both now as you know. I know we are both looking to make our relationship which is very strong and intimate, stronger than ever – which I believe we can do.

Trump: Good.


Turnbull: I believe you and I have similar backgrounds, unusual for politicians, more businessman but I look forward to working together.

Trump: That is exactly right. We do have similar backgrounds and it seems to be working in this climate – it is a crazy climate. Let me tell you this, it is an evil time but it is a complex time because we do not have uniforms standing in front of us. Instead, we have people in disguise. It is brutal. This ISIS thing – it is something we are going to devote a lot of energy to it. I think we are going to be very successful.

Turnbull: Absolutely. We have, as you know, taken a very strong line on national security and border protection here and when I was speaking with Jared Kushner just the other day and one of your immigration advisors in the White House we reflected on how our policies have helped to inform your approach. We are very much of the same mind. It is very interesting to know how you prioritize the minorities in your Executive Order. This is exactly what we have done with the program to bring in 12,000 Syrian refugees, 90% of which will be Christians. It will be quite deliberate and the position I have taken – I have been very open about it – is that it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down – the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities. We have seen that in Iraq and so from our point of view, as a final destination for refugees, that is why we prioritize. It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities. We have a similar perspective in that respect.

Trump: Do you know four years ago Malcom [sic], I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted. When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent – but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true – and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.

Turnbull: Well, yes. Mr. President, can I return to the issue of the resettlement agreement that we had with the Obama administration with respect to some people on Nauru and Manus Island. I have written to you about this and Mike Pence and General Flynn spoke with Julie Bishop and my National Security Advisor yesterday. This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the Vice President.

Trump: Well, actually I just called for a total ban on Syria and from many different countries from where there is terror, and extreme vetting for everyone else – and somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome. And I am saying, boy that will make us look awfully bad. Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people. Really it looks like 2,000 people that Australia does not want and I do not blame you by the way, but the United States has become like a dumping ground. You know Malcom, anybody that has a problem – you remember the Mariel boat lift, where Castro let everyone out of prison and Jimmy Carter accepted them with open arms. These were brutal people. Nobody said Castro was stupid, but now what are we talking about is 2,000 people that are actually imprisoned and that would actually come into the United States. I heard about this – I have to say I love Australia; I love the people of Australia. I have so many friends from Australia, but I said – geez that is a big ask, especially in light of the fact that we are so heavily in favor, not in favor, but we have no choice but to stop things. We have to stop. We have allowed so many people into our country that should not be here. We have our San Bernardino’s, we have had the World Trade Center come down because of people that should not have been in our country, and now we are supposed to take 2,000. It sends such a bad signal. You have no idea. It is such a bad thing.

Turnbull: Can you hear me out Mr. President?

Trump: Yeah, go ahead.

Turnbull: Yes, the agreement, which the Vice President just called the Foreign Minister about less than 24 hours ago and said your Administration would be continuing, does not require you to take 2,000 people. It does not require you to take any. It requires, in return, for us to do a number of things for the United States – this is a big deal, I think we should respect deals.

Trump: Who made the deal? Obama?

Turnbull: Yes, but let me describe what it is. I think it is quite consistent. I think you can comply with it. It is absolutely consistent with your Executive Order so please just hear me out. The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000. Every individual is subject to your vetting. You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting. You can decide to take 1,000 or 100. It is entirely up to you. The obligation is to only go through the process. So that is the first thing. Secondly, the people – none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.

Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people –

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

Turnbull: This is our experience.

Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

Turnbull: I agree with you, letting one million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

Trump: Well, there could be two million people coming in Germany. Two million people. Can you believe it? It will never be the same.

Turnbull: I stood up at the UN in September and set up what our immigration policy was. I said that you cannot maintain popular support for immigration policy, multiculturalism, unless you can control your borders. The bottom line is that we got here. I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it. It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion. So you have the wording in the Executive Order that enables the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to admit people on a case by case basis in order to conform with an existing agreement. I do believe that you will never find a better friend to the United States than Australia. I say this to you sincerely that it is in the mutual interest of the United States to say, “yes, we can conform with that deal – we are not obliged to take anybody we do not want, we will go through extreme vetting” and that way you are seen to show the respect that a trusted ally wants and deserves. We will then hold up our end of the bargain by taking in our country 31 [inaudible] that you need to move on from.

Trump: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order.

Trump: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it. Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you. I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.

Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically –

Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison. I am doing this because Obama made a bad deal. I am not doing this because it fits into my Executive Order. I am taking 2,000 people from Australia who are in prison and the day before I signed an Executive Order saying that we are not taking anybody in. We are not taking anybody in, those days are over.

Turnbull: But can I say to you, there is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal. Look, you and I have a lot of mutual friends.

Trump: Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.

Turnbull: Mr. President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States. It shows that you are a committed –

Trump: Okay, this shows me to be a dope. I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. Not even a little bit. I think it is ridiculous and Obama should have never signed it. The only reason I will take them is because I have to honor a deal signed by my predecessor and it was a rotten deal. I say that it was a stupid deal like all the other deals that this country signed. You have to see what I am doing. I am unlocking deals that were made by people, these people were incompetent. I am not going to say that it fits within the realm of my Executive Order. We are going to allow 2,000 prisoners to come into our country and it is within the realm of my Executive Order? If that is the case my Executive Order does not mean anything Malcom [sic]. I look like a dope. The only way that I can do this is to say that my predecessor made a deal and I have no option then to honor the deal. I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?

Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.

Trump: How does that help you?

Turnbull: Well, we assume that we will act in good faith.

Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?

Turnbull: Correct, we have stopped the boats.

Trump: Give them to the United States. We are like a dumping ground for the rest of the world. I have been here for a period of time, I just want this to stop. I look so foolish doing this. It [sic] know it is good for you but it is bad for me. It is horrible for me. This is what I am trying to stop. I do not want to have more San Bernardino’s or World Trade Centers. I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.

Turnbull: These guys are not in that league. They are economic refugees.

Trump: Okay, good. Can Australia give me a guarantee that if we have any problems – you know that is what they said about the Boston bombers. They said they were wonderful young men.

Turnbull: They were Russians. They were not from any of these countries.

Trump: They were from wherever they were.

Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.

Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the government decides, the people’s representatives decides. So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us – that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.

Trump: I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it – START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.

Turnbull: You will not.

Trump: Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.

Turnbull: You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.

Trump: I have no choice to say that about it. Malcom [sic], I am going to say that I have no choice but to honor my predecessor’s deal. I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made. It is an embarrassment to the United States of America and you can say it just the way I said it. I will say it just that way. As far as I am concerned that is enough Malcom [sic]. I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.

Turnbull: Do you want to talk about Syria and DPRK?

Trump: [inaudible] this is crazy.

Turnbull: Thank you for your commitment. It is very important to us.

Trump: It is important to you and it is embarrassing to me. It is an embarrassment to me, but at least I got you off the hook. So you put me back on the hook.

Turnbull: You can count on me. I will be there again and again.

Trump: I hope so. Okay, thank you Malcolm.

Turnbull: Okay, thank you.


How Donald Trump Orchestrated ‘the Greatest Land Deal in History’

By: John Grayson.

“Psychological operations” campaigns, or psy-ops, are “planned operations designed to convey selected information and indicators to audiences, to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”

What President Trump did at the UN on December 23, 2016 was on a whole other level. It wasn’t just a “call to arms”. It was a layman’s psy-op, from September to April. The best stories, however, always start in medias res.

With one phone call, Donald Trump gained control over the Israeli/Palestine peace process, effectively destroyed the legacies of Obama, Clinton, and Carter, started up the (eventual) Muslim ban, banked (future) favors from Egypt, and stumped the UN into (again) showing their true anti-Semitic colors.

Here’s how he did it.


Friday, December 23:

Egypt was planning to submit a resolution to the UN that would’ve declared the West Bank as occupied territory, including the Western Wall.

Donald phoned Egypt, whom promptly canceled their plans. New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia, and Venezuela therefore decided to submit the Resolution instead. The Security Council, which has 15 members, voted 14 – 0 in favor of the resolution. The United States (under Obama) however, abstained, whereas previous American foreign policy had dictated a veto.

While Obama claimed that he had nothing to do with the resolution, this was one of the few times the United States had failed to support Israel. Of the 226 anti-Israel Resolutions passed previously, only 17 were abstained from by American foreign policy, making this a significant event for all sides.

The UN Resolution 2334, thusly adopted, “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity.” As well, the resolution also condemns acts of terrorism, provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric – heavily implied against the Palestinian side. “Settlements” include anything annexed after the 1967 war with Jordan.

So on the face of it, it would appear that Obama’s abstaining is in line with his administration’s policies – as a means of supposedly punishing Israel for building the settlements while providing a condemnation of rhetoric that leads to conflict – but not in line with American foreign policy.

Yet while this was the opposite of long-standing American foreign policy doctrine with regards to the two-state solution and the inherent borders therein, this course of action was the best thing possible for Israel, and while it looks like Donald was finally stumped, he’s really just playing the part.

During the Primaries, Marco Rubio mentioned that Donald’s stance of neutrality was anti-Israel in nature. Rubio would be right in that regard, if he were dealing with any other situation wherein one’s anti-war pacifism would only serve to support the inflammatory rhetoric of the opportunity-stealing opposition. However, Donald always has another trick up his sleeve.


Donald’s nimble navigating:

The thing to remember is that Donald is pro-Jewish even though he puts on the guise of being indifferent. After all, his daughter’s Jewish, his grandchildren are Jewish, he grew up in New York City and entered the Real Estate Business. Simply put, he has always been pro-Israel:

“You know, you have both sides, really, but one side in particular growing up learning that these are the worst people these people are the worst people, etc. etc.,” he said. “I was with a very prominent Israeli the other day, he says it’s impossible because the other side has been trained from the time they’re children to hate Jewish people.”

As evidenced by his Facebook message a day before the UN vote, despite claiming he’d be neutral, Donald really plays all sides in pursuit of the greater goal. And with the Facebook post and the phone call, Donald changed the game:

“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position, and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

First off, in even commenting on the matter, he solidified the fact that Obama would abstain purely on the principle of the matter, and ensured that the Democrats would only double-down on their support (due to their irrational hatred of Donald himself).

Previously, the Obama administration wasn’t sure how they’d vote, and were virtue-signaling to gauge liberal reactions. Donald forced them to choose on his terms. Thus, whichever side he took, Obama had to take the opposite. The US Government only ever had two options; abstain, or veto. An Agreement would never be on the table as long as Israel maintained relations diplomatically, and Donald advocating for a “veto” ensured that Obama only had one option left – to abstain.

More importantly, Donald united even more GOP establishment Republicans to his cause. He now had a carrot to dangle over them, as they need Israel to exist to fulfill their religious “End Of Days” prophecy as foretold in the Book of Revelations:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement, “[T]he consequences of this disgraceful U.N. resolution should be severe. I look forward to working with Sen. Graham, and with the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump, to significantly reduce or even eliminate U.S. funding of the United Nations, and also to seriously reconsider financial support for the nations that supported this resolution.”

Now we know Donald was responsible for the immediate result, but is this detrimental to his incoming Presidential policy? A reversal of campaign terms (like Obama did to Israel several times over, much to Alan Dershowitz’s chagrin)?


See, Donald isn’t sabotaging his own platform, he’s sabotaging everyone else’s by only appearing to destroy his.

And he’s played people before.

He did it at the Colorado Convention, when he threatened to go 3rd Party if the GOP chose Cruz. He made both himself and Ben Carson into “media victims/underdogs” in highlighting how Cruz stole votes from Carson, as well as in how Cruz was playing by unfair voting rules with Delegates. The same happened with “Pussygate” and his pre-emptive public apology.

He didn’t attack the issue head-on, he made it seem like he was vulnerable. It’s classic misdirection on his part, and while the liberal media was focused on the superficiality of how Donald presents himself, he’d already advanced three, four, five steps ahead.

Trump is no stranger to priming worldviews; he’s working overtime to combat Obama’s policies at every step. After Obama helped pass the UN Resolution, Trump again started enforcing the worldview that everything Barack Obama does turns out terribly. He was, of course, doing this before, but he really ramped up the rhetoric afterwards.

One of his latest Tweets at the time was very dramatic:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!

He was actively hammering home the point that Obama was a failure as a President, and that this is simply another one of his terrible decisions.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.Thought it was going to be a smooth transition – NOT!

As petty as it sounds, he’s even resorted to taking the legacy of Obama’s catchphrase.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald!

Imagine that tweet later being appended with “Obama tried and failed to bring peace to the Middle East for 8 years. I did it in 8 months. Sad!”.

In the media landscape, Donald might appear to have “lost”, but it’s all posturing.  In fact, shortly after, Trump was already considering inviting Israeli PM Netanyahu to the White House as well as moving the American Embassy to West Jerusalem (a section of land even Palestinians officially admit is Israeli territory).

Of course, this isn’t to say that Donald has ensured his victory in a peace deal, but he completely defined the narrative of things to come. A false sense of (Obama’s) security, and people start to believe the lie.

But what’s most important is that Donald just dragged the Palestinian Authority kicking and screaming to the table they’ve always shouted about wanting a seat at:

“Well, Iran has done it again. Taken two of our people and asking for a fortune for their release. This doesn’t happen if I’m president!”

This nutshell of a foreign policy will (now) also extend to “Palestine”, which has kidnapped plenty of Israeli civilians and soldiers before, demanding the release of thousands more Palestinian terrorist prisoners in an exchange.

Now that Donald is our President, this Islamic sabotage will no longer be an acceptable option under a Trump administration.

What also won’t be acceptable are Islamist terror cells in Israel. You know, things Obama never cared to mediate with in his weak eight years as a mediating President…


It’s like playing football and scoring on your own team (Obama BTFO):

Obama is really, really bad at foreign diplomacy, as “he has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq”. As a contrast, Donald appointed David Freidman as Israeli Ambassador.

For those unawares, David Friedman believes that Palestinian mayhem, rather than the settlements, are to blame (to put it lightly). The Palestinian Leadership considers David’s opinion to be a “green light” to Israeli “extremists” and “racists”.

Bit of an odd reaction to take, isn’t it? Everyone I don’t like is an extremist and racist? Where have we heard that before?

Weird, since if Israel were an apartheid, as Palestinians claim, one wouldn’t be able to vote, work, gain citizenship, reside in, marry, etc. if they weren’t Jewish – everything they can do in Israel. The crux of it is that the “minority” feel they are oppressed, when the reality highlights everything differently. Simply put, they are professional victims, and because no one challenges their narrative, they remain as such.

Obama’s Resolution calls for a two state solution. This is incredibly impractical because the thing we have to understand about the Palestinian Authority is that calling for a two-state solution is more socially acceptable than calling for Israel to not have one at all. For the Palestinians, it’s never been about “settlements” or “UN Statehood recognizance”. It’s all Taqiyya (professional Islamic lying) designed to cripple the stance of the Israelis as much as possible, until all the land is sequestered away.

And this was the official Obama administration policy as well:

“The United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” Kerry said Friday. “Two states is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”

See, the Palestinian Authority rejects the Holocaust wholesale (even though they actively participated in it). Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel in their Charter, and the PLO (Fatah’s predecessor) was responsible for the terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s – the most famous of which was the Munich Massacre – when an Israeli Olympic team was murdered. Not to mention everything else, like the frequent hijackings in the 60s and 70s of Israeli commercial planes.

Additionally, after an earlier attempt to overthrow the Jordanian kingdom (referred to as Black September), the Palestinians realized they were running out of legitimacy in terms of their status as a “victimized” people. This is actually why the Oslo Accords (based on the 1978 Camp David Accords) happened, since Israel didn’t want to govern a hostile population and Jordan and Egypt definitely didn’t want to take them either (the three places considered in the British Mandate of Palestine and the Sevras Treaty). Funny then, how the First Intifada (or, “uprising”) only came to an end after the paperwork was signed. Was it a peace accord, or a ransom negotiation tactic?

As /u/high4power (an Israeli Redditor) states:

Even after the existential wars. We were faced with daily bombers and attacks during active negotiations in the early 90s, and again later by suicide bombers in the early 2000s, and again later when we took those settlements out of gaza with no conditions (Hamas was voted in, sworn on Israel destruction) So we received tens of thousands of rockets in exchange. Consider that anyone who is 21+ lived through those backstabs.

The narrative that jews are subhuman and should be ethnically cleansed from the land of our forefathers is the norm in the palestinian society, which western media often fails to report. We’ve been fooled, especially when we reached out our arm to peace.

Simply put, reality does not have a Palestinian bias. Through Taqiyya, the Palestinians subvert and destroy – and the media and “inter-governmental organizations” / “activism industry” helps them amplify such actions.

And Obama is definitely practicing Taqiyya, as he did with the Iran Deal wherein he gave Iran nuclear capabilities with the Deal in order to build up the country as an excuse for a future invasion.

A sweet side-benefit for Obama was the inherent delegitimization of Israel, a country he’s never respected. It was all Taqiyya, and it would have worked here if it hadn’t been for Donald.

So how did Obama extraordinarily mess up (something Donald has taken full advantage of)?

He passed the UN Resolution under the wrong Chapter!

UN Resolution 2334 was passed under Chapter VI, rather than VII. The former is for resolutions meant for peaceful negotiation and mediation, whereas the latter is for resolutions that require the use of the Security Council’s military forces.

If this deal truly was about peaceful negotiations between two nations already hostile towards each other, then the matter would have been referred to under Chapter VII because the end goal in that format is always to prevent war. Or as VP Mike Pence states, “Peace through Strength”.

In fact, Chapter VII is always a better fit to actually maintain anything more than a courtesy ceasefire – which Hamas uses to stockpile up on food and weapons – if one is truly looking for long-lasting peace. That Chapter allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security”.

The Obama administration was thus fully aware that since this resolution was passed under Chapter VI rather than Chapter VII of the UN Charter, there is no enforcement mechanism required to implement it, that it is not necessarily binding and UN military presence isn’t granted.

Obama’s aim was to give the Palestinians a boost in support and blame the (eventual) breakdown in the peace process on the Trump administration…

Therefore, the entire resolution either highlights that the Palestinian intifadas don’t matter, or they very much do. In this scenario, where there’s been 70 years of war, you only pass something in Chapter VI if you’re angling for UN Statehood in an otherwise purely symbolic gesture with no intent of actually following through. Because it’s evidence that “mediation” is never going to work without military force backing it.

But this Trumpian strategy only works if Palestine is pressured into actually accepting Statehood status, instead of just whining about it. Trump defined any weaseling of Arab nations as a “put up or shut up” moment. Fortunately, given the change of circumstances in which this Resolution was passed, an educated guess can be made as to how it will all end… in Cairo.

What’s extremely telling is that Egypt wanted to pass the UN Resolution first – despite being the long-standing ally of Israel. It’s nothing personal, just incredibly long-term business. It’s not that Egypt is trying to de-legitimize Israel as Obama did, it’s that they’re trying to end the Palestinian “cause” once and for all. They’re tired of playing “politically correct” at the expense of Egyptian lives.

See, Egypt also instituted a blockade after too many Palestinians were utilizing state services (like construction companies and ambulances) to smuggle in weapons for the jihadi cause.

Egypt’s end goal was to recognize Palestine so the next skirmish that occurred would mean Palestine (and all their leadership) were committing acts of war, “justified” for retribution (not necessarily on behalf of Israel).

If necessary, some could be tried for War Crimes, and that is why the Palestinian Authority would previously shout about being accepted, but always shirk away from actual state recognition. It’s like a restaurant owner who yells about being up for certification, saying their kitchens are the cleanest, but never goes through with the inspection because the Health Inspector would find rat excrement in the soup.

Donald, however, understood what Egypt was going for, and framed it accordingly by making that phone call.

While the reversal in Egypt’s opinion is odd (in submitting a proposal and then rescinding it), it revealed a deeper thinking of Donald’s – the resolution couldn’t be passed by Egypt because they needed plausible deniability, they needed diplomacy. The proposal’s rescinding only happened because Donald asked them to do so.

The importance of the phone call in the decision-making process  was actually confirmed by the Sissi government.

To that end, recognizance of Palestine (and the legacy of the brokerage regarding the Suez Canal) has been important for ex-President Jimmy Carter, and he, in championing the Palestinian cause, just got played.


Donald’s proposal to ban all Muslims (Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton BTFO):

The Resolution was ultimately sponsored by countries that have no interests strategically in Israel – Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal and New Zealand. Deeply, deeply misinformed countries with no dog in the fight.

As Reddit User UWarchaeologist explains why:

The most NZers ever hear about these things is “settlements on occupied Palestinian land breaking international law”. They don’t stop and ask ‘what is a settlement’, what is ‘occupied’, what is ‘Palestinian’ and how do we know whose land it is, or what law applies to it. Most people would just accept that statement at face value, especially when they see ostensibly “neutral” people & countries who ought to know the complexities of the situation agreeing with the UN resolution, and that’s it – the Israel govt must be in the wrong, case closed. My impression is that NZers believe they took a moral and idealistic stand against “illegal settlements”, they want to stick up for the underdog and don’t see themselves as part of some big conspiracy against Israel or Israelis, even though they are justifiably pissed off at how Mossad was using NZ passports. So yeah, that’s not really a sense that there is even another side and an historical basis to the settler argument… so “what we have here is a failure to communicate” – among many other failures of course 😦

As Carter mentions (who, remember, is the anti-war pacifist ex-president whose personal morality enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini to revolutionize Iran):

“I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, ” Carter wrote. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.”

Carter’s sentiment is exactly what Donald wanted, because both Obama and Carter unwittingly played into Trump’s hands. Now the Palestinians have to actually follow through for once in attaining UN Statehood! So how does that affect them (in ways it didn’t before)? Why will Palestinian resistance finally matter, in following the rules of warfare?


The Fourth Geneva Convention:

First, let’s do away with any notion that the UN is some bastion of morality and peace in the conflict. In 2015 alone the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism — and only 3 resolutions on the rest of the world combined. This is despite the Palestinian Authority still paying terrorists salaries, and “losing” over 1.6 billion in aid money

The views of the Palestinian populace are not much better.

The UN has never been neutral (even though they proclaim to be):

The Jewish state is the U.N.’s scapegoat for anything and everything,” Greenfield continued. “These days, the United Nations is a forum for Islamist powers and the rotting remains of the Communist front to continue its war against the free world while seducing weak-minded nations into going along.”

UNRWA schools are turning out students who want to fight for ISIS.  The UN’s email system has been used to distribute child pornography. UN staff members have smuggled drugs, attacked each other with knives and pool cues, not to mention a tractor. This month the UN marked Anti-Corruption Day despite refusing to fight its own corruption. The former President of the UN General Assembly was arrested on bribery charges last year. He had also headed UNICEF’s executive board. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is battling accusations of bribery.

So why is the Fourth Geneva Convention so important?

The Convention essentially makes it illegal for nation-states to either move populations, or establish settlements on occupied land. While violating the Fourth Geneva Convention offers no sanctions, there are talks of this new resolution justifying cases to be sent before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Basically, there is a code of conduct that both nations must adhere to in order to not be accused of committing war crimes in the first place).

Remember the rhetoric within the UN Resolution, which “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity”?

the resolution makes it possible to file lawsuits against Israel and Israeli officials as well as Israeli citizens involved in settlement activity at the International Criminal Court and for sanctions to be imposed on Israel both by the UN and by individual countries”.

The Palestinian Authority has been maneuvering to gain the status to take the State of Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, neither Israel nor the U.S. are signatories to the Rome Statute which created the ICC, and entities must have the status of states in order to have standing at the ICC.

It’s a double-slap to Palestinians, because not only does it superficially blame Israelis (as is UN tradition), but deeply within, the clause’s existence ensures that the Fourth Geneva Convention is forever intertwined to the Palestinian cause. It doesn’t matter if Palestinians aren’t facing accusations of building settlements, both nations now have to follow the code of conduct set out in the “War Crimes” legislation.

But to the Palestinians, it’s really never been about the “settlements” (which comprise 3% of actual land in the West Bank), it’s always been about the land Israel won in their existential wars after 1967.


Those Settlements:

So why are the settlements important to Israel? Because they were de facto spoils of war. And why are the condemnations of violence important to the Palestinians? Because it “undermines their right” to Statehood.

This Resolution may not have been legally binding, but Donald made it spiritually binding. He’s forced the hand of the Palestinians (just as Obama inadvertently did in filing the resolution under the wrong Chapter).

In fact, the argument regarding the settlement’s legality is based on Fourth Geneva Convention, an international treaty governing the treatment of civilians in a war zone or in territory occupied in the course of a war. It was adopted in 1949 as a humanitarian measure in reaction to the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Hitler’s Third Reich. Article 49 of the convention forbids the transfer by an occupying power of its civilians into the occupied territory. Note that the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan occurred in 1947. No one claimed it was illegal.

That’s why the UN is so hypocritical. The Fourth Geneva Convention / Article 49 was always passed as an act of collusion, similar to what we’ve seen last month. The UN is a mouthpiece for the will of the Arab Nations – it always has been. Just as it was during the League of Nations.

Extraordinary tolerance has been granted towards Islamic Nations by those suffering from white guilt, and only now is it so drastically showing. It is no different than the Democratic National Party standing for Progressivism yet promoting Islam which kills gays and stones women.

According to

The territory was slated under the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan to become an Arab state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. When the Palestinians rejected the partition plan and refused to set up their state, Jordan captured the territory and annexed it. Only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as valid and legal.

Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the West Bank. The treaty states at the outset, in Article 2, that it addresses situations in which one signatory state captures the territory of another signatory state in the course of war. Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 from Jordan, which had no legal claim to it, so it didn’t capture the territory “of” another state.

The issue has been a source of frustration for U.S. administrations ever since Arabs attacked Israel in 1967, only to lose the West Bank and Gaza and then demand the return of the territories. Israel gave back Gaza but its government maintains the tiny Jewish state needs to retain the West Bank and allow settlers there in order to maintain a buffer zone against terrorists and any future invasion.

This is actually a great thing, because according to Foreign Policy:

“British and U.S. diplomats, as well as the American and European press, may be fooled by Palestinian and Peace Now complaints that Bibi is gobbling up Palestinian territory, but the settlers live in those places and know better — construction is slowing down.”

Here’s the official settlement activity report, as released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Note that how the only reason we hear about “settlements being built” is by the “activist” groups on the ground (the exact same thing we’ve seen in Syria) – many funded by Soros with the clear goal of delegitimizing Israel’s status in the world stage.

You know what the “activist groups on the ground” don’t report (because it’s not in their interest)?

War Crimes (of the 4th Geneva Convention, again, the very charge the Palestinians try to pin on the Israelis).

The Palestinian Authority is no stranger to those accusations, especially during the last (third) intifada!

Here’s the admission of the Palestinian Authority stating it is intentional and religious in nature.

Here’s a report on schools teaching students to hate Jews.

Here’s a bus driver being stabbed by palestinian children passengers as part of the stabbing intifada.

Here’s a random civilian being stabbed by two palestinian teenagers as part of the stabbing intifada.

Here’s another video of palestinian teens trying to stab a Jewish civilian.

Here’s a video of a woman stabbing an Israeli security guard civilian.

Here’s a video of a Palestinian children being taught stabbing games.

Here’s a story about a 19-year old Palestinian killer whose name now bears a stadium in honour of killing 2 Israelis and wounding a mother and her baby.

And who could forget the lovable Farfur, Hamas’ Mickey Mouse – in this episode martyred by the Jews?

None of this will be tolerated by Donald’s administration. When Palestine is granted official UN Statehood, they will be finally held accountable for war crimes, with the “authority” coming from the very institution they thought had finally stumped Trump.

The 4th Convention applies to non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

All of which the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have violated in recent years.

And here’s the best part: it’s a good pretext for Arab nations to declare war, due to “a violation of UN law”.

Because of the incorrect Chapter filing, and the peer pressure to become signatories to conventions and ratified resolutions they’d rather not be a part of, eventually the UN Resolution will have to be voided by the Palestinians. The filing of the Resolution under the wrong Chapter means that if they want to pursue anything other than peace (and have military strength to back it up) they themselves will have to do the very thing they blame the Israelis of.

And while it is possible that the Arab nations could convince the UN to deploy troops against Israel, on behalf of the PLO, regardless of the logistics of its possibility, it would still look really, really bad diplomatically. Even though they’ve performed such actions before against Israel, they’ve never been held accountable like they will be since the Resolution passed. If it were to happen that the very organization that demands its members follow the UN Resolutions was working back-room deals to violate their own decrees, well, that level of collusion would be completely contradictory in its nature. The UN would become redundant overnight.

In fact, the only nation (and terrorist proxy group) that could really go to bat for the Palestinians is Iran and Hezbollah. And even that relationship will be tenuous (if it’s even possible) as Iran is comprised of Shia Muslims, and Palestinians are majority Sunni Muslims, embroiled in their own religious sectarian war.

As for the other usual suspects, as Alan Dershowitz previously mentioned, Iraq still hasn’t recovered from Bush era (through actions led by Obama), Egypt and Jordan are steadfast allies with Israel, Libya was destabilized, Syria’s undergoing a civil war, and Saudi Arabia is busy fighting ISIS/won’t be able to get America to do their dirty work.

Indeed, thanks to the boost of confidence they received from the previous Obama administration, they’re now officially a threat. If fact, it is questionable if another reason the Iran Deal was made was specifically to help the Palestinians as their ally in the long run.

The beautiful part about giving the Palestinians Statehood also means that any historical arguments regarding the logistics of war are then completely off the table. Should Palestine start a war with Israel (both being recognized by the UN), the outcome of that war then sets the precedent. To lose in 1967 is one thing. To lose in 2017 will be another.

It’ll be fair game, a clean slate. Not only for the evidence of previous war crimes committed by the Palestinians, but also for actual “land takeovers” and “hostage takings”.

Because you cannot pretend to be for peace and then commit acts of kidnapping, rocket launching, knifing attacks, van attacks, school bus attacks and then claim to be a victim.

And this, of course (if it happens), will only strengthen Donald’s proposal to completely ban all Muslims (rather than those from specific countries). Donald’s been wishy-washy in public about the exact requirements for the ban – first claiming that a full and complete ban would be in place until they could figure out what was going on. Then adjusting his views to include extreme vetting (albeit no contradiction in grammatical terms actually exists).

But why re-invent the wheel to keep out dangerous radicals, when Carter showed us how he did it (a guideline for Donald to follow, no doubt)?

During the hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter banned Iranian students as a result of the Iranian turmoils, an event bolstered heavily by his anti-war pacifism. If there’s an uptick in Jihadi Palestinians, Donald will be ready.

As Carter did to block Iranian immigration:

“The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

Indeed, the past six presidents have all used the executive power to bar different classes of immigrants:

“Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The funny thing is that had Carter not gone on a crusade of pro-Palestinian advocacy, he’d be remembered as a great leader in the region.

Carter maneuvered the Israeli-Egyptian landmark peace treaty. Israel gave the Sinai peninsula back, Egypt agreed to station no soldiers in the Sinai without Israel okaying it, and Egypt and Israel both got the most military weapons and funding from the US amongst American allies. And it wasn’t even equipment that we were going to use, it was obsolete equipment that our own Army wouldn’t buy back from the paramilitary organizations we contracted out labor to!

Egypt and Israel have been peaceful since 1978, and Carter was a large part of that. And that is why Egypt “betrayed” Israel – they both have the same Palestinian problem. Israel and Egypt are allies and both have border enforcements and blockades in place against Gazan/West Bank terrorism. If Carter had understood this and not sided with the Palestinians in spirit, he would have furthered Middle Eastern relations even more!

But he didn’t, and in doing so trashed his legacy.

Funnily enough, even at the “failed” Camp David Summit, hosted by none other than Bill Clinton himself, a man Donald has raked over the coals (in every stance possible) for the last 2 years, he’s been given congratulations by Liberals and Republicans alike for at least recognizing his errors. Bill saw that the problem wasn’t the Jewish negotiating side, but the Palestinians.

In reference to Yasser Arafat congratulating him on trying at the Summit, Clinton replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”.

In pulling off this deal, Donald trashed the final vestiges of what remains of the legacies of Clinton, Obama, and Carter – all the while setting up the machinations to not only support his Muslim ban (should the need arise), but also to deal with the Palestinian (and by proxy, the Saudi Arabian) problem that both Israel and Egypt were having. With one phone call.

4D Chess, folks. 4D Chess.

The best part of all this? This UN mishap occurred under Obama’s administration, meaning if anything went wrong at that stage, Obama’s tenure would have been to blame.

But Donald was giving so much of himself to this deal, what did he get out of it? Why go through with it in the first place, and what were the ramifications if he didn’t?

Well, Donald’s got a strengthened relationship with a fresh “prince” of Egypt – a man who had only been in power since 2014 – himself fighting the Deep State of the Middle East.


Abdul al-Sissi, the “Prince” of Egypt: 

Whatever happened in their meeting, it must have been a pretty big deal for the humanitarian aid worker to be released, from a President who had formerly, and formally, stated “Aya Hegazy is a judiciary matter, as a president I don’t have the authority to intervene”.

We are very happy to have Aya back home,” President Trump remarked, “It’s a great honor to have her in the Oval Office with her brother.”

A senior administration official told the Washington Post that behind the scenes, President Trump told top aides, “I want her to come home.’ More importantly, the official said there was “no quid pro quo offered for her release,”  i.e., it was not a trade off.

However, Antony Blinken, the former deputy Secretary of State under President Obama, said thatwhile he’s pleased Hijazi has been released, he’s skeptical that al-Sissi received nothing in return for her freedom.”


Who is Aya Hegazy?:

Aya Hegazy (the American aid worker imprisoned for three years in an Egyptian jail) was released by Abdel Fattah al-Sissi’s government late April. The deal was brokered at the White House on April 3rd. She was released two weeks later. Her trial acquittal came on the 17th after her trial charges were dropped on the 16th.

The Background Story: On March 23, the Cairo Criminal Court adjourned the hearing of the case against the Belady Foundation for the Care of Street Children to May 21, 2016. The special committee summoned to review the evidence has claimed it was not qualified to do so. This is the sixth time the trial has been postponed. The eight defendants, including Egyptian-American Aya Hegazy and her husband, Mohamed Hassanein, have spent nearly two years in pretrial detention. They face charges ranging from running an unlicensed organization to sex trafficking and child abuse.

Basically, Aya was facing trumped up charges, and Trump lobbied al-Sissi for her release behind closed doors.

So who is al-Sissi? Al-Sissi helped orchestrate the Egyptian coup – and in the aftermath of the ousting of former President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, Egypt banned the Muslim Brotherhood and labeled the group a terrorist organization. Reasons for demanding Morsi’s resignation included accusations of increasing authoritarianism and his pushing through an Islamist agenda disregarding the predominantly secular opposition or the rule of law. Prior to Morsi, however, Hosni Mubarak had been in power for 30 years. He was ousted in the 2011 protests.

Just before the meeting, however, Trump was being criticized for giving the appearance of not taking “human rights” seriously. The New York Times said that al-Sissi’s government has persecuted “violent and nonviolent Islamist groups with equal zeal and without due process. It has maligned and harassed human rights activists, rendering their work all but impossible. And it has smothered what remains of the political opposition.” Obvious bias of the NYT aside, even Tim Kaine lobbied against Trump for better awareness of Egypt’s treatment of jailed NGO workers:

“We are alarmed by the repeated delays in the trial and verdict for Ms. Hijazi,” a bipartisan group of senators, led by Tim Kaine (D-Va.), wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. “She has been unjustly imprisoned since May 2014 and held on unsubstantiated charges related to her nonprofit’s efforts to educate and rehabilitate street children.”

This extended as far as the Middle East, where Trump was criticized for granting Sissi any kind of audience at the White House:

It was hard enough for human rights organizations to get former President Barack Obama to speak up about Hegazy’s case during his second term in office. Today, under President Trump, a man that has called the most brutal dictator in modern Egyptian history, a “fantastic guy”, Hegazy’s chances for freedom have been dashed.

As he welcomed al-Sissi to the White House, Trump unsurprisingly put aside concerns about Egypt’s human rights abuses. And so, Aya Hegazy, an American unjustly detained and blatantly persecuted by a foreign government, did not make the agenda. It seems, then, that Trump’s ‘America First’ principles are little more than empty rhetoric.

Note how this is after The Washington Post ran an op-ed in June 2016 stating that “the Obama administration was ignoring an American imprisoned in Egypt”!


The Secret Meeting:

Cairo appeared eager to push for a stronger bilateral relationship that it perceived would do more to benefit its interests than its strained relationship with the Obama administration.

The April 3rd meeting was publicly diagnosed in having four aims:

  1. securing U.S. support for Egypt’s counterterror interests,

  2. pressuring the United States to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization,

  3. promoting Egypt’s economic reform program, and

  4. presenting Egypt as a leading regional power.

Clandestinely, however, Al-Sissi felt the US was involved in what he refers to as the “fourth generation war”, U.S.-backed subversion intended to destroy the anti-Islamist movement within Egypt, and to relinquish control once again to Hosni Mubarak’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood forces.

Fourth-generation warfare, Sissi once explained to cadets at Egypt’s military academy, occurs when “modern communication channels, psychology and the media are . . . deployed to create divisions and harm Egypt from within,” according to the website Mada Masr.

The reason why Aya Hegazy was jailed under al-Sissi’s reign is because she was pro-Muslim Brotherhood (which is not good), working against al-Sissi’s anti-Islamist agenda. This is why al-Sissi didn’t want to release her.

Aya Hegazi was attempting to give “street children” a better life. She was attempting to lift children living in poverty out of their socio-economic class, something that is taboo in the Middle East.

It has long been known that the entirety of the Middle East has been a huge boon to human trafficking. Muslims literally invented the slave trade down in Africa.

Aya was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time…but how does “fourth-generation warfare” work exactly?


“The Press Is The Enemy”:

Donald has long decried the “all-talk, no-action politicians” of yesteryear, therefore his fulfillment of proving a solution to al-Sissi’s aforementioned Palestinian/UN problem meant that Egypt could now re-establish diplomatic ties on better terms, with a base level of trustworthiness between the two.

In Egypt, after two revolutions, there’s an information war going on for their minds, and it affects Americans too! The Washington Post and the New York Times are usually a conduit in “determining” the outlook on the Middle Eastern region.

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” [Rhodes] said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “In fact it’s a sign of strength!”

“And I’ll give them some color,” Price continued, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

This is something different from old-fashioned spin, which tended to be an art best practiced in person. In a world where experienced reporters competed for scoops and where carrying water for the White House was a cause for shame, no matter which party was in power, it was much harder to sustain a “narrative” over any serious period of time. Now the most effectively weaponized 140-character idea or quote will almost always carry the day, and it is very difficult for even good reporters to necessarily know where the spin is coming from or why.

The reason why the Deep State wants Egypt so badly is because it serves a crucial strategic role within the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Al-Sissi has positioned himself as a bulwark against religious extremism and as a strong leader who can maintain stability in Egypt, even as neighboring countries like Libya, Yemen, and Syria have collapsed under civil wars fueled by foreign intervention. On the other hand, the importance of Egypt’s relations with the Gulf allies should not be understated, as the security of the Gulf region is a part of Egypt’s as well.

For Trump, time is of the essence because in November 2016, when Obama was still President, Egypt signed a three-year $12 billion agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that aimed to help the country achieve macroeconomic stability and promote inclusive growth. Egypt has also been negotiating funding agreements to fulfill its ambitious commitments in the IMF program with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and other G8 member countries.

According to The Nation, “the economy is on the brink of collapse, with skyrocketing inflation, massive debt, and austerity measures that recently helped secure a stringent new IMF loan”.

But that’s not to say that Egypt is only having problems outside its borders or within its economy, they’ve plenty of problems with jihadi violence right at home.

For example, al-Sissi and his government are major targets of ISIS-related terrorist attempts. Cairo has been battling militants in the Sinai since 2013; in late 2014, the militant group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis pledged loyalty to ISIS. Days later in Amman, Jordan, at the 28th Arab summit, al-Sissi (having already faced enough plots to round up 292 conspirators) called for a “comprehensive” approach – religious reformation.

Whether such reformation is possible is another story, but come to thing of it, the only ones who have a problem with al-Sissi are literal terrorists:

“We’re giving $1.5bn to an autocrat who has killed thousands of people, who has imprisoned tens of thousands of people, including Americans,” said Mohamed Soltan, an American who was jailed in Egypt for nearly two years. “We’re here to shed light on their plight.”

“We need to tell the world what kind of man Trump is bringing to the White House,” Soltan, who was jailed after attending a sit-in against Morsi’s removal in Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya square, told Al Jazeera.

Hundreds of people were killed as security forces dispersed the protest on August 14, 2013. Soltan’s father, a Muslim Brotherhood official, was also arrested and imprisoned.

Mass trials have since been held for thousands of Brotherhood supporters [when someone is a “Brotherhood supporter, they’re literally ISIS”], and hundreds have received death sentences or lengthy prison terms.

No wonder Trump was able to strike a deal with al-Sissi, both are under constant threat of islamist extremism!

But now that Aya’s free, her saga is mostly over.

What remains is why Trump was able to orchestrate what he did at that time.

In later leaving for his trip to the Middle East, as well as simply not tweeting out derision against Fake News, he gave the liberal media enough rope to hang themselves. Each and every day the media rails against Trump, more and more people feel they’re being unfair against the President unconditionally.

This, however, wouldn’t be the first time a President railed against the media machine. The difference is that when JFK was railing against the Press, he was actually congratulating them. JFK was the Obama of his time, charming and beloved – they also covered up his sexual impropriety.

JFK knew the media was in his pocket given how hard he defended Nixon from the very same liberal slurs that could have befallen him:

“You have no idea what he’s been through. Dick Nixon is the victim of the worst press that ever hit a politician in this country. What they did to him in the Helen Gahagan Douglas race was disgusting.”

Unfortunately, in their haste to feel smug and superior, the liberal media is finally pushing out their last memo from the Deep State – to fire Kushner and blame Ivanka. It’s not because of the “Russian connection”, but because Trump consensually made him out to be his political pinata. Specifically, Donald left Kushner in charge of the “Israel-Palestine” peace-process, and since the Israel-Palestine peace process is considered the bulwark of the interventionist, globalist, Deep State, ShareBlue has had an initiative to get rid of Jared at all costs.

The “problem” is that Trump’s detractors don’t realize that once again, they’re playing into his hands.

As a member of the president’s family, Kushner had to retain a law firm to navigate him through potential legal obstacles to working for his father-in-law– specifically, an anti-nepotism law which states that “a public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.”

But his legal counsel, WilmerHale, concluded last month that precedent was laid for Kushner by Trump’s former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won a court case in the 1990s in her fight to chair a national task force on health care reform for her husband, then-president Bill Clinton. That case found that existing law bans appointments to agencies and departments, but not within the White House itself.

Indeed, by focusing on a non-existent Russian connection, by focusing on the son-in-law’s identity as a Jew (which is actually somewhat racist – the idea that only a Jew could solve the problem), he’s buying time he doesn’t even need to once again solve problems behind closed doors.

Since he started planning for Middle Eastern peace in September, took the beginning steps in December, and went head-on in April, he’d laid the framework before he’d even left America for his “goodwill” tour between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

People keep assuming things that are valuable to them are valuable to Trump. In harping on his “legacy in the making”, in slandering him for a Russia connection, they fail to realize that Trump doesn’t necessarily have the same goals as everyone else. His primary goal is to “fight for the American people”.

Either way, it looks like this is the continuation of a beautiful friendship.

Researcher Verifies Robbin Young’s Guccifer 2.0 Chats

Hannibal Moot has verified Robbin Young’s chats with Guccifer 2.0, responding to her newly released photos and concluding that “It is safe to say, problems in older versions of Twitter’s software could have contributed to the anomalies with the icons.” Moot went further and validated the argument that a glitch in the software is likely to blame, stating: “Am I being overly particular? Possibly. It is likely a software glitch. The new shot looks legitimate.”

Guccifer 2.0’s told Robbin Young that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was his whistleblower, stating to her that “his name is Seth, he was my whistleblower” in the Twitter Direct Messages that she has released.

The editor of BullTruth Magazine, Hannibal Moot, had in the past taken exception to these anomalously misplaced signs when Robbin Young originally released her chats, pointing to how the “block and garbage symbols” were in the wrong spot. Moot had previously acknowledged the argument that the software Young used to release the chat may be to blame, stating “The software itself is what I would consider to be the strongest argument.” However, he has only recently concluded that the problems with the image are with a software glitch. 

Robbin Young had released a full set of photos of each of her chats with Guccifer 2.0, and Moot was responding to the new photos. The chats will help investigators and perhaps the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in assessing Guccifer 2.0, and perhaps lead to a more formal investigation of the alleged Seth Rich connection. 

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Croatia’s President Fond of Donald Trump?

Croatia's President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic NATO

You’d assume every world leader was disgusted with President Trump with the way the American media covers him.

Recently, the news has been largely about body language and a supposed push by Trump, (Scott Adams debunks this story in his periscope posted below) but there appears to be one person in particular who is showing favorable body language towards him; Croatian President, Grabar-Kitarovic.

Trump and President of Croatia Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović
DC Whispers
Trump & Croatia's President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic
REUTERS/Kevin Coombs

Grabar-Kitarovic elected Croatia’s first woman president, 12 January 2015 …. Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic is a former foreign minister and member of the centre-right opposition HDZ party. BBC

Croatian ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011 and Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy at NATO under Secretaries-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jens Stoltenberg from 2011 to 2014. She still remains the highest ranking female official to have served within NATO’s administrative structure. wikipidea


She is familiar with Trump according to Balkan Insight

“The situation was that Croatian diplomats did not have many contacts with people close to Trump since no one believed he could win the presidency.

“The consul gave to me a list of people the President wanted to meet and it happened to be that some of those people are my friends,” Blackard said.

“The men she met are powerful guys and are close to Trump … I assure you that no head of the state has had such a jump on the new Trump administration,” he said.


Blackard said Grabar Kitarovic even got tickets to Trump’s inauguration on Friday, but decided not to go so that her next visit would be “an even more productive one”, once Trump is President. –

It looks as though the two could have a great relationship going forward.



SEE BELOW: Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert has a great analysis of the “push” being reported by the MSM.

Click Here instead if embed does not work

Roger Stone Did Not Know Guccifer 2 Was Male

Robbin Young, a Bond Girl according to her biography, has shared the romantic twitter direct messages she had been having with Guccifer 2.0, the infamous individual that leaked DNC documents during the 2016 Presidential election. However, Twitter has been ablaze recently with critics of Roger Stone pointing out to his supposed use of the term “Her” in describing Guccifer 2.0, which supposedly means that Stone knows who Guccifer 2.0 is. However, Guccifer 2.0 replied to a romantic poem that Young sent him by saying, “it made me hard.”

Therefore, Guccifer 2.0 is either a man, a transgendered man, or a woman with an elaborate desire to come across as a lovestruck man. If Stone did refer to Guccifer 2.0 as a woman, he must not know her in the same deep way that Robbin Young does, as Young refers to her “friendship” with Guccifer 2.0, a man she “respects and admires.”

The recently released Twitter exchange between Guccifer 2.0 and Robbin Young also shows his use of language, which may provide clues as to his origins. The exchange has been uploaded to Twitter in over 14 minutes of footage, with Guccifer replying to Young between August 15 and August 30, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 also refers to a story about a “whistleblower friend of of mine and my assistant,” but it is unclear to whom he is talking about. He also claims that Julian Assange may be connected to the Russians, and that he doesn’t trust him because of that. Guccifer 2.0 also makes reference to Seth Rich, “my whistleblower“, who was of murdered in July of that year. 

Contact Steve at [email protected]

Would the CIA frame Russia in DNC attack, yet wiretap Trump Tower?

The recent Wikileaks contains hacking tools for the CIA that are used to “avoid fingerprints implicating the CIA and the US government” in its hacking. Indeed, according to Wikileaks’ analysis, the UMBRAGE and these related projects can “misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.” Since the security company Crowdstrike, funded by the DNC, has identified “two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016,” by the name of COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR, and the Obama-led intelligence community (or “band of leakers”) “confirmed” this in their report in the dying days of their administration, many have thought it was Russia behind the DNC attack. Since we can assume, based on the recent wikileak, that the CIA can replicate a Cozy Bear and fancy Bear attack, the question we ought to ask is, would the CIA frame Russia and hack the DNC?

Certainly, the case can be made that the CIA, at least outwardly, has been Pro-Obama and Anti-Trump. Take into account the many leaks from the Trump administration, to which President Trump tweeted on Feb. 14, asking, “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? President Trump went further and claimed that the CIA obtained the leak-worthy information through illegal monitoring, when he tweeted on Mar. 4 that he “just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory.” Mr. Trump also said in a Fox News interview, regarding the leaks, that “I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it.” The question remains, how can the CIA be so obviously against Trump, yet potentially have helped him so much with the DNC leaks?

The answer is that there could be rogue Pro-Trump individuals within the CIA agency doing the hacking behind the back of their Pro-Obama superiors. That would be the only way to explain the discrepancy, if it is true that the CIA framed Russia in the DNC attack. According to the Wikileaks trove of CIA files, these cover-up tools are contained in the documents entitled Development Tradecract Dos and Don’ts, use of encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communicationdescribing targets & exfiltrated data as well as executing payloads and persisting in the target’s machines over time. Since the CIA has this cover-up capability, does Russia have it too?

According to John McAfee, the internationally-renowned information security pioneer and founder of global computer security software company McAfee, “Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their tracks. If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into organizations. (…) He continued, “If it looks like the Russians did it, than I can guarantee you, it was not the Russians.”  The question is, why would Russia leave its fingerprints in the hacking job, if it was them, since they could have deleted those tracks?

Either the Russians wanted everyone to know it was them when they hacked the DNC, or it wasn’t them at all. It could also have been another country or group that replicated Russia’s fingerprints, including rogue individuals in the CIA, or it really could have been a Romanian hacker utilizing Russian hacking tools, as Guccifer 2.0 has claimed he is Romanian all along.

More needs to be done to find if there any Pro-Trump elements in the intelligence community in the run up to the 2016 Presidential Election, if Russia has in the past covered its tracks when it uses established hacking tools, and how easy it is for another country or group to replicate a Fancy Bear or Cozy Bear attack.


Guccifer 2.0 claimed to Robbin Young that murdered DNC staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”

On April 11, Robbin Young tweeted how the FBI left a letter at her home requesting/demanding an interview. Young has found a lawyer and on April 12 private Twitter messages between her and Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 claimed that “Seth [Rich] was my whistleblower,” which would only make sense in the context of Rich being a DNC leaker sending information to Guccifer 2.0. However, Guccifer 2.0 has always claimed publicly that he obtained his information by hacking the DNC.

Seth Rich was murdered in front of his home in 2016. Speculation has been rife ever since then that he knew too much about something, and that he was assassinated.

Does the FBI’s immediate response to Robbin Young mean they are taking the Seth Rich information seriously? Or are they trying to pry more information about Guccifer 2.0 out of Robbin Young? As Robbin Young has said that she has received death threats as of late, is the FBI truly offering to protect her, or do they want to intimidate her from disputing the FBI’s narrative regarding Guccifer 2.0 being a hacker, being an entity that is represented by multiple people instead of one, and being a Russian? Young believes that Guccifer 2.0 is Romanian as he claims, is one individual and not many, and that Seth Rich was his leaker at the DNC.

Given the FBI’s interest in Robbin Young, the Republican members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees may be interested in calling her to testify before the hearings that the House and Senate have been convening over the past few weeks on the alleged hacking during the election. They may also direct the FBI to disclose their specific interest in Robbin Young, and to conduct a thorough investigation of the Seth Rich leaker claim and any other leakers at the DNC, including an investigation into Seth Rich’s murder and any ties to the DNC.

The FBI may be engaged in a more thorough analysis of Guccifer 2.0’s conduct, including a language analysis that encompasses the new text disclosed by Robbin Young, and the apparent attempt at misattributing his origins as being Russian when he intentionally added Russian metadata to his releases, such as adding Felix Dzerzhinsky as the modifying author, changing the native language of the document to Russian, and using a Russian language template. There were no other textual differences between Guccifer 2.0’s release of documents and Wikileaks release of those same documents, although Wikileaks documents were dated later than Guccifer 2.0’s, and Guccifer 2.0’s contained the name of Warren Flood as the creating author while Wikileaks’ contained the original author. Warren Flood’s job description at his firm is “helping campaigns, organizations, and companies implement winning strategies using data, analytics, and technology,” while Seth Rich was “voter expansion data director” at the DNC. It is unclear if they worked side-by-side.

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

FM Spokeswoman Zakharova Rails Against The U.S. Administration For Imposing New Sanctions

FM Spokeswoman Zakharova Rails Against The U.S. Administration For Imposing New Sanctions: ‘Today America And The American People Were Disparaged By Their Own President’

On December 29, the Obama Administration sanctioned Russia’s security services and military intelligence and declared 35 diplomats persona non grata, calling Moscow’s “malicious cyber-enabled activities” a “national emergency.”[1] Commenting on the decision, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova wrote on her Facebook page: “Today America and the American people were disparaged by their own president. This time Washington was slapped in the face by its own leader, who maximized the number of the incoming team’s pressing problems.” She then described the Obama administration as “a group of foreign policy losers, embittered and narrow-minded.” Zakharova also added: “Being unable to include any major achievements on the global arena in the history of his presidency, the Nobel Prize winner managed to close his chapter with an ugly splotch instead of an elegant period mark.” In her post Zakharova wrote that the whole world is watching “the devastating blow to the prestige of America and its leadership, dealt by Barack Obama and his incompetent foreign policy team.”[2] In an interesting twist Zakaharova on her Facebook page tried to differentiate between Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. “Allow us to convey our words of solidarity- You employed the best efforts, in order to prevent the foreign-policy collapse of your country.” No American secretary of state should have had to put up with what Kerry went through, commiserated Zakaharova.[3]

Zakarova (Source:


Zakharova: ‘We Are Tired Of Lies About Russian Hackers That Continue To Be Spread In The United States From The Very Top’

On December 28, prior to the official introduction of the new sanctions, Zakharova stated: “The outgoing U.S. administration has not given up on its hope of dealing one last blow to relations with Russia, which it has already destroyed. Using obviously inspired leaks in the U.S. media, it is trying to threaten us again with expansion of anti-Russian sanctions, ‘diplomatic’ measures and even subversion of our computer systems. Moreover, this final New Year’s ‘greeting’ from Barack Obama’s team, which is already preparing to leave the White House, is being cynically presented as a response to some cyber-attacks from Moscow.

“Frankly speaking, we are tired of lies about Russian hackers that continue to be spread in the United States from the very top. The Obama administration launched this misinformation half a year ago in a bid to play up to the required nominee at the November presidential election and, having failed to achieve the desired effect, has been trying to justify its failure by taking it out with a vengeance on Russian-US relations.

“However, the truth about the White House-orchestrated provocation is bound to surface sooner or later. In fact, this is already happening. On December 8, U.S. media quoted [U.S. State of] Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp as saying that the local authorities tracked down the origin of a hacker attack on his voter registration database after the election. The attack was traced to an IP address of the Department of Homeland Security. This was followed by an attempt to quickly cover up this information by a flood of new anti-Russian accusations that did not contain a single piece of evidence.

“We can only add that if Washington takes new hostile steps, it will receive an answer. This applies to any actions against Russian diplomatic missions in the United States, which will immediately backfire at U.S. diplomats in Russia. The Obama administration probably does not care at all about the future of bilateral relations, but history will hardly forgive it for this après-nous-le-deluge attitude.”[4]

Zakharova: Obama’s Foreign Policy Evokes The ‘Aversion’ Of The Entire World

Just few days before, Zakharova declared that the Obama administration’s foreign policy evokes the “aversion” of the entire world, in an interview with the Sunday Evening weekly news roundup on the Rossiya-1 TV channel. Zakharova said: “I think this man [Obama] and his team – naturally, speaking about the man we mean the team which has proved to be bad for all on the global arena.” She then added: “I think this eight-year office served under the slogan of their exclusiveness evoked aversion of the entire world. They have failed to fulfill their obligations taken before some countries, they have failed to fulfill what they were commissioned to, including by the American people on the global arena.” According to Zakharova, from the “moral point of view” the Obama administration can be blamed for committing a “crime” as it demonstrated that “the stronger has unlimited rights to do evil. This is what this administration will leave in history.”[5]

Zakharova: ‘The Authorization Act Has Been Adopted By The… Obama Administration… To Create Problems For The Incoming Trump Administration’

On December 27, Zakharova criticized in a statement the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Zakharova said: “We have noted that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which President Barack Obama signed on December 23, just as similar documents adopted in the past years, includes numerous instructions to the Pentagon on a policy regarding Russia. For example, it reaffirms the ban on military cooperation with Russia until it is certified that ‘the Russian Federation has ceased its occupation of Ukrainian territory and its aggressive activities that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ and ‘is abiding by the terms of and taking steps in support of the Minsk Protocols regarding a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.’

“The persistent efforts to condition bilateral military ties on the settlement of the crisis in Ukraine are surprising. Our U.S. partners should have long ago accepted obvious facts: the Crimeans’ decision to reunite with Russia and the deplorable situation in Ukraine are not the result of the mysterious ‘Russian aggression’ but direct consequences of the state coup in Kiev nearly three years ago, the coup that received ideological support and was supervised by the current U.S. administration. Instead of accusing Russia of failure to comply with the Minsk Agreements, to which Russia is not a party, Washington should rein in its Ukrainian clients, who are obviously not interested in a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbass.

“Furthermore, it is unclear how Russia can threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of NATO member states, when it is our American partners and their allies who have enhanced their military activities, expanding the territory of the alliance and moving their military capabilities closer to Russian borders. It is not surprising that we have to take this into account when planning our military development.

“A large section of the Act is devoted to ballistic missile defense (BMD). In the past, the U.S .BMD system was designed to respond to limited strikes at the United States, whereas now its task is to provide ‘an effective, robust layered defense’ against a ballistic missile threat. In other words, Washington has abandoned the tall story about a nuclear threat allegedly coming from Iran and North Korea, which it used to justify the need to deploy anti-missiles, and has clearly indicated that its plans are much broader and are designed to disrupt its nuclear parity with Russia and to achieve unilateral advantages in this strategic sphere.

“However, the ban on cooperation with Russia can be waived if ‘the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States.’ The issue concerns cooperation under arms control agreements and military operations in Afghanistan. This selective approach cannot be effective, as we have seen in Syria, where our American partners refused to maintain full-fledged counterterrorism cooperation with Russia.

“Instead of joining forces to cut short the sway of all forms of extremism there, as we suggested long ago, Washington has decided to deliver military assistance to anti-government groups, which are not much different from the terrorist cutthroats. Now the new Act openly stipulates the possibility of supplying them with weapons, including portable air defense missile systems.

“The Obama administration is bound to see that these weapons will soon find their way to the jihadists with whom the alleged “moderate opposition” has been acting hand in glove. Maybe that is what the United States hopes will happen, because it has been sponsoring Jabhat al-Nusra, a terrorist group and a branch of al-Qaeda. This can only be described as sponsoring terrorism.

“This U.S. decision directly threatens the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces, other Russian military personnel and the Russian Embassy in Syria, which has been shelled more than once. This is why we view this as a hostile decision.

The Act also includes other provisions that affect Russian interests, including the groundless claims of alleged Russian violations of the INF Treaty and concerns about our compliance with the New START Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Most importantly, the above allegations are used as justification for the accelerated development of conventional prompt global strike weapons. In other words, Washington is publicly engaging in sabre rattling.

“It is surprising that the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes the U.S. President to impose ‘sanctions with respect to any foreign person the President determines’ to be responsible for human rights violations. President Obama has globalized the infamous Magnitsky Act (2012), thereby dooming the United States to problems in relations not just with Russia but also with the rest of the world. It is an old foreign policy tradition of Washington to use human rights to put pressure on undesirable governments. But the new Authorization Act has openly given the Pentagon the power to spread US-style democracy across the planet.

Overall, it appears that the Authorization Act has been adopted by the outgoing Obama administration, which is hastily introducing new sanctions against Russia, to create problems for the incoming Trump administration and complicate its relations on the international stage, as well as to force it to adopt an anti-Russia policy. This policy has brought the current U.S. administration, which believed that Russia would bow to pressure, into a dead end. We hope the new administration will be more sagacious.”[6]


[1] See: Executive Order — Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.

[2], December 30, 2016.

[3], December 29, 2016.

[4], December 28, 2016.

[5], December 25, 2016.

[6], December 27, 2016.

© 1998-2016, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved

Russia-NATO Update – October-November 2016

Russia-NATO Update is a new monthly review by the MEMRI Russian Media Studies Project, covering the latest news on Russia-NATO relations from the Russian and East European media.


Quote Of The Month:   The US Is Still Practicing Containment

On November 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made the following remark at the opening of the Potsdam Meetings in Moscow.

“Shortly after Russia had embarked on a path of progressive development and overcome the 1990s crises, we ran into a new edition of the “policy of containment” directed against us. This policy also manifested itself in the coup and the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, which was supported by Washington and Brussels, and the introduction of unilateral sanctions against Russia. The US plans to deploy the European segment of the global missile defense system, and NATO’s actions to conduct an expedited militarization of Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, and the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are also part of that policy.”

(, November 8)

The Iskander-M Tactical Missile Systems In Kaliningrad

See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6663, TheIskander-M Tactical Missile Systems In Kaliningrad — An Update, November 3, 2016.

Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier

See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6659,Ria Columnist: Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier Is Directed Against ‘The Terrorists More Technologically Advanced Puppet Masters [The West]’, November 1, 2016.

See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6655, The Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier – Mission And Goals (An Update), October 27, 2016.

Russia’s Drills

See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6645, Preparation For A Military Clash – Russia’s Drills And Army Update – September-October 2016, October 14, 2016.

See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6648, Russia’s Drills Update, October 23, 2016

Interview Of The Month: The Standoff With Ukraine Will Continue

Moscow-based daily newspaper Moskovskij Komsomolets published an interview with Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, focusing on Russia’s policy in Ukraine, among other subjects.

Q: “… I’d like to focus on Ukraine a little more. In  your opinion, what has Russia achieved playing in this field? And how may this game develop now?

Trenin:  “Russia had two goals in Ukraine. The ultimate goal is the inclusion of Ukraine into an integration process with Russia. In my opinion, there was no chance of implementing this plan, at least not with any advantage for Russia. Because all the Ukrainian elites – eastern, western, southern – realized that the Ukrainian political project could not be implemented in the context of integration with Russia.

“Russia is too appealing in every respect, from economics to culture. And close bonding with it would have made Ukraine part of this large ‘Russian world,’ a community with Russia at its center

“It was unacceptable for the Ukrainian elites; they wanted Ukraine to have a different path from that of Russia. “These sentiments were not considered seriously enough in Moscow.

“And if Ukraine had entered into integration with Russia, it would have received a veto power over the decisions of the Eurasian Union. And it would exercise this power every time to obtain new concessions from Moscow. Additionally, it would always blackmail Russia with the option of its [Ukraine’s] turning to the West. And, of course, in any case, there would be forces inside Ukraine that would clamor in favor of rethinking the integration policy.

“The more immediate goal was more realistic – not allowing Ukraine to join NATO. Here it was possible to achieve something. But nobody could provide any guarantees, because the US has favored Ukraine’s joining NATO since 2007-2008. This ambition caused serious tensions back then.

“And today there is an objective that can be achieved with the help of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics – to create internal obstacles for Ukraine’s NATO accession.

“To give constitutional guarantees that Ukraine won’t be able to apply for NATO membership if some regions are opposed. This, among other things, is the meaning of the Minsk agreements for Moscow.

“But at the moment, nobody is in a hurry to invite Ukraine to join. Even without NATO, it will remain the foreign state most hostile to Russia for many years. And nothing prevents it from concluding additional agreements with the US about the deployment of all kinds of weapons. You don’t have to be in NATO to do that.”

dimitri trenin
(, October 31) Dimitri Trenin (Source:

Essay Of The Month: The New European Missile Crisis

Sergey Karaganov, advisor to Vladimir Putin’s presidential administration and dean of the elite Moscow college National Research University Higher School of Economics, wrote an article, titled “Missiles in Europe: Back to the Future?”

 In the article, Karaganov stated that new disarmament talks are hardly necessary between Russia and the West. “With the West continuing to dominate the information space, such talks would only be used even more actively than before for inciting greater mistrust and militarizing mentality in Europe,”

Below are excerpts from Karaganov’s article:

‘The Deployment Of Missile Defense Systems In Poland And Romania Looks Particularly Odd’

“When in the late 1970s and early 1980s our Western colleagues kept talking about the ‘Soviet military threat,’ I looked at them with suspicion: Are they being silly or simply lying? The decaying Soviet Union obviously could not, and did not intend to, attack anyone. When I came to know some of them better, I understood that they were mistaken after all. But when I hear about the ‘Russian military threat’ again now, this certainly is not a mistake any more but a deliberate and blatant lie, apparently told in a bid to restore structured confrontation. I regret to say, but forward deployment of weapons and missile defense systems and the stationing of troops (rotational for the time being) in Europe is almost overtly provocative.

“It is said they are being deployed there in order to calm down Russia’s neighbors frightened by its possible (but hardly imaginable) aggression. In actual fact, in a real armed conflict such weapons would only make the host countries more vulnerable. I don’t think NATO strategists really think that Russia would wait for its territory to be invaded. These weapons and troops will make everyone nervous—Russia, against which they have been deployed, and their host countries, which turn themselves into priority targets either through folly, or out of desire to take revenge for Moscow’s previous victories, or by order (or no one simply asks them as in the case of Romania). Core NATO members will also become more worried when they understand that the new weapons and troops increase the risk of war in Europe.

“The deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and Romania looks particularly odd. It is obviously prompted by the strong desire of a large segment of the American elite and society to have an illusion of strategic invulnerability, weaken the opponent along the way, and make their own defense industry happy. Initially, these plans were justified by theoretically plausible claims that Europeans needed to be protected from Iranian missiles. When Iran gave up its nuclear program, all decency was dropped. Now any reference to the Iranian threat looks brazenly false, inappropriate even for the West itself. And yet these arguments are replicated over and over again.

“Specialists say almost unanimously that if proper countermeasures are taken, missile defense systems cannot impair Russia’s strategic capabilities. But these systems and the inevitable countermeasures they provoke will increase military risks for the host countries, undermine strategic stability in Europe and the world, and provoke greater nervousness and mistrust.

sergey karaganov
Sergey Karaganov (

“Experts and, most importantly, officials, who are responsible for the security of the country, including its president, say that antimissiles in these systems can easily be replaced with long-range cruise missiles the deployment of which in Europe is banned by the INF Treaty. If this is true, the United States is taking a big surreptitious step towards breaching the treaty, while at the same time throwing similar accusations at Russia.

“There are (or were) those in Russia who advocate secession from the treaty which is in fact quite inequitable. But Russia has never broken it. By placing missile defense systems in Europe, the West is sort of inviting Russia to withdraw from the treaty and deploy missiles that can destroy these systems almost instantly. This would complete the picture with a new edition of the missile crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s and a new round of structured military-political confrontation in Europe.

“The watershed would run closer to our borders. But a new confrontation by definition is more dangerous than the previous one and would provoke a hair-trigger reaction or counter-reaction from both sides. The Americans apparently hope to sit it out over the ocean. Continental Europe, crashed by the avalanche of insolvable internal problems, does not seem to be giving it a serious thought, just as it did not think about the consequences of its expansion to Ukraine two and a half or three years ago. On top of it all, there are pro-conflict forces and interests in Europe (as noted above).

“By essentially offering to resume military-political confrontation, Western partners want to make it more comfortable for themselves and tie Russia’s hands to prevent it from responding in a hard and risky way. This explains why the West constantly moots the possibility of resuming conventional weapons talks or confidence-building dialogue in its old format. I mentioned above the proposals to discuss nuclear weapons in Europe. I heard them many times while working in the OSCE Panel of Eminent Persons. Some of them resurfaced too.

“As a matter of fact, the results of Great Britain’s referendum to leave the European Union create an even greater uncertainty across the board and increase the likelihood of actions to distract attention from the EU crisis, increase the U.S. influence in Europe, and find a new topic for consolidation.

‘Old Recipes Are Used Again To Provoke Russia Into Confrontation And Arms Race In Europe’

“First of all, one must understand that the scenario I have described is quite realistic or is already in progress. Old recipes are used again to provoke Russia into confrontation and arms race in Europe.

“Second, we must make it clear to our European partners and their societies that the current, and previous, policy of NATO and the forces rallying around it is aimed directly at renewing military confrontation in Europe, and if it is realized, it will increase the risk of conflict immensely.

“Third, there is no need to repeat the folly of the late Soviet and early Russian periods when we wanted to please the West and hoped for an equal and stable security system and cooperation in Europe. An analogue of that policy today would be an attempt to resume relations with NATO in the old format. Russia’s weakness and attempts at appeasement helped turn the alliance from a predominantly defensive bloc, as it was during the Cold War, into an offensive one and the main factor of military and political instability in Europe.

The aggression against Yugoslavia and Libya, and the attack by the majority of U.S.-led NATO countries on Iraq created a new reality. It turned out that without strong external deterrence a defensive union of democratic states can easily degrade. Conclusions must be drawn. Russia should hardly try to legitimize the alliance through political dialogue with it in the Russia-NATO Council. But NATO is a real thing, and therefore it would be prudent to continue discussion with it in order to avoid an escalation of incidents and accidental clashes. But this discussion must be conducted by the General Staff and NATO’s Military Committee, by military specialists. Simultaneously, a broader dialogue, bilateral and multilateral, among experts as well, is needed to discuss the future of European security and ways to prevent its destabilization and degradation.

“Fourth, Russia should not respond to potential new missile and other challenges hastily or in kind. It should not secede from the INF Treaty, for this is exactly what the West expects it to do. In fact, Russia has already announced its countermeasures. It will deploy three divisions in the west of the country (Do we really need them there?) and create non-nuclear high-accuracy missile systems (which are quite expensive and can only benefit a richer country). It may get drawn into an arms race. I personally think that an exercise of Russia’s strategic forces to dispel all doubts about what may happen in the event of a crisis with new missiles/interceptor missiles would be enough.

“Fifth, there is the need for a broader security dialogue than the one within the old European framework. As long as we remain within it, the West cannot, and does not want to, give up the old system that reproduces confrontation. We must embark on a Eurasian cooperation, development and security dialogue, especially since the world has changed, including around Russia and Europe. The previous European-centric model looks almost like an anachronism, even for Europe which needs new cooperation horizons for development. China, Russia, and other Eastern and Central Eurasian countries can provide such opportunities. They will not challenge Europe’s Atlantic ties but will rather complement them.

“Sixth, new disarmament talks are hardly necessary. With the West continuing to dominate the information space, such talks would only be used even more actively than before for inciting greater mistrust and militarizing mentality in Europe. But as I have already said, there is the need for military-to-military dialogue.

“Seventh, the remaining potential of the OSCE must be fully tapped, while its third basket, which was used mainly for sustaining and encouraging confrontation, should be gradually ‘forgotten.’ The second—economic—basket is essentially dead. The Organization can be instrumental in settling crises similar to that in Ukraine and fostering joint responses to new security challenges like refugees, terrorism, migration, and cybercrimes.

“Eighth, and this is probably the main point, Russia should step up dialogue with the EU and its member countries to look for ways to restore and expand cultural, scientific and economic cooperation on a new realistic basis. The European Union is not a model any more, nor is it an adversary, but rather a good neighbor, a lucrative market and an equal partner with whom we share many interests and even basic values. Russia should probably think about a broader dialogue between the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU on the way to a comprehensive trade and economic partnership in Eurasia. The Russian president spoke about the need for such a partnership at the 20th St. Petersburg Economic Forum.

“Finally, and most importantly, we Russians have lots of complaints to make to the West, and many are itching to keep responding to the full extent possible and showing it where it gets off. Russia, which has always treasured its two core values—sovereignty and security—apparently has an internal need for an external enemy. This need will grow stronger unless the country becomes ready to begin long overdue reforms.

“But one must remember that in the long run no one will benefit from confrontation, even less so Russia, which is not as strong and rich as the West and even if it can hold out and win tactical victories. It is vitally important to understand that if we allow Cold-War-era structured confrontation to resume, the planet will become a much more dangerous place than ever before. It is better to struggle for peace, provide security, including by preventing further expansion of Western alliances as we belatedly did in 2014, upset the plans of those who wish to renew the arms race and the systemic military-political conflict, and regain leadership in the efforts to ensure the supremacy of international law and strategic stability…”

(, September 25)


© 1998-2016, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved.

Russia This Week – October 5 – 10, 2016


Russia This Week is a weekly review by the MEMRI Russian Media Studies Project, covering the latest Russia-related news and analysis from media in Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The past week witnessed a further deterioration in Russia-US relations, prompting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeir to call the situation “more dangerous” than the Cold War (, October 8) citing the tension over Ukraine and Syria and the lapse in nuclear material cooperation. Such cooperation had always been an area respected by both sides during the Cold War and was insulated from clashes in other areas.

 Cartoon Of The Week

Source: “, October 7, 2016”

Zakharova Dixit

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova is one of the most-quoted Russian officials. She is known for using colorful language when describing Russian foreign policy in her weekly press briefings. The following are Zakharova’s quotes of the week:


“We are facing another round of the anti-Russian information campaign in connection with the Syrian crisis, and this is not for the first time… We are currently facing the extreme, even extremist, round of this campaign. It’s not even a campaign, it’s hysteria in which everyone is involved: the UN Security Council, news conferences by government officials, newspapers, TV, articles, heads of foreign ministry agencies, observers, and others. This time, they are trying to make us look like a bloodthirsty aggressor, an outlaw. On September 29, The New York Times published an article branding Russia ‘an outlaw state’ and saying that Russia kills hundreds of innocent children and women in Syria.”

(, October 6)

“We should react more calmly to what is now being said [in the US] because many statements are being made solely in line with heated pre-election passions. They don’t reflect any short-term Middle East strategy, not to mention a long-term strategy. It appears that these spurts are due to the need to add some fire to the election campaign.”


(, October 6)

Responding to US Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Mike Pence’s comments that the “Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates,” Zakharova wrote on her Facebook page:

“Attention! It is my coming out today. Hello, people! I am the Russian everlasting bear that never dies but hibernates from time to time. I am not alone. There are lots of Russian bears like me. I am even married to such a bear and we have a bushy daughter-bear. I eat honey and try to be funny.

“And I love you with all my Russian bear heart!”

(, October 5)

Quotes Of The Week:

During a press-conference, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations and President of the UN Security Council Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was asked the following question:

Q: “You have been very patient with us but it is still not clear in my mind, do you come to this press-conference with any sense of moral responsibility or do you regard Syria as just entirely disconnected from Russian foreign policy or Russian military policy? Do you have a sense of responsibility for what is happening in Eastern Aleppo?”

Churkin answered: “When you come clearer in your mind about what you want to ask, please ask me the question.”

(, October 3)

Tweet Of The Week:

Senator @Alexey_Pushkov: “Obama is concluding his second term by sharp degradation in the relations with Russia and tense relations with China. [He] deserves a Cold War, rather than a [Nobel] Peace prize.”


(, October 5)
(Source:, October 5, 2016)

In The News:

US Dixit – Kerry: Russian, Syrian Actions Beg For An Investigation Of War Crimes

On October 7, during a joint press conference with French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, US State Secretary John Kerry said: “Russia and [Syrian] the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions. They’re beyond the accidental now – way beyond. Years beyond the accidental. This is a targeted strategy to terrorize civilians and to kill anybody and everybody who is in the way of their military objectives.”

(, October 7)

US State Department’s spokesperson John Kirby then explained: “[Kerry]’s the Secretary of State, he doesn’t just toss words around for rhetorical exercises. You have seen his frustration build. You, yourself – all of you have seen his frustration build over the last several weeks. You heard what he said at the UN, called it like he saw it, that these were clear violations of international law. And today, he said that they begged for an appropriate investigation, and I think he meant every word of what he said. I’m not trying to parse here. I’m not trying to be – to dance around this thing, but the Secretary believes that what’s happening is an abomination, is – obviously violates international law. We’re talking, again – let’s remember and let’s remind people we’re talking about hospitals and homes and businesses and innocent men and women and children.”

( October 7)

Russia Replies – Zakharova: ‘Shouldn’t We Just Turn Off Telephones In The Foreign Ministry?

Commenting on Kerry’s statements, Zakharova wrote on her Facebook page: “By making statements equating Russia’s actions in Syria with war crimes, the US State Department should understand that this may all end with the national referendum in Russia with one question: ‘Shouldn’t we just turn off telephones in the Foreign Ministry?'”

(, October 8)

Senator Alexey Pushkov said: “Kerry’s accusations against Russia are not just rhetoric or an intimidation attempt. This is a preparation for the new round of sanctions against Russia – this time because of Syria.”

(, October 7)

UNSC: Russia Vetoes France’s Resolution – Russia’s Resolutions Receives The Minimum Number Of Votes

Russia vetoed a French-drafted UNSC resolution on Syria. France’s resolution called for a complete cessation of the bombing in Aleppo, as well as military flights over the city. On the other hand, the Russian draft resolution failed to receive a minimum number of votes at the UNSC. Prior to the vote, Russia’s Permanent Ambassador to the UN said: “Today we are participating in one of the most bizarre scenes in the history of the UN Security Council. We will vote on the two draft Council resolutions, and we are all well aware that neither of them will be accepted.”

In another interview, Churkin said: “The French proposal is very hastily put together and I frankly believe that this is designed not to make progress and take the situation out of the current stalemate and not to help Staffan de Mistura but to cause a Russian veto which I will try to explain. It is unprecedented for the members of the Council to ask a permanent member of the Security Council to limit its own activities… the French draft as I explained before contains some elements which we think are really harmful…this is not a proposal, a draft which is right for adoption, as I say I have this suspicion that the real motive is to cause a Russian veto even though from the outset we were told by the French colleagues that this was not their intention. But unfortunately I have to get used to working under strange circumstances.”

(, October 7;, October 9)

US-Russia Relations Heating Up – Zakharova: S-300 Anti-Aircraft Missiles Were Deployed In Syria To Counter US Cruise Missile Threats To Russian Forces

Russia’s Defense Ministry informed that a battery of Russian S-300 air defense missile launchers has been transported to Syria. The news was confirmed by Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov: “Indeed, the Syrian Arab Republic received an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. This system is designed to ensure the safety of the naval base in [Syrian city of] Tartus and ships located in the coastal area [in Syria]…” He added that it is unclear why the deployment of the S-300 caused such alarm in the West, stating that “the S-300 is a purely defensive system and poses no threat.”

(, October 4)

Igor Konashenkov (Source: 

In an interview with the RIA TV channel on October 7, Zakharova said: “the S-400 has been deployed there (in Syria) for a long time – everyone treated that normally and no one said that was a show of [force]. Those systems have been there for a long time – and everyone, i think, knew it. The S-300 appeared in Syria after there were leaks from American experts, close to the American establishment, regarding a possible targeting of Syrian airfields by cruise missiles. Those leaks were consistent and had some basis…”

(, October 7)

RIA Columnist: “If The US Chooses War – Russia Won’t Be Able To Flee The  Fighting”

Commenting on possible US strikes against Syrian governmental military target, Konashenkov warned: “Any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen… Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ [stealth technology] jets will face a disappointing reality.” He also noticed that the Syrian army is equipped with quite effective systems such as S-200, as well as BUK systems. He then added that after the September 17 US striking of Syrian army positions in Dir-Az-Zour, Russia took all necessary precautions in order not to let such mistakes recur against Russian soldiers and infrastructure in Syria.

It is worth noting that Konashenkov recalled that Russia’s bases in Hmeymim and Tartus were protected by S-400 and S-300 air defense systems, “whose range of operation may prove a surprise to any unidentified flying object.”

(, October 6;, October 6;, 6)

In an article, titled “The dialectics of S-300 in Syria,” Aleksandr Khrolenko, a columnist for RIA news, wrote: Russia will consider any strikes against Syrian governmental army as an attempt to sabotage the anti-terror operation in Syria with all that this implies. “I think, that sooner or later, the Americans will try to use force in various capacities. If the US chooses war – Russia won’t be able to flee the fighting,” Khrolenko wrote.

(, October 7, 2016)

Russian Embassy Under Mortar Fire In Syria – Zakharova: ‘The US Is Protecting Jabhat Al-Nusra By All Possible Means’

On October 3, the Russian embassy in Syria came under mortar fire. The Russian Foreign Ministry published a special statement accusing those “who, like the US, are provoking continued bloodshed in Syria by flirting with various militants and extremists.”

(, October 4)

Commenting on the mortar attack druing her weekly press briefing, Zakharova said that there is a connection between the Russian embassy shelling in Damascus and Washington’s threats. Zakharova stated: “We suspect a connection between this terrorist attack and the vague threat of attack recently passed on by Washington. It is indicative that the attack happened in the midst of a discussion to possibly supply the militants with man-portable air-defense systems and other military equipment that could be used from anywhere.

“We get the impression that our Western partners are forgetting that Jabhat al-Nusra (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), ISIS, Jund al-Aqsa, Ahrar ash-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam and other similar groups are basically the same evolving Al-Qaeda that conducted the horrible terrorist attacks in the United States 15 years ago. Why do our American colleagues not remember that and why do they not remind their people about it on a daily basis at public events? It is beyond my understanding.

“The US is protecting Jabhat al-Nusra by all possible means. For the past two years, almost every day we hear tragic reports of American police killing ordinary citizens who only looked like they could hypothetically be a threat to the police or the public. Some police officers thought they were armed, the others thought they could be dangerous, etc. Those were ordinary people who were only suspected of being a threat. Now imagine that two or three people from Jabhat al-Nusra – so thoroughly protected by the US government – walk down the streets of Washington. Imagine what the police would do to those people if they walked down the street in Washington, Chicago or any US city looking the way they usually look. Nobody would have any doubt that those people clearly pose a threat to civilians. Then why is it that those people would be immediately destroyed in one geographic location with complete public support but in another location, they are presented as fighters for justice, as the moderate opposition, a group that is not yet on the genuine path to political resolution, a group that needs refinement but does not yet meet the high standards completely? It is a very strange approach.”

(, October 6)

Russia’s Decision To Terminate The 2010 Implementing Agreement Between Rosatom And The US Department of Energy – Russian Foreign Ministry: ‘We Can No Longer Trust Washington In A Sensitive Sphere’

On September 3, a Russian Presidential Executive Order suspended the 2000 U.S.-Russia agreement concerning the management and disposition of plutonium designated as no longer required for defense purposes and related cooperation (PMDA). On October 5, Russia adopted the decision to terminate the 2010 Implementing Agreement between the Russian State Corporation for Atomic Energy, Rosatom, and the US Department of Energy, concerning cooperation on feasibility studies of the conversion of Russian research reactors to use low-enriched uranium fuel. The Russian Foreign Ministry wrote: “This step follows the notification received from the United States in 2014 regarding the termination of civil nuclear energy cooperation with Russia, as well as other hostile steps and statements by the United States. As a result of these actions, we can no longer trust Washington in a sensitive sphere such as the modernization and safety of Russian nuclear power plants. If Russia makes the decision to convert particular research reactors to low-enriched nuclear fuel, we will conduct this work independently.”

(, October 5)

Russia’s Suspension Of The 2013 Russian-US Agreement On Cooperation In Nuclear- And Energy-Related Scientific Research And Development

On October 5, Russia suspended the 2013 Russian-US Agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear- and Energy-Related Scientific Research and Development. The Russian Foreign Ministry explained: “This step was taken following the restrictions imposed by the United States on nuclear energy cooperation with Russia. In 2014, notification was received from Washington that the US was suspending nuclear energy cooperation with Russia in connection with the events in Ukraine. By their decision, the Americans effectively froze cooperation in science and technology in all areas specified in the Agreement and rendered impossible the implementation of projects in which both countries were interested. Under these circumstances, Russia is suspending the Agreement in response to the US’s hostile actions…”

(, October 6)

Deputy FM: The US Intelligence Is Trying To Recruit Agents Amongst Russian Diplomats

During an interview, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov talked about the “ongoing practice of US special services abducting Russians across the world.” He also stated that the US administration is trying to use “hyped-up public concern about its representatives to conceal active espionage operations conducted under diplomatic cover.” [1] Ryabkov then added:

“The situation facing Russian diplomats in the United States is, in fact, steadily deteriorating. Over the past two and a half years, there has been a clear increase in the number of attempts to recruit our officials, while US special services resort to the most unseemly methods to apply pressure, including threats against the well-being of family members. The smooth operation of our diplomatic missions is hindered by artificial difficulties in making official contacts and other contrived restrictions.

“Not long ago, Washington tightened regulations on the movement of Russian officials on US territory. Now the overwhelming majority of our representatives need to notify the State Department of their itinerary well in advance, without which they may not go anywhere. This runs counter to the rules that were jointly agreed on and were in effect for almost a quarter of a century. This will further undermine conditions for the development of ties as well as opportunities for bilateral cooperation.

“Unfortunately, this is precisely what the administration of Barack Obama has sought, to the accompaniment of rabid anti-Russian propaganda, especially since the adoption of the controversial sanctions-related ‘Magnitsky Act[2] in 2012. Nevertheless, Washington will not succeed in laying the blame at someone else’s doorstep.”

(, October 4)

Turkey–Russia Relations

On October 10, Russian President Vladimir Putin is to meet Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the World Energy Congress in Istanbul. On October 5, the two leaders had a phone conversation at the initiative of the Turkish side. The phone call focused on Turkish-Russian cooperation and the Syrian crisis.

(, October 5)

Iskander – M In Kaliningrad Region

Russia deployed Iskander -M tactical missile systems in Kaliningrad region. The move sparked tension in the Baltic States. On October 8, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Konashenkov said: “By the way, nobody made a big secret out of the transportation of the system onboard the freighter Ambal. I’ll tell more – one Iskander system was deliberately exposed prior to the shipment to an American intelligence satellite, which was on its trajectory above (the region) – that was made in order to clarify (check out) certain parameters of this satellite.” He also added that the Russian side did not have long to wait since the US partners in their “exposure impulse” have confirmed everything (that the Russians needed).

(, October 8)

He also stated: “The Iskander ballistic missile system is mobile, as during the training process missile force units improve their skills year-round [which involves] covering major distances across Russian territory by various means: by air, by sea and by their own movement.”

On another note, Putin transferred the Kaliningrad Region’s governor, Yevgeny Zinichev, to another job, presumably on Zinichev’s own request and appointed Regional Government Chairman Anton Alikhanov as Kaliningrad’s new head.

(, October 8;, October 8;, October 8)




[1] The US has charged with Russia with harassment of its diplomats both within Russia as well as throughout Europe. State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau reported that other Western countries were encountering similar harassment. See:, July 28, 2016.

[2] In December 2012 the US Congress passed this act allowing the US to withhold visas and freeze assets of  Russian officials involved in human rights violations. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who discovered massive fraud by Russian tax and police officials. Rather than act on his charges, Russian officialdom arrested Magnitsky who died in custody, allegedly of torture and failure to receive medical care.


© 1998-2016, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved