Russian Diplomacy Threatens Western Imperialism in Africa

October 30, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - While Russia has attempted to direct attention toward its first ever Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi, Russia this month, it has been the systematic smear campaign launched by media in the West that has raised debate over accusations made against Moscow and exposed the hypocrisy of those making these accusations regarding their own activities in Africa.

The debate provoked by Western accusations has helped focus attention on the oft neglected affairs of the African continent and the nations and people living there, as well as compare and contrast centuries of Western abuses there with the approaches of relative newcomers like Russia and China.

For Russia's part, its summit appears well received, and were it of little or no consequence, we would probably not be seeing the significant backlash it has provoked across the Western media.

The West's Way of Dealing with Africa...  

In an ideal world, nations would be free to associate or disassociate themselves with other nations and circles of special interests in a manner reflecting their own best interests.

In Washington's unipolar world, nations are not afforded this luxury.

This is particularly so for the continent of Africa, home to 1.2 billion people living in 54 countries, who have been subjected by the West to outright imperialism, invasions, occupations, regime change operations, economic warfare, genocide, chemical and biological warfare and literal slavery spanning several centuries.

The United States picked up where former colonial powers like the UK and France left off. But the UK and France have been willing accomplices and resurgent imperialists themselves in recent years across Africa.

To get a handle on the West's way of dealing with Africa we might look at the North African state of Libya, targeted for decades by the US through covert subversion, economic sanctions and finally a war of aggression  in 2011 that splintered the nation, transforming it into a failed state overrun by warring factions, modern slavery and triggering a regional refugee crisis.

Libya's destruction also led to a regional terror wave that infected neighboring African states and even nations as far afield as Syria.

While Libya's destruction was led by the US, France and the UK played a prominent supporting role.

France is also bolstering troops in its former African colonies in a less-than-subtle neo-colonial resurgence. The Business Insider in an article titled, "France's Military is all Over Africa," would note:

Currently, France has over 3,000 troops spread across five countries in Africa — Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad — as part of Operation Burkhane.

These forces along with those of US AFRICOM and other Western nations are allegedly combating "terrorism." Yet the very terrorism these forces claim as a pretext to justify occupying African nations is a direct result of deliberate plans to use extremists as axillary forces in the very wars of aggression that destroyed Libya in 2011.

Obviously if Western forces are cultivating terrorism while simultaneously posing as combating said terrorism, nations hosting this geopolitical theater find their options in dealing with other global players highly limited.

Both for nations suffering instability brought on by US and Western machinations, and nations that face it in the near to intermediate future, the desire for alternatives must be great, especially those that offer real development, infrastructure projects and defense ties beyond the elaborate protection racket being run by the West.

Enter Russia 


The BBC in its article, "Russia Africa summit: What's behind Moscow's push into the continent?," would report:

Russia has been boosting its political contacts in the region, with 12 African heads of state visiting Moscow since 2015 - six of them in 2018 alone. 

And its ambitions have prompted some concern in key Western powers they are being outplayed by Moscow. 

Last year, former US National Security adviser John Bolton announced a new US strategy for Africa, partly aimed at countering both China and Russia. 

However, a recent editorial in the Washington Post talked of Russia "aggressively seeking deals and security relationships" while US influence in the continent continued to decline.

The report would note Russia's goals of developing political and diplomatic ties, providing defense and economic assistance, humanitarian relief as well as education and vocational training.

But it was a quote the BBC included, by Russian President Vladimir Putin, that illustrates perfectly not only the difference between Western and Russian approaches in building a presence in Africa, but why Russia is more successful while US influence is waning despite the vast disparity between the US and Russia in terms of economic and military might.

The BBC quoted President Putin as saying:

We do not impose our views, respecting the principle of "African solutions to African problems" proposed by the Africans themselves.

Clearly, while the US holds an immense advantage in terms of economic and military might, its ambitions in Africa fall under the framework of its unipolar world order where the US exists above all other nations as sole enforcer of international "rules and norms" decided by (and for) the US and usually at the expense of the national sovereignty of nations around the globe.

Compare this with Moscow's demonstrated multipolar world view in which all nations exist alongside one another underwritten by the primacy of national sovereignty.

It isn't difficult to work out which model of international relations nations around the globe would prefer, or with whom moral leadership and imperative lies.

Rather than adjust to a world shifting to adopt a more multipolar view and compete constructively with not only Russia, but also China, the US has decided to continue along its current path while attempting to use its influence over global media to depict Russia's methods in a light as unflattering in fiction as Washington's actual policy in Africa is.

Western Backlash

Articles like the Guardian's, "Leaked documents reveal Russian effort to exert influence in Africa," allude to what is depicted as shadowy and malign influence emanating from Moscow into Africa.

The Guardian claims:

Russia is seeking to bolster its presence in at least 13 countries across Africa by building relations with existing rulers, striking military deals, and grooming a new generation of “leaders” and undercover “agents”, leaked documents reveal.

Building relations with existing rulers and striking military deals is what normal political, economic and military ties between nations consists of. The "grooming" of leaders and "undercover agents" sounds much more sinister, but is also something the Guardian article never manages to prove.

It and other articles like it all cite the dubious "Dossier Center" run by London-based convicted Russian criminal Mikhail Khodorkovsky which in turn cites unverified and irrelevant "leaked documents" attempting to target Moscow by emulating Wikileaks, minus the verified documents Wikileaks actually publishes.

Accusations made against Russia, particularly in regard to its activities in training and arming the Central African Republic's military (a mission the UN itself authorized Russia to undertake, AFP would report), are admittedly flimsy.

The above mentioned BBC article even admits as much, noting (emphasis added):

For example, Russia has been active in the Central African Republic (CAR), officially helping to support the embattled UN-backed government against an array of rebel groups.  

But private Russian military forces have also been working there, providing security to the government and helping safeguard key economic assets. 

Russian mercenary activity has also been reported in neighbouring Sudan and Libya as well as in other countries, involving Wagner, a private military company said to have ties to the Kremlin.

Russian officials often play down these reports and it's difficult to establish the exact links between these groups and the Russian state.

Thus, another smear campaign is being waged against Russia, despite no evidence suggesting previous campaigns have worked in aiding Western efforts to sabotage Russia's reclaiming of Crimea, its protecting of its borders with Ukraine, its aiding the Syrian government against US-led regime change and the developing of ties even with Western European nations like Germany.

Not only does Russia (as well as China) pose a threat to Western imperialism in Africa by providing much more attractive alternatives for the nations and people of Africa, emerging global powers like Russia who deal in "no-strings-attached" diplomacy and offer protection from the means and methods of Western hegemony endanger the normalization of neo-colonialism still promoted by nations like the US, UK and France.

Russia's success in Africa will be another bellwether of the shift from a US-dominated unipolar world order to a more sensible and balanced multipolar world where not only are US methods unable to be "normalized," they become the grounds of America's isolation until it abandons them.

Only time will tell whether or not this success will be fully realized or how the US will attempt to counter it. Hopefully the US will be spurred by the realization of its waning influence in Africa as well as its retreat from the Middle East, to return to the global stage as a constructive equal rather than continuing its unsustainable empire-building abroad and its increasing paranoia at home.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Battlefield Libya: Fruits of US-NATO Regime Change

April 10, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Libya is back in the news, as fighting escalates around the capital, Tripoli.

Forces under the control of Khalifa Haftar - a former Libyan general under the government of Muammar Qaddafi - turned opposition during the 2011 US-led NATO intervention - turned "opposition" again against the UN-backed "Government of National Accord" (GNA) seated in Tripoli - have most recently reached Tripoli's airport.

The confusing chaos that has continually engulfed Libya since 2011 should come as no surprise. It is the predictable outcome that follows any US-led political or military intervention. Other examples showcasing US-led regime change "success" include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

And just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine - the Western corporate media has regularly omitted mention of Libya from headlines specifically to mask the very predictable consequences of US-led regime change as additional interventions against nations like Venezuela, Syria, and Iran are engineered and pursued.

Battlefield Libya 

In 2011, the North African nation of Libya was transformed from a prosperous, developing nation, into a divided, perpetual battlefield where local warlords backed by a milieu of opposing foreign sponsors and interests have vied for power since.

Libya's current status as a failed, warring state is owed entirely to the US-led NATO intervention in 2011.

Predicated on lies promoted by Western-funded "human rights" organizations and fought under the pretext of R2P (responsibility to protect) - the US and its NATO allies dismembered Libya leading to predictable and perpetual chaos that has affected not only Libya itself, but North Africa, Southern Europe, and even the Middle East.

The war immediately triggered not only a wave of refugees fleeing the war itself, but the redirection of refugees from across Africa seeking shelter and work in Libya, across the Mediterranean and into Europe instead.

Militants fighting as proxies for the US-led war in 2011 would be armed and redeployed to Turkey where they entered Syria and played a key role in taking the cities of Idlib and Aleppo during the early stages of that US-led proxy war.

Currently, Libya is divided between the UN-backed government based in Tripoli, eastern-based forces loyal to Haftar, and a mix of other forces operating across the country, holding various degrees of control over Libya's other major cities, and equally varying degrees of loyalty to the UN-backed government, Haftar's forces, or other factions.

Fighting around Tripoli has even allegedly prompted US military forces stationed in Libya to temporarily evacuate. CNBC in its article, "US pulls forces from Libya as fighting approaches capital," would report:

The United States has temporarily withdrawn some of its forces from Libya due to “security conditions on the ground,” a top military official said Sunday as a Libyan commander’s forces advanced toward the capital of Tripoli and clashed with rival militias. 

A small contingent of American troops has been in Libya in recent years, helping local forces combat Islamic State and al-Qaida militants, as well as protecting diplomatic facilities.

The presence of US forces in Libya might be news to some - and was certainly only a dream within the Pentagon until after the 2011 US-led NATO intervention finally toppled the Libyan government.

America's foreign policy of arsonist-fireman has endowed it with a large and still growing military footprint in Africa - one it uses to project power and affect geopolitics well beyond the continent.

America's Growing Footprint in Africa 

The ongoing Libyan conflict - flush with weapons pouring in from foreign sponsors - has also fuelled regional terrorism impacting neighboring Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, and Chad, as far west as Mali and Nigeria, and southeast as far as Kenya. The war has been a boon for US Africa Command (AFRICOM) which has used the resulting chaos as a pretext to expand Washington's military footprint on the continent.

In a 2018 Intercept article titled, "U.S. Military Says it has a "Light Footprint" in Africa. These Documents Show a Vast Network of Bases," it was reported that:

According to a 2018 briefing by AFRICOM science adviser Peter E. Teil, the military’s constellation of bases includes 34 sites scattered across the continent, with high concentrations in the north and west as well as the Horn of Africa. These regions, not surprisingly, have also seen numerous U.S. drone attacks and low-profile commando raids in recent years.

The article notes that much of AFRICOM's expansion in Africa has occurred over the past decade.

While the pretext for US military expansion in Africa has been "counter-terrorism," it is clear US military forces are there to protect US interests and project US power with "terrorism" a manufactured pretext to justify Washington's militarization of the continent.


Much of the terrorism the US claims it is fighting was only possible in the first place through the flood of weapons, equipment, and support provided to militants by the US and its partners amid regime change operations targeting nations like Libya.

The US-led NATO war in Libya is a perfect example of the US deliberately arming terrorist organizations - including those listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the US State Department itself - overthrowing a nation, predictably destabilizing the entire region, and using the resulting instability as a pretext to massively expand America's military footprint there.

The wider agenda at play is Washington's desire to displace current Russian and Chinese interests on the continent, granting the US free reign.

Fruits of US-NATO Regime Change 

As NATO celebrates its 70th anniversary, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would claim:

Over seven decades, NATO has stepped up time and again to keep our people safe, and we will continue to stand together to prevent conflict and preserve peace.

This "peace" includes 8 years of heavy fighting in Libya following NATO's intervention there.

NATO's Secretary General proclaims NATO's mission as one to "prevent conflict and preserve peace," yet it paradoxically and very intentionally engineered the war in Libya, overthrew the government in Tripoli, and triggered regional chaos that not only plagues North Africa to this day - but also inundated Europe with refugees fleeing the conflict.

Europe is one of the few places NATO could conceivably claim any mandate to protect or operate in - yet its own wars of aggression abroad directly compromised European safety and security. 

The media blackout that has shrouded the true impact of NATO's intervention in Libya for the past 8 years helps enable the US and its NATO partners to perpetrate additional proxy wars and political interventions elsewhere.

As the US openly pursues aggressive regime change in Venezuela and meddles in the internal politics of nations across Southeast Asia, the "fruits" of US intervention in places like Libya should always be kept in mind.

What is most alarming of all is considering that the US-led intervention in Libya may not necessarily be a failure. It is only a failure if one believed the US truly sought a better future for the nation. However, if the fruits of perpetual chaos and an equally perpetual pretext for the US militarization of Africa were intentionally set out for from the beginning - then in many ways - Libya was a resounding success.

Depending on how the current fighting around Tripoli unfolds, whether or not a unified Libya emerges, and whose foreign military presence and economic interests are allowed to persist on Libyan soil thereafter - will help determine just how successful Washington's true agenda in Libya - and in Africa - has been.

 Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Uganda: Profiling US Meddling Across Africa

September 24, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - While China builds roads, rail, pipelines, airports, seaports, and factories across Africa, the United States finds itself resigned to selling weapons and stirring up conflicts between and within African states to disrupt the rise of the continent independent of Western hegemony.

Part of stirring up conflict involves political subversion. In Uganda, the US is propping up an opposition leader who even at the most basic, superficial level fails to conceal his allegiance to and dependence on Washington.

The Making of an Agitator: Bobi Wine's "Political Rise" 

A media circus has developed in the West around Ugandan pop star turned politician Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu - referred to by his stage name as "Bobi Wine" - portraying him as a rising opposition leader seeking the overthrow of incumbent Ugandan strongman, President Yoweri Museveni.

While depicted as a Ugandan "opposition leader" by the Western media, fewer cases of Western meddling in African politics have been more transparent.

Wine entered politics as recently as 2017. In early 2018, he had already made a trip to the United States to enroll in the Harvard Kennedy School's "Leadership for the 21st Century" course, described by the school's website as:

The executive education program, Leadership for the 21st Century: Chaos, Conflict and Courage, delves into why we lead the way we do. The program offers a stimulating and challenging curriculum that invites you to learn how to exercise leadership with more courage, skill and effectiveness. 

Upon returning to Uganda, Wine's political supporters violently attacked President Museveni's motorcade after which he was arrested and charged with treason.

The BBC in their August 2018 article, "Uganda's Bobi Wine: Pop star MP charged with treason," would claim:

The authorities say opposition lawmakers led supporters to attack the president's convoy with stones. Bobi Wine's driver was later shot dead.

And as with all Western-sponsored agitators, the BBC has reported Western governments decrying the charges as "politically motivated" claiming:

The charges are widely viewed as politically motivated and aimed at silencing a prominent critic of the president. The US decried the "brutal treatment" of MPs, journalists and others by security forces. 

By September, Wine would fly to the US to allegedly receive "treatment" for his "injuries," however most of his time was spent consorting with the US State Department, DC lobbyists, writing columns for the Washington Post, and grandstanding with visible US backing behind him.

In Wine's op-ed for the Washington Post, he would claim (emphasis added):

When people are allowed to speak, allowed to protest, to organize; when terms are limited and elections are transparent; when the press is free and officials are held accountable, there are no Musevenis. This is why we are seeing increasing censorship — including blackouts of broadcasts by Voice of America, among other heavy-handed attempts to keep Ugandans in the dark.

Voice of America - of course - is US State Department-funded and directed media representing US special interests. Here, Wine suggests that without US State Department narratives, Ugandans are left "in the dark." While depicted as a democratic opposition leader, it is safe to say any opposition movement being led from "the dark" by foreign special interests, is entirely undemocratic.

Other media sources promoting Wine include The Nation Media Group, majority owned by foreign foundations like the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and openly partnered with Western foundations like the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the International Press Institute.

Like in virtually every other nation around the globe the US seeks influence within, the US is doing this in Uganda not by investing in genuine economic, political, or even military partnership, but instead by simply co-opting or overwriting the nation's institutions, including its media.

Upon returning to Uganda, Bobi Wine was again promptly arrested - with treason charges seeming somewhat understated now considering Wine's open conspiracy with the entirety of Washington's regime change apparatus.

The US "Cannot Ignore" Africa... 

Wine's lawyer is notorious lobbyist Robert Amsterdam who has worked with other US-sponsored agitators ranging from Thai billionaire, fugitive, and mass murderer Thaksin Shinawatra, to Russia's Mikhail Khodorkovsky.


During Amsterdam's press conference in Washington, he would fully admit to seeking further US government support for his client, Bobi Wine, claiming:

We will be meeting with Congressmen, Congresswomen, members of various departments, the State Department, included, and we will be providing them with details of what has been happening in Uganda, the brutality, the truly criminal activity and violations of human rights that are occurring daily.

Paradoxically, in an attempt to frame the Ugandan government as in league with Washington, Amsterdam would claim: 

And we want the American taxpayer to know that the American taxpayer is funding this. The military equipment we are supplying to Uganda is being used in a war of terror against Uganda's citizens.

Yet Uganda's military receives the vast majority of its weapons from Russia and China, not the United States. What "equipment" Uganda would specifically use to "torture" the Ugandan population is never expanded upon by Amsterdam. The most likely reason for this omission of seemingly crucial details is because Amsterdam's claims are fabricated.

The US, like its European partners, has a long history of meddling in Africa's internal affairs, and specifically in Uganda. Amsterdam provided some clues as to why the US seeks to meddle in Uganda's internal affairs further. He would claim (emphasis added):

This is not an isolated incident. Uganda has a storied history of political violence, an ongoing history the West has largely ignored. We cannot ignore it any longer. We cannot ignore Africa any longer. Within the last few weeks the German Chancellor was touring Africa, thank God. The Chinese have invited heads of state from all over Africa to Beijing. 

It is time for America's voice to be heard, and heard loudly...

China's progress in Africa over the last decade has prompted an American reaction. Instead of creating alternative programs for building infrastructure and accelerating development, Washington has opted to instead overturn the entire game board at both Africa and China's expense.

It is in no way a coincidence that Amsterdam's prescription to coerce Uganda politically focused on a now familiar formula of sanctions, including those designed specifically for Russia but now liberally used around the globe against all obstacles to US geopolitical ambitions.

Amsterdam would cite the Magnitsky Act by name and call on the US to immediately suspend nebulous US military funding Amsterdam failed to either qualify or quantify.

Clearly, with Wine sitting in Washington DC, his DC lobbyist openly admitting they would both be consorting with members of the US Congress and the US State Department, and Wine even afforded space in the Washington Post for an op-ed, obvious accusations of Wine's role in facilitating foreign meddling have already begun to spread within Uganda and beyond.

In response to this, Amsterdam would claim:

Now a lot of comments have been made with people saying well because he's got an international lawyer somehow there's some foreign agent involved. There ain't no foreign agent involved. There is however something to note. And that is that the Museveni regime is a foreign agent of the American military with respect to its activities in Sudan and Somalia. And therefore it is Washington that has the ultimate control over what's going on in Uganda today.

While it is true that the Ugandan government has bent to US demands particularly regarding US ambitions in Sudan and Somalia, it is clear that further pressure is being placed on the Ugandan government by the US through the use of opposition figures like Bobi Wine.

Political projection - accusing President Museveni of being a foreign agent of the United States while Bobi Wine literally sat in Washington DC and openly admitted to consorting with the US Congress and US State Department - is rarely so transparent and hypocritical.

And as if to dispel any doubt at all about the interconnected nature of Amsterdam's work on behalf of not his client Bobi Wine, but the special interests in Washington and on Wall Street they both work for, he would link Ugandan President Museveni to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the myriad of baseless narratives spread by the West to vilify Moscow, by claiming:

The Museveni regime is taking a page from Mr. Putin's book. They torture you, they poison you. They poisoned people in England and then they call it false news.

Uganda's history as a British colony that would gain a tenuous independence before being pulled back and forth between great powers throughout the Cold War and up to and including today has undoubtedly left the nation with much to be desired in terms of governance. However, the governance of Uganda is the sole business of the people of Uganda.

For Bobi Wine to flee his nation and seek the aid of foreign sponsors notorious for their multitude of global, ongoing wars, torture, human exploitation - including the destruction of multiple nations in Africa specifically - and political meddling and subversion worldwide, is all the proof the Ugandan people need to know that - whatever they may think of President Museveni - Bobi Wine is worse.

Wine is worse because he is politically weaker, and because before even starting his political career, has found himself entirely dependent on Washington - the heirs of Uganda's British colonial occupiers. Uganda's path toward the future - like any other nation - is wrought with many dead ends, few more obvious than "Bobi Wine."

For Africa as a continent, the danger of US meddling and attempts to reassert Western control through proxies and political and institutional subversion, remains omnipresent. Knowing the methods the West uses to accomplish its modern day colonization is the first step in defeating it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.                              

NATO's New Libya Still Burning

July 27, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In 2011, US and European policy think tanks, which both create and promote policy serving the collective interests of the corporations that sponsor them, promoted NATO military intervention in Libya. Under the guise of a humanitarian intervention, what unfolded was the long-planned overthrow of the Libyan government, then headed by Muammar Ghaddafi.

Unable or unwilling to commit significant ground troops, the majority of the fighting was carried out by militant groups with NATO air and covert ground support. Many of these militant groups would be later revealed as comprised of extremists, including Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

In essence, NATO overthrew a unifying government in Libya, placed entire regions of the fractured nation under the control of terrorist organizations and opposing militant groups, and allowed the nation to slid into chaos ever since.

The consequences of overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011 were well known long before the intervention even took place. Libya's role as a destination for refugees and migrants fleeing socioeconomic turmoil across Africa was long-established. After NATO's intervention, Libya has now become a springboard for those fleeing from across Africa, across the Mediterranean Sea, and into Europe.


The issue of pirates, smuggling, organized crime and many other ills the Libyan government had kept under control, have also predictably spiraled out of control.

Now, those same policy think tanks that promoted the Libyan intervention, lament over the catastrophe that has continued to unfold ever since.

Foreign Affairs, published by one of the most prominent of these policy think tanks, the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR), has published a series of articles by various authors, illustrating a sort of "buyers remorse" regarding the now devastated North African state. Part historical revision, part spin and part shifting of blame, articles like, "Europe's Libya Problem: How to Stem the Flow of Migrants," go into great detail about the problems now facing Libya and its neighbors.

The article laments:

Nearly 11,000 migrants arrived on Italian shores in just the last five days of June, following nearly 80,000 in the first half of 2017. Over 2,000 have perished at sea since the start of this year. The vast majority came from sub-Saharan Africa and embarked from the Libyan coast.

It then notes how Europe has been attempting to deal with the ongoing migrant crisis, claiming:

The European Union (EU) has been searching for a way to stem the flow of migrants and handle the tens of thousands who arrive in Italy on a daily basis. The EU’s current policy approach aims to shut off the route through the central Mediterranean and strengthen Libyan coastal patrol and enforcement capacities at sea. But it is unlikely to be effective or humane, given the sheer volume of migrants and the number of groups that profit from trafficking them, not to mention the weakness of the Libyan navy and other official security structures. 

The final sentence, noting the "weakness of the Libyan navy," is particularly ironic, since it was NATO that attacked and sent many of the Libyan navy's vessels to the bottom of Libya's harbors.

The article concludes, offering no practical means of stemming the crisis besides waiting for the next Ghaddafi to unite Libya's currently warring factions, eliminate or confine Western-sponsored terrorist organizations mainly based in the east, particularly in Benghazi, and rebuilding the nation's economy to once again offer incentives for refugees and migrants to live and work in Libya rather than travelling onward toward Europe.

Nowhere in Foreign Affairs' article is it mentions that the only reason Libya is now in chaos is not despite NATO military intervention, but because of it.

Unifying Libya will be difficult. Another Foreign Affairs article, titled, "Filling the Vacuum in Libya: The Need for a Political, Not Military Solution," admits just how fractured the nation is:

The GNA [Government of National Accord] barely controls the capital, Tripoli, through militias that are only nominally under its authority. Although the GNA recently succeeded in pushing a rump government—containing remnants of the Islamist-dominated parliament that was elected in 2012—out of the capital, it was long in coming, and these rival factions continue to prove a threat to Tripoli. 

Meanwhile, in the eastern part of the country, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a former military officer under Qaddafi, and his Libyan National Army (LNA)—a coalition largely made up of eastern, anti-Islamist militias—are aligned with the House of Representatives, which refuses to recognize the GNA.

Foreign Affairs notes the rising political as well as military prominence of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a "strongman" who appears to have the most potential of creating anything resembling a unified Libya. However, that will leave Libya once again in the same position it found itself before the 2011 intervention, with a strongman running the nation, and likely to drift further and further away from US and European interests until yet another proxy war is engineered, promoted by think tanks like the CFR and fought.

Again, despite Foreign Affairs' apparently in-depth analysis, it failed to isolate the true source of Libya's upheaval and instability, NATO. It was the 2011 intervention that upended stability not only in Libya, but created a chain reaction of violence and chaos that was felt as far west as Nigeria, Mali and Niger. This violence prompted, or more accurately, served as a pretext for the reintroduction of French troops in several of its "former" colonies. It has also served as a pretext for US Africa Command's (AFRICOM) continued expansion.

Ultimately, Libya is a showcase of the chaos and regression that NATO intervention brings, and serves as the greatest case for isolating, containing and by all means, opposing and obstructing further use of NATO military forces anywhere beyond NATO's own borders. The enduring chaos that is currently consuming nations like Libya also serve as a warning of what awaits nations like Syria and beyond should they fail in dissuading the West from further intervention within their borders.

It has been 6 years since NATO divided and destroyed Libya and the nation still remains fractured and fighting. The notion that NATO and its Western membership hold the solution to problems the West itself intentionally created should not be entertained, and, if international organizations, courts and laws had any meaning, NATO would be barred from any further role regarding Libya, beyond paying reparations for what it has done.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

France's Self-Inflicted Refugee Crisis

January 22, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Following rhetoric regarding Europe's refugee crisis, one might assume the refugees, through no fault of Europe's governments, suddenly began appearing by the thousands at Europe's borders. However, this simply is not true.

Before the 2011 wave of US-European engineered uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) transformed into Western military interventions, geopolitical analysts warned that overthrowing the governments in nations like Libya and Syria, and Western interventions in nations like Mali and the Ivory Coast, would lead to predicable regional chaos that would manifest itself in both expanding terrorism across the European and MENA region, as well as a flood of refugees from destabilized, war-racked nations.

Libya in particular, was singled out as a nation, if destabilized, that would transform into a springboard for refugees not only fleeing chaos in Libya itself, but fleeing a variety of socioeconomic and military threats across the continent. Libya has served for decades as a safe haven for African refugees due to its relative stability and economic prosperity as well as the Libyan government's policy of accepting and integrating African refugees within the Libyan population.

Because of NATO's 2011 military intervention and the disintegration of Libya as a functioning nation state, refugees who would have otherwise settled in Libya are now left with no choice but to continue onward to Europe.

For France in particular, its politics have gravitated around what is essentially a false debate between those welcoming refugees and those opposed to their presence.

Absent from this false debate is any talk of French culpability for its military operations abroad which, along with the actions of the US and other NATO members, directly resulted in the current European refugee crisis.

France claims that its presence across Africa aims at fighting Al Qaeda. According to RAND Corporation commentary titled, "Mali's Persistent Jihadist Problem," it's reported that:

Four years ago, French forces intervened in Mali, successfully averting an al Qaeda-backed thrust toward the capital of Bamako. The French operation went a long way toward reducing the threat that multiple jihadist groups posed to this West Africa nation. The situation in Mali today remains tenuous, however, and the last 18 months have seen a gradual erosion of France's impressive, initial gains.

And of course, a French military presence in Mali will do nothing to stem Al Qaeda's activities if the source of Al Qaeda's weapons and financial support is not addressed. In order to do this, France and its American and European allies would need to isolate and impose serious sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations who exists as the premier state sponsors of not only Al Qaeda, but a myriad of terrorist organizations sowing chaos worldwide.


Paradoxically, instead of seeking such sanctions, the French government instead sells the Saudi and Qatari governments billions of dollars worth of weaponry, proudly filling in any temporary gaps in the flow of weapons from the West as each nation attempts to posture as "concerned" about Saudi and Qatari human rights abuses and war crimes (and perhaps even state sponsorship of terrorism) only to gradually return to pre-sanction levels after public attention wanes.

The National Interest in an article titled, "France: Saudi Arabia's New Arms Dealer," would note:

France has waged a robust diplomatic engagement with Saudi Arabia for years. In June, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited France to sign deals worth $12 billion, which included $500 million for 23 Airbus H145 helicopters. Saudi and French officials also agreed to pursue feasibility studies to build two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. The remaining money will involve direct investment negotiated between Saudi and French officials.

The article would also note that Saudi Arabia's junior partner in the state sponsorship of global terror, Qatar, would also benefit from French weapon deals:

Hollande’s address was delivered one day after he was in Doha, where he signed a $7 billion deal that included the sale of 24 French Rafale fighter jets to Qatar, along with the training of Qatari intelligence officers.

In order to truly fight terrorism, a nation must deal with it at its very source. Since France is not only ignoring the source of Al Qaeda's military, financial and political strength, but is regularly bolstering it with billions in weapons deals, it is safe to say that whatever reason France is involved across MENA, it is not to "defeat" Al Qaeda.

The refugee crisis that has resulted from the chaos that both Western forces and terrorists funded and armed by the West's closest regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is a crisis that is entirely self-inflicted. The rhetoric surrounding the crisis, on both sides, ignoring this fundamental reality, exposes the manufactured and manipulative nature of French government and opposition agendas.

The chaos across MENA is so significant, and terrorism so deeply rooted in both Western and their Arab allies' geopolitical equations that even a complete reversal of this destructive policy will leave years if not decades of social unrest in the wake of the current refugee crisis.

But for anyone genuinely committed to solving this ongoing crisis, they must start with the US, European, and Gulf monarchies' culpability, and resist blaming the refugees or those manipulated into reacting negatively to them. While abuses carried out by refugees or locals are equally intolerable, those responsible for the conflicts and for manipulating both sides of this crisis are equally to blame.

Until that blame is properly and proportionately placed, and the root of the crisis addressed, it will only linger and cause further damage to regional and global security.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

America's Drone Wars: Uprooting Terrorism? Or Trimming Its Branches?

July 4, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The Washington Post in its recent article, "How Obama went from reluctant warrior to drone champion," attempts to address the White House's recent claims regarding civilian casualties resulting from US drone strikes since 2009.

The article points out that while the US officially claims "between 64 and 116" civilians have been killed, it also includes estimates from various think-tanks and pro-war propaganda outlets admitting to at least 200-300 civilian deaths.

However, even these numbers are conservatively low, and in the Washington Post's attempt to "check" White House numbers, it itself appears to be attempting to downplay the full scale of America's global drone operations, portraying it as a perhaps ill-fated but honest attempt to target and eliminate dangerous terrorists. However, it is anything but, and the "numbers game" is merely a distraction from this fact.

Leaked US Documents Reveal Drones Seek to Create, Not Stop Terror 

It was revealed by the Intercept through leaked US government documents that civilians may account for as much as 90% of all casualties from drone strikes. In its first article in a long series detailing America's drone operations titled, "The Assassination Complex," it reports:

...documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

And upon viewing the leaked Operation Haymaker documents, it becomes clear that America's drone operations in Afghanistan have admittedly very little tactical value in eliminating specific "terrorists," and the actual "benefits" noted amid these operations is instead the perpetuation of terror, fear and sociopolitical division in targeted areas, including among civilian populations.

Considering these noted "benefits," high civilian casualty rates of up to 90% makes sense. If the goal is to simply instill fear, it doesn't matter who dies, just as long as someone does. 

First Priority: Smashing Resistance, Not Stopping Terrorists 

It should be remembered that nations like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan are home to fiercely independent networks of localized tribes.

These tribes, particularly in Yemen or Afghanistan, refuse to recognize the authority of US-installed client governments and their existence not only undermines central government authority, they pose a direct threat to its continued existence.

This helps explain another aspect of America's drone operations that have left the general public occasionally outraged but mostly confused. That is, the propensity of drones striking weddings. 

In Western culture, weddings are generally a family affair with little to do with the actual community they take place in. In traditional cultures like Yemen and Afghanistan, weddings are a central community affair. Beyond just friends and family, everyone from the community participates, with various local religious, educational, political and even military leaders attending or even presiding over the event. 

It is difficult to believe that drone operators would target a wedding even if a specific, high value terrorist target was present, understanding the full scope of collateral damage that would occur. In fact, in a 2013 speech at the National Defense University, US President Barack Obama would explicitly claim:

And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set. 

Considering this, it is likely such operations, certain to incur civilian deaths, are instead approved of for the specific purpose of obliterating the very source of a targeted community's strength and independence, leaving local people reeling, leaderless and at the mercy of the central government Washington has installed into power.

In other words, the US is not necessarily "hunting terrorists," it is eliminating resistance to the political order it is attempting to reach into targeted nations with.

Uprooting Terrorism, or Merely Trimming Its Branches? 

Nevertheless, the US is also undoubtedly conducting targeted assassinations as well. It can identify and eliminate specific individuals with high precision when it desires to do so, lending further credence to theories that high civilian casualties are likely a matter of intentional policy rather than merely inevitable "collateral damage."

However, for many geopolitical analysts, drone-borne assassinations should immediately raise questions revolving around the face-value wisdom of targeting individuals who have proven easily replaced over the years by a seemingly endless supply of terrorists and terrorist leaders.

The targets the US is eliminating have no impact on terrorist finance, logistics or military capabilities. In fact, throughout the Intercepts reports, citing US government documents, it is noted over and over again that America's drone operations have done little to degrade the capabilities of terrorist organizations.

This is particularly suspicious considering the US has created what is essentially the global industrialization of drone-borne assassinations with drone bases dotting Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia along with huge networks of both conventional and covert military force to both facilitate and augment drone strikes. But a lack of any discernible impact on terror despite this industrialized killing-machine is only suspicious if one assumes that the US actually endeavors to stop terrorism with it.

So what is the US actually doing and why isn't the US instead attempting to identify and target the very source of the terrorism it claims to be fighting globally?

If Terrorism is a Garden, America is the Gardener... 

If we liken terrorism to a large weed, we can compare America's drone wars to merely trimming its branches rather than digging it up by the root to completely destroy it. This would indicate that the US' goal is not to destroy terrorism, but rather guide its growth along a specific, desired path.

The self-titled "Islamic State" (IS) and Al Qaeda before it, operate a global network and are currently waging war on multiple fronts. What amount of weapons, money, political support and transnational logistical arrangements must exist to support warfare stretching across North Africa, engulfing the Levant, creeping across Afghanistan and even attempting to take root in Southeast Asia?

In Afghanistan during the 1980s it is now common knowledge that Al Qaeda waged war with explicit US and Saudi support. Evidence reveals Al Qaeda likewise participated in US-NATO backed hostilities in Serbia during the 1990s. And today, it is clear that Al Qaeda and IS are both the recipients of immense state sponsorship in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and beyond. There is no other explanation as to how either organization has sustained full-scale war against the combined armed forces of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Russia in the Levant alone, saying nothing of IS' military operations in Libya or Afghanistan.

The US and its allies claim to be arming, funding and training only "moderates" but it is clear that these "moderates" do not exist in any significant capacity upon the battlefield. And in the rare instances they are apparent, they are quite literally fighting within the ranks of Al Qaeda and IS.

To truly stop terrorism, the US would need to strike at the very source of their arms, cash and political support. Since it is clear that this source resides in Riyadh, Amman, Ankara, Doha and even Washington itself, it is obvious why the scourge of terrorism appears "unstoppable."  

It has been and still clearly is the policy of the United States and its allies to use terrorism as a geopolitical tool. It serves the duel purpose of serving as a pretext for Western military intervention, as well as a mercenary force with inexhaustible ranks used to fight the West's enemies where Western armies cannot intervene.

The Purpose of Trimming Branches... 

But a massive global network comprised of heavily armed, deeply indoctrinated and incredibly dangerous men and subsidiary organizations are bound to need "trimming." Groups may take their US-Saudi-funded madras programming and training too far, operating beyond the mandates set forth by their state-sponsors and thus require liquidation.

The Washington Post, if nothing else, rightly concludes in its above-mentioned article that:

As president, [Barack Obama] promised to end America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since taking office, he has cut the number of U.S. troops deployed to war zones around the world from 180,000 to fewer than 15,000. 

The wars, however, have not ended. Instead, Obama, through a reliance on drones and special operators, has succeeded in making them nearly invisible.

It is clear that not only have the wars not ended, they have expanded, if not in terms of US troops involved, in terms of where the US is involved through this army of "irregular troops" it cultivates. The wars are not meant to end, but to perpetuate themselves, devouring one nation and leading to a pretext to begin undermining, dividing and destroying the next. The US has created for itself an open-ended pretext to remain "engaged" globally across multiple continents militarily and geopolitically.

Washington could not do so without the threat of terror ever-looming, the ranks of terrorist organizations seemingly bottomless and its ability to surgically "remove" elements from this weed of terrorism it is cultivating in order to get it to creep in the direction US policymakers and special interests desire.

The world is beginning to realize that if a drone could ever truly end terrorism, it would need to fly above Washington or Riyadh, and until it does, the US will never "uproot" terrorism, but merely trim its branches as it carefully cultivates its growth toward strangling the planet.

 Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Washington's Fake War on ISIS "Moves" to Libya

Libya is one place the "Islamic State's" sponsors believe Russia can't get them... 

April 20, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In 2011, a NATO coalition led by the United States used its own engineered regional campaign of political destabilization, the "Arab Spring," as a pretext to militarily intervene in first Libya directly, and in a more indirect way, Syria. US and European forces also "quietly" intervened in several other nations, including Mali and the Ivory Coast amid this regional conflagration.

Image: Out of all the explanations for the Islamic State's "move" to Libya, the only one that makes real sense is that they are being moved there by their foreign sponsors because it is believed they are "out of reach" of the Russian-led coalition that is truly fighting them in Syria. 

Even in 2011, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that military intervention in Libya was an attempt to divide and destroy the country, giving the US and its collaborators a base of operations to further disrupt and reorder the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA). Almost immediately after US-led strikes on Libya coordinated with terrorist factions on the ground successfully overthrew the Libyan government, weapons and fighters were sent to Syria via NATO-member Turkey.

CNN's 2012 article, "Libya rebels move onto Syrian battlefield," would report that:

Their war for freedom in Libya may be over, but almost a year after they won the battle for the Libyan capital, a group of fighters have a new battlefield: Syria. Under the command of one of Libya's most well known rebel commanders, Al-Mahdi al-Harati, more than 30 Libyan fighters have made their way into Syria to support the Free Syrian Army rebels in their war against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

It is difficult to believe CNN's inaccuracy in its report was not intentional. Far from a "war for freedom," it is clear that Al-Mahdi al-Harati led just one of many proxy armies raised by the United States and its Persian Gulf allies. The group espouses an extremist tinge propagated by US-ally Saudi Arabia, and in no way represents either the Libyan people, nor the people of Syria it claimed to be fighting on behalf of.

Al-Harati is now "mayor" of Tripoli, and is just one example which goes a long way in explaining the continuous chaos that has engulfed the country. Quite literally, foreign-funded terrorists are running the country.

Ironically, the same CNN that in 2012 celebrated the spreading "war for freedom," would report in a more recent article titled, "ISIS fighters in Libya surge as group suffers setbacks in Syria, Iraq," that:

There may now be up to 6,500 ISIS fighters in Libya, twice the number previously thought, according to several U.S. intelligence officials. 

They attributed the increase to the U.S. analysis that ISIS is diverting more fighters to Libya from Syria -- and from Turkey when they cannot get into Syria.

It is ironic because the so-called "Islamic State" (IS) is using precisely the same logistical, financial and political networks to flow back into Libya that CNN's "freedom fighters" used to get to Syria in the first place. In fact, it is quite clear Libya is simply reabsorbing the mercenary forces organized and sent to Syria in part through direct US-backing in the Libyan terror capital of Benghazi since late 2011 onward.

Why Washington Welcomes the IS Homecoming 

Far from truly alarming to US and European special interests, IS arriving in the lawless warzone of what used to be the functional nation-state of Libya is a welcomed reprieve for what is essentially a Washington-London-Brussels mercenary army.

Image: The US and its European allies have used ongoing chaos across MENA as a pretext to intervene militarily both in a broad and open-ended manner. Citing the "Islamic State," they believe, will give them even broader impunity across MENA.

Syria is not only no longer safe for IS, it has become a grave in which IS is being buried alive. This is thanks not to a successful anti-terror campaign waged by Washington and its allies, but by swift and successful operations carried out by Moscow, Tehran, and their allies in Damascus. Indeed, with IS supply lines being cut from their source in Turkey and their forces being pushed back across Syrian territory, liquidation of their assets in Syria is well underway. Likewise in Iraq, feigned US operations to stop IS have given way to an increase in cooperation between Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus.

What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence across the region has galvanized it instead.

Moving the mercenary forces of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects" from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize and destroy Egypt.

IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria, where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.

Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya, neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention anyway.

One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.

Today, we watch what appears to be "ineffective" attempts to confront the growing threat the US and its allies intentionally created in Libya in the first place. In reality, as Russia has proven in Syria, a decisive and relatively small military campaign can deal IS a deathblow. The US and Europe are more than capable of executing such a military campaign, but is intentionally avoiding doing so. This is not for a lack of political will, but rather because their collective political will instead seeks much wider chaos giving them carte blanche to act regionally with spanning, open-ended military interventions.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Refugee Crisis: EU Cites Missing Libyan Navy It Destroyed in 2011

February 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - News agencies are reporting on a Wikileaks report detailing the EU's "Operation Sophia," an allegedly covert military operation aimed at stemming the flow of refugees into Europe.

The International Business Times in their report, "WikiLeaks leak 'classified report' indicating EU Operation could move into Libyan territory," would report that:

WikiLeaks has released a "classified report" about the first six months of Operation Sophia, the EU military intervention against refugee boats in Libya and Mediterranean. 

The leaked report is dated 29 January 2016 and written by the operation commander, Rear Admiral Enrico Credendino of the Italian Navy. It allegedly provides statistics on refugee flows and outlines the phases of Operation Sophia, including future strategies of the operation. The report has been published for the European Union Military Committee and the Political and Security Committee of the EU.

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of "Operation Sophia" is the EU's ultimate exit strategy, creating a functioning Libyan navy capable of policing its own shores. The Times would report:

The report published by WikiLeaks notes that their "exit strategy" involves ensuring that a "well-resourced Libyan Coastguard can protect their own borders and prevent irregular migration taking place from their shores". It also mentions an "EU comprehensive approach to help secure their invitation to operate inside [Libyan] territory".

It is particularly ironic that the EU now sorely needs a Libyan navy to police its own coasts because until 2011, it already had one. Some may wonder what happened to that navy. Within the answer lies the irony.

US-EU Destroyed the Navy in 2011 it now Needs to Restore Order Back to the Med 

In broad daylight in the middle of May, 2011, NATO laid waste to three separate locations in the North African nation of Libya. The targets, more specifically, were ports used by the nation's navy. Several warships would be sunk, among many more that would be destroyed during the conflict. In addition to ships, the facilities supporting them were also utterly destroyed.

Even before the first NATO bomb dropped on Libya in 2011, geopolitical analysts had warned of the refugee crisis that would be triggered along with a variety of other humanitarian and security concerns that would evolve with the destruction of not only the Libyan navy, but the stabilizing effects of the Libyan government itself.

Indeed, many migrants and refugees from across Africa came to Libya to live and work. They were supported by and supporters of the Libyan government, but reviled by US-backed terrorists based in eastern Libya's Cyrenaica region. During the conflict, the Western media disingenuously depicted these Libyans as "African mercenaries" to account for the subsequent racist genocide carried out by NATO-backed terrorists.

When the terrorists of Benghazi, Derna, and Tobruk finally overran the country with NATO backing, entire cities of Libya's black population were emptied out either through genocide, into concentration camps, or driven out of the country into neighboring Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria.



Refugees eventually following those who destroyed and plundered their nation back to the den in which their nation's future was stolen to, was all but inevitable. NATO's own terrorist proxies were also expected to leverage the lawlessness of America and Europe's "new" Libya, turning it into a base for Mediterranean piracy and human trafficking. The US State Department itself, in post-regime change Libya, would go as far as constructing terrorist networks through which weapons and fighters were forwarded to Turkey and onward to Syria and Iraq.

The Destruction of Libya "Uncorked" a Volatile Brew  

If the continent of Africa and the many countries within it subjected to both over and covert Western meddling, exploitation, and subversion was a bottle, Libya was the cork. It provided a means of preventing the pressure building up from various conflicts from exploding into Europe - one of the primacy culprits driving these conflicts. France alone - one of the most vocal nations decrying the "migrant crisis," currently has troops stationed in African nations including the Central African Republic (2,000), Chad (950), Ivory Coast (450), Djibouti (2,470), Gabon (1,000), Mali (2,000), and Senegal (430).

These nations either constitute, or are bordering those nations producing the most refugees flooding in to Europe with the exception of Syria, which France, along with several other European nations and the United States are bombing and arming terrorists on the ground in, and Afghanistan, occupied by NATO since 2001.

With Europe's very intentional transformation of Libya from a bastion of stability to a divided and destroyed wasteland, the bottle was uncorked, and the poisonous brew the US and Europe had been developing, exploded like a volcano.

Europe plays the victim of a region-wide conflagration it itself not only intentionally lit, but continuously poured gasoline upon ever since. The missing Libyan navy it itself helped send to the bottom of the Mediterranean being cited as a contributing factor to the severity of the current "migrant crisis" is an indictment of the "international order" the EU and its Transatlantic partners both claim to uphold, and predicated the destruction of Libya and the incremental occupation of the African continent upon.

For other nations around the world, including Eastern Europe, Russia, and beyond, who played no role in the West's various wars - or even openly opposed Western military aggression - they have no obligation to take responsibility for refugees created by these wars, thus attempting to wade into the refugee debate in Europe is both unnecessary and unbecoming.

Regardless of how the US and Europe attempt to wield "international law," it is clear that they are directly responsible for the instability driving millions of people from their homes, and they have intentionally elected to continue destabilizing these regions of the world.

They cannot elect, therefore to avoid the consequences of their meddling, nor demand others to share the burden of these consequences. That the EU desperately seeks the help of a fleet it itself sent to the bottom of the sea illustrates perfectly the self-inflicted nature of this crisis.

Compounding and Exploiting Crisis 

Finally, it should be noted, that the Wikileaks report also indicates that not only does the EU seek to replace a fleet it itself sank in 2011 which led to the crisis in the first place, it is also seeking to expand EU military jurisdiction far beyond EU territory, predicated on a disaster of its own making.

The report states specifically that:

 It also mentions an "EU comprehensive approach to help secure their invitation to operate inside [Libyan] territory

For Europeans - many of whom were complacent as their respective governments went to war against Libya in 2011 - they must understand that the chaos unfolding in their streets has not only been intentionally created, but is being cynically used to expand the control of special interests both at home and abroad. With the EU's naval operations extending into Libyan territory, it will be all that much easier to secure and exploit Libya's coastal oil assets, while keeping the rest of the country divided against themselves and collectively too weak to protect and use their own resources for their own nation's future.

Unfair hands are being dealt all around. Instead of fighting over who has the worst hand, the world must expose and deal with those who have rigged the deck.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.   

US-NATO Invade Libya to Fight Terrorists of Own Creation

Up to 6,000 troops are being sent to invade and occupy Libya, seizing oilfields allegedly threatened by terrorists NATO armed and put into power in 2011. 

February 2, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The London Telegraph, almost as a footnote, reports of a sizable Western military force being sent in on the ground to occupy Libya in an operation it claims is aimed at fighting the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS). In its article, "Islamic State battles to seize control of key Libyan oil depot," it reports:

Under the plan, up to 1,000 British troops would form part of a 6,000-strong joint force with Italy - Libya's former colonial power - in training and advising Libyan forces. British special forces could also be engaged on the front line.

One would suspect a 6,000-strong foreign military force being sent into Libya would be major headline news, with debates raging before the operation even was approved. However, it appears with no debate, no public approval, and little media coverage, US, British, and European troops, including Libya's former colonial rulers - the Italians - are pushing forward with direct military intervention in Libya, once again.

The Mirror's "SAS spearhead coalition offensive to halt Islamic State oil snatches in Libya," claims the West's 6,000 soldiers face up to 5,000 ISIS terrorists - raising questions about the veracity of both the true intentions of the West's military intervention and the nature of the enemy they are allegedly intervening to fight.

Military doctrine generally prescribes overwhelming numerical superiority for invading forces versus defenders. For example, during the the 2004 battle for the Iraqi city of Fallujah, the US arrayed over 10,000 troops versus 3,000-4,000 defenders. This means large, sweeping operations to directly confront and destroy ISIS in Libya are not intended, and like Western interventions elsewhere, it is being designed to instead perpetuate the threat of ISIS and therefore, perpetuate Western justification for extraterritorial military intervention in Libya and beyond.

With an initial foothold in Libya intentionally designed to last, it will inevitably be expanded, supporting US AFRICOM operations throughout the rest of North Africa.

The US-British Are "Fighting" the Terrorists They Put in Power 

As has been explained by geopolitical analysts since 2011, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and their various rebrandings are far from being the West's true adversaries. Besides being funded, armed, and backed by the West's closest and oldest Middle Eastern allies - particularly the Saudis and Qataris - these terrorist organizations serve a two-fold purpose. First, they serve as a mercenary army with which the West fights targeted nations by proxy. Second, they serve as a pretext for direct Western military intervention when proxy war fails or is not an option.

This was first illustrated with the very inception of Al Qaeda in the 1980's where it was used as a proxy force by the US and Saudis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In 2001, the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was used as a pretext for a US invasion and occupation that endures to this very day.

As of 2011, literally these very same terrorists were organized, armed, funded, and provided with NATO aircover to overthrow the government of Libya. From there, they were rearmed and shipped to NATO-member Turkey where they then invaded northern Syria, and more specifically Idlib and the pivotal city of Aleppo.

The Business Insider would report in its article, "REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels," that:

The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi's 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.

On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi" who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

The Business Insider's mention of Abdelhakim Belhaj working directly with Ambassador Stevens is particularly important. Belhaj was quite literally the leader of US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) - Al Qaeda in Libya. Despite his obvious ties to Al Qaeda, he was openly backed by the US during the 2011 Libyan War, and afterward, was posing for pictures with US senators including Arizona senator John McCain in the aftermath of NATO's regime change operations. LIFG's leader, Abdelhakim Belhadj, is now reportedly also a senior leader of ISIS in Libya.

Fox News in a March 2015 report titled, "Herridge: ISIS Has Turned Libya Into New Support Base, Safe Haven," would claim:

Herridge reported that one of the alleged leaders of ISIS in North Africa is Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was seen by the U.S. as a willing partner in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. 

"Now, it's alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya," Herridge said.

It is clear that the West is not fighting ISIS, but instead, has clearly both created it and is intentionally perpetuating it to help justify its military and geopolitical maneuvering across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and advance its aspirations toward regional and global political, military, and economic hegemony.

The very same technicals - armed trucks used in combat - bearing the Libyan "rebel" insignia, have literally just been painted over by images of ISIS' flag, like props on a Hollywood set being used in a bad sequel. With the US-British and European intervention in a destroyed Libya overrun by terrorists - a Libya we were promised by NATO was bringing brought peace, stability, "freedom," and "democracy" with its 2011 intervention, we see fully the danger of entrusting other nations to a similar fate wrought by Western intervention - most notably Syria.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.