Nord Stream 2: Potential Flashpoint as Pipeline Nears Completion

January 6, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project extending from Russia to Germany that - when completed - will provide a secure means of exporting Russian natural gas to Western Europe - circumventing a now volatile Ukraine and other potential conflict zones, all while tying Russia and Europe together further through mutually beneficial economic activity.

The project has faced significant hurdles - mainly in the form of US sanctions aimed at pressuring Russia's European partners into backing out of the deal. The recent alleged "poisoning" of Alexei Navalny also appears to be an engineered provocation aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Germany as the project nears completion. 

I explain the most recent developments regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and why this project is critical to keep an eye on. 

RELATED: Nord Stream 2: Washington to "Free" Europe From Freedom to Decide for Itself

Its completion will be a victory for multipolarism and help draw Western Europe further out of Washington's orbit. It will also be severe blow to Washington's and Wall Street's unipolar international order - a prospect it appears the US is willing to anything to avoid. 

Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.

Navalny Poisoning - The Real Target is Russian-German Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

US-NATO continue building "momentum" behind Navalny incident - hope to end Nord Stream 2 pipeline before facts emerge, the pipeline is completed, and as all other options have so-far failed.  

September 6, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Alexei Navalny is the ideal opposition figure for any incumbent government - he is ineffective, unpopular, and transparently compromised by malign foreign interests.

According to a poll carried out by the Lavada Center - a polling organization funded by the US government itself  via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - a mere 9% of all Russians look favorably on him and his work, with most Russians unaware of who he even is.

Germany was the one place the US and NATO needed Navalny to be the most - and in a condition of poor health the US and NATO needed him to be in. 

His continued existence and his monopoly over Russia's equally unpopular opposition ensures that an effective opposition never takes root in grounds choked by his presence.

For Moscow - Navalny's continued existence is not only not a threat, he occupies space where a real threat might otherwise emerge.

For the United States and its NATO partners who have dumped millions of dollars and political capital into Navalny's dead-end opposition in Russia - Navalny's continued existence is an underperforming investment at best.

"Coincidentally" just as the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline nears completion - a pipeline project that will expand Russia's hydrocarbon exports, increase revenue, and provide cheap energy to Europe in a business deal that would also help draw Europe and Russia closer diplomatically - Navalny was "poisoned."

He wasn't just "poisoned." He was allegedly poisoned with nerve agents called "Novichoks" alleged to be available only in Russia. Navalny was rushed by a shadowy NGO with opaque funding called "Cinema for Peace" to Germany - of all places.

Delivered right to the heart of what is surely one of Russia's most important economic and diplomatic projects at the moment - it is the perfect excuse for the US and NATO to pressure Germany to abandon Nord Stream 2 - an objective Washington has struggled and failed to achieve for years.

The US and NATO wasted no time accusing Russia even with no evidence presented that Russia was responsible - not to mention lacking any conceivable motive for the alleged "assassination" attempt of such an unpopular opposition figure at such a crucial time for Russia, its economy, and its ties with Western Europe and Germany in particular.


German state media, Deutsche Welle (DW), in an article titled, "Navalny, Novichok and Nord Stream 2 — Germany stuck between a rock and a pipeline," indirectly lays out not only the real motive behind Navalny's alleged poisoning, but the most likely culprit as well.

The article admits just how close to completion Nord Stream 2 is, noting (emphasis added):

Many are looking to Germany, whose Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a prominent example of selective cooperation with Russia despite concerns about the country's approach to human rights both domestically and internationally.

The Nord Stream 2 project, which is more than 90% complete, aims to double Russia's supply of direct natural gas to Germany. Running under the Baltic Sea, the pipeline bypasses Eastern European states, sending gas from Russia's Narva Bay to Lubmin, a coastal town adjacent to Merkel's constituency in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

It's noted that the pipeline bypasses Eastern Europe where the US has repeatedly toppled governments and installed client regimes hostile to Russia - complicating Russia's delivery of hydrocarbons to Western Europe - Ukraine being a recent example.

The DW article then admits:

Critics do not view Nord Stream 2 as purely a business affair, instead calling it a major win for Russia's image and standing at the international level. The Navalny poisoning, which draws strong parallels to the 2018 Novichok attack on a former Russian double agent that the United Kingdom has accused the Kremlin of orchestrating, further complicates Germany's efforts to keep politics out of Nord Stream 2.

"After the poisoning of Navalny we need a strong European answer, which Putin understands: The EU should jointly decide to stop Nord Stream 2," tweeted Norbert Röttgen, an outspoken Russia critic in Merkel's conservative party.  

His voice carries particular weight, as Röttgen chairs the Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee and he is currently running for the party's leadership.

It doesn't take an expert in geopolitics to have understood that an attempt on Navalny's life would have provided a mountain of political ammunition for the US and NATO in its ongoing attempts to sabotage Nord Stream 2 and prevent "a win for Russia's image and standing at the international level."

This is the most compelling reason why the Kremlin would not have ordered it - especially so close to completing Nord Stream 2.

It must also be remembered that Navalny was flown directly to Germany after the alleged attack.

Germany was the one place the US and NATO needed Navalny to be the most - and in a condition of poor health the US and NATO needed him to be in. With Nord Stream 2 over 90% complete - there is little time left to threaten, coerce, and pressure Germany to otherwise abandon the project.

The alleged presence of "Novichok" nerve agents - had the attack been the work of the Kremlin - would have been a smoking gun and a virtual calling card left - all but guaranteeing immense pressure from across the West and in particular - pressure placed on Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

The DW article covers what the US has already done to pressure Germany, noting (emphasis added):

 The Trump administration wants to sell Germany its own gas, which critics say is more expensive than gas from Russia. Sanctions have bipartisan support in Washington, and the US has already imposed them against companies laying pipe in the Baltic Sea, prompting the Swiss-Dutch company Allseas to pull out of the project in 2019. More sanctions are awaiting the US president's signature.

Then DW quoted Sarah Pagung - a specialist on German-Russian relations for the German Council on Foreign Relations. The article would note her saying (emphasis added):

"We can't rule [the canceling of Nord Stream 2] out as an option, but it's unlikely," Pagung told DW, although she said Germany could use the Navalny poisoning as an "opportunity" to shift its position on the pipeline without appearing to be caving to US pressure. 

DW all but spells out the true motive of Navalny's alleged poisoning and his "serendipitous" delivery to Germany for treatment - to serve as a catalyst for the cancellation of Nord Stream 2.

Since Moscow has absolutely nothing to gain from this - it is the least likely suspect.

Since it not only fits into the US and NATO's openly declared agenda of coercing Germany into cancelling the Nord Stream 2 project, it also fits a pattern of staged attacks and fabricated claims used by the US and NATO to advance their collective foreign policy - they are the most likely suspects.

Consider the much worse and absolutely verified crimes against humanity the US and NATO are guilty of - with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011-onward military interventions in Libya and Syria as just two examples. Poisoning Navalny - a failed investment as a living, breathing opposition figure and turning him into a martyr - is a relatively small act of false-flag violence to create a difficult impasse for the German government regarding Nord Stream 2.

The fact that the US and NATO are rushing to conclusions without evidence - as they've done many times before when pushing now verified lies - only further incriminates both as the most likey suspects in Navalny's poisoning.

For Navalny himself - his fate - if he was actually poisoned - is tragic. The very people he worked for and whose agenda he served seem to find him more useful dying than healthy in terms of advancing Western foreign policy against Russia.

There are too many "coincidences" surrounding this incident:

• The attack itself at such a sensitive time for Russia, its economy, and its ties with Germany in particular;
• The fact that Navalny was flown by a shadowy NGO to Germany itself;
• The fact that the US has been openly trying to sabotage the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline all along and;
• The fact that the "attack" was allegedly carried out in such a clumsy, ineffective, and incriminating way specifically to implicate Russia.

For a US and NATO who have sold the world entire wars based on "evidence" and "accusations" of everything from nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq to lies about viagra-fuelled rape squads in Libya - one more lie about an unpopular Russian opposition figure poisoned in Russia, picked up by a dubious NGO, and placed down right in the middle of German-Russian relations and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline the US and NATO are desperate to stop - fits a disturbing but all-too-predictable pattern.  

The question is why are people still falling for it? Will Germany fall for it, or at the very least, cave - costing itself economic opportunities in exchange for a deeper and more costly role in US-NATO aggression against Russia? Only time will tell. 

US War Propaganda Still Aims at Syria

August 27, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - While US regime change in Syria appears to be a terminal failure, various propaganda ploys used to sell the war continue in the hopes that - at the very least - such ploys can be polished and improved upon when and where the US turns its attention next.

One of these ploys includes an ongoing "trial" in Germany against Syrians accused of war crimes.

Al Jazeera in an article titled, "World's first Syria torture trial opens in Germany," would claim:

The world's first trial of a senior member of the Syrian military for war crimes got under way in Germany on Thursday, despite ongoing restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The accused - Anwar Raslan, a former colonel in the Syrian military, and co-defendant Eyad al-Gharib, who allegedly worked under Raslan, had been living in Germany as refugees and were arrested in February last year.

Al Jazeera would add:

"The trial will provide an overall picture of the crimes committed by the Syrian government," Wolfgang Kaleck, a lawyer whose Berlin-based organisation, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, will represent 16 witnesses - Syrian survivors of torture and former detainees - said in a statement before the trial.

The article also notes that:

Germany is using a legal principle called universal jurisdiction to trial Raslan and al-Gharib.

This allows German prosecutors to work on war crimes cases, whether they have a close connection to Germany or not.

Universal jurisdiction could result in an alternative means for the international community to bring war criminals to account.

Abusing universal jurisdiction for war propaganda would be a valuable tool in the hands of the United States and its Western allies who find themselves increasingly unable to find approval and support for various wars of aggression, interventions, and regime change campaigns within the halls of international organizations like the United Nations.

It should be noted that Al Jazeera is owned and operated by the Qatari government - one of several governments directly involved in the aiding and arming of US-backed militants attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. This may help explain a lack of scrutiny in the article of the trial and those involved - particularly a lack of inquiry into the so-called "European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights" (ECCHR).

Accusers with Dubious Backgrounds

The ECCHR is funded by the same handful of organizations which helped organize protests in Syria before and during 2011 as well as propaganda campaigns throughout the conflict ever since.

The ECCHR claims to be supporting the "witnesses" testifying at the trial who include movie director Feras Fayyad. Fayyad has been promoted widely across the West for his "documentaries" including "The Cave" and "Last Men in Aleppo" - which also by no coincidence fed directly into US war propaganda efforts.

Attempts by the US under President Donald Trump to bar his travel to the US served as a public relations stunt ensuring maximum exposure for both Fayyad and his war propaganda.

ECCHR sponsors include US-based billionaire and convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society Foundation as well as the Freedom Fund which in turn is directly funded by both the US and British governments via the United States Department of State and the United Kingdom Home Office respectively.

Both the US and the UK admittedly helped prepare agitators years in advance before the 2011 conflict began in Syria.

ECCHR is also funded by Germany's own Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (also referred to as the Heinrich-Böll Foundation) which regularly funds fronts posing as non-governmental organizations around the globe invovled in political interference, in conjunction with the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

While Germany itself contributed very little to the US-led intervention in Syria - it is playing host to a trial organized by and for US interests and in support of Western war propaganda - not for any sort of justice.

That those representing alleged witnesses are literally funded by US corporate-funded foundations and the US government itself raises serious issues regarding conflicts of interest and the motivations of prosecutors as well as the legitimacy and agency of Germany's judicial system.

If successful - and if there is a failure in exposing this tactic and what truly lies behind it - it will become a tool held above the heads of other nations caught in the crosshairs of US coercion and regime change ambitions. It will lead to a future where US allies host show trials and find nations "guilty" of "war crimes" in the middle of wars of aggression the US itself engineered and executed.

It also will have an impact on the reputations and reliability of nations - like Germany and their judicial systems - if they find themselves regularly hosting show trials for the purpose of war propaganda. 

At a time when the so-called "rebels" in Syria have now been exposed as extremists operating under the banner of Al Qaeda, its various affiliates, and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) with the US and its closest regional allies exposed in aiding their rise both within Syria and across the wider Middle East and North Africa - the reputation of nations like Germany will suffer by continuing to host efforts - however anemic - to continue feeding Washington's war propaganda against Syria.

Germany in Need of Off-Ramp 

While Germany has attempted to distance itself from US aggression in recent years, it would be unrealistic to expect German institutions influenced for decades by its position within NATO, its economic proximity to the US and its other allies, and with the presence of thousands of US troops on its soil to be able to act entirely independent of Washington and Wall Street.

Berlin has attempted to assert itself and has done so with increasing effectiveness over the years in the face of pressure from Washington to aid and abet its pursuit of global hegemony through the use of everything from economic coercion to military aggression.

Germany's token assistance to the US regardings its military presence in and around Syria is one example. Germany's decision to avoid involvement in the US-led war in Libya is another. There is also Germany's role in building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia and its so-far refusal to ban China's Huawei despite US pressure.

Germany - as well as other nations in Europe - still have far to go to abandon their role in US empire-building and evolving into a force that engages fairly and constructively upon the global stage. It appears that many steps are being taken forward toward this goal - making this show trial and attempts at using "universal jurisdiction" as a form of war propaganda a very unfortunate and disappointing step backwards.

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

"Poisoned" Kremlin Critic Flown to Germany as German-Russian Nord Stream 2 Nears Completion

The perfectly timed poisoning of unpopular, ineffective Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny and the involvement of Germany comes as Washington sought to place maximum pressure on Berlin to cancel the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 

August 25, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny - according to German doctors - was allegedly poisoned but is expected to survive. If Navalny was poisoned and the goal was to assassinate him, it was a poorly conceived, poorly executed, and most of all - poorly timed plan. 

Navalny's sudden reappearance across the Western media comes just at the height of US attempts to place maximum pressure on Germany to cancel a pipeline - Nord Stream 2 - it is jointly constructing with Russia. The pipeline would move Russian hydrocarbons into Western Europe directly, bypassing Ukraine now fully destabilized by US and NATO intervention. 

Just last week German state media DW in an article titled, "US senators threaten Germany's port town of Sassnitz over Nord Stream 2 gas project," would highlight the nature of US pressure, reporting that: 

Three US senators are threatening the ferry port on the island of Rügen with "crushing" sanctions to prevent the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Fearing financial ruin, the people of Sassnitz are defiant.

This latest threat from the US against their own German "allies" comes after a long, concerted campaign to pressure Germany into cancelling the joint pipeline with Russia. 

Earlier this year, the New York Times in an article titled, "A Russian Gas Pipeline Increases Tension Between the U.S. and Europe," would report: 

...the State Department moved to potentially impose economic penalties on investors and other business participants in the project, an expansion of existing sanctions.

The new measures were “a clear warning to companies” that “aiding and abetting Russia’s malign influence projects will not be tolerated,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters. “Get out now, or risk the consequences.”

The New York Times would note that growing US pressure faced condemnation from European leaders who accused Washington of interference in their sovereign affairs and specifically in regards to European energy policy. 

The pipeline is already well over 90% completed. 

Perfectly Timed Political Stunt 

The New York Times in a more recent article titled, "Aleksei Navalny, Putin Critic in a Coma, Was Poisoned, German Doctors Say," deliberately trumps up the incident. 

Indeed Navalny is in a coma, but according to the German hospital currently treating him in an official statement, it was a medically induced coma. The statement read: 

Since his admission at the weekend, Alexei Navalny has been receiving treatment at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The patient is being treated in intensive care and remains in medically induced coma. While his condition is serious, it is not currently life-threatening.

The New York Times in its article notes how unpopular and ineffective Navalny has been as an opposition figure in Russia over the years, admitting that: 

Mr. Navalny’s needling criticism of Mr. Putin has never posed a serious electoral threat to the Russian leader, and Mr. Putin remains popular with many Russians.

It should be noted that Navalny himself and the anemic opposition he leads is a product of the US State Department with virtually ever organization and individual in it the recipient of US government money channeled through Washington's notorious regime change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).  

Navalny's US Backing 

Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow - with the Fellowship recently releasing a statement in solidarity with Navalny after this latest incident - and in his profile it states (emphasis added):

Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is a US NED-fund recipient, implicating Navalny as an agent of US-funded sedition. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list DA! among many of the "youth movements" they support operating in Russia:

DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.

That this funding is nowhere on NED's official website and is admittedly withheld from public knowledge by the funding's recipients indicates that full disclosures are intentionally not being made and that clandestine US funding is most likely much more widespread across Russia's "opposition" as well as for individuals like Navalny himself.  

Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout the Western media. 

The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian "activist" opposition group.

Ilya Yashin leads the Moscow branch of the People's Freedom Party and is a leading member of the "Strategy 31" campaign whose ranks are filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED-funded NGOs. Deleted from the official NED.org website was Strategy 31's US funding which read:

Moscow Group of Assistance in the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords $50,000 

To draw greater attention to the issue of freedom of assembly in Russia and to the “Strategy 31” movement, which seeks to protect this fundamental right. The organization will train a network of regional activists and coordinate their activities through mini-seminars and field visits, and conduct an information cam­paign through press conferences, posters, and educational handouts pertaining to freedom of assembly, to be distributed to the general public by regional partners.

Also deleted was a NED "Democracy Digest" article titled "Strategy 31: A sign of civil society's resilience." In it, the "Moscow Helsinki Group" is explicitly stated as leading Strategy 31 marches and that the group is a "long-time grantee of the National Endowment of Democracy."

Martyrdom to Boost a Fading Brand

It is documented fact that Navalny was funded by and specifically to serve US interests through the NED and a variety of other US-based programs and fellowships and clearly promoted throughout the entirety of the Western corporate media. 

His inability to catalyze the sort of disruptive opposition the West seeks to create within Russia to undermine and eventually overthrow the nation's current political order represents a poor return on investment. 

Navalny's fading brand is admitted openly even by his most eager supporters in the Western media - most recently in the above mentioned New York Times article describing his alleged poisoning.

German-Russian relations are particularly important for both nations at the moment - and perhaps more so for Moscow which seeks ways to circumvent full spectrum economic warfare waged against it by the United States. 

The completion and use of Nord Stream 2 with its German partners would do much to cement Russian-European ties, perhaps even irreversibly short-circuiting US efforts to sabotage them. 

The notion that the Kremlin would order Navalny's assassination at this time defies common sense and logic. 

The fact that a Western NGO with opaque funding called "Cinema for Peace" organized Navalny's transportation out of Russia and to Germany specifically at this critical time for German-Russian relations - according to an article published by the US State Department's Voice of America - the one European nation whose ties with Russia are under greatest scrutiny at the moment by the Western media - appears more than coincidental.  

An investigation and forthcoming facts may help better shape the full truth around this most recent incident - but at the moment - especially for "activists" backed by a palpably desperate US - they must consider who would benefit most from their harm or demise - the nations they are ineffectively opposing, or the nations who have invested millions into their cause and have not gotten the results they desire.

Then these "activists" must determine whether they are worth more to their disappointed foreign sponsors as living, ineffective, and unpopular opposition figures, or worth more by being potentially impactful - if even for a moment - as martyrs. 

Gladio Again: Germany Could've But Didn't Stop Berlin Attacker. Why?

January 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - According to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), German security and intelligence agencies were particularly familiar with the Berlin attacker, Anis Amri, long before he plowed a large truck into a Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring many more.

In an article titled, "All the cracks that Berlin suspect Amri slipped through," a now familiar litany of excuses are peddled before audiences in a bid to explain why the suspect wasn't stopped, weeks, months, even years before he carried out his attack, as soon as it became apparent he was both violent and a danger to society.

DW's article admits:

The suspect first caught authorities' attention in November 2015, when he unwittingly told an informant for the investigative police unit (BKA) in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia that he wanted to "do something in Germany," according to a document obtained by the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. He also claimed that he could get an AK-47 for an attack.

The article claims that from that point onward, Amri was "watched" by German agencies. DW also admits:

Further, he was apparently aggressively seeking an opportunity to undertake an attack in Germany. Information pointing to his dangerous potential became so overwhelming that authorities designated him a threat last February. 

DW then reports:

All information was then handed over to the Berlin public prosecutor's office. The suspect was observed from March on. He raised no suspicion in the months that followed, and authorities stopped surveilling him in September.

In December, Amri would carry out his deadly attack, just as attackers in France and Belgium did after being surveilled - in some cases  for years - before being allowed to drop off security and intelligence agencies' radars just ahead of their respective, deadly attacks.

Germany's weak excuses for not apprehending a man who openly admitted he sought to acquire weapons and take human lives echo similarly convenient excuses provided by the French government following a string of fatal attacks across its territory.

Paris has claimed a lack of resources to process the large number of potential terrorists returning from battlefields France itself has helped send arms, fighters, and other forms of material support to on behalf of terrorist organizations and their allies.

Germany's excuses might seem plausible if not for the fact that virtually every terror attack that has unfolded  not only in Germany, but across all of Europe follows a similar pattern where suspects are surveilled, questioned, entrapped, even arrested and released multiple times, before ultimately carrying out spectacular, politically convenient attacks across Europe.

Another "Gladio"

Such purposeful negligence matches another chapter in Europe's more recent history - that during the Cold War in which NATO security and intelligence agencies maintained a myriad of pan-European terrorist organizations of every imaginable variety, used to assassinate political opponents, carry out deadly and spectacular terror attacks, and otherwise use violence, fear, and intimidation to manipulate both public perception and political outcomes during elections in respective states.

Called "Operation Gladio," it would be described by the New York Times in a 1990 article titled, "EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; Italy Discloses Its Web Of Cold War Guerrillas," as:

In Europe's new order, they are the spies who never quite came in from the cold, foot soldiers in an underground guerrilla network with one stated mission: To fight an enemy that most Europeans believe no longer exists. Theirs is a tale of secret arms caches and exotic code names, of military stratagems and political intrigues. At best, their tale is no more than a curious footnote to the cold war. The question is if, at worst, it could be the key to unsolved terrorism dating back two decades.

The New York Times would also reveal:

The focus of the inquiry is a clandestine operation code-named Gladio, created decades ago to arm and train resistance fighters in case the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded. All this week, there have been disclosures of similar organizations in virtually all Western European countries, including those that do not belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

The New York Times would also describe how Gladio was used to manipulate public perception, use the specter of fear regarding communism after staged terror attacks to coerce populations to vote in governments of Washington's liking, and essentially frame opposition groups for violence the US and NATO were carrying out with their own terror cells.


The real question is - are there similar networks being created and perpetuated by Western intelligence agencies today, to fill both the ranks of foreign mercenary armies everywhere from Libya and Yemen, to Syria and the borders of Iran - as well as manipulate and impose fear upon the populations of Western states at home?

Spectacular terrorist attacks like those in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin have certainly proven themselves potent events for swaying public opinion regarding political support of particular parties and candidates, as well as fomenting support for wars abroad against "Muslim" nations. There is also the inescapable fact that the very terrorists the West poses as fighting at home are armed, funded, and backed either directly by the West abroad, or through the West's closest allies in the Middle East - namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

While it is tempting for people to fall into the false debate crafted in this newly forming "Cold War," the lessons of history should teach us that not all is what it appears to be. And when absolutely every terror attack is carried out by suspects deeply intimate with Western security and intelligence agencies, both at home and in Western-sponsored wars abroad, tempting "clashes of civilization" narratives should be replaced with the prospect of Gladio's inglorious return to Western political calculus.

Additionally, the next time agencies are told to "stop watching" a suspect, perhaps it would be in their best interest to watch them twice as closely, as well as those telling them to "stop watching."

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

Why Did the West Help ISIS Spread Hysteria Post-Berlin Attack?

December 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Washington Post - among others - hit the ground running in the wake of an apparent terrorist attack in Germany's capital of Berlin before evidence was forthcoming and even before German police arrested a suspect.

A truck plowed into a crowded Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring many more in what resembled an attack in Nice, France where a truck likewise plowed into a crowd killing 86 and injuring hundreds more.

Spreading ISIS Propaganda

The Washington Post's article and others like it followed the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) allegedly taking credit for the incident. Undeterred by a lack of evidence, the Washington Post and other media outlets - eager to capitalize on the attack to further Western narratives - concluded that the attack was aimed at "sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else."

The Washington Post's article, "Truck attack may be part of ISIS strategy to sharpen divide between Muslims and others," would claim:

The claim on the official Amaq media channel was short and distressingly familiar: A “soldier of the Islamic State” was behind yet another attack on civilians in Europe, this time at a festive Christmas market in Berlin. 

The accuracy of the claim remained in question Tuesday as German authorities searched for both a suspect and a motive behind the deadly truck assault on holiday revelers. But already it appeared that the attack had achieved one of the Islamic State’s stated objectives: spreading fear and chaos in a Western country in hopes of sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else.

The Washington Post's "analysis" fails to explain why ISIS would target a nation so far playing only a minor role in anti-ISIS operations or the logic in provoking a wider divide between Muslims and the West. At one point, the Washington Post actually suggests ISIS may be trying to hinder the flow of refugees away from their territory toward nations like Germany with open-door policies welcoming them.

In reality, the Washington Post and the "experts" it interviewed are merely attempting to perpetuate the myth of what ISIS is and what its supposed objectives and motivations are.

Understanding what ISIS really is, and what it is truly being used for, goes far in explaining why the incident has been so eagerly promoted as a "terrorist attack," and why other incidents like it are likely to follow.


ISIS Was Created By and For Regime Change in Syria and Beyond  

The United States government in a leaked 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo would admit that "supporting powers" including "the West" sought the rise of what it called at the time a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS is now currently based.

The leaked 2012 report (.pdf) states (emphasis added): 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were that sought the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) principality" (State), the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In 2014, in an e-mail between US Counselor to the President John Podesta and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America's closest regional allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - were providing financial and logistical support to ISIS.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks, stated:

...we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

While the e-mail portrays the US in a fight against the very "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) it sought to create and use as a strategic asset in 2012, the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both acknowledged as state sponsors of the terrorist organization - and are both still enjoying immense military, economic, and political support from the United States and its European allies - indicates just how disingenuous America's "war" on ISIS really is.

The scale of the relatively recent attack on Syria's eastern city of Palmyra took place along a front 10's of kilometers wide, involving heavy weapons, hundreds of fighters, and was only achievable through immense and continuous state sponsorship as have been all of ISIS' gains across the region.

It and "other radical Sunni groups" remain the only relevant armed opposition on the ground contesting the Syrian government.

As early as 2007, as revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," it was made clear that the US sought to arm and back Al Qaeda-linked militants to overthrow the government's of Iran and Syria and to do so by laundering weapons, cash, and other forms of support through allies including Saudi Arabia.

ISIS is the full-scale manifestation of this long-documented conspiracy.

So What Did the Berlin Attack Really Seek to Achieve? 

Sidestepping verifiably false narratives surrounding the myth of ISIS' origins and motivations, and recognizing it as a whole cloth creation of the West for achieving Western geopolitical objectives, indicates that attacks like those in Nice, France, and now apparently in Berlin, Germany are aimed at perpetuating a lucrative strategy of tension in which Muslims are increasingly targeted and isolated in the West, more readily recruited by terrorists allowed to operate under the noses of Western security and intelligence agencies, and sent to wage the West's proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran.

While the excuses made by newspapers like the Washington Post change with the wind on a daily basis to explain ISIS' creation and actions, the West's calculus - warned about by Seymour Hersh in 2007, documented in a 2012 US DIA memo, admitted to in a 2014 leaked e-mail, and evident amid ISIS' current, wide scale operations in Syria only possible through substantial state sponsorship - has been singular in nature and evident for years - even before the Syrian conflict began.

As long as Washington and its allies believe it is geopolitically profitable to maintain the existence of ISIS - used as both a proxy mercenary force and as a pretext for direct Western military intervention anywhere the terrorist organization conveniently "appears," attacks like those in Brussels, Paris, Nice, and now apparently in Berlin will persist.

At any time of Washington and Brussels' choosing, they could expose Saudi Arabia and Qatar's role in sponsoring ISIS. At any time of Washington and Brussels' choosing, they could also expose and dismantle the global network of madrases both nations - with the cooperation of Western intelligence agencies - use to fill the ranks of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Instead, the West covertly assists Saudi Arabia and Qatar in expanding and directing these terrorist networks - using them as a proxy mercenary force and a ready-made pretext for military intervention abroad and as a constant means of dividing and distracting the public at home.

Were the state sponsors of terrorism fully exposed and removed from the equation, the United States and its European allies would find themselves deployed across the planet, engaged in regime change operations, invasions, and occupations without any credible casus belli.

With the US and its allies determined to reassert and maintain global hegemony everywhere from the Middle East and North Africa to Central and East Asia, the manufactured threat of state sponsored terrorism - sponsored by the West's oldest and closest Arab allies and the West itself - will persist for years to come.

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

France and Germany's "Fight" Against the Islamic State

December 7, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The BBC has reported that Germany will now send aircraft to join France in its fight against the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. Their article "German Tornado jets to help French against IS in Syria" reports:

Germany plans to deploy Tornado reconnaissance jets to help the French air campaign against so-called Islamic State (IS) in Syria. 

A naval frigate, satellite images and aerial refuelling will also be provided, the defence minister said.

However, it is difficult to take France and Germany's fight against IS seriously for one obvious reason. Both nations are members of NATO, side-by-side the US and Turkey, Turkey who, even the Washington Post now admits, plays a central role in supplying IS in Syria.

The Washington Post's article "Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles," would blatantly report that:

They [the US] will increase air operations in northern Syria, particularly in the Turkish border area to cut the flow of foreign fighters, money and materiel coming in to support the Islamic State.

Careful readers will probably note that this is far from the first time such subtle admissions have been made. All during the Kurdish offensives seeking to retake border regions in Syria east of the Euphrates River from IS, US and European news agencies regularly noted how the loss of this territory by IS would constrict its supply lines from Turkey.

For France and Germany to send aircraft to bomb an enemy in Syria without addressing the very source of its weapons, equipment, money and fighters seems to be an almost intentional means of perpetuating a conflict or even expanding it, not ending it.

In contrast, Russia who is also fighting terrorists in Syria including IS, has openly condemned Turkey for its role in supporting terrorism inside Syria. Russia has even lost a plane in its growing confrontation with this NATO state sponsor of terrorism.

The question becomes, does France and Germany intend to truly solve the IS problem, or further compound it in league with nations like Turkey and the United States?

An Alternative

Without sending a single warplane or endangering a single pilot's life, France and Germany could instead combine their considerable political clout to both expose and place pressure on Turkey to end its support for terrorists it is sponsoring inside Syria. Alternatively, if both nations are determined to commit military assets, they must do so in coordination with the only other nation in the region genuinely trying to eradicate these terrorist factions, Russia.

Not only that, instead of talking about a necessary "ground component," implying that Western troops must inevitably enter into the Syrian conflict, France and Germany could commit to the most logical and obvious course of action, supporting the Syrian armed forces who are already on the ground, already fighting the terrorists and the only force in the region capable of managing a post-war Syria without the country turning into another Libya.

All For Show? 

For France in particular, these options should appear particularly attractive (however unlikely they are to be explored or implemented) as a means to seek contrition for its actions in Libya, the destruction of the Libyan government and the ensuing chaos that followed giving rise both to the refugee crisis and the rise of IS itself.

France, by failing to do the right thing now, proves that it has no (and never had a) genuine intention of really fighting IS and instead seeks to contribute and take advantage of the growing global instability it itself helped spark during the events in Libya in 2011. It would also raise serious questions about the IS attack in Paris and why the French government appears disinterested in targeting this problem directly at its source and as soon as possible.

Regardless of which course France and Germany take, it will become obvious soon what their true agenda is. As the UK rushes to join the fray as well, the world must keep in mind those who fail to mention the source of IS' power are likely not truly interested in defeating IS itself, but instead seek to use it as a tool to destroy yet another MENA region nation, achieve long-sought-after "regime change" in Syria and then move onward to their next victim.

Weepy candlelit vigils in the wake of horrific, fear-inducing terrorist attacks in Europe, can, if honest governments sit in power, rally people together to expose and dismantle the true source behind this terrorist scourge. Or they can serve as an empty show to manipulate the emotions of people to further pursue self-serving goals.

Was German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande's posturing in the wake of the Paris attacks all for show? Or a realization that there is no future for either of their nations if they continue remaining silent or worse still, complicit in NATO's global war of terror.

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

US Spying in Germany - With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

January 21, 2014 (Vladimir Platov - NEO) - A German spy employed by Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) was arrested in Berlin in early July 2014. He was charged with handing out the top secret documents to foreign secret services, namely the CIA. A few days later it was announced that German law enforcement agencies began searching for another US spy that had been stealing information from the The Federal Ministry of Defence.

The general secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Yasmin Fahimi called for the adoption of a list of “effective countermeasures” that would allow Germany to protect its national secrets from being stolen by Washington. Speaking on national TV Yasmin Fahimi said that: “We are not yet another banana republic.”

The incident involving a CIA spy uncovered within the BND ranks was perceived by most Europeans as total nonsense: a total of 218 top secret documents were stolen from BND by a 31-year-old employee Marcus R. over a period of two years while he was cooperating with the ”friendly” CIA. The White House was paying “the loyal agent” according to the “banana republic,” rates up to and including 25 thousand euros, omitting glass beads and colored feathers.

However, according to the German newspaper Bild, the investigation found out this January that this double agent had provided the US intelligence with a list of 3,500 of BND employees, all who are currently working across the world. This can hardly be regarded as an expression of Washington’s friendship towards Germany.

...if Washington has been treating Germany like a regular “banana republic”, one can only imagine what it has been doing to smaller countries in Europe, across the Middle East, and in Southeast Asia as well. 

Such aggressive US intelligence activities in Germany have become commonplace, but no prominent politician of this vassal state yet has voiced his concerns over this fact. Indeed, within the last few years, according to the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, BND has been transferring the personal data of German citizens to the US National Security Agency (NSA), via to the world’s largest center-neutral Internet exchange point DE-CIX in Frankfurt. According to the newspaper, the NSA has been intercepting up to 500 million phone calls and Internet messages in Germany per month. And all this was done despite the fact that private information is protected by the German Constitution, yet it seems that the well-being of its “big brother” is by far more important to German politicians that their own Constitution. In addition, the NSA had made a number of attempts to use DE-CIX to obtain a profile on the European Aerospace and Defense group and its French management, a fact released by Edward Snowden last year.

According to numerous publications in Bild and Sonntag, more than a dozen employees of German ministries and departments are still working as CIA informants.

One should note that a sharp increase in US intelligence activities against Germany have been observed as early as October 2013, when Edward Snowden announced that the CIA and NSA tapped all of Angela Merkel’s phones. The scandal was followed by a phone conversation on this matter between the German Counsellor and the US President in January 2014. Shortly after, the US declared a policy of “no spying against the leaders of friendly countries.”

In response to the revealed information about the phone tapping at the end of 2013, Merkel established a committee to investigate foreign electronic surveillance, which included representatives from the ruling parties – the Conservatives and the Social Democrats along with “green” and “left” opposition figures. However, the latter stated that the committee is not interested in a thorough investigation of all the circumstances of US intelligence activities in Germany due to the desire to avoid the deterioration of relations between “fellow states” – Germany and the United States.

England, speaking as the most loyal vassal of Washington, has been trying to justify recent US intelligence activities in Germany on the pages of the online magazine The Daily Beast, by trying to convince the audience that the need for surveillance over Germany is a must “given its intense business and political ties to Russia and Iran, and Moscow’s decades-long cultivation of intelligence assets and collaborators from the first Cold War up through the current one, American intelligence agencies would be crazy not to conduct intensive espionage operations in Germany. “

Last summer, while referring to the scandal surrounding the activities of US intelligence in Germany, the President of the European Commission , Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview with foreign journalists noted that there may be a crisis of trust between the EU and the US and that authorities must try to explain to their American partners that friends are listening to each other, but don’t wiretap each other. According to Juncker this incident could lead to a crisis of confidence – not only in regards to transatlantic relations, but also among EU citizens.

It’s hard not to sympathize with Germany’s hardships and the lack of decency its citizens face, therefore it’s only natural that anti-American sentiments will grow. According to surveys, more than half of Germans believe in these circumstances that it’s dangerous to cooperate with the US ever more closer and they expect their Chancellor to give Washington a response, the one Angela Merkel had promised to give last year, but never dared.

Still, if Washington has been treating Germany like a regular “banana republic”, one can only imagine what it has been doing to smaller countries in Europe, across the Middle East, and in Southeast Asia as well. And maybe none of these countries are actually aware of what is going on if their citizens have been reading the White House propaganda outlets that haven’t touched upon the illegal activities of American intelligence agencies elsewhere around the world?

Vladimir Platov, Middle East expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”