theduran--2020-01-27--China struggles to contain coronavirus as virus spreads outside its borders (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the spread of the coronavirus and how the Chinese government is struggling to contain the virus and prevent a global pandemic from taking hold .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Restrictions that allow a significant number of people to move about , either with official approval or unsanctioned “ black market ” activity , can not stop the spread of contagious diseases .
Like everyone else , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Coronavirus epidemic .
I haven ’ t found any information about the practicalities that immediately occur to me , such as : 1 .
When public transportation is halted and commerce grinds to a halt as people avoid public places and gatherings , thousands of employees no longer go to work .
Who pays their wages while the city is locked down ?
The employers ?
Then who compensates the employers , since their income has also gone to zero ?
Does China have a universal unemployment insurance system that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no longer going to work and getting a paycheck from an employer ?
What about the thousands of migrant workers who don ’ t have regular employers ?
Who pays them ?
If they ’ re technically not officially sanctioned residents of the city , they don ’ t exist in government records .
2 .
If people idled by the lockdown are supposed to live off savings , what about all the marginal workers with few resources ?
What are they going to live on once their meager savings are gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obeying the lockdown rules and starving or slipping out of the city to find paid work somewhere else , how many migrant workers will choose to slip away ?
4 .
Unlike the developed West , many people in China still have ancestral villages to return to , rural towns where their grandparents or or other close relatives live .
If work has dried up and you ’ re fearful of catching a potentially lethal virus , wouldn ’ t it make sense to slip out of the city and make your way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunker down until the epidemic blows over ?
Since people who caught the virus may not know they ’ re a carrier , how will this migration not spread the disease to rural areas with few medical resources ?
5 .
The typical city has about a week ’ s supply of food , fuel , etc .
at best .
If the lockdown runs longer than a few days , scarcities of essentials will ignite hoarding , and remaining supplies will be snapped up .
Since the city ’ s residents need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be brought in regardless of the lockdown .
This brings outside workers into the city and provides residents desperate to flee avenues to escape the lockdown .
Every individual involved in this system is potentially exposed to the virus or is a potential asymptomatic carrier of the virus leaving the city .
These realities leave officials with an impossible choice : either truly isolate the city , which isn ’ t possible for more than a few days , or allow the stupendous flow of goods required to sustain millions of city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus to spread beyond the city as transport workers and those fleeing the lockdown travel to other cities .
6 .
The only way to end a contagion is to identify every carrier of the disease and immediately isolate them in full hazmat mode , and then track down every individual they had contact with during the incubation/asymptomatic period of the disease–up to two weeks–and isolate all these individuals until they either develop the disease or pass through the crisis unharmed .
This was the basic procedure used to end the SARS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the The New England Journal of Medicine explains ( Another Decade , Another Coronavirus , ( via correspondent Cheryl A . )
, the Wuhan Coronavirus shares characteristics with SARS and can not be dismissed as just another run-of-the-mill flu virus .
During this process of isolating / quarantining everyone with the disease and everyone they had close contact with , all healthcare workers caring for these people must also remain isolated from the general populace lest they become infected and spread the disease outside the quarantine .
Treating people in crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and going and moving freely into the rest of the city won ’ t stop a contagion from spreading .
If the only way to end a contagion is to identify every carrier of the disease and immediately isolate them , and then track down every individual they had contact with during the incubation/asymptomatic period of the disease–is this even possible in China now ?
Please study the map below before claiming it ’ s still possible .
7 .
China is making a big show about sending 1,000 doctors to Wuhan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this virus , how effective are these treatments , and do they require a physician to be administered ?
If the answers are : there are no effective targeted medical treatments for this virus , and doctors are not required to administer what is available , then why expose a scarce resource–physicians–to the disease since they really can ’ t do much to halt it or heal the patients ?
Isn ’ t sending 1,000 doctors to Wuhan more a PR move than anything else ?
And if it ’ s basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ doing something , ” doesn ’ t that call the entire official response into question ?
If there is no targeted treatment available , then the recovery of the patient is a function of their immune system .
Building tent hospitals that are porous–healthcare workers returning home after their shift , relatives visiting the stricken , workers moving supplies in and out of other facilities , etc.–will do little to isolate carriers and potential carriers .
And since complete isolation is the only way to stem the contagion , these porous tent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit the contagion .
8 .
Are the travel bans on tours and other travel restriction measures 100 % , in other words , not a single individual is being allowed in or out ?
If the travel restrictions are haphazard , then what ’ s stopping asymptomatic carriers of the virus from traveling freely around the world ?
There are many other practical questions about the epidemic and China ’ s response that aren ’ t being addressed in the conventional media .
While we don ’ t know precisely how contagious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point–and it could mutate into a more contagious and lethal variation within a carrier at any moment–we do know complete isolation of every carrier and everyone they had close contact with is the only way to end the contagion .
We also know cities can ’ t truly be isolated for longer than a few days , and we know people can ’ t live without food , water , fuel , etc .
and money to buy these essentials .
We also know that restrictions that allow a significant number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval or unsanctioned “ black market ” activity , can not stop the spread of contagious diseases .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the spread of the coronavirus and how the Chinese government is struggling to contain the virus and prevent a global pandemic from taking hold.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog:
Restrictions that allow a significant number of people to move about, either with official approval or unsanctioned “black market” activity, cannot stop the spread of contagious diseases.
Like everyone else, I’ve been reading the mainstream media reports on the Coronavirus epidemic. I haven’t found any information about the practicalities that immediately occur to me, such as:
1. When public transportation is halted and commerce grinds to a halt as people avoid public places and gatherings, thousands of employees no longer go to work. Who pays their wages while the city is locked down? The employers? Then who compensates the employers, since their income has also gone to zero?
Does China have a universal unemployment insurance system that can quickly issue payments to all people who are no longer going to work and getting a paycheck from an employer?
What about the thousands of migrant workers who don’t have regular employers? Who pays them? If they’re technically not officially sanctioned residents of the city, they don’t exist in government records.
2. If people idled by the lockdown are supposed to live off savings, what about all the marginal workers with few resources? What are they going to live on once their meager savings are gone?
3. Given the choice of obeying the lockdown rules and starving or slipping out of the city to find paid work somewhere else, how many migrant workers will choose to slip away?
4. Unlike the developed West, many people in China still have ancestral villages to return to, rural towns where their grandparents or or other close relatives live. If work has dried up and you’re fearful of catching a potentially lethal virus, wouldn’t it make sense to slip out of the city and make your way back to the village where you can hunker down until the epidemic blows over?
Since people who caught the virus may not know they’re a carrier, how will this migration not spread the disease to rural areas with few medical resources?
5. The typical city has about a week’s supply of food, fuel, etc. at best. If the lockdown runs longer than a few days, scarcities of essentials will ignite hoarding, and remaining supplies will be snapped up.
Since the city’s residents need food, fuel, etc., it must be brought in regardless of the lockdown. This brings outside workers into the city and provides residents desperate to flee avenues to escape the lockdown. Every individual involved in this system is potentially exposed to the virus or is a potential asymptomatic carrier of the virus leaving the city.
These realities leave officials with an impossible choice: either truly isolate the city, which isn’t possible for more than a few days, or allow the stupendous flow of goods required to sustain millions of city residents, thereby creating uncontrollable avenues for the virus to spread beyond the city as transport workers and those fleeing the lockdown travel to other cities.
6. The only way to end a contagion is to identify every carrier of the disease and immediately isolate them in full hazmat mode, and then track down every individual they had contact with during the incubation/asymptomatic period of the disease–up to two weeks–and isolate all these individuals until they either develop the disease or pass through the crisis unharmed.
This was the basic procedure used to end the SARS epidemic in 2003. As this article from the The New England Journal of Medicine explains (Another Decade, Another Coronavirus, (via correspondent Cheryl A.), the Wuhan Coronavirus shares characteristics with SARS and cannot be dismissed as just another run-of-the-mill flu virus.
During this process of isolating / quarantining everyone with the disease and everyone they had close contact with, all healthcare workers caring for these people must also remain isolated from the general populace lest they become infected and spread the disease outside the quarantine.
Treating people in crowded hospitals where hundreds of people are coming and going and moving freely into the rest of the city won’t stop a contagion from spreading.
If the only way to end a contagion is to identify every carrier of the disease and immediately isolate them, and then track down every individual they had contact with during the incubation/asymptomatic period of the disease–is this even possible in China now?
Please study the map below before claiming it’s still possible.
7. China is making a big show about sending 1,000 doctors to Wuhan, but precisely what medical treatments are available for this virus, how effective are these treatments, and do they require a physician to be administered? If the answers are: there are no effective targeted medical treatments for this virus, and doctors are not required to administer what is available, then why expose a scarce resource–physicians–to the disease since they really can’t do much to halt it or heal the patients?
Isn’t sending 1,000 doctors to Wuhan more a PR move than anything else? And if it’s basically a PR stunt to appear to be “doing something,” doesn’t that call the entire official response into question?
If there is no targeted treatment available, then the recovery of the patient is a function of their immune system. Building tent hospitals that are porous–healthcare workers returning home after their shift, relatives visiting the stricken, workers moving supplies in and out of other facilities, etc.–will do little to isolate carriers and potential carriers. And since complete isolation is the only way to stem the contagion, these porous tent hospitals won’t do much to limit the contagion.
8. Are the travel bans on tours and other travel restriction measures 100%, in other words, not a single individual is being allowed in or out? If the travel restrictions are haphazard, then what’s stopping asymptomatic carriers of the virus from traveling freely around the world?
There are many other practical questions about the epidemic and China’s response that aren’t being addressed in the conventional media. While we don’t know precisely how contagious and lethal the virus is at this point–and it could mutate into a more contagious and lethal variation within a carrier at any moment–we do know complete isolation of every carrier and everyone they had close contact with is the only way to end the contagion.
We also know cities can’t truly be isolated for longer than a few days, and we know people can’t live without food, water, fuel, etc. and money to buy these essentials. We also know that restrictions that allow a significant number of people to move about, either with official approval or unsanctioned “black market” activity, cannot stop the spread of contagious diseases.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-27--NATO’s Upcoming Exercise Is Targeted Against Kaliningrad

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… Last week NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained why the U.S. are strengthening their military presence in Europe .
The reason is unsurprisingly to pressurize and intimidate Russia , but also against China and the so-called fight against terrorism .
Stoltenberg explained that there are now more U.S. soldiers in EU Member States , more than ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 .
In the coming months , the Defender-Europe 2020 exercises , the largest of its kind in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And with this exercise , U.S. troop numbers will only increase in Europe with another 20,000 troops and officers arriving .
Germany will be the logistics center for the Defender-Europe 2020 exercise in March and by the end of January , thousands of U.S. soldiers will not only arrive in Germany , but also in Belgium , France and the Netherlands .
The military drill will take place in Germany , Poland , Georgia and the Baltic States with the participation of 18 NATO countries , cover 4,000 kilometers of convoy routes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host exercise activities .
The U.S. will send a total of 37,000 soldiers and officers to the exercise with the total number of troops to exceed 40,000 people .
There are also discussions about the resumption of the annual REFORGER exercises that were held in Europe from 1969 to 1993 .
The REFORGER exercises was to have constant training for a rapid deployment in West Germany in any potential conflict with the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact countries .
Lieutenant General Chris Cavoli , the U.S. Army Europe commander , explained in an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been compared to REFORGER , but that this is “ not a completely apt comparison ” because REFORGER exercises were about getting a force into one country — Germany — “ to defend a very-known location against a force that we all understood very well.
” He recalled hearing about REFORGER exercises as a little boy when his father was an Army officer serving in Europe but that “ the only thing we didn ’ t know was what time it was going to happen.
” There can be little doubt that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercises with the drills occurring directly on their doorstep in Poland and the Baltic states , particularly focussed against Russia ’ s Kalingrad enclave .
As Russia continues working towards a balanced multipolar international system based on sovereignty , U.S.-led Atlanticist powers have maintained pressure against the Eurasian Giant .
NATO spy and scout planes flew over Kalingrad over 800 times in 2019 alone .
NATO are keeping close tabs on the enclave as it is a well-fortified region wedged between Poland the Baltics , a so-called security threat for the Atlanticist Alliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure by Russia against Kalingrad , the Russian Foreign Ministry said in December that “ Western media are trying to spread their ideas about the ‘ Russian aggressor ’ in their own way .
Some media cite statements by the U.S. Air Force Commander in Europe , General Jeffrey Harrigian , that the Pentagon has a plan to break through the multilayered air defense of the Kaliningrad region in the event of Russia ’ s invasion of the Baltic .
It conceals the fact that the improvement of military capabilities in the enclave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintaining the balance of power.
” NATO are constantly reinforcing their military presence near Russia ’ s borders and are increasing the readiness to transfer forces to their eastern flank .
The intensity of the exercises is also significantly increasing in a way as if Europe is preparing for a major military conflict against Russia .
The planned development of the European segment of the U.S. and NATO air defense system also continues to move closer to Russia ’ s borders .
It is for this reason that Russia has had to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complexes like the Iskander , in conjunction with the S-400 missile defense system and anti-ship coastal complexes .
Despite these systems , experts still maintain that if NATO attacks Kaliningrad , the enclave is likely to fall , providing Russia does not resort to the use tactical nuclear weapons .
Whether these experts are correct or not can only be known in a real war situation , a situation that Russia is attempting to avoid .
However , exercises suggest that NATO is making every plan for an invasion of Kalingrad if such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Europe , led by French President Emmanuel Macron becoming increasingly critical of NATO and Washington ’ s policies , it remains to be seen if EU countries are willing to go to war with Russia because of U.S. escalations despite their participation in such aggressive exercises aimed towards the Eurasian country .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
Last week NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained why the U.S. are strengthening their military presence in Europe. The reason is unsurprisingly to pressurize and intimidate Russia, but also against China and the so-called fight against terrorism. Stoltenberg explained that there are now more U.S. soldiers in EU Member States, more than ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the coming months, the Defender-Europe 2020 exercises, the largest of its kind in the last 25 years, will begin. And with this exercise, U.S. troop numbers will only increase in Europe with another 20,000 troops and officers arriving.
Germany will be the logistics center for the Defender-Europe 2020 exercise in March and by the end of January, thousands of U.S. soldiers will not only arrive in Germany, but also in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. The military drill will take place in Germany, Poland, Georgia and the Baltic States with the participation of 18 NATO countries, cover 4,000 kilometers of convoy routes and rely on 10 European countries to host exercise activities. The U.S. will send a total of 37,000 soldiers and officers to the exercise with the total number of troops to exceed 40,000 people.
There are also discussions about the resumption of the annual REFORGER exercises that were held in Europe from 1969 to 1993. The REFORGER exercises was to have constant training for a rapid deployment in West Germany in any potential conflict with the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact countries. Lieutenant General Chris Cavoli, the U.S. Army Europe commander, explained in an interview with Defense News that the Defender-Europe 2020 exercises has been compared to REFORGER, but that this is “not a completely apt comparison” because REFORGER exercises were about getting a force into one country — Germany — “to defend a very-known location against a force that we all understood very well.” He recalled hearing about REFORGER exercises as a little boy when his father was an Army officer serving in Europe but that “the only thing we didn’t know was what time it was going to happen.”
There can be little doubt that Russia is the main target of these exercises with the drills occurring directly on their doorstep in Poland and the Baltic states, particularly focussed against Russia’s Kalingrad enclave. As Russia continues working towards a balanced multipolar international system based on sovereignty, U.S.-led Atlanticist powers have maintained pressure against the Eurasian Giant. NATO spy and scout planes flew over Kalingrad over 800 times in 2019 alone. NATO are keeping close tabs on the enclave as it is a well-fortified region wedged between Poland the Baltics, a so-called security threat for the Atlanticist Alliance.
In response to the increasing military pressure by Russia against Kalingrad, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in December that “Western media are trying to spread their ideas about the ‘Russian aggressor’ in their own way. Some media cite statements by the U.S. Air Force Commander in Europe, General Jeffrey Harrigian, that the Pentagon has a plan to break through the multilayered air defense of the Kaliningrad region in the event of Russia’s invasion of the Baltic. It conceals the fact that the improvement of military capabilities in the enclave is dictated solely by the reasons of maintaining the balance of power.”
NATO are constantly reinforcing their military presence near Russia’s borders and are increasing the readiness to transfer forces to their eastern flank. The intensity of the exercises is also significantly increasing in a way as if Europe is preparing for a major military conflict against Russia. The planned development of the European segment of the U.S. and NATO air defense system also continues to move closer to Russia’s borders. It is for this reason that Russia has had to turn Kaliningrad into a fortress with operationally tactical complexes like the Iskander, in conjunction with the S-400 missile defense system and anti-ship coastal complexes. Despite these systems, experts still maintain that if NATO attacks Kaliningrad, the enclave is likely to fall, providing Russia does not resort to the use tactical nuclear weapons.
Whether these experts are correct or not can only be known in a real war situation, a situation that Russia is attempting to avoid. However, exercises suggest that NATO is making every plan for an invasion of Kalingrad if such a war ever occurs. However, with Europe, led by French President Emmanuel Macron becoming increasingly critical of NATO and Washington’s policies, it remains to be seen if EU countries are willing to go to war with Russia because of U.S. escalations despite their participation in such aggressive exercises aimed towards the Eurasian country.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-28--U.S. Demands Iraq Either Join U.S. War Against Iran or Be Destroyed

U.S. officials have now made clear that if U.S. forces become removed from Iraq as Iraq ’ s Parliament unanimously demanded and Iraq ’ s Prime Minister affirmed on January 5th , then the U.S. will try to break Iraq up into separate Sunni and Shia nations , and will also definitely impose sanctions against Iraq or ( if Iraq becomes successfully broken up ) against the Shia-governed portion of Iraq , in order to destroy Iraq ( or the Shiite regions in Iraq ) totally .
The U.S. is determined to separate both Lebanon and Syria ( both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Iran so that Iran will become internationally isolated unless and until Iran again becomes controlled by the U.S. Government as it was during the period from 1953 when U.S. imposed the Shah ’ s dictatorship there , till 1979 , when Iranians finally took back control over their country and kicked out the U.S.-and-allied foreign oil companies .
By far the best international journalism about the situation today regarding Iraq has come from the Middle East Eye , which headlined on January 23rd , “ US seeking to carve out Sunni state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and sub-headed , “ With Shia parties pressuring American troops to leave , Washington wants to create an autonomous region around Anbar to maintain its presence.
” Their reporter in Baghdad , Suadad al-Salhy , stated that , Backed into a corner and influence waning , the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq , officials from both countries told Middle East Eye .
The US efforts , the officials say , come in response to Shia Iraqi parties ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria , Lebanon and Palestine .
Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean .
For Washington , the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden , who is now vying to be the Democratic Party ’ s presidential candidate .
… “ The creation of a Sunni region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
The Iranians can not be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah ” in Lebanon , the former US official told MEE .
“ The project is American , not Sunni .
The presence of the American forces has been the guarantor for the Sunnis and the Kurds , so if the US has to leave Iraq , then establishing a Sunni region in western Iraq is its plan to curb Iran and its arms in the Middle East , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishing a country , not an administrative region.
” … The Arab Gulf states allied to US , led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates , support and finance this project , Sunni and Shia leaders and officials told MEE .
“ Funding is in place , international pressure is in place , and the necessary military strength is in place to create this region , ” a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks said .
“ Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back it , ” the leader added .
“ A huge amount of money and investment offered by the Sunni states is at stake , and these will turn the Anbar desert into green oases and rebuild the destroyed areas in Mosul and Salah al-Din .
Who will care about oil ?
” This is a war by U.S. , Saudi Arabia , the other Arab oil monarchies , and Israel , against Iran , and it will become also a U.S.-v.-Russia war unless Russia complies with America ’ s demand to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anbar Province is one of two places where the fanatical Sunni ISIS was located in Iraq , the other being the city of Mosul directly to the north of Anbar .
Both areas are so heavily Sunni so that in order for Iraq ’ s mainly Shiite government to become able to wage an effective war against ISIS in Iraq , it first had to convince Anbar ’ s residents that this would be something which would benefit all of Iraq and not only Shiites in Iraq .
Fallujah and Ramadi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were especially trying to defeat ISIS in 2014 , are in Anbar Province .
Until 2015 , Iranian General Soleimani ’ s forces ( all of them Shiites ) were virtually the only effective forces trying to exterminate ISIS ; and therefore , Iraq ’ s Government had to emphasize that killing ISIS was a patriotic , not a sectarian , matter .
On 17 September 2016 U.S. President Obama bombed Syria ’ s army in the heart of Syria ’ s oil-producing region , the city Deir Ezzor , for Syria ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria ’ s oil .
During October through December 2016 , two of Syria ’ s main enemies , Obama , and Turkey ’ s leader Erdogan , established a system to reinforce ISIS in Deir Ezzor , by supplying them ISIS fighters fleeiing from Mosul in Iraq ’ s north .
On 11 December 2016 , I headlined “ Obama & Erdogan Move ISIS from Iraq to Syria , to Weaken Assad ” , and reported that the U.S. and Turkey were offering a deal to fighters for ISIS in Mosul , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq .
They would relocate west into Syria , so as to assist the U.S. and its allies to overthrow , or at least seize territory from , Syria ’ s Government .
America ’ s war against Syria used basically three proxy-forces as boots-on-the-ground : Al Qaeda , ISIS , and Kurds — all three being Sunnis .
The Sauds provided most of the funding for it , because the goal was to place Syria under the control of the Sauds .
And the U.S. sticks by that goal .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose it .
It ’ s not only Trump who is obsessed with this goal ; Obama was , though he wasn ’ t as obsessed with destroying Iran as Trump is .
On January 24th , Middle East Eye ’ s Washington reporter Ali Harb headlined “ At what point do US troops in Iraq become an occupation force ?
” and he took the most literalist approach possible to this question , in which the obvious answer should be “ as soon as we invaded and occupied the country on 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the U.S. Government , saying that “ diplomatic notes , which are not public , remain the legal basis for the presence of about 5,000 American soldiers in Iraq today ” and that “ the letters contain a provision that gives US forces one year to withdraw after they are formally asked by Baghdad to leave.
” So : if this U.S. Government , which has become infamous for violating its contracts ( such as the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Agreement ) , alleges that it can stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain within the bounds of those “ diplomatic notes , which are not public ” — and which a supplicant Iraqi Government had allegedly consented to in 2014 — then Iraq ’ s Government will need to wait until 5 January 2021 before accusing the U.S. Government of violating that secret and coerced “ 1-year cancellation clause.
” And , if Iraq ’ s Government is , at that time , still insisting that U.S. terminate its occupation of Iraq , then , Joe Biden ’ s 2007 plan will start being implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arab southeast ( friendly toward Iran ) , Sunni Kurd northeast ( backed by U.S. ) , and Sunni Arab southwestern desert half of Iraq ’ s expanse ( hostile toward Iran ) .
There would be no more land-connection between Iran to Iraq ’ s east and Syria to Iraq ’ s west .
For Iran , that would be like cutting off its two arms .
Furthermore , Ali Harb noted that the Obama-Trump Administrations ’ Pentagon official Brett McGurk said that “ If the U.S. leaves Iraq , it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McGurk was suggesting that Iraq without U.S. would become then again a U.S. enemy .
The U.S. regime is determined to destroy , one by one , each country that tries to block U.S.-and-allied billionaires from taking them over .
Here are two maps of Iraq , which show what trisecting Iraq would mean : So : Syria would be surrounded by U.S. allies .
According to MEE ’ s Suadad al-Salhy in Baghdad , Leaders familiar with the ongoing talks on partitioning Iraq said that Sunni politicians are seriously involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demonstrations ’ outcome before deciding on their path .
“ The meetings are taking place in full swing , and all the Sunni leaders are attending .
But they deny this publicly , waiting for the conditions that protect them , ” a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks told MEE .
If the protesters are able to force through a national government that takes care of all Iraqi communities , then the Sunnis will reject any planned autonomous area , the leader said .
Failure to achieve this , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partition project en masse .
“ Sunnis do not want to be part of the Shia crescent , and refuse to submit to Iranian control .
So they will offer the Americans permission to build military bases in their lands , in exchange for the necessary support to establish the desired region.
” “ We ’ re not at a point where the US and Iraq are enemies , ” said Abbas Kadhim , director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Center think-tank in Washington .
… Kadhim , of the Atlantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military withdrawal from Iraq in a way that would ease the tensions of the past few weeks and preserve the strategic partnership between Washington and Baghdad .
… Kadhim said the “ knee-jerk reactions ” that Baghdad and Washington have been displaying are not helpful .
“ At the end of the day , the United States can not impose its troops on Iraq .
There ’ s no justification for keeping troops in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people , and it ’ s not in the interest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told MEE .
… The US envoy for the Coalition against IS , James Jeffery , … also issued an implicit warning to Baghdad on Thursday [ Jan. 23 ] .
At a news conference , he said that if the US and Iraq were to negotiate a troop withdrawal , everything else would be on the table , including Washington ’ s diplomatic support to Baghdad .
“ We ’ re not interested in sitting down and talking only about withdrawal , ” Jeffery said .
“ Any conversations that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States in Iraq , we believe should and must cover the entire gamut of our relationship , which goes way beyond our forces , goes way beyond security.
” Kadhim said imposing sanctions on Iraq would be harmful to both nations and counterproductive to Washington ’ s stated aim of reducing Iranian influence in Baghdad .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : @ @ @ @ @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Saker
U.S. officials have now made clear that if U.S. forces become removed from Iraq as Iraq’s Parliament unanimously demanded and Iraq’s Prime Minister affirmed on January 5th, then the U.S. will try to break Iraq up into separate Sunni and Shia nations, and will also definitely impose sanctions against Iraq or (if Iraq becomes successfully broken up) against the Shia-governed portion of Iraq, in order to destroy Iraq (or the Shiite regions in Iraq) totally.
The U.S. is determined to separate both Lebanon and Syria (both of which are supported by Shia Iran) from Iran so that Iran will become internationally isolated unless and until Iran again becomes controlled by the U.S. Government as it was during the period from 1953 when U.S. imposed the Shah’s dictatorship there, till 1979, when Iranians finally took back control over their country and kicked out the U.S.-and-allied foreign oil companies.
By far the best international journalism about the situation today regarding Iraq has come from the Middle East Eye, which headlined on January 23rd, “US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes”, and sub-headed, “With Shia parties pressuring American troops to leave, Washington wants to create an autonomous region around Anbar to maintain its presence.” Their reporter in Baghdad, Suadad al-Salhy, stated that,
Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.
The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties’ attempts to expel American troops from their country.
Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.
For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. …
“The creation of a Sunni region has always been an option for the US. The Iranians cannot be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah” in Lebanon, the former US official told MEE.
“The project is American, not Sunni. The presence of the American forces has been the guarantor for the Sunnis and the Kurds, so if the US has to leave Iraq, then establishing a Sunni region in western Iraq is its plan to curb Iran and its arms in the Middle East,” he added.
“We are talking about establishing a country, not an administrative region.” …
The Arab Gulf states allied to US, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, support and finance this project, Sunni and Shia leaders and officials told MEE.
“Funding is in place, international pressure is in place, and the necessary military strength is in place to create this region,” a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks said.
“Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the project because the US and Gulf states back it,” the leader added.
“A huge amount of money and investment offered by the Sunni states is at stake, and these will turn the Anbar desert into green oases and rebuild the destroyed areas in Mosul and Salah al-Din. Who will care about oil?”
This is a war by U.S., Saudi Arabia, the other Arab oil monarchies, and Israel, against Iran, and it will become also a U.S.-v.-Russia war unless Russia complies with America’s demand to stay out, and not to defend Iran.
Anbar Province is one of two places where the fanatical Sunni ISIS was located in Iraq, the other being the city of Mosul directly to the north of Anbar. Both areas are so heavily Sunni so that in order for Iraq’s mainly Shiite government to become able to wage an effective war against ISIS in Iraq, it first had to convince Anbar’s residents that this would be something which would benefit all of Iraq and not only Shiites in Iraq. Fallujah and Ramadi, two cities where Iraq’s Government were especially trying to defeat ISIS in 2014, are in Anbar Province. Until 2015, Iranian General Soleimani’s forces (all of them Shiites) were virtually the only effective forces trying to exterminate ISIS; and therefore, Iraq’s Government had to emphasize that killing ISIS was a patriotic, not a sectarian, matter. On 17 September 2016 U.S. President Obama bombed Syria’s army in the heart of Syria’s oil-producing region, the city Deir Ezzor, for Syria’s ISIS to move in and take Syria’s oil. During October through December 2016, two of Syria’s main enemies, Obama, and Turkey’s leader Erdogan, established a system to reinforce ISIS in Deir Ezzor, by supplying them ISIS fighters fleeiing from Mosul in Iraq’s north. On 11 December 2016, I headlined “Obama & Erdogan Move ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad”, and reported that the U.S. and Turkey were offering a deal to fighters for ISIS in Mosul, a way to stay alive but not in Iraq. They would relocate west into Syria, so as to assist the U.S. and its allies to overthrow, or at least seize territory from, Syria’s Government. America’s war against Syria used basically three proxy-forces as boots-on-the-ground: Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Kurds — all three being Sunnis. The Sauds provided most of the funding for it, because the goal was to place Syria under the control of the Sauds. And the U.S. sticks by that goal. No matter how much the people in Syria oppose it. It’s not only Trump who is obsessed with this goal; Obama was, though he wasn’t as obsessed with destroying Iran as Trump is.
On January 24th, Middle East Eye’s Washington reporter Ali Harb headlined “At what point do US troops in Iraq become an occupation force?” and he took the most literalist approach possible to this question, in which the obvious answer should be “as soon as we invaded and occupied the country on 20 March 2003.” He got an answer from the U.S. Government, saying that “diplomatic notes, which are not public, remain the legal basis for the presence of about 5,000 American soldiers in Iraq today” and that “the letters contain a provision that gives US forces one year to withdraw after they are formally asked by Baghdad to leave.” So: if this U.S. Government, which has become infamous for violating its contracts (such as the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Agreement), alleges that it can stay in Iraq for another year and yet still remain within the bounds of those “diplomatic notes, which are not public” — and which a supplicant Iraqi Government had allegedly consented to in 2014 — then Iraq’s Government will need to wait until 5 January 2021 before accusing the U.S. Government of violating that secret and coerced “1-year cancellation clause.” And, if Iraq’s Government is, at that time, still insisting that U.S. terminate its occupation of Iraq, then, Joe Biden’s 2007 plan will start being implemented, to break Iraq into its Shiite Arab southeast (friendly toward Iran), Sunni Kurd northeast (backed by U.S.), and Sunni Arab southwestern desert half of Iraq’s expanse (hostile toward Iran). There would be no more land-connection between Iran to Iraq’s east and Syria to Iraq’s west. For Iran, that would be like cutting off its two arms. Furthermore, Ali Harb noted that the Obama-Trump Administrations’ Pentagon official Brett McGurk said that “If the U.S. leaves Iraq, it means NATO, 20 western partners also leave.” McGurk was suggesting that Iraq without U.S. would become then again a U.S. enemy. The U.S. regime is determined to destroy, one by one, each country that tries to block U.S.-and-allied billionaires from taking them over. Here are two maps of Iraq, which show what trisecting Iraq would mean:
https://www.stratejikortak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/iraq-etnik-haritasi.png
https://i1.wp.com/transnational.live/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/iraq-map.gif
So: Syria would be surrounded by U.S. allies.
According to MEE’s Suadad al-Salhy in Baghdad,
Leaders familiar with the ongoing talks on partitioning Iraq said that Sunni politicians are seriously involved in the discussions and are waiting to see the demonstrations’ outcome before deciding on their path.
“The meetings are taking place in full swing, and all the Sunni leaders are attending. But they deny this publicly, waiting for the conditions that protect them,” a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks told MEE.
If the protesters are able to force through a national government that takes care of all Iraqi communities, then the Sunnis will reject any planned autonomous area, the leader said.
Failure to achieve this, he warned, would see Sunnis supporting the partition project en masse.
“Sunnis do not want to be part of the Shia crescent, and refuse to submit to Iranian control. So they will offer the Americans permission to build military bases in their lands, in exchange for the necessary support to establish the desired region.”
The Atlantic Council is NATO’s main PR organization. Ali Harb reported:
“We’re not at a point where the US and Iraq are enemies,” said Abbas Kadhim, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Center think-tank in Washington. …
Kadhim, of the Atlantic Council, called for negotiating an American military withdrawal from Iraq in a way that would ease the tensions of the past few weeks and preserve the strategic partnership between Washington and Baghdad. …
Kadhim said the “knee-jerk reactions” that Baghdad and Washington have been displaying are not helpful.
“At the end of the day, the United States cannot impose its troops on Iraq. There’s no justification for keeping troops in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people, and it’s not in the interest of the United States to do that,” he told MEE. …
The US envoy for the Coalition against IS, James Jeffery, … also issued an implicit warning to Baghdad on Thursday [Jan. 23].
At a news conference, he said that if the US and Iraq were to negotiate a troop withdrawal, everything else would be on the table, including Washington’s diplomatic support to Baghdad.
“We’re not interested in sitting down and talking only about withdrawal,” Jeffery said.
“Any conversations that the Iraqis want to have with us about the United States in Iraq, we believe should and must cover the entire gamut of our relationship, which goes way beyond our forces, goes way beyond security.”
Kadhim said imposing sanctions on Iraq would be harmful to both nations and counterproductive to Washington’s stated aim of reducing Iranian influence in Baghdad.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-28--To Huawei or not to Huawei; UK decides on 5G provider

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johanna Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… The UK security council met on Tuesday to discuss whether or not to exclude Huawei from providing Britain ’ s 5G networks , which are to be rolled out gradually by 2022 .
The outcome ?
A compromise : Huawei is to have a limited role , allowed to account for 35 % of the equipment in a network ’ s periphery , which includes radio masts .
In addition it will be banned from sensitive areas such as military bases and nuclear sites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most significant decision since he won the December election , and as usual , he has dividing public opinion .
However it is not only the public , but Britain ’ s security experts who have been split over the Huawei issue , with the UK ’ s Government Communications Headquarters ( GCHQ ) warning for years of the security risks of depending on Chinese technology .
Suspicion over Huawei technology is not so much based on factual evidence of how it can be used maliciously for spying etc , but more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump came to power , China has always been more foe than friend , and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made his views on China clear , denouncing it as an ‘ Orwellian ’ state , ‘ truly hostile ’ to Western values .
For the Trump administration China is seen only as a threat , with any cooperation deemed hugely risky and Donald Trump has declared that Huawei is not a company it will work with .
Considerable pressure has been put on the UK government of late to follow suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even to the extent of the US threatening to pull the plug on the post-Brexit trade deal with the UK if it failed to toe the line .
Mike Pompeo gave a gentle reminder to Johnson ’ s government in a tweet on Sunday , quoting MP Tom Tugendhat who had said ‘ only nations able to protect their data will be sovereign ’ .
The reality is however , that much of the fear surrounding Huawei is not based in fact , but steeped in paranoia .
And even in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in some cyber attack on the UK via Huawei technology ( Huawei strongly denies the Chinese state could interfere in this way and we ’ d probably have to be in a state of war for this to happen ) , the UK has been preparing for such a scenario for years .
Back in 2010 , when reports emerged that Huawei infrastructure was ‘ behaving unusually ’ , GCHQ set up its own centre – ‘ The Cell ’ – to analyse every single Huawei device destined for the UK market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in British communications infrastructure since 2005 , when the UK telecoms giant BT contracted it to supply routers and other transmission equipment .
Three out of four of the UK ’ s major mobile phone providers ( EE , Vodafone and Three ) already use Huawei equipment in their networks .
The real risk in fact , cyber security experts say , is not from deliberately malicious behaviour by the Chinese , but from sub-standard engineering , which leaves gaping holes in their products which can be open to manipulation .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security analysts are aware of , as a report published in 2018 by GCHQ revealed .
In fact , with the immense scrutiny Huawei continues to face , the chance of it being able to pose any real national security threat diminishes .
As John Suffolk , head of Huawei ’ s cyber security operations said last year “ We are probably the most audited , inspected , reviewed , poked and prodded company in the world ” .
Ironically , with all eyes on Huawei , the security risk from other technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not surprising that Boris Johnson has given Huawei the green light .
Firstly , he knew there would be “ substantial ” repercussions , as Beijing warned , to other trade and investment projects had the company been banned altogether .
More importantly however , Johnson knows that for post-Brexit Britain , being a front runner technologically will be a priority , as will cooperation with states outwith the EU .
The relationship with America will always be of importance , but Britain will have to tread carefully in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers , including China and the rest of the BRICS nations .
The decision by Johnson not to ban Huawei outright is a signal to the US , that while it is willing to listen to the partners on the other side of the Atlantic , post-Brexit Britain will have to forge its own , independent , pragmatic path .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
The UK security council met on Tuesday to discuss whether or not to exclude Huawei from providing Britain’s 5G networks, which are to be rolled out gradually by 2022. The outcome? A compromise: Huawei is to have a limited role, allowed to account for 35% of the equipment in a network’s periphery, which includes radio masts. In addition it will be banned from sensitive areas such as military bases and nuclear sites.
It was Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s most significant decision since he won the December election, and as usual, he has dividing public opinion. However it is not only the public, but Britain’s security experts who have been split over the Huawei issue, with the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) warning for years of the security risks of depending on Chinese technology.
Suspicion over Huawei technology is not so much based on factual evidence of how it can be used maliciously for spying etc, but more fuelled by US foreign policy. Since Trump came to power, China has always been more foe than friend, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made his views on China clear, denouncing it as an ‘Orwellian’ state, ‘truly hostile’ to Western values. For the Trump administration China is seen only as a threat, with any cooperation deemed hugely risky and Donald Trump has declared that Huawei is not a company it will work with. Considerable pressure has been put on the UK government of late to follow suit in rejecting business with the Chinese firm, even to the extent of the US threatening to pull the plug on the post-Brexit trade deal with the UK if it failed to toe the line. Mike Pompeo gave a gentle reminder to Johnson’s government in a tweet on Sunday, quoting MP Tom Tugendhat who had said ‘only nations able to protect their data will be sovereign’.
The reality is however, that much of the fear surrounding Huawei is not based in fact, but steeped in paranoia. And even in the unlikely event the Chinese state were to engage in some cyber attack on the UK via Huawei technology (Huawei strongly denies the Chinese state could interfere in this way and we’d probably have to be in a state of war for this to happen), the UK has been preparing for such a scenario for years. Back in 2010, when reports emerged that Huawei infrastructure was ‘behaving unusually’, GCHQ set up its own centre – ‘The Cell’ – to analyse every single Huawei device destined for the UK market.
Indeed the Chinese company has been involved in British communications infrastructure since 2005, when the UK telecoms giant BT contracted it to supply routers and other transmission equipment. Three out of four of the UK’s major mobile phone providers (EE, Vodafone and Three) already use Huawei equipment in their networks. The real risk in fact, cyber security experts say, is not from deliberately malicious behaviour by the Chinese, but from sub-standard engineering, which leaves gaping holes in their products which can be open to manipulation. This is something, however, which British security analysts are aware of, as a report published in 2018 by GCHQ revealed.
In fact, with the immense scrutiny Huawei continues to face, the chance of it being able to pose any real national security threat diminishes. As John Suffolk, head of Huawei’s cyber security operations said last year “We are probably the most audited, inspected, reviewed, poked and prodded company in the world”. Ironically, with all eyes on Huawei, the security risk from other technology providers may not be given warranted attention.
It’s not surprising that Boris Johnson has given Huawei the green light. Firstly, he knew there would be “substantial” repercussions, as Beijing warned, to other trade and investment projects had the company been banned altogether. More importantly however, Johnson knows that for post-Brexit Britain, being a front runner technologically will be a priority, as will cooperation with states outwith the EU. The relationship with America will always be of importance, but Britain will have to tread carefully in future, strengthening ties with other global powers, including China and the rest of the BRICS nations. The decision by Johnson not to ban Huawei outright is a signal to the US, that while it is willing to listen to the partners on the other side of the Atlantic, post-Brexit Britain will have to forge its own, independent, pragmatic path.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-28--Bolton, Vindman twins & NYT conspire to damage Trump during Senate trial (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest “ bombshell ” leak ( and soon to be latest bombshell dud ) via John Bolton ’ s tell-all book , where the neocon warmonger claims that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden .
The newest bombshell dud was leaked by the New York Times , as Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman ( twin brother of the ‘ almost three time Ukraine Defense Minister ’ , Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman ) was in charge of reviewing Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman , a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council ( NSC ) , is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials .
The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s draft manuscript after it was submitted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The review is a standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts , op-eds , or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication .
The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton ’ s draft book manuscript , which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30 , alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden , among others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had seen the Bolton manuscript ; its sources were “ multiple people ” who “ described Mr. Bolton ’ s account of the Ukraine affair.
” Bolton ’ s lawyer , Chuck Cooper , issued a statement in which he said : “ It is clear , regrettably , from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.
” He did not confirm or deny the Times ‘ reporting on the content of the manuscript .
Yevegeny Vindman is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ key witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump .
The brothers have offices across from each other .
Alexander Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee in his closed-door deposition that he told his brother , Yevgeny , about President Trump ’ s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
In November , Yevgeny Vindman attended his brother ’ s public testimony at the House impeachment inquiry .
The Wall Street Journal described Vindman as “ an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues.
” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman described his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” at the NSC .
A U.S. Office of Government Ethics web page , updated on Friday , identifies Yevegeny Vindman as the “ Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official ” for the NSC .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest “bombshell” leak (and soon to be latest bombshell dud) via John Bolton’s tell-all book, where the neocon warmonger claims that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
The newest bombshell dud was leaked by the New York Times, as Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman (twin brother of the ‘almost three time Ukraine Defense Minister’, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman) was in charge of reviewing Bolton’s book at the NSC.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Breitbart News…
A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials.
The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.
The review is a standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication.
The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton’s draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were “multiple people” who “described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”
Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, issued a statement in which he said: “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.” He did not confirm or deny the Times‘ reporting on the content of the manuscript.
Yevegeny Vindman is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is one of Democrats’ key witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The brothers have offices across from each other.
Alexander Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee in his closed-door deposition that he told his brother, Yevgeny, about President Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
In November, Yevgeny Vindman attended his brother’s public testimony at the House impeachment inquiry.
The Wall Street Journal described Vindman as “an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues.” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman described his brother as the “lead ethics official” at the NSC. A U.S. Office of Government Ethics web page, updated on Friday, identifies Yevegeny Vindman as the “Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official” for the NSC.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report