Europe in the crossfire of words and aggressive gestures

Article published in Katoikos

Russia and NATO: who is threatening whom? Wikimedia Commons

NATO and Russia

In her recent article “Russia – A Threat to European Security? A View from Germany”, Gabriele Schöler argues that NATO’s recent “counteraction” against Russia amounts to “provocative behaviour”, since it could be seen as a threat to Russian security. Since 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the loss of much of its territorial control and global influence. Not only has Russia lost its status as a major world power, it has given that very power up to its arch-enemy from the Cold War: the United States or rather NATO, when the latter integrated all the former Eastern European Warsaw Pact states and three former USRR republics to boot.

After this historical and political reasoning, Schöler openly asks: “Who is perceived to pose a threat to whom?” claiming that this is a more critical and logical question than “who started the conflict?”

As NATO troops are currently deployed in Poland and the Baltics, Schöler goes on by saying that deploying “NATO troops in Central and Eastern Europe on a permanent basis would be a clear violation of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris in 1997”. The act was initiated to ease Moscow’s concerns about NATO’s eastern enlargement and its original mission was to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security”.

However, as Russia started to regain political, economic and military strength, its leadership took a more confrontational stance which was not aligned with Western values. Published early in 2017 by the Royal United Services for Defence and Security Studies, the book “NATO and the North Atlantic: Revitalising Collective Defence” supports the argument that Russia is trying to meddle in Western affairs, claiming as its starting point that “Russia is blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that serve as the foundation of European law and order.” The greater part of this work’s thesis puts Russia at the centre of the West’s military and defence concerns, giving NATO a palpable reason for its comeback as an essential international organisation.

 NATO’s revamped role

During the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate, frequently contested NATO’s existence, calling it “obsolete”, while accusing its members of not upholding their commitment of paying 2% of their GDP to the Brussels-based organisation.

In April this year, after a meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Washington DC, President Trump backtracked one of his most controversial campaign promises, saying NATO was “no longer obsolete”. According to the analyst Michael Chossudovsky, pro-NATO advisers influenced Trump to change his stance, showing that the US President is not exerting any presidential authority but caving in to the dominant interests of the US elites.

In Europe, NATO is widely perceived as an indispensable institution for the security of the continent, based on the argument of a resurgent Russia and a “vulnerable Europe” following the terror attacks in several European cities.

On the same note, Andrew A. Michta wrote for Carnegie Europe: “A Common Threat Assessment for NATO?” pointing out “two issues” that are rapidly rising to the top of the organisation’s agenda: “regionally, a resurgent and geo-strategically assertive Russia and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism”. Michta goes on, saying that this is “a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security outlooks of key European members with that of the US”.

Nevertheless, in May, on the occasion of the first NATO summit attended by Trump, in Brussels, the US president kept his accusations towards 23 of the 28 NATO members of being freeloaders for not paying their fair share towards military protection. The US’ current defence budget of $824.6 billion is the second largest item of federal government expenditure after social security at $1 trillion.

Russia: Declining power or imminent threat?

Now, let’s take a look at how the Western media has been portraying Russia’s conduct. The Economist published in October 2016 “The threat from Russia”, where it highlighted the seemingly endless episode of “Russia hacking the American election” and touched on the “mass slaughter in Syria”, the annexation of Crimea and accusations of Russia talking casually about using nuclear weapons.

While the idea of a fragmented Europe is likely to be in the Kremlin’s interests, the Russian intervention in the Syrian conflict is evidently not in the West’s interests.

Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad said during an interview with a Chinese news broadcaster that “the only serious force effectively fighting the Islamic State together with Syria is Russia”. Assad went further, saying that the US deployment of military in Syrian territory was illegal since they were not invited. Interestingly, Reuters published a similar news piece – “Assad calls US forces ‘invaders’ but still hopeful on Trump” – yet it opted to leave out Assad’s declarations on Russia.

On the occasion of the forthcoming celebration of the 1917 October Revolution, Foreign Policy (FP) magazine wrote, last December, “The Soviet Union is Gone, But It’s Still Collapsing”, in which a number of FP’s contributors outlined the reasons behind the Russian Federation’s stagnation over time, mainly from the 2000’s. The authors pointed out that Russia should not base its foreign policy on ideology and claimed that the former Empire can’t lead through imperialism. Moreover, they claim that the advent of globalisation has only empowered autocrats.

Lenin and The House of Soviets in the background. (Photo: Marta Pacheco)

In March 2017, James Kirchick wrote for FP the article “The Plot Against Europe”, in which he envisages a gloomy future where Putin will roll into Estonia, triggering the first in a series of assaults.

FP magazine has also been publishing differing views on the so-called “Russian threat”. In his article entitled “Vladimir Putin Isn’t a Supervillain”, Mark Lawrence Shred argues that “Russia is neither the global menace, nor dying superpower, of America’s increasingly hysterical fantasies.” For the author, reality lies between the extremes – a declining power and an imminent threat. Russia is not nearly the global menace that many fear, nor is it doomed to collapse. Russia’s geopolitical strength is indeed constrained by its demographic, economic, social, and political weaknesses, but those aren’t as catastrophic as they’re often made to be.

On the other hand, in March 2017, EUobserver published an article “Russian missiles pose new threat to Europe”, in which critics from the US and Germany expressed concerns about the Russian missiles deployed in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. On 10 March, after the EU summit in Brussels, EUobserver delivered another alarming title: “EU alarmed by Russian meddling in Balkans”. At stake are growing fears of nationalist and ethnic tensions in the region that EU leaders believe to be the ideal opportunity for Russian interference in the form of disinformation campaigns.

Who is threatening whom?

Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, tensions have grown between Moscow and the West. Endless warnings were delivered by EU leaders until economic sanctions were imposed on Russia. While Russia claims Crimea as its rightful territory, the West, backed by NATO, started moving forward with military deployments in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. The Kremlin did not take long to react to the military deployed in Poland and the Baltics, branding it a threat to Russia’s national security.

The Cold War feeling has been growing more intense. At least, that’s what the media are conveying on both East and West. Will Putin make an attempt on European soil through the Baltic? What should NATO do to make it more difficult to present its largely defensive acts as aggressive moves against Russia?

Comparing the pictures one sees through the lenses of Western media on the one hand, and the RT and Sputnik, often rightly branded as the Kremlin’s propaganda outlets, on the other, one cannot help but see yet another war of words and (dis)information.

Chemical attacks and other motivations behind Trump’s recent raids

Article published in Katoikos

                                           U.S. Navy Destroyers Launch Strikes on Syria on April 7, 2017 © Google

International finger-pointing will not bring justice for the chemical attack in Syria. With tensions running high, only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and diffuse the critical situation.

The recent US airstrikes on the Al-Sha’ayrat airbase were the first time in six years that Washington has directly interfered in the Syrian conflict, and they bring to the surface memories of the US invasion of Iraq, in March 2003.

These warlike actions have triggered a diplomatic row throughout the international community. The question of who is responsible for the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoum, in the district of Idlib, which killed dozens of civilians, remains open. It also seems clear that US President Donald Trump’s order for the raid was not only a knee-jerk reaction to the use of chemical weapons but should be seen in a wider geopolitical context. The blame game has started once again and the international community is deeply divided and apprehensive as to what will follow.

 United States

At the United Nations, on 7 April, US Ambassador Nikki Hailey delivered an accusatory speech blaming the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian regime. Hailey claimed: “Assad did this [chemical attack] because he thought he could get away with it as he knew Russia would have his back.” A different opinion was expressed by Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who affirmed during a CNN interview that “what matters here is the evidence and the facts”, after having characterised Trump’s military airstrikes as “reckless”. In addition, Gabbard acknowledged being “sceptical” of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attack.

Moreover, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard whether she believed the Pentagon’s claims of having evidence to prove Assad’s culpability. She replied that “they did not bring up that evidence before Congress, to the American people”, further adding that “they have not sought authorisation from Congress to launch this military action on another country”. The Congresswoman accused the US of for years “waging this war covertly through the CIA” in order to overthrow the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, on 11 April, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went on his first official visit to Russia with the arduous quest of trying to convince Moscow to choose sides. Tillerson posed a “friendly ultimatum” to  Moscow, requesting that the Russians join the US and “their like-minded people” or remain on the side of Assad and Iran.

Syria and Russia

Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moallem stated on Thursday, 6 April, that the Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons “even against the terrorists” who threaten their own people. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, he considers the US strikes on Syria to represent “an act of aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law”. Furthermore, the Russian leader requested theUS to provide the evidence they claim to have: “Show it to UN observers and at the Security Council,” said Putin.

The recent veto from Russia at the Security Council on the draft US-UK resolution to punish Assad for the chemical attack thus came as no surprise.

Europe’s reactions

The US attack hailed a low-point for trust between Russia and the US, prompting international reactions that reveal very different positions. Overall in the West, the main chorus of voices can be heard clinging to the premise that “Assad must go”.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have attributed responsibility for the attacks to Assad alone. Merkel characterised the US airstrikes as “understandable”, given the critical situation in Syria.

The UK has also stood beside the US, with Prime Minister Theresa May demanding an investigation into the attack, while defending the view that Assad cannot stay in power. Yet, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated that Britain would not be joining airstrikes in Syria. A different position was adopted by Peter Ford, an ex-UK Ambassador who gave an interview defending that it is “highly unlikely” that Assad or Russia were behind the chemical attacks. Ford claims that the Assad regime was aware that it would never have benefited from such an assault.

If this form of atrocity seems like an act of desperation, why would the Syrian regime jeopardise its reputation in a war in which it is has lately gained the upper hand? Equally odd is the immediate response by the US, just two days after the incident. A fact that gave the Russian Foreign Ministry a good opportunity to accuse Washington of “preparing the airstrikes” long before the attack in Idlib.

At EU level, Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini was quick to respond to the chemical attack, saying that “there was a primary responsibility” from the Syrian government. However, on behalf of the EU, she has condemned the US airstrikes of 6 April. At the same time, following her recent official visit to Moscow, Mogherini reaffirmed the EU’s stance on extending Russian sanctions.

NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an official statement that “the Syrian regime bears the full responsibility for this development”. The organisation’s chief further stated that “NATO has consistently condemned Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons as a clear breach of international norms and agreements”, even though, so far, no real proof of such accusations has been made public.

Turkey and the Israeli Connection

Turkey belittled the US attack as a “cosmetic intervention” that will not serve to oust Assad. Israel and its security officials, meanwhile, said it was only “highly probable” that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian regime.

There is another surprising thing about Trump’s swift military response: the policy that he promptly followed was very much aligned with Hillary Clinton’s conviction, as revealed by Wikileaks, that “the best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad”, an ally of would-be nuclear power Iran.

According to the Syrian analyst Afraa Dagher, it was no coincidence that the US chose Al-sha’ayrat airbase as a target: “The Al-Sha’ayrat airbase was the place from which Syria fired anti-missile Sam rockets at attacking Israeli warplanes, two weeks ago. Syria downed one of the four warplanes, hit another and forced the remaining two fighter jets to quickly fly out of Syrian airspace.” Dagher believes Trump’s actions have sent a strong message of support to Israel, which continues its illegal occupation of the Syrian territory of Golan Heights.

Further research from the Canada-based organisation Global Research has brought to light information stating that the “Pentagon trained Syria’s Al-Qaeda “rebels” in the use of chemical weapons”. This piece of news was originally published in the British Daily Mail in January 2013, but it has vanished from the website after the controversy around the “mysterious” chemical attack followed by the US airstrikes on Syria. Furthermore, before these airstrikes, Assad gave an interview to a Cypriot paper, in which he pointedly stated that “to protect Europe from terrorists, (the West) should stop backing them in Syria”.

Wikileaks revelations with Geopolitical Implications

To add fuel to this diplomatic conflict, Wikileaks revealed US State Department plans to destabilise Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. Additional cables revealed the existence of CIA involvement on the ground in Syria, fomenting mass demonstrations as early as March 2011.

The leaks suggest direct involvement by the Israeli government in the plans to provoke civil conflict and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt, aimed at demolishing the power structure in Syria in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.

According to Mint PressNews, “It became then evident that the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on to organise, arm and finance rebels from the Free Syrian Army.” In 2012, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People” was created by these very nations with an agenda to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “The plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear a coup,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

As always, global energy supply may shed some light on possible geopolitical motivations. According to one view by Dmitry Minin, published in May 2013 by the Strategic Cultural Foundation, based in Moscow, “a battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realised that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favour of Iran and Russia; thus, it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.”

What’s next?

Russia and Iran, the alliance behind Assad, have warned that they will retaliate should red lines be crossed again. While the drums of war are being banged with increasing intensity and the investigations at a standstill, with Russia and the West unable or unwilling to agree even on basic facts, it is crucial to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation in order to bring to justice those who are responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria.

Aleppo and the war on the right to know

Article published in Katoikos

Reporting in times of war reveals both the magnitude and the weakness of journalism. © Khalid Albaih

The ravaged battleground that replaced the once cosmopolitan city of Aleppo is at the centre of a major war of information and disinformation.

Biased journalism: a look at the media coverage of Aleppo

Over the past weeks Aleppo has been worldwide news after the Syrian Army regained control of the city, home to thousands of besieged civilians. The media coverage of this case has been quite diverse, so it deserves particular attention, avoiding excessive reliance on the mainstream Western media.

A quick anthology of Western reporting from Aleppo: The Guardian reported atrocities perpetrated by Assad forces within “moments” of retaking the city. CNN reported that “the regime and Russia — its most powerful ally — decimated neighbourhoods with airstrikes, leaving scorched earth where a bustling metropolis once stood”. The American news channel further stated that “those who remain in the city fear reprisals from Assad forces”.

While the West’s big hitters seem to be flooding the news with atrocities committed in Aleppo, the media outlet RT, formerly called Russia Today, has been sharing videos and images of Syrians celebrating on the streets after reporting that the Syrian army had retaken Eastern Aleppo.

Admittedly, I have not found any international news channel outside Russia reporting that civilians were returning to their normal lives in liberated and ruined Eastern Aleppo. It is, of course, unsurprising that RT should broadcast expressions of support by the Syrian people for Bashar al-Assad; the question here is why the Western mainstream media, which claim to provide objective reporting, chose to sweep out such politically significant social behaviour, even if it characterises only part of the Syrian population.

How can the two sides of the international media broadcast such different images from one reality on the ground?

Through “enemy” eyes

Ilya Yabolok authored the academic article Conspiracy Theories as a Russian Public Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT) where he defends the claim that RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the “information monopoly” of Western media. He explains that the main goal of its journalists is to “find the news that would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and bring it to viewers’ attention”.

Yabolok further claims that the Russian channel challenges “an elitist aspect of American politics through populist ideas”, vocalised by experts and show hosts; real people with real ideas that are often overlooked in the search for a balanced analysis of certain subjects.

Founded in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the Free Thought Project, a hub for “conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability”, delivered a compilation of reportedly fake news about the liberation of Aleppo. Patrick Henningsen and Shawn Helton characterised the Western media’s reporting of the Syrian government retake of Eastern Aleppo as “inverted coverage”.

Examining the terrain where journalism faces its biggest challenges will be crucial to determining the veracity of the reporting.

Vanessa Beeley, a British independent journalist based in Syria, who has been actively contesting the mainstream media, is reporting from the ground in the war-torn city of Aleppo. She denounced “the lies of the Western media”, particularly with regard to the White Helmets. This volunteer rescue NGO supposedly acts “neutrally, impartially and for all Syrians”. It was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’.

Independent journalists have been speaking out against the Western's media coverage of the war in Aleppo, Syria. © Honest Reporting

Beeley has accused the NGO of being “no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated extremist terrorist groups […] carrying out criminal acts alongside the recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions”.

Further research on this topic has revealed that the White Helmets have been funded “to the tune of over $100 million [by] the UK and the US alone” and that these resources are channelled through a Dutch NGO registered as Mayday Rescue.

The 21st Century Wire media outlet – “news for the waking generation” – has denounced the work of the White Helmets, claiming they have “rescued the same girl three times in three months” and that “none of [the White Helmet] claims can be independently verified”.

Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist, delivered an interesting and rather marginalised speech during a press conference at the United Nations in December 2016. Having visited Syria several times during the war herself, she condemned the non-existence of Western broadcast news reporting from the ground in Aleppo and found it astonishing that the mainstream media in the West had created a deceptive image of the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.

Diplomatic accusations and geopolitics in Syria

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council on 14 December 2016, the US Ambassador Samantha Power accused the Assad government of “conquest and carnage” in Aleppo, rhetorically asking the Syrian government whether they were ashamed of their actions.

Her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin retorted by reproaching the power of cynicism, indirectly alluding to the wars waged by the US. “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember the track record of your country,” Churkin said.

Since Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria in support of Assad’s forces, the US has vehemently condemned its presence in the country and the blame-game of “who bombed who” has become routine. Yet, it seems difficult for the American government to accept the fact that Russia and Iran are effectively combating the rebels in Syria, many of whom belong to terrorist organisations that the West too wants to bring to heel.

Mainstream media: a weapon of disinformation?

In his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin points out that “the world media are part of the global elite”. Estulin further states, “A free press is a myth because it is property of the powerful. Only when ownership is shared by many private citizens will a truly free press come about, based on our ‘right to know’.”

According to Estulin, the media act as a powerful tool to shape public opinion, while representing primarily the interests of the rich and influential. Here too, the problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands.

The mainstream media in the US are “very” dishonest, said Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, in a recent interview to Fox News.

© robinhoodrevival

The documentary film The War You Don’t See by the Australian journalist John Pilger denounces the ghastly circumstances in which the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam were carried out by the US and British governments and largely ignored by the Western media. The film is based on documented statements, which reveal the indisputable relationship between the media and the political sphere, particularly in periods marked by war.

In yet another documentary, entitled Orwell Rolls in his Grave, the American Robert Kane Pappas presents additional evidence that portrays the media as an “antidemocratic force in the United States”.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the classic by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, provides a strong theoretical basis to the idea that the media, by their very nature, serve the ruling power. Applying the “Propaganda Model”, which is essentially a conceptual theoretical model explaining how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media, the authors claim that the North American media are at the service of large corporations and the state.

In times of war there is a wide range of contradictions and they all have the same goal: to become part of the “reality of the media” by entering people’s houses and hence becoming part of their realities, shaping their opinions. The interests of the warring factions, the moral value of the reporters and the different strategies of media companies play a very important role in establishing different versions of the truth.

The media do not only report on military conflicts, they play a crucial and increasingly active role in them. The reporting on the military conflict in Syria reveals both the magnitude of the task for journalism in wartime and its structural weaknesses, if not its complete inability to get to grips with events in a fair and balanced manner.