Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine on Fire defies mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine war

 Article published in Travel Tomorrow

Ukraine on Fire presents a likely controversial overview of Ukraine’s political history leading up to the 2014 protests in Euromaidan and shedding light on today’s military developments in Eastern Europe.

Directed by Igor Lopatonok and produced by Oscar winner Oliver Stone, the 2016 documentary defies the mainstream media narrative on the geopolitical analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, spanning events from the World War II to the Cold War. The film features the international pressure over Ukraine — leading to an apparent coup d’état ousting the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich and culminates with the implications of NATO expansion.

In the documentary, Oliver Stone uses his critical lens on the Ukraine crisis, and more specifically on the role played by the US. Labelled as propaganda by the Western media, Russia’s argument of “denazifying” Ukraine as a justification for the invasion is analysed in Ukraine on Fire with the spotlight on a number of neo-nazis groups that, over time, seemed to have incorporated the Ukrainian National Guard.

Ukrainian Nazis joining forces with Hitler

In a throwback to World War II, the documentary denounces the estimated 80,000 Ukrainian ultra-nationalists — notorious for their cruelty towards the Polish, the Jewish and Russian people — who have joined the Schutzstaffel, the infamous Nazi SS.

In 1929, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded by Stefan Bandera, an ardent nationalist known by the CIA for leading a “reign of terror” and masterminding several ethnic cleansing operations, such as the 1941 Babi Yar massacre, where nearly 34,000 Jews were killed. However, after the war, Bandera fled to Europe, backed by the CIA for safe entry.

Cold War

“The CIA’s fingerprints can be found throughout the conflict,” the film stated, referring to the aftermath of the protests in Ukraine, both the 2004 and 2014 revolutions and events dating back to the Cold War. According to the documentary, CIA documents declassified in 2016 reveal strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

Such ties would serve as a possible source of counter-intelligence against the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Ukrainian nationalists were part of numerous military operations, including Operation Belladona, Operation Lynx, and Operation Trident. Yet, during the Nuremberg trials in 1945-1956, Ukrainian Nazis were spared from proper justice. “By 1951, the Agency [CIA] excused the illegal activities of OUN’s security branch in the name of Cold War necessity,” reads a declassified memo from the CIA.

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movement kept growing with names like Dmytro Dontsov, Andriy Melnyk and Roman Shukhevych shaping the neo-Nazi movement. In 1989, the Ukrainian nationalist organisation Narodny Rukh (People’s Movement) was created, serving as an incubator for neo-Nazi leaders against the Soviet Union’s trajectory towards the West guided by Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost policies.

Shortly before the end of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Oleh Tyahnybok founded yet another nationalist group, Svoboda, which ideology was the purging of Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. As early as 2012, the BBC reported the danger of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists, particularly Svoboda, and the EU passed a resolution condemning the group as anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

US ties with Svoboda

Despite the warnings from Europe, Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met Tyahnybok, Svoboda’s leader, in February 2014, ahead of the Euromaidan protests. The plot thickens when Nuland was caught on tape with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, masterminding an apparent coup d’état. “Now it would be great to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, f*ck the EU,” said Nuland.

Recalling his troubled tenure as a President (2010-2014), Viktor Yanukovich told Oliver Stone: “My high-level contact was VP Joe Biden. We had frequent phone conversations but the problem was that Mr Biden said one thing but they did different things in Ukraine.”

As for Mr Pyatt, the US Ambassador, Yanukovich said he received visits from Maidan representatives all the time. “We got the impression that the headquarters in charge of the whole process was in the US embassy,” said Yanukovich.

EU and IMF pressure

Throwing back to 2013, Yanukovich explained that Ukraine was going through a difficult economic period and the country was torn between turning to the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or Russia. With an existing trade agreement with Russia, Yanukovich sought to negotiate a new — and better — agreement, but both the EU and the IMF offered “unacceptable solutions”, he said.

“A significant rise in utility rates, for electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level,” said Yanukovich about the IMF’s proposal. Ukraine suggested other solutions, but these were officially rejected by the IMF in November 2013.

Kyiv was left with Russia, which said it was ready for partnership if their interests were taken into account. Interviewed by Oliver Stone, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that an agreement with Ukraine “would mean that EU goods would enter the Russian market without any negotiations”, which was not tolerated by the EU.

Talking about the trade agreement proposed by the EU, Yanukovich said that Ukraine couldn’t go ahead because it “required essential economic expenses and Europe didn’t provide any loss balancing.”

Euromaidan

After Ukraine’s decision to move towards the East for trade partnerships, the documentary reveals the manufacturing of a protest, with Euromaidan right behind the corner. As the November 2013 protest started in Ukraine, three new TV channels went on the air and suddenly became stunningly popular. Spilno TV was launched on November 21, Hromadske TV went live on November 22 and Expresso TV followed on November 24. These channels went viral supporting the protests, which were asking for an alignment with the EU and encouraging more and more people to go to Maidan.

Eventually, the protests led to overthrowing the President Yanukovich after an apparent coordinated action between the US and Ukrainian nationalist groups. Such outcome was reported by the filmmaker as the result of a successful staged revolution which included “money, the media and techniques”.

NATO expansion

A crucial element featured in the documentary is NATO’s military threat bordering the Russian Federation. NATO has not stopped expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 30 today, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

“Why do we react so vehemently to NATO’s expansion?” asked Putin. “We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of the USA.”

Putin stressed the military threat that NATO membership poses to Russia, saying that “anything at all can appear in such country such as missile defense systems, new bases, or, if necessary, new missile strike systems.”

Putin’s lack of sense of security has been compared to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the US drew a red line in respect of the installation of medium-range missiles 70 km from its border and the world was at the brink of nuclear war.

“This is a very dangerous topic. It’s a topic of war. War between the US and Russia would be complete madness,” said Yanukovich referring to NATO expansion.

Described by critics as Russian propaganda, Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire 2016 documentary presents verifiable claims that bring a different perspective when reflecting on the military escalation in Ukraine and have recently been voiced by the US political scientist John Mearsheimer.

Documentary: IRAN (Is Not The Problem)

Ten years later and it still makes sense....

"We have heard that Iran is a nuclear menace in defiance of the international community, bent on "wiping Israel off the map", supporting terrorism, and unwilling to negotiate. This documentary disputes these claims as they are presented to us and puts them in the context of present and historical US imperialism and hypocrisy with respect to Iran. It looks at the struggle for democracy inside Iran, the consequences of the current escalation and the potential US and/or Israeli attack, and suggests some alternatives to consider."

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.

Fidel, the political figure who dared to defy the United States

Fidel Castro during a visit to Washington, United States, April 1959. © Wikimedia

Loved by many and hated by countless, nobody could stay indifferent to the charismatic Fidel Castro. With 90 years old, the central figure of the Cuban Revolution who challenged the United States left this world amid tears and celebrations.

Saturday morning, November 26, Cuban President Raul Castro announced the passing of his brother and revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro Ruz. The strongman’s resilience saw its limits before the impossibility of jinking death.

In fact, to understand this hardliner is to understand the fight for an ideal. Castro represented the opposition to imperialism and the refusal of capitalist ideas. Influenced by the philosophy of Marx and Lenin, the revolutionary leader rejected all forms of foreign meddling while he embraced socialist ideas of redistribution and nationalisations. In the middle of the Cold War, a popular communist neighboring the United States was amongst the biggest nightmares of the US government leaded by then President Eisenhower.

After successfully ousting dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, during the Cuban Revolution, Castro assumed political and military power becoming Cuba’s Prime Minister, a position he hold until 1976. He became President of the Cuban island on that same year until he stepped down in 2008, opening the way for his brother Raul Castro. In total, 49 years of power shaped the life of this controversial man, whose obstinacy and fierce ideology made Cuba a unique country in the world.

Fidel becomes Prime Minister, 1959. © Wikimedia

However, Fidel’s commitment to the ideals of the Communist Party deeply clashed with the upper class of the Cuban society. With a Communist leading the country their property was threatened. Hence, many Cubans found a safe port in Miami, in the United States, where they could protect their wealth. This segment of the Cuban population was presumably capable of affording healthcare and quality education during Baptista’s rule, a basic right that was neglected for most Cubans. Not surprisingly, the exiled Cuban-Americans celebrated Fidel’s death with flags and parades.

 A man with trust issues

Castro was a wise man with substantial trust issues. After all, he saw the development of several coup d’états undertaken by the US that destabilised his closest neighbors. He vehemently refused to surrender to a capitalism system, which he considered “repugnant, filthy and gross” and the underlying reason for “war, hypocrisy and competition”. During his time in power, Fidel witnessed the commitment and agility of the United States in their numerous attempts to democratically overthrow elected leaders. Supported by vigorous smear campaigns, the Yankees teed up political momentums in their “backyard” strategically aiming at deposing leaders from Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, to name but a few. Castro was attentive to such actions as he was conscious he could be the next target.

The (failed) Bay of Pigs Invasion

While Castro was holding strong on his island, the US decided to change their tactics and in 1960 they reinforced a commercial embargo on Cuba in an attempt to impoverish an already feeble country. In 1961, an endeavor to overthrow the Cuban government was orchestrated by the CIA with the support from counter-revolutionary forces. Known as Operation Mongoose, this flopped attempt to undermine Castro’s regime will remain forever as the greatest defeat - and perhaps frustration - in the history of US authorities. This is one of the reasons why the US have always been so hostile towards Fidel and Cuba. In addition, they inflicted their defeat and irritation on their own people, building up and spreading a hilarious propaganda virus during the Cold War.

As a consequence of the failed coup, extra fuel was added to the US activities that continuously tried to dismantle what they perceived as a threat to a capitalist and free market based-system. Indeed, the CIA was said to have attempted over 600 assassinations to eliminate Castro, such tenacity mirrors the fear that Fidel’s popularity posed to his enemies. In October 1962, as the tension between the blocks was rising, the revolutionary leader saw himself at the center of a nuclear crisis when Soviet missiles were placed on Cuban soil as a reaction to US missiles deployed in Italy and Turkey. This marked the closest ever moment in history that full-scale nuclear war was regarded as imminent. When in 2015 US President Barack Obama visited Cuba in a historical effort for reconciliation between the two countries, Fidel said: "I don't trust the policy of the United States… but this does not mean I reject a pacific solution to the conflicts.”

Fidel’s social legacy

Indeed, almost five decades of power often label this great revolutionary as a dictator. However, the remarkable feature of this man was the peculiarity in the way he handled such an ever-growing greed, an insatiable thirst commonly consuming and corrupting whoever owns it.

The singularity of Fidel’s regime was the way it balanced the most essential needs of its people by using the country’s national resources to invest in healthcare and education for all Cubans. The electricity and telecommunications companies were nationalised on the island in a move that certainly disturbed many capitalists who longed for more investments and more capital. Yet, the Cuban system was made for the people and I believe there is little debate over whether this social system is highly attributed to Fidel’s footprint. According to the UN children’s agency – UNICEF – the rate literacy for the Cuban youth stands at 100% as does its adult literacy rate. If one talks about equity, one must think of the functionality of Castro’s administration.

In my view, Fidel’s private life is of no concern to the public domain and therefore family rows or romantic adventures that the charismatic leader pursued in life have no relevance whatsoever as to the legacy he left behind.

Hasta Siempre, Fidel

Certainly amongst the most divisive leaders in History, Fidel Castro guaranteed a seat in History. His fierce rejection to capitulate together with his determination in safeguarding Cuba’s sovereignty made of Castro the true cold war hero. At a national level, the majority of the Cuban people have always kept their faith in Fidel and look upon their strongman as Cuba’s true liberator. Indeed, when a leader has the approval of his/her own people, what is the legitimacy of outsiders to preach and smear?

Nevertheless, up until today, we haven’t found the perfect regime or system, even though great writers have produced pieces of literature about that utopic world where we all want to live. But it does not exist and Castro’s regime was not perfect. Yet, it focused on achievable goals and was capable to provide welfare to its people. Fidel, the true and lasting resistant, remained loyal to his principles and successfully steered a “people-oriented” regime rather a market-oriented one. Castro may have died, but his legacy will live forever.

Hasta siempre, Comandante!

Castro's speech about Angola. © Youtube

Against all odds Donald Trump becomes US President

Donald Trump won the race to the White House, becoming the 45th President of the United States. © Flickr Michael Vadon

On November 9, the world woke up to see Republican tycoon Donald Trump becoming President-elect in the United States after beating rival Democrat Hilary Clinton.

“It is time for us to come together,” said the 70-years old businessman in his victory speech. “Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people,” Trump continued in a rather modest and inclusive speech compared to his hatred narrative during the presidential campaign. Following the ceremony tradition, the Inauguration Day will be on January 20 2017, when Donald Trump will start official functions.

After 15 months of debauchery and a decadent presidential campaign coined by personal accusations and very little policy talking, the American people seem to be ready for something disruptive after voting against the establishment. “His victory is a humbling blow to the news media, the pollsters and the Clinton-dominated Democratic leadership,” wrote the New York Times.

What seemed to be a neck and neck race, turned out to be an ugly defeat for Clinton, beaten in the Electoral College. Noteworthy however is that Hilary won the popular vote against Trump. Still, the fight for the White House couldn’t be worse for the Democrats who also failed to retake the Senate and to grant a majority in the House of Representatives. With the Congress – the US legislative branch - dominated by the Republicans, Donald Trump will seize more power than his predecessor Barack Obama. “It gives them control of the Supreme Court for years to come, a huge issue for the conservative base. When combined with a favourable map in 2018, Republicans could be on the verge of building a majority that could last well into the next decade,” wrote Politico.

Nevertheless, during the campaign Trump managed to alienate several Republicans due to his insensitive behavior. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Mike Murphy are just but a few of the conservatives that turned against Trump. With GOPs opposing the President-elect, chances are that Trump might see his legislative power more limited.

Talking on Trump’s possible policy agenda on Bloomberg Surveillance, Dan Glickman, former US agriculture secretary under Clinton administration (1985-2001), said that even with a Congress dominated by the Republicans, he has faith on the United States’ checks and balances, which are in place to avoid absolute power therefore limiting the influence of the three branches of government.

How did this happen?

To say that US citizens are blatantly weary with the enrooted system is an understatement. Trump was elected under the promises of combating inequalities by dropping taxes for families and companies and creating jobs for millions of Americans. The classic populist appeal strategically made to attract dissatisfied segments of the population. “The gap between the fortunes of elites and those of the rest of the public has been growing for two generations, but only now is it coming to dominate national politics,” wrote the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama.

On the other hand, Trump sparkled countless controversy after his racist comments blaming the Mexicans of being  “criminals” and “rapists” (even though he “assumed” that some of them are “good people”) and pledging to build a wall in the Mexican border. The Democrats thought they had nailed it after Trump’s bohemian and misogynist behavior was flagrantly exposed in the media, but still, it wasn’t the last straw for Donald Trump.

In addition, war fatigue of the Bush years and Hilary Clinton’s lack of credibility were also likely to have contributed for the general anti-establishment feeling. During the campaign, Hilary’s wrongdoings as Secretary of State and her close ties to Wall Street were repeatedly exploited by Trump, who conveyed the image of a “crooked” and “corrupt” woman. Indeed, during the campaign, Trump threatened to take judicial action against Clinton and according to the Financial Times, the future US President does not rule out that possibility. It seems hard to believe though, after his “sincere” words of recognition for the service Hillary has done to the US. “She fought very hard. Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump noted during his speech.

Finally, social media and Wikileaks played a major role in this odd presidential campaign. Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange damaged Hilary’s crusade after releasing a series of harsh evidence of her political conduct - such as the content of the emails scandal or her role during the Benghazi assault. Assange, who is exiled in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since August 2012, perhaps strategically or not, seized the presidential campaign to publicly slash Hilary’s reputation. When Assange’s allegiance to Donald Trump was questioned by the media, the Australian journalist denied being fond of Trump: “You’re asking me do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?” he questioned referring to both disliked candidates Trump and Clinton.

What can we expect from this outcome?

While most US citizens are worried with Trump’s future domestic agenda, EU citizens and beyond are apprehensive as to his future foreign policy. Described as entirely unfit for the President’s role, the unpredictability of Trump’s election is the cause for the generally installed anxiety. Trump is pictured as an irascible man with a very bad temperament, a fickle businessman who constantly changes his mind, who casted very depreciative comments towards women and shows very little compassion for the immigrants’ crisis. “After Brexit and this election, everything is now possible,” Gérard Araud, the French ambassador to the United States, wrote on Twitter. “A world is collapsing before our eyes.”

Overall, Trump poses considerable threats to the world order. During his rambling speeches, the mogul put the US’s relations with NATO at stake, demanding its members to pay for the defense services given by the US. He vowed to scrap the Paris climate change deal and pledged to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran. Moreover, Trump has been against Obama’s stance in Iraq and Syria. But will he accept Russian intervention in the region? Crispin Blunt, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Britain’s House of Commons, said, “We are plunged into uncertainty and the unknown.”  The dark side of the story continues to be immigration and Trump’s harsh ideas of curbing it with the construction of a wall in the Mexican border. Will this be a physical wall or will Trump convert his idea into a metaphoric wall meaning more border patrols and increased surveillance?

Nevertheless, the year 2017 will see elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Fears loom as whether Trump’s recent election will strengthen the populist voices beyond seas. The right-wing parties embodied by French Marine Le Pen leading the Front National, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Dutch Party for Freedom have shown particular joy for Trump’s triumph.

So far, markets seem to be responsive

For investors, Trump’s victory means driving through unknown roads. Fears of market disruptions were subject of speculation throughout the media before the closing electoral result. Yet, according to the Financial Times, “Investors display calm rather panic on Trump win.” Donald Trump’s anti-trade stance was one of the reasons of unsteadiness amongst investors. Nevertheless, Trump’s victory speech as President-elect was more comprehensive and in a way, it seemed to calm down the financial markets. At least for now.

Speaking on Bloomberg Surveillance, Erik Nielsen from Unicredit Group Chief Economist joined the “wondering club”: “It is unpredictable to know what to expect from a Trump presidency,” said Nielsen. “Volatility and growth might be part of the next 6 months because people are nervous about what is going to happen,” he added. However, Nielsen confessed that the market reacted less severely than he thought it would.

On the aftermath of the election, Bloomberg reported, “US stocks surge as banks, drug makers rally amid Trump victory”. Lowell Yura, head of multi-asset solutions for BMO Global Asset Management in Chicago said “our base case is we’re more likely to see a more moderate president than we saw as a candidate and the market’s agreeing with that.”

Alex Dryden, Global Market Strategist, JP Morgan Asset Management, discussed on CNBC what might happen when Trump enters office: “I think we need a bit of clarity from president-elect Trump about what he’s actually going to do when he steps into office. There’s been an awful lot of rhetoric in the campaign leading up to this with very little detail on actually policies that he will implement.” Dryden raised the question of the Republican-dominated Congress and whether that means Trump will manage to pass legislation as he pleases. “The other question to ask is whether or not his policies will actually be able to make their way through Congress,” Dryden added.