Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Videos

Macedonian Maidan? US controlled gas into Europe via Qatar, remains the ultimate goal

Anti-government protesters have gathered near the parliament building in Macedonia’s capital demanding the government’s resignation after a wiretapping scandal. The protests come as 30 people were charged with terrorism after 22 were killed this weekend.

Published

on

0 Views

RT has a great breakdown on what is happening in Macedonia and why.

Albanian terrorists are known to be lying in wait in the Balkans for when Washington needs them to do their bidding, and Greek Stream may have been the trigger to spring them into action, for what may become a greater war in the heart of Europe.

Via RT…

Amid the political scandal Prime Minister Nikola Gruevsky removed his Interior Minister Gordana Jankulovska and head of counter-intelligence Saso Mijalkov, the state news agency MIA reported on Tuesday.

The move follows the armed clashes in the ethnically mixed city of Kumanovo that erupted on Saturday and left 22 dead, including eight police officers. On Monday prosecutors charged 30 people with terrorism for the attack.

“Out of 30 people charged 18 are Kosovans, 11 are Macedonian citizens, two of whom are living in Kosovo, and one is from Albania with residence in Germany,” said the prosecutor’s office as quoted by AFP. Authorities said most Albanians from neighboring Kosovo have entered Macedonia illegally.

The prosecutors added that some of the men were also charged with illegal possession of arms and explosives.

Another 37 people were injured when police tried to arrest members of the armed group belonging to the now-dismantled Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which were allegedly planning terror attacks in Macedonia.

The shooting in Kumanovo, the third largest city in Macedonia, has rekindled fears that ethnic tensions which engulfed the region over 14 years ago could exacerbate amid the political instability.

Last week Macedonia’s capital Skopje was gripped by anti-government protests in which the demonstrators called for the resignation of the prime minister and his cabinet. The protesters were instigated by calls from the opposition leader from the Social Democratic Union, Zoran Zaev who has urged to create a transitional government.

The opposition has also recently disclosed that the government has been allegedly wiretapping 20,000 Macedonians illegally. The protesters accused authorities of covering up the killing of a 22-year-old man, who was beaten to death by a police officer during a post-election celebration in 2011.

The West has started throwing Macedonia’s democracy into doubt amid the political instability and ethnic tensions once again on the rise in the heart of the Balkans.

Following the shooting in Kumanovo, ambassadors of the US, France, Italy, the UK, Germany, and the EU issued a statement threatening to “undermine” Macedonia’s decade long road towards EU and NATO membership.

“We have specifically reiterated our concerns to the Prime Minister that his government has not made progress towards accounting for the many allegations of government wrongdoing arising from the disclosures,” said the joint statement issued on Monday.

“This continued inaction casts serious doubt on the Government of Macedonia’s commitment to the democratic principles and values of the Euro-Atlantic community. Continued failure to demonstrate this commitment with concrete action will undermine Macedonia’s progress towards EU and NATO membership.”

On Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the recent violence in Kumanovo saying that “he strongly supports the calls by the European Union and other members of the international community urging the state authorities and all political and community leaders to cooperate to restore calm and to fully investigate the events in an objective and transparent manner.”

Ethnic Albanians make roughly a quarter of Macedonia’s 2.1 million population. Out of 70,000 Kumanovo residents, 18,000 of them are ethnic Albanians.

The recent ethnic clashes have been the worst since the 2001 insurgency, when the ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA) militant group, a KLA offshoot, began attacking the security forces in Macedonia, demanding for greater rights and autonomy to the country’s Albanian minority. As the result of the 2001 violence NATO sent 3,500 troops to the region.

The latest armed attack in Macedonia has “confirmed that the EU and NATO still have much unfinished business in the Western Balkans,” said senior associate at Carnegie Europe and editor in chief of Strategic Europe Judy Dempsey on Monday

On Sunday Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski also claimed that several participants of the deadly Saturday clashes took part “in several conflicts, some in the Middle East, which points out to their big experience in guerrilla fighting.”

Foreign affairs analyst Srdja Trifkovic told RT that the rise in ethnic tensions in Albania could have been orchestrated with foreign help.

“The Albanians do not react the way they’ve reacted over the past three days without some encouragement from outside,” he said. “We’ve seen this 14 years ago, in 2001 when the Albanians were caught in the village of Aracinovo, and there were some American fighters with them.”

The Albanians were the US levee into the Balkans as they were the basis for Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the largest military base since Vietnam, Marko Gasic, international affairs commentator, told RT.

“The US still supports the Kosovo project even though it has undeniably failed and there is a huge amount of instability in Kosovo caused by the endemic corruption there, which has led many Kosovan extremists to go join ISIS in the Middle East and to come back now and destabilize nearby Macedonia.”

Critics suggest that the unrest in Macedonia comes at an inconvenient time with reference to the construction of the Turkish Stream project, which would deliver Russian gas to Europe via Greece and potentially via Macedonia.

“Macedonia or rather the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has become very important to the US recently because of Bulgaria’s refusal to accept the South Stream project,” Trifkovic said.

“In the end the Bulgarians under EU pressure had to say “no.” And now if the Russian pipeline goes across Turkey to the Greek- Turkish border, the only way it can reach central Europe would be across Macedonia and then the old path as originally suggested through Serbia, Hungary into Austria, Slovenia, and Italy – and this is something the Americans don’t want. What we’ve seen in recent days is a warning to the government in Skopje not to even think about hosting the new Turkish pipeline in replacement for the South Stream.”

If the Turkish pipeline goes through then the US plans to send gas into Europe via Qatar will be sacrificed, Gasic said.

“The US has created a very effective cordon sanitaire to block off Russia from its natural EU economic partners. But this cordon sanitaire is freight with the Turks not playing ball, with the Greeks being unreliable…If [the US] needs to shut down this pipeline off, it will do it in Macedonia.

“And how better to do that than to create instability to make Russia and the EU to think twice about building the pipeline there?” he asked.

References:

http://rt.com/news/257661-macedonia-conflict-political-unrest/

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

A dispassionate case for the American border wall

All the arguing on both sides is a rhetorical war that prevents action from happening. Here are simple reasons the border wall should go up.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the hottest news stories in the American press has been that over the border wall, proposed by President Trump during his campaign, and now resting at the center of a debate that has about one-quarter of the US governmental services in a state of shutdown. We have observed fiery, passionate, and even disgusting levels of rancor and bitterness in the political rhetoric concerning the wall. This debate goes on in the news media, and many of the Americans who watch and listen to this take on the fire of these arguments to even more passionate levels.

However, the passion has largely obscured the actual issue of border security, perhaps by design. As long as people keep fighting over it, it still is not getting done. And while thankfully the American government is designed to work very slowly in determining important matters, here, that trait is being exploited, mostly by Democrats, but also by Republicans and even possibly, President Trump himself.

The motives each side has vary.

President Trump wants Congress to pass wall funding because then it is a legislative act that the Legislative and Executive branches of government agree on. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to test such a resolution for its legality. This is one very significant reason why the President is trying every way possible to get this through Congress.

If he goes the route of declaring a “National Emergency” then, according to a number of sources, the first thing that is likely to happen after the build order is a lawsuit that stops the process in its tracks – probably a land-use lawsuit regarding eminent domain and damage to the properties of private citizens, who for various reasons do not want a barrier built through their lands. This is a problem that the American government has sadly created for itself with a very poor reputation of proper reparations for the invocation of Eminent Domain land claims.

This is the simplest way to explain the raison d’être behind the President’s hesitation to invoke executive emergency powers.

For the Democrats, the motive is interesting. The rhetoric from conservatives, including the President, is that the Dems do not want the wall simply because the “imposter” President wants one. 

For anyone who thinks that this is an utterly insane, and indeed, childish, argument, well, you would be exactly right. It is.

It also appears to be true. Evidence for this is shown by the fact that almost every critic quoted by the mainstream press is a Democrat. How is it possible that Democrats have a unique hold on facts that other people just don’t? Even when a Republican expresses a concern about the wall, there is still actual logistical information backing the claim:

Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised immediate concerns over shifting funds that have already been approved by Congress for projects in states across the nation.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he has been hearing from lawmakers in recent days concerned that Army Corps projects in their states could be canceled or postponed.

(This is a concrete situation that is based on normal concerns about money and not about ideological political views.)

“If they drag the money out of here,” Simpson said in an interview late Thursday, “a lot of members will have problem with it.”

(But now in come the Democrats, and observe as logic leaves and is replaced by fiery language.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview that rebuilding the disaster areas is “a way higher priority benefiting the American people than a wasteful wall.”

He said the Army Corps works on dams, levees and other projects across the nation and has an enormous backlog of unfunded needs. “It would be an incredible disservice to the American people and the economy” to divert the money to the border wall, he said.

And Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said in a statement that it would be “beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens’ lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall.

“Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it,” she said.

The Republican here spoke without passion, simply saying there is concern about shifting funds for the wall. But the Democrats used incendiary language like “wasteful” and “foolish, offensive and hateful” as adjectives to describe the border wall. Very passionate expressions, which are being repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and all of the Democrat party.

The bias most notably and publicly showed in the accusatory language of the Democrat kingpins themselves, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

There is little true “debate” about the border wall. Most discussion on the news media or social media is verbal rock-throwing rather than respectful, honest and fair discussion. As noted before, this may be part of the design to prevent action on the wall.

However there are dispassionate and reasonable arguments that support the construction of this project. Here are some of those reasons:

  •  A 30-35 foot tall wall running the entire length of the border is probably the cheapest and most cost effective single deterrent to illegal border crossings. Whoever wants to cross the border has to make some provision for dealing with the wall. If that provision is rather difficult, it will dissuade most people from trying it.
  • A wall reduces the need for manpower along the border. While it is absurd to assume that the wall alone would keep every illegal immigrant out, it also facilitates efficient deployment of manpower and other means for active border control.
  • Even if the wall is not continuous along the entire length of the border (which is likely to wind up as the case), where it isn’t is easier to monitor. This is another aspect of the manpower issue. There are likely to be gaps and open spaces for a variety of reasons. But right now, there are about over 1,200 miles of the 1,954 mile long border that have no barrier present. That is a lot of space to monitor actively.

These three reasons are really so close as to be almost the same exact reason. But the arguments for and against the border wall are being conducted in an apparent context that in order to secure a border, this is all anyone needs to do. This is an absurd idea and is being used to try to deflect action.

  • The best border security systems in the world are systems of walls, fences and monitoring facilities. Even the Great Wall of China did not stop all invaders. It deterred a lot of probable attempts though. The wall was also manned so that active attempts to get through it could be stopped in active manners.
  • The North – South Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall are also particularly effective as parts of an overall border crossing deterrent system. The fences, trenches and watchtowers along the length of these two borders create an extremely effective measure to deter illegal crossings. For example, the Berlin Wall stood from 1961 to 1989, a total of 28 years. During that period, only five thousand people crossed that border. The US Border Patrol conducted over 300,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in 2018 alone.

The imagery of walls like North Korea’s and East Berlin’s are part of the reason why the border wall comes across as an unsavory idea. There is probably no American that does not know this image, and no one in the country like the idea of such a barrier being associated with the United States.

However, that is simply not the issue. The US is not a police state trying to keep people inside. It is dealing with a decades-long stretch of bad policy regarding immigration which will not be stopped except by radical means.

Many families made a very long journey this year in the migrant caravans to try to game the American system. It is understandable that many of these people are trying to get away from bad conditions in the countries they left. But taking advantage of the United States is wrong, and the wrong is shared equally by the actions of the illegals and by the weak posture of the United States herself.

The simplest fact is that only strength assures freedom. A strong border reinforces safe immigration. A strong and effective immigration policy relies on having a tightly controlled border AND an asylum and entry facilitation process that is thorough, lawful and dispassionate. The USA has had this in place in other points of entry, such as Ellis Island. Leaving the Mexican frontier open now is just stupid policy. An integrated, careful process to process would be immigrants as quickly and carefully as possible needs to become part of the new American way of doing things. There is no swifter way to guarantee overall immigration policy change than the construction of the physical barrier along the US-Mexican border.

It does not matter how anyone feels or thinks. Walls work when used rightly. President Trump’s plan satisfies all the required needs for a good US immigration policy as regards the Mexican border.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US Women’s March implodes upon itself [Video]

This year’s Women’s March collapses due to not being politically woke enough, in a truly astounding fashion.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

If this doesn’t make your head spin, perhaps you are either dead, or sufficiently “woke.” The Humboldt County Annual Women’s March, set for January 19th of this year got canceled because it was “too white.”

Yes. Too white. This is a county in Northern California, 270 miles north of San Francisco. According to the Wikipedia entry, on this locale, the 2016 census gave this demographic result.

In other words, the county’s own demographics are very white.

So, does this make sense? No? Well, maybe the interview will clear it up.

Still no?

It seems that Jesse Watters was just as stunned as anyone else. The expression on his face is priceless. Should I laugh now, or later? How does this woman actually believe her own rhetoric?

But the woman, Kelsey Reedy, seems to have the logic worked out in her mind.

Maybe that is because she is a woman. A liberal woman. Fantasy turned inside out. But wait! She also even included expletive language on a televised interview, which is indecent in of itself.

It would appear that being “woke” can truly turn in on itself.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending