Waarom is Trump binnen 2 weken 180° gedraaid?

[djimi]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Tamam

o


i


l

O I L


Dat is al iets duidelijker

[Eurosceptic]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door djimi

O I L


Dat is al iets duidelijker

Ik begrijp waarom mensen meteen aan olie denken maar wat Syrië betreft gaat het over de cruciale ligging in het transport van gas naar Europa. Europa is erg afhankelijk van Rusland voor het gebruik van aardgas.

Uiteindelijk gaat quasi elke oorlog over natural resources

Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict?

Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict?
It’s buried more than three kilometres underground, but it could be the key to finally ending the world’s deadliest conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, speaks to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani as they attend a signing ceremony during the Gas Exporting Countries Forum in Iran on November 23. Picture: AP/Alexander ZemlianichenkoSource:AP

The Syrian war often seems like a big confusing mess but one factor that is not often mentioned could be the key to unlocking the conflict.

Some experts have pointed out that many of the key players have one thing in common: a billion-dollar gas pipeline.

Factor in this detail and suddenly the war begins to make more sense, here’s how it works:

Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.

As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.

In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.

But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.

This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.

As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”

Much of Russia’s power comes from established pipelines used to transport gas to Europe cheaply. But other countries are now trying to get around Russia and provide new sources of gas to Europe.

Last year US President Barack Obama spoke openly about the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian gas following the conflict in Ukraine.

The US also wants to use its own natural gas supply, recently developed through fracking, to undercut Russian supply. But it will be years before the US will be in a position to ship this overseas.

The US is not the only country trying to outmanoeuvre Russia, and this is where the role of Syria becomes more important.

TWO NEW PIPELINES

Before the civil war, two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria.

Qatar’s plans were first put forward in 2009 and involved building a pipeline from the Persian Gulf via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

The gas field located 3000 metres below the floor of the Persian Gulf is the largest natural gas field in the world. Qatar owns about two-thirds of the resource but can’t capitalise on it fully because it relies on tankers to deliver it to other countries and this makes its gas more expensive than Russia’s.

It was hoped the pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.



The proposed gas pipeline from Qatar via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey to Europe.

In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.



Pipeline from Iran via Iraq and Syria to Europe.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.

Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.

Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.

Failed pipeline bidder Qatar is believed to have funded anti-Assad rebel groups by $3 billion between 2011 and 2013. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of funding the terrorist group.

In contrast Orenstein and Romer noted the successful pipeline bidder, Iran, was believed to be helping Assad by running the Syrian army, supplying it with weapons and even troops.

Major Rob Taylor, an instructor at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College wrote in the Armed Forces Journal last year that the rival pipelines could be influencing the conflict in Syria.

“Viewed through a geopolitical and economic lens, the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but the result of larger international players positioning themselves on the geopolitical chessboard in preparation for the opening of the pipeline,” he noted.

Just as the 2003 Iraq War has been linked to oil in the Persian Gulf, Syria may turn out to be all about gas.

WHY DOES TURKEY CARE?

One of the countries that has a lot to gain from getting rid of Assad is Turkey.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been vocal in calling for the Syrian President to step down and has also been accused of helping Islamic State, something it has rejected.

While Turkey could have other reasons for supporting the rebels in Syria, such as Assad’s support for the Kurds, Harvard University Professor Orenstein told news.com.au that gas would definitely be one reason it was opposing the regime.

Turkey, which stands at the crossroads of Asia and Europe, is an aspiring member of the European Union, and some consider it to be the best option for facilitating the movement of gas supplies from the Middle East to Europe.

As a hub, Turkey would benefit from transit fees and other energy-generated revenues.

It could also insure, with US support, that all gas suppliers in the Middle East could freely export their product.

Qatar’s plans put Turkey at the centre of its plan.

As one of the countries relying on Russia for gas, freeing it from this dependence would be an added bonus.

But none of this can be realised if the pipeline bypasses Turkey and if Assad becomes instrumental in approving an alternative that does not involve it.

Now that Russia is stepping in to help the Assad regime in Syria — possibly to protect its own dominance in the gas market — Turkey is facing a formidable barrier to its aspirations.

When Turkey downed a Russian plane earlier this month, some speculated it may want to weaken any potential co-operation between Russia and the US which could see Assad continue his leadership.

Russia’s motives for its air strikes have also been questioned. CNN military analyst Cedric Leighton, a retired air force colonel, noting that its bombing of Islamic State extremists seemed to have hit Turkmen in northern Syria, who had strong ties to the Turkish government.

Prof Orenstein said the competition over natural gas could ultimately prevent co-operation between the two world powers on fighting Islamic State.

“I doubt there is much basis for US-Russia co-operation due to opposite interests in gas issues and Iran,” he told news.com.au

But despite fears that the world is facing a new Cold War, Prof Orenstein believes it’s more of a “free for all”, with the fight over natural gas acting as just another fuel.

[Infowarrior]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eurosceptic

Ik begrijp waarom mensen meteen aan olie denken maar wat Syrië betreft gaat het over de cruciale ligging in het transport van gas naar Europa. Europa is erg afhankelijk van Rusland voor het gebruik van aardgas.

Uiteindelijk gaat quasi elke oorlog over natural resources

Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict?

Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict?
It’s buried more than three kilometres underground, but it could be the key to finally ending the world’s deadliest conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, speaks to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani as they attend a signing ceremony during the Gas Exporting Countries Forum in Iran on November 23. Picture: AP/Alexander ZemlianichenkoSource:AP

The Syrian war often seems like a big confusing mess but one factor that is not often mentioned could be the key to unlocking the conflict.

Some experts have pointed out that many of the key players have one thing in common: a billion-dollar gas pipeline.

Factor in this detail and suddenly the war begins to make more sense, here’s how it works:

Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.

As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.

In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.

But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.

This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.

As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”

Much of Russia’s power comes from established pipelines used to transport gas to Europe cheaply. But other countries are now trying to get around Russia and provide new sources of gas to Europe.

Last year US President Barack Obama spoke openly about the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian gas following the conflict in Ukraine.

The US also wants to use its own natural gas supply, recently developed through fracking, to undercut Russian supply. But it will be years before the US will be in a position to ship this overseas.

The US is not the only country trying to outmanoeuvre Russia, and this is where the role of Syria becomes more important.

TWO NEW PIPELINES

Before the civil war, two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria.

Qatar’s plans were first put forward in 2009 and involved building a pipeline from the Persian Gulf via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

The gas field located 3000 metres below the floor of the Persian Gulf is the largest natural gas field in the world. Qatar owns about two-thirds of the resource but can’t capitalise on it fully because it relies on tankers to deliver it to other countries and this makes its gas more expensive than Russia’s.

It was hoped the pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.



The proposed gas pipeline from Qatar via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey to Europe.

In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.



Pipeline from Iran via Iraq and Syria to Europe.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.

Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.

Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.

Failed pipeline bidder Qatar is believed to have funded anti-Assad rebel groups by $3 billion between 2011 and 2013. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of funding the terrorist group.

In contrast Orenstein and Romer noted the successful pipeline bidder, Iran, was believed to be helping Assad by running the Syrian army, supplying it with weapons and even troops.

Major Rob Taylor, an instructor at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College wrote in the Armed Forces Journal last year that the rival pipelines could be influencing the conflict in Syria.

“Viewed through a geopolitical and economic lens, the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but the result of larger international players positioning themselves on the geopolitical chessboard in preparation for the opening of the pipeline,” he noted.

Just as the 2003 Iraq War has been linked to oil in the Persian Gulf, Syria may turn out to be all about gas.

WHY DOES TURKEY CARE?

One of the countries that has a lot to gain from getting rid of Assad is Turkey.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been vocal in calling for the Syrian President to step down and has also been accused of helping Islamic State, something it has rejected.

While Turkey could have other reasons for supporting the rebels in Syria, such as Assad’s support for the Kurds, Harvard University Professor Orenstein told news.com.au that gas would definitely be one reason it was opposing the regime.

Turkey, which stands at the crossroads of Asia and Europe, is an aspiring member of the European Union, and some consider it to be the best option for facilitating the movement of gas supplies from the Middle East to Europe.

As a hub, Turkey would benefit from transit fees and other energy-generated revenues.

It could also insure, with US support, that all gas suppliers in the Middle East could freely export their product.

Qatar’s plans put Turkey at the centre of its plan.

As one of the countries relying on Russia for gas, freeing it from this dependence would be an added bonus.

But none of this can be realised if the pipeline bypasses Turkey and if Assad becomes instrumental in approving an alternative that does not involve it.

Now that Russia is stepping in to help the Assad regime in Syria — possibly to protect its own dominance in the gas market — Turkey is facing a formidable barrier to its aspirations.

When Turkey downed a Russian plane earlier this month, some speculated it may want to weaken any potential co-operation between Russia and the US which could see Assad continue his leadership.

Russia’s motives for its air strikes have also been questioned. CNN military analyst Cedric Leighton, a retired air force colonel, noting that its bombing of Islamic State extremists seemed to have hit Turkmen in northern Syria, who had strong ties to the Turkish government.

Prof Orenstein said the competition over natural gas could ultimately prevent co-operation between the two world powers on fighting Islamic State.

“I doubt there is much basis for US-Russia co-operation due to opposite interests in gas issues and Iran,” he told news.com.au

But despite fears that the world is facing a new Cold War, Prof Orenstein believes it’s more of a “free for all”, with the fight over natural gas acting as just another fuel.

Volledig correct Euroscpetic!

[Eurosceptic]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Infowarrior

Volledig correct Eurosceptic!

Ik heb het niet zelf geschreven en laten we zo'n theorieën niet ad random voor waarheid aannemen. Maar het houdt wel steek

Het verhaal van de USA over ten oorlog trekken om humanitaire redenen is kletskoek van de bovenste plank. Ze zouden een oorlog starten omdat enkele kinderen " vermoedelijk het slachtoffer waren van chemische wapens". Maar door hun interventies in Irak in 2003 zijn een half miljoen mensen gestorven waaronder duizenden onschuldige kinderen.

Het houdt gewoon geen steek. Er zijn tevens honderden plekken op de wereld waar mensenrechten worden geschonden in dictatoriale regimes, maar de USA zal nooit een interventie plegen in een regio waar het zelf niks te winnen heeft (bvb Afrika) Erdogan heeft trouwens ook chemische wapens gebruikt tegen zijn tegenstanders, maar daar had niemand interesse in vergeldingsacties.

Dat mensen zich die onzin van de TV nog laten aanpraten..
Ik begrijp dat de ware geopolitiek achter de oorlogsretoriek moeilijk te bevatten is en dat we veel zaken nooit zullen weten.

Maar een oorlog starten om wille van een paar mogelijk verminkte kinderen terwijl je zelf ziekenhuizen bombardeert en miljoenen mensen uitmoordt.. Het vergt toch geen genie om dan door te hebben dat er iets niet klopt. Zelfde trouwens voor Libië waar inmiddels slaven openbaar worden verhandeld.

Het verhaal is compleet ongeloofwaardig maar het lijkt erop dat de publieke opinie hen geen bal kan schelen.

[Aarchzstvwqmrmbtvnpq]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Diego Raga

Dat blijkt een one man show te zijn, die een Syriër in Engeland op touw zet, met welgeteld 4 (!) medewerkers op het oorlogsterrein, waar ‘m contact mee heeft.

“Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. Its founder, Rami Abdul Rahman, 42, who fled Syria 13 years ago, operates out of a semidetached red-brick house on an ordinary residential street in this drab industrial city.”

Evenveel waard dus als wanneer een Belg in Zimbabwe zou berichten hoe het er hier politiek aan toegaat.
En dan komt de EU met de flappen op de proppen:

“Money from two dress shops covers his minimal needs for reporting on the conflict, along with small subsidies from the European Union and one European country that he declines to identify.
The war has dragged on far longer and has been far more destructive than he ever anticipated, and for the moment, he said, his statistics are as much a tactic as a resource.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/w...pagewanted=all

Van deze artiest haalt de westerse MSM dus haar 'betrouwbare' mosterd vandaan….

Bedankt. Dat wil natuurlijk niet zeggen dat hun informatie automatisch fout is maar dat zegt weer eens hoe weinig bronnen er zijn voor al die groteske beweringen van onze 'leiders'.
En op basis van dat soort bronnen gaat men dus een land bombarderen.