US-NATO Drums of War: From ‘Saddam’s WMDs’ to ‘Russia Is Preparing to Invade Ukraine’. Familiar “Regime Change” Propaganda Now Targets Moscow
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
Following Saturday’s news report by corporate-owned US media outlet CBS, which outlined alleged plans by Russia to invade Ukraine in the coming weeks as the Winter sets in, based on unverified information given to the media network by unnamed US Intelligence officials, anti-Russian hysteria in the Western mainstream media has again stepped up a notch – with Moscow already being accused of playing a key role in the ongoing migrant crisis at the Belarus-Poland border, where thousands of immigrants, many of whom are fleeing the wars and colour revolutions imposed on their countries by the US-NATO hegemony, are attempting to enter the European Union.
According to the CBS article, the key factor in preventing these alleged invasion plans from coming to fruition is an intervention from the West – or in other words, the war drums of Washington’s Neocons and regime-change lobby are now beating towards Moscow; and one only has to look at the results of previous regime-change lies to grasp the consequences that they entail.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and the subsequent US-led invasion of Afghanistan one month later in October of that year, the wars drums against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would soon begin to beat in Washington – despite the fact that 20 years on, little to no evidence has been produced linking either Iraq or Afghanistan to the attacks, in stark contrast to the evidence found linking US-allies Israel and Saudi Arabia to the atrocities.
In a similar vein to their accusations of Afghanistan harbouring Osama Bin Laden, thus justifying a US-led invasion, the Western mainstream media, alongside Neoconservative think tanks such as the Project for the New American Century and AIPAC, using Benjamin Netanyahu as its spokesman, would all, in lockstep, promote the narrative that Saddam Hussein’s leadership had acquired weapons of mass destruction, and had also harboured members of Bin Laden’s CIA-created Al-Qaeda network – thus enabling another US military intervention.
In March 2003, these propaganda efforts would come to fruition with the US-led war on Iraq, leading to more than half a million deaths, the modern-day refugee crisis, and as a result of the power vacuum following the removal of Hussein’s leadership, the takeover of vast swathes of the previously secular nation by Al-Qaeda’s Iraq branch – a precursor to the wider ISIS network which would be established a decade later.
Despite the disastrous impact of these regime-change lies becoming globally apparent to onlookers, the US and its allies would again play out the same script less than eight years later, this time in Libya, who’s then-leader Muammar Gaddafi, a long-time thorn in the side of the White House and its allies, was planning a Gold Dinar currency, one which would have ended any reliance by Tripoli on the US Dollar – and which would also seal his fate in the eyes of the US-NATO hegemony.
In February 2011, the US, Britain and France would authorise a regime-change operation against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which saw the arming, funding and training of the same Salafist terrorists that the coalition had supposedly went into Iraq to combat in the first place – with the intentions of halting the planned Gold Dinar currency and removing Gaddafi’s secular leadership via a colour revolution.
In response to alleged ‘human rights abuses’ by Tripoli against said colour revolution and the terrorists implementing it, a no-fly zone would subsequently be launched over the North African country by NATO in March 2011, with the military alliance effectively acting as an air force for their terrorist proxies; by October 2011, Gaddafi was dead, his once-thriving nation in ruins, and the flow of migrants trying to escape from what was once the most prosperous nation in Africa substantially exacerbating the refugee crisis.
At the same as this regime-change disaster was playing out in Libya, a similar colour revolution, which again saw the arming and support of Salafist groups, would also be launched against the Syrian Arab Republic, which with a similar history to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of also refusing to kowtow to the demands of Washington and its allies, had drawn the ire of the regime-change lobby following Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s 2009 refusal to allow US-ally Qatar to build a pipeline through his country – one which would have undermined his key relationship with Russia.
In stark contrast to the fate which befell Libya however, Damascus has successfully been able to withstand the terrorist onslaught over the past decade, with an Iranian intervention at the request of the Syrian government in 2013 playing a key role in the defence of the Arab Republic, and a further Russian intervention in 2015, again at the request of Damascus, perhaps playing the most decisive factor in the conflict so far.
True to form however, Washington’s hawks would step up their propaganda efforts in a bid to counter this successful countering of their regime change attempts – in 2017 and 2018, two separate false flag chemical attacks were launched in the terrorist-held town of Khan Shaykhun and the city of Douma, the blame being attributed to the Syrian government in both situations, and both incidents resulting in the US launching cruise missile and air strikes against Syrian government targets – just stopping short of a Libya-style no-fly zone which could have easily triggered a wider conflict between NATO and Russia.
This is where similarities to the current situation involving Ukraine come into play, with Kiev having come under the control of the pro-Western leaderships of Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky since the 2014 Euromaidan colour revolution was launched against the Eastern European country in response to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s 2013 decision to suspend an EU trade deal in favour of pursuing closer ties with neighbouring Russia.
With the noticeable anti-Russian sentiment of the new Western-friendly government becoming dangerously high, the mainly ethic Russian Donbass region in eastern Ukraine broke away to form the independent Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in April 2014, following Crimea’s successful reunification with Russia the previous month – and sparking a now seven-year long conflict against both Republics by Kiev, which now, perhaps with a Syria-style false-flag attack in the region intended to implicate Moscow, threatens to expand into a wider conflict between Ukraine and Russia, one that could have grave consequences for the entire continent of Europe and indeed, the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News.
Featured image is from danielo / Shutterstock
