Former FBI Director James Comey made a glaringly false claim about the infamous Steele dossier in a recent interview with ABC News.

Comey told interviewer George Stephanopoulos that the FBI was unaware of the salacious and unverified dossier until after the bureau formally opened its counterintelligence investigation of President Donald Trump's campaign.

The investigation was opened on July 31, 2016. Comey is contradicted by extensive reporting that dossier author Christopher Steele provided the FBI with information from his dossier on July 5, 2016.

If anyone doubted the wisdom of Rodirgo Duterte's outreach to China and the bilateral agreement for both countries to mutually exploit the energy resources of the South China Sea, today it should be made clear that Duterte and his administration are on the right side of history.

China's refusal to be bullied by the US

It was never China's goal to militarise its South Sea, but circumstance has forced China to preempt any aggression from the United States which has made a habit of engaging in provocations in the region. China has surely noticed the US goal of attempting to and in some respects succeeding in humiliating Russia through illegal threats against Moscow's Syrian partner. As a result, China seeks to take no chances when it comes to the possibility of failing to project its strength to a US administration whose military aspirations in foreign regions is becoming increasingly bellicose.

If the US recused itself from the South China Sea dispute early on, other countries with disputes regarding South China Sea territorial rights, particularly Vietnam, may have been able to reach a Duterte style agreement with China as China's overarching dispute is not with its ASEAN neighbours but with the United States which looks to exploit ASEAN countries with South China Sea claims, as a means of retarding China's economic progress as part of a great power competition that the US instigated and that China is naturally fighting back against. Thus just as was the case in the 1960s and 1970s, the US seeks to wage a proxy war against China in South East Asia in a battle that China does not want and that the ASEAN countries do not need. Duterte has already demonstrated that while others may fight, the Philippines will sit back and do business, thus enriching the wealth of its citizens rather than forcing them to die in a contest between two superpowers.

Analysis from Russian news agency has quite a different perspective on US and the Syrian strike than the Western Mainstream wish to portray

Syria is still largely at the center of the geopolitical news focus. As in all military conflicts, the powers involved are each involved in their own version of "we won." In an analysis piece written by Victor Marakhovsky of RIA Novosti, the stance is that Russia won this event without so much as firing a shot. He then goes on to detail why he says what he says.

The newspiece is a translation and reinterpretation of the original piece which can be found here. We have tried to preserve the meaning of the original piece while framing it well in the English language. The Duran wishes to express its grateful acknowlegement to Victor Marakhovsky and RIA Novosti for its original report.

by Victor Marakhovsky, political scientist, about the US strategy in Syria

The formal results of a decisive attack by Western countries on Syria were summed up. Russia made a motion, proposing that the UN Security Council condemn the attack. Three permanent members of the Security Council who all participated in the attack were against this motion, so the resolution was not adopted.

In terms of raw facts concerning the attack, the figures are generally established:

• 103 rockets were launched. This is confirmed to be true.
• US President D. Trump promised that the missiles would be "new and clever", but most of the incoming missiles turned out to be the rather elderly "Tomahawks". While on approach to all three strategically important facilities, they were shot down by the rather elderly Syrian air defense systems that had been developed in the Soviet Union specifically for the purpose of fighting the Tomahawks.
• The British released eight Scalp (Storm Shadow) rockets, but, as proudly noted in the BBC, "each was five meters in length." In addition they are newer, developed only twenty years ago.
• The history with the French remains unclear: according to the leadership of France, they also released eight Storm Shadow missiles from their fighter planes and three from their ships.
• However, the Russian military cynically point out that there were no French "Rafale" aircraft spotted in the skies. So it is possible that these allies of the United States received credit for participation only to maintain the spirit of unity of these three countries.

Let's begin by a short summary of events.

• About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical attack happen in Syria
• Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical false flag is being prepared in Syria
• Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!)
• The OPWC sends investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed)
• The AngloZionists then bomb Syria
• Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own rules and decisions
• Finally, the US Americans speak of a 'perfect strike'

Now tell me - do you get a sense that this is over?

Israeli officials have expressed concern that Russia, in response to the allies' triple attack on Syrian chemical sites Friday, will accelerate the sale of advanced weapons systems to Syria, making it a great deal more difficult for the Israeli army to operate on the northern front and for the air force to attack targets deep inside Syria, Channel 2 News reported Saturday.

Despite Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement Saturday night, suggesting that "the United States, France and the United Kingdom demonstrated that their commitment is not limited to proclamations of principle," the Israeli defense apparatus is concerned that Russia use the excuse of Friday's attack to sell its advanced weapons systems to the Syrians.

One official who remained anonymous said, "This attack will allow the Americans to say, We have done what is necessary, then leave Syria, forcing Israel to deal with the Iranian threat on the northern border on its own."

Sergey Rudskoy, head of the General Operations Directorate of the Russian Staff, was reported to say that Russia may reconsider supplying S-300 missile defense systems to Syria. "I would like to point out that a few years ago, because of the urgent demands from some of our Western partners, we refused to provide Syria with S-300 missile systems," Rudskoy said, "but taking into account what happened, we consider it possible to re-examine this, not only with regard to Syria but also to other countries."

"We have developed the Syrian air defense system, and will improve it," Rudskoy said.

Another source of concern for the Israeli security establishment is that the actions of the Western powers provide Russia with a pretext to ignore Israel's demands regarding Iranian proxies' movement on Syrian soil, especially near the border.

Donald Trump has climbed down from the tree he climbed up a few days ago when he gathered a large military force and firepower similar to Operation Desert Storm (but without ground forces). "Plan A" consisted of a destructive attack on Syria to destroy its army, presidential palace, command and control bases, elite force, strategic military and ammunition warehouses, radar, defence systems and political leadership institutions.

Prior to the triple attack on Syria by the US - UK - France, intensive contacts were carried out by Russia and President Vladimir Putin himself - at around 04:00 am- to reduce the attack and go to a softer, less significant "Plan B".

Russia, in its contact with several heads of state, rejected any hit that could cripple the Syrian Army and instructed the leadership in Damascus that the West would now think very carefully before radically changing the balance of power in the Levant.

The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have "evidence" of the government's use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.

After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria's president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as "animal Assad," the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.

For the past week, we were told that the US had 'evidence' and the UK had 'evidence' that Syria had used chemicals. The 'evidence' largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that "rescuer" group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.

The Central Bank of Russia has sold $3.1 billion in US Treasury bills as of February, reducing its investment in American debt to the lowest level since March last year.

Moscow still occupies the 16th position among the largest holders of US government bonds. Russia has cut its holdings for the third consecutive month.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in February that Russia is not sticking to American debt and can replace it if it finds an adequate substitution elsewhere. "We are ready to invest in the securities issued by other sovereign states, the main thing is that they should be low-risk and accordingly bring income," Siluanov said at the time.

Use of the term 'false flag' is often met with raised eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present feature of geopolitics - and denying that is simply denying reality.

Last week, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city of Douma.

So a tiny independent radio station in Ireland managed to interview Robert Fisk on the ground in Douma, but none of the British mainstream broadcast media today has him on, despite the political fallout from our Syria bombing attacks being the main news story everywhere? Meantime MSM propagandists including Richard Hall (BBC), Dan Hodges (Mail) and Brian Whitaker (Guardian) and many more queue up to denounce Fisk on twitter from their cosy armchairs.

It bears repeating that the information on the alleged gas attacks - which raises great doubt but which Fisk himself does not claim as definitive - is not the most important part of Fisk's article. The Hell of rule under the jihadists that we in the West are arming, funding, training, "military advising" and giving air support, alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, is the indisputable and much more important element of Fisk's report, as is the clear evidence he provides that the White Helmets are part of the jihadist factions.


To return to Scotland, I am sorry I shocked many of those who wish me well with the vehemence of my attack on Ian Blackford and the SNP for accepting MI6′ version of events, together with a renewed expression of my outrage at Nicola Sturgeon for having instantly supported Boris Johnson's anti-Russian rhetoric over Salisbury without waiting for evidence.