The residents of Turkey and Ukraine, while facing a dramatically growing number of both domestic and foreign policy challenges have decided to create an "alliance of misfits." The rapidly deteriorating economic situation and an ever increasing danger of civil war in both of these states has brought their officials to the conclusion that they should exploit the fact that these two states lie on a route between the East and West, at the crossroads of geopolitical interests of several great powers.

In March 2015, Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan visited Kiev on an official visit, this step was later followed by the official visit of the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to Ukraine in February 2016. Just a month later, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko made a trip to Turkey. The exchange of visits of high level officials, according to the official rhetoric of Kiev and Ankara, is aimed at bringing their bilateral relations "to a new strategical level."

On the eve of Poroshenko's visit, Turkish and Ukrainian maritime forces held a joint exercise in the Sea of Marmara. It is therefore not surprising that particular stress in this new bilateral partnership has been placed on military cooperation, along with the development of bilateral trade and economic relations, which should lead to the revival of a free trade zone between Ukraine and Turkey, that was brought to a screeching halt back in 2013.

On the evening of March 14th, at a special meeting in the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the beginning of the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Syria. The president said that the Russian troops had completed all their tasks, and the withdrawal should "encourage the peace process." Why is Russia now trying to get out of Syria, and that will it do next?

American Victory?

Recall that last month the United States and Russia reached agreement on a cease-fire in Syria, which entered into force two weeks ago. The truce is a result of several months of negotiations that the United States and Russia were engaged in. The US blackmailed Russia with the possibility of a military confrontation with one of their allies (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia). In the event of a conflict the Americans were ready to side with the Turks and the Saudis. These countries repeatedly made unambiguous hints about the possibility of an invasion of Syria. The objective of the Americans was to apply direct pressure, using threats, to stop the successful offensive of Syrian troops in the north of the country, with the support of the Russian Air Force. Over time they would block the weapons supply lines to the militants from Turkey.

As a result, the offensive was stopped even as operations in Aleppo were in progress. With the city not having been liberated, the Americans succeeded. Fighting has ceased, despite some exchanges of fire. Formally, the withdrawal of Russian troops could be considered an even bigger prize for the Americans. However the restrained reaction of the American leadership shows that this is not so evident.

It's spy thriller stuff; no one is talking. But there are indications Russia would not announce a partial withdrawal from Syria right before the Geneva negotiations ramp up unless a grand bargain with Washington had been struck.

Some sort of bargain is in play, of which we still don't know the details; that's what the CIA itself is basically saying through their multiple US Think Tankland mouthpieces. And that's the real meaning hidden under a carefully timed Barack Obama interview that, although inviting suspension of disbelief, reads like a major policy change document.

Obama invests in proverbial whitewashing, now admitting US intel did not specifically identify the Bashar al-Assad government as responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack. And then there are nuggets, such as Ukraine seen as not a vital interest of the US - something that clashes head on with the Brzezinski doctrine. Or Saudi Arabia as freeloaders of US foreign policy - something that provoked a fierce response from former Osama bin Laden pal and Saudi intel supremo Prince Turki.

According to recent reports, people who have been charged with petty crimes have been added to the US government's "terror watch list" without warning.

This filing "error" was discovered last year when a Latino man who spoke very little English was arrested for trespassing and resisting arrest, two misdemeanors. When he had to appear in court, the man's attorney Anisha Gupta was expecting a quick and easy trial because the charges were so small. However, Gupta was informed by the judge that her client was listed on the terrorist watchlist.

"I said to her, 'Judge, I don't think he's on the terrorist watchlist. There are so many errors on the last pages of people's rap sheets, and the judge said, 'Well, counsel, I've never seen this terrorist watchlist thing. We're going to have to check on it. I'm not going to release him,'" Gupta told The Intercept.

"Counsel, he could be a sleeper," the judge allegedly replied.

Current Escalations in the South China Sea

Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria have declared a federal region in the north, according to officials cited by AFP and a Reuters witness.

Idris Nassan, an official in the foreign affairs directorate of Kobani, said on Wednesday that the Kurdish-controlled areas will reportedly be named the Federation of Northern Syria, and will represent all ethnic groups living there.

Speaking to RT Arabic, Nassan said that the proposal of federation has existed since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011.

"Syria's Kurds have a long history of opposition and a long history of struggle for the legitimate rights of their people in this country," Nassan said, explaining that the nationalist struggle has evolved into a more "developed" form of fighting for equal rights in general.

Nassan stressed, however, that federalization does not mean the Kurdish people will go down the "path of separatism."

Weary of the House of Saud's monstrous creation called ISIL and its reach to Europe, European countries seem to be inclining towards creating a 'distance' from Saudi Arabia. Or is it? The latest instance of this so-called 'distance' came on February 25, 2016 when European Parliament called upon the EU to impose embargoes against Saudi Arabia, saying Britain, France and other EU governments should no longer sell weapons to a country accused of targeting civilians in Yemen. While the language of the resolution and the 'concerns' voiced regarding Saudi Arabia's in-humanitarian policies in Yemen seem good, the fact of the matter is that neither the EU is really touched by the loss of life and property in Yemen nor does it feel compelled to extend relief to the 14.4 million people, who are reportedly reaching the point of starvation in Yemen, by merely imposing embargoes on Saudi Arabia.

While the resolution was quite explicit about the crisis in Yemen, it was conspicuously silent about the humanitarian crisis the Saudi imposed war in Syria has caused. Perhaps, Syria still does not qualify as humanitarian enough! The dual attitude is, in reality, not simply an instance of 'distance' between the EU and the House of Saud, it is only a reflection of how the EU is playing the Saudia-Iran rivalry to its own advantage.

To grasp the full picture of how the 'Western Continent' is turning this rivalry, which has only been re-newed by the Iran-nuke deal, into its own advantage, we should look in particular at how Iran's economic relations are developing with Europe in the post-deal scenario. Recently signed deals of worth billions of dollars notwithstanding, Iran's preference for Euro over dollar indicates how Europe is going to become, or is already becoming as the deals indicate, Iran's biggest trade partner. A source at state-owned National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) was reported to have said that Iran will charge in euros for its recently signed oil contracts with firms including French oil and gas major Total, Spanish refiner Cepsa and Litasco.

Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It's about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It's about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It's about Qaddafi's plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.

Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya's Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration's war against Qaddafi, cynically named "Responsibility to Protect."

Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab "regime change," using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros' Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.

President Obama swept into office on a promise to close the torture center, today Republican presidential candidates call for Guantanamo to be opened to new detainees.

​Friday, March 11, 2016, marks 14 years since the first detainee arrived at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Loud & Clear's Brian Becker sat down to talk with activist Jeremy Varon of Witness Against Torture, about the macabre legacy of the Guantanamo facility and the prospects for the release of the men who are condemned to indefinite detention.

"The prospects of it closing are dim," said Varon. "Obama sent a plan to Congress for closing and everybody from the Republican establishment to the media declared it dead on arrival. There are congressional bans on moving any detainee to the United States, and Obama seems reticent to use executive authority to override that act of Congress. So, right now we basically have a failed policy on life support. "

The United Nations declared Guantanamo a torture center. Torture violates US law and treaty obligations, so doesn't President Obama have executive authority to shut it down?

Varon explains that Guantanamo Bay was created by an executive order, which may provide President Obama the power he needs to counter continued congressional resistance.

"It is worth recalling that it was opened by executive fiat and so it goes that it can be closed by executive fiat," he said.

However, the likelihood of President Obama invoking executive authority on the matter is unlikely, due to resistance within his administration. "The attorney general said that such a move would be a violation of a standing law, and a high-up US Defense Department official said that the DoD refused to act contrary to the US Congress, even if ordered through an executive action. The Obama Administration cannot even get on the same page regarding this issue."

Varon also suggested that part of the difficulty in convincing the public and congressional Republicans that closing the facility serves US interests is that they have ceded the moral high ground. "In Beltway circles, nobody has talked about closing it because it is a human rights abomination and a place where illegal things happen. They refer instead to whether or not it provides actionable intelligence."

The Kurdish Freedom Falcons (TAK) group took responsibility for Sunday's deadly terror attack in Ankara, the group said in an online statement on Thursday.

A car bomb exploded at a bus stop in central Ankara on Sunday, leaving at least 37 dead and over 120 injured.

TAK stated on its website that the attack was targeted against Turkey's security forces and there was no intention to kill civilians.