Western denunciations of Russia's disregard for free speech over the trial and jailing of the punk band Pussy Riot are shaped far more by opportunism than anything authentic.

Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States?

No one who has followed the history of Afghanistan or Iraq will be surprised at the West's allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar supplying weapons to the sectarians in the Syrian opposition.

US policies justified in the name of fighting terrorism – aside from being rather terroristic themselves – are precisely those which fuel the anti-American hatred that causes those attacks.

Crisis point has been reached as Afghan soldiers and police are turning their guns on Nato troops who are supposedly working with them and training them to take over in three years time.

Putting aside military occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza Strip, Israel's treatment of its own Palestinian citizens is enough to cast serious doubt on its democratic credibility.

What is now at stake is not only a threat of a major war in a volatile region, but more importantly for the long run, the future of the international peacemaking process itself.

Diplomats in Assange’s home country Australia anticipate receipt of an extradition request for Assange once a secret US grand jury wraps up its investigation.

Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange was both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-breaking case that has considerable historic significance.

After eleven years, more than four-hundred billion dollars spent and two thousand Americans dead, this is what the US has built: a deeply dysfunctional, predatory Afghan state.