Five minutes of glory and demise of Alexander Vindman
or Ukrainian Lobby alliance with neocons
Neocons make their living off of threat inflation and this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Why encircling Russia and arming the Ukraine is a questionable idea, that can lead to creation of the largest radioactive
deserts on two continents. Vindman case is a strange, bizarre example of the alliance of the Deep State, the Ukrainian lobby
and neocons, the trap from which there is no escape
"Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU." This
was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians)
who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2." ... "A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American
neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups..."
||Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ... In the execution
of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate
attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated.
The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in
one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and
to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions
to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily
parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties
from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity,
gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided,
instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom
they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots
who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause
and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them
as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good
faith. Here let us stop. ...
George Washington's famous farewall address
"The Moor has done his duty. The Moor can go."
Colonel Vindman was fired after Trump acquittal, as at this point his testimony was tantamount to insubordination to the
Commander in Chief. "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor can go."
While the rank-and-file military are among the most patriotic of Americans and show unwavering support for the Constitution, there
is a class of elite national security establishment who, whatever they may say on ceremonial occasions, believe they are above
the Constitution. The "national security establishment" is colloquially known as the
In the past military leaders were part of the ruling class, intelligence agencies did not exist and there
were no danger of a rogue national security establishment in 1789. That why for all their brilliance, the Framers of the Constitution
did not foresee the emergence this treat. JFK
assassination was the Rubicon, they crossed, and the tail started wagging the dog. Brennan 2016 elections machinations
were yet another vivid demonstration that the national security establishment tend to spine out of control.... The USA
media-military-industrial-congressional complex is largely insulated from public accountability, so what’s the
incentive to change course? Half billion to Ukraine in weapons. No Problem. Damn crumbing US infrastructure. It's
taxpayers money and we do not care about them:
The Pentagon’s entire budget operates in much the same way: unprecedented amounts in
unnecessary appropriations resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress
continues to throw more and more money at the defense department every year without ever requiring it to account
for how it spends the money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small potatoes by comparison.
This threat emerged only after WWII and national security state when Truman established intelligence agencies which comprise the
core of the Deep State ( CIA, NSA FBI and Pentagon. Add to this State Department and you get what is called "Trumanites". They
brought with them the three cornerstone of the USA foreign policy
- Exceptionalism - our unique status should exempt us from the rules we expect others to follow.
- Militarism - favor the use of force to advance US security and priority matters of national interest.
- Hegemony - America ought to fight hard not to let any other power challenge our post WWII position.
Gradually the national security bureaucracy became so large and omnipotent that the Madisonian branches of government became mainly
ceremonial institution providing legitimacy to the ruling elite via national election. Something like the British House of Lords, symbolically
important but in reality without much power. Intelligence agencies Nomenklatura, not Trump, are moving the nation toward autocracy,
operated at an increasing removed from constitutional limits and restraints manner (Welcome
to the Potemkin Village of Washington Power The American Conservative)
Tufts law professor Michael Glennon points out in a recent
essay in Humanitas that the Cold
War brought something new and ominous in military-civilian relations. The national security bureaucracy became so large and omnipotent
that the Madisonian branches of government became something like the British House of Lords, symbolically important but in reality
without much power. The executive, legislature, and judiciary became a kind of Potemkin village, with real national security power
lodged in, as Glennon describes it, “a largely concealed managerial directorate, consisting of the several hundred leaders of the
military, law enforcement and intelligence departments.” As this bureaucracy grew, Glennon argues, “those managers…operated at an
increasing remove from constitutional limits and restraints, moving the nation slowly toward autocracy.”
Glennon also points out
that, prior to Trump, there was an unwritten pact between the bureaucracy and the Madisonian government: never publicly disagree.
While national security policies have long been crafted and maintained by deep state bureaucracies, everyone played along and told
the public these were the result of “intense deliberations.” Yet a few people noticed that, whether under Republican or Democrat
administrations, national security policies never really changed, intelligence operations were never disrupted, and even peacenik-seeming
presidential candidates became warlike presidents. For decades, neither elected officials nor bureaucratic leaders publicly acknowledged
that American national security policy was being run by what Glennon describes as a “double government,” with elected officials largely
However, with the staggering intelligence failure that was 9/11 and two protracted and losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some
have begun to question whether the “grown-ups” in the national security bureaucracy are even competent. Trump gave voice to those
concerns in the 2016 campaign, and the result has been a breakdown in the Cold War truce between the two components of the double
government. Leaders of the national security establishment, who know they have real power, took precautions in the unlikely event
of a Trump victory and then proceeded to try to overturn Trump’s election.
When they failed, they partnered with Congress to have
Trump removed through impeachment, taking full advantage of the fractured nature of civilian control of national security institutions.
Impeachment witnesses, such as Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, have been unanimous in their implicit belief that the foreign
policy of the United States should be managed by a professional class of bureaucrats, not by the elected president.
The American constitutional order is thus in great peril. Those obsessed with getting rid of the president should consider that,
were Trump to be removed, it could be the constitutional equivalent of Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.
The key question is: Is encircling Russia and arming Ukraine in the US national interest ? Is not Russia a potentially valuable ally
against raise of China (although administrations, starting with Clinton did their best to convert it into a bitter enemy of the USA.)
Is not fledgling alliance of China and Russia (the alliance that in future will include Pakistan, Iran and Turkey; and may
be India and Saudi Arabia) spells not only doom to the USA imperial dreams, but endanger the mere existence of the USA -- as in increasing
changes of converting its territory into a radioactive desert?
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment — not against communist expansion, as in the Cold War, but against
war itself. The USA neoliberal elite have grown addicted
to it. Here is five reason that Lt Colonel William Astore listed in his blog Bracing Views:
...here are five additional reasons for war’s enduring presence in American life:
- The delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore winnable: No American
leader wants to be labeled a “loser.” Meanwhile, such dubious conflicts — see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even
generations, to go — continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though they visibly aren’t.
No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite his promises that American soldiers will be coming home
from such fiascos, has successfully resisted the Pentagon’s siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in
the cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off.
- American society’s almost complete
isolation from war’s deadly effects:
We’re not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though they’re certainly suffering from a lack of funding,
as is our most essential infrastructure,
thanks in part to the cost of those overseas wars). It’s nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the media or elsewhere,
this country’s never-ending war-making gets here.
- Unnecessary and sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don’t know about? Learning its lesson from
the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn’t because the enemy could exploit
such details — the enemy already knows! — but because the American people might be roused to something like anger and action by
it. Principled whistleblowers
like Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden, pursued and indicted for sharing
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America’s invasive and intrusive surveillance state. In the process, a clear message
of intimidation has been sent to other would-be truth-tellers.
- An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
to the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent attempts to end America’s arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden by Donald Trump’s veto
power), America’s duly elected representatives generally don’t represent the people when it comes to this country’s disastrous
wars. They are, to put it bluntly, largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally
go to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech (thank
you, Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in Congress than you and I ever will.
- America’s persistent empathy gap. Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious
empathy gap when it comes to understanding
foreign cultures and peoples or what we’re actually doing to them. Even our globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing
foreigners in battle, often stay on vast bases, referred to in the military as “Little Americas,” complete with familiar stores,
fast food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big trucks, wielding our big guns, and
dropping our very big
bombs. But what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives, these are things that Americans
turn out to care remarkably little about.
Bismarck once famously wrote that “politics is the art of the possible”. But it is the president as an elected official who
theoretically should determine the direction of the USA foreign policy; not the State Department borgists, or Pentagon. And to
change mindset of the deep staters after so many year they worked on confrontation with Russia is next to impossible. The fact that
Vindman with his jingoistic and stupid posture, Fiona Hill, Ciaramella, Yovanovich, State Department "diplomats (which are bullies,
not diplomats) and Ukrainegate in general demonstrate way too clearly. This situation looks more and more like like
Catch 22, or, if you wish, a zugzwang for the USA.
"Aid" is a strangely euphemistic term to describe anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles. It would be tragic if
US-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes will be coaxed back into the
unified Ukrainian state. The US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they
began in 2001. Adding another couple of hundred billion for Ukraine, when we desperately need money at home and a viable national Medical
insurance , and further antagonizing Russia does not make much sense. It just adds one more country which along with the USA and Russia
will be completely wiped out in case of WWIII to the NATO members list.
The other important question that can be asked in connection with Russiagate: "Why demonize the country which does not present
any threat to the USA (and might a very valuable ally), which has multiple and potentially unsolvable internal problems, rather low
standard of living (which is improving but very slowly) and which was almost completely destroyed and looted in 1991-2001 (Not
without CIA and the Clinton administration help; see Harvard Mafia, Andrei
Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia) and was the USA marionette during President Yeltsin tenure?
Of course, that help to maintain the current standard of living to the Washington neocons fifth column (or more correctly military
industrial complex lobbyists) an, more importantly, to direct lion share of the USA fund into military industrial complex, but impoverished
middle class represent a danger not only to existence of the USA global neoliberal empire, but to
the existence of the USA itself and as such this bleeding of middle class should better be stooped ASAP, even if this means putting
a boot on the the throat of the military industrial complex and slicing Pentagon budget in half of more. Of course it is easier
said than done as intelligence agencies are clearly a vital part of the military industrial complex and they are formidable force, capable
crushing any attempt to change the status quo. So this is a Catch 22 situation for the USA. We can not continue to bear
such a level of military expenses and carry the cost of foreign wars (and ramp up the level of debt), and we can't stop.
Enter Alexander Vindman, an NSC staffer who reported to Dr. Fiona Hill and, before that, to Ciaramella
Alexander Vindman testimony (and Vindman is one of most plausible sources of the lead of Trump transcript to the whistleblower) recently
shed some light on the "Deep State" phenomenon. It correlated in major points with the testimony of Fiona Hill, which is
not surprising. Both profess neocon militaristic posture toward Russia (rabid neocon posture in case of Fiona Hill, more reserved
posture of Alexander Vindman) and using Ukraine in geopolitical games in Europe.
Like most neocons, Vindman see Trump’s entire Ukraine policy
as insufficiently hardline and
therefore unacceptable to foreign policy establishment (aks the Deep State). It is unclear why he decided to became the Deep
State spokesmen, and what were incentives, if any.
The key question that arise from his testimony is: "Is the democracy possible if powerful and out of control
three letter agencies like CIA and NSA exist?" It is evident that sooner or later (usually sooner) they makes surface
state just an instrument for providing legitimacy of deep state rule and hijacks most of the decision-making. In a way they
are the "Inner Party" about which Orwell have written its famous dystopia
1984. This phenomenon is reflected in the very term the Deep State.
After 1954 the core of the deep state is intelligence agencies which became a political forces, king of Praetorian Guard, who is capable
elects, blackmail (Epstein) and even kill the Presidents Just look at the role of CIA in the JFK assassination and spying on the members of Congress (Proven CIA behaviour in case of Congress investigating torture in Iraq).
Lelv of control of the USA MSM by intelligence agencies is unknown but probably is very high indeed. See
Journalists for Hire How
the CIA Buys the News by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte
The key question here is the influence of Ukrainian diaspora on the US foreign policy (Diaspora
Communities Influencing US Foreign Policy by Thomas Ambrosio & Yossi Shain)
These ethnic lobbies seek to influence U.S. policy in three ways.
- First, by framing the issues "they help set the terms of debate" or "put items on the country's agenda."
- Second, they are a source of information and analysis that provide a great deal of information to members of Congress
and serve as a resource for other branches of government and non-governmental organizations, and shaping general perspectives.
- Finally, ethnic group lobbies provide policy oversight. "They examine the policies of the U.S. government, propose policies,
write letters and [are] involved in electioneering activities."
Another important question here is the role of experts (what Soviets called "intelligencia"). Vindman clearly
represents this category along with his boss Fional Hill. The prominent Russian scientist
and writer Zinoviev expressed the following reservation about them during "perestroika" in 1991 which are fully applicable
to the USA situation today, especially in view of members of the "resistance"in State Department and other agencies:
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders of society the situation would become much worse.
Because they have neither the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are more important than the
actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of society as they wish and plan, in the way they view
is the best only if under conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore they are not able to act
even at the level of current leaders of the society, which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures,
by the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals are unhappy that the real stream of life they are
living in. They consider it wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while in reality being sophisticated
This label of "sophisticated professional idiots" is fully applicable not only to Vindman, but also to Fiona Hill and diplomats from
the State Department who testified in Schiff impeachment inquiry. Vindman is completely detached from reality inhabiting the Kingdom
of Neocon Myths about Ukraine starting with the term the "Revolution of dignity" which is reality was a blatant CIA/State department run color revolution,
coup d'état which deposed legitimately elected President (corrupt but legitimately elected) using as a ram. Crashing
fragile constitutional regime in Ukraine and opening the whole can of worms.
nationalists squads were bussed to Kiev from Lviv area and fight police along with well paid with the USA dollars gangs of football hooligans
from different regions (including South of Ukraine). As the result on Nuland orders they smashed
constitutional order in Ukraine, Which was doen to achieve the USA geopolitical goals in the regions -- isolating, weakening
economically (via sanctions, which ios a form of war) and encircling Russia with NATO countries (Nulandgate).
The far right Junta which came to power burned civilians
in Odessa, killed them in Mariupol and unleashed the civil war in Ukraine. As the result they lost Crimea and were on the way of
losing Donetsk and Lugansk regions, when the USA intervened to prevent this happening and threatening Russia. They also pushed the population into dismal poverty,
while enriching few connected to the coup oligarchs and political functionaries (different from those who enriched themselves under
Yanukovich, but equally, if not more corrupt).
Tails is wagging the dog
Vindman testimony as well as testimony of of State Department diplomat shows quite vividly that bureaucratic careerists from CIA,
NSA , State Department and other agencies are far from being merely obedient public servants dedicated to executing policies that elected
officials and their high-level political appointees have adopted. In reality, they have their own policy preferences, and they
are not shy about pushing them, nor do they hesitate to impede, undermine, or even sabotage policies of the President they dislike.
They are a the Inner Party, a neocons warmongers party within the each party of USA political duopoly. Or, Deep state --
another applicable here term -- unelected bureaucrats that define the USA policy contrary to the wishes of elected officials.
| The CIA brass and bureaucratic careerists from other agencies (especially the State Department) are far from being
merely obedient public servants dedicated to executing policies that elected officials and their high-level political appointees
have adopted. Such operatives have their own policy preferences, and they are not shy about pushing them, nor do they hesitate
to impede, undermine, or even sabotage policies they dislike. They are a hidden party, a neocons warmongers party within
the USA political duopoly.
As Ted Carpenter observed in
When the Deep State
Bullied Reagan's Foreign Policy Chief (The American Conservative, November 27, 2019):
The CIA’s sabotage was not confined to policy regarding Mozambique. Later that decade, during delicate negotiations to achieve
a ceasefire and subsequent accord between Angola’s government and insurgent leader Jonas Savimbi, Shultz fumed that (emphasis added)
“right-wing staffers from Congress, fueled by information from the CIA, were meddling—visiting Savimbi, trying to convince
him that [Assistant Secretary of State Chester] Crocker and I would sell him out.”
Such behavior should debunk the notion that the CIA and other bureaucratic careerists are merely obedient public servants dedicated
to executing policies that elected officials and their high-level political appointees have adopted. Such operatives have their own
policy preferences, and they are not shy about pushing them, nor do they hesitate to impede or undermine policies they dislike.
Perhaps even more troubling, deep state personnel in the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department seem to have a distinct bias in favor
of highly activist policies. CIA analysts and briefers regarded even the principal architect of the Reagan Doctrine as insufficiently
committed in southern Africa. There is a noticeable parallel to the current bureaucratic opposition to Trump’s handling of Ukraine
and Russia. The allegation that Trump has abandoned Kiev and pursues an appeasement policy toward Russia
is absurd. His support for Kiev
has actually been far more substantial than the approach the Obama administration adopted. Yet even that harder line is apparently
not hard enough for establishment career diplomats and their allies.
Treating such saboteurs as heroic patriots is both obscene and dangerous. The honorable course for subordinates who disagree with
a president’s policies is to resign and then express criticism. Adopting a termite strategy while working in a presidential administration
is profoundly unethical. For Congress and the media to praise bureaucratic subversion is horridly myopic. The last thing defenders
of a democratic republic should do is to encourage unelected—and in the case of the intelligence agencies, deeply secretive—bureaucrats
to pursue their own rogue policy agendas.
Alexander Vindman represents an interesting set of figures in the US establishment -- of sons/daughters of emigrants who were born abroad,
but grow up in the USA. Crowdstrike founder Alperovich, an important figure in Russiagate witch hunt also belongs to this category.
Less recent member of the Ukrainian diaspora who also played a role in Russiagate and Ukrainegate is Alexandra Chalupa, a daughter
of emigrants who got to the USA from WWII internment camps, which suggest that they may
found against the
Soviets in WWII (that is true for many members of OUN -- Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). After WWII members of OUN the
cornerstone of resistance in to Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine and were crushed only in 1950th. They were used by CIA as a
part of underground network direct against Soviets (Operation Gladio).
They also work in the staff of Voice of America and similar organizations (which is natural as they know a lot about their country
of origin and can speak the language). That worked well during the existence of the USSR. But not so well after the USSR was
The worldview of this category of US citizens is deeply influenced by emigrant community and culture, hatred
and prejudices of their country of birth. This is clearly visible in Chalupa case. This also was visible not only with Vindman case (he is an economic
Ukraine) also with Fiona Hill (emigrant via marriage from GB)
and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. (she
is a daughter of emigrants but she was born in Canada, moved to Connecticut at the age of three,
and became a
American citizen at age eighteen. She grew up
Such people probably should
be kept at arm length from the high levels of decision making related to the xUSSR and Central European countries. Case of Fiona Hill
is more complex and less clear, but it was really difficult to distinguish
her position and the position of Her Majesty government. The level of rabid Russophobia are absolutely identical.
Vindman looks like a close analog of Max Boot (who is an emigrant for Russia). Such people try to compensate with extreme hawkishness
their sense of inferiority.
Being an émigré from Ukraine (and speaking the language -- although most probably it is Russian, not Ukrainian ;-), he also
has connections via his brother with shadow Ukrainian circles (the classic representative of which were Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko), which
plunder Ukraine to enrich themselves and their Western sponsors and protectors. This view of diaspora on Ukraine as a milking
cow is actually quite widespread.
And post 2014 Ukrainian government (actually not that
different in this respect from the government before that; Biden was the best friend and mentor of Yanukovich; Manafort was his campaign
strategist) actively recruited lobbyists in the USA both openly and covertly, spending enormous for such a poor country
amounts of cash (for example oligarch Pinchuk close to former President Kuchma
has donated from $10 to $25 million to the Clinton
Foundation between 1994 and 2005). And this is true not only such major figures like ex-president Poroshenko, Clinton benefactor
Pinchuk, and the power behind Zelenski --
Kolomoyskyi (who along with Poroshenko was also the major sponsor of 2014
coup, but later was sidelined), but also a large number of smaller sharks. Rumors are that Ukrainians, at one time, proposed Vindman
the position of the Minister of Defense.
His testimony raises an important question of influence of emigrant circles on the USA foreign policy and this wisdom of appointing
people with strong ties to foreign countries into the top levels of the USA government. They bring ancient hatred into the mainstream
of the USA politics and strengthen neocons, the most hawkish and militarist strata within the US government. At least Vindman is not
a chickenhawk like most neocons
|Vindman testimony raises an important question of influence of emigrant circles on the USA foreign policy and this wisdom
of appointing people with strong ties to foreign countries into the top levels of the USA government. They bring ancient
hatred into the mainstream of the USA politics and strengthen neocons, the most hawkish and militarist strata within the US government.
At least Vindman is not a chickenhawk like most neocons.
They also bring with them their own, biased, and somewhat provincial understanding of the USA national security interests, which
usually include assigning outsized importance to their country of birth. The classic example of this was Brzezinski
and his role in creating Political Islam. While it proved to be a useful and potent proxy for fighting Soviets in Afghanistan
(who BTW installed a secular regime in this country and achieved the status of woman about which current Afghan government and its USA
handlers can only dream ), it acquired the life of its own. As the result of Brzezinski efforts, Afghanistan might serve as a
graveyard of the USA global neoliberal empire. As George Washington observed in his famous farewell address (1796):
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure
the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will,
and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded
citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without
odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for
public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Vindman case is slightly bizarre as for a person with a father from Ukraine, who emigrated as a refugee in 1979 (formally escaping
persecution of Jews in Ukraine; in reality an economic migrant) he should be allergic to Western Ukrainian far right nationalists, who
came to power in 2014, and the last thing he should want is to send arms to Ukraine. Western Ukrainian nationalists
during WWII committed horrible crimes against Polish, Jewish and Russian people.
Sending arms to Ukraine also means sending arms to the politically unstable country. And the current level of political instability
Ukraine probably will persist as neoliberalism in Ukraine made the population as poor as church rats. Most wealth is concentrated in
the hands of a dozen of oligarchs. In fact, it is as far from democracy as one can get: this a brutal oligarchic republic with
an extremely poor population ($2-3 a day for lower 50%), which standard of living dropped at least two times since 2014 (and currency
three times -- 300% or 60% a year). As such population is inclined to social revolt. Add to this the differences between Western and
Eastern part of the country who speak different languages, have different religions, with the anemic, but widespread resistance to attempt
of west to colonize it under the pretexts of the idea "one country--one language" (Ukrainization) in the East ).
It might be better to use "Finlandization"
of Ukraine. Supplying
it with additional weapons (as if it does not have enough leftovers from Soviet times) cost money and can only increase casualties on both sides (which is
probably what US strategists want in any case; with Ukrainian being pawn of the US geopolitical ambitions in the region ) Javelins
can be reverse engineered and supplied to forces that fight the US occupation forces in Afghanistan (and this not only
Taliban; Northern alliance can also be brought into the fight anytime; they might switch sides and start fighting Americans). Ukraine also can sell if to the highest
bidder including Islamists, who operate rather openly on the territory of Ukraine (pro Islamist Chechens militia are fighting
against separatists in Donetsk region)
The US spends close to 10% of its GDP on military, if the accounting is done properly. As half of the USA GPS is semi-parasitic
FIRE sector (the former IMF
chief economist Simon Johnson,
have argued that the increased power and influence of the financial services sector had fundamentally transformed the American
polity, endangering representative democracy itself through undue influence on the political system and
regulatory capture by the financial
oligarchy) the actual figure is probably closer to 25%. Or
one of each five discretionary dollar goes to military. The USA does not have those money and need to
borrow and take them from pensioners, poor people, infrastructure spending, and social programs. As Daniel Larison noted
(Endless War Degrades the Military The
American Conservative, Dec 5 2019):
Our endless wars have been enormously costly. It is estimated that all of the wars of the last twenty years will end up
costing at least $6.4 trillion, and beyond that they have consumed our government’s attention and resources to the detriment of
everything else. Our political and military leaders perpetuate these wars, and the public has allowed them to do this, because
they are still laboring under the faulty assumption that the U.S. is being made more secure in the process. The reality is that
endless wars are undermining our security, weakening the military, and creating more enemies. They should be ended responsibly,
but they must end.
Maybe it is time for the US to reduce its huge military spending, which creates mayhem in the world and take funds away from US
imperial programs like regime change operations in xUSSR countries and attempt to encircle Russia with NATO countries by bringing
several xUSSR countries into NATO. Russia threat to Europe is old neocon trick. In reality it was Europe that attacked
Russia half dozen times in last two centuries (Napoleon war, Crimea war, WWI, Intervention (when GB used poison gas on Russians),
Nazi Germany invasion. And it was the USA which committed and economic rape of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
NATO should have collapsed after the Soviet Union did. Only the parasitic Warfare State Nomenklatura in Washington created the
Russia = Soviet Union 2.0 meme because it needed an existential "enemy". Because that's where the money is for the MIC and where the
power and prestige are for the uniformed Hacks in the Pentagon and Brussels. The USA also uses NATO as leverage to stick its fat
greasy thumb into strictly European issues generally, e.g. Nord Stream 2.
Trump wants Europe to spend more on defense because more spending means more sales for the American defense contractors whether
Europe needs those weapons or not. That’s why the U.S. is indifferent to Saudi war crimes. And will bend over backwards for Erdogan.
As long as they continue to buy U.S. war toys. Ironically, Trump calls out the European countries in NATO, saying that they free
ride. When in fact Trump wants to increase the size of the hyper-bloated American military. Any American assets removed from Europe
would be merely relocated somewhere else with no savings to the American taxpayers. Trump’s crowing about "savings" is a complete
With the Soviet Union gone NATO is largely irrelevant. Russia doesn’t need to be “deterred” because it has absolutely no
strategic reason to invade any country in Europe. And a military incursion would completely wreck its commercial business with
If the U.S. butts out of trying to run Europe via coercion (enabled by dominance inside of NATO), the Europeans and Russians
would finally figure things out for themselves and formalize the complete reconciliation that should have occurred over 25 years
ago. France and the UK are nuclear weapon states. The EU has 11 times the money and 3.5 times the population of Russia. Our European
allies can take care of Russia themselves if they feel Russia was a threat. The Europeans don't spend more on defense because they
don't believe Russia is a threat to them. They already out spend Russia on defense and have a combined military force that is both
larger and more advanced than Russia's military.
Russia has no interest in Eastern Europe except as consumers for their commodities and products. The USSR saddled itself with
subsidizing E.Europe and Russia aren't about to repeat their mistake. You need to accept the world the way it really is and not they
way Neocon liars wish it was.
But the USA world dominance goals also means military dominance. That's why NATO will not be dissolved.
Western Ukrainians are viewed by population of Eastern large cities such as Dnipro and Odessa (both with substantial Jewish highly
educated population) as uneducated and provincial, and the Ukrainian culture as the second rate (although now Hollywood and the USA
culture clearly dominate both Ukrainian and Russian culture).
If economic situation of Ukraine continues to deteriorate the frictions between differences might increase and in this case
it is completely unclear in which hands Javelins might land or be resold by Ukraine and for which purposes.
On the other hand, Vindman is a very interesting part of the "Neocons in Trump administration" and "Diaspora influence" stories.
While in now way equal to Ciaramalla meteoritic rise,
he somehow managed to climb the ladder pretty successfully. At 44 he managed already to serve as a low level military attaché in three countries Germany, Russia
(with Former Army Brigadier General Peter Zwack),
and Ukraine. And he served in Moscow during the USA attempt to stage a color revolutions in Russia (2011-2012). The fact that
Vindman is connected to McFaul is alarming. So he probably belong to a small group of "regime change" specialists. Vindman is
also connected to Glenn Simpson. Like Simpson Vindman specialized in Russian affairs, and he might know
Christopher Steele (Shifty
Schiff's Star Tuesday Witness, Alexander Vindman, Is Connected to Obama's Russian Ambassador and Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson )
He just demonstrates that part of Washington neocon circles in political establishment are filled with emigrants from the former
USSR and Central Europe, who bring with them ancient hatred. Pushing hostilities with Russia is definitely detrimental to the
USA geo-strategic interests as it strengthens the alliance between Russia and China (Stuffed-Uniform
and Deep-State Plant Alexander Vindman Is an ‘Expert’ With an Agenda - SGT Report):
Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to
suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global
conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product,
which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has
done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman’s written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: “”When I joined the NSC in July
2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware
of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This
narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly
optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his
own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone
on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth’s three witches – Rice, Power and
Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The
regime change was brought about by “mavericks” like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the
footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the “wetwork” was done, with
his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments
propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.
Vindman, clearly was a player in articulating and managing US policy towards Ukraine, and this is a real danger to have
such an immigrant with strong cultural ties to the country in a major role on the NSC.
Timothy Morrison, a former deputy assistant to the president and the National Security Council’s former senior director for
Europe and Russia, testified that he "had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment." He added that others on the
National Security Council, including the NSC's former senior director for Europe and Russia, Dr. Fiona Hill, were wary of
"Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses,"
Morrison said. "And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment."
He explicitly assume active role
(Vindman Went Around Authorities to Undermine Trump Administration - Told Ukrainian President Zelensky to Stay Out of US Politic
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told Adam Schiff during his testimony on Tuesday that
he went around his chain of command to undermine the Trump administration.
Vindman confessed that he told Ukrainian President Zelensky to “stay out of US politics” during his trip there in
Was this connected with financial activities of his older brother (Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
) in Ukraine and how it is difficult to tell:
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By
Jingo We’ll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern
was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military
assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the
Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong
the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt
from Vindman’s prepared statement: “….I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support
of Ukraine…. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would
likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the
bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
Vindman’s concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit
from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to
compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always
essential national security angle, claiming that “Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive
foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional
hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an
increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine
is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark
against Russian aggression.”
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians
serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about
the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged
transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern
Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an
important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really
speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion
of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its
imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the
United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is
less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his
masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
It might accelerate the decline of the USA led global neoliberal empire and separation of it, like the ancient Roman
empire into two camps. Trump, judging from his election campaign, probably understand that, but it iether incapable or unwilling to
fight the deep state, and barely capable to ensure his own survival. The fact that populated his own administration with rabid neocons,
completely overturn his election campaign promises. In this sense this autumn chickens just came home to roost.
At the same time pictures of Ukrainegaters like Vindman also demonstrate weakness of Corporate Democrats current agenda and
instead of increasing the chances of success in 2020 election, might actually diminish those chances. In other words "Pelosi
gambit" (and Adam "Captain Ahab" Schiff might at the end serve the role of a sacrificial pawn) might backfire. Trump is very adept in
playing the victim and Dems gave him once in life chance to use his skill to the fullest extent possible.
Vindman now looks like another sacrificial pawn in a big game. The fact that he decided to come to the Schiff hearing
is full military uniform, while occupying essentially diplomatic position for the last ten years or so (probably since 2005 -- he
was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a Purple heart) is very telling (Stuffed-Uniform
and Deep-State Plant Alexander Vindman Is an ‘Expert’ With an Agenda - SGT Report.
He understood that he walking on egg-shells now and tried to hide behind the uniform. Is he just a snotty little tattletale
or he violated the UCMJ? Is he a whistle blower or a spy? He did not report any wrongdoing: he just objected against Trump political
preferences for Ukraine, which he has no right to do. Because Presedent defines the forign policy not Lt. Colonel Vindman. He
also did not follow the chain-of-command with his reporting.
An impeachment requires a crime. Acquittal would
mean there was no crime. At this point Vindman will become a soldier who failed to obey a legal order from the
Commander in Chief. While his testimony to Schiff's impeachment inquiry might shield him, his presentation was typical of a certain
kind of a "politician-in-uniform" types, which officers often call a "Pentagon Princeling." They pretend
that they are more clever that the rest of us. We will see to what expent this is true for Lt. Col Vindman.
His brother is one of the ethics lawyers on the National Security Council. Formally as this was a question about ethics, he would
definitely be on a need to know basis to advise Alex Vindman on what to do if he had a concern in his capacity as a lawyer. But on the
other hand telling this his brother does smells bad: going to your twin brother is not going to get you the unbiased advice.
It seems more and more like that Vindman demarche, sincere or not, is a vendetta by a pro-Ukrainian faction in the Obama Administration
(extending back into Trump Administration) that hates Trump and believes anything he does WRT Ukraine is for the direct benefit of Trump's
|It seems more and more like that Vindman demarche, sincere or not, is a vendetta by a pro-Ukrainian faction in the
Obama Administration (extending back into Trump Administration) that hates Trump and believes anything he does WRT Ukraine is
for the direct benefit of Trump's Russian friends.
The president, thanks to the Constitution, defines foreign policy. By definition, he can't "subvert" it, because no one
else has the authority to set foreign policy. The bureaucrats and lesser officials (like Vindman) have zero power to set policy -- their
role is to carry out the policies set by the president. Any attempt to thwart that policy is, itself, the very definition of "subversion."
Especially if this is done under the pretext "ZOMG TRUMP! ORANGE MAN BAD!" If does not matter if you're wrapping yourself
in the flag of "national interest" in the process. might depends on a particular definition of the national interests. And neocon definition
is wrong and is a huge liability for the USA. Rapid militarism promoted by neocons costs the USA way too much money and is unsustainable,
especially in the view of the rise of China as an economic power, the size of the national debt, and sliding standard of living to the
middle class due to outsourcing and offshoring of vital industries.
|The president, thanks to the Constitution, defines foreign policy. By definition, he can't "subvert" it,
because no one else has the authority to set foreign policy.
"“It is difficult to get a man to understand something,
when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Vindman was wounded in war in Iraq unleashed by neocons (or more correctly the war useful only for neocons and empire builders
that hijacked Bush II administration). This experience taught him nothing. Like any neocon worth this badge he wants more
wars. Especially with Russia over Ukraine. As a part of Washington neocon blob, who is getting fat on endless wars, he is
perfectly OK that soon you might need a Hamvee to drive on the destroyed by the lack of funds for repairs US roads.
Neocon promote "threat inflation" to secure their own well being and the well being of MIC (as they are essentially
lobbyists for MIC) and Vindman is not exception to this rule. Vindman said he believed it was his “duty” to report his concerns with
the call. Duty to whom? Definitely not to Trump administration, but to neocon blob in State Department and Pentagon.
He appeared to be completely detached from the reality. For example he outright rejected pretty plausible idea (with
substantial evidence) that Joe Biden wanted a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor removed from office in order to protect his son, Hunter
and the money flow to Bidens family for his lobbing activities. That undermines his credibility:
DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL DANIEL GOLDMAN: “Are you aware of any credible allegations or evidence to support this notion that Vice
President Biden did something wrong or against U.S. policy with regard to Ukraine?”
VINDMAN: “I am not.”
Vindman was similarly stupidly "neoconish" when addressing another very plausible theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the
2016 election interference.
GOLDMAN: “At the time of the July 25th call, were you aware of a theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election?”
VINDMAN: “I was.”
GOLDMAN: “Are you aware of any credible evidence to support this theory?”
VINDMAN: “I am not.”
GOLDMAN: “Are also you aware that Vladimir Putin promoted this theory of Ukrainian election in the 2016 election?”
VINDMAN: “I am well aware of this fact.”
GOLDMAN: “Ultimately, which country did U.S. intelligence services determine to have interfered in the U.S. presidential
VINDMAN: “It is the consensus of the entire intelligence community that the Russians interfered in U.S. elections in 2016.”
Though it may be the consensus of the entire intelligence community, but fact are stubborn things. This is a nuance that
Vindman does not understand. As on "“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
The following comment is applicable to Ukraine, but it is impossible without discarding "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine.
• 100 Words