Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Demonization of Putin

Reuters/David W Cerny

PseudoScience > Who Rules America > Pathological Russophobia of the US elite

News Propaganda: Journalism Vacation from Truth Recommended Links DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders and blaming Vladimir Putin Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary  Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17?
Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Putin-did-it fiasco: Obama repeat Bush's WMD fiasco Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Trump vs. Deep State
Color revolutions Anti Trump Hysteria US and British media are servants of security apparatus American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair
Pussi Riot Provocation MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage "Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place Robert Kagan Wolfowitz Doctrine Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton
Russian Doping Scandal Khodorkovsky case Boris Berezovsky Magnitsky case Navalny's Saga Underground millionaire Koreyko -- Navalny Humor
Hillary role in Syria bloodbath Hillary the warmonger Corruption smoke screen Miraculous metamorphosis of Russian crooks on crossing Western border Russian experience in "white Revolution" of 2011-2012 Patterns of Propaganda
British hypocrisy Soft propaganda The Real War on Reality Russophobic quotes from famous Russian Liberasts Humor Etc

Europe has manufactured an artificial "Russian enemy"
 in order to create an artificial "European identity"

Guy Mettan

Demonization of Putin is integral part of policy of the US and British elite toward Russia, designed to weaken, and, if possible, dismember the Russian state. It is also an instrument of increasing national unity by creating a demonized external enemy.

Russophobia of the US elite should be understood in the context of Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism as Russia represent an obstacle for complete domination of the globe by the US neoliberal empire. Nothing personal here, just business. Recent statements by Putin made at Valday club in Sochi (October 24, 2014) also do not produce any love to Putin from the global and first of all the USA neoliberal elite as well as London-based financial oligarchy. Not accidentally for both the US and GB elite Putin is a "Great Satan".

Like anti-Semitism, Russophobia is based on standard mechanism of Demonization (Wikipedia):

In colloquial usage, the term demonization is used metaphorically to refer to propaganda directed on delitimization of particular individual or group.

Delegitimization is the psychological process which undermines or marginalizes an individual or entity by presenting value judgments as facts which are construed to devalue legitimacy. The ultimate goal of justifying harm or war.

The concept applies to a wide spectrum of social contexts but generally means categorization of individual or groups into extreme social categories which are ultimately excluded from society. Delegitimization provides the moral and the discursive basis to harm the delegitimized group, even in the most inhumane ways.

It is related to stereotyping in a sense that it leads to prejudice when people emotionally react to the name of the person, ascribe evil intention and characteristic to the person or group without evaluating objective evidence.

As always in such cases three-letter agencies are in the vanguard of such complains (Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin - Russia Insider)

A major topic in the Russian media is mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media. Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such a disconnect with Western impressions.

Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.

Yesterday, at a briefing to foreign journalists, Sergey Ivanov, Putin's chief of staff, arguably the 2nd most powerful man in Russia, spoke of an "information war" consisting of "personal attacks" on Putin.

The western media hit a new low...
>The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin, made similar remarks, telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia."

The logic, they argue, is that by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally, by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself. They also talk about regime change.

They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce this defamation into the news flow.

Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years

The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news, including direct cash payments.

Here are some examples they point to:

RI sat down with The Saker, a leading analyst of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:

So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".

And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...

So this is a US government program?

Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:

1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost … Russia then was a US colony like Ukraine is today … and,

2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.

… a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. … this is a full-scale political assault on Russia and Putin personally.

So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, … basically, planted stories…

Yes, absolutely

It seems like “Operation Mockingbird” all over again… Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?

(Editors Note: Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program’s termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia)

Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public … Putin's popularity is higher than ever before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance…

… So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military intervention…

… but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.

Warm and fuzzy...

So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians, the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin’s support base…

Yes, that’s right ... there are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine Putin.

Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?

Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don’t appreciate… there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).

The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries, right?

Well its sort of like that, but not exactly…

The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.

The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support - but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.

Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?

I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes journalists corrupt.

As the French philosopher Alain Soral says "nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute". There are, of course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.

This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning away those who don't.

If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.

There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.

Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, …similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin America, etc.

Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.

As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or EU today.

Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.

If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?

I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.

The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.

So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?

Absolutely.

Quotes from Putin speech and answers to the questions at the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

 


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 23, 2017] Clapper intelligence assessment sounds a little bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission

May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Carroll Price , May 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT

.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."

Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover prior to any investigation taking place.

[May 22, 2017] Key points of TIME magazine cover story on the Russian takeover of America

Notable quotes:
"... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
May 22, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn | May 18, 2017 8:57:21 PM | 71

TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article:

1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.

The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."

2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.

Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.

3) Russia spies on you.

The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic."

4) America is losing the cyberwar.

As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back.

5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.

American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.

6) Russia has huge troll farms.

Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.

7) You must trust mainstream media.

Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed.

8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .

Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.

That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.

10) The evidence:

Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.

[May 22, 2017] Making Russia a scapegoat for political tension connected with the crumbling of the neoliberal society due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment of the lower 80% of population

Notable quotes:
"... "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it." ..."
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class. ..."
May 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, May 22, 2017 at 03:58 PM

A comment from MoA contains an insightful observation

"Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/the-special-council-investigation-will-be-bad-for-trump.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8f9d50c970b

VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class.

They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

[May 22, 2017] Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment

Notable quotes:
"... If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
May 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class .

They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

[May 22, 2017] The Russian Obsession Goes Back Decades by Jacob G. Hornberger

Notable quotes:
"... Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president: ..."
"... He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America. ..."
"... He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow. ..."
"... President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship. They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here . Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment. In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done. ..."
"... Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, ..."
"... Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. ..."
"... By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again. ..."
"... What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs. ..."
"... In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment ..."
"... For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel. ..."
May 20, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:

  1. He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
  2. He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
  3. He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow.
  4. He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.
President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.

They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor.

All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here .

Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.

In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.

In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since the end of World War II.

It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America's World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that the Cold War - and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia - would last forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy's predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had called the "military-industrial complex."

Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.

Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to "national security." After all, don't forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader's Patrice Lamumba's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA. It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende's death.

Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing - reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.

In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other "enemy" of America. Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to "national security."

Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. Yes, that's right - they said that "national security" depended on the U.S. government's continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today - conducting nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.

Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America's Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to "national security" as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on the Cold War.

By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.

What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs.

Kennedy's feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other "enemies" of America? In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.

For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

[May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud. ..."
"... He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. ..."
"... Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries ..."
Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is
Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff The Vineyard of the Saker

Question: The traditional definition of war is "war is nothing more than an extension of state policy by alternate means." We usually understand "alternate means" as military violence and therefore claim that war always involves military action. Do you think it would be correct to say that the nature of war has changed in contemporary circumstances, that is, now the term includes measures for information, economic, political and psychological impact?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, in the West they coined the term 'hybrid war.' As a matter of fact, this is the concept they seem to be forming based on their experience. Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf.

A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud.

He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. This is just one example. But anywhere you go, when I just try talking to my Western colleagues, the White Helmets are exempt from any criticism and seem to have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other tricks like that. Certainly, in a wider perspective, cyberspace is an area where there is a material possibility to inflict potentially very serious harm. Cyber forces were created and, apparently, they have some significance. This is exactly why we need forums where these things can be discussed as a single package. The military discusses purely military issues, which now extends to cyberwars.

Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries. It is very short-sighted to impose unilateral sanctions on a country like Russia, with its huge potential, human and natural resources. By encouraging dialogue in each of these areas to build a general understanding, mutually beneficial and generally acceptable approaches, we need a forum where all these issues can be considered in their relation to each other because they all affect the general status of international relations. Except for the UN, there is no other framework like this. This is a very topical issue and we have no doubt that it will be in the centre of very heated and engaging debates for the foreseeable future.

[May 21, 2017] The New Anti-Russian Hysteria by Edward S. Herman

Notable quotes:
"... It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM). ..."
"... Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing. ..."
"... The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. ..."
"... The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions. ..."
"... RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. ..."
"... So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia. ..."
"... The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. ..."
Mar 27, 2017 | zcomm.org
It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM).

Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing.

Boris Yeltsin, accommodating to U.S. advice and pressure from 1991-2000, seriously damaged his own people's well-being (Russian GDP fell 50 percent, between 1991-1998), but, while he was also creating an oligarchic and authoritarian economic and political structure he was lauded as a great democrat in the MSM. Yeltsin's election victory in 1996, greatly assisted by U.S. consultants, advice and money, and otherwise seriously corrupt, was "A Victory for Russian Democracy" (NYT, ed,, July 4, 1996). His successor, Vladimir Putin, gradually discarding the Yeltsin-era subservience, became a steadily increasing menace. His reelection in 2012, although surely less corrupt than Yeltsin's in 1996, was treated harshly in the media. No "victory for Russian democracy" here, and the lead NYT article on May 5, 2012 featured "a slap in the face" from OSCE observers, claims of no real competition, and "thousands of antigovernment protesters gathered in Moscow square to chant 'Russia without Putin'" (Ellen Barry and Michael Schwartz, "After Election, Putin Faces Challenges to Legitimacy"). There were no "challenges to legitimacy" reported in the MSM in Yeltsin's corrupt victory in 1996, although it was so corrupt that Yeltsin may actually have lost the election but for a fraudulent count (on February 20, 2012, outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by acknowledging that Yeltsin might really have lost the 1996 election to Communist Gennadi Zyuganov).

The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. This was all declared to be "aggression" by the U.S. and its allies and clients, sanctions were imposed on Russia and the U.S.-NATO buildup on the Russian borders increased. Tensions mounted further with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines MH-17, effectively but almost surely falsely, blamed on the "pro-Russian" rebels and Russia itself (see Robert Parry, "Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report," Consortiumnews.com, September 28, 2016). A further cause of demonization and anti-Russian hostility resulted from escalated Russian intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Saddad and against ISIS. The U.S. and its NATO and local Middle East allies had been committing aggression against Syria and in de facto alliance with ISIS and Al-Nusrah, an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Russian intervention turned the tide, the U.S. (etc) goal of removing Saddad was upset and the tacit U.S. ally, ISIS, was also severely weakened. Certainly demonic behavior. The next and ongoing phase of anti-Russian hysteria was based on Russia's purported entry into the 2016 presidential campaign and on the growing role of the CIA and other U.S. security services in hysteria-implementation, in close alliance with the MSM. In the third presidential debate, on October 19, 2016, Clinton declared that Trump would be a Putin "puppet" as president, and her campaign placed great emphasis on this. This emphasis increased after the election, with the help of the media and intelligence services as the Clinton camp sought to explain the election loss and possibly get the election result overturned in the courts or electoral college by blaming it on Russia.

The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions.

RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. "

There is no semblance of proof that there was a planned "campaign" rather than the expression of opinion and associated news judgments. All the logic and proofs of a Russian "influence campaign" could be applied with at least equal force to U.S. media treatment of any Russian election.

As regards their effort to prove that the Russians intervened more directly in the U.S. electoral process, the authors hedge by saying the report doesn't provide the "full supporting evidence," but it provides no supporting evidence-only assertions, assessments, assumptions and guesses. It states blandly that "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2015" designed to defeat Clinton, and "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," but it provides no evidence whatsoever for any such order. It also provides no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, Clinton and Podesta e-mails, or that it gave hacked information to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange and Craig Murray have repeatedly claimed that these sources were leaked by local insiders, not hacked by anybody. And veteran intelligence agency experts William Binney and Ray McGovern also contend that the WikiLeaks evidence was surely leaked, not hacked ("The Dubious Case on Russian 'Hacking'," Consortiumnews.com, January 6, 2017). It is of interest that among the intelligence agencies who signed on to the DNI document, the one with the greatest reservations-only "moderate confidence"--was the NSA, which is the agency that would most clearly be in possession of proof of Russian hacking and transmission to Wiki-Leaks as well as any "orders" from Putin.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, Clinton blamed FBI head James Comey's reopening and then quickly closing the case on her earlier unauthorized use of a private email server, as the key factor in her election loss ("Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Defeat," NYT, November 13, 2016). This suggests that even she and her campaigners didn't consider the alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks revelations as that important. But the Russian-Putin connection lived on and even escalated further.

The MSM have given no attention to the politicization of the intelligence agencies in these cases. The more durable and important case involving Russia has been damaging to Trump and any peace prospects that his presidency might have brought. But the FBI-Clinton episode was damaging to Clinton and benefited Trump's electoral chances. One theory is that the FBI leadership favored Trump while the CIA favored Clinton. Another theory is that the intelligence agencies trusted neither candidate, so fatally injured Clinton and then turned their guns on Trump, with the FBI signing on to the joint agencies "Assessment" after having finished with Clinton. (Robert Parry, "A Spy Coup in America?" Consortiumnews.com, December 18, 2016.)

But the CIA's hostility to Trump has been conspicuous, and their brazen intervention in the election process broke new ground in secret service politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell had an August 5, 2016 op-ed in the New York Times entitled "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton"; and former CIA boss Michael Hayden had an op-ed in the Washington Post, just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool" (November 3, 2016). These attacks were unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, though interestingly there is no mention of the merits or demerits of the candidates domestic policy programs. It is explicit that Clinton's more pugnacious approach to Syria and Russia is much preferred to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia.

So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia.

This was also true of the further scandal with Michael Flynn's call from the Russian Ambassador, possibly including exchanges about future policy actions. This was quickly grasped by the outgoing Obama officials and security personnel, with the FBI interrogating Flynn and with widespread expressions of horror at Flynn's action, allegedly possibly setting him up for blackmail. But such pre-inauguration meetings with Russian diplomats have been a "common practice" according to Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and Matlock had personally arranged such a meeting for Carter. Obama's own Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, admitted to visiting Moscow for talks with officials in 2008 even before the election. Daniel Lazare makes a good case that the illegality and blackmail threat are implausible, that the FBI's interrogation of Flynn reeks of entrapment, and he asks what is wrong with trying to reduce tensions with Russia? "Yet anti-Trump liberals are trying to convince the public that it's all 'worse than Watergate'." ("Democrats, Liberals, Catch McCarthyistic Fever," Consortiumnews.com, February 17, 2017.)

One of the few positive features of the Trump campaign had been a refusal to demonize Putin and an indication of a desire to normalize relations with Russia. Given the growth and power of the military-industrial complex, and the security agencies, there were powerful vested interests in continued hostile relations with Russia, manifested in the Assessment and other security agency overt and covert leaks, and the cooperation of the media (as in their publication of the CIA election letters).

Paralleling the Assessment's stress on the Russian "influence campaign," the MSM became very preoccupied with "fake news," often implicitly or explicitly tied to Russia. An awkward fact in this context is that the disclosures of Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails allegedly hacked by Russia described facts about electoral manipulations on behalf of the Clinton campaign that might well have affected election results. The focus on the non-existent Russian hacking intrusion helped divert attention from this real electoral abuse. Official and MSM fake news helped bury real news.

The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence campaign, that was and still is a real anti-Russian disinformation campaign, was the Washington Post's classic by Craig Timberg, "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say" (November 24, 2016). The article features a report by an anonymous author or authors, PropOrNot, a "group that insists on public anonymity" according to the WP editors. The group claims to have found 200 websites that wittingly or unwittingly, were "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda." While smearing these websites, the "experts" refused to identify themselves allegedly out of fear of being "targeted by legions of skilled hackers."

As Matt Taibbi says,"You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike." ("The 'Washington Post's 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting," RollingStone.com, November 28, 2016.) But the WP welcomed and featured this smear job, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare (and they are well funded and heavily into the propaganda business).

The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. They easily confuse fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, "Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News," February 20, 2017; analyzed, in Robert Parry, "NYT's Fake News about Fake News," Consortium news.com, February 22, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept the CIA's Assessment of the Russian hacking-transmission to WikiLeaks, the dreadfulness of the Flynn case, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and "non-partisan" investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new party line has extended widely in the liberal media (e.g., Robert Reich, Ryan Lizza, Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow, the AlterNet website, etc.).

On December 23, 2016 President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act," which will supposedly allow this country to more effectively combat foreign (Russian, Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts and provide funding to non-government entities that will help counter propaganda.

It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and may even be said to be a follow-on to the listing of 200 knowing or "useful tools" of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list of 200. Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, which was signed into law on a Friday, perhaps paralyzed by their fears of Russian-based fake news and propaganda. But they may wake up, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their own notions of fake news and propaganda.

Z

Edward S. Herman is an author, economist, and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy.

[May 21, 2017] During the Cold War the story was Democracy versus the Commies, traditional "good versus evil" type of stuff. Once the USSR collapsed a new evil adversary had to be found.

Notable quotes:
"... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Punchie , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels.

jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'. Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100 billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion if we left the euro. 100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi. His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible. He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.

Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite easy to leave the euro.

Kiza , May 18, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Idiocracy it truly is.

As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

ThereisaGod , May 18, 2017 at 9:50 am GMT

It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyaly is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

@joe webb

Agent76 , May 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow

yes please! great article

Anon , May 18, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

Ramzpaul's bare-bones description of deep state.

joe webb , May 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

@Agent76 Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

https://youtu.be/73ipVz-6YYs

Jake , May 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia and the mastermind of all EVIL , Putin.

Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

@joe webb one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels, psychology, etc.

Failure of intelligence. There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)

jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT

@Agent76 Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video Compilation

Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.

https://youtu.be/8-RyOaFwcEw

RadicalCenter , May 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

@Kiza No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Idiocracy it truly is.

As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

Anon , May 18, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP. Jews run the media and shape the Narrative. So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'. So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed. And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.

Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that marriage = two men buggering one another. This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.

RobinG , May 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

@El Dato So what!

"Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"

Also,

You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear.
Not at all. After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013). Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends" clownshow in 2015.

(The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s didn't get much traction anymore.)

annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT

@ThereisaGod It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

joe webb , May 19, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT

@Anon single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its One World of Consumers.

Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?

In truth, Jews dominate. For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites 'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.

If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is a Jewish thing.
If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE to get at Trump.
Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are parrots with the Parrotive.

Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is happening.

Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice but to go along.
Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.

Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him. Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.

So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have 1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than Palestinians/Muslims do.

This is a Jew Coup because Jews are the single-most powerful element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians), FED, Wall Street, and etc.

annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@Wally Yeah, sure.

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Agent76 , May 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.

https://youtu.be/92KfmGY12yQ

El Dato , May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

@Ace We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants, American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war), Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage, diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil, Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade, immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americans​won't do, climate change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building, the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations, BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the "Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials, POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship, McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal, the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St. Hillary the Incorrupt.

Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis​. And Hindu software engineers.

I'm out of ideas now at which point​ one must say, "And I could go on and on."

Ace , May 19, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

@El Dato This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and no-one cares)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

@Agent76 Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

@huswa That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if you have them?

I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden" wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local economies t Of course, they did a lot of good

[May 21, 2017] Orwellian nature of the USA society

Notable quotes:
"... The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. ..."
"... The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. ..."
"... Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything ..."
May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova , May 20, 2017 at 03:35 PM

Here is an interesting quote from

http://www.unz.com/article/invasion-of-the-putin-nazis/

Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner.

The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule.

The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion.

Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

[May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) ..."
"... They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything. ..."
"... whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia. ..."
"... Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this? ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history. ..."
"... In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. ..."
May 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough.

They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

If you think I'm being hyperbolic, check out #MarchforTruth on Twitter, or its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page , which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank, but which seems to be in deadly earnest about "restoring faith in American government," uncovering Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and reversing his "subversion of the will of the people." The plan is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets "demanding answers" from well, I'm not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.

Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he'd be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven't gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the "Comey-firing" brouhaha broke, which seems to have brought Blow back to the fold , albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.

Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this?

All joking aside, as I've written about previously , what we're dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It's actually just a slight variation on the one it's been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable, academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I'm trying to keep things simple these days so let's call it The Normals versus The Extremists , (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left, right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters). Now, as any professional storyteller will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you're trying to suck people into is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do - the story was Democracy versus the Commies , traditional "good versus evil"-type stuff.

Once the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e., the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an "enemy." This approach, as you'll recall, did not sell well.

No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic Terrorists . This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week when the mainstream media officially switched from the " Summer of Terror " narrative they were flogging to the new "Invasion of the Putin-Nazis" narrative my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with the rise of Trump, and well, I don't have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history.

In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party "A" is challenging Neoliberal Party "B" for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity and, you know, whatever.

If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[May 19, 2017] The Special Counsel Comes to Town Its the Moscow Trials, Revisted by Justin Raimondo

Robert Mueller was FBI director on September 11, 2001 (he was appointed on September 4).
Now Russia is officially a pariah state, any contacts with Russian officials can be a career limited move.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. ..."
"... In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees. ..."
"... Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign. ..."
May 19, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

The Special Counsel Comes to Town: It's the Moscow Trials, Revisited

The witch-hunt begins

Donald Trump ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia: his victory was a mandate for that policy. Yet the real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box, and that reality was brought home when the Justice Department appointed a "special counsel" to investigate " any links and/or coordination with the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ."

After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real.

Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible – and Trump's goal of "getting along with Russia" will surely not be implemented now that the regime of the special counsel has trumped him – but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive, and perhaps prosecute him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the process.

No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic. Because the warning to our politicians could not be clearer: So you want to effect a fundamental change in US foreign policy? You dare to question the permanence of NATO? Let this be a lesson to you.

This goes way beyond the Trump administration: the potential targets of the investigation are potentially unlimited. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein's letter to the Special Counsel – Bush era FBI Director Robert Mueller – also states that the counsel's purview includes "any matters that arose directly from the investigation," as well as "any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4 (a) ," which refers to anyone who might conceivably be involved in obstructing the Special Counsel's probe.

In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees.

Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

Furthermore, any media outlets that either supported Trump, had a good word to say about Trump, and/or dissented from the Russophobic hysteria that has gripped the "mainstream" media are liable to be scrutinized. Journalists with "Russian ties" – no matter how tenuous – will be caught up in the witch-hunt. The Washington Post gave front page prominence to a group of anonymous "researchers" that calls itself " PropOrNot ," which has compiled a lengthy list of "pro-Russian" media outlets and web sites – including the Drudge Report, and Antiwar.com.

The dynamics of the witch-hunt will play out in the manner in which it has operated up until this point, only more so: the "mainstream" media will act as the research department of DOJ investigators, "uncovering" the "pro-Russian" network in the US, inviting Mueller to move in for the kill. Politicians, journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for "Putin's puppets."

We haven't seen this kind of thing since the 1950s. Indeed, the history of these political lynchings goes all the way back to the Moscow Trials conducted by Stalin and his henchmen, who consolidated their power by prosecuting "Trotskyite wreckers" and other "enemies of the people" – to the applause of Western "liberals."

What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States. Yet it is more – and worse – than that.

This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war. It is, in effect, political terrorism – that is, an attempt to achieve political-ideological goals by the threat of force, i.e. the threat of State coercion. The police state methods utilized by law enforcement agencies in this country since 9/11 – universal surveillance, and the whole menu of cyber-spying techniques exposed by Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks – will be deployed. And it won't just be our own American spooks doing the eavesdropping.

The involvement of the British and other European intelligence agencies in this regime-change operation on American soil is well-known : it was a "former" MI6 agent, one Christopher Steele , who authored and circulated the infamous "dirty dossier" on Trump. The Ukrainians, in particular, are in the forefront of this campaign: their targeting of Paul Manafort is out in the open . And a recent article in the Washington Post which relates a conversation between GOP House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and others, has McCarthy saying he thinks both Trump and Rep. Rohrabacher are "paid by Putin." The exchange took place on Capitol Hill, after a meeting with the Ukrainian envoy – and the Post , in a story datelined Kiev, reports that it was "recorded." So who did the recording? My bet is on the Ukrainians.

... ... ...

[May 19, 2017] Global Cyberattack Are Private Interests Using States: The global cyberattack, the NSA and Washingtons war propaganda against Russia by Bill Van Auken

Notable quotes:
"... Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted. ..."
"... There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Ever since, the Times ..."
"... Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda. It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin. ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The cyberattack that hit some 200,000 computers around the world last Friday, apparently using malicious software developed by the US National Security Agency, is only expected to escalate and spread with the start of the new workweek.

The cyber weapon employed in the attack, known as "WannaCrypt," has proven to be one of the most destructive and far-reaching ever. Among the targets whose computer systems were hijacked in the attack was Britain's National Health Service, which was unable to access patient records and forced to cancel appointments, treatments and surgeries.

Major corporations hit include the Spanish telecom Telefonica, the French automaker Renault, the US-based delivery service Fedex and Germany's federal railway system. Among the worst affected countries were reportedly Russia, Ukraine and Japan.

The weaponized software employed in the attacks locks up files in an infected computer by encrypting them, while demanding $300 in Bitcoin (digital currency) to decrypt them and restore access.

Clearly, this kind of attack has the potential for massive social disruption and, through its attack on institutions like Britain's NHS, exacting a toll in human life.

This event, among the worst global cyberattacks in history, also sheds considerable light on issues that have dominated the political life of the United States for the past 10 months, since WikiLeaks began its release of documents obtained from the hacked accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The content of these leaked documents exposed, on the one hand, the DNC's machinations to sabotage the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, and, on the other, the subservience of his rival, Hillary Clinton, to Wall Street through her own previously secret and lavishly paid speeches to financial institutions like Goldman Sachs.

Read also: Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia

This information, which served to discredit Clinton, the favored candidate of the US military and intelligence apparatus, was drowned out by a massive campaign by the US government and the corporate media to blame Russia for the hacking and for direct interference in the US election, i.e., by allegedly making information available to the American people that was supposed to be kept secret from them.

Ever since then, US intelligence agencies, Democratic Party leaders and the corporate media, led by the New York Times , have endlessly repeated the charge of Russian hacking, involving the personal direction of Vladimir Putin. To this day, none of these agencies or media outlets have provided any probative evidence of Russian responsibility for "hacking the US election."

Among the claims made to support the allegations against Moscow was that the hacking of the Democrats was so sophisticated that it could have been carried out only by a state actor. In a campaign to demonize Russia, Moscow's alleged hacking was cast as a threat to the entire planet.

Western security agencies have acknowledged that the present global cyberattack-among the worst ever of its kind-is the work not of any state agency, but rather of a criminal organization. Moreover, the roots of the attack lie not in Moscow, but in Washington. The "WannaCrypt" malware employed in the attack is based on weaponized software developed by the NSA, code-named Eternal Blue, part of a bundle of documents and computer code stolen from the NSA's server and then leaked by a hacking group known as "Shadow Brokers."

Read also: The End of Freedom? Secret Services developing like a Cancer

Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted.

In its report on the global cyberattacks on Saturday, the New York Times stated: "It could take months to find out who was behind the attacks-a mystery that may go unsolved."

The co-author of these lines was the New York Times chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger, who, in addition to writing for the "newspaper of record," finds time to lecture at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, a state-connected finishing school for top political and military officials. He also holds membership in both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, think tanks that bring together capitalist politicians, military and intelligence officials and corporate heads to discuss US imperialist strategy.

All of this makes Sanger one of the favorite media conduits for "leaks" and propaganda that the CIA and the Pentagon want put into the public domain.

It is worth contrasting his treatment of the "WannaCrypt" ransomware attack with the way he and the Times dealt with the allegations of Russian hacking in the run-up to and aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election.

There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Ever since, the Times, serving as the propaganda outlet of the US intelligence services, has given the lead to the rest of the media by endlessly repeating the allegation of Russian state direction of the hacking of the Democratic Party, without bothering to provide any evidence to back up the charge.

Read also: Political Coverup of Iraq Atrocities

With the entire world now under attack from a weapon forged by Washington's cyberwarfare experts, the hysterical allegations of Russian hacking are placed in perspective.

From the beginning, they have been utilized as war propaganda, a means of attempting to promote popular support for US imperialism's steady escalation of military threats and aggression against Russia, the world's second-largest nuclear power.

Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda. It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin.

SOURCE www.wsws.org

[May 19, 2017] Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

Notable quotes:
"... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
"... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
"... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
"... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
"... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, May 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM

Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism on the horizon.

But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored ? I think not.

With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical changes.

When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force".

That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.

I think Robert W. Merry analysis of the situation is pretty insightful. In his article in the American Conservative ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/removing-trump-wont-solve-americas-crisis/) he made the following observations:

At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

... ... ...

The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

... ... ...

Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."

That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

... ... ...

There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.

[May 19, 2017] The US hit a combination of Syrian and Iraqi Shia forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to reestablish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory

Notable quotes:
"... The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory. ..."
May 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , May 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Once again the US Air Force bombs the Syrian military while Russian S-400 remains silent:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-coalition-bombs-pro-government-forces-southern-syria/ri19878

karl1haushofer , May 18, 2017 at 2:46 pm
I thought Russia was supposed to "strengthen" Syria's air defense capabilities after Trump bombed Syrian troops for the first time?
Moscow Exile , May 18, 2017 at 10:19 pm
Yeah, supposed to do

Clear evidence, if any more were needed, of Russia's weakness and the fact that, despite all its bluster, the place is just a Third World shithole compared with the mighty West under the avuncular leadership of "Uncle Sam".

Thanks for the timely reminder of the reality of the situation as regards Russian capabilities!

Jen , May 18, 2017 at 3:31 pm
Karl, please read that article properly. The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory. We should be glad that the SAA has got this far in the war that it can plan for and carry out this particular project to secure Syria's southeastern borders. Russian help was absent because the Syrians did not ask for it, they believed they and the Iraqis could do it themselves. They would have prepared for the possibility of being attacked. Please give the Syrians and Iraqis some credit for having got this far despite being under US-coalition attack. (But of course you won't because Ay-rabs are brown people of low IQ in your estimation.)
Jen , May 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Plus it is not just the US involved in hitting joint Syrian-Iraqi forces at al-Tanf – there are British and Jordanian special forces there as well. So this is a major operation to clean out not just ISIS and other jihadi fighters but the foreigners embedded with them.

Drutten , May 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Be realistic for once, Russia isn't going to shoot down US (or Israeli, for that matter) aircraft unless Russia's own personnel on site are being threatened. The Russian air defense assets are there to protect Russian troops, not to cover Assads ass everywhere in every way.

In practice, this means that they're basically never going to be used because both Israel and the US are actively discussing things with Russia and when they strike Syrian regime targets on occasion they pretty much do so with tacit Russian approval, and it means little to the Russian plan.

Russia isn't there to provide some kind of unconditional full-on support for Assad, again, they're there to kill jihadis from the Caucasus and the Central Asian republics, help the Syrian armed forces just enough so that they do not succumb, and provide Syria with a lot of international diplomatic support in the UNSC and so on, all this in order to get some kind of political solution rolling. Russia has done Assad an incredible favor in this regard, and continue to do so despite increasingly venomous attacks from the West and the other jihadi backers. But Russia can't be expected to do everything for Assad, and they have explicitly said so.

Drutten , May 18, 2017 at 3:21 pm
In short, helping Syria stay afloat in the midst of this jihadi-Western onslaught is all good but Russia has its own interests to consider as well, and they have made this abundantly clear from the very beginning. The support is not unconditional and it's not something Russia's going to spend everything it has on, but the fact that they're keeping up the present level of support despite the aforementioned political/diplomatic/economical attacks that grow more vicious by the day shows that they're taking that commitment seriously.

Now, what follows is some wishful thinking on my part Barring some kind of international agreement on a political solution soon (sounds unlikely even though there's been progress), considering the sheer amount of Chinese Uyghur jihadists in the Idlib region (some say they number in the tens of thousands!) and that China's already taken a lot of steps to stop them from returning, perhaps China could get involved and "relieve" Russia ahead. China's already been helpful in the UNSC on Syria, and their other activities seem to suggest they're somewhat interested in some kind of foreign adventure. Russia can't go on forever on its own fighting the good fight trying to stop or at least slow down the Western wrecking ball It has other issues that require a lot of attention.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204
et Al , May 19, 2017 at 2:46 am
It's a lesson that the West has taken a long time learning. Again: Aircraft don't take and hold territory, soldiers do.

It is the special foreskins who are in a weak position here so attacking the Syrian/I-racki guys is a sign of this weakness. If the sf's were heavily manned and supported they wouldn't be bothered. Instead they have to rely on the ever reliable kurds. No wonder they are skittish.

[May 19, 2017] Jingoism and Russophobia in NYT

Notable quotes:
"... One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... ..."
"... Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... ..."
"... Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... ..."
"... WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... ..."
"... Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ..."
May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , May 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

September 22, 2014

Snap Out of It
By David Brooks

President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

October 21, 2014

Putin and the Pope
By Thomas L. Friedman

One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

December 20, 2014

Who's Playing Marbles Now?
By Thomas L. Friedman

Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

December 21, 2014

Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
By Paul Krugman

Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

January 27, 2015

Czar Putin's Next Moves
By Thomas L. Friedman

ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

anne - , May 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

September 15, 2015

Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

September 20, 2015

Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

[May 19, 2017] The witch hunt is an order of magnitude worse than during the runup to the Iraq War by Lambert Strether

Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
"... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
"... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Lambert Strether of Corrente

New Cold War

Well, this ratchets up the hysteria a notch:

I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James " Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting Clapper as a defender of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.

"More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation" [ Politico ].

"Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [ WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.

"4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [ The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal." That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw with Comey).

"Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [ Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.

The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.

UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"

[ The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective. "The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr. Rogers. So who, exactly? Some general? Which?

"Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [ FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [ FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?

[May 17, 2017] Demonization of Russia that neoliberal DemoRats enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco

May 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl , May 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM

Paul Ryan shows zero interest in investigating whether Trump obstructed justice or is in bed with the Russian government. Why? He needs to get these massive tax cuts for the 1% and take away from the "moochers" first.
libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:12 PM
" in bed with the Russian government."

Are you a closet neocon ?

libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:37 PM
Demonization of Russia that people like PGL enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco.

And as any witch hunt this is an obstacle to thinking rationally, of having a rational discourse about proper role of Russia in enhancing American national security.

Which of cause is impossible with imperial pretension of Washington neocons.

In any case Clinton's attempt to colonize Russia failed and after Yugoslavia war the USA neocons are responsible for the deteriorating relations.

Taking into account complexity of modern weapon systems and the fact the USA has just 30 min and Russia 10-15 min for reacting to any emerging threat of rocket attack, my impression is that Washington is full of psychopaths, who enjoy walking on the blade edge. Kind of self-selection.

Public is so successfully brainwashed that even mentioning the fact that Putin probably does not vivisect kittens provokes a strong negative reaction.

Invoking Goodwin law there were already a country with the population brainwashed to the same extent.

See Professor Stephen F. Cohen comments at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rethinking-russia-a-conve_b_7744498.html

[May 17, 2017] The corporate media isnt interested in the truth or rationality. Russia is bad and needs to be destroyed is the narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.

Hey this is blasphemous non-sense! Putin vivisects kittens for pleasure! We aren't supposed to think rationally about any of this. One of the foremost experts on Russia, Princeton's Stephen F. Cohen is rarely heard in the U.S. because the corporate media isn't interested in the truth or rationality. There is always some narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. ..."
"... Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. ..."
"... Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post ..."
"... And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there. ..."
"... Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ... ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ... ..."
May 17, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy."

And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this - Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences - despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument - for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmkovalik

MyLessThanPrimeBeef

But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.

You know your opponent is a great master when you realize no one on this side is addressing that assumption.

The bystanders, like us, are all too busy trying to find out if Trump didn't do this or he did do that.

RMO May 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

We survived the original cold war (just barely and by chance – go ahead and look up how many times we came within a gnat's eyelash of global Armageddon) w don't need another one. The Washington DC elite have gone so far round the bend that General Jack D. Ripper looks calm, sane and trustworthy by comparison.

Chauncey Gardiner

Thanks for this informative interview with Robert English. I too share the view that a significant opportunity was squandered in the early to mid-1990s to build a constructive relationship with Russia, with the key actors mostly those who were unable to put the Cold War behind them, and who used the opportunity to debilitate Russia economically and expand U.S. power globally; as well as US and Western European financial and economic interests to a more limited extent.

That the Trump administration is attempting to move the needle toward a more constructive geopolitical and economic relationship with Russia is a positive development IMO, as I agree with Trump that U.S. and Russian geopolitical, economic and environmental interests are often aligned, albeit not always. However, I remain concerned about global organized crime, oligarchic political and economic control, corruption and impairment of civil liberties, issues which transcend national boundaries and are not unique to Russia; and those politicians and their sponsors in the U.S. who are seeking expanded military conflict.

I view the conversation reflected in this interview on two levels: Those predominantly interested in preserving (the perception of) U.S. global hegemony, and those primarily seeking to disempower and replace Trump as president, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In any event, there is little question who presently has the media megaphone. It has been educational to see how pervasive their narrative can be.

[May 14, 2017] US intervenes in Russian politics but Moscow shrugs it off Asia Times by M.K. Bhadrakumar

Notable quotes:
"... The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues. ..."
"... "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." ..."
Mar 28, 2017 | www.atimes.com
he Russian-American relationship received a jolt after Washington took exception to the Kremlin's handling of protesters in many Russian cities, including Moscow, at the weekend.

The US state department's acting spokesman, Mark Toner, told the Russian state news agency TASS in Washington that the US condemned the arrest of the demonstrators – who were protesting against endemic corruption in Russian politics – and demanded that they be released. TASS quoted him as follows:

"The United States strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday. Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values. We were troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition figure Alexei Navalny upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raids on the anti-corruption organization he heads. The United States will monitor this situation, and we call on the government of Russia to immediately release all peaceful protesters."

The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues.

How far the Trump administration has consciously decided to champion Navalny's political platform, as Barack Obama's administration did, is unclear. More likely, it is holding a can of worms that it has yet to figure out what to do with. Besides, Obama-era holdovers are very much still present in Trump's administration, especially in the foreign policy and intelligence establishment, and they set the pace of day-to-day work.

Navalny is a prominent Russian opposition figure. He has been lionized in the US, although the Moscow establishment brands him as an agent of foreign powers. Indeed, Radio Liberty & Free Europe, which is US government-funded, has disseminated podcasts espousing Navalny's appeal to the Russian public and highlighting alleged corruption by high state officials. Navalny's main target in recent times has been Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is a close associate of Putin. What needs to be factored in here is that Russia is also heading for a presidential election in March next year.

To be sure, there is more to these matters than meets the eye. Such intrusive behaviour by the US in Russia's domestic politics has been deeply resented by the Kremlin in the past and has represented, arguably, the biggest bone of contention the Russian-American relationship during the past several years. However, it is striking that the Kremlin reaction to Toner's statement was rather muted.

The presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov simply shrugged off the American criticism, saying that Russia's international commitments "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." Peskov took the line that the protests were in violation of Russian regulations on public gatherings, which require organizers to receive permission from the authorities "to avoid schedule conflicts and overcrowding."

Russia has been highly circumspect in its reactions to American provocations in recent months. When the Obama administration declared 35 Russian diplomats personae non gratae at the end of December, President Vladimir Putin held back from retaliating, stating: "Further steps towards the restoration of Russian-American relations will be built on the basis of the policy which the administration of President D. Trump will carry out."

However, the Trump administration ought to know that Washington has been lionizing a controversial Russian political personality who was once found guilty of embezzlement.

When the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed anti-establishment protesters in Moscow during the December 2011 presidential election in Russia, Putin's reaction was sharper. "I looked at the first reaction of our US partners," he said then. "The first thing that the secretary of state [Clinton] did was say that they [the elections] were not honest and not fair, but she had not even yet received the material from the observers. She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal. They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began active work."

In comparison, Peskov simply rejected Toner's statement as inconsequential. The Kremlin does not want to hold the Trump administration as responsible for crossing the "red line" on US-Russia relations. The door is of course open still for a US-Russian détente. Thus, Moscow will exercise strategic patience and let the Pentagon take its time to seek the Russian military's help or cooperation in Syria. Equally, it stands to reason that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will go ahead with his planned visit to Moscow on April 12 .

[May 14, 2017] The Russia Hacking Fiasco No Evidence Required by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
"... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
"... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
"... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
"... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
"... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
"... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
"... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
"... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
May 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.

There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.

So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved in the 2016 elections.

No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution. They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles. They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.

It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100 percent, unalloyed baloney.

So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy". Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.

Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.

But, why?

Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes.

But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?

That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.

Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to obstacles.

For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.

The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world.

So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsführer, James Comey, who -- at various times in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including torture , warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." (ACLU)

This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic. Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com .

[May 14, 2017] Making sense of the super fuse scare by Saker

May 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
Understanding counterforce strikes

Executing a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan's "Star Wars" program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this: destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically (just a few Soviet "leakers" could wipe-out entire US cities, who could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose – to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without going into complex technical discussions, let's just say that this point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything. But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario

1) The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of Russian SLBM/ICBMs.

2) The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight towards the USA.

3) The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.

4) The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.

This is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:

1) The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces

2) The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.

3) Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage burn period making them much harder to intercept.

4) Russia's reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replaced with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later)

5) This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that they will be able to engage them (more about that later)

6) This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later)

Understanding MIRVs

Before explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle".

MIRVs are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10 warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively, one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys. In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are lucrative targets. If with one of "my" nuclear warheards I can destroy 1 of "your" MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you lose 10. This is one of the reasons the USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs .

The important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense, really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN) is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).

In contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if "my" missile destroys "yours" we both lost 1 missile each. What is the point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of "mine" to make really sure that "yours" is really destroyed, my strike will result in me using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense at all.

Finally, in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs each).

How is that for a risk?

[May 14, 2017] Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963

May 14, 2017 | prospect.org

James Galbraith , Heather Purcell

Fall 1994

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.


The Real Missile Gap

In 1960, claims of a "missile gap" favoring the Soviets had given the Democrats a critical election theme, and many millions of Americans entered the Sixties feeling intensely vulnerable to the new Soviet ICBM threat. But as Richard Reeves has recently written, intelligence based on satellites launched in August of 1960 soon challenged the campaign assessment and public view. The United States had beaten the USSR to an operational ICBM and enjoyed a clear, and growing, numerical advantage. We were far ahead, and our military planners knew it.

Kennedy was quickly convinced of this truth, which was further confirmed as new satellites brought back new information. Later in 1961, a National Intelligence Estimate came through showing only four Soviet ICBMs in place, all of them on low alert at a test site called Plesetsk. By fall, Defense Undersecretary Roswell Gilpatric would acknowledge in a public speech that U.S. forces (with 185 ICBMs and over 3,400 deliverable nuclear bombs at that time) were vastly superior to those of the Russians.

It was in this context, of an increasing nuclear edge based on a runaway lead in land-based missiles, that Kennedy faced his first nuclear-tinged crisis, which erupted over Berlin in July of 1961.


The Berlin Crisis

At the crucial National Security Council discussion of the brewing Berlin crisis on July 13, Secretary of State Dean Rusk had opposed negotiations with the Soviets until the last moment. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., then a special assistant, later summarized for the President, adviser Dean Acheson had prepared a paper arguing that

we are in a fateful test of wills, that our major task is to demonstrate our unalterable determination, and that Krushchev will be deterred only by a US readiness to go to nuclear war rather than to abandon the status quo. On this theory, negotiation is harmful until the crisis is well developed; then it is useful only for propaganda purposes . . . 1

Kennedy favored negotiations over conflict. While not directly challenging Acheson, he encouraged Schlesinger to produce an unsigned memo critical of Acheson's stance.

Schlesinger advised caution. In a passage especially pertinent to the larger issue, he wrote:

The [Acheson] paper hinges on our willingness to face nuclear war. But this option is undefined. Before you are asked to make the decision to go to nuclear war, you are entitled to know concretely what nuclear war is likely to mean. The Pentagon should be required to make an analysis of the possible levels and implications of nuclear warfare and the possible gradations of our own nuclear response.2

It is possible (though we do not know) that the decision to bring the Net Evaluation to Kennedy occurred in response to the raising of these concerns. At any rate, the meeting occurred.


The Burris Memorandum

The memorandum reproduced here was written for Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who did not attend the meeting, by Colonel Howard Burris, his military aide. Declassified only in June of 1993, it has not previously received any public attention so far as we have been able to determine.

The first paragraph introduces General Hickey and his group, the Net Evaluation Subcommittee. Although the subcommittee report is described as "annual," this would be the first one given to President Kennedy and his advisors, and it is not clear whether President Eisenhower received such reports in person. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stepped in to explain the "assumption" of the 1961 report: "a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." The question arises: A surprise attack by whom on whom?

The following paragraphs answer the question. The second paragraph reports that after hearing the presentations, President Kennedy asked the presenters "if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R. which would be incurred by a preemptive attack." Kennedy also asked for an effectiveness trend since "these studies have been made since 1957." Lemnitzer responded that he would later answer both of the President's questions in private.

Paragraph three records Kennedy asking a hypothetical question: what would happen if we launched a strike in the winter of 1962? Allen Dulles of the CIA responded that "the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved." Lemnitzer then cautioned against putting too much faith in the findings since the assumptions might be faulty. The discussion thus provides a time-frame. December of 1962 was too early for an attack because the U.S. would have too few missiles; by December of 1963 there would likely be sufficient numbers.

Paragraph four reports one more Kennedy question: how much time would "citizens" need to remain in shelters following an attack? The President receives a qualified estimate of two weeks from a member of the subcommittee. The group was clearly talking about U.S. citizens protecting themselves from the globe-encircling fallout following a U.S. nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R.

Paragraph five adds to the intensity of the document with Kennedy's directive "that no member in attendance disclose even the subject of the meeting."


Other Accounts of the Meeting

So far as we know, the official record of this meeting remains secret. The excellent Foreign Relations of the United States, volume XIV, "Berlin Crisis 1961-1962," published in late 1993, though replete with memoranda detailing the nuclear aspects of the Berlin confrontation, makes no mention of it. The only official reference we know of is the agenda for the National Security Council issued on July 18, 1961, declassified in 1977, which reads, simply "The Net Evaluation Subcommittee (NSC 5816; N.S. Action No. 2223) . . . Presentation of the report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee." (The most detailed discussion of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee we have found is in Desmond Ball's Politics and Force Levels , which identifies the larger task of the subcommittee as the preparation of revised targeting plans.)

On the other hand, the fact of a meeting, and Kennedy's personal reaction to it, has been reported. The President was displeased. But no account yet published has told what he was displeased about.

For example, Arthur Schlesinger's Robert Kennedy and His Times gives this account:

. . . Kennedy received the Net Evaluation, an annual doomsday briefing analyzing the chances of nuclear war. An Air Force General presented it, said Roswell Gilpatric, the deputy secretary of defense, "as though it were for a kindergarten class . . . Finally Kennedy got up and walked right out in the middle of it, and that was the end of it. We never had another one."3

McGeorge Bundy evidently refers to the same meeting in this passage:

In the summer of 1961 [Kennedy] went through a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers, and he expressed his own reaction to Dean Rusk as they walked from the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects: "And we call ourselves the human race."4

(Dean Rusk's memoirs repeat Kennedy's remark, though they place the meeting "shortly after our assuming office." Richard Reeves does not mention the July meeting, and attributes Kennedy's remark to a later briefing in September, 1961.)

Numerous other apparent accounts of the meeting exist, though they do not refer to it by name or date. All agree on Kennedy's reaction. But none reveal what was actually discussed. Theodore Sorenson's Kennedy , published only four years later, presents an understandably benign version:

That briefing confirmed, however, the harsh facts [Kennedy] already knew: (1) that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could 'win' a nuclear war in any rational sense of the word; (2) that, except to deter an all-out Soviet attack, our threat of 'massive retaliation' to every Communist move was no longer credible, now that it invited our own destruction; and (3) that a policy of 'pre-emptive first strike' or 'preventive war' was no longer open to either side, inasmuch as even a surprise missile attack would trigger, before those missiles reached their targets, a devastating retaliation that neither country could risk or accept.5

Unfortunately, the critical third point was not yet true. As former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Hilsman wrote in 1967:

As the intelligence community looked at their estimates in 1958, 1959, and 1960, and even through the first half of 1961, they saw a missile gap developing that would come to a peak about 1963.6

What Hilsman does not say explicitly is that the estimated missile gap was in America's favor. The Soviets had virtually no operational ICBMs in 1961, a fact known to American intelligence at least by the end of 1960. And it appears the Russians did not solve their fundamental technical problem, namely building a hydrogen bomb small enough to be carried by a missile of manageable size, until years later.7

Dean Rusk describes the meeting as an "awesome experience" in his memoirs, As I Saw It , published in 1990.

President Kennedy clearly understood what nuclear war meant and was appalled by it. In our many talks together, he never worried about the threat of assassination, but he occasionally brooded over whether it would be his fate to push the nuclear button... If any of us had doubts, that 1961 briefing convinced us that a nuclear war must never be fought. Consequently, throughout the Kennedy and Johnson years we worked to establish a stable deterrent. . .8

What Rusk does not say is that the problem of a "stable deterrent" in 1961 did not lie in an insufficiency of American missiles. It lay, rather, in the need for the Soviets to develop sufficient effective ICBM (and submarine) forces, to deter us. That is an ugly but unavoidable fact. Rusk goes on, a page later, with comments that appear almost anguished, and for which his own account of the meeting gives no apparent rationale:

. . . the United States has never renounced possible first use of nuclear weapons. I personally think that the United States is committed to a second strike only, after we have received nuclear weapons on our own soil. Under no circumstances would I have participated in an order to launch a first strike, with the possible exception of a massive conventional attack on Western Europe.9


The July 25 Speeck on Berlin

Nuclear conflict was very much in the air that week. Another document of the time indicates the directions Kennedy's nuclear thinking was actually taking -- quite the Cold Warrior, but at the same time far removed from pre-emptive strikes and the inflexible all-out attack envisioned by the Joint Chiefs. This is a paper entitled "Nuclear Strategy in the Berlin Crisis," by the economist Thomas C. Schelling, which was sent to Hyannis Port over the weekend of July 21, 1961 and which, as Bundy noted, made a "deep impression" on the President. In it Schelling presented arguments for a capability, which did not then exist, to wage limited nuclear war:

. . . the role of nuclears in Europe should not be to win a grand nuclear campaign, but to pose a higher level of risk to the enemy. The important thing in limited nuclear war is to impress the Soviet leadership with the risk of general war -- a war that may occur whether we or they intend it or not....We should plan for a war of nerve, of demonstration, and of bargaining, not of tactical target destruction.10

Schelling also advocated centralization of the control of weapons in the hands of the President so as to

permit deliberate, discriminating, selective use for dangerous nuclear bargaining. This means preventing any use, by anyone, not specifically authorized as part of the nuclear bargaining plan...This is a controlled strategic exchange.11

Schelling's paper thus called attention to a key concern: the diffuse character of nuclear command and control in 1961 did not assure that the President in fact enjoyed the full authority over the bomb which most Americans assumed to be the case. Establishing such control became a priority for Kennedy in the months that followed.

The cumulative impact of this diverse advice can be seen in Kennedy's televised address to the nation on July 25, 1961. "We cannot and will not permit the Communists to drive us out of Berlin, either gradually or by force" Yet Kennedy also stressed the dangers: "miscommunication could rain down more devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of human history." He asked for increased military appropriations and called out 150,000 reserve personnel. But he did not engage the Soviets. The Berlin Wall was allowed to remain intact when constructed in August of 1961, a symbolic column of soldiers was sent through to West Berlin, and a fallout shelter program was undertaken in the United States.

Advertisement

With the Burris memorandum, the reasoning behind the fallout shelter program now begins to fall into place. As a civil defense measure against a Soviet nuclear attack, the flimsy cinderblock shelters Americans were told to build were absurd. But they could indeed protect those in them, for a couple of weeks, from radiation drifting thousands of miles after a U.S. pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. It is known that Kennedy later regretted this program.


Down the Road: 1962 and 1963

The U.S. was far ahead in the arms race. Yet the military continued to press for a rapid build-up of strategic missiles. Curtis LeMay had asked for at least 2400 Minutemen; Thomas Powers of the Strategic Air Command had asked for 10,000. All were to be unleashed in a single paroxysm of mass annihilation, know as SIOP, the Single Integrated Operating Plan.

SIOP was a recipe for blowing up the world, whether in a first or a second strike. As McGeorge Bundy wrote to the President on July 7, 1961:

...All agree that the current strategic war plan is dangerously rigid and, if continued without amendment, may leave you with very little choice as to how you face the moment of thermonuclear truth. We believe that you may want to raise this question with Bob McNamara in order to have a prompt review and new orders if necessary. In essence, the current plan calls for shooting off everything we have in one shot, and is so constructed as to make any more flexible course very difficult.12

During that summer of 1961, the Defense Secretary ordered an overhaul of SIOP carried out by RAND analysts (including Daniel Ellsberg) and quickly approved by the JCS. Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara eventually imposed a limit of 1,000 Minuteman missiles, angering the Chiefs. Kennedy also launched efforts to gain operational control of the nuclear force, then far from being securely concentrated in the President's hands.

The Burris memorandum may help to explain both the military's drive for a vast U.S. nuclear build-up, despite the fact that America was already far ahead, and the resistance from JFK and McNamara. The Net Evaluation Subcommittee had offered the Pentagon, the CIA, and President Kennedy a glimpse of the opportunity that lay ahead in the winter of 1963: U.S. nuclear superiority so complete that a first strike might be successful. But it also alerted Kennedy to a danger. American nuclear superiority might then be so complete, that rogue elements from the military and intelligence forces, seeking to precipitate an American first strike, might not feel deterred by fear of Soviet retaliation. What was the dispute over the numbers of land-based ICBMs really about? To be sure, at some level it involved the sufficiency of deterrence. But there may also have been an even graver concern: the offensive capabilities of the nuclear force, at a time when the President could not be sure of his control over the nuclear button.

By October of 1962, the U.S. nuclear lead remained strong, though perhaps not yet airtight, given the number of Soviet bombers and the risks to Europe. Twenty years later, Anthony Cordesman described the picture:

During the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, the US had approximately 1500 B-47s and 500 B-52s, and had already deployed over 200 of its first generation of ICBMs. In marked contrast, the Soviet strategic missile threat consisted of a few token ICBM deployments whose unreliability was so great that it was uncertain exactly whom they threatened. Soviet long range bomber forces consisted only of 100 Tu-Bears and 35 May Bison, whose range and flight characteristics forced them to fly at medium and high altitudes, and which made them extremely vulnerable to US fighters and surface-to-air missiles.13

Kennedy resisted strong pressures to test this advantage in October of 1962, as he might have had to do, had he agreed to launch bombing raids on the Cuban missile installations. Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, published in 1970, tell of graphic fears expressed by Robert Kennedy to the Russian ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin at the peak of the crisis:

Even though the President himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will... If the situation continues for much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American military could get out of control.14

Not even the American editors of Khrushchev's memoirs took these remarks seriously at the time they were first published. A rare editorial note reads: "Obviously this is Khrushchev's own version of what was reported to him. There is no evidence that the President was acting out of fear of a military take-over."

Looking down the road, the Net Evaluation calendar of 1961 implied that the period from Cuba to Dallas and just after was, perhaps, critical to the survival of the world. Had tensions escalated or been aroused in some violent way in late 1963, the President might have faced an excruciating choice -- to strike first, or to give up "victory" during the last brief moment in all history when it could conceivably have been won.

We cannot say whether Kennedy believed the Net Evaluation calendar, or indeed, perhaps equally serious, whether he believed that others in the government might believe it. We do know that the last year of his life saw repeated initiatives to settle conflicts and reduce tensions: the normalization of Berlin, the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey, the no-invasion pledge on Cuba and the effort, only partially effective, to end to the covert campaign (OP/MONGOOSE) against Castro, the test-ban treaty, and -- though the point is disputed -- the order in October 1963 to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam. By November of 1963, the potential for "heightened tensions" leading to uncontrollable pressures to strike first had indeed been reduced. And, some time later, the Soviet Rocket Forces did evidently shut the window. From that point, the world probably became a good deal more secure. But exactly when this happened is not clear.

And Lyndon Baines Johnson, the recipient of Burris's note, was still uneasy on the point when he assumed office on November 22, 1963, amid swirling rumors connecting Lee Harvey Oswald, falsely as we now know, to the KGB. David Wise, then bureau chief of the New York Herald Tribune , reports hearing Johnson tell in late 1963 of recruiting Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission in the following terms:

. . . when Warren came to the White House, [LBJ] told the Chief Justice he knew he had been a first lieutenant in World War I, and he knew Earl Warren would walk across the Atlantic Ocean to save the lives of three Americans, and possibly a hundred million lives were at stake here . . . 15 15. Wise, p. 292.


Whose lives, exactly?

One meeting, even in the White House, does not establish that first-strike was in fact the nuclear policy of the United States. Kennedy's recorded response, moreover, indicates his personal determination, shared by his civilian advisers, that it never become so. But we do know, from Howard Burris's notes, that a first strike plan had authors close to the decision center. How close, in the end, did they get? Civilian control of nuclear forces was no sure thing in 1961. Was it secure when the window opened, if it did, in 1963? Kennedy's actions and Johnson's eerie remark are consistent with the possibility that the calendar and risks of a first-strike window remained in the minds of both men as late as November, 1963 and possibly in Johnson's mind for a good deal longer.

In any event, the fact that first-strike planning got as far as it did raises grave questions about the history of the Cold War. Much more needs to be known: about nuclear decision-making under Eisenhower and Nixon, about the events of late 1963, about later technical developments such as MIRV and Star Wars. Surely it is now time to declassify all records on this and related history.

[May 12, 2017] Its all about the money and power struggle within grant-sucking professional civil-rights activists crowd

Notable quotes:
"... The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today. ..."
"... Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia too, while they are it. ..."
"... I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had an expose/speculation written about the whole affair. ..."
"... Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present, he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts. ..."
"... Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT and Alexeyev. ..."
May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , May 11, 2017 at 8:15 am

The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today.

Regardless of whether it is fact, fiction or something in between (I think we can agree that there are no 'gay concentration camps' as some of the British media proclaimed a week or so ago), it is I guess a blessing that the Ukraine, in 'Celebrating Diversity'* banned Russia from the contest. Otherwise we would have seen 'pressure on eurovision' etc. to not allow Russia because of events in Chechnya. Kiev rather ruined this latter plan, but ultimately the prepared media storm was still let go despite its main goal having already failed.

As we have seen, this story has waxed and waned since it was first reported selectively in the western media from Novaya Gazeta, the latest recharging being the deliberate march to deliver a petition to the Kremlin, guaranteed to garner news headlines as the organizers were not interested in asking for official permission. As Mark Ames noted in a recent post at eXiled Online (not to mention the toxic, anti-semitic amoral f/tard Nikolai Alekseyev who I posted about a while ago and not long after the story broke and also saw the same sources Ames quotes), the LGBT crowd is fully signed up to the US agenda even if it means keeping silent about the plight of LGBT in US client or allied states.

It seems to me that just about everything including the kitchen sink being thrown at Russia. Maybe the neocons and their willing idiots sense they are running out of time and it doesn't matter how outrageous the claims are, best get it in. That's the thing about pendulums. They always swing back, whether you openly recognize it happening or not.

* This years Eurovision tag line.

kirill , May 11, 2017 at 8:29 am
Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia too, while they are it.
Lyttenburgh , May 11, 2017 at 7:58 pm
I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had an expose/speculation written about the whole affair.

Tl;dr version – it's all about the money and power struggle within grant-sucking professional "civil-rights activists" crowd, this time – among teh ghays.

The whole fervor with which both our liberasts and the Westerner decry and discuss this non-issue, based only on a ballsy claim by a shitty news rag, proves once more, that even the people, who claim to be irreligious (i.e. the aformentioned crowd) still need a prothesis for a faith. The conspiracy theories and fake news following is just the thing they want.

Lyttenburgh , May 11, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Update: went to the semi-revived eXiled-online, read Ames' two-parter. On the one hand – good stuff about Alexeyev the chubby arch-gay of all Rus (or so he claims). Good links about the collusion between the "professional gays" and the Western (read: USA) powers that be, replete with them shyly not yapping about the conditions of teh ghays in the countries which are "allies". and "strategic partners" of the USA.

Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present, he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts.

Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT and Alexeyev.

[May 12, 2017] Rapewhistling for Hitler by Anatoly Karlin

Essentially Hiler Germany colobizarrion of land up to Volga river was to inspired by the achievements on US colonists as for Indian population with Slavs. "Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain."
Notable quotes:
"... Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes ..."
"... There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue). ..."
May 12, 2017 | www.unz.com
May 9, 2017 157 Comments About two thirds of the USSR's 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people – an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the 600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).

About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That's not far off the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia in 1941).

It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50 million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.

And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don't quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.*

How many rapes is one death/murder "worth"? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse, perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree. It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30 years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually) and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually, as per police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape is on average 20% as "bad" as murder. ( Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes ).

Therefore, let's say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the Nazi crimes against Russia.

Now to be sure you can argue that not all "murders" are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society tends to consider soldiers as pretty much "fair game" (though it is questionable to what extent this can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility of opting out by applying for a "conscientious objector" status at the cost of their social reputation, as in the less "total" conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well. There were traumatic gang rapes, to military brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.

"What the Soviet People Fought For" :

Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time "hunting groups" ventured out of Wehrmacht positions. "We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina," said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, "We had orders to bring girls to the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning."

In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice. "There were military brothels, called Puff," recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, "They were present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps. By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions." But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily, in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers' brothel in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.

After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: "In the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated by the fascists."

So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army's abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.

Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his " toast to the Russian people ," Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany.

Parsifal , May 9, 2017 at 8:01 pm GMT

Another excellent book that kills the "clean Wehrmacht" myth is "Third Reich at War" by Richard Evans. He shows that the German practice of taking local women to serve in brothels or simple outright rape started already in Poland in late 1939. And Evans is no Germanophobe, far from it

Anatoly Karlin , Website May 9, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

@Glossy Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.

There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

Darin , May 9, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

About the famine of 1947, see

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1947.pdf

The 1947 Soviet famine and the entitlement approach to famines Michael Ellman

This paper presents an analysis of the economics of the 1947 Soviet famine, using data from recently declassified archives. It is argued that the best estimate that can currently be given of the number of excess deaths is the range 1·0–1·5 million. The demographic loss was greater. During the famine, surplus stocks in the hands of the state seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation. The famine was a FAD2 (preventable food availability decline) famine, which occurred because a drought caused a bad harvest and hence reduced food availability, but, had the priorities of the government been different, there might have been no famine (or a much smaller one) despite the drought. The selection of victims can be understood
in terms of the entitlement approach.

[...]

Conclusions

The 1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine was the fourth and last Soviet famine. It began in July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly dimin-ished in intensity, although there were still some famine deaths in 1948.

The best estimate of excess deaths that can currently be given is the range 1,000,000- 1,500,000. The range is relatively wide because of the uncertain relationship between registered mortality and actual mortality. The largest number of excess deaths was in Russia, followed by Ukraine and Moldova. In percentage terms, the largest number of excess deaths was in Moldova and the smallest in Russia.

The demographic loss was greater than the number of excess deaths since it also includes the fall in the birthrate compared with what it might have been under non-
famine conditions. According to a present-day Russian historian, the demographic loss in Russia was three times the number of excess deaths.

The level of grain stocks at the end of the agricultural year 1946–7 seems to have been in excess of the minimum level of stocks required to maintain the rationing system. Surplus stocks seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation or starvation-induced disease in the agricultural year 1946–7. This was still more the case with the victims who died in the agricultural year 1947–8.

It is not true that the level of grain stocks in the hands of the state was constant or increased during the famine period. Stocks fell during the main famine period (the
agricultural year 1946–7). Nor is it true that grain exports increased in the agricultural year 1946–7. They declined then.

It is not true that the Soviet authorities paid no attention to famine relief. They did undertake some famine relief, but not enough to prevent large scale mortality from starvation and starvation-related diseases. They also permitted substantial foreign help. Nor is it true that they ignored the needs of agriculture. They increased seed loans in 1947 to enable the spring sowing to go ahead smoothly despite the shortage of seed at the farms.

Glossy , Website May 9, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT

@Mr. XYZ @Anatoly Karlin: Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union's population have been in 1991 if it wasn't for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would 375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too high?

anon , May 9, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

Unlike the times of Mongol Conquests and other great invasions/wars that ancient reports are dubious and deaths are less than what historians find out, the World Wars had more accurate ways to calculate deaths and they had more accurate numbers in their reports. But then veiled interests and propaganda at that time and now are even more blatant than in ancient times, with numbers being inflated or diminished.
.
Take the Rape of Berlin, for example. Its numbers showed up pretty recently and only taking account the passages of one hospital counting abortions and victims of rape, using that as basis for dubious calculations to reach the 2 million number.
.
Or the Holodomor that accounts only ukrainian lands, sometimes ignoring the effects of famine and confiscation in other places inside Russia. Most important, the belief that the most brutal confiscations were straight out enforced instead of a consequence of farmers that were secretly getting rid of most of their grains ahead of time or some of them even destroying it and killing livestock just to not let it get into officers' hands.
.
Even the deaths by the secret service in disclosed documents do not mirror the exaggerate numbers gave by mainstream sources.
.
There's no doubt that the Soviet Union in war time, given proper research and calculations, is still a system that killed millions unjustly directly or indirectly, but mainstream media likes to inflate numbers to give an extra indignation and make sure people knows how horrible the system is. In fact, no one in World War II is exempt of a large number of deaths (again, be it direct or indirect), even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.

unpc downunder , May 9, 2017 at 10:27 pm GMT

There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

Hector_St_Clare , May 9, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

@unpc downunder There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

James N. Kennett , May 10, 2017 at 12:01 am GMT

@Hector_St_Clare Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

Daniel H , May 10, 2017 at 1:17 am GMT

@Wally Anatoly Karlin said:

"It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest."

No it's not, and you have no proof.

AP , May 10, 2017 at 3:17 am GMT

It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population

This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

reiner Tor , Website May 10, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT

@James N. Kennett


Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.

anon , May 10, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

@German_reader


Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR
Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.
Gabriel M , May 10, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.

Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle – though not scale! – to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

German_reader , May 10, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

@Gabriel M


It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

German_reader , May 10, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT

@Greasy William What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany's borders? Do they want to regain Germany's lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?

melanf , May 10, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT

@German_reader I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).

Lex , May 11, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

@Nador Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.

JL , May 11, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

@neutral You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.

JL , May 11, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

@German_reader I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.

German_reader , May 11, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

@JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

AP , May 11, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

@JL Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I'm exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it's mostly East Coast liberals.

I don't pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can't name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?


Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue.
The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don't care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It's no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.

The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?
melanf , May 11, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

@AP


Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
"Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

JL , May 11, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT

@AP


Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
"Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

Avery , May 11, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

@RadicalCenter They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I'm not and I don't.

Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.

anon , May 11, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

This is a very awkward topic as i understand both sides.

The German attack forced the Bolsheviks to change their policy towards ethnic Russians – what would the Bolsheviks have done to the Russians over time if the Germans hadn't attacked?

I think it's possible to guess what they would have done by what is happening in the West today – some people want a world of 85 IQ slave cattle so there's no competition.

So what was the best out of three terrible options?

1) German attack and victory
2) Bolshevik victory (no war and eventual genetic mutilation of the ethnic Russians)
3) German attack weakening Bolsheviks but not winning

To me the correct analogy is to an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself because of an infection – where the Bolsheviks were the infection.

German_reader , May 11, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

@for-the-record


when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities
Which are the the first ones likely to be?
szopen , May 11, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

@melanf


Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
In the case of Stalin - not millions.

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
"...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".

Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

" A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)

Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

AP , May 11, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

@JL I'm interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers' deaths Stalin's responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.


both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries
Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
AP , May 11, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT

@melanf


Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
In the case of Stalin - not millions.

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
"...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".

Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

" A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)

Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

Intelligent Dasein , Website May 12, 2017 at 6:02 am GMT

@JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

Anonymous , May 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

@AP


It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

[May 12, 2017] The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. War on Terror scenario

May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:25 pm

"The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, until they break or capitulate to U.S. domination of the world. The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. "War on Terror" scenario. But these mega-lies can no longer mask the great obscenity of the 21st century: that the U.S. is allied with al-Qaida, whose jihadists act as imperialism's foot soldiers in the Middle East."

Absolute take down of the psycho shtstains in Brussels and Washington DC

https://www.blackagendareport.com/jail_obama_and_trump_for_war_crimes

Time for global regime change

ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

[May 12, 2017] It doesnt say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence

May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:16 pm
"WASHINGTON DC: Six top US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday they agree with the conclusion that Russia acted to influence last year's election, countering President Donald Trump's assertions that the hacking remains an open question."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1407409/trumps-intel-bosses-reiterate-russia-meddled-election/

"Asked whether they believed the intelligence community's January assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking and leaking information to influence the elections was accurate, all six spy and law enforcement bosses appearing before the panel said "yes."
Trump's firing of FBI director 'domestic matter': Kremlin'"

Demand these vermin proffer PROOF that Russia F'd with the 2016 election..
Then Fire every last one of these cckskkers..declare martial law if necessary

ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

[May 09, 2017] Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963

May 09, 2017 | prospect.org

James Galbraith , Heather Purcell

Fall 1994

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s. PinIt Instapaper Pocket Email Print During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.


The Real Missile Gap

In 1960, claims of a "missile gap" favoring the Soviets had given the Democrats a critical election theme, and many millions of Americans entered the Sixties feeling intensely vulnerable to the new Soviet ICBM threat. But as Richard Reeves has recently written, intelligence based on satellites launched in August of 1960 soon challenged the campaign assessment and public view. The United States had beaten the USSR to an operational ICBM and enjoyed a clear, and growing, numerical advantage. We were far ahead, and our military planners knew it.

Kennedy was quickly convinced of this truth, which was further confirmed as new satellites brought back new information. Later in 1961, a National Intelligence Estimate came through showing only four Soviet ICBMs in place, all of them on low alert at a test site called Plesetsk. By fall, Defense Undersecretary Roswell Gilpatric would acknowledge in a public speech that U.S. forces (with 185 ICBMs and over 3,400 deliverable nuclear bombs at that time) were vastly superior to those of the Russians.

It was in this context, of an increasing nuclear edge based on a runaway lead in land-based missiles, that Kennedy faced his first nuclear-tinged crisis, which erupted over Berlin in July of 1961.


The Berlin Crisis

The July 20th meeting took place under conditions of unusual tension. Only three months before, Kennedy had suffered the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion and his loss of confidence in both the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. One month before, he had been shaken by his Vienna confrontation with Nikita Khrushchev. Now, the Soviets were threatening to turn control of access to West Berlin over to the East Germans, and to conclude a separate peace treaty with that satellite state.

At the crucial National Security Council discussion of the brewing Berlin crisis on July 13, Secretary of State Dean Rusk had opposed negotiations with the Soviets until the last moment. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., then a special assistant, later summarized for the President, adviser Dean Acheson had prepared a paper arguing that

we are in a fateful test of wills, that our major task is to demonstrate our unalterable determination, and that Krushchev will be deterred only by a US readiness to go to nuclear war rather than to abandon the status quo. On this theory, negotiation is harmful until the crisis is well developed; then it is useful only for propaganda purposes . . . 1

Kennedy favored negotiations over conflict. While not directly challenging Acheson, he encouraged Schlesinger to produce an unsigned memo critical of Acheson's stance.

Schlesinger advised caution. In a passage especially pertinent to the larger issue, he wrote:

The [Acheson] paper hinges on our willingness to face nuclear war. But this option is undefined. Before you are asked to make the decision to go to nuclear war, you are entitled to know concretely what nuclear war is likely to mean. The Pentagon should be required to make an analysis of the possible levels and implications of nuclear warfare and the possible gradations of our own nuclear response.2

It is possible (though we do not know) that the decision to bring the Net Evaluation to Kennedy occurred in response to the raising of these concerns. At any rate, the meeting occurred.


The Burris Memorandum

The memorandum reproduced here was written for Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who did not attend the meeting, by Colonel Howard Burris, his military aide. Declassified only in June of 1993, it has not previously received any public attention so far as we have been able to determine.

The first paragraph introduces General Hickey and his group, the Net Evaluation Subcommittee. Although the subcommittee report is described as "annual," this would be the first one given to President Kennedy and his advisors, and it is not clear whether President Eisenhower received such reports in person. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stepped in to explain the "assumption" of the 1961 report: "a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." The question arises: A surprise attack by whom on whom?

The following paragraphs answer the question. The second paragraph reports that after hearing the presentations, President Kennedy asked the presenters "if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R. which would be incurred by a preemptive attack." Kennedy also asked for an effectiveness trend since "these studies have been made since 1957." Lemnitzer responded that he would later answer both of the President's questions in private.

Paragraph three records Kennedy asking a hypothetical question: what would happen if we launched a strike in the winter of 1962? Allen Dulles of the CIA responded that "the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved." Lemnitzer then cautioned against putting too much faith in the findings since the assumptions might be faulty. The discussion thus provides a time-frame. December of 1962 was too early for an attack because the U.S. would have too few missiles; by December of 1963 there would likely be sufficient numbers.

Paragraph four reports one more Kennedy question: how much time would "citizens" need to remain in shelters following an attack? The President receives a qualified estimate of two weeks from a member of the subcommittee. The group was clearly talking about U.S. citizens protecting themselves from the globe-encircling fallout following a U.S. nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R.

Paragraph five adds to the intensity of the document with Kennedy's directive "that no member in attendance disclose even the subject of the meeting."


Other Accounts of the Meeting

So far as we know, the official record of this meeting remains secret. The excellent Foreign Relations of the United States, volume XIV, "Berlin Crisis 1961-1962," published in late 1993, though replete with memoranda detailing the nuclear aspects of the Berlin confrontation, makes no mention of it. The only official reference we know of is the agenda for the National Security Council issued on July 18, 1961, declassified in 1977, which reads, simply "The Net Evaluation Subcommittee (NSC 5816; N.S. Action No. 2223) . . . Presentation of the report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee." (The most detailed discussion of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee we have found is in Desmond Ball's Politics and Force Levels , which identifies the larger task of the subcommittee as the preparation of revised targeting plans.)

On the other hand, the fact of a meeting, and Kennedy's personal reaction to it, has been reported. The President was displeased. But no account yet published has told what he was displeased about.

For example, Arthur Schlesinger's Robert Kennedy and His Times gives this account:

. . . Kennedy received the Net Evaluation, an annual doomsday briefing analyzing the chances of nuclear war. An Air Force General presented it, said Roswell Gilpatric, the deputy secretary of defense, "as though it were for a kindergarten class . . . Finally Kennedy got up and walked right out in the middle of it, and that was the end of it. We never had another one."3

McGeorge Bundy evidently refers to the same meeting in this passage:

In the summer of 1961 [Kennedy] went through a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers, and he expressed his own reaction to Dean Rusk as they walked from the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects: "And we call ourselves the human race."4

(Dean Rusk's memoirs repeat Kennedy's remark, though they place the meeting "shortly after our assuming office." Richard Reeves does not mention the July meeting, and attributes Kennedy's remark to a later briefing in September, 1961.)

Numerous other apparent accounts of the meeting exist, though they do not refer to it by name or date. All agree on Kennedy's reaction. But none reveal what was actually discussed. Theodore Sorenson's Kennedy , published only four years later, presents an understandably benign version:

That briefing confirmed, however, the harsh facts [Kennedy] already knew: (1) that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could 'win' a nuclear war in any rational sense of the word; (2) that, except to deter an all-out Soviet attack, our threat of 'massive retaliation' to every Communist move was no longer credible, now that it invited our own destruction; and (3) that a policy of 'pre-emptive first strike' or 'preventive war' was no longer open to either side, inasmuch as even a surprise missile attack would trigger, before those missiles reached their targets, a devastating retaliation that neither country could risk or accept.5

Unfortunately, the critical third point was not yet true. As former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Hilsman wrote in 1967:

As the intelligence community looked at their estimates in 1958, 1959, and 1960, and even through the first half of 1961, they saw a missile gap developing that would come to a peak about 1963.6

What Hilsman does not say explicitly is that the estimated missile gap was in America's favor. The Soviets had virtually no operational ICBMs in 1961, a fact known to American intelligence at least by the end of 1960. And it appears the Russians did not solve their fundamental technical problem, namely building a hydrogen bomb small enough to be carried by a missile of manageable size, until years later.7

Dean Rusk describes the meeting as an "awesome experience" in his memoirs, As I Saw It , published in 1990.

President Kennedy clearly understood what nuclear war meant and was appalled by it. In our many talks together, he never worried about the threat of assassination, but he occasionally brooded over whether it would be his fate to push the nuclear button... If any of us had doubts, that 1961 briefing convinced us that a nuclear war must never be fought. Consequently, throughout the Kennedy and Johnson years we worked to establish a stable deterrent. . .8

What Rusk does not say is that the problem of a "stable deterrent" in 1961 did not lie in an insufficiency of American missiles. It lay, rather, in the need for the Soviets to develop sufficient effective ICBM (and submarine) forces, to deter us. That is an ugly but unavoidable fact. Rusk goes on, a page later, with comments that appear almost anguished, and for which his own account of the meeting gives no apparent rationale:

. . . the United States has never renounced possible first use of nuclear weapons. I personally think that the United States is committed to a second strike only, after we have received nuclear weapons on our own soil. Under no circumstances would I have participated in an order to launch a first strike, with the possible exception of a massive conventional attack on Western Europe.9


The July 25 Speeck on Berlin

Nuclear conflict was very much in the air that week. Another document of the time indicates the directions Kennedy's nuclear thinking was actually taking -- quite the Cold Warrior, but at the same time far removed from pre-emptive strikes and the inflexible all-out attack envisioned by the Joint Chiefs. This is a paper entitled "Nuclear Strategy in the Berlin Crisis," by the economist Thomas C. Schelling, which was sent to Hyannis Port over the weekend of July 21, 1961 and which, as Bundy noted, made a "deep impression" on the President. In it Schelling presented arguments for a capability, which did not then exist, to wage limited nuclear war:

. . . the role of nuclears in Europe should not be to win a grand nuclear campaign, but to pose a higher level of risk to the enemy. The important thing in limited nuclear war is to impress the Soviet leadership with the risk of general war -- a war that may occur whether we or they intend it or not....We should plan for a war of nerve, of demonstration, and of bargaining, not of tactical target destruction.10

Schelling also advocated centralization of the control of weapons in the hands of the President so as to

permit deliberate, discriminating, selective use for dangerous nuclear bargaining. This means preventing any use, by anyone, not specifically authorized as part of the nuclear bargaining plan...This is a controlled strategic exchange.11

Schelling's paper thus called attention to a key concern: the diffuse character of nuclear command and control in 1961 did not assure that the President in fact enjoyed the full authority over the bomb which most Americans assumed to be the case. Establishing such control became a priority for Kennedy in the months that followed.

The cumulative impact of this diverse advice can be seen in Kennedy's televised address to the nation on July 25, 1961. "We cannot and will not permit the Communists to drive us out of Berlin, either gradually or by force" Yet Kennedy also stressed the dangers: "miscommunication could rain down more devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of human history." He asked for increased military appropriations and called out 150,000 reserve personnel. But he did not engage the Soviets. The Berlin Wall was allowed to remain intact when constructed in August of 1961, a symbolic column of soldiers was sent through to West Berlin, and a fallout shelter program was undertaken in the United States.

Advertisement

With the Burris memorandum, the reasoning behind the fallout shelter program now begins to fall into place. As a civil defense measure against a Soviet nuclear attack, the flimsy cinderblock shelters Americans were told to build were absurd. But they could indeed protect those in them, for a couple of weeks, from radiation drifting thousands of miles after a U.S. pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. It is known that Kennedy later regretted this program.


Down the Road: 1962 and 1963

The U.S. was far ahead in the arms race. Yet the military continued to press for a rapid build-up of strategic missiles. Curtis LeMay had asked for at least 2400 Minutemen; Thomas Powers of the Strategic Air Command had asked for 10,000. All were to be unleashed in a single paroxysm of mass annihilation, know as SIOP, the Single Integrated Operating Plan.

SIOP was a recipe for blowing up the world, whether in a first or a second strike. As McGeorge Bundy wrote to the President on July 7, 1961:

...All agree that the current strategic war plan is dangerously rigid and, if continued without amendment, may leave you with very little choice as to how you face the moment of thermonuclear truth. We believe that you may want to raise this question with Bob McNamara in order to have a prompt review and new orders if necessary. In essence, the current plan calls for shooting off everything we have in one shot, and is so constructed as to make any more flexible course very difficult.12

During that summer of 1961, the Defense Secretary ordered an overhaul of SIOP carried out by RAND analysts (including Daniel Ellsberg) and quickly approved by the JCS. Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara eventually imposed a limit of 1,000 Minuteman missiles, angering the Chiefs. Kennedy also launched efforts to gain operational control of the nuclear force, then far from being securely concentrated in the President's hands.

The Burris memorandum may help to explain both the military's drive for a vast U.S. nuclear build-up, despite the fact that America was already far ahead, and the resistance from JFK and McNamara. The Net Evaluation Subcommittee had offered the Pentagon, the CIA, and President Kennedy a glimpse of the opportunity that lay ahead in the winter of 1963: U.S. nuclear superiority so complete that a first strike might be successful. But it also alerted Kennedy to a danger. American nuclear superiority might then be so complete, that rogue elements from the military and intelligence forces, seeking to precipitate an American first strike, might not feel deterred by fear of Soviet retaliation. What was the dispute over the numbers of land-based ICBMs really about? To be sure, at some level it involved the sufficiency of deterrence. But there may also have been an even graver concern: the offensive capabilities of the nuclear force, at a time when the President could not be sure of his control over the nuclear button.

By October of 1962, the U.S. nuclear lead remained strong, though perhaps not yet airtight, given the number of Soviet bombers and the risks to Europe. Twenty years later, Anthony Cordesman described the picture:

During the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, the US had approximately 1500 B-47s and 500 B-52s, and had already deployed over 200 of its first generation of ICBMs. In marked contrast, the Soviet strategic missile threat consisted of a few token ICBM deployments whose unreliability was so great that it was uncertain exactly whom they threatened. Soviet long range bomber forces consisted only of 100 Tu-Bears and 35 May Bison, whose range and flight characteristics forced them to fly at medium and high altitudes, and which made them extremely vulnerable to US fighters and surface-to-air missiles.13

Kennedy resisted strong pressures to test this advantage in October of 1962, as he might have had to do, had he agreed to launch bombing raids on the Cuban missile installations. Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, published in 1970, tell of graphic fears expressed by Robert Kennedy to the Russian ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin at the peak of the crisis:

Even though the President himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will... If the situation continues for much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American military could get out of control.14

Not even the American editors of Khrushchev's memoirs took these remarks seriously at the time they were first published. A rare editorial note reads: "Obviously this is Khrushchev's own version of what was reported to him. There is no evidence that the President was acting out of fear of a military take-over."

Looking down the road, the Net Evaluation calendar of 1961 implied that the period from Cuba to Dallas and just after was, perhaps, critical to the survival of the world. Had tensions escalated or been aroused in some violent way in late 1963, the President might have faced an excruciating choice -- to strike first, or to give up "victory" during the last brief moment in all history when it could conceivably have been won.

We cannot say whether Kennedy believed the Net Evaluation calendar, or indeed, perhaps equally serious, whether he believed that others in the government might believe it. We do know that the last year of his life saw repeated initiatives to settle conflicts and reduce tensions: the normalization of Berlin, the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey, the no-invasion pledge on Cuba and the effort, only partially effective, to end to the covert campaign (OP/MONGOOSE) against Castro, the test-ban treaty, and -- though the point is disputed -- the order in October 1963 to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam. By November of 1963, the potential for "heightened tensions" leading to uncontrollable pressures to strike first had indeed been reduced. And, some time later, the Soviet Rocket Forces did evidently shut the window. From that point, the world probably became a good deal more secure. But exactly when this happened is not clear.

And Lyndon Baines Johnson, the recipient of Burris's note, was still uneasy on the point when he assumed office on November 22, 1963, amid swirling rumors connecting Lee Harvey Oswald, falsely as we now know, to the KGB. David Wise, then bureau chief of the New York Herald Tribune , reports hearing Johnson tell in late 1963 of recruiting Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission in the following terms:

. . . when Warren came to the White House, [LBJ] told the Chief Justice he knew he had been a first lieutenant in World War I, and he knew Earl Warren would walk across the Atlantic Ocean to save the lives of three Americans, and possibly a hundred million lives were at stake here . . . 15 15. Wise, p. 292.


Whose lives, exactly?

One meeting, even in the White House, does not establish that first-strike was in fact the nuclear policy of the United States. Kennedy's recorded response, moreover, indicates his personal determination, shared by his civilian advisers, that it never become so. But we do know, from Howard Burris's notes, that a first strike plan had authors close to the decision center. How close, in the end, did they get? Civilian control of nuclear forces was no sure thing in 1961. Was it secure when the window opened, if it did, in 1963? Kennedy's actions and Johnson's eerie remark are consistent with the possibility that the calendar and risks of a first-strike window remained in the minds of both men as late as November, 1963 and possibly in Johnson's mind for a good deal longer.

In any event, the fact that first-strike planning got as far as it did raises grave questions about the history of the Cold War. Much more needs to be known: about nuclear decision-making under Eisenhower and Nixon, about the events of late 1963, about later technical developments such as MIRV and Star Wars. Surely it is now time to declassify all records on this and related history.

[May 09, 2017] Is the US Preparing to Launch a Nuclear Attack Against Russia and China by Dave Hodges

May 09, 2017 | www.thecommonsenseshow.com

In the Russian publication, Pravada , the Russians media has recently asserted that the U.S. is engaging in proto-warfare against Russia and China on a number of fronts.

Proto-warfare is characterized by the use of coercive methods which are designed to weaken an adversary prior to attacking the enemy. The proto-war strategies include "threats against the targeted country, economic sanctions; military encirclement around its borders. cyber-warfare, drone warfare, and use of proxy forces from within or from outside the country for political and/or military action against the local government". Presently, the United States has engaged in all of these strategies against Russia and Ukraine.

Further, proto-wars also consist of propaganda campaigns against the targeted countries. Pravada points to the fact that the America media campaigns are unusually effective because they are waged by the five giant media conglomerates which now control 90% of the U.S. media and these media conglomerates are directly linked to the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in the Council of Foreign Relations. In other words, the bulk of the American citizens are being prepared to accept war with Russia and China. It is clear that the official news publication of the Russian government agrees with Dr. Roberts assertion.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

According to the Wolfowitz Doctrine , which was constructed in 1992, the United States "must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order."

Further, the doctrine states that "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

I have written about this fact repeatedly with regard to the importance of Ukraine. If Russia gains control of Ukraine, Putin will effectively control Europe's energy needs as two-thirds of the gas shipped into Europe flows through Ukraine. If Russia gains control of Ukraine, they will effectively control the economies of Europe and NATO will be irreparably damaged. This would put the Russian military on an even par with the United States and the tenets of the Wolfkowitz Doctrine cannot permit the re-establishment of the old Soviet Union to a level where its reacquisition of super-power status could challenge the United States. Before Putin is allowed to occupy Ukraine, the United States will launch a nuclear first strike against the Russians, and because the Russians are now closely aligned with the Chinese, a first strike against China will also be necessary.

The Bilderberg Group

Bilderberg expert, Daniel Estulin , is claiming that the Bilderbergs are interested in breaking up the alliance between China, Russia and Iran. According to Estulin, this unholy alliance is threatening Western domination of the planet. Estulin believes that this alliance will not be allowed to stand and Bilderberg interests will take action. This makes the possiblity of WW III is becoming very likely. Daniel is appearing on my talk show on June 22nd and I will question him more about this . However, and for now, Estulin remains concerned that the Bilderberg is determined to break up the re-emergence of the former Soviet empire and the dramatic increase of Chinese influence and power.

Continuity of Government

Recent actions within several agencies of the federal government would point to the fact that government is preparing for something very big and on the order of what Dr. Roberts is predicting.

There are several agencies and departments within the government that are presently going through a major reorganization, a redundancy of function and in some cases, a partial geographic relocation.

For years, the CIA has been relocating many of its operations to Denver International Airport (underground). This is not newsworthy in the sense that this does not represent a recent development which would be emblematic of a major shift in recent domestic or foreign policy. However, when considered within the context of what is happening in other agencies or departments, this move mostly likely represents the kickoff of a long range plan on the part of the agency to survive a devastating attack upon Langley.

The FBI is presently relocating a number of agents and related personnel from Washington D.C. to the near empty federal building in Phoenix and also to Las Vegas and Houston. In at least two cases that I have been made aware of, there is a complete redundancy of Bureau duties and functions within these relocations. With all due seriousness, I have also been told that many important hard-copy records are being placed within mini-Faraday cages designed to survive and EMP attack. Stop and think for a moment, what weapon is known for generating an EMP? Why that would be a nuclear weapon.

The State Department is presently undergoing a massive purge on multiple fronts. First, many of the independent contractors are being let go. Why? Independent contractors make wonderful whistle blowers because their careers are not necessarily invested in the long-term integrity and public appearance of the State Department . Second, many State Department functions are being geographically moved and there are also the many redundancies of functionality appearing within the State Department. For example, cubicles which formerly housed 20 employees per office, now house 40 employees. It is a commonly known fact that many workers at the State Department are disgruntled because the overcrowded working conditions have resulted in employees having to share duties and even computers with their new coworkers. This represents a clear effort to duplicate personnel functions across a wide geographic spectrum as many State Department employees have been told that they are being geographically relocated. And the relocation is so hurried, that higher ups do not have answers for their subordinates about the budgeting for the relocations. Many of the new workers hired by the State Department are NEW independent contractors, thus making it easier to compartmentalize intelligence information. In an unrelated matter, there is a major purge going on within the State Department with regard to Benghazi necessitated by the new rash of Congressional investigations on Ambassador Steven's gun running to al-Qaeda for the purposes or facilitating regime change in Libya and Syria and funding these operations with drug running and using profits derived from child sex trafficking. It is safe to say that the State Department is absolute chaos.

In the final analysis, when a government agency or department begins to spread out its assets and begins to duplicate functions, to the detriment of their already strained budgets, these moves can only be attributed to one goal: The Continuity of Government. What is the Continuity of Government? It is a long-term evolutionary plan devised by the U.S. government to survive a nuclear attack. As Ray Charles could see, the dots are beginning to connect.

Conclusion

DHS and the NSA are experiencing some similar personnel moves as well. And let's not forget that the every federal agency, ranging from the National Weather Service to the USDA to DHS are arming to the teeth. Why? I can only conclude that they are preparing to fight the American people because we can safely bet that the National Weather Service and the EPA are not going to be invading Ukraine. Clearly, the federal government is preparing to survive something very big.

It has long been my belief that WW III will be preceded by a brutal martial law designed to control the people. Martial law will be precipitated by a false flag event which will be used to justify martial law. And one can safely bet that a new false flag event will be one of massive proportions (e.g. EMP attack) because the public is much wiser to the use false flag attacks than we were on 9/11.

Our national leaders believe they can win a nuclear war against China and Russia by attacking first, using nuclear submarines which are hard to detect and counter and then by deploying ABM's to knock down the Chinese and Russian counter response.

Can anyone really win a nuclear war?

Dr. Roberts raises the question as to whether anyone can really can expect to win a nuclear war with such consequences as nuclear winter, the radiating of much of the world's water table and the poisoning of livestock and crops. In a nuclear winter, the sun would be so thoroughly blocked out that nothing would grow and mass famine would result. I agree with Dr. Roberts, there are no national winners in a nuclear war.

... ... ...

[May 09, 2017] These Nuclear Breakthroughs Are Endangering the World

Notable quotes:
"... it is pure luck that we have avoided a nuclear exchange - and that the possibility of nuclear war is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War. ..."
"... In January 1995, Russian early warning radar on the Kola Peninsula picked up a rocket launch from a Norwegian island that looked as if it was targeting Russia. In fact, the rocket was headed toward the North Pole, but Russian radar tagged it as a Trident II missile coming in from the North Atlantic. The scenario was plausible. While some first strike attacks envision launching a massive number of missiles, others call for detonating a large warhead over a target at about 800 miles altitude. The massive pulse of electro-magnetic radiation that such an explosion generates would blind or cripple radar systems over a broad area. That would be followed with a first strike. ..."
"... What that means is that while the U.S. would have about 30 minutes of warning time to investigate whether an attack was really taking place, the Russians would have 15 minutes or less. ..."
"... The U.S. Ohio class submarine is armed with 24 Trident II missiles, carrying as many as 192 warheads. The missiles can be launched in less than a minute. ..."
"... The other element in this modernization program that has Russia and China uneasy is the decision by the Obama administration to place anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, and to deploy Aegis ship-based anti-missile systems off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. From Moscow's perspective - and Beijing's as well - those interceptors are there to absorb the few missiles that a first strike might miss. ..."
"... "I don't know how this is all going to end," Putin told the St. Petersburg delegates. "What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves." ..."
"... Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com . ..."
May 09, 2017 | fpif.org

Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists , Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, Matthew McKinzie of the National Resources Defense Council, and physicist and ballistic missile expert Theodore Postol conclude that "Under the veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life-extension program," the U.S. military has vastly expanded the "killing power" of its warheads such that it can "now destroy all of Russia's ICBM silos."

The upgrade - part of the Obama administration's $1 trillion modernization of America's nuclear forces - allows Washington to destroy Russia's land-based nuclear weapons, while still retaining 80 percent of U.S. warheads in reserve. If Russia chose to retaliate, it would be reduced to ash.

... ... ...

The strategy behind a first strike - sometimes called a "counter force" attack - isn't to destroy an opponent's population centers, but to eliminate the other sides' nuclear weapons, or at least most of them. Anti-missile systems would then intercept a weakened retaliatory strike.

The technical breakthrough that suddenly makes this a possibility is something called the "super-fuze", which allows for a much more precise ignition of a warhead. If the aim is to blow up a city, such precision is superfluous. But taking out a reinforced missile silo requires a warhead to exert a force of at least 10,000 pounds per square inch on the target.

Up until the 2009 modernization program, the only way to do that was to use the much more powerful - but limited in numbers - W88 warhead. Fitted with the super-fuze, however, the smaller W76 can now do the job, freeing the W88 for other targets.

Traditionally, land-based missiles are more accurate than sea-based missiles, but the former are more vulnerable to a first-strike than the latter, because submarines are good at hiding. The new super-fuze does not increase the accuracy of Trident II submarine missiles, but it makes up for that with the precision of where the weapon detonates. "In the case of the 100-kt Trident II warhead," write the three scientists, "the super-fuze triples the killing power of the nuclear force it is applied to."

Before the super-fuze was deployed, only 20 percent of U.S. subs had the ability to destroy re-enforced missile silos. Today, all have that capacity.

Trident II missiles typically carry from four to five warheads, but can expand that up to eight. While the missile is capable of hosting as many as 12 warheads, that configuration would violate current nuclear treaties. U.S. submarines currently deploy about 890 warheads, of which 506 are W76s and 384 are W88s.

The land-based ICBMs are Minuteman III, each armed with three warheads - 400 in total - ranging from 300 kt to 500 kt apiece. There are also air and sea-launched nuclear tipped missiles and bombs. The Tomahawk cruise missiles that recently struck Syria can be configured to carry a nuclear warhead.

The Technology Gap

The super-fuze also increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear conflict.

So far, the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war, although during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis it came distressingly close. There have also been several scary incidents when U.S. and Soviet forces went to full alert because of faulty radar images or a test tape that someone thought was real. While the military downplays these events, former Secretary of Defense William Perry argues that it is pure luck that we have avoided a nuclear exchange - and that the possibility of nuclear war is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War.

In part, this is because of a technology gap between the U.S. and Russia.

In January 1995, Russian early warning radar on the Kola Peninsula picked up a rocket launch from a Norwegian island that looked as if it was targeting Russia. In fact, the rocket was headed toward the North Pole, but Russian radar tagged it as a Trident II missile coming in from the North Atlantic. The scenario was plausible. While some first strike attacks envision launching a massive number of missiles, others call for detonating a large warhead over a target at about 800 miles altitude. The massive pulse of electro-magnetic radiation that such an explosion generates would blind or cripple radar systems over a broad area. That would be followed with a first strike.

At the time, calmer heads prevailed and the Russians called off their alert, but for a few minutes the doomsday clock moved very close to midnight.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists , the 1995 crisis suggests that Russia does not have "a reliable and working global space-based satellite early warning system." Instead, Moscow has focused on building ground-based systems that give the Russians less warning time than satellite-based ones do. What that means is that while the U.S. would have about 30 minutes of warning time to investigate whether an attack was really taking place, the Russians would have 15 minutes or less.

That, according to the magazine, would likely mean that "Russian leadership would have little choice but to pre-delegate nuclear launch authority to lower levels of command," hardly a situation that would be in the national security interests of either country.

Or, for that matter, the world.

A recent study found that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan using Hiroshima-sized weapons would generate a nuclear winter that would make it impossible to grow wheat in Russia and Canada and cut the Asian Monsoon's rainfall by 10 percent. The result would be up to 100 million deaths by starvation. Imagine what the outcome would be if the weapons were the size used by Russia, China, or the U.S.

For the Russians, the upgrading of U.S. sea-based missiles with the super-fuze would be an ominous development. By "shifting the capacity to submarines that can move to missile launch positions much closer to their targets than land-based missiles," the three scientists conclude, "the U.S. military has achieved a significantly greater capacity to conduct a surprise first strike against Russian ICBM silos."

The U.S. Ohio class submarine is armed with 24 Trident II missiles, carrying as many as 192 warheads. The missiles can be launched in less than a minute.

The Russians and Chinese have missile-firing submarines as well, but not as many, and some are close to obsolete. The U.S. has also seeded the world's oceans and seas with networks of sensors to keep track of those subs. In any case, would the Russians or Chinese retaliate if they knew that the U.S. still retained most of its nuclear strike force? Faced with a choice committing national suicide or holding their fire, they may well choose the former.

The other element in this modernization program that has Russia and China uneasy is the decision by the Obama administration to place anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, and to deploy Aegis ship-based anti-missile systems off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. From Moscow's perspective - and Beijing's as well - those interceptors are there to absorb the few missiles that a first strike might miss.

In reality, anti-missile systems are pretty iffy. Once they migrate off the drawing boards, their lethal efficiency drops rather sharply. Indeed, most of them can't hit the broad side of a barn. But that's not a chance the Chinese and the Russians can afford to take.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Forum in June 2016, Russian President Valdimir Putin charged that U.S. anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania were not aimed at Iran, but at Russia and China. "The Iranian threat does not exist, but missile defense systems continue to be positioned." He added, "a missile defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential."

Unraveling Arms Accords

The danger here is that arms agreements will begin to unravel if countries decide that they are suddenly vulnerable. For the Russians and the Chinese, the easiest solution to the American breakthrough is to build a lot more missiles and warheads, and treaties be dammed.

The new Russian cruise missile may indeed strain the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, but it is also a natural response to what are, from Moscow's view, alarming technological advances by the U.S. Had the Obama administration reversed the 2002 decision by George W. Bush's administration to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the new cruise might never have been deployed.

There are a number of immediate steps that the U.S. and the Russians could take to de-escalate the current tensions. First, taking nuclear weapons off their hair-trigger status would immediately reduce the possibility of accidental nuclear war. That could be followed by a pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

If this does not happen, it will almost certainly result in an accelerated nuclear arms race . "I don't know how this is all going to end," Putin told the St. Petersburg delegates. "What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves."

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com .

[May 07, 2017] Going Off the Rails

Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia. ..."
"... During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. ..."
"... The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue. ..."
"... None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning. ..."
May 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Four issues got Donald Trump elected president: immigration, free trade, political correctness, and the quest for American world hegemony along with the wars that it spawned. If he is to be reelected, he must deliver on all four.

Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia.

During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. Most of their militaries are suited only to the parade ground, and a small parade ground at that; the entire German Army now has only 225 tanks. It would have trouble taking Luxembourg.

President Trump was the antiwar candidate, but we hear nothing from his White House about ending the wars in Afghanistan or, more broadly, the Middle East. Go ahead and defeat ISIS, at least in the sense of preventing it from holding territory. But what then? Wiser Fourth Generation entities, or non-state forces, such as Hezbollah, will operate within hollowed-out states rather than attempt to become a state. And ISIS, like al-Qaeda, is merely one head of the Fourth Generation hydra. How do we preserve the state system itself in the face of the challenge Fourth Generation War poses?

The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue.

None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning.

Why? What has led President Trump to surrender to the establishment on foreign policy without even a fight? Several theories are in circulation. One is that the president is less comfortable with foreign-policy and defense issues than with domestic policy, knows he can't do everything, and is tired of media screams that he is going to blow up the world. He has therefore turned foreign and defense policy over to Vice President Pence, who is an establishment thinker, likely under the influence of neoconservatives. One would think that that bunch's spectacular failures under President George W. Bush would have forced them out of town. But that isn't how Washington works. Repeated policy failure is no bar to political success, especially if someone has access to gobs of money, as the neocons do.

Another theory is that the White House has determined that the so-called deep state makes any real policy change impossible. All the Trump people think they can do is try to expose the deep state in a long-term effort to delegitimize it. If this is true, there are some facts behind it. The deep state-a conglomeration of federal employees, contractors, business allies on Wall Street, and essentially anyone who benefits from the status quo-is powerful in both foreign and defense policy circles. To talk about military reform is to threaten the single largest honey pot on earth. The status quo in foreign policy-which is to say a quest for world hegemony, for Jacobin ideas of democracy and "human rights"-has tremendous ideological backing within the State Department and much of the rest of the government, the media, and academia. Even for a president who enjoys saying, "You're fired," these are hard nuts to crack.

But if Mr. Trump is to have a successful presidency, he must find a vise for cracking them. Turning foreign and defense policy over to the Republican establishment guarantees more failures of the kind we know all too well. We will start new wars, then lose them. If those wars are with either Russia or China, the scope of the defeats could be historic. We will pour more trillions of dollars into the sand. And the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation will grow, spread, and win.

At home, by failing to deliver on one of his four most important campaign pledges, President Trump will weaken himself. He won the election because enough people voted against the establishment, both its Republican and Democratic wings, and those voters will not turn out again if he merely puts the Republican establishment in power. To the contrary, those voters will again seek someone who is anti-establishment, this time with the seriousness and persistence to fight the establishment and win. President Trump's success in the 2016 primaries will bring such people into the fray. And the president will, in the end, get trumped.

William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook.

[May 07, 2017] Twenty Truths about Marine Le Pen by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
May 01, 2017 | www.unz.com
87 Comments

Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right, from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees, unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.

The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars. Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.

Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.

Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the 35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.

Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled. She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.

Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for equal pay for women.

Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links to terrorists.

Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs

Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist' Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.

Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.

Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO wars on three continents.

Propaganda, Labels and Lies

Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor, not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.

Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.

The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism' and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.

Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies, budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.

Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction of the National Front Party.

She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers, public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers and business owners.

Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the lesser evil with the greater evil.

If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard' and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential 'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.

If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.

Altai , May 1, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left' or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment, lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement. It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum seekers being deported.

The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.

And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable. The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.

The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)

Carlton Meyer , May 2, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT

Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

watch-v=p_XeQs5n5js

wayfarer , May 2, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

Brother Nathanael, has Marine Le Pen's back!

jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:

  • the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
  • the German occupation was relatively benign.

Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 6:11 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=150&v=p_XeQs5n5js

edNels , May 2, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=150&v=p_XeQs5n5js

unpc downunder , May 2, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.

The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?

In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen for two reasons:

1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists) and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote

2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.

Anonymous , May 2, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT

"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine."

Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found himself neutered by invisible rulers?

France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein lies the rub.

anonymous , May 2, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes that had never seen or heard of the white man.

Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least, weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where - after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).

But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession laws exist for a reason.

Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians didn't do it to themselves.

Avery , May 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm GMT

@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)

jacques sheete , May 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT

@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.

The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?

In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen for two reasons:

1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists) and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote

2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.

[May 06, 2017] It Is What It Isnt: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence by marknesop

Notable quotes:
"... Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words". ..."
"... It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the revolution set in motion or its Soviet past." ..."
"... And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.") ..."
"... Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens ..."
"... Al Jazeera broadcast a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi; the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in Doha, Qatar. ..."
"... This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media. ..."
May 04, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Our deeds still travel with us from afar; and what we have been makes us what we are.

George Eliot, Middlemarch

We have arrived, in my opinion, upon the moment in the course of human history which marks the nadir of the journalistic profession. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the occupation could become more debased, more wretched than it has become already, and what we refer to as the 'mainstream media' no longer makes any effort to tell the truth, to substantiate what it purports to be true with hard evidence or even any evidence, or to disguise its service in the cut and thrust of political bias and character assassination.

Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words". But his dinky little cell-phone camera is ever ready to do yeoman service in the pursuit of mocking Russian food on Aeroflot flights , and he has lots of time to arse about on his Facebook group dedicated to what he feels is a Russian obsession with dill . All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word, although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean.

Or peruse this piece of rubbish . Among yearning for a repeat of the 1917 revolution on its hundredth anniversary and quoting the Moscow Times' tiresome demand for Russia to 'condemn its Soviet past'

It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the revolution set in motion or its Soviet past."

and selectively quoting Putin without context or background,

And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.")

so as to imply yet one more time that Putin seeks to recreate the Soviet Union, the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning.

He and his fellow western journalists are aided in this bizarre allegation by the USA's intelligence agencies, who claim to have evidence that points to Russian interference. They can't show anyone, of course – everything the CIA deals with has important national security implications, and if they told the world how Putin hacked American elections, well .well, he might do it again. Or something.

Consider. What actually happened? Information was released which reported that Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server to conduct government business, as Secretary of State for the Obama government, so as to avoid the law which required all official email traffic to be archived as government property.

Was this true? While I can't speak to her motivation, her unauthorized use of a private server is a matter of public record, as are testimonials from State Department staff members that they mentioned repeatedly the behavior was not permitted, to which Mrs. Clinton allegedly replied that she had permission. If she said that, it was a lie.

Then information was released which said the Democratic Party establishment was conspiring to rig the Democratic nomination for Mrs. Clinton by manipulating the process against Bernie Sanders, who enjoyed a significant following and who was assessed by polling results to have the best chance of beating Trump. Was that true? Sure was; the DNC chair, Debbie Wassserman-Shultz, resigned in disgrace – Mrs Clinton promptly promoted her to honorary chair of her presidential campaign, and President Obama rushed out a supportive statement as well, demonstrating that political heavyweights don't really care if you rig elections as long as you're not Russian.

So what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. It was not a pack of lies, and the suggestion that the truth about such activities should have been kept from voters until after they had cast their ballots would be monstrous. There was absolutely no proof that Russia was responsible for releasing that information, if they even knew it, and they were pretty far down the chain of people in a position to know.

What are the rigging methods in Russian elections of which the Kremlin is always accused by the morally-superior beacon of democracy? Ballot-stuffing. Carousel voting, a term US State Department spokeshole Jen Psaki was quite comfortable using in the most accusatory fashion, although she had to admit when questioned that she had no idea what it meant . Suppression of opposition candidates and advertising time which disproportionately favours the ruling party. If Vladimir Putin can actually tip elections in foreign countries with such confounding precision without access to any of those tools, why would he rely on such quaint and archaic blunt-instrument methods to rig elections in Russia?

Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens, The Daily Telegraph set a new standard for crawling by positing that the channel had just made an innocent mistake, like Athens is a lot like Moscow and people make that mistake all the time. It then proceeded to excoriate the paranoid Russians for imagining that it was done with intent. Al Jazeera broadcast a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi; the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in Doha, Qatar. I've lost track of the number of accounts of Putin's fabulous stolen wealth which he has squirreled away in secret bank accounts somewhere which nobody can find or prove to exist, yet his status as one of the world's wealthiest men remains part of the argot of common wisdom.

Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to do; but, damn it, that 'Putin stole our election' nonsense just turns my teeth sideways. How could he have done that? Voting machines are not connected to the internet, and there is no realistic suggestion that Russia actually manipulated the vote count. Somebody released true information regarding unlawful and undemocratic behavior by Mrs. Clinton, but not a shred of evidence supporting Russian involvement has been produced, although the CIA maintains that it knows .

Anyway, I wanted to take you through what is described as a step-by-step analysis of a fake news story , an example of Russian trickery, or manipulation by Putin's international minions. The author is eminently well-qualified to discuss fake news, or at least as well-qualified as one can become in the short interval since caution was thrown to the winds, and fakery in the news went from a hobby to mainstream default mode; he worked for more than three years in Pheme, a multinational online project funded by the European Commission to define, evaluate and model fake news.

Let's take a look. The story used as an example is a clip about Russian soldiers using the Uran 6 robotic mine-clearance vehicle to demine sites in Aleppo following the victory of Syrian government forces' retaking of the city. I want you to note at the outset that the author claims the story is completely false.

This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media.

Please note also the odd choice of words; " bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops". We'll see if anyone actually claims that.

Mr. Derczynski acknowledges at the starting line that there is nothing untoward with the original clip – it probably does show Russian soldiers in the performance of their duties in Syria, and the vehicle featured probably is the Uran 6.

Then the token jackass Ukrainian enters the fray, announcing that the item is a fake and the vehicle is actually of Croatian origin. He is quickly shot down by Marcel Sardo. I think most of us know Marcel's work, and I have found him usually pretty accurate; always, where military hardware is concerned, and he seems to be a bit of an aficionado. The author points out that while there is no reason at this point to believe anything is other than what it seems, in fact this is a common tactic, and the good-cop-bad-cop are often on the same side or are even the same person.

Then the story is picked up by RT, a source Mr. Derczynski tells us many of the Russians he talks with don't really trust. I think you can probably imagine the Russian circles he moves in. He tells us RT claims the Uran 6 is the same robot the Russian military used to help clear Palmyra of explosives left behind by Islamic State (IS). Still possible this is a real story, he says, although he seems to believe RT is setting the stage for something.

As an aside, Islamic State did in fact take Palmyra, and remained in control of it for long enough to do tremendous damage – some of which appeared to have been wrought just for the sheer deviltry of it and for the grief it would cause, rather than the achievement of a strategic objective. It is difficult to imagine, I think, that the inhabitants of Palmyra left explosive booby-traps for the soldiers who drove out Islamic State – since their rule was unpopular – so it does not seem too much of a stretch that the explosives and mines left behind (a matter of public record) were left by Islamic State. There is apparently nothing thus far to suggest the story is 'fake news', although the author is suspicious about the direction it is heading.

And then, BAM! The fake hits us like a runaway locomotive.

Sarah Abdallah joins in on Twitter, attributing the explosives left behind to 'Obama's moderate rebels'. Oh no, you don't, Sarah, you delicious-looking young female trading on your looks and flirting with the camera. This has now just become fake-news propaganda, framing the story so that it reflects badly on the Greatest Democracy That Ever Lived.

Let's take another pause to reflect. I have no idea if Sarah Abdallah is the real thing, or a Putin shill – I'm not familiar with her and have not seen her before this. But how realistic is her attribution to 'Obama's moderate rebels' of the explosives left behind in Aleppo? Well, the Obama government was fairly well known to be arming the Syrian rebels both overtly (which it admitted) and covertly (which it did not). The U.S. government also admitted, at various points in the conflict, that it had less and less of an idea who was who and who was al Qaeda as things went along. Oftentimes the side the USA supported was blanket-referred to as 'moderate rebels' for the sake of optics, but it is well-established that the USA provided not only arms, but satellite radios which would allow rebel commanders to call in air strikes by US military aircraft . The USA wriggled and squirmed and called for endless ceasefires in Aleppo whenever the Syria government forces appeared about to exploit a vulnerability. It seems pretty clear that Washington supported anyone it thought might get the job of ousting Assad done. It is therefore quite conceivable that explosives left behind in Aleppo with the intent of killing or injuring incoming enemy forces were left behind by 'moderate rebels' . It is also quite conceivable that some, perhaps many of these 'rebels' were supported by the U.S. government.

Other sources go on to say that departing extremist rebels placed explosives even in children's toys. I have no idea if that is accurate, but considered in the frame of the deliberate murder of many children from the buses leaving Aleppo , lured out with the promise of snacks and then blown up by a suicide bomber, I would have to say it does not seem that far-fetched.

[May 06, 2017] What the N. Korean Crisis Is Really About by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.

So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?

It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.

Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation against a Washington first strike.

The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China's border.

In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.

China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea. https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/

In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.

THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear cruise missiles and the Russian air force.

But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.

The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?

What would you do?

On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China." My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff and provided links for his expression of concern such as: https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT

BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world at risk of a nuclear conflagration.

But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with which you present it.

dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?

Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.

KenH says: May 5, 2017 at 1:57 am GMT • 200 Words

What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability yet but I haven't been paying close attention.

Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course doesn't include they or their loved ones.

We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.

nickels May 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
It had all the hallmarks:
-Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
-Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
-Trumped up charges
-Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing) it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search results to propaganda sites
-Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
-Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US

In Tolkien's Silmarillion he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.

As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.

Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

@Paul Craig Roberts

Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces.

Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.

The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons. US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however, the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.

It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy the radars.

The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.

botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not particularly accurate.

If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.


alexander says:

May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@alexander

As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver, Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh, Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .

Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?

Can you really be suggesting this ?

34.Mao Cheng Ji says:

May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@utu
What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.

It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500 nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World Domination. And that's the game.

[May 06, 2017] Americas Top Scientists Confirm U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia

Notable quotes:
"... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
"... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
"... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
"... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
"... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study, on 1 March 2017 , which opened:

The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.

It continues:

Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore Postol. Their report continues:

This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.

The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:

Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)

In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had - and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before he kills himself.

Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching that danger.

The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed ," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about 'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated and no longer a threat.

The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence - the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations, Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia . Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above (the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.

This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history, and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time; because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible. This is where we are at the present time; and, ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result.

This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter, then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first. He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand down the threat, now.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Carlton Meyer , Website May 5, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT \n

100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! Read More
Intelligent Dasein , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT \n
100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read More

Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT \n
300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Read More

van gogh , May 5, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT \n
I was enjoying the article until I came across the paragraph mentioning "humiliation" as a factor in deciding to launch a nuclear strike. Yeah I can see the point, it's better not to get humiliated but it's okay to destroy the life in our planet in the process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 8:14 am GMT \n
200 Words http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/trump-nuclear-commanders-237956

A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes, stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.

We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break that God has given us.

Remember that once the missile is out of the silo, it can't be called back. No remote defuse, sorry. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT \n
100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Read More Agree: Z-man

Nils , May 5, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation – called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. Read More

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT \n
200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result") and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated "freedom fighters."
Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions," but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Quartermaster , May 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT \n
One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Read More
Jake , May 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm GMT \n
100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. Read More

Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT \n
100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" Read More

Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT \n
@Quartermaster One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Go tell it to the Japanese. Read More
MarkU , May 5, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT \n
200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human race itself.

It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it. If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence" is fully operational.

Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Johann , May 5, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Americans, war and mass casualties perfect together. Just keep their beer, drugs and professional sports . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility," – yes, this is a bitter truth.
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," indeed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

peterike , May 5, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
While I don't doubt that the GloboHomo Zio cabal wants very much to destroy Russia, and is crazy and blood thirsty enough to use nukes to do it, this hysteria about "ending all life on earth" is nonsense. Read More Agree: Alden Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT \n
100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.

For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less tractable and dangerous.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists likes its Doomsday Clock, but the actual clock is ticking and not counting fictitious minutes before midnight. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

another fred , May 5, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT \n
100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? Read More

Erebus , May 5, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT \n
100 Words

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Read More

Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Read More
Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Miro23 – Brilliant X! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT \n
Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration – a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. Read More

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT \n
200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. Read More

Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance. Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering" or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr. Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).

One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.

Another gigantic hole is the absence of mention of China. This is kid's journalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm GMT \n
@Erebus

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided. Read More

Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially."

Do you actually believe that if the US launched a nuclear strike against Russia that there would be no US casualties? Wouldn't that "physically affect" the idiot masses that apparently you are superior to morally? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

bluedog , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
@Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. And so are we so what's your point? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
100 Words I don't understand how after 70 years of using "nuclear weapons" as a bludgeon to keep the mindless slaves of the West in line anyone would actually think that there is any real possibility of a nuclear war. The media has been used to induce fear in people that don't think. Start thinking! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "

Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).

Americans are simply following the psychopathic instinct from their European forefathers. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT \n
200 Words @another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation, read my previous comment and this one.

START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing, the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities, especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.

The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.

On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more. Read More

Wade , May 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT \n
300 Words

In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.

Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would they need to?

The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say. This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Jake , May 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians. The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such as Likud), is the House of Saud.

Israel plus the House of Saud, backed by Uncle Sam = potentially endless horrors Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983

After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.

Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated, 'if they again started a world war'.

My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry out his threat.

So I am not all convinced that neocons will not start a nuclear war.
As Jimmy Carter said 'those that cause wars, expect not to be hurt by it'. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. Read More

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."

Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 Read More

22pp22 , May 5, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Read More
SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown - For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating - rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create– the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Read More

Max Payne , May 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT \n
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Read More

jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. Read More

SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal

Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:

National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

National Socialist German Workers' Party

US agenda is (among other things) to force other nations to conduct their finances under US-Federal Reserve/fiat-currency – debt-basis; Germany under NSDAP determined to reject that system and established control of its own economy and system of finance. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Sebastian Puettmann , May 5, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT \n
100 Words @annamaria "Russia is pretty fascist."

Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? Read More

reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT \n
200 Words @Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" ...... Even that wouldn't be enough.

Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that. Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.

Fortunately, none of the above ever happened. It's all fantasy, folks. Nothing to see here. Read More LOL: Randal Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT \n
300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Read More

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT \n
200 Words "US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass.

" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
A truly amazing observation!
Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Che Guava , May 5, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT \n
100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.

Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.

What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.

I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.

If Mr. Zuess or a commentor could providing a definition, it would be an aid to comprehension. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Alden , May 5, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right. Read More

SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT \n
300 Words @22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

"Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779

Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher - Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues –

We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

The Conquest of the United States by Britain with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

and

American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

"Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT \n
@annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Do you read the links you put in your posts? Read More

Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?

But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.

comedygold.jpg

NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe ), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. Read More

El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT \n
@utu Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski ???

Bin Laden 6'5" Brzezinski 5'5"

This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.

Monsieur Laden would probably only see visitors in one of his construction contractor offices. No need for actual guns except when striking a pose (he was partial to AKS-74U as I remember) Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT \n
@El Dato

But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.
comedygold.jpg

NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Joe Wong , May 5, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation - called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese, are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated by the Russian and Chinese? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Kurt van Ghoye , May 5, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT \n
100 Words @SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -- For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for revenge? Does anyone? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Randal , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
100 Words @reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct, but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.

Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through?

The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.

Though in truth, when it comes to the neocon types who really knows where the incompetence ends and the evil begins? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

european born , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
in 1999 war against Serbia 7 smart bombs hit Bulgaria[ nato nation] why are you guys so sure if instead of Russia USA nukes Ukraine or Poland.
[MORE] Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.

Where did you hear that?

FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.

Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.

Here's a primer.:

" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions "

- Murray Rothbard 1966

http://mises.org/daily/2592

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
Dec 31, 2013 Edward Bernays called it *PROPAGANDA*

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT \n
@SolontoCroesus

I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

"Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher -- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo

We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

The Conquest of the United States by Britain ... with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

and

American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

"Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

WW1 as well. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT \n
@Anonymous Do you read the links you put in your posts? What's wrong with these two links?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
200 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:

"US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
A truly amazing observation!
Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT \n
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Read More

Realist , May 5, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap. Read More

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect. Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique. An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo. A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
400 Words @El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

No, it's the prequel:

Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)

In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.

http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/

The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:

It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.

In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."

Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues – Read More

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Anon

On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.

How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?

Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which does not exist.

My first and last answer to you, I have no time for pompous trolls currently fighting to overwhelm unz commenting section with their sewage. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:19 pm GMT \n
200 Words @jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.

However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept? Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.

Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words @annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect of the explosions, not at any residual effects.

With new technologies, the one which strikes first, under the best case scenario, could be destroyed only 10% or less whilst the enemy struck first is still destroyed 90%. I believe that this is the new strategic proposition acceptable to TPTB. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

KA , May 6, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT \n
@Anon

On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses. How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

Are you a movie script writer? I do not understand the technological side . But nobody has lost his shirt by underestimating the intelligence and morality of American leadership .
Your question – ' have these talks been reported to the general public' tells me . What does it tell ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Kiza , May 6, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT \n
100 Words @SolontoCroesus

Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
No, it's the prequel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYRr5GtcczE

Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ

In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.
http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI

{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

**Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. Read More

Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT \n
@22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Why would you? They are sufficiently evil as they are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT \n
@Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you into talking nonsense. Read More
Anon 2 , May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
300 Words @Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course, is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.

The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign affairs?

The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror. This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Intelligent Dasein , Website May 6, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT \n
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. I've already read the spin, thank you. My point was that I do not believe it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Erebus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
100 Words @Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important 'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.

The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration, but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining, much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until something happens to oust it. Read More

SolontoCroesus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
@Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for reading.

[May 06, 2017] Federation Council has called the US intention to control Russian ports a declaration of war

May 06, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , May 5, 2017 at 6:34 am

Federation Council has called the US intention to control Russian ports a declaration of war
05.05.2017
On Thursday, the US Congress approved the introduction of new restrictions against North Korea. The bill, in particular, provides the possibility of controlling of Russian ports in the far East. We are talking about Vladivostok, Nakhodka and Vanino port.

"This bill will, I hope, never be implemented, because its implementation provides for a power scenario with forced inspection of tall ships by American warships. This kind of power scenario boggles the mind, because it is a Declaration of war" quoted Kosachev, RIA "Novosti".

In fact, this is a major reason, namely forcibly stopping and inspecting neutral ships, why President Madison declared war against Great Britain in 1812 and why Great Britain in her turn was perilously near declaring war against the USA in 1861 following the "Trent Affair".

Moscow Exile , May 5, 2017 at 6:36 am
From "In fact " should not be italicized: those are words that reflect my opinion and not the proof-read by me words of the linked article above.
kirill , May 5, 2017 at 6:54 am
Russia needs to slap down these retarded propaganda koolaid drinkers. Clearly the exceptionalism has gone to their heads inducing substantial rot. For starters Russia needs to declare a foreign military asset free zone along its borders, well beyond the 12 nm limit. This FMAFZ is like the AZIZ but with teeth, including an explicit threat to sink any US/NATzO ship that enters it. Let NATzO bleat and wail, it does it already. Time for Russia to live up to its "badness" image and give western fuckers a serious headache. kirill , May 5, 2017 at 6:51 am
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/04/deep-history-us-britain-never-ending-cold-war-russia.html

Archives reveal collusion between the Nazi Reich and its nominal enemies in the west.

When I use "NATzO" instead of "NATO" I am being precise about the nature of this pack of hyenas who have the same agenda as the Nazi Reich against Russia. Reply

[May 06, 2017] "Fake news" just means factual news that doesn't follow the propaganda narrative of the American establishment

Notable quotes:
"... Neoconesis ..."
May 06, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
yalensis , May 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm
This is a good post, Mark. "Fake news" just means factual news that doesn't follow the propaganda narrative of the American establishment.
Cortes , May 5, 2017 at 4:23 pm
I agree entirely.

The effort to establish acceptable news for public consumption is only just gathering pace if the following piece is any guide:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/02/nyt-cheers-the-rise-of-censorship-algorithms/

By the by, I'm increasingly impressed with the way that popular fiction is used to reinforce stereotypes helpful to the agendas of our leaders. The supposedly random selection of nefarious Russkie villains in works by the likes of Stieg Larsen, Jo Nesbo and Lee Child made me wonder if it's random at all. The other day I was reading a Lawrence Block novel, "The Burglar on the Prowl" which contains a McGuffin about Soviet repression of Latvian nationalism and began to think that perhaps there's an element of orchestration in generating stories which, oddly enough, coincide with current political orthodoxy.

J.T. , May 5, 2017 at 7:46 pm
Hey Cortes, you're definitely on to something.
You should read Ted Bell's Patriot , which I reviewed here .
Just kidding. Don't waste your time. It's 10% spy thriller and 90% Neoconesis .

[May 05, 2017] And in this election, the poor whites have had enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically

May 05, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
ucgsblog , May 5, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Hi Mark,

Brilliant title and a great article!

"It Is What It Isn't: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence"

Love it!

"All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word, although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean."

*Rimshot*

" the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning So what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. "

What won the election for Trump was the Democratic Treatment of the poor white class, whose votes the Democrats took for granted. Clinton consultant, James Carville, admitted that people vote based on the economy when Bill Clinton won. But when Hillary lost, for Carville it suddenly became about Russia, Russia, Russia, akin to Jan yelling Marcia, Marcia, Marcia on the Brady Bunch. How does an analyst sink to the level of a school girl?

Because the Democrats ignored nearly all of the warning sings, struggled internally, and needed someone to blame. Russia is an easy target for blame in US politics. Accepting responsibility for the defeat would have meant a purge of the Democratic elite from their party's leadership. When Scott Walker won Wisconsin, the Democrats ignored it. Look at the map of Wisconsin in Walker's Gubernatorial Victory in 2014, and compare that with Trump's Presidential Victory in 2016. They're almost identical. The poorer whites became, the more they voted for Trump.

The DNC has been ignoring the Rust Belt for decades. That's how Clintons missed Obama's meteoric rise. And in this election, the poor whites have had enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically. They simply needed a leader that could get revenge for them on the DNC. Enter Trump. Did he bullshit? Most certainly, but they did not care. The DNC was focused on getting Virginia, Nevada, making inroads into a few other states; holding their base was simply too plebeian.

And it was this shift that happened, rather than the leaks, rather than Russia, rather than Comey, rather than anything else, that cost the Democrats the Presidency. This simple shift of a voting block. That's why it wasn't just Pennsylvania; it was Wisconsin and Michigan: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

"The theme expresses itself in several ways - primitive vs. advanced, tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs. decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban."

What held the rust belt states was cities like Chicago, and poor whites turning out. That didn't happen in this election, because"

"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

On Cultural Integration:

"the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

An Issue with Priorities:

"Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the