May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
When US neocons are acting like neofascists and endanger the US national
security
Victoria "f*ck the EU" Nuland defied longs standing US policy of supporting constitutional order, switch to neofascist
mode, organized coup d'état using far right nationalists and installed marionette neoliberal Ukrainian prime minister
( Making Ukraine "Khaganate of Nuland"; "Khaganate of Nuland" is an apt amalgam
of khanate and Kagan, a hint on Victoria's notorious neo-con husband Robert Kagan by Asia Times ).
Future Prime Minister – Arseniy Yatsenyuk (rechristened to “Yats”) with his patron
Victoria Nuland. Two statists -- Taygibok (Co-founder of far right Socialist-National Party, later renamed into Svoboda party) and
Klitschko (leader of pro-Germany, Merkel-financed Udar Party who was just thrown under the bus) are present
By 2016 the concept of "liberal democracy," once bright with promise, had dulled into a
neoliberal politics that was neither liberal nor democratic. The Democratic Party's turn toward
market-driven policies, the bipartisan dismantling of the public sphere, the inflight marriage
of Wall Street and Silicon Valley in the cockpit of globalization -- these interventions
constituted the long con of neoliberal governance, which enriched a small minority of Americans
while ravaging most of the rest.
Jackson Lears is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers,
Editor in Chief of Raritan, and the author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern
America, 1877–1920, among other books. (January 2021)
Reports of Victoria Nuland's future appointment are sure to come as a source of elation to
the government in Kiev. By the same token, they send perhaps the clearest message yet to Moscow
that the prospects for meaningful U.S.-Russian rapprochement under a Biden administration
appear exceedingly slim.
...Nuland was the U.S. Ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2008.
She served as State Department spokesperson under Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton before
succeeding Philip Gordon as the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
More than simply an "Obama veteran," Nuland played a central role in executing the Obama
administration's Ukraine policies during and after the 2014 Euromaidan revolution. She conveyed
U.S. support for demonstrations in Kiev against the government of President Viktor Yanukovyvch,
condemning efforts by local police to quell the protests. "It is still possible to save
Ukraine's European future, and that's what we want to see the president lead. That's going to
require immediate security steps and getting back into a conversation with Europe and with the
International Monetary Fund and bringing justice and human dignity to the people of Ukraine,"
said Nuland in December 2013. She met with pro-EU protesters in Kiev on Dec.
11, distributing food in a symbolic gesture of solidarity with anti-government protesters; the
move prompted widespread outrage in the Kremlin, which perceived Nuland's
outing as a brazen act of public interference in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
It was revealed in early 2014 that Nuland, along with then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey Pyatt, was intimately
involved in ongoing
U.S. efforts to curate and install a new government in Ukraine. "I think Yats is the guy
who's got the economic experience, the governing experience," said Nuland in a leaked phone
conversation with Pyatt, referring to the installation of Ukrainian politician Arseniy
Yatsenyuk to a top government post. Nuland likewise voiced her strong dispreference for
opposition leader Vitali Klitschko: "I don't think Klitsch [Klitschko] should go into the
government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea." The phone call is
best remembered for Nuland's colorful reference to the European Union, which did not fully see
eye-to-eye with Washington on key questions involving the fate of the Yanukovych government:
"OK. He's now gotten both [proposed UN mediation team member [Robert] Serry and [UN Secretary
General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be
great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, F*** the
EU." After widespread rebuke
from high-placed EU officials, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki announced
that Nuland "has been in contact with her EU counterparts and of course has apologized for
these reported comments."
Nuland continued to play an active role in shaping U.S. policy toward a post-Maidan Ukraine,
meeting with President Petro Poroshenko on several occasions to
discuss the implementation of the Minsk protocols
and Ukraine's progress on domestic reforms. Nuland was likewise involved in ultimately
successful efforts to press
for lethal military aid to Ukraine.
More broadly, Nuland has supported and facilitated Obama-era policies aimed at confronting,
containing, and deterring Moscow across multiple policy fronts. Nuland was a prominent voice in
favor of
expanding the Magnitsky Act in response to Russian
opposition leader Boris Nemtsov's assassination. The act was successfully bolstered in 2016,
giving the U.S. government broad leeway to impose sanctions on anyone found to be guilty of
human rights violations. Vice President Biden, who was referenced in the call between Nuland
and Pyatt, likewise played an active role in supporting the Maidan demonstrations. He
subsequently developed a personal relationship with Poroshenko, allegedly
offering the Ukrainian president specific policy guidance during a leaked 2016 phone
conversation.
Nuland in, short, is a capable and committed advocate of the Obama-Biden approach to Russia
and Ukraine. In a Summer 2020 op-ed for Foreign
Affairs , Nuland offered a series of policy
prescriptions for the next president on how to deal with Russia: a united global front to
check and deter Russian military aggression, a more robust toolkit to crack down on Russian
disinformation, further sanctions, and public diplomacy efforts aimed directly at the Russian
people. Many of these proposals enjoy widespread support throughout the rest of Biden's
assembled
foreign policy team , and with the president-elect too.
Reports of Nuland's future appointment are sure to come as a source of elation to the
government in Kiev. By the same token, they send perhaps the clearest message yet to Moscow
that the prospects for meaningful
U.S.-Russian rapprochement under a Biden administration appear
exceedingly slim .
Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest.
"These leaders are trusted at home and respected around the world, and their nominations
signal that America is back and ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,"
Biden said on Saturday in a statement announcing his picks to fill top positions under his
nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken.
Like Blinken, the five latest State Department picks are veterans of the Obama-Biden
administration. Nuland , a
neoconservative who was named undersecretary for political affairs, goes all the way back to
former President Ronald Reagan's administration and was a foreign policy adviser to former Vice
President Dick Cheney.
Other new re-hires include: Wendy Sherman, deputy secretary of state, who led the
Obama-Biden administration's negotiating team on peace talks with Iran; Brian McKeon, deputy
secretary for management and resources, who was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden; Bonnie Jenkins, undersecretary for arms control and international security,
who previously coordinated nonproliferation programs; and Uzra Zeha, undersecretary for
civilian security, who formerly was charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Paris.
After four years of President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, including efforts to
wind down foreign interventions and broker peace deals, Biden's declaration of "America is
back" portends a sharp contrast in foreign policy. He said his latest nominees will "use
their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America's global and moral
leadership."
Nuland, who studied Russian literature at Brown University, wrote last summer in Foreign
Affairs of how "a confident America should deal
with Russia " with a more "activist" policy, including "speaking directly to
the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for
(President Vladimir) Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." She added, "Washington and
its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results
for many years after."
Nuland perhaps was using such "statecraft" when, as assistant secretary of state in
December 2013, she handed out cookies
to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti square who were demanding the resignation of
President Viktor Yanukovich. An audiotape leaked in February 2014 showed that
her involvement in the uprising went well beyond cookies, as she spoke with US Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt about plotting to replace Yanukovich with Washington's chosen opposition leader,
Arseny Yatseniuk, and about involving the UN to "f**k the EU" by pushing through a
US-preferred Ukraine policy.
Ironically, Nuland's appointment comes just as politicians in Washington fret over this
month's storming of the US Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, which some called a
coup attempt.
"I knew it wasn't a real coup because Victoria Nuland wasn't handing out cookies,"
Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow said of the Capitol assault. "She'll be back
overthrowing governments in the Biden administration, so it remains a valid standard."
In light of Nuland's hawkish history, 25
anti-war groups have jointly called for the Senate to
reject confirmation of her nomination as undersecretary for political affairs.
"Victoria Nuland is returning to the State Department," one commenter wrote on
Twitter. "The United States is returning to the former Soviet republics with great strides.
A fierce struggle with Russia begins."
"... , and author of several books, including ..."
"... Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran ..."
"... . @medeabenjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
"... . @NicolasJSDavies; and Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders,and is Coordinator of ..."
Yves here. Biden's nominees have skewed towards the awful, particularly on the foreign
policy front. But his plan to install Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland at State is a standout. For
those of you new to this site and not familiar with Nuland's sorry history, this post gives an
overview of her role in fomenting the coup in Ukraine and in putting relations with Russia on a
Cold War footing. The authors encourage readers to call their Senators and urge them to vote
against her nomination.
And before you get unduly excited by Biden nominating Gary Gensler to the SEC, I would much
rather have seem Gensler at Treasury. Gensler demonstrated at the CFTC that he's effective and
dedicated to combatting abuses by Big Finance. However, his best shot at making the SEC feared
and respected again is to appoint a tough head of enforcement, so keep an eye out for that
pick.
The problem that Gensler will have at the SEC is that it is the only Federal financial
services industry regulator that is subject to Congressional appropriations, rather that living
off its fees and fines (the SEC collects far more than Congress allows it). And Democrats, like
Joe Lieberman, then the Senator from Hedgistan, have been if anything more aggressive than
Republicans in threatening the SEC and in keeping it budget-starved.
I had said to Lambert that if Biden wanted to be Machiavellian, the way to pretend to reward
Elizabeth Warren while actually sandbagging her would be to make her SEC chair. Let's hope that
isn't his logic for appointing Gensler.
Photo Credit: thetruthseeker.co.uk Nuland and Pyatt planning regime change in Kiev
Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her because the U.S. corporate
media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that
President-elect Biden's pick for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs is stuck in
the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an
arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.
Nor do they know that from 2003-2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq,
Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush
administration.
You can bet, however, that the people of Ukraine have heard of neocon Nuland. Many have even
heard the leaked four-minute audio of her saying "Fuck the EU" during a 2014 phone call with
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian
President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European
Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of
U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The "Fuck the EU" call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the
call's authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the
phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty
mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine's elected government
and America's responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left
Ukraine the poorest
country in Europe.
In the process, Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, the co-founder of The Project for a New
American Century , and their neocon cronies succeeded in sending U.S.-Russian relations
into a dangerous downward spiral from which they have yet to recover.
Nuland accomplished this from a relatively junior position as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs. How much more trouble could she stir up as the #3 official
at Biden's State Department? We'll find out soon enough, if the Senate confirms her
nomination.
Joe Biden should have learned from Obama's mistakes that appointments like this matter.
In his first
term , Obama allowed his hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and military and CIA leaders held over from the Bush administration to
ensure that endless war trumped his message of hope and change.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ended up presiding over indefinite detentions without
charges or trials at Guantanamo Bay; an escalation of drone strikes that killed innocent
civilians; a deepening of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; a self-reinforcing
cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism; and disastrous new wars in
Libya and Syria
.
With Clinton out and new personnel in top spots in his second term, Obama began
to take charge of his own foreign policy. He started working directly with Russia's President
Putin to resolve crises in Syria and other hotspots. Putin helped avert an escalation of the
war in Syria in September 2013 by negotiating the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpiles, and helped Obama negotiate an interim agreement with Iran that led to the
JCPOA nuclear deal.
But the neocons were apoplectic that they failed to convince Obama to order a massive
bombing campaign and escalate his covert,
proxy war in Syria and at the receding prospect of a war with Iran. Fearing their control
of U.S. foreign policy was slipping, the neocons launched a
campaign to brand Obama as "weak" on foreign policy and remind him of their power.
With
editorial help from Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan penned a 2014 New Republic
article entitled "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire," proclaiming that "there is no democratic
superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters." Kagan
called for an even more aggressive foreign policy to exorcise American fears of a multipolar
world it can no longer dominate.
Obama invited Kagan to a private lunch at the White House, and the neocons' muscle-flexing
pressured him to scale back his diplomacy with Russia, even as he quietly pushed ahead on
Iran.
The neocons' coup de grace against Obama's better angels was Nuland's 2014 coup
in debt-ridden Ukraine, a valuable imperial possession for its wealth of natural gas and a
strategic candidate for NATO membership right on Russia's border.
When Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with
the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a
tantrum.
Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.
The EU trade
agreement was to open Ukraine's economy to imports from the EU, but without a reciprocal
opening of EU markets to Ukraine, it was a lopsided deal Yanukovich could not accept. The deal
was approved by the post-coup government, and has only added to Ukraine's economic woes.
The muscle for Nuland's $5 billion coup was Oleh
Tyahnybok's neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the shadowy new Right Sector militia. During her leaked
phone call, Nuland referred to Tyahnybok as one of the "big three" opposition leaders on the
outside who could help the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Yatsenyuk on the inside. This is the same
Tyanhnybok who once
delivered a speec h applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and "other scum" during World
War II.
After protests in Kiev's Euromaidan square turned into battles with police in February 2014,
Yanukovych and the Western-backed opposition
signed an agreement brokered by France, Germany and Poland to form a national unity
government and hold new elections by the end of the year.
But that was not good enough for the neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing forces the U.S. had
helped to unleash. A violent mob led by the Right Sector militia marched on and invaded the
parliament building , a scene no longer difficult for Americans to imagine. Yanukovych and
his members of parliament fled for their lives.
Facing the loss of its most vital strategic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, Russia
accepted the overwhelming result (a 97% majority, with an 83% turnout) of a referendum in which
Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which it had been a part of from 1783 to
1954.
The majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine
unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, triggering a bloody civil war between U.S.-
and Russian-backed forces that still rages in 2021.
U.S.-Russian relations have never recovered, even as U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals still
pose the greatest single
threat to our existence. Whatever Americans believe about the civil war in Ukraine and
allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, we must not allow the neocons
and the military-industrial complex they serve to deter Biden from conducting vital diplomacy
with Russia to steer us off our suicidal path toward nuclear war.
Nuland and the neocons, however, remain committed to an ever-more debilitating and dangerous
Cold War with Russia and China to justify a militarist foreign policy and record Pentagon
budgets. In a July 2020 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland
absurdly
claimed that Russia presents a greater threat to "the liberal world" than the U.S.S.R.
posed during the old Cold War.
Nuland's
narrative rests on an utterly mythical, ahistorical narrative of Russian aggression and
U.S. good intentions. She pretends that Russia's military budget, which is one-tenth of
America's, is evidence of "Russian confrontation and militarization" and calls
on the U.S. and its allies to counter Russia by "maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and deploying new conventional
missiles and missile defenses to protect against Russia's new weapons systems "
Nuland also wants to confront Russia with an aggressive NATO. Since her days as U.S.
Ambassador to NATO during President George W. Bush's second term, she has been a supporter of
NATO's expansion all the way up to Russia's border. She calls
for "permanent bases along NATO's eastern border." We have pored over a map of Europe, but
we can't find a country called NATO with any borders at all. Nuland sees Russia's commitment to
defending itself after successive 20th century Western invasions as an intolerable obstacle to
NATO's expansionist ambitions.
Nuland's militaristic worldview represents exactly the folly the U.S. has been pursuing
since the 1990s under the influence of the neocons and "liberal interventionists," which has
resulted in a systematic underinvestment in the American people while escalating tensions with
Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
As Obama learned too late, the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time can, with a
shove in the wrong direction, unleash years of intractable violence, chaos and international
discord. Victoria Nuland would be a ticking time-bomb in Biden's State Department, waiting to
sabotage his better angels much as she undermined Obama's second-term diplomacy.
So let's do Biden and the world a favor. Join World Beyond War , CODEPINK and dozens of other
organizations opposing neocon Nuland's confirmation as a threat to peace and diplomacy. Call
202-224-3121 and tell your Senator to oppose Nuland's installation at the State Department.
Nuland has also been declared persona non grata by Russia, so she would not be able to go
with Biden, were he to visit Moscow. Russian foreign minister Lavrov, actually refused to
shake her hand when she attended a US-Russia meeting with Kerry. She is poison to any attempt
to peaceful relationships.
Yes, I remember that meeting clearly. Can't cite the network, but it covered her closely
– body language only. I wonder where Biden stood on that act of diplomacy given his own
corruption, and also what John Kerry's thinking is about now. John Kerry's stepson was in
cahoots with Hunter Biden. It looked like Kerry brought her along for some rehabilitation and
Lavrov was having none of it. Instead he went directly to the delegation from Ukraine and
they stood in a circle all with their backs turned to Vicky who had no choice but to wander
over to the coffee table and pretend she wasn't totally uncomfortable. Totally excluded. How
can she recover from that?
If there is one thing that Russia hates it is fascists and that is because of the enormous
damage caused by them in WW2. We call those invaders Nazis but the Russians seem to call them
fascists. I sometimes wonder if it is part of their mother's milk this hatred. For people
like Nuland to help topple the government of a large, bordering country like the Ukraine and
install people that were literally fascists was too much for the Russians. These were fascist
of a very low order that had the old 1930s routines down pat, including the torchlight
parades. And there was Nuland, handing out cookies to the rioters, many of whom had been
trained in rioting tactics in Poland and were being paid about $100 a day by the US if I
recall correctly. Of course Nuland was not alone as there was also a Representative from the
EU also handing out cookies. The only equivalent that comes to mind is a violent revolution
in Canada using professional rioters and having diplomatic representatives from the Russian
Federation and China handing out donuts to the rioter. I wonder what Washington would say
about a stunt like that.
Nuland is a disgusting human being. Since she is a right winger, regardless of what party
may be listed on her voter ID, I don't think Bettridge's law applies here at all.
So glad all these 'woke' people put good old Uncle Joe back in office. Wonder how many
realized they were supporting people being burned alive by actual Nazis in doing so?
Thanks for this. Our "learned nothing/forgot nothing" Bourbon restoration will be led by
one of the dimmer Bourbons who couldn't even set up a good grift in Ukraine without boasting
about it and then angrily denying it. Should the press finally, improbably turn on him it
should make for some fun news conferences. But perhaps he'll merely be moving to the White
House basement from his Delaware basement.
CFTC's budgets are also set through congressional authorization and appropriations. Yes,
the CFPB is not subject to Congressional appropriations, but for good reasons. However, all
financial regulation can be overturned by the Congressional Review Act.
As for the article, citation needed. Sort of a laundry heap of questionable material. Make
no mistake, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a real war. Uniformed Russian armored infantry of
331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division dropped into Ukraine territory on 24
August 2014. From 25 to 27 August, Russian troops in civilian clothing, backed up by an
armored column [not in disguise] took Novoazovsk. This is about Russia not being able to
station 25,000 troops in Crimea as they had under Yanukovych. US troop levels in Europe have
been at their lowest for the last 20 years. The US would like to [nay, needs to] keep it that
way. However, the erosion of territorial integrity is a touchy subject in Europe given the
lasting peace of the post-war period in a place where the wars have a pre-fix like "Hundred
Years".
President Arseniy Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin so the claims of coordination with Nazi
sympathizers is dubious. Not even going to get the boycotted unconstitutional Crimean
referendum.
As for WW III, Obama's defense department made it a priority to recover all the MANPADS,
such as the Chinese-made FN-6 [via Qatar], Russian-made Strela-2's and Igla-S's [via Libya]
from the FSA without so much as a thank you from the Russian Air Force. [Turkey, on the other
hand, armed the FSA with Stinger's.] It should be noted that the Syrian conflict's death
toll, in just four years, surpassed the 19-year death toll in all the Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Iraq war theatres combined.
Think about this way: who needs NATO and the EU more to maintain his power structure, Joe
Biden or Vladimir Putin. Isn't it clear Americans don't care, and American business does not
look to compete in Russian anytime soon. The geography is wrong. But Putin must find a way to
engender ethnicities who do not like the Russian Empire, who had been cleansed by Stalin. One
way is to sell energy below cost to the republics and buy in back from political allies in
the form of electricity. Something upon which the EU frowns. [Personally, I did not care for
the way Putin early on systematically and indiscriminately starved Chechen civilians for
years. It was cruel on a level unseen outside of the Rwandan genocide. More importantly, it
was the Russian Federation abdicating its authority by not providing for its own citizens and
not letting NGO's fill the calorie gap. I'd like to think had Putin's admin not been so
wobbly the first few years, he might've let the Red Cross feed the children.]
Russia was never going to permit a US orchestrated coup in Ukraine without resistance. The
idea that Putin needs NATO more than Biden does seems unreasonable.
Talking about "citations", perhaps you could supply the readership of this site with some
credible citations and links for a few of the far fetched claims you're making here. Most of
this comment reads like pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
I heard about Gary Gensler, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland, and I immediately
thought, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Gensler surprised everyone when he was at the CFTC by doing his job, and doing it well,
and his running the SEC is a good thing.
Samantha Power is an aggressive war monger, and in her position at USAID, she will likely
have her fingers in regime change pie, since USAID is part of the deep state regime change
apparatus..
I've long suspected that NATO has existed since 1991 to allow the US/EU axis to control
Middle-Eastern and African resources. For example, the Rammstein military hospital is where
every Gulf War soldier was airlifted for major treatment and convalescence.
Also, there is a huge international trade in opium. It's grown in Afpak and shipped out in
every direction. I suspect that a fair amount of that flows through Ukraine and Crimea. If
you look at a topo map of Crimea, there's a lot of seashore that could be good "smuggler's
coves". Following this line of argument, Russia grabbing it from Ukraine was a gimme to
Russia's gangsters. This, as well as the "Pipeline Wars", gives Russia a strong reason to
encircle Ukraine.
The Putsch Govt and Tech & Media Oligarchs are "Riding the Tiger"
The reason I'm laughing, is because Joe and the deep state are exposing themselves for
who they are, a bunch of corrupt government officials who don't have the support of the
citizens. Joe is going to have a really hard time unless they institutionalize the election
fraud and continue it, which is my biggest fear because it means we've become a corrupt
banana republic, and poverty will quickly ensue. Big government brings poverty to the
public (and riches to the deep state) while freedom (i.e., small government that just
protects our freedoms, rather than socialism that promises to provide for us but instead
brings government forcing us to work) brings prosperity to the people.
Victoria Nuland, former foreign policy adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, should not be
nominated for undersecretary of state [for political affairs], and if nominated should be
rejected by the Senate.
Nuland played a key role in facilitating a coup in Ukraine that created a civil war costing
10,000 lives and displacing over a million people. She played a key role in arming Ukraine as
well. She advocates radically increased military spending, NATO expansion, hostility toward
Russia, and efforts to overthrow the Russian government.
The United States invested $5 billion in shaping Ukrainian politics, including overthrowing
a democratically elected president who had refused to join NATO. Then-Assistant Secretary of
State Nuland is on
video talking about the U.S. investment and on
audiotape planning to install Ukraine's next leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was
subsequently installed.
The Maidan protests, at which Nuland handed out cookies to protesters, were violently
escalated by neo-Nazis and by snipers who opened fire on police. When Poland, Germany, and
France negotiated a deal for the Maidan demands and an early election, neo-Nazis instead
attacked the government and took over. The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the
coup government, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
Nuland has
worked with the openly pro-Nazi Svoboda Party in Ukraine. She was long a leading
proponent of arming Ukraine. She was also an advocate for removing from office the
prosecutor general of Ukraine, whom then-Vice President Joe Biden pushed the president to
remove.
Nuland
wrote this past year that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the
democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia - one that builds on
their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens."
She added:
" Moscow should also see that Washington and its allies are taking concrete steps to shore
up their security and raise the cost of Russian confrontation and militarization. That
includes maintaining robust defense budgets, continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear
weapons systems, and deploying new conventional missiles and missile defenses, . . .
establish permanent bases along NATO's eastern border, and increase the pace and visibility
of joint training exercises."
The United States walked out of the ABM Treaty and later the INF Treaty, began putting
missiles into Romania and Poland, expanded NATO to Russia's border, facilitated a coup in
Ukraine, began arming Ukraine, and started holding massive war rehearsal exercises in Eastern
Europe. But to read Victoria Nuland's account, Russia is simply an irrationally evil and
aggressive force that must be countered by yet more military spending, bases, and hostility.
Some U.S.
military officials say this demonizing of Russia is all about weapons profits and
bureaucratic power, no more fact-based than the Steele Dossier that was
given to the FBI by Victoria Nuland.
SIGNED BY:
Alaska Peace Center
Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence
CODEPINK
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Greater Brunswick PeaceWorks
Jemez Peacemakers
Knowdrones.com
Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Nukewatch
Peace Action Maine
PEACEWORKERS
Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City
Progressive Democrats of America
Peace Fresno
Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW!
The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice
RootsAction.org
Veterans For Peace Chapter 001
Veterans For Peace Chapter 63
Veterans For Peace Chapter 113
Veterans For Peace Chapter 115
Veterans For Peace Chapter 132
Wage Peace
World BEYOND War
TimeTraveller 36 minutes ago (Edited)
The funny thing about appointment of Nuland, is that basically every European government
hates her.
Those idiots in the EU complained about Trump. Well the American Empire war machine is
about to ratchet up a notch or three, btches.
Max21c 50 minutes ago
The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the coup government, and Arseniy
Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
The Washington establishment immediately recognized the coup government, and Joe Schmoe
Biden was installed as ruler.
replaceme 52 minutes ago
Why wouldn't they appoint a murderer?
TimeTraveller 50 minutes ago (Edited)
It is funny that they oppose that. After all, every single person in the Democrat party
was in agreement with those foreign coup and wars. If we're going to all of a sudden start
pointing the finger, then there would be no Democrats left in congress
aspnaz again 38 minutes ago
Nationalist, extremist, exceptionalist, white supremicists are okay if they are
democrats.
eatapeach 13 minutes ago
She's an Israel-firster, thus has a pass?
TimeTraveller 51 minutes ago
Those 25 organizations are about to be cancelled. Social Media thought police will be
working overtime tonight.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 52 minutes ago
So we go around the world interfering with every country's internal affairs but when they
do it to the US is meddling in US elections.
does nooner know how hypocritical Washington sounds?
Ms No PREMIUM 36 minutes ago
"pro-Nazi Svoboda party"
That is a headfake there. They are definitely tyrannical and Bolshevik, but not targeting
Jewish people.
As a matter of fact Nuland's Council on Foreign Relations huband-brother (whatever they
really are) is a Kagan, like Kagan-ovich, and that ain't a coincidence.
So you can see what the mob did there. It helps with plausible deniability down the road
when they get charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, aggression,
etc
xious 37 minutes ago
They don't care what you think. You will watch child molesters on TV and like it.
TryingSomethingNew 38 minutes ago
But she's Jewish and a woman, right? Those 25 organizations are clearly Anti-Semitic and
sexist.
Ms No PREMIUM 35 minutes ago
Why would a Jewish Mobster set up a Nazi like color revolutionary group and coup the
Ukraine with it?
Already looking at plausible deniability down the road. Nobody's *** is covered anywhere
but theirs. Their apparatchiks should ponder that.
Pliskin 43 minutes ago
Amurikans should keep the fcuk out of other countries affairs...!
Sad-sacks!
Dzerzhhinsky 48 minutes ago
People think Zionists are anti Nazi, but Zionism is the non Christian version of Nazism.
Herzl the founder of the Zionist party was enamoured with the Nazis, but they rejected him on
religious grounds.
It's natural for Nuland and the other Kaganites to be in bed with Ukrainian Nazis.
Ms No PREMIUM 22 minutes ago remove link
I remember Lavrov getting grilled by angry journalists about why Russia wasn't bombing the
**** out of the color revolutionaries that took the Ukraine with US money.
He basically said, What would you have us do, cause countless deaths of our own Russian
speaking people? They don't care about their deaths but we have to.
Then the first thing the US did was put in illegal bioweapons labs in the Ukraine. There
was a super weird outbreak prior to the color revolution takeover too..Then Russians were
really pissed off. So Putin drew red line in Syria
Russia will get the Ukraine back someday. They have to. It was their bread basket during
last grand minimum.
bluskyes 14 minutes ago
perhaps, when the western threat become stronger than ethnic bias. Though it will probably
split first.
Anthraxed 38 minutes ago
Victoria Noodlebrain should be on Interpol's top 10 most wanted list.
Cautiously Pessimistic 49 minutes ago
Man....I had all but forgotten about many of these scumbags that are resurfacing now in
the Biden administration. This woman should be waterboarded until deceased.
Dzerzhhinsky 46 minutes ago
It's always the same people, the front men change, but behind the scenes it's always the
same people.
RKKA 6 minutes ago
Again, all these demons of the Obama era are striving for power. During the Trump
presidency, we have already forgotten about these devils.
Victoria Nuland, her real Jewish surname is Nudelman, her parents are Moldovan ****. The
parents of the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who seized power as a result of the
Maidan and the coup d'etat, are also Moldovan **** by the name of Valtsman. Already in
adulthood, Petr Valtsman took the name of his wife and became - Poroshenko. They are the
father and mother of the war in Ukraine, and Joe Biden blessed them for this.
Another Ukrainian oligarch, also a ***, Igor Kolomoisky, financed the Ukrainian
nationalist battalions of Azov, Dnepr and Aydar. Tell me, what are these Nazis who are
financed and serve the ****? Adolf spins tirelessly in his coffin!
And you probably thought that the **** are such poor and offended children of the
Holocaust and the Nazis are their enemies? No, **** and Nazis merged in violent ecstasy and
it is time to introduce the term - Jewish Nazism into the lexicon!
de tocqueville's ghost 28 minutes ago
that was a good four years...no new wars. Good going liberals, you voted for a war
monger.
Lt. Shicekopf 14 minutes ago
Yes! Maybe we can do to all kinds of countries what we did to Libya. The continuing
calamity that has been going on in Libya since Obama and Hillary got done with them has been
studiously ignored by all the Western media. Anarchy, chaos, death, an open slave market in
which black Africans are bought and sold by Arab traders. All good stuff to the American
left.
David Q. Little 45 minutes ago
Joe and Hunter owe her a favor.
Musum 19 minutes ago
Neocons are returning with a vengeance.
Death2Fiat 28 minutes ago
Her job is to destroy the US and do the bidding of the Globalists.
tbone654 28 minutes ago
none of it matters... with the dems controlling everything the [M]ilitary [I]ndustrial
[I]ntelligence [C]omplex is gonna ramp up and spend a crap-ton on wars all over the globe...
it's how it works when they have the throttle... everyone was worried about Trump, but he
de-escalated everywhere...
The people have spoken (I mean cheated) and now they must be punished... Ed Koch
Lyman54 34 minutes ago
Yatsenyuk, Nulands pick, was given a Canadian passport. Likely hiding in Manitoba.
ThomasEdmonds 36 minutes ago
Some things in this life don't matter and Biden cares squat. Perhaps these groups can
express their contempt for Samantha Power as well. Let's extend that to his foreign policy
team.
WTFUD 13 minutes ago remove link
Joseph Biden reminds me of Hedley Lamar in Blazing Saddles, forming a posse of the biggest
wackjobs available.
As long as he doesn't put Hunter in charge of the Afghani Poppy Crop Investment Fund then
his Middle-East and Central Asian policy could prove fruitful.
Various media outlets are reporting that Joe Biden will nominate Victoria Nuland for the
influential role of under secretary of state for political affairs.
He said today: "Victoria Nuland has had a long and storied career in the foreign service and
for a long time was viewed with something like reverence by career officers. Nuland served as
U.S. Ambassador to NATO and later was national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney.
After that, Nuland found herself on the 'outs' at the State Department during the early Obama
years. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had other plans for Nuland, the well-connected
wife of the neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan. Clinton, to the astonishment of many of the
political appointees in Clinton's orbit, plucked Nuland from the obscurity of her position at
the Naval War College to become Clinton's spokeswoman.
"This was the road back to influence and Nuland used it, quickly ascending to the position
of assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. It is from that post that
she oversaw U.S. efforts to encourage a street coup in Kiev -- going so far as to hand out
cookies to anti-government protesters alongside the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
The February 2014 coup, undertaken by an alliance of pro-Western liberalizers and hardline
anti-Semitic militants, resulted not in a more peaceful order, but in a civil war (in which
both Russia and NATO funded and armed their proxies) that resulted in the loss of over 10,000
lives and the displacement of well over a million people from the Russophone east. After the
coup, Nuland became an unwitting symbol of American heavy-handedness in the region when a call
between her and Pyatt leaked in which they were seen to be hand-picking personnel for the new
government in Ukraine. What would the EU think? 'Fuck the EU,' exclaimed Nuland, a
diplomat.
"After the coup -- violent and unnecessary, given that the deposed Ukrainian leader had
agreed to an early peaceful transition at the ballot box, Nuland bragged at a conference
sponsored by Chevron that: 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has
supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic
participation and good governance. We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these
and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.'
"In the years following, we have 'invested' a great deal more money into Ukraine -- for
questionable returns. But the affair has not seemed to have clouded Nuland's career prospects.
Smart, well-connected, and well-liked, she, like many of her fellow neocons, seems to move from
strength to strength in this town, never held to account for the damage they've caused. After
her stint in the State Department ended (she was replaced in the early Trump years by the
woefully unqualified neocon operative A. Wess Mitchell), Nuland took up what one can only
assume were lucrative positions on the
other side of the revolving door at the Center for a New American Security (where she served as
CEO), the Boston Consulting Group and the Albright Stonebridge Group (from which, perhaps not
coincidentally, her future boss, Biden's nominee for deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman,
hails).
"Her views on Russia and European affairs are well known. Less known, however, are her views
on America's role in the Middle East. Let's hope that changes because in an article in
Foreign Affairs earlier this year, Nuland lamented that the U.S., under Trump, 'made
both Putin's and Assad's lives easier by neutralizing a shared threat, the Islamic State, or,
ISIS.'
"As Biden's undersecretary of political affairs, Nuland would have immense influence over
policy and personnel. Progressives in Congress and their partners in the media, think tank
world and among grassroots activists should join forces with the growing caucus of
anti-interventionist Republicans on the Hill and vigorously oppose this nomination." Filed
Under: Biden's
Cabinet
Recently on Twitter, a someone graciously dubbed me a "prophet" after
rereading my April
article arguing that "American Exceptionalism Scars Both Victim and Victimizer" –
and which pivoted around actual philosophical prophet, Ms. Simone Weil . This social media
follower, " TheAyatollaOfRocknRolla ," is clearly a man of
cinematic allusion – to 1981's
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior – after my own heart. Still, my anecdote transcends
any possible proclivity for the ole backdoor brag.
Because what prompted the Ayatolla's comment was, as he noted, perusing the piece "as we
watch the tragic comedy of political stupidities unfold!" That, of course, was a few days
before the delusional – but dangerous – MAGA maelstrom
unleashed on the Capitol yesterday. It is perhaps also an illustrative diagnosis of a broken
system, rigged long before the latest indecency that's been the Trump phenomenon – and
which status quo Joe neither can,
nor means , to overhaul.
That discomfiting truth is reemphasized each time the president-elect nominates a new
national security official for his incoming team. It hardly takes a prophet to predict the
sort of characters Biden trusts to caretakers America's imperium. Frankly, it barely even
demands an assiduous researcher. Rather, the only real qualification seems a masochistic
willingness to pull the same old threads and discover the old same disappointing
interest-conflict certainties. And, in one sense, that's no small thing – such
commitment in the face of near-certain chagrin.
It recalls my own glutton for punishment guilty pleasure: true crime murder
(non-)mysteries. Call me crazy but I find myself repeatedly rooting for the husband
not to be the killer whenever a woman ends up dead, knowing full well he almost always
is. Just for change. And, appalling as the ongoing epidemic of violence against women is
– and probably something one shouldn't wager even mental TV bets on – the
seemingly eternal bipartisan appointment of war-industry shills custom-made and
meticulously trained to implement endless war, augurs even higher body counts. And the hits
just keep on coming with Biden's bunch.
I'd scarcely finished a critical analysis of the probable first female deputy defense
secretary, Kathleen Hicks, when I awoke to Wednesday's news that Uncle Joe had called up
three more problematic prospects from the military-industrial complex minors. The three
veterans headed back up to the show are Jon Finer, for deputy national security adviser;
Wendy Sherman, for deputy secretary of state; and worst of all, Victoria Nuland, as under
secretary of state for political affairs.
All are Obama Administration alumni; each worked for former Secretary of State John Kerry
at one time or another. These are steady hands, experienced presiders over perennial war
– capable company men to captain a systemic ship headed straight for a
republic-shattering iceberg. Biden has entrusted them with the middle-management they know.
Yet they've neither the mandate, mindset, nor skillset to turn this suicide machine around.
One fears their fate lies – F. Scott Fitzgerald-style – in their personal and
professional backstories.
So, like another tragic literary figure, expect each member of Biden's Gatsby-like gang to
"beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" – a past of
futile interventionism that profits the war-profiteers who pay their immense mortgages in
communities gated off from both far-flung foreigners and fellow citizens incurring the costs
of their imperial nostalgia.
A Trio of Archetype's Archetypes
There's nothing so uninspiring as a played-out platitude. Unfortunately, Uncle Joe's band
of brothers (and more than the typical tally of sisters) are a passing coterie of walking
clichés. They're so embarrassingly formulaic that even a cursory investigator can seem
a soothsayer. But the truth is, the consistent accuracy of my own depiction of the "archetypal
Biden bro" is more function of a simple and proven model than mystical clairvoyance.
So to test that theory and see how closely the three newest appointees hew to my a
November article model, let's review
the paradigm:
[The archetypal Biden nominee] sprang from an Ivy League school, became a congressional
staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security council,
consulted forWestExec
Advisors(an Obama alumni-founded outfitlinkingtech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American
Security (CNAS), had some defense contractorties, andmarriedsomeone who's
alsoin the game.
Taking the trio in sequence and by the numbers:
First, deputy national security adviser appointee Jon Finer : hails from Harvard (then Oxford and
Yale); held a hodgepodge of Obama administration positions – ranging from White House
fellow, the office of the White House chief of staff, national security council staff,
special advisor for the Middle East and North Africa and foreign policy speechwriter for Vice
President Biden, senior advisor to deputy national security advisor (and now nominated
secretary of state) Antony Blinken, and finally chief of staff and director of policy
planning in John Kerry's State Department.
After eight years in Obamian Camelot, Finer oversaw the political risk and
public policy practice at Warburg Pincus, LLC, a global investment firm that holds
some $62 billion in assets led by Obama's first treasury secretary, Timothy Geitner.
Warburg Pincus also just so happens to invest in companies that
do extensive business with "blue chip customers" like General Electric, Honeywell, and
Lockheed Martin, for such platforms as the perennially cost-overrunning
money-pit that is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In his spare time, Finer's also a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's worth noting, however, that Finer has some rare – for a Biden bro –
redeeming and unique experiences. Before entering government, he was a foreign and national
correspondent for the Washington Post , embedded with the Marines during the 2003 Iraq
invasion, and later spent 18 months in Baghdad as it lurched towards civil war. Unlike his
classic chickenhawk of a future boss, Jake
Sullivan , Finer's extensive experience with real Iraqis may have motivated his
co-founding the Iraqi Refugee
Assistance Project .
Second, deputy secretary of state nominee Wendy Sherman : may have
graduated from from sub-Ivy Boston University and the University of Maryland, but she is a
professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She then follow platitudinal protocol
and served as chief of staff for then Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski, even managing her first
successful senate campaign. Sherman was also CEO and President of the 2008 financial
crash-implicated Fannie Mae Foundation, and served as – Iraqi
child-sanctions-starvation apologist – Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright's counselor. During the Obama years, Wendy was appointed
undersecretary of state for political affairs by Hillary Clinton.
Since then, Sherman has worked with or for a range of military-industrial and strategic
consultancy-complex related rackets. Specifically, she was Vice Chair of the Albright
Stonebridge Group – her old boss's international consulting firm – plus serves on
the boards of the International Crisis Group and Atlantic Council, and is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group. Wendy's even an MSNBC global
affairs contributor.
She's also married to another player, Bruce Stokes – director of global
economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center, executive director of the Transatlantic Task
Force of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and a former senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. That said, on the positive side, Sherman was, in fact, a social
worker before entering public policy service, and a chief negotiator of the eminently
sensible Iran nuclear deal.
Lastly, under secretary of state for political affairs nominee, Victoria Nuland : is an alum of Brown
University, and held a variety of positions of increasing responsibility in Bill Clinton's
and George W. Bush's State Department. In the Obama years, she served as special envoy for
conventional armed forces in Europe, then as State Department spokesperson, and finally as
assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. During her Trump-era holding
pattern, Nuland was a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, CEO of the Center for
a New American Security (CNAS), on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, and
senior counselor at – you guessed it! – the Albright Stonebridge Group.
Then there's this: Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan , an overtly
neo-imperialist historian and hawkish foreign policy commentator at the Brookings
Institution. And when it comes to Queen Victoria-the-Troubling, it is that "married to
someone in the game" bit that's particularly unsettling. Enter the neocons Kagan: a family of
fiasco artists.
A Couple of Wild&Krazy Kagans
Before exploring the implications of her having married into the Kagan's veritable [war]
crime family, it's worth noting that she's a problematic hawk in her own right. With his
decision to nominate Nuland as under secretary of state for political affairs, Joe may've
really done it – risked real war, that can't be won, and needn't be fought, with a
Russian nuclear superpower. That's a function of Nuland's history of hawkish antagonism
towards Moscow, plus meddling to orchestrate a Ukrainian regime change in
the nearest of Russia's near-abroad. Nominating Nuland is nothing less than an unnecessarily
provocative finger in the Russian eye. She's a known quantity east of the Dnieper, and not in
a nice way – she's
despised by Mr. Putin and her confirmation will surely serve as a conflict
accelerant.
Furthermore, as a simple – and somehow satisfying – spiral on the ole
Wikipedia all to easily reveals, Nuland's nuptial connections could offer nothing less than a
path back into power for not just the usual Biden bunch neoliberal interventionists, but
Bush-Cheney-era neoconservatives. First off, she
was Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from July
2003 until May 2005 – rather pivotal and horrifying decision-making years, those.
Equally troubling, she's married to none other than Robert Kagan – the man Col. (ret.)
Andrew Bacevich called
America's "chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist."
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the king neoconservative think tank Project for the New American
Century (PNAC) with William Kristol – an outfit which wrote the faux-scholarly
policy papers , and provided much of the intellectual energy, undergirding not only the
unhinged
Iraq invasion , but the broader neo-imperial
strategy that's brutally transformed the world and killed maybe
millions. And the influences and machinations of the Kagan Krew runs far deeper still. The
still living 88-year old patriarch, Nuland's father-in-law Donald , was
a signatory to PNAC's " Statement of
Principles " – along with a who's who of war crime architects and enablers, such as
Elliott
Abrams , Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, "Scooter"
Libby , Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz .
Ms. Nuland's brother-in-law and his bride, Fred and Kim Kagan, must represent the familial
version of Marx's old truism that history repeats the
second time around (or in this case, second generation) as more farce than tragedy. These two
fellow West Point faculty alumni may be historians by day, but they're cartoonish – if
apparently
convincing – neoconservative zealots in their free time. Both
advised on – some say cooked-up – Bush's Iraq "surge" strategy, received
official hearings, and held positions on the staffs of Generals David Petraeus, Stanley
McCrystal, and John Allen in Baghdad and Kabul. Kim is an especially enthusiastic – and
frankly offensive to we foot soldiers – combat voyeur, having according to her own
bio ,
"conducted many regular battlefield circulations" of Iraq and Afghanistan between 2007 and
2010.
Suffice it to say I've heard at least one highly respected senior military officer say
something to the effect of: "Oh Christ! The damn Kagans are coming to visit again!" In other
words, their distant dogmatic abstractions didn't usually jive with realities of soldierly
leaders on the ground. No doubt these armchair militarists at least looked the part on their
brief bits of war tourism (or is war porn?): Kim, in particular, tends to sport the latest in British Raj-khaki
and American combat-fatigue fashion on her
Potemkin-like jaunts through amply-guarded Basra and Baghdad markets. That way she could
look the part before penning premature progress reports long-after she's left the exasperated
and sleep-deprived guardians of her human-safari strolls to continue killing and dying in
wars that – despite her emphatic protestations to the contrary – have yet to
end.
So it goes; and so some will ask, if Nuland's husband and his neocon-royalty family will
really have meaningful influence on how her suit of the "political affairs" under her
under-secretarial charge at State? It's hard to say, of course, but count this author a firm
believer that the personal is, in fact, often political – and possessing enough of the
historians eye to know that informal and romantic relationships are often uncomfortably
impactful . Look no
further than Sarah Polk crafting speeches and correspondence for her Mexico-conquering
husband; Edith Wilson basically taking control of the presidency after Woodrow's
publicly-downplayed stroke; or even Nancy Reagan turning "to the stars" – well, an
astrologer – to time everything from White House meetings, travel, and even Ronnie's
cancer surgery.
Besides, Nuland has paved a hawkish enough path of her own these last three decades to
raise five-alarm fire bells. Just one pesky problem: thanks to Biden's batch of other picks,
there'll be only interventionist arsonists running the response. That is, the rest of Joe's
almost absurdly incestuous lot – a sort of best friends gang that joins all the same
clubs.
Take the Truman Center
for National Policy , and its "membership of diverse leaders inspired to serve in the
aftermath of 9/11 and committed to shaping and advocating for tough, smart national security
solutions." Well, some of those members committed to – unneeded and counterproductively
chickenhawk – toughness include: passed over defense secretary prospect Michele
Flournoy, (formerly) Hunter Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, deputy defense
secretary nominee Kathleen Hicks, and secretary of transportation nominee Pete Buttigieg. In
other words, their's is a small world full of small thinking masquerading as big ideas. And
that , babies, is a formula for four more years of failure.
PS: this like to thank Wikipedia for providing easy and speedy access to the basic
backstory and context that most mainstream media has been willfully ignoring – even
before this Wednesday's MAGA-madness at the Capitol
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer, senior fellow at theCenter for
International Policy(CIP), contributing editor atAntiwar.com, and director of the new Eisenhower Media
Network (EMN). His work has appeared in the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post,
The Hill, Salon, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, Scheer Post and Tom Dispatch,
among other publications. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq
War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the SurgeandPatriotic Dissent: America in
the Age of Endless War. Along with fellow vet Chris "Henri" Henriksen, he co-hosts
the podcast "Fortress on a
Hill." Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVetand on hiswebsitefor media requests
and past publications.
Nuland will be nominated for the position of under secretary of state for political affairs,
the US media said on Tuesday with Politico being the first to
drop the scoop. It's the highest-ranking post in the department after the secretary and deputy
secretary. During the Obama administration, Nuland served as assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and was a key official in formulating and implementing his
Russia policies. She also served as US envoy to the UN under George W. Bush and advised Vice
President Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
The news that the vocal Russia hawk was returning to the White House was understandably met
with loud cheering by the fans of Pax American on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics were
dismayed and somewhat horrified, considering her record.
Arguably the most publicly known episode of Nuland's Obama tenure came in 2014, when a tape
of her conversation with then-ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. It happened
shortly after Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a wave
of street protests culminating in an armed coup, which happened with much encouragement from
Washington.
Nuland and Pyatt were discussing who among the coup leaders should be in the upcoming
Ukrainian government, which indicated that Washington played a much bigger role in the crisis
than it publicly admitted. The infamous " F**k the EU" remark came as Nuland expressed
frustration with European nations, who were reluctant to lend legitimacy to the benefactors of
the events, and said UN officials could be called in to help "glue this thing"
instead.
The EU's skepticism at the time could have been due to the fact that President Yanukovich
was expelled under a threat of violence just hours after Germany and Poland helped seal a power
sharing
agreement between him and the opposition leaders, serving as guarantors of the deal. Her
return as a senior diplomatic official is likely to get on a few people's nerves in Europe,
which is ironic considering how the Biden administration is supposed to rebuild alliances
damaged by the Trump presidency.
While flying private in the world of academia and think tanks during the Trump years, Nuland
maintained her confrontational attitude to anyone challenging US dominance. Her recipe for
dealing with Russia, as outlined
in Foreign Policy magazine last summer, is more sophisticated weapons, permanent NATO bases on
the Russian border (which will require abolishing a key Russia-NATO agreement) and deniable
cyber operations against Moscow.
Nuland also played a
peculiar part in US domestic affairs, possibly having a hand in the promotion of the
notorious Steele dossier. The collection of opposition research and rumors was used by the FBI
to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign and fueled the endless flood of claims that the
incumbent president was somehow a Russian stooge.
An FBI memo released last
year revealed that Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson "and others were talking to Victoria Nuland
at the US State Department" about the file. The firm looked into Donald Trump for the
Hillary Clinton campaign and retained retired British intelligence agent Christopher Steele for
the job.
In multiple interviews, Nuland insisted that her role with the dossier was very limited
because it dealt with domestic politics. "[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points
of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our
purview,'" she
told CBS News in 2018, adding that she advised him to go to the FBI. Some skeptics believe
her role in launching the Steele dossier may have been much more significant.
Nuland is one of many Obama-era officials tapped by Biden to serve again with him at the
helm. In addition to her, the latest reported batch includes Wendy Sherman, the former under
secretary of state for political affairs, Jon Finer, who had various roles under Obama, and
Amanda Sloat, ex-deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean
affairs.
Democratic President-elect Joe Biden plans to name U.S. foreign policy veterans Wendy
Sherman and Victoria Nuland to be the No. 2 and No. 3 officials at the State Department, two
sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
Sherman, a key negotiator of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that Republican President
Donald Trump abandoned, is to be tapped for deputy secretary of state, the sources said,
confirming a report that first appeared in Politico newspaper.
Nuland, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the top U.S. diplomat for
Europe, NATO ambassador and State Department spokeswoman, is to be nominated as
undersecretary of state for political affairs, effectively the third-ranking U.S. diplomat,
the sources added, also confirming Politico's report.
Victoria Nuland, wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, is expected be nominated for under
secretary of state for political affairs
According to a report from
Politico , Joe Biden's transition team is expected to nominate Victoria Nuland to
be the under secretary of state for political affairs for the incoming administration's State
Department.
Nuland, who is married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is known for her role in
orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine while she was the assistant secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and then-US
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked and released on YouTube on February 4th,
2014 . In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of former
Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced to step down on February 22nd,
2014.
The US-backed coup sparked the war in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and led to the Russian
annexation of Crimea. Both regions have a majority ethnic-Russian population who rejected the
nationalist, anti-Russian post-coup government that even had
neo-Nazis in its midst .
In a
2020 column for Foreign Affairs titled, "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland said Russian
President Vladimir Putin "seized" on the 2014 coup and other "democratic struggles" to "fuel
the perception at home of Russian interests under siege by external enemies." She also cited
the war in the Donbas and annexation of Crimea as examples of Russian aggression, as most in
Washington do.
Nuland worked in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 as the US ambassador to NATO.
From 2011 to 2013, she served as the spokesperson for Barack Obama's State Department, and from
2013 to 2017, Nuland was the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs.
Politico also reported that the Biden administration is tapping Wendy Sherman to
work directly under Secretary of State-designee Anthony Blinken. Sherman worked in the Obama
administration's State Department and played
a crucial role in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
I see that "cookie monster" Nuland is supposed to become Deputy secretary of State under
Biden. As a new of version of Pompeo she will obviously be sending tins of fresh home baking
to Putin.
Maybe she will use her Maidan experience and let Joe sniff a bit first.
Why the protégé of Cheney Nuland? Why now? Did Biden completely succumbs to
Alzheimer? Does Biden administration strive to be as dysfunctional, neocon-dominated and
destructive as Obama administration?
Politico reports Tuesday that President-elect Joe Biden is tapping former senior Obama
administration foreign affairs officials to serve in his cabinet.
Most notably among them is neocon Victoria Nuland, who has just been tapped as Biden's state
department undersecretary for political affairs .
Writes Politico :
"Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated for the role of under secretary
of State for political affairs, one of the people said. Nuland also previously served in the
Obama administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs."
Recall that in this capacity she ran point for Obama's regime change "democracy
promotion" efforts in Ukraine . In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep
embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts
using the ongoing "Maidan Revolution" to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
In that leaked
phone call Nuland told US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt "F*ck the EU" - for which
she was later forced to apologize. Here's some of the audio for a little trip down memory
lane.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L2XNN0Yt6D8
She had also been instrumental in her prior postings at the State Department in Obama's
disastrous Libya intervention . After the Obama administration she's been part of various think
tanks, including the hawkish Brookings Institution, where she's been a fierce critic of Trump's
supposed "appeasement" of Putin. She's also argued for deeper military intervention in Syria
.
Politico in its description of the incoming Obama-era officials underscores they are
hawks on
Russia :
Nuland and [Wendy] Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving
the Obama administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign
policy -- particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
On the National Security Council, former State Department official Jon Finer will be named
deputy national security adviser, the people said, reporting up to incoming national security
adviser Jake Sullivan. Finer, a former journalist, joined the Obama White House as a fellow
in 2009 and served in various roles throughout Obama's tenure, including as a foreign policy
speechwriter for Biden and a senior adviser to then-deputy national security adviser Blinken.
Finer had been working in political risk and public policy at the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus, which was co-founded by Blinken's father, since leaving government in 2017.
The key NSC role of senior director for European Affairs will go to Amanda Sloat, a
Brookings Institution fellow ...
As is the unfortunate norm in the Washington beltway, the Liberal hawks under Obama simply
went to who's who of neocon think tanks like Brookings, and have now been called back in
revolving door fashion for pretty much a return to Obama era foreign policy (and its
disasters ).
Annoying Russians with a destroyer 10 miles or so from Vladivostok under good old Trump.
Apparently, after a series of moves that replaced some top figures in Pentagon. The
relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nulandia, or
whatever we see on the top of that iceberg -- and try to make a search what it would take to
change the course of an iceberg from Antarctics (people were investigating it as a way of
bringing fresh water to Arabian peninsula where money is plentiful but water is scarce).
There are two important aspects there. Local trade is more profitable than distant trade
when consider in totality, i.e. including the products that you would never make profit after
crossing oceans. Second aspect is that Far East is a cultural zone like Europe -- lots of
animosities collected over centuries, but even more commonalities in culture. As USA imposes
various types of tribute on allies/vassals, centripetal forces in various continents should
increase. Among visible costs of vassaldom:
1. paying costs of American presence
2. annoying China beyond the national needs, thus decreasing the national security
3. participating in sanctions imposed by USA, directly and indirectly (through resulting
conflicts) reducing profits in economies that are struggling
Yes, the earth keeps spinning no matter who "wins" the election.
Armenia, apparently the skies are clear of turkish drones with a little help from Russian EW,
so the Artsakh army is deploying armor again to defend Shusha, they almost lost control of
the road to their capital Stepanakert.
Another relevant piece of information, the Ukros smelling victory by their satrap Biden
last night heavily attacked Donetsk, a taste of things to come.
Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2020 16:33 utc | 76
That's a good one, Evo calling for Almagro, the OAS will take care of Georgia and
Pensilvania.
Uncle Volodya says, "Just because evil liars
stand between us and the gods
and block our view of them
does not mean that the bright halo
that surrounds each liar
is not the outer edges of a god, waiting
for us to find our way around the lie."
The Kyiv Post has always been pretty nationalistic, and never had too much time for
Russia. It has an inconsistent record on the Ukrainian oligarchy, showing occasional flashes of
frankness in which it castigates the idle rich, and depressing runs of puff pieces in which it
canonizes Petro Poroshenko and gnashes its teeth with righteous anger at his detractors.
Several of its regular writers are activists, and their material shows it. Overall, it is the
newspaper of record for Kiev's apologists, and draws a reliable audience of Russophobic
Maidanites hoarsely crying "Yurrup!!!", as if it were some sort of magic answer to all their
problems. But if the paper's material is often delusional, the comments section takes
rollie-eyed psychosis to a whole new level. This is where you get to interact with the
low-information voter, likely from a Ukrainian diaspora in North America, who buys the western
propaganda line wholly and eagerly. Making any remark which appears defensive of Russia is like
a red rag to a bull.
Here, every once in awhile, you run across a different kind of commenter – not just
the usual "Shut your mouth, you Putin troll asswipe!!" who assumes the right to proselytize his
own opinions to his heart's contentment, but will entertain no notion of a dissenting opinion
without shouting that it must have been paid for by Putin and anyone who expresses such
opinions is an employee of the FSB. Get it? Everyone who argues for a free and undivided
Ukraine delivered whole and breathing to Yurrup and its austerity agenda is a patriot who
sounds off because it's the right thing to do; everyone else is paid to lie. Occasionally, you
run across a true apologist; one who is apparently not ignorant, but one who applies his/her
intellect to running interference for the Kiev junta and doing battle on its behalf through
insults, fabrications and assumption of a certain mantle of authority, while devising excuses
for those actions by Kiev that he/she cannot explain away.
I recently did run across just such a person. Attracted to the article "
Ukraine Overturns its Non-Bloc Status. What Next With NATO? " by the sheer zaniness of the
Ukrainian leadership – which keeps bulling ahead with trying to referendum itself into
NATO despite its ongoing border disputes so that it can immediately pull NATO into an Article 5
war with Russia – I read it, and then perused the comments.
I was moved to get involved in the discussion by a comment from Michael Caine – not
the British actor, I'm pretty sure; this individual is not particularly literate but
compensates with stubbornness – who seemed sincere enough, but is fixated on the idea
that Russia (personified, of course, by Putin, as it is whenever it does anything the western
world does not like) has broken international law by acceding to Crimea's request to join the
Russian Federation. This process is invariably described in the Anglospheric press as
"annexation", and we can hardly blame Michael, because high-profile chowderheads all the way up
to and including President Obama have expressed the same opinion, which is completely
unsubstantiated. As we have often discussed, the lifeblood of law is precedent, and a precedent
was established on unilateral declarations of independence with the acceptance of that premise
for the independence of Kosovo. Poland's opinion just happened to be the first I came across,
written by then-Foreign-Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, and it announced smugly that a unilateral
declaration of independence is outside international law and
therefore unregulated by that authority. A state-in-being, saith Radek, is a matter of reality
rather than law, and if you have a population which is distinct by virtue of its language,
customs and cultural attributes, which has its own government, civil institutions and financial
institutions, you are – or you can be – a state by way of a unilateral declaration
of independence.
The Polish opinion was pivotal to the broad recognition of Kosovo, because Poland was the
first East European and the first Slavic nation to recognize it. However – and this is
important – not one other world opinion which supported the recognition of Kosovo
challenged Poland's contention that a unilateral declaration of independence is not an
instrument regulated by international law. Even The Economist , no friend of Russia and
Putin, declared in
advance of the vote that if Crimea chose to detach itself from Ukraine's rule, no court
would be likely to challenge it, while RFE/RL – still less a friend of Russia and Putin
– opined that the Budapest Memorandum (the document in which all the thunderers that
Putin has broken international law vest their hopes) is a diplomatic document rather than a
treaty, and while it is international law, is not
enforceable . Even, if you can imagine, The Hague weighed in,
expressing the legal opinion ,
"Therefore, is the Crimean Parliament vote to join the Russian Federation illegal? The
answer here is no, albeit with the above clarifications and observations. Can the Crimean
population legally exercise its right to external self-determination? The author is of the
opinion that − on the basis of existing international case law − this question can
neither be answered affirmatively or negatively."
All this went about four feet above Mr. Caine's head, because my polite request that he
elaborate on specifically which international law Mr. Putin (who apparently managed the
"annexation" of Crimea singlehandedly) broke received the response that Putin had violated the
law that says Thou Shalt Not Steal, not to mention that other bad one, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
These are ummm not international laws. Although they apply to all observers of the Christian
faith, these are Commandments, and I have yet to see a lawyer hold forth in an international
court on a case in which the Book Of Authorities and Precedents is a stone tablet, although I
should not speak too soon. You never know.
At about this point, The Apologist entered the fray. Under the banner of Swift69, and
plainly one of the protagonists for The Budapest Memorandum, he announced that there was no
unilateral declaration of independence because it was all engineered in Moscow, which allegedly
is a fact that everyone admits.
In point of fact, the Crimean Parliament and City Council of Sevastopol did declare Crimea's
independence, in writing ( here's the
English translation ), and specifically citing the unilateral declaration of independence
of Kosovo as precedent. That was actually in advance of the referendum, which asked respondents
if they did or did not favour Crimea applying to join the Russian Federation. So far as I am
aware nobody has admitted or otherwise affirmed in any way that Crimea's declaration of
independence originated in Moscow. Russia admitted in April 2014 that it had conducted advance polling in Crimea to determine the level of support for
independence, an issue which had been raised on and off since the 90's. Kind of hard to
interpret that as unacceptable interference in a reality that seems to see nothing wrong with
political-activist NGO's operated in Moscow and paid by American think tanks attempting to
amass support for overthrowing and replacing the Russian government, what?
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD
Up to this point it was just an amusing academic tussle – Clash Of The References, if
you will, although Swift69 actually didn't supply any. But it turned ugly from there.
I wrote, " Meanwhile Ukraine has no room at all to be preaching about international law,
nor do any of its defenders. Indiscriminate attack such as firing short-range ballistic
missiles into civilian population centers is a war crime. "
Swift69 replied, " Ballistic Missies"( sic ) – the word "ballistic" simply
means that it is "on a ballistic trajectory." Every bullet ever fired and every grad ever
launched is a "ballistic missile." While you're clearly trying to use the term to elicit
sympathy based on people's association of the word n the phrase "intercontinental ballistic
missile" or somesuch, it's nonsense. Use of ballistic weapons is no more a "war crime" than use
of gravity is "into civilian centers." what nonsense. "Many of the shocking cases, particularly
those published by the Russian media are greatly exaggerated There's no convincing evidence of
mass killings or graves." – Amnesty International report."
Let's just ponder that for a moment. Swift69 is implying an equivalency between a bullet
which might kill two or three people if it ricochets and hits more than its intended target,
and a fucking ballistic missile
which has a warhead that weighs more than half a ton (1,058 pounds). CNN
reported live that U.S. officials had confirmed Ukrainian forces fired "several" Tochka-U
(SS-21 Scarab) missiles "into areas controlled by pro-Russian separatists". The same source
reported it could kill "dozens". The Tochka-U has a Circular Error Probability (CEP) of 160
meters. That means even in the unlikely event that you were aiming it at a cluster of 20 armed
combatants – from as much as 70 km away – you could only count on the weapon
landing somewhere within 160 meters of them. The Ukrainians fired them into cities in
Donbass. And this shitbag is saying I merely tacked on the word "ballistic" to make it sound
scary, and to win sympathy for those it was fired at which they did not really deserve. Take a
look at the crater – that look like a bullet hole to you?
So, let's review. In fact, Indiscriminate Attackis
a war crime, in accordance with Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 12.
Indiscriminate Attack is defined as attack which is (a) not directed at a specific military
objective, (b) employs a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific
military objective, or (c) employs a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be
limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are
of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without
distinction.
Explain to me, if you can, how you can fire a ballistic missile with a circular error
probability of 160 meters (524 feet) into a city which contains both civilians and
paramilitaries, and be reasonably confident you will not kill or injure any civilians, or even
that you know from as far away as 70 km from the city that is your target, what you are
shooting at? How are you going to limit the effects of your attack with a 1000 lb+ warhead so
that it only kills military combatants?
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD REPORT THIS AD
Even the bullet Captain Sarcastic implied was also a "ballistic missile" could get you in
front of a war crimes tribunal, if you just loosed off some of them into a crowd which was a
composite of civilians and combatants without attempting to differentiate between the two. The
weapon is not the concern – aimed shots in a scenario in which you are attempting to
confine your fire to military targets is. Love of God, how hard is that to grasp?
Swift69 goes on to accuse me of sensationalizing further with the implication that the
Ukrainian army is firing into civilian population centers, and proceeds to conflate that with
an Amnesty International report which accused Russia of propagandizing mass graves, saying
there was no credible evidence of that. The two issues have nothing to do with one another. I
said the Ukrainian army is firing heavy weapons into Donbass cities at a range beyond which it
can discriminate between civilian and military targets, and that considerable loss of life and
tremendous damage has resulted. That is absolutely an
accurate portrayal of the state of affairs .
For a grand finale, Swift69 proceeds to attack the source of an article which reports that
Ukrainian forces or agents of the Ukrainian government have cut off the civilian populations of
cities in eastern Ukraine from water and food and medicines in an attempt to force their
surrender, and that this is also a war crime. That's a good tactic, and I use it sometimes
myself – if you're not comfortable that you can refute what was said, imply the person
who reported it is a lunatic. In this instance, I think there is plenty of corroborating
evidence that forces acting on Kiev's direction did just what I accuse
them of doing .
Kiev is committing war crimes against Ukrainian citizens with the vociferous approval of the
Kyiv Post , the tacit approval of the leadership of NATO countries and the slobbering
whitewash of Kiev's loony-fringe supporters. Shamelessly, right under your nose, and in the
clear presence of condemnatory evidence that should have the lot of them swinging from the
gibbet.
The woman speaking above is a certain Col. Brittany Stewart, Military Attaché to
the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. Yet another American woman doing a man's job! The Russian Ministry
of Defence was none too pleased with Colonel Stewart's little performance:
On October 16, the Defence Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow was invited to
the Russian Federation Ministry of Defence Main Directorate for International Military
Cooperation.
The US Department of Defence representative was informed about the position of the
Russian Ministry of Defence with regards to a recent statement made by the Military
Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Air Force Col. Brittany Stewart, on the joint
efforts of the US and Ukrainian Armed Forces in countering so-called "Russian
aggression".
The American side was briefed on the false claims of the statement and its provocative
nature, which compels the Ukrainian side to a military resolution of the internal conflict in
the Donbass.
The above mentioned statement is contradictory to previous declarations made by
Pentagon officials on a settlement of the situation in the Ukraine by peaceful means
only.
[Edited by Moscow Exile because of grammatical and punctuation errors in the above-linked
Russian -English statement, although the Russian Ministry of Defence did spell "defence"
correctly! :-)]
"We congratulate the defenders of the Ukraine. Thank them for their self-sacrifice and for
taking risks every day", she says in an East Slav dialect, noting that during their visit to
the Ukraine, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Bigan and US Secretary of State Michael
Pompeo had visited memorials to fallen soldiers, "because it was these soldiers who had
sacrificed themselves to help protect the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Ukraine".
"The USA is and will be your indestructible partner", emphasized the Colonel Stewart.
"... Well, according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed before Donald Trump took office. ..."
"... Of course, this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the 2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop corruption allegations. ..."
"... You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"? ..."
Always
glowing in her Schiff-protected bubble of virtue-signaling safety, former Ukraine
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told Congress that she knew little about Burisma Holdings and the
long-running corruption probe against the company now so infamously linked to Joe Biden's son
Hunter, specifically testifying under oath, "It just wasn't a big deal."
Well,
according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in
Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials
around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed
before Donald Trump took office.
Then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's concerns were first raised in a Ukrainian news story
about a Russian-backed fugitive lawmaker in Ukraine, who alleged Burisma had dumped
low-priced natural gas into the market for officials near Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko to buy low and sell high, making a bribe disguised as a profit.
The scheme was confirmed by U.S. officials before Yovanovitch alerted the top State
official for Ukraine and Russia policy in Washington at the time, Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland, the memos show.
"There are accusations that Burisma allegedly had a subsidiary dump natural gas as a way
to pay bribes," Yovanovitch wrote Nuland on Dec. 29, 2016, noting the story "mentions that
Hunter Biden and former Polish President Kwasniewski are on the Burisma Board."
The alert was the second in two years in which the embassy alleged Burisma had paid a
bribe while Vice President Joe Biden's son served on its board.
Back in February 2015, then-embassy official George Kent reported to the U.S. Justice
Department evidence that Burisma had made a $7 million cash bribe to Ukrainian prosecutors
before those prosecutors killed a separate corruption probe in the United Kingdom by
failing to produce required evidence.
This was after Trump's election win and just 22 days before President Obama left office.
Of course,
this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma
conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the
2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop
corruption allegations.
You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was
implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"?
Tymoshenko was both treated in Banderastan by doctors from "Charité" and at the
"Charité" itself.
06.06.2012 00:39 Бассейна
не хватает
Немецкий врач
подробно
рассказала
нашему
корреспонденту
о состоянии
Юлии
Тимошенко
No swimming pool
A German doctor has told our correspondent in detail about the condition of Yulia
Tymoshenko
An RG correspondent has met a doctor from the "Charité" hospital department
"Physiotherapeutic Medicine and Rehabilitation", Dr. Annette Reizhauer, who has just returned
from Kharkov, where she was engaged in the examination and treatment of former Prime Minister
of the Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko.
-- Dr. Reishauer, is Yulia Tymoshenko really so seriously ill that the best specialists
in the world should be treating her?
-- Reishauer: There is no doubt that Ms. Tymoshenko is seriously ill. On October 5,
2011, she had an intervertebral hernia with compression of the third spinal nerve ending on
the right in the hip region, which causes severe pain and is the cause of paralysis. On
November 5, an acute deterioration was reported, which led to chronic pain syndrome,
secondary musculoskeletal lesions and muscular atrophy. Therefore, every effort should be
made to treat this disease in accordance with existing standards .
And so on und so weiter.
-- RG: is it possible to carry out physiotherapy treatment?
-- Reishauer: Of course. This is urgently needed. After a long time of immobility, a
decrease in muscle mass has been recorded.
-- Did you perform physiotherapy in Kharkov or just made a diagnosis?
-- Reishauer: Both. To be treated, you must first make a diagnosis.
-- Did you do it?
-- Reishauer: Naturally, when I was in Kharkov.
-- How long did you spend there?
-- Reishauer: One week.
-- Where did you live?
-- Reishauer: In a hotel.
-- Who paid for your accommodation? Relatives of Mrs. Tymoshenko, hospital or someone
else?
-- Reishauer: The chairman of the board of our hospital, Professor Karl Max Einhoipl,
agreed with her relatives that they will take care of the treatment and other costs.
-- How much does Yulia Tymoshenko's treatment cost?
-- Reishauer: I can't say that now. I was in Kharkov as part of my work at
Charité, so the hospital with my relatives will discuss this, not me.
-- What kind of treatment does Yulia Tymoshenko receive?
-- Reishauer: We cannot publicly announce the plans. We agreed on this in advance.
There was a very difficult situation in the Ukraine when my colleague visited there for the
first time. The treatment plans were published against our wishes in the newspapers. This is
absolutely unacceptable. However, I can say that the share of passive therapeutic measures
will be reduced in favour of active ones. This is so that Ms. Tymoshenko can move more and
more actively.
-- To swim, for example?
-- Reishauer: Unfortunately, swimming is not possible. There is no swimming
pool.
Ukraine's former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko has started medical treatment in
Germany. She suffers from a chronic back ailment linked to injuries she sustained while in
prison on controversial corruption charges.
Tymoshenko received a thorough examination in Berlin's Charite hospital on Saturday, a
day after arriving in the German capital.
Hospital chairman Karl Max Einhaeupl said doctors would decide on Monday whether the
53-year-old needed an operation for back pain resulting from three slipped disks she suffered
more than two years ago.
He added that doctors were currently unsure how long treatment would take, but are
positive Tymosenko [sic] would ultimately be able to move around again
unassisted.
Although she was not suffering any paralysis, the former prime minister is said only to
be able to walk using a walker, but it caused her great pain.
Tymoshenko was released from prison in Ukraine last month following the uprising that
ousted President Viktor Yanukovych. Since then, she has only been seen in public in a
wheelchair.
She is now considered a contender for Ukraine's presidential election on May
25.
Treatment offer denied
Tymoshenko reportedly suffered several injuries while serving more than two years in
prison on charges of corruption, which Western leaders said were politically motivated.
Ukraine refused to grant Tymoshenko the right to travel to Germany for treatment during
her incarceration. She also turned down an operation and injections, saying she did not trust
the former Ukrainian authorities
Einhaeupl said doctors from the Charite clinic, who visited her in prison, found their
hands "were tied severely in treatment."
Vee haf vays off mekking you feel besser, mein Liebchen!
Lying bitch speaking to her fans at the Maidan following her release from prison. Note the
orthopaedic shoes she is wearing.
And she rolled around for a bit in her martyr's wheelchair after getting out of the
slammer – where, strangely enough, Amnesty International found the charges against her
were 'politically motivated even as all agreed the contracts she signed on Ukraine's behalf
with Russia were a license for the latter to rob the former – but it is very likely her
'treatment' was driven more than anything else by a desire to get back into those
fuck-me-sailor heels and be 'cured' enough to parade around in them. Barring a
loaves-and-fishes Miracle Of Jesus, the best way to be out of that chair and on her pins was
to have some restorative treatment in a foreign hospital. It was not long at all before she
was, thanks to wonderful German treatment, able to swagger about as before.
She was released from prison in 2014, following the capitulation of Yanukovych to the
forces of the Glorious Maidan, in 2014. Even while she was still incarcerated, Ukrainian
doctors said she did not need to be hospitalized while German doctors argued that she did. I
know from years in the Navy – and from some people repeatedly missing deployments
because of back problems – that it is perfectly possible to convince doctors that you
suffer excruciating back pain although they can find no physical cause, and I don't doubt
sometimes it is true. But doctors do not like to mess around with the back, and tend to
believe the patient when they scream that 'that hurts'. I suspect they are even more likely
to believe there was a serious problem when you praise their medical skill and claim that
their treatment has done wonders.
Tymoshenko entered hospital that same year, in March 2014, where her doctor claimed her
improved appearance was due to 'freedom' and that "Stress can impair the back muscles, which
in turn affects the spine". Which, to me, says they could not find any physical cause,
although all along Team Tymoshenko had claimed she suffered three slipped disks while in
prison.
I'm not sure at what moment she started walking again, you'd have to go back through
pictures by date, but a photo in this article shows her standing without any apparent aid in
2014, apparently casting her ballot in 2014 Ukrainian elections.
A miraculous recovery, indeed. This archived piece by the legendary John Helmer
contains a wealth of information about Tymoshenko's background and seemingly Teflon-coated
political career.
Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flohm, the American legal firm that produced a solid legal
argument – while commissioned to do so by the Ukrainian government under Yanukoych
– that Tymoshenko was a phony, something substantiated by Ukrainian media release of
secret video recordings made of Tymoshenko 'moving nimbly about her cell' while unaware
she was being recorded, was eventually beaten down and forced to apologize and pay Tymoshenko
compensation.
I suspect they did so knowing their political connections with the US government would be
severed if they did not, as they had attracted the personal spiteful attention of Victoria
Nuland.
MH17 looks like a flashback to KAL007 to me, the evil is always Russian and every
where!
KAL007 was shot down by Russians, after some thousand kilometres in high sensitive Russian
air space partially shadowed by RC-135 spy plane. Extremely devilish!
Of course there are NO operational BUK systems and NO fascists in the ATO zone in east
Ukraine! And a SU-24 can't fly higher then 6km! Believe me, it's in Wikipedia!
"... The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the UAF Yury Dumansky stated on the air of the " NewsOne " TV channel that Kiev is guided by the decisions of the US concerning the question of resolving the conflict in Donbass ..."
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard21:40:3211/04/2018ria.ru
The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the UAF Yury Dumansky stated on the air of the "
NewsOne " TV channel
that Kiev is guided by the decisions of the US concerning the question of resolving the
conflict in Donbass.
The demands of the President Petro Poroshenko concerning the deployment of UN peacekeepers
in the east of the country will directly be agreed with the special representative of the US
State Department for Ukraine Kurt Volker , stressed Dumansky.
"We are in the conditions of the negotiation process. Not we, Ukraine, but a third
external player who presents America – Volker – decides for us. And he solves the
problem with the Russian Federation at the level of negotiations," noted the
Lieutenant-General.
And it is only after, according to the military, that Poroshenko undertakes measures
coordinated with the US for the solving of the conflict in Donbass.
"And then the corresponding processes are launched -- what we observe directly -- the
president's trips to Turkey, Germany where one of the questions concerning solving this
conflict are being raised," noted Dumansky.
Kiev in April, 2014, started a military operation against the self-proclaimed LPR and the
DPR, which declared their independence after a coup d'etat in Ukraine.
The issue of solving the situation in Donbass is discussed also during contact group
meetings in Minsk, which since September, 2014, adopted already three documents regulating
steps to de-escalate the conflict. However, firefights between the parties of the conflict
still continue.
Now the Ukrainian authorities try to obtain the introduction of UN peacekeepers in the East
of Ukraine. According to Kiev, "blue helmets" should be deployed on all the territory of
Donbass up to the border with Russia.
Vladimir Putin supported the idea of sending a peacekeeping mission to the East of Ukraine.
However, according to him, their task includes only ensuring the security of OSCE staff, and
they have to be based on the contact line.
IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely
imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government
expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really?
Isn't the western alliance for all intents & purposes already dead?
It is a shame as it could work together to counter the totalitarian CCP. But Mama Merkel
it seems would rather get a few yuan from the communists and turn a blind eye to CCP
authoritarianism until it becomes obvious that the CCP are ruthless and will be competing
with Germany around the world for machine tools and autos by undercutting them on price and
heavily subsidizing their companies until German industry is destroyed.
I have heard of these elusive creatures called "Europeans", but have yet to meet one, so
am not able to comment on their alleged "smug superiority". How many divisions do they
have?
If anything drives the US and Europe apart, it will be trade, not security. Germany is
clearly chafing under the US bit, which sacrifices European industry to US interests --
sanctions on Nordstream 2, trade with Russia, trade with Iran, and China and Huawei. The US
clearly prioritizes it's own LNG , finance, technology and arms industries over European
prosperity. It amazes me that it has taken Europe so long to wake up.
Biden will do nothing to change that dynamic, since he is beholden to the same interests
as Trump.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? The Baltics and most
likely the Poles do with past history in mind. I would like to see them and the Ukrainians
transition into something like the Finns who acknowledge Russian power but maintain their
independence. Right now they are looking at NATO as their guarantee of independence in the
future. Who can blame them when looking at history.
The Trump admin's (and for that matter, Trump's own instincts) are and have continuously
been quite correct with regards to EU's defense expenditures agenda. The European 'humanists'
take advantage of the American defense umbrella inside their own countries so they can afford
to NOT spend on defense and instead spend more on domestic and economic development. So while
America continues to pay for the EU's defense it cannot afford to invest in its own domestic
programs (infrastructure, etc.) adequately. These Europeans then with the collaboration of
their Atlanticist fellows on the other side of the pond do nation-building and
democratization projects (call it endless wars) abroad, such as in Afghanistan. Just don't
ask them about their track record in this department.
However, the thing is when their immediate interests are in danger they forget about
America in a heartbeat. Examples, Germany's Nordstream pipeline with Russia, 5G
infrastructure and development, trade with China, Paris climate accord, etc.
I tend to believe that EU knows best how to make an existential threat out of Russia.
Anyone still remembers the novichok incident back in 2018? The thing with Russia is that from
the POV of EU, they view their Eastern neighbor as a solid and stable illiberal system that
is not within the ideological orbit of the western liberal democracy and thus they feel
threatened by that ideologically, NOT a scenario in which from Tallinn to Toulouse is invaded
and captured by Putin. In this endeavor they also have found willing partners in
'anti-authoritarian' hawks such as Bob Kagan, Hilary, Sam Power et.al that tow the same line
and advocate for NATO expansion and other similar projects.
The EU in definitely terrified of a scenario in which the U.S. (under a nationalist
conservative administration) starts de-funding NATO or withdraws its troops from Europe. In
this case they need to cut public spending and allocate more on defense which has a clear
impact on the 'democratic spirit' of EU's over-hyped social democracy.
In the past few years we have seen the rise of right-wing populsit nationalist parties in
pretty much every single major EU country. I believe there are strong tendencies in the Trump
admin-if DJT manages to stay in power for another 4 years- to do a little *something
something* about EU's decades-long nefarious free-riding of U.S. defense umbrella and I don't
think the effeminate EU leaders will gonna like it very much.
Barbara Ann - You say "I have heard of these elusive creatures called "Europeans", but
have yet to meet one, so am not able to comment on their alleged "smug superiority". How many
divisions do they have?"
The term "European" has become disputed territory. As an Englishman I regard myself fully
as "European" as any German or Frenchman but for many the term now seems to mean exclusively
"Member of the European Union". Tricky, that one.
Me, I prefer the term "Westerner". It takes in the so-called "Anglosphere" as well and
therefore covers all the ground without going into the fact that some parts have become
considerably less powerful over the last century and others considerably more. Also
accommodates without fuss the fact that the cultural centre of gravity, at some indeterminate
time in that last century, moved across from Paris, Vienna and Berlin to New York and parts
west.
Not always to your advantage, to you as an American that is, because a fair chunk of the
Frankfurt mob moved over your way with it. You caught from Old Europe the destructive and
vacuous tenets of "Progressivism" and are now sharing the disease in its full vigour with
us.
I mention that last because the violent TDS you see across the Atlantic isn't specifically
European. It's merely that it's natural for progressives to detest Trump or rather, not the
man himself but the "populist" forces he is taken to represent. It's garlic to the vampire
for the progressive, the Little House on the Prairie or its various European equivalents, and
the allergic reaction will become stronger yet. That "smug superiority" you will therefore
find in the States as readily as you will find it here. America or here we live on sufferance
in occupied territory, if we are not progressives ourselves, and should not the occupiers
always be superior and smug?
I went hunting for the Telegraph article the Colonel discusses above. I didn't like that
article at all. It gets the "freeloading" part right but in the context of a Russophobia
that's seemingly set in stone. And the Telegraph is not so much a progressive newspaper as
one that, while throwing a few token bones to its mainly Conservative readership, buys the
progressive Weltanschauung just as much as the Guardian or New York Times.
"How many divisions do they have?" A few more than the pope but maybe that's not
the point. I recently tried to follow the twists and turns of Mrs May's negotiations with the
EU as they related to defence. I got the impression that in the matter of defence the supply
of divisions could safely be left to the Americans. It was the allocation of defence
contracts that they were all concerned about.
Residing in Europe in the late 1960's at a US joint NATO military attachment in Northern
Italy, we mused were we there to keep our eye on the Russians, or in fact keep our eyes on
the Germans. One still saw in the back rooms, AXIS memorabilia.
As an aside: the only reason Michelle Obama chose as one of her FLOTUS projects - support
of military families -- was so she could get Uncle Sam to jet her around to all those US
military bases still in Europe for tea with the commander's wife and then on to her real
purpose - shopping and having fun with friends and families she was able to drag along. On
our dime.
My last visit to Europe found there are now more Turks, than former "Europeans; except in
France where they were more Algerians, than native French. And of course UK has long been
little more than the entrenched polyglot of their vast far flung Empire.
Indeed, who is a "European" today. Birth rate demographics from the former colonies, boat
people or import of cheap labor has now taken over anything we used to call "European". Can a
resident Turk really serve up a perfect plate of raclette in Switzerland? One word answer:
no. And that is a sad loss. One must instead shift their tastes to shwarma, if one wants
European food today.
In regard to Europeans--and perhaps some Australians whom I've met--I have often felt that
they in some ways did feel a bit superior to Americans.
Their sense of superiority, however, seemed more rooted in a sense of cultural
superiority. Those on the blog who viewed the comic rendition of the Three Little Pigs that
was recently posted here might think of that and its wonderful ending about the house that
was "American made." it was a wonderful ending for that well-known tale and a great defense
of our culture's current limited and plain vocabulary in some groups.
As an English major and English teacher, so much of the great literature that we taught
did come from England. I took three Comps when I earned my Masters: English literature from
Beowulf (which I read in Old English) to Chaucer's Catterbury Tales (which I read in Middle
English) and then to Virginia Woolf.
For my comp in American literature, I read from Washington Irving to the modern American
writers at the time I was in college.
My third comp was in Modern Linguistic Theory.
Of course we taught Shakespeare and Dickens---English writers--to our junior high and high
school classes. We studied mostly American writers in regard to short stories, as short
stories are considered the American genre. Our teaching of poetry covered both English and
American poets. As far as novels go, we taught both English and American novels.
Russian and German novelists were also on our list of reading for our comps. (We read them
in English translation.)
In summary, American culture was often overshadowed by the many longer centureies of
European culture in much of my college career.
What the Europeans can't deny, though they may want to, is that the tehcology and
innovation in things like automobile production, electricity, telephones, and into space
expoloration ---many things like that--is where we can indeed be quite proud.
They can continue to feel culturally superior to us if it makes them feel better. I defy
them, however, to minimize our importance in World War II.
A European was understood, in Iran, to be a Christian. A Turk in Germany or and Algerian
in France is just that, a Turk, an Algerian, i.e. another Muslim.
There are professional and managerial middle class French Muslims in Paris and elsewhere,
but are they French? I do not know how assimilated they are.
" he will follow some Trump-era objectives, because that is what American interests
demand, thus showing that Trump was no extremist on China."
So if Biden and Trump both want something, that shows that it isn't extreme. How does that
work again?
The drive for confrontation with Russia contradicts Europe's desire to do buisness with her.
Hence the end of the Western Alliance.
"The US faces a rapidly escalating political crisis. The losing party in November will
undoubtedly go to the federal courts to claim that their opponents cheated in the
process."
They all went along with electronic voting and postal ballots. Now they're all going to
complain about the consequences.
Of course NATO should have disappeared together with the Berlin Wall, but it is alive,
kicking and ever looking for trouble, Belarus comes to mind.
The problem with propaganda is that the emitter ends up believing it, Europe does not need
any protection, we have the means to protect ourselves.
The US is an occupation force, and on top of it demands payment for it. Pick up your gear and
go home, and by the way, Europe should worry about countries armed to their teeth by the US,
I'm thinking about Morocco for instance, since I live in Spain. The beautiful line of the
Sierra that I contemplate every morning while stretching has been contaminated with a radar
station of the Aegis system, and that means we in our quite and beautiful Andalusian town are
a target for the biggies. Stop believing your propaganda, pick up your gear and let everybody
take care of themselves, the benefits will be for the US population in the first place, and
the world will rejoice.
The reason German military contribution to the "western alliance" is what it is is very
simple.
It is according to the incentives that threats that German leadership perceives.
First: Objective strategic things:
Essentially, noone is going to invade Germany. This removes one major reason to have a large
army. Secondly, Germany is not going to productively (in terms of return of investment)
invade anyone else. This removes the second major reason to have a large army. There is
something to be said to have a cadre army that can be surged into a real army if conditions
change.
Second: Incentives of German political leaders.
While the degree of German vassal stateness concerning the USA is up to a degree of debate,
that the USA has a lot of influence over Germany is in my view not. Schröder got elite
regime changed over his Iraq war opposition (it was amazing that literally all the newspaper
were against him, had a big impact on me growing up during this time).
Essentially, if you are in Nato, at some point, Uncle Sam will invite you to some adventure.
If you say yes to this adventure you commit your armed forces to some confrontation in the
middle east if you are lucky, or against Russia in Eastern Europe if you are unlucky. Your
population is not going to like this, and you may face losing elections over this. It is also
expensive in terms of life and material (although not very expensive compared to actual wars
against competent enemies).
If you say no, Uncle Sam will be displeased with you and will make this known for example by
sicking the entire "Transatlantic leadership networks" on you, which can also make you lose
the next election.
Essentially, if Uncle Sam comes asking, you lose the next election if you say yes, and you
also lose if you say no. Saying no is on balance cheaper, because you dont incurr the
financial and human costs of joing a random US adventure on top of the risk of losing the
next election.
The winning play is to get your army in such a state that Uncle Sam will not even ask.
Germany basically did create condition that enabled this.
Its a reasonably happy state for Germany to be in.
We are basically doing Brave Soldier Schweijk on the national level.
Solutions from a US pov:
1: Do less military adventures. If you do less adventures, people will fear being
shanghaied along less. This will decrease the drawbacks associated with having a reasonable
military as a Nato state.
2: Dont soft regime change governments that say no to your foreign adventures. Instead,
maybe listen to them. Had the US listend to French and German criticism regarding the wisdom
of going to war with Iraq, the US and also a lot of others would have been much better
off.
3: Make it clear that particpation in foreign adventures is actually voluntary instead of
"voluntary", make also clear that participation in defensive operations is not voluntary and
is what Nato was created for and that you expect a considerable contribution towards this.
Also, do some actual exercises. For example, if Germany claims that its military expenditure
is sufficient, stress test this premise by having a realistic exercise in which a German
divisions goes up against an American one. Yes, do some division size exercizes pretty
please. Heck, after ensuring that this exercize wont be a failfest, have some Indian be the
referee.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. My jest about never having met a European
was of course designed to illustrate that "Europe" is a secondary construct. Never has a
person, upon meeting me, introduced themselves as a "European".
Europe is a moveable feast and even territorial definitions are slippery. "Europeans" I
think, must be characterized by short memories, for was it not less than 25 years ago that
European NATO planes bombed their fellow Europeans in Bosnia? It can't have been an accident
either, as I understand the op. was called "Operation Deliberate Force".
If Europe is synonymous with the EU it has precisely zero divisions and though you
yourself may remain "Western", you are as a consequence of Brexit no longer "European". No, I
think you and Polish Janitor are close by identifying "European" as a progressive/liberal,
democratic (read "globalist") value system. An insufficiency of "European-ness" can thus be
used to justify NATO involvement across various geographies - from Bosnia to Afghanistan
(& shortly Belarus?).
But of course the "European" members of NATO are hardly on the same page. It looks not at
all unlikely that two of its members may go to war in the Eastern Mediterranean.
I agree with you re the Telegraph article btw. "European" smugness is well represented in
that organ.
No. They did NOT all go along with "electronic voting and postal ballots." The 50 states
each run federal elections in any way they please. The US Constitution requires that. There
are a wide variety of voting machines in use and only a few states use mailed in ballots. the
Republican Party particularly opposes mail in voting.
You should be complaining to the politicians you elect. They're the ones requesting US
military protection. Prior to Trump, our governments were quite happy to provide that
protection. He's now asking for some cost sharing.
Be careful though, before you know it Spain could become a vassal of the Chinese
communists as many countries in Africa are finding out now. Hopefully you can continue to
extract euros from the Germans and Dutch while battling the separatists in Catalonia. There's
a thin veneer between stability & strife.
Paco, with a huge cost of lives and treasure the US was twice asked to clean up Europe's
self-inflicted messes in the past century. Promise you won't call on us again, and we can
talk. I know, past is not necessarily prologue but do at least meet us half way. It is only
good manners.
Barbara Ann - Lots of Europes of course. "My" Europe may no longer be on the active list.
Traces here and there. Few green shoots that are visible to me. Many rank growths overlaying
it.
Also many "European Unions". They exist all right, in uneasy company.
So many "EU's". A ramshackle Northern European trading empire - I think that's too
unstable to be long for this world but I could be wrong. A nascent superpower, that denied by
many but for some their central aim.
A bureaucratic growth. A handy market place for all. A Holocaust memorial centre; when the
EU politicians find themselves in a tight spot they can always call on Auschwitz and all fall
back in line. I saw Mrs Merkel pull that trick at the last but one Munich Security Conference
and all there, because Mrs Merkel was at that time in a very tight spot, applauded with
relief.
A Progressive Shangri-La, all the more enticing for never being defined. Those adherents
of that "EU" do actually call themselves "EU citizens" and I see the term is becoming more
common usage. Maybe those are the self proclaimed "European citizens" you have not met.
And the producer of reams of lifeless prescription that seek to force all into the same
mould and tough on the poor devils who can't fit the model. And on their families.
Lots of "EU's". I like none of them. While we wait for that edifice of delusion to
collapse I hope the damage it does to "My" Europe is not irreparable.
@ Diana Croissant: "They can continue to feel culturally superior to us if it makes
them feel better. I defy them, however, to minimize our importance in World War II."
Jack, with all due respect, the politician who committed treason and gave away Spanish
territory for a foreign power to install bases died in 1975, nobody voted for him, general
Franco, an ally of Hitler, someone who sent over 50k troops to the siege of Leningrad, one of
the greatest crimes in the history of mankind, a million casualties, mainly civilians, dead
by hunger and disease, that fascist ally of Hitler we had to endure for 40 years, the price
to close your eyes and your nose not to smell the stench were bases, an occupying force
watching one of the strategic straights in Rota, close to Gibraltar, plus other bases inland.
I could go on, and remind you of 4H bombs dropped over Palomares after a broken arrow
incident, one of them broke and plutonium is still poisoning an area that your government is
not willing to clean. So that is what foreign occupation looks like, if something goes wrong,
well, we are protecting you . they say. History should be taught with a bit more detail in
the USA.
I'm afraid you're reading the dynamics of the European/US relationship quite incorrectly.
Bluntly, you have the facts wrong.
This site, and particularly the Colonel's committee of correspondence, is packed with
experts who have lived in this field and know their way around it. So I don't venture a
comprehensive rebuttal myself - my knowledge is partial and I do not have the background to
be sure of getting it dead right. But here -
"Essentially, if you are in Nato, at some point, Uncle Sam will invite you to some
adventure. If you say yes to this adventure you commit your armed forces to some
confrontation in the middle east if you are lucky, or against Russia in Eastern Europe if you
are unlucky."
That is transparent nonsense.
Obama has stated that it was the Europeans, including the UK, who pushed him into some
middle East interventions. I don't think he was shooting a line. The leaked Blumenthal emails
confirm that and we merely have to look at the thrust of French military actions to
understand that the French in particular push continually for intervention in the ME.
They are still doing so, and not for R2P purposes. They would see the ME and parts of
Africa as part of the EU sphere of influence and their initial reaction to Trump's abortive
attempt to withdraw from Syria shows they would be more than prepared to go it alone there if
they could.
A squalid bunch, and here I must include my own country in that verdict. Reliant on US
logistics and military strength they seek to pursue their own interests and could they but do
so they would do so unassisted. Don't pretend that it's the Americans who force them into
these genocidal adventures.
As for the Ukraine, we see from Sakwa's unflattering study of the EU adventure there that
that was building up well before 2014. The dramatic rejection of the EU deal was the prelude
to the coup. The Ashton tape shows an astonishing degree of EU intervention in Ukrainian
internal affairs before that coup. And from the Nuland tape we get a glimpse of the EU regime
change project that shows it was deeply implicated.
Pushed into the Ukrainian adventure by the US? Rubbish. The EU and its constituent members
were attempting to play their own hand and were not merely following the US lead
submissively.
We hear little of European neocon ventures. But what little has surfaced about them shows
that your picture of peace loving Europeans dragged into these conflicts by an overbearing
"Uncle Sam" is dishonest and misleading.
So I tell my German friends and relatives when they push the same line. They look at me
with disbelief and go off and hunt around the internet themselves. And then come back and do
not disagree. I suggest you do the same. The facts are all there, even for those of us
without inside knowledge or who lack the requisite background.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
USA's shift to the Western Pacific (Australia) is taking shape. This withdrawal of
American troops and personnel from Germany points to the direction of European long-term
decline in importance, as it seems the USA is opting for a more aggressive, less in-depth
model against the Russian Federation. Either it believes the Russian Federation will fall
soon (after Putin's death) or it is giving up Europe altogether. Both scenarios imply in
Germany's (the EU) decline.
On July 21 st , Ukrainian businessman and politician David Zhvania revealed some
open secrets of the Ukrainian politics, including crimes that former Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko had carried out. The irony of the situation is that Zhvania was, at one point, the
leader of Poroshenko's campaign headquarters.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JChtKpaulOs
He said that Euromaidan was ruled by criminal groups led by the people who were leading the
parties that came into power following the coup – the BPP (Bloc of Petro Poroshenko) and
the National Front.
He also said that he had participated in giving multimillion-dollar bribes to European
officials in exchange for their support to Poroshenko's election as president.
The former member of Ukrainian parliament, in his video message, said that Ukraine is
threatened with a new coming to power of Poroshenko.
"A creeping revenge is taking place in the country – Zelensky's rating falls, and
Poroshenko and his entourage are again striving for power. I cannot look at it calmly, so I
decided to give this press conference. Warn the citizens of Ukraine not to make a mistake. Tell
everyone. who is Poroshenko and his entourage.
This is a criminal group that from the very beginning participated in the Maidan solely for
the sake of seizing power and personal enrichment," Zhvania said.
He said that following the 2014 Maidan, an organized criminal group took power in Ukraine,
and he admitted that he was part of it.
According to Zhvania, it was this criminal group that financed the protests and thwarted any
options for agreements with the authorities (the Yanukovich government), which were designed to
avoid escalation.
"I was also a member of the organized criminal group, which seized power in 2014 on the wave
of popular protests. We financed the Maidan, we fueled protest moods in the media, thwarted the
government's peace initiatives, conducted separate negotiations with deputies of the Party of
Regions, and negotiated with foreign embassies.
The organized criminal group included Martynenko, Poroshenko, Turchynov, Yatsenyuk,
Klitschko. Each of whom has attached its own group. Turchinov, for example, brought Pashinsky
and Parubiy," Zhvania said and added that he was ready to testify on this matter.
After the coup victory, Zhvania's group engaged in political corruption to secure the
presidency for Poroshenko.
"I and Klimkin (note: Klimkin later became the foreign minister) directly participated in
the transfer of 5 million euros through the Ukrainian Embassy in Germany for one high-ranking
European official at that time in order to ensure support for Poroshenko as a candidate for the
presidency of Ukraine from the EU. I am ready to provide the circumstances of this to the
investigating authorities," Zhvania claimed.
In his opinion, Poroshenko became president as a result of the consensus of the oligarchs.
And he took on certain obligations to them, which in most cases he carried out.
According to Zhvania, during his tenure as president, Poroshenko acquired approximately $3.4
billion in bribes.
The former politician hoped that President Zelensky "will have enough political will to
bring the case of Poroshenko and his entourage to an end."
"Poroshenko today, on the eve of local elections, may try to run for mayor. Before Maidan,
it was his dream – he humiliatingly begged Yanukovych for the right to run for mayor of
Kiev, was ready to give a bribe for this. Yanukovych did not allow, and Poroshenko did not dare
to disobey," Zhvania said and promised to reveal more in the following weeks.
The Euromaidan in 2014 was not a spontaneous protest, but was financed by political
circles to overthrow Yanukovych.
Any peace initiatives were thwarted by a group that included Martynenko, Poroshenko,
Turchynov, Yatsenyuk and Klitschko.
Zhvania and Klimkin gave 5 million euros in bribes to a European official to lobby for
Poroshenko's interests as a presidential candidate in 2014.
David Zhvania is a well-known Ukrainian businessman from Georgia. Long-term business partner
of the deputy of several iterations of Parliament Nikolay Martynenko.
Zhvania was also a member in four different Ukrainian parliament configurations. In 2004, he
was an ally of Yushchenko, was a member of the Our Ukraine bloc, and took part in the Orange
Revolution. In 2005, he served as Minister of Emergency Situations in the government of Yulia
Tymoshenko.
In 2006 he went to the Verkhovna Rada from "Our Ukraine" and Yushchenko, but he had a
falling out with him.
In 2010, he became friends with the Yanukovych team.
In the 2012 elections, he entered parliament as a self-nominated and non-partisan candidate
in 140 constituencies. He was a member of the Party of Regions faction, but left it in 2013
when the Revolution of Dignity began.
In the 2014 elections, he was one of the heads of the electoral headquarters of the Petro
Poroshenko Bloc. People's Deputy Aleksandr Onishchenko stated that he transferred money to
Zhvania for a seat in the parliament of the 8th convocation.
Dominic Raab @DominicRaab
· Jul 17 Today, we remember
that 6 years ago flight #MH17 was shot down & 298
people tragically lost their lives, including 10 citizens. We support
the ongoing trial in the Netherlands to deliver justice for those who died & for their
loved ones, and call on Russia to cooperate fully
And Russia does not try to cooperate fully?
Is Russia even allowed to cooperate?
The Ukraine is allowed to cooperate, of course, and not only cooperate: the Ukraine is
part of the "Joint Investigative Team"!
The Ukraine even provides "evidence" of Russian culpability!
And of course, according to the mendacious Raab, the purpose of the "trial" is to deliver
"justice for those who died and their loved ones" and certainly not to apportion blame on
Russia and the so-called terrorists in eastern Ukraine, whom Russia supports by, amongst
other things, having dispatched a Buk ground-to-air anti-aircraft missile launching complex
from Russia to the Ukraine, which weaponry was part of the Russian armed forces and manned by
Russian servicemen, then ferreted said system out of the Ukraine back to Russia, mission
having been accomplished, namely the downing of a civilian airliner that, for some reason or
other, had been diverted by Ukraine air-traffic control over a war zone in the Ukraine and on
a day when all Ukraine air-traffic radars were, for some inexplicable reason, out of
action.
Raab, to partly quote one of your fellow British cabinet ministers and erstwhile foreign
minister: "You should go away and shut up!"
The Flight Safety Foundation has begun an investigation into why Kiev did not close the
airspace over the warzone in eastern Ukraine where MH17 was destroyed in July 2014, a Dutch
foreign ministry spokesperson has confirmed to Sputnik.
The US embassy in Ottawa boasted in a March 2017 memo, "Canada Adopts 'America First'
Foreign Policy," just after PM Trudeau appointed hard-line hawk Chrystia Freeland as foreign
minister.
The US State Department boasted in a declassified memo in March 2017 that Canada had adopted
an "America first" foreign policy.
The cable was authored just weeks after the centrist government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau appointed Chrystia Freeland as foreign minister. The former editor of the major
international news agency Reuters, Freeland has pushed for aggressive policies against states
targeted by Washington for regime change, including Venezuela, Russia, Nicaragua, Syria, and
Iran.
The State Department added that Trudeau had promoted Freeland "in large part because of her
strong U.S. contacts," and that her "number one priority" was working closely with
Washington.
Under Freeland, the granddaughter of a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist, Canada has strongly
campaigned against Russia, strengthened its ties with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and played a key
role in the US-led right-wing coup attempt in Venezuela.
The memo offers the most concrete evidence to date that the United States sees Ottawa as an
imperial subject and considers Canadian foreign policy as subordinate to its own.
Canada
'Prioritizing U.S. Relations, ASAP'
On March 6, 2017, the US embassy in Canada's capital of Ottawa sent a routine dispatch to
Washington entitled "Canada Adopts 'America First' Foreign Policy."
Almost all of the now declassified document is redacted. But it includes several pieces of
revealing information.
The cable notes that the Canadian government would be "Prioritizing U.S. Relations, ASAP."
It also says to "Expect lncreased Engagement."
The only section that is not redacted notes that the Trudeau administration "upgraded
Canada's approach to the bilateral relationship."
"PM Trudeau promoted former Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland to Foreign
Minister in large part because of her strong U.S. contacts, many developed before she entered
politics," the cable says.
"Her mandate letter from the PM listed her number one priority as maintaining 'constructive
relations' with the United States," the memo continues.
"Trudeau then added to her responsibilities for U.S. affairs, giving her responsibility for
U.S.-Canada trade, an unprecedented move in the Canadian context," the State Department
wrote.
Chrystia Freeland's 'key role' in Venezuela coup attempt
Foreign Minister Freeland has worked closely with the US government to advance its
belligerent policies, especially those that target independent and leftist governments that
refuse to submit to Washington's diktat.
Under Freeland's leadership, Canada took the lead in the plot to destabilize Venezuela this
January. The Associated Press reported on how
Ottawa joined Washington and right-wing Latin American governments in carefully planning the
putsch.
Two weeks before coup leader Juan Guaidó declared himself "interim president,"
Freeland personally called him to "congratulate him on unifying opposition forces in
Venezuela."
The AP reported: "Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose
Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro's searing-in
ceremony to offer her government's support should he confront the socialist leader."
In 2017, Freeland helped to establish the Lima Group, an alliance of Canada and right-wing
governments in Latin America that coalesced to push regime change in Venezuela. Because the US
is not a member, Freeland has ensured that the Lima Group will act in Washington's interests
and advance North American imperial power in the region.
Canada's former ambassador to Venezuela, Ben Rowswell, criticized the coup-plotting to the
newspaper The Globe and Mail. "It's an unusual move for any country to comment on who the
president of another country should be," he said, "to have countries that represent two-thirds
of the population of Latin America do it in minutes shows there was a remarkable alignment
that's got to be nearly unprecedented in the history of Latin America."
Trudeau and Freeland have repeatedly called for the overthrow of the elected Venezuelan
President Nicolás Maduro.
Chrystia Freeland strongly supports sanctions against Western enemies and is a vocal
advocate of unilaterally seizing the assets of foreign leaders deemed by Washington to be
"dictators."
She has pushed this "America first" foreign policy especially hard in Latin America and the
Middle East.
Canada has also followed the US in expanding the economic attack against Syria, part of a
renewed effort to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad. Weeks after Freeland was
promoted, Ottawa pushed through a
new round of sanctions against Damascus .
Freeland has also joined Washington in its campaign to suffocate Iran. The Canadian foreign
minister has refused to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran.
At the same time, Freeland strengthened ties with the far-right government of Benjamin
Netanyahu, pledging Canada's "ironclad" support
for Israel .
Nazi propagandist's granddaughter
In Canada, Chrystia Freeland is perhaps best known for her anti-Russia campaigning. She has
expressed her country's "unwavering" support for Ukraine and boasted that she is "ready to
impose costs on Russia." The Trudeau administration has imposed several rounds of
harsh sanctions on Russia .
While she has staunchly supported Ukraine, Freeland obscured the fact that she was the
granddaughter of a fascist Ukrainian Nazi collaborator who edited a propaganda newspaper that
was founded and overseen by Nazi Germany. Shockingly, the paper was founded after the Nazi
regime stole the publication's presses and offices from a Jewish publisher, whom it then killed
in a death camp.
From the heights of journalism to electoral politics
Before entering formal politics as a member of Canada's centrist Liberal Party in 2013,
Chrystia Freeland spent decades in journalism. She worked for major American, British, and
Canadian corporate media outlets.
After years shaping Western news coverage inside Ukraine and Russia, Freeland was promoted
in 2010 to her highest position of all:
global editor-at-large of Reuters , a major international news agency that has vast global
influence.
Freeland cut her teeth doing anti-Russia reporting for the corporate press. She won awards
for her puff pieces on the anti-Putin oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
In 2000, Freeland published a book, titled "Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of the
Second Russian Revolution." The book's blurb notes that it documents "the country's dramatic,
wrenching transition from communist central planning to a market economy," praising "Russia's
capitalist revolution."
This was after Russia was looted by oligarchs empowered by Washington, and following the
excess deaths of 3 to 5 million of its most vulnerable citizens due to the US-orchestrated
demolition of the country's social welfare state.
More pro-US operatives in Canada's
Trudeau government
The declassified State Department cable also touts several other appointees in the
government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as key US proxies.
The Canadian government selected a retired lieutenant general, Andrew Leslie, who the memo
notes "has extensive ties to U.S. military leaders from his tours in Afghanistan," as a
parliamentary secretary at Global Affairs Canada, giving him "responsibility for relations with
the United States."
"PM Trudeau also elevated Transport Minister Mare Garneau -- who also brings strong U.S.
ties from a career as an astronaut and nine years in Houston -- to head the Canada-U.S. Cabinet
Committee," the document adds.
The Trudeau government took what the State Department happily noted was an "unprecedented"
decision to hold weekly meetings of the Canada-US Cabinet Committee, "even without a formal
agenda, as ministers engage in freewheeling discussions of strategy and share information, in
addition to making policy decisions."
Prime Minister Trudeau campaigned on a progressive platform, but has continued governing
Canada with many of the same center-right, neoliberal policies of previous administrations. He
has almost without exception followed the US lead on major foreign-policy decisions, while
aggressively building fossil-fuel pipelines at home.
Because Trudeau is from Canada's centrist Liberal Party and has to maintain a veneer of
resistance against the far-right US president, the State Department memo notes that Ottawa's
former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney serves as "Trudeau's 'Trump
Whisperer.'"
Totally ignored by media
This US State Department cable was first uncovered and publicized by the Communist
Party of Canada on July 2.
The memo, which was drafted by Nathan Doyel, a political officer at the embassy at the time,
was declassified and published on May 31, 2019, in response to a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request.
It can be clearly seen on the
US State Department website , with the subject line "CANADA ADOPTS 'AMERICA FIRST' FOREIGN
POLICY."
No media outlets have reported on this cable. Indeed, its discovery has been entirely
ignored by the North American press corps.
Commenting on the document, the Canadian communist party wrote on social media , "If a formerly classified
internal memo came out from the Russian or Chinese foreign ministry titled CANADA ADOPTS RUSSIA
FIRST FOREIGN POLICY or CANADA ADOPTS CHINA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY, would the Canadian media be
interested in that story?"
The party added, "In light of repeated insistence by the federal government that Canadians
can expect foreign interference in elections and institutions, does such a memo merit further
investigation by the Canadian media?"
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
"This isn't just parallel litigation, which the ECHR has already refused to allow,"
commented a London legal expert. "It's a vote of no confidence in the Dutch prosecutors to
secure convictions in the murder case they are trying to make."
Rutte and his foreign minister, Stephanus Blok, made their move on July 10 with press
releases and tweets; there has been no release of the legal papers. The ECHR has yet to
record their lawsuit
####
Well we're not surprised! Rutte seems quite adept at autof/kery.
The Russian Foreign Ministry welcomed the formation in Malaysia of its own position on
the collapse of MH17 The department noted that in the West this tragedy has been portrayed one-sidedly and
biased.
July 2, 2020
<bMOSCOW, July 2. / TASS /. The publication of a book written by Mahajir Ibrahim on the
causes of the downing of flight MH17 indicates the formation of a position in Malaysian
society on this tragedy. This was announced on Thursday at a briefing by the official
representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova.
"The appearance of the book testifies to the increasing desire of the Malaysians to
form their own opinion about what happened. We believe that the latter is especially
important, given how the tragedy has been covered in a one-sided and biased manner in the
West", she said.
As noted by Zakharova, in the book, the author pays special attention to various
versions of the airliner crash as well as to motives, "including not always obvious ones
which concern one or another country involved in the crash investigation. For example, the
United States, as the author claims, has used tragedy to justify the need for new sanctions
against Russia", the diplomat said.
Суд одобрил
повторный
запрос у США
снимков с места
крушения MH17
RT на русском, 3
июля 2020
Court has given approval for a re-request to the United States for images of the MH17
crash site
RT in Russian, July 3, 2020
The Netherlands court has called the proposal to re-appeal to the United States about
satellite images from the crash site of a Malaysian Boeing in eastern Ukraine in 2014
justified.
This was reported by RIA Novosti with reference to the presiding judge Hendrick
Steenheys.
According to him, interest in viewing satellite images and introducing them to the case
is obvious.
"The court notes that since the autumn of 2016, the prosecutor's office has not made
any attempts to verify whether these images can be made public as part of the criminal
process. A second request would be reasonable", said the judge.
It is noted that at past hearings, lawyers asked to make a second request to the United
States about satellite data that allegedly recorded the launch of a missile on Boeing flight
MH17.
Earlier, the Dutch prosecutor Theis Berger, said that the Ukraine had not provided
primary data from radars for the case concerning the downing of the Malaysian Boeing.
The Boeing 777, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed on July 17, 2014 in the
Donetsk region of the Ukraine, killing 283 passengers and 15 crew members.
A Dutch court has denied MH17 crash lawyers a second request for satellite data from
NATO. This was announced by the presiding judge Hendrick Steenhuis reports RIA
Novosti.
Earlier, on June 29, Dutch lawyer for the accused Oleg Pulatov, Baudewein van Eyck,
stated that NATO has not provided satellite data from the crash site. In this regard, he
asked the court to find out whether the North Atlantic Alliance has relevant records for the
eastern Ukraine zone on July 17, 2014. The court, in turn, recalled that it had already made
such a request and the response said that no data was recorded from the crash site of flight
MH17.
"We conclude that NATO does not have such data So the second request was rejected," the
judge explained at the July 3 hearing.
A Dutch court investigating the downing of MH17 has agreed to hear from Almaz-Antey, a
Russian arms manufacturer, which argues that the prevailing Western narrative – that
rebels in eastern Ukraine shot down the plane – is false.
The hearing in Badhoevedorp, Netherlands says it will explore alternative scenarios in
the high-profile trial, in which four anti-Kiev fighters stand accused of using a Russian
anti-aircraft missile to destroy the civilian plane, killing 283 passengers – mostly
Dutch – and 15 crew on board.
Crash site, crash site, crash site. We don't give a flip about the crash site; it has been
done to death. What Kerry claimed, and never, ever substantiated in any way whatsoever other
than non-stop allusion to having the information amongst its mountains of evidence, was that
the USA had remotely observed the taking of the shot, and had seen the where and the when of
its origin, and seen the very moment the airliner disappeared from radar. NOBODY CARES ABOUT
THE CRASH SITE. The dispute does not revolve around whether or not the aircraft crashed, or
where, but who shot it down and from where the shot originated. The USA claimed to know
– and be able to prove conclusively – both those things. It manifestly is not
going to do so no matter how many requests are floated, because if the Dutch thought there
was any hope of proving the case to that level of certainty, the prosecution would never have
embarked on its ridiculous strategy of 'conditional intent'.
I think it is at least possible if not probable that the USA did record something, or
bought it from Digital Globe and now is sitting on it. I personally think the USA knows full
well that Ukraine was probably or even definitely responsible, and is deliberately blocking
that discovery. It is at least possible that this trial is all about a verdict of 'Guess
we'll never know', so people will stop digging. But I'm sure they would still like a
conviction of some Russians if it looked like they could pull it off.
The entire trial, and indeed the investigation which preceded it, has been an attempt to
push a narrative in which first the investigators and then the officers of the court have
stated 'facts' which are not in evidence. On occasion persons have claimed to have seen the
evidence themselves, and satisfied themselves that it invites the conclusion they have
arrived upon, and have asked to be believed on the strength of their reputations because the
evidence cannot be made publicly available. Sometimes this has been difficult to grant
because no such reputation for veracity is present, and sometimes because the scenario the
missing evidence purports to tie together is so plainly ludicrous and/or biased toward or
away from certain conclusions that it is broadly unacceptable. Anyway, I think it is fair to
say that there is little we can claim we 'know'.
One think I believe we do 'know' is that if the United States had some slam-dunk evidence
which would prove east-Ukrainian militias shot down MH17, regardless by design or by mistake,
the United States would find a way to make that evidence available, and would have done so
long since. It is so clearly in its own interests to make this case, simultaneously removing
all doubt that its loyal ally – Ukraine – was not responsible, and so many
examples exist of the United States flinging aside its own rules when doing so served its
interests, that it is impossible to believe conclusive satellite evidence exists which proves
what they say it does, but modesty and concerns for national security prohibit showing it.
Similarly, if actual US government satellite data showed the movement of a single Buk TELAR
from Kursk to eastern Ukraine and back again at the time of the disaster, it would be in
every newspaper. Instead, we get limited hangouts and photoshops from Bellingcat, which has
turned out to be a nice little earner for Higgins and like-minded computer nerds.
I believe, but cannot prove yet, that an ATC is not allowed to assume control of an
aircraft in his/her airspace if no primary radar is available – something which has
long bothered me is Ukraine's cheeky assurance that it cannot supply any electronic data
because no primary radars were available, and the west's no-problem acceptance of this
excuse. If no primary radar is available, the ATC actually has no video contact with the
aircraft; Automatic Dependent Surveillance- Broadcast (ADS-B) consists of the aircraft
determining its own position relative to everything else, and broadcasting it to the ground.
The ATC must, armed with this information, provide guidance on altitude and course which will
not take the aircraft he/she is controlling too close to other aircraft operating in the same
airspace. There are rules on acceptable separation with/without primary radar, and obviously
when the ATC cannot see the aircraft on his/her own radar, greater separation is necessary
for safety. Other aircraft were operating in proximity, and there was speculation at the time
that one or more of them might have seen the flare from the explosion, but I forget now how
far away each was and am too lazy to look it up. Anyway, separation between aircraft in the
best conditions, when you have primary radar contact and can see raw video on your scope, and
secondary broadcast (because primary radar does not give identification or altitude) is five
miles ahead on the aircraft's course and three miles to each side.
ICAO PANS-ATM ( Doc.4444 , Chapter 8) details radar separation minima of five (5) and
three (3) nautical miles. These minima allow for a considerable increase in airspace
utilisation compared to procedural control. Changes to ICAO documents are about to be
published (2007) recognising ADS-B use to support 5 nautical mile separation standards.
ICAO's Separation & Airspace Safety Panel (SASP) is working on proposals to allow 3
nautical mile separation standards using ADS-B and also on the use of multilateration to
support both 3 and 5 nautical mile separation standards.
Early in the investigation of the incident, within a day or two, alert observers claimed
Ukraine had given MH17 an ordered course correction which took it directly over the DNR.
There was some talk about a altitude reduction as well, but I can't find any reference to
that now. There was immediate pushback from Ukraine's defenders, so,me saying the course
correction was just an urban legend and had never happened, some that MH17 had itself
requested a course change due to weather, etc Whatever the case, the information was expunged
from FlightRadar and other sites which provide it in the public domain, although there are
many screen captures of it as it appeared at the time – people have learned that
sensitive information has a way of vanishing from the internet as if it had never been.
Perhaps you can give course corrections to aircraft that you cannot see on radar, but it
would be an act of faith that their broadcast data is accurate, and you must observe proper
flight separation; the five-and-three rule applies to separation of aircraft that you can see
on radar. So what I am saying is that if MH17's separation from other flights did not exceed
five miles to the front and rear and three miles to either side, either the Ukrainian
controller had primary radar available and could see MH17, or else he/she was controlling in
violation of ICAO rules.
So, as to the satellite data which would reveal who shot down MH17, there are two
alternatives I can see; one, the USA has no such data, and John Kerry was full of shit as
usual, just grandstanding. Two, they do have such information, but it reveals a scenario
drastically different to the one in the official narrative. Whatever the case, if the USA
could prove beyond a doubt that Eastern-Ukrainian militia using a single Buk TELAR provided
by Russia shot down the aircraft from the vicinity of Schnizne, and then booked it back to
Russia with all reasonable dispatch, all the while firing off frantic radio messages to one
another, there is nothing which would stop them from providing it. People already have a
pretty good idea what is possible through satellite photography and analysis, what resolution
is achievable and how easy it is to interpret what is revealed, and it's pretty hard to
believe America is playing coy because it has unearthly technological capabilities which must
remain secret even if it means murderers go free.
I'm afraid I still think the Dutch have their minds made up, and have done from the first,
who is going to be awarded responsibility, and are now just going through the motions of
being scrupulously fair; they would not accept Russia's primary radar data or insisted it
shows nothing useful, supported the Ukrainian view that data held by Russia which shows the
missile the Ukies are exhibiting as the murder weapon was transferred to Ukraine many years
ago and never returned to Russia is forged or faked, ignored the impossibility of parts from
such a missile being found 'at the crash scene' or 'in the wreckage' because the missile
responsible would have exploded by proximity fuse without ever touching the airliner, except
for the shrapnel from the warhead – the missile parts would have fallen to earth miles
away, where the aircraft was hit and not where it landed. The premise of now exploring
'alternative scenarios' just looks like window-dressing to me, and I think it should be
regarded with the greatest suspicion.
The title of the linked article implies the Dutch will seek 'images of the crash site'
from the Americans. We have seen images of the crash site up the yingyang. What we need to
see is imagery of the missile shot being taken, and from where it originated plus any detail
visible of the system which fired it.
"Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between
Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev
has told Interfax news agency."
####
The link above of course doesn't work but this one from the 16:38.18 snapshot does (so
take a screenshot!):
15:29: Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between
Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev
has told Interfax news agency.
Ummm how does that square with reports that examination of the Cockpit Voice Recorder on
the downed flight revealed 'nothing useful'. and there being nothing on it – no audio
– for some four minutes (just guessing, I would have to look it up again, somewhere on
Helmer's site) following a routine positional update? What would be the point of confiscating
voice records of communications between the ATC and the aircraft from one end if they had a
recording in full from the other, the receiving end?
Unless, of course, there was something on it you felt you could safely remove, considering
no other record of it remained.
I believe the report of armed men seizing the ATC recordings was first offered by
'Carlos', the mystery ATC whose every appearance is greeted with yodels of joy by Matt, our
former Venezuela correspondent, who claims that Carlos was conclusively and irrefutably
proven not to exist, being a complete fabrication by Russia. So it's kind of complicated. The
only thing I could say about it at this point would be that if it actually was done by
Ukraine and was not a planned provocation but an accident, the speed and efficiency with
which the global PR apparatus swung into action was awe-inspiring. If it was planned and
executed by Ukraine, it was such a cold-blooded act that they would never live it down if it
were exposed. But how likely is it that either Ukraine or Russia accidentally shot it down,
and in only minutes, goons broke into the control tower and seized the recordings? If that
ever actually happened, it would be a critical piece of evidence arguing that the
shooting-down of MH17 was a carefully-planned provocation by Ukraine. They certainly would
not seize recordings required by law to be retained as part of an investigation in order to
protect Russia. The sole explanation for such behavior, if it could ever be proven to have
happened, would be to prevent one's own implication in the crime. And it could never have
happened so quickly by happenstance – it would have to be part of a plan.
A couple of interesting things from the Malaysian statement: one, it affirms that Ukraine
ordered a descent in altitude from 35,000 ft to 33,000 ft. Two, it affirms the aircraft was
at all times within airspace which had been cleared by the ICAO. If true, not only Ukraine is
to blame for not closing the airspace over a war zone.
I don't see anything between 16:37 and 16:41. Are you talking about the live feed
record?
When the US State Department was not yet even sure if any Americans had been aboard, Sammy
Power was already saying it was a surface-to-air missile that brought down the plane, and
there was already language being used which said "a Russian missile system or supplied by
Russia". In retrospect, it kind of looks like a plan, doesn't it? Similarly, all early
statements said that if the plane had been shot down, it was 'an unspeakable crime'. There
was never any question of it being an accident.
At 03:13 the narrative says "Data on MH17's flight route by flightradar24 suggests the
plane had deviated slightly from its usual route and flew across the length of Ukraine."
"Flightradar24" is a hotlink, but if you click it you learn that Googlemaps has disabled the
feed and the data is not recoverable.
Wow; spooky; at 04:05 the feed says "Aviation website Flightradar24.com says in a Facebook
post that MH17's plane crashed exactly 17 years after its first flight." First time I'd ever
heard that.
All through the narrative are regular intercessions by the Americans, the British and the
Australians to reiterate that it was a horrible murder and that Russia is responsible.
Mmmm interesting – in reference to my earlier statement that if you had the tapes
you would know what could safely be removed from the CVR once it was located, this report
reflects that several news sites including the BBC mentioned the ATC tapes being seized by
the SBU. At one point, Ukraine's Ambassador to Malaysia Ihor Humennyi said "it is just the
same as the flight data and cockpit voice recorders".
Oh, okay – now I see it. 15:28. I was looking at 16:38. "Ukraine's SBU security
service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control
officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news
agency." But Matt has told us several times that is all bullshit concocted by the
now-proven-to-have-never-existed 'Carlos'.
It happens to all of us, no? But, being right once doesn't verify all the other opinions
of that person. Remember he frequently refused to admit he was wrong and would accuse others
of deliberately misinterpreting what he wrote, which was very odd as his english was quite
good. He was quite the Princess because that is how he behaved, petulant, childish,
priviliged, and never, ever wrong. Or in short, a troll, which is why I never engaged with
him(?).
"... is going to consume enough of America's time and energy – without, by any means, any assurances of success, especially if Loopy Orangeman serves another term in office at the helm of the drifting Death Star – that it will not be able to spare much energy for more fake rapprochement overtures to Russia ..."
"... I love it when they actually get caught in the act like this – that intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt did more damage to the US State-Department regime-change machine than ten years worth of complaining that the US meddles in other countries' electoral processes. ..."
"... the damage is mostly done, and it endures. ..."
Victoria Nuland has kept a comparatively low profile since her part in the still-unfolding grotesque failure to mastermind
Ukraine, at America's intervention, into a 'prosperous western-leaning market democracy' at Europe's expense.
She made a cameo appearance, smiling and nodding and handing out bread and buns to the revolutionaries at the 'Euromaidan'
on Kiev's Independence Square, and almost immediately thereafter was recorded in the act of colluding with United States
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt to hand-pick the incoming revolutionary government. The EU was a bunch of twittering
incompetents who would never get anything done,
so
fuck them
– America would show them how to grease the guillotine with the fat of tyrants.
Then she appeared in a Chevron-sponsored press conference for the National Press Club, at which she was a guest speaker, and
announced that since 1991 the United States had
invested
$5 Billion in 'democracy promotion'
in Ukraine.
I had to listen to nearly the whole speech to verify that fact was in there, through exhortations that the
hand-picked-by-America revolutionary government constituted the 'principles and values that are the cornerstones of all free
democracies', but when she got to the part about how she had personally 'witnessed the appalling violence when Yanukovich
turned his riot police on demonstrators as they sang hymns and prayed for peace', my stomach revolted and I nearly blew chunks
over my monitor. Dear God. I guess a saucepan for your head and a club studded with nails are important accessories for
demonstrators these days when they know they're going to be singing hymns and praying for peace.
Anyway, shortly after that debacle, she shuffled off to her coffin full of graveyard dirt in the basement, and stayed away
from sunlight. She only recently emerged, and the alert eye of reader rkka spotted her delightful piece for Foreign Affairs
magazine, entitled
"Pinning
Down Putin; How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia"
.
In fact, it's worth including rkka's take on it, upon having read it.
"She laments how Vladimir Putin has for twenty years repeatedly slapped
away Uncle Sam's extended open hand, offered in the purest desire for friendship with Russia She does admit one US mistake,
tearing up the ABM Treaty in 2002, but the rest of it is one long whine about Putin.
Her policy prescription: spend uncountable trillion$ the US has to
borrow building up US military capability, unify all NATO allies to resist disinformation, hold up the renewal of the new
START Treaty conditioned on Russian concessions on Russia's short & medium range nuclear strike systems & new conventional
capabilities, forge a united NATO & EU front on Ukraine with the US participating in the negotiations, and then offer a
future Russian government a return to non-substantive participation in Western institutions like the G-7 and NATO-Russia
Council as well as a few miniscule economic inducements In other words, the same offer to Soviet/Russian leaders since
Brezhnev: major substantive Soviet/Russian concessions in return for vague assurances of future Western goodwill."
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html
REPORT THIS AD
Having read the piece myself, I frankly doubt I can do any better than that, but I'd like to go over it anyway, because I
would like to examine some aspects of it in considerably greater detail.
By way of introductory remarks, I should like to point out the comedic irony of Ms. Nuland's "Confident America" which is
going to "pin down Putin" sharing page space with
"America's
Democratic Unraveling: Countries Fail the Same Way Businesses Do, Gradually and Then Suddenly.
" It has apparently been
some considerable time since Ms. Nuland looked out the window. Oh, the article itself is a complete crock, blaming America's
descent into the maelstrom as a regrettable consequence of Trump's dictatorial rule, which is comparable to – if we indulge
in any more irony, we are going to turn into broccoli – those of Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. But few in the milieu of
American politics could have failed to notice that an anarchist commune in Seattle has
declared
independence from America
, and Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, whose spine is of purest tofu, has ceded control of a
seven-block center of downtown Seattle to them. As if that were not enough, he has gotten involved in a Twitter flame war with
that veteran Tweeter, Donald Trump, accusing him of being "totally incapable of governing".
Two incongruities here, which should inspire thought; one, what Ms. Nuland asserts is a 'confident' America is actually up to
its nipples in domestic conflict. It should not, under the present circumstances, aspire to 'pin down' anyone stronger than
Bernie Sanders. Two, where exactly is Ms. Nuland on this domestic revolt? I can remember a time when even if she was asleep,
her spider-sense would have detected anyone whispering "independence", and she would have flown to the scene on her broom, if
no faster transport was available, to distribute baked goods and encouragement. As it is, it looks as if nobody has noticed
that the declarers of independence in Seattle embody the principles and values that are cornerstones of all free democracies.
Just before we leave the whole Black Lives Matter thing and move on with the subject article, I would like to note that
protests
around the world
– Paris, Toronto, Berlin, London – involving thousands upon thousands of people express solidarity with
the movement and global shock and dismay at the state of public order in the USA. America is in no position to be lecturing
the world. About anything. If America still feels strong and confident, it might not have too solid a grasp on reality.
So, let's get to it.
The bullshit actually starts right at kickoff time, but I'll pass on Ms. Nuland's first paragraph of stage-setting
musings. It's perfectly true that Russia is viewed from a variety of perspectives, and if she omits to mention the USA is as
well, and is certainly not admired by all as a sterling example of global citizen, we'll put it down to artistic license.
Let's get straight into her characterizations of fact.
Just before the jaw-dropping allegation that Putin has 'played a weak hand well' only because the USA and its allies have let
him, she purports some facts; low oil prices, the coronavirus pandemic and Russians' 'growing sense of malaise' bring new
risks for the Kremlin.
That so? I submit the American energy industry must be feeling a little malaise itself. Consider;
Russia's
budget balances with oil at around $40.00 a barrel
. As of yesterday, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was at $37.39, and
Brent at $40.18, for future deliveries: the WTI figure for July, and Brent for August. Cheerful American sources have told us
before now that America's break-even price is in the high 30's. That'd make it slightly under Russia's.
And I call bullshit. The current price is in the high 30's, and slightly better. But the US operational rig count, according
to
OilPrice.com
, was 279 as of yesterday (199 oil, 78
gas), down from 969 this time a year ago. BP will write off $17.5 Billion in assets. Whiting Petroleum, Vista Proppants &
Logistics LLC (a private equity-backed supplier of fracking sand), Extraction Oil & Gas, Diamond Offshore Drilling,
Weatherford International and California Resources all declared bankruptcy, Weatherford International for the second time in a
year. Chesapeake Energy is expected to join them this week. BP slashed 10,000 jobs, which was accompanied by similar cuts at
Chevron. Royal Dutch Shell announced voluntary layoffs. The United States lost 100,000 jobs in the energy industry since
February, about 45,000 of them in Texas. Massive pipeline company Enbridge announced its intention to concentrate its asset
mix in future on natural gas and renewables. Quite the picture of despondency, I think you would have to agree.
Show me a similar picture of ruin in Russia.
Well, I'll tell you a measurable difference right off the top – Whiting Petroleum and Diamond Offshore Drilling, who recently
declared bankruptcy, and Chesapeake Energy who is on the verge of doing so, all paid out millions in executive bonuses before
going belly-up and waiting for the US government to print more money so it can bail them out. Meanwhile, in Russia, the state
will
take
an extra $10 Billion in revenues from the oil companies
, owing to the way they are taxed. This will be spent on state
projects, part of a forecast $71 Billion in new spending, none of it borrowed. The Russian economy is forecast to contract by
about 6% this year. The US economy
expects
an almost-identical contraction of about 5.7%
over 2020, although the drop in the second quarter is expected to be about
40%.
Well, I went on about that for much longer than I meant to. Coronavirus. As of today, the United States has 115,980 deaths
attributed to the novel coronavirus. The Russian Federation has 7,478. Washington's position on the per-capita discrepancy is
that Russia must be lying about its deaths. At the same time, there is broad substantiation that the United States is
deliberately
overcounting its own deaths
. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, lying about your coronavirus deaths. Should
Russia exaggerate its numbers, too, to make Washington happy? Both countries are carrying out extensive testing, and there is
a pretty solid dataset emerging that a high number of people test positive and are completely unaware they have the virus, and
are not bothered by it at all. Exaggerating the death count makes the virus appear to be much deadlier than it actually is.
Who would benefit from that? Well
"Erroneous data unduly scare people about the risks of the disease. It
keeps the country locked down longer than necessary, which destroys peoples' lives and livelihoods in many other ways.
Exaggerated fears of the virus endanger lives by keeping people from obtaining treatment for other medical problems. It also
makes it impossible to accurately compare policies across countries."
Who wants to prolong the lockdown – the Kremlin? Or the Democrats, to increase frustration with Trump? Is it a coincidence
that New York, an unassailable Democratic stronghold, admitted to exaggerating new active cases by 50% in April, by adding
3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive? Here is a tip,
completely free of obligation – take it or ignore it as you wish. Leave Trump unsupervised for five minutes without a ball gag
and his thumbs tied together, and he will make an idiot of himself. You do not need to make up shit.
Russian malaise where Putin is concerned? Ah ha ha hahahaha. Putin's approval rating in Russia has
never
dipped below 60%
. Obama's approval rating slid below 60%
after
only 6 months in office
, and couldn't reach that altitude again without going on oxygen. Trump's started out below 50% and
remained remarkably consistent, suggesting that both those who worship him and those who loathe him have not changed their
minds at all. Which points to two fairly-obvious conclusions – a Trump electoral victory, and a continuing divided America.
Jeez; that's only one paragraph. This is going to be as long as The Satanic Verses – we'd better get a move on. What else you
got, Ms. Nuland?
Whoever wins the upcoming US presidential election should try again with Putin, she says. You know something? I hope I am not
jumping the gun here, but I'm going to mention now, when we've really just started, two things that are conspicuous by their
absence in Ms. Nuland's piece – the return of Crimea to Ukraine's control, and the shooting down of MH-17. Not mentioned. At
all. Yet on the occasion of both occurrences. the United States was in such a rage that it vowed it would carry out no
negotiations with Russia until Crimea had been returned to Ukraine, and the shooting down of MH-17 was the trigger for
sanctions by the USA and all its allies, many of whom had been quite reluctant before that. Actually, what America vowed was
no relaxation of sanctions until Crimea was returned to Ukrainian control, but it's pretty hard to imagine any constructive
negotiations between the two while the USA maintains its sanctions policy and bullies its allies not to weaken. Now that I
think about it, the Nord Stream II pipeline was not mentioned, either, although the American position is that it must not be
completed, and the USA will sanction any company which helps Russia do so as well as any international regulator who approves
it for operation. Are these issues just the sort of thing that can be talked out by old friends? As if.
The new President (whom I think has a pretty good chance of being the old president, as in the current one), she says, should
"resist Putin's attempts to cut off his population from the outside world and speak directly to the Russian people about the
benefits of working together and the price they have paid for Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." The part about speaking
directly to the Russian people sounds to me like an argument for the re-insertion of 'democracy-promoting' American NGO's to
Russia. And it might even be that the USA is going to shoulder the burden of those agencies being forced to register as
foreign agents, because it is a certainty they are not going to be given a free hand to proselytize as they once could. And,
ummm what are these benefits of liberalism Ms. Nuland is hinting at? Because the last big blaze of liberalism in Russia was
the 'reforms' of the 90's, when Jeffrey Sachs and the Harvard Boys
brought
their 'shock therapy' to Yeltsin's country
. And it was a shock; not much doubt about that. Hyperinflation hit 2,500
percent, the life expectancy of Russian males fell by six years, many people had their life's savings wiped out, and a
powerful cadre of oligarchs seized private control of what had been state assets, for pennies on the dollar. I think it is
safe to say many, many Russians
remember
their introduction to liberalism
, and are not particularly eager to renew their acquaintance. Does liberalism promise
prosperity? It might, but they've heard that before. How does liberalism stack up against this wage growth under the current
leadership?
What did US wages look like over the same time period? I'm glad you asked.
Maybe someone should speak directly to the American people, and advise them what the United States government's hard turn away
from liberalism has cost them.
Over the next two decades, Russians would steadily relinquish more and more
of their rights -- freedom of expression and assembly, political pluralism, judicial fairness, and an open economy (all of which
were then new, tenuous, and unevenly shared) -- in exchange for the stability of a strong state, a return to oil-fueled growth,
and the prospect of middle-class prosperity.
Oh, oh. I see a problem right away. Article 29 of the Russian constitution. To wit, Paragraph 1;
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech.
And Paragraph 3;
No one may be coerced into expressing one's views and convictions or into
renouncing them.
And Article 31;
Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather
peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.
The west, and especially the USA, always makes a big deal about having to obtain a permit to hold a rally, march or
demonstration. Do you have to do that to hold any of those events in New York?
You
sure do
. Meanwhile, although the western press regularly squawks that the rights of Russians are being trampled upon by
the oppressive government, how much of a lawyer would you have to be to get somebody off who genuinely and demonstrably did
not violate the constitution?
And just, you know, while we're here perusing the Russian Constitution, take a look at Article 24, Paragraph 1.
It shall be forbidden to gather, store, use and disseminate information on
the private life of any person without his/her consent.
Protections which are characterized
more
by their absence
than their observance in the Land Of The Free.
Western governments generally looked the other way as Putin's methods for
reestablishing control became increasingly Soviet during his first decade in power: closing down opposition newspapers and TV
stations; jailing, exiling, or killing political and economic rivals; and reestablishing single-party dominance in the
parliament and regional governments.
I do like to see a professional bullshitter spit on their hands and bear down. There is no evidence at all of Vladimir Putin
killing political rivals, and jailing of oligarchs such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky was supported by the ECHR, in that it agreed
he could not argue the charges against him were political simply because his being jailed was convenient for the government,
while there was significant and verifiable evidence of criminal activity. Newspapers and TV stations start up and close down
all the time, Not so much in the United States, of course, where media corporations
went
from 50 in 1983 to 6 in 2011
. In that year, those six companies controlled 90% of what Americans read, watched or listened
to.
Say – you know what establishes single-party dominance in parliament and regional governments? Popularity. They have these
things called advance polls – you probably even have them in your country – and the way it works is, surveys in advance of the
vote are conducted and those surveyed tell pollsters who they plan to vote for. And that's how the vote comes out, time after
time. If Putin is forecast to win with 72% of the vote in presidential elections, for example, the actual result is usually
well within the margin of error. Show me any time when it was not. The USA does not like this, because it is somewhere between
difficult and impossible to carry out regime change where the vote is not even close.
For the most part, the United States and its allies encouraged Russia in
its pursuit of the third goal, bringing Moscow into the World Trade Organization and creating the G-8 and the NATO-Russia
Council.
Gosh, that kind of smells like bullshit a little bit, too, because according to the World Security Network, the USA was the
last major country to put up obstacles to Russian entry to the WTO. They actually say so,
in
so many words
:
The United States is the last major country to put up obstacles to Russian
entry to the WTO.
Not only that, Senator Bill Frist claimed that "Russia's disregard for the rule of law, human rights violations and other
"anti-democratic" tendencies "color the position of the United States."
Human rights – really, Bill? Seriously? I know, let's have a quick geopolitics quiz. Who can think of a grotesque human-rights
scandal that happened just two years before ol' Bill claimed to be all about human rights? Tick tick tick need a hint? Iraq.
Tick tick tick .happened in a big prison run by the USA. Tick tick tick
starts
with 'Abu', and ends with 'Ghraib'
. That's right, just two years before Bill Frist's soliloquy on the sanctity of human
rights, American soldiers were piling naked Iraqi men into human pyramids, making them stand motionless on a box in the belief
that if they moved they would be electrocuted, and leading them around on dog leashes while they were smeared with filth.
As if that were not hypocrisy enough, countries which appeared on various sanctimonious western lists of world's poorest and
world's most oppressive countries had been WTO members in good standing since the mid-90's. Including the Arab monarchies, and
I would have to really think about it if asked to name something less democratic than a country in which potential rulers are
limited to sons of the same father. Feel free to help me out, Ms. Nuland.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents worked closely with U.S. allies
to prevent Putin from reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from vetoing the security
arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal democracies and the still very Soviet man leading
Russia, especially on the subject of NATO enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow
that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin's agenda to see Europe
in zero-sum terms.
First of all, we might as well just say 'presidents', because on foreign policy and the use of military force there is
virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats. There's an illusion of choice, but it basically boils down to a
Democratic preference for 'targeted strikes' such as Obama's 'drone wars', while Republicans like to roll in with the full
enchilada and flatten the place. Any American born in the past 20 years
has
never known a time when the USA was not at war
, regardless of who was president. Any American who was born after 1984 has
seen America at war for at least half of his or her life.
NATO was formed to 'thwart the threat of Soviet expansion into Western Europe'. Russia formed the Warsaw Pact group in
reaction to NATO admitting a rearmed West Germany into its ranks. That alliance was
dissolved
March 31st, 1991
. When the Warsaw Pact dissolved, considering that NATO incorporated all the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact
countries despite western promises to advance no further eastward than Germany, NATO was essentially a military alliance in
search of a mission. It messed about for awhile pretending it was needed to counter global terrorism, before focusing on
reframing a generally-friendly Russia which was its partner in many international organizations as a sinister threat that
required not only NATO readiness, but a lot more money plowed into it.
But few in Washington considered it an option to slam the door on the new
democracies of central and eastern Europe, which had worked for years to meet NATO's rigorous admission standards and were now
clamoring for membership.
As I
pointed
out 5 years ago
, aspiring members could clamor for membership all they liked – knocking on the door doesn't mean a thing –
you had to be invited, and by unanimous consent, in accordance with Article 10 of the NATO charter;
"
The Parties may, by
unanimous agreement,
invite
any other European State
in a position to further the principles of this Treaty
and to contribute
to the security of the North Atlantic area
to accede to this Treaty. Any State
so
invited
may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United
States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such
instrument of accession
."
The emphasis also notes that unanimous agreement is contingent on factors such as a straight-faced contention that admitting
the member country will contribute to the collective security of the North Atlantic area. At the time it was admitted – by
unanimous consent, apparently – Latvia had 1,250 soldiers and three tanks. None of which had sufficient amphibious capability
to protect the North Atlantic; salt water is hard on tanks. That 'they followed us home, so we had to keep them' trope is
popular with western diplomats, and they like to strum on it for all it's worth. Please note also to whom prospective
applicants must direct their applications.
Moreover, it quickly emerged from polling in countries the United States wanted to see added to NATO that many of them were
far more interested in joining the EU than NATO, and that their enthusiasm was mostly founded in optimism about economic
advancement. They were far less inspired when questions got around to how willing they would be to contribute a sizable
portion of their GDP to raising internal forces for NATO. The polling organization – the United States Information Agency
(USIA) – claimed 83% support in Poland for joining NATO. But when the question, "Would you be willing to spend more money on
the military in order to meet NATO standards?" was dropped into the mix, 74% said "No" against 16% "Yes".
Putin has always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic,
prosperous states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk reinfecting his own people with
democratic aspirations. This is why Putin was never going to take a "live and let live" approach to former Soviet lands and
satellite states.
Russian opposition to NATO adding former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries like beads on a rosary was confined to verbal
objections, which were ignored. The United States continued to prod countries who had not yet applied, such as Ukraine and
Georgia, announcing it intended to add them, and the only thing that stopped that from happening is language in the NATO
charter which prohibits the acceptance of nations with ongoing territorial disputes. And this is
what
it looks like right now
in the King of Democratic, Prosperous States. I don't think Putin would have too much difficulty
persuading rational Russians that they don't want that kind of prosperity. And wasn't Ukraine supposed to be an example to
Russians that would persuade them to accept western offers to make them prosperous, too, if they would only overthrow Putin?
How's that working out? Let's look at average monthly wages, year-over-year, for the last 25 years.
Despite Putin's power moves abroad, 20 years of failing to invest in
Russia's modernization may be catching up with him. In 2019, Russia's GDP growth was an anemic 1.3 percent. This year, the
coronavirus pandemic and the free fall in oil prices could result in a significant economic contraction. International
sanctions deter serious foreign investment in Russia from most countries except China. Putin's insistence on tight state
control and on the renationalization of key sectors of the economy has suppressed innovation and diversification. Russia's
roads, rails, schools, and hospitals are crumbling. Its citizens have grown restive as promised infrastructure spending never
appears, and their taxes and the retirement age are going up.
Despite its galloping anti-Russian bias and propensity for quoting 'experts' whose only qualification is their acute
Russophobia, The Moscow Times is forced to admit Russian
government
investment in infrastructure
is huge; $96 Billion over 6 years. As Ms. Nuland was kind enough to point out, the country is
under an intense sanctions regime by the United States which is aimed at
making
life sufficiently miserable for the Russian people
that they will beg for American mercy. From
Newsweek
;
"The measures under consideration in Congress -- known as the Defending
American Security From Kremlin Aggression Act -- seek to deter further Russian interference in elections by effectively cutting
off the country from the world economy."
And that was as punishment for alleged Russian interference in the American elections, which the Mueller investigation failed
to substantiate just about as catastrophically as an attempt to prove cooked pasta is an effective substitute for steel.
This is the Moscow skyline. Looks quite the underdeveloped third-world shithole, doesn't it?
Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
gave
the United States a D+ grade
for infrastructure. If you were awarded a D+ grade in Finding Your Way Home, how many times
in a week do you think your mother would have to come and pick you up from somewhere that was not where you live? D+ is not a
good grade. ASCE estimated the US government would have to spend $4.6 Trillion – with a 'T' – over the next decade, just to
bring things up to acceptable.
Look, it's getting late, and we're going to have to wrap things up. I'd love to go on countering Ms. Nuland's arguments, but I
think a fairly consistent pattern has been established here. Let it suffice to say that this objective
"The first order of business is to restore the unity and confidence of U.S.
alliances in Europe and Asia and end the fratricidal rhetoric, punitive trade policies, and unilateralism of recent years"
is going to consume enough of America's time and energy – without, by any means, any assurances of success, especially if
Loopy Orangeman serves another term in office at the helm of the drifting Death Star – that it will not be able to spare much
energy for more fake rapprochement overtures to Russia.
Not very many in Russia are upset enough by American sanctions to
solicit American nation-building expertise, while European nations just look at each other in stunned dismay at each new
advance on American assholery.
If you were planning on handing out bread and muffins on Red Square, I wouldn't start laying in bulk flour just at this point.
I love it when they actually get caught in the act like this – that
intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt did more damage to the US State-Department regime-change
machine than ten years worth of complaining that the US meddles in other countries' electoral processes.
That GOLOS worker
looks a right luvvie, too, just the type. Americans have meddled in foreign elections – directly or through their proxy NGO's
– since time out of mind, but in the last decade, decade-and-a-half they have gotten lazy and so confident in the process that
they just throw up a hand and say 'ballot-stuffing' and 'carousel voting', and then show a video clip of something that
professes to be an example of the behavior they describe, and the average voter doesn't have a clue what he's seeing so he
just nods and says 'I see'.
GOLOS could quickly claim that kid never worked for them, that he is an
FSB plant coached to discredit an honest and non-partisan political observer, and that's probably what I would do if I were
them. But the damage is mostly done, and it endures. They can show this clip next year, and the year after, and it'll still be
effective proof of western meddling and an attempt to discredit the democratic process in Russia.
"We are alarmed by continuous attempts to misuse the Ukrainian justice system for
politically motivated persecution of political opponents," said lawmakers from the informal
Friends of European Ukraine group in a statement on Friday (3 July).
After the peaceful power transition of 2019 election in the post-Soviet country,
"current attempts to prosecute political opponents pose a risk of democratic backsliding,"
the group of MEPs added.
Ukraine's former president, Petro Poroshenko, is suspected of abuse of office by
illegally pressuring the then-chief of Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service, Yehor Bozhok,
into appointing Serhiy Semоchko as his deputy.
Poroshenko is involved in 24 investigations, with three others recently closed, and
denies any wrongdoing, calling the probes selective justice 'at the orders of [Volodymyr]
Zelensky', the current president .
The 50-member group, which does not have formal standing, was created in September last
year with the goal of providing political support and to promote Ukraine's economic
integration with the EU
####
Unfortunately there is more at the link except the names of MEPs.
A Ukrainian oligarch has his own MEP lobby group! Why should we be surprised? I can't find
a list of members (this is not the old 2014-19 group and this European Parliament page has
not been updated with the new group of the same name) but Auštrevičius is the
chaiman. There's also the Friends of Ukraine with the like of Fogh Rasmussen, Versbow,
Rifkind, Cox, Bildt etc. on the Rasmussen site.
No matter how corrupt, murderous or just plain nasty, it is more important to keep the
u-Kraine close to the EU, close to NATO etc. for strategic purposes. It's just another
western chapter of looking the other way for their 'son of a bitches.'
Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State University;Yossi Shain, Professor
of Comparative Government and Diaspora Politics, Georgetown University
DATE & TIME
Jun. 23, 2003
3:00pm – 4:00pm
EVENT SPONSORS
AFRICA PROGRAM
ASIA PROGRAM
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
DIASPORA COMMUNITIES: INFLUENCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State University and Yossi Shain,
Professor of Comparative Government and Diaspora Politics, Georgetown University
In an age marked by the greater ease of communication and travel, recent research on ethnic groups and
conflict has begun to examine the influence of diaspora groups. Of particular interest are their efforts
to affect political environments in their "home" and host countries through their remittance of funds,
lobbying and the dissemination of information. Dr. Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor at North Dakota
University presented material from his recent edited volume Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign
Policy. Commentary was provided by Yossi Shain, Professor at Georgetown and Tel Aviv Universities, author
of "Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands" and a contributor to
Ambrosio's book. The meeting marked what moderator Carla Koppell, Interim Director of the Wilson Center's
Conflict Prevention Project called, "a relatively new area of analysis and dialogue for the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars."
Ambrosio, stated that as we seek to understand diaspora groups and their influence on U.S. foreign
policy, the question is not should ethnic groups influence foreign policy but how they effect foreign
policy, what are their goals and why do they mobilize. He began his presentation by defining ethnic
identity groups as "politically relevant social divisions based on a shared sense of cultural
distinctiveness." This would include racial, religious, national and ethnic identities. Ethnic identity
groups often form institutions that effect U.S. foreign policy or ethnic communities abroad, most
commonly in the form of ethnic lobbies.
These ethnic lobbies seek to influence U.S. policy in three ways. First, by framing the issues "they help
set the terms of debate" or "put items on the country's agenda." Second, they are a source of information
and analysis that provide a great deal of information to members of Congress and serve as a resource for
other branches of government and non-governmental organizations, and shaping general perspectives.
Finally, ethnic group lobbies provide policy oversight. "They examine the policies of the U.S.
government, propose policies, write letters and [are] involved in electioneering activities."
Ambrosio cautioned, that we must not believe that the effort by "ethnic groups to influence U.S. foreign
policy is new." It has a long history but "has become increasingly active in recent years." To
illustrate, he presented five periods of ethnic lobbying in the United States--Pre-WWI, WWI, Cold War,
post-Cold war, and post-September 11.
Since before WWI, there has been a "steady rise in the number of ethnic groups in the U.S. mobilizing to
influence the foreign policy process." Both the WWI and Cold War periods saw an explosion in the number
of interest groups affecting domestic and foreign policy. According to Ambrosio, however, it was the
post-Cold War period that gave way to a real increase in American multiculturalism. U.S. interests during
this period were not clearly defined, and the Congress had more influence than the Executive Branch over
policy-making. That balance of power according to Ambrosio allowed ethnic lobbying groups greater access
to policy-makers and potential influence in policy formation. Since September 11 quite the opposite is
true; there is a re-centralization of foreign policy in the White House. That re-centralization is
restricting influence over policy.
Ambrosio concluded by suggesting several areas for future research. First, the question of the legitimacy
of ethnic group influence on foreign policy deserves some attention. Second, more case study analysis is
need. In Ambrosio's view, we need to look at specific groups, and why or how they influence policy. In
particular, greater attention should be paid to the case of Muslim Americans. Third, is the need to
examine the relationship between ethnic and non-ethnic interest groups. For instance, Ambrosio suggested
that a comparison of the influence of "the Oil lobby versus the Armenian lobbies over the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan" could provide some interesting insights. Fourth, the reliance on natives
for intelligence information should be examined more closely. In the case of Iraq, there is the question
of "how Iraq exiles influence U.S. foreign policy." Finally, the export of American values must be better
understood. Further research could help the U.S. government mobilize diaspora groups in the United States
to deal with growing anti-Americanism throughout the world.
Shain, began by commenting that while the topic of diaspora group influence on U.S. foreign policy is
important, "it is perhaps an overblown topic." He agreed with Ambrosio that the idea of transnational
influence on U.S. foreign policy is not new. However, Shain contends that people have always been wary of
such influences. The topic, according to Shain, became more salient in the 1990's with the end of the
Cold War when the "us versus them posture was no longer in existence." It was also a time when more
people began "shuttling back and forth," retaining greater ties to their home country. According to
Professor Shain, the question is "who really speaks [in U.S. foreign policy]?" This was the period of
increasing American multiculturalism; the identity of the U.S. itself was changing. As a result,
attention to issues reflected the makeup of the U.S. For instance, before September 11, relations between
the United States and Mexico in the age of NAFTA, had center stage.
Shain suggested that while ethnic Americans mobilize to influence U.S. foreign policy, their ability to
do so is quite limited. Ethnic lobbies have more often been used to market American ideals in their home
countries or to "democratize their countries of origin." When they do have influence, it has generally
been at the electoral level in connection with a domestic issue, or when an issue is of little importance
to the administration. Professor Shain continued contending that the influence of ethnic lobbies relies
on their ability to advance a message that resonates with the American values and ideals. This is one
reason he believes Arab-Americans have had difficulty influencing U.S. foreign policy; there is a
perception that they are attempting to influence policy in ways that would be contrary to American
values. When issues promoted by an ethnic lobby are priorities, and are in line with the administration,
ethnic lobbies have the greatest influence in policy oversight.
According to Shain there are several issues that warrant future research and understanding. The first is
to understand the explosion of Islam in the United States; rather than lobbying for national country
interests, there is greater mobilization around religious beliefs. According to Shain, this has little to
do with ethnic lobbies; rather it is a question of who is mobilizing communities. This is a difficult
question to examine because, depending on the time period, different people will speak for a community.
Another issue for further study involves tracking and better understanding economic influence. For
example, donations for Israel at the same time support local organizations and Jewish-American issues;
financial support drives diaspora politics. At the same time, many country economies depend on money sent
from abroad; this gives diasporas a greater say in their "home" countries. "When you do any politics in
Haiti, there is the 10th department... the 10th department is here. This is the community that can
mobilize and has money."
The final issue for further study according to Shain is the concept of identity in America. While there
is identity as an American, many still "retain some affinity and memories" of their home country. This is
particularly galvanizing where there is still instability in the country of origin. Shain concluded that
the subject of the influence of diaspora communities in the U.S. was most important in regard to identity
in America. "Identity is critical for America because the American makeup has always been changing." "The
market, democracy and human rights are much more on the minds of ethnic groups as they relate to their
country of origin,"concluded Shain.
Carla Koppell, Conflict Prevention Project, Interim Director, 202-691-4083
Drafted by Channa Threat
HOSTED BY
AFRICA PROGRAM
The Africa Program works to address the most critical issues facing Africa and U.S.-Africa relations, build
mutually beneficial U.S.–Africa relations, and enhance knowledge and understanding about Africa in the United
States. The Program achieves its mission through in-depth research and analyses, including our blog Africa Up
Close, public discussion, working groups, and briefings that bring together policymakers, practitioners, and
subject matter experts to analyze and offer practical options for tackling key challenges in Africa and in
U.S.-Africa relations.
Read
more
ASIA PROGRAM
The Asia Program promotes policy debate and intellectual discussions on U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific as well
as political, economic, security, and social issues relating to the world's most populous and economically dynamic
region.
Read
more
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
The Wilson Center's Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond,
providing analyses and research that helps inform U.S. foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands
knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Read
more
TAGGED
SERIES
EVENT FEEDBACK
"... There is no beyond reasonable doubt evidence (No US satellite pictures as claimed by Biden, even within NATO to Dutch Intel) and the defence is not pushing that hard but have asked for the Russian General to be called to describe the BUK missile's documented life i. e. it came from Ukraine's stock. ..."
Enjoy your updates. The MH17 trial is turning into an interesting indictment on Dutch
justice. There is no beyond reasonable doubt evidence (No US satellite pictures as claimed by
Biden, even within NATO to Dutch Intel) and the defence is not pushing that hard but have
asked for the Russian General to be called to describe the BUK missile's documented life i.
e. it came from Ukraine's stock.
So, on July 3rd the Judges have to decide whether to allow that evidence, which definitely
puts the evidence less than reasonable double, or not allow it and convict the four
defendants on insufficient evidence to meet Dutch Law, or allow them to go free.
Looks like they have a bit of a problem meeting the expectations of the US.
The Dutch Government has
devised an evidence-proof scheme for ensuring
the trial of the Russian government for the
destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
will end in a conviction
.
This scheme will work without evidence to prove that the four men accused of the crime of
shooting down the aircraft, killing the 298 passengers and crew on board on July 17, 2014, intended
to kill; or even intended to fire the missile which allegedly brought MH17 down.
The Dutch scheme is evidence-proof because no evidence will be needed, not from US satellite
photographs which are missing; nor NATO airborne tracking which shows no missile; nor Ukrainian
Security Service (SBU) evidence which has proved to have been fabricated, and in the case of
Ukrainian witnesses for the prosecution, threatened, tortured or bribed.
The scheme is also evidence-proof because the Dutch Prime Minister has told the Dutch Minister
of Justice to order the state prosecutors to tell the state-appointed judge that he must convict
the Russians if he finds as proven that MH17 crashed to the ground in eastern Ukraine; that
everyone on board was killed; and that the four soldiers accused – three Russians and one Ukrainian
– were on the ground fighting.
International war crimes lawyers are calling this a legal travesty. It was presented in court
near Amsterdam by Dutch state prosecutor Thijs Berger on June 10. It has gone unnoticed in the
mainstream western media. Russian reporters following the trial have missed it. The scheme was
first reported in English and Russian by a NATO propaganda unit on June 12.
As a prosecutor of the Dutch War Crimes Unit, a state entity, Berger has been employed in the
past to prosecute the targets of wars fought by the Dutch, alongside NATO and the US, in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan. In Europe his group prosecuted war crimes alleged by the NATO alliance in its war
on Serbia from March to June of 1999. A recent
report
[2]to
which Berger contributed, entitled
Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2019,
identifies
a case which Berger pursued of war crimes in Afghanistan; those alleged crimes were not of the US
and allied forces in Afghanistan, but of the local Afghans defending themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/YKJcJuT_5jc
Prosecutor Thijs Berger
announces
the evidence-proof scheme of Article 168. The legal loophole is spelled out over six minutes – Min
3:31:00 to 3:37:00.
For his presentation to presiding judge Hendrik Steenhuis, Berger read from a multi-page script
authorized by his superiors in the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. They and he repeatedly
made the mistake of calling the charges in the prosecution's indictment – Articles 168, 287 and 298
– provisions of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the procedure code; its provisions
are called articles in the original Dutch, but sections in the
English
version.
The charges of the indictment are from the Dutch Criminal Code. They are called articles in
court; they are called articles in the
Dutch
statute
but sections in the official English translation.
For analysis of how the prosecution has manipulated both the Criminal Code and the Code of
Criminal Procedure in the MH17 trial preliminaries, read
this
.
"The scope of the indictment," Berger began his legal argument, is that together, the four
defendants -- Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Sergei Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov, who are Russians, and
Leonid Kharchenko, a Ukrainian –
played "a steering, organizing, and supporting role in
deploying the BUK-Telar [missile and radar unit]" to shoot down MH 17
(Min 3:25:22).
They were members of an "armed group" engaged in "armed struggle, the purpose being to shoot
down an aircraft" (Min 3:27:20-21).
Note the indefinite article –
an
aircraft. The prosecution is charging the four with
capital crimes for defending themselves from attack by the Ukrainian Air Force. This, however, is
not mentioned by the prosecution.
"They are not being prosecuted," Berger went on, "as the persons who actually carried
out the firing process"
(Min 3:38:22). "We do not need evidence as to the exact cause of
events in order to be able to judge the accused" (Min 3:28:27). Homicide or murder, Berger
conceded, is in Dutch law "death caused intentionally" (Min 3:29:15). But the crimes which must be
judged by Steenhuis and his panel of The Hague District Court, he claims aren't homicide in the
usual legal sense. "The exact course of events need not be established" (Min 3:30:43), Berger told
Steenhuis. So the prosecution does not need to prove what happened. "That the missile which hit the
MH17 could possibly have been meant and intended for a military aircraft doesn't change these
facts" (Min 3:31:17).
"
None of the charges in the indictment requires intention concerning the civilian
nature of the aircraft or the occupants.
The crimes in the indictment forbid the
downing of any aircraft; this is Article 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [sic]; and also
forbid causing the deaths of others under Articles 287 and 289 irrespective of whether the
aircraft has a military or civilian status, and an error in the target doesn't really make a
difference for the evidence that these crimes have been committed. So no evidence is required
that the accused should have had the intention to shoot down a civilian aircraft" (Min 3:32:00).
"It was their intention to down a military aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force" (Min
3:32:28), Berger claims his evidence of the SBU telephone tapes and witnesses proves.
"Those who intend to shoot down a military aircraft and subsequently, accidentally, hit a
civilian aircraft are guilty of causing an aircraft to crash according to Article 168 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure [sic]; but also guilty of murder of the occupants according to
Article 289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [sic]" (Min 3:33:04).
In a regular court of law in England, Australia, Canada or the US, a prosecutor's legal argument
is always presented with explicit references to the case law. That's the accumulation of judgements
by courts going back as far as the history of the crime and of the statute can be traced. These are
the precedents which, in international law and in Dutch law too, must be followed by judges hearing
cases to which these precedents apply. This reflects the accepted notion that law is cumulative,
and that judges administer and interpret that law; they don't issue personal opinions or
preferences.
Berger didn't identify any Dutch case law or provide the court with precedents in
previous cases decided by the Dutch courts.
The reason is that there are none , explains a veteran Dutch judge who was asked this week to
identify the case law on Article 168. The judge replied: "It's sufficient to establish that the
defendant had the intention to take down some aircraft and that he should have seriously taken into
consideration the chance that he would hit an aircraft such as the MH-17. That's called conditional
intent --
voorwaardelijk opzet
in Dutch Answering this question [of precedents] took a bit
more time. I couldn't find any case law that would be relevant to the issue. Article 168 is not
used very often."
Conditional intent doesn't exist in Anglo-American law. But in Dutch law, the concept has not
(repeat never) been applied to cases of warfare, or in situations of military engagement where men
are attacking and defending themselves. For a Dutch review of the court precedents for application
of
voorwaardelijk opzet
to deaths caused by a drunk driver and a poisoning, read
this
[8]– Sect. 3.3.1. Fatal traffic offences committed by drunken drivers are the typical
homicides in which Dutch prosecutors apply the doctrine of conditional intent; the case law and
precedents are reviewed
here
[9].
No Dutch lawyer, judge or court has ever applied this to warfare.
Berger knows this; so does Steenhuis. They also know there is voluminous case law in the
international courts dealing with similar facts to those of the MH17 case and of the combat in
which the four defendants were engaged; for a sample Dutch law review, read
this
.
Again, Berger ignored what no prosecutor outside The Netherlands would attempt in front of a
judge. "We are aware," Berger told Steenhuis, "of academic comments that imply that Article 168
would require intention in killing civilians [Min 3:33:04]. But this is incorrect. Article 168 does
not require any intention for the death of the occupants" (Min 3:33:34).
The NATO propaganda unit Bellingcat repeated this claim in a
publication
two days after Berger's presentation.
The Article 168 argument, repeated from Berger's
script, will prove to be a "boomerang" for the Russian government, NATO officials are now claiming.
"It is only a question of time, therefore, that the Dutch prosecution brings murder charges against
Russian top military commanders. Unlike the case with the 4 defendants, they would easily have
obtained combatant immunity, if only they – and their supreme commander – had admitted to being
part of the war. But they – and he – continuously denied, and this alone makes immunity impossible.
Also unlike the 4 defendants, the political price that Russia will pay such indictments will be
much higher. It is one thing for 3 Russian 'volunteers', forgotten by most, to spend the rest of
their life holed up at home and afraid to take any trip abroad. It's an altogether different story
when top Mod [Ministry of Defence] and FSB officials – and maybe even a minister – are charged
with murder of 298 civilians and end up on the Interpol red-notice list."
International lawyers already before the European Court of Human Rights are arguing that the
"boomerang" strikes the government in Kiev first, because it was ordering combat in eastern
Ukraine, including orders for bombing and strafing by the Ukrainian Air Force, and at the same time
refusing to close the airspace to civilian aircraft. The case of Denise Kenke, on behalf of her
father, MH17 victim Willem Grootscholten,
explains
.
Canadian war crimes attorney Christopher Black (right) says the Dutch prosecution is
deliberately ignoring Dutch law, as well as international law.
"What Berger is stating is a case of criminal negligence, not murder. The general principles
of criminal law apply to this case as much as to any case. As for the burden of proof, the court
has to be convinced on the basis of the lawful evidence presented that the accused has committed
the crime he is accused of."
Black is pointing out that the prosecution's evidence from the Ukrainian SBU is unlawful. For
analysis of evidence tampering by the SBU,
read
more
.
"'Any person who intentionally and unlawfully' -- that's the key phrase in the wording of
Article 168. Its use there means specific intent.
Specific intent
. A general intent to
use missiles on something is not good enough in this case. It is telling that [Berger] does not
make the distinction between specific intent versus general intent. That indicates the
prosecutors don't think they can prove the necessary specific intent. And if the plane had been
shot down by the accused thinking it was engaged in an attack on them or masking [a Ukrainian
Air Force] attack on them, then the court cannot convict. That's because the facts would show an
accident or a justifiable act of self-defence."
In Dutch courts, there are several of what are called "full defences" to indictments for murder.
One is insanity;
another
[14] is
duress. Self-defence is the third full defence; it is spelled out in Article 41 of the Criminal
Code:
European lawyers observing the MH17 trial have noted that Berger failed to mention that. They
interpret this as an indication the prosecution already believes Judge Steenhuis has decided on
conviction.
"The term 'unlawfully' is used in Article 168", Black continues, "because there may be
situations where at sea, for example, a vessel has to be grounded or sunk because it is a danger
to other shipping or to the crew -- or to save the crew. It's harder to think of a plane that
must be crashed for a comparable reason. But one can anticipate the scenario – for example, when
men on the ground believe on reasonable grounds that an aircraft was about to bomb them – when
attacking the plane would not be considered unlawful because it is self-defence."
"
So the Dutch prosecutors are trying to prove there was an intent [to fire at an
aircraft] and therefore they did it, even if there is no evidence they did.
I didn't
realise courts dealt in smoking guns. They ought to be dealing in hard evidence. The fact that
someone fantasizes about a woman and she ends up getting pregnant and then she has a miscarriage
can't be turned into the accusation against the man of intent to make her pregnant, and then of
causing her miscarriage, and so guilty of bodily harm."
In Greece, about tensions between Turkey and Greece caused by Turkish aggressiveness, ""If
there were to be any sort of escalation, the only winner is our shared adversaries. The
winner is Vladimir Putin [ ]"
Of course, he doesn't provide any evidence for what he claims, but hey, the US had a
Secretary of State whose presentation of "evidence" at the UN the world will forever
remember, so one can't expect higher standards from sycophants Americans make pass as
diplomats.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a
very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even
immediate consequences of their moves.
There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014 in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For
the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name in WWII). There was another joke,
that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand
that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck
with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it.
Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly
as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even
this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
Nuland wrote that Russia did "violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors,
and the integrity of elections in the United States " But wait a minute, doesn't she really mean Israel, not Russia?
And in retrospect, America's penchant for throwing little countries against the wall has never worked all that well. I'm thinking
Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in
U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, "
We could chalk this up to a lack of imagination on the part of our intrepid former CIA scribbler, but anyone paying even cursory
attention couldn't help but conclude that the Obama administration didn't just tolerate, it choreographed, a plot against Trump
in league with foreign intelligence services.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a very different thing: globohomo elites
are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even immediate consequences of their moves.
There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014 in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For the liberation of Crimea" (there was
a medal of this name in WWII). There was another joke, that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand that a log rotten through and through
cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to
do with it. Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly as a rout of stealing
US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom
that when you see your enemy committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance.
That's pretty much it, they just use different rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies. Might makes right; there is no other
law beside bandit law. The Russians have been a barrier to the US being able to spread itself over the entire globe and rob everyone
weaker than itself. The US was behind all these atrocious jihadi mercenaries even as it's pretended to be against them. The Russians
stopped the US project of terror and overthrow in Syria and that's outraged the Americans who thought they could act as they pleased.
Libya was destroyed by the wonderful, hip Obama who many stupid Americans still think was a nice person. But with Russia, they
can huff and puff but can't blow their walls down. They have a military that can deter the Americans unlike all the other smaller
victim states.
"She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and
Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic,
has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand."
I think this is a mistake. I think Miss Nuland knows exactly how large and intense the US ft print is and belies it should
be larger and more intense. There are sincere people who believe that the US must as duty make the work safe for democracy even
the means of getting there is any and everything bt democratic because in the long run -- the benefits will outweigh.
and as proof of er sincerity -- it's not just Russia (Though I understand why Dr. Giraldi would like to tackle one territorial
issue at a time makes sense)
I agree that "backing Moscow into a corner with no way out" is a dangerous strategy. This is not the Cold War: in the Cold War
the United States and USSR were able to keep peace, a balance of power, an equilibrium where neither side's vital interests were
threatened. Russia had a buffer zone: not today. America was at the height of its global economic power: today it is being overtaken
by China. In the Cold War the big powers avoided nuclear Armageddon – though at times appeared to come close – because they were
able to. The misguided thinking today is: "we got through the Cold War we can get this". This is not a re-run of 1945-1991: it
is the lead-in to the holocaust that period skillfully avoided. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@GMC Let's give credit where
credit is due. Yes, the Empire wanted to buy Ukraine, preferably on the cheap (considering that the goods were not of the first
quality). But for the sale to proceed you need two sides. You need a fraudster and a sucker. You cannot consider morons who sold
their would-be country for beads blameless. Not to mention that many local thugs got a cut. Smarter thieves took their loot and
ran away, like Yats. Dumber and/or greedier ones, like Porky and Kolomoisky, remained and kept trying to steal more. The suckers
(the rest of the population) are left holding the bag. Stupidity is always punished in the end, but not always so severely.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western oriented country
You are joking surely? The country is run by Jews from top to bottom – although Jews are 1% of the population. Since the Maidan
putsch, there has only been a string of Jewish presidents and prime minsters. The guy responsible for investigating corruption
was recently sacked and replaced by a Jew.
Post Maidan, 3 TV stations were shut in Kharkov alone. Everything is controlled and is lies. Journalists and politicians who
don't do as they are told are shot. No one is arrested. The latest victim was an opposition politician who was executed by a shot
in the head in his parliamentary office a few weeks ago. No Jew ever suffers such a fate.
He was not "found dead". He was killed by a bullet to the head.
It was not in "central Kyiv". It was in the parliament building.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the democracies of the world
in crafting a more effective approach to Russia -- one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is
vulnerable, including among his own citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings
of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in
fact do in Ukraine
We live in the dark, convinced by our public media and our insincere leaders that we are heroes and freedom fighters. In
reality the opposite is true: we are the plunderers, the ravagers, deceiving ourselves to do the dirty work of the manipulators
who have twisted our minds with trinkets and false accounts of the people we kill and the countries we ruin in order to steal
their treasures.
And the saddest part -- the punchline that proves how stupid we are -- is that we never profit from the invasions we are cynically
ordered to conduct. The bounty always goes to the swindlers pulling the strings, and we, as the agents of banditry, time and again,
are always left to suffer the same fate of the people we have robbed when we are robbed ourselves, of not only our treasures,
but of our dignity, shortly before we are robbed of our lives.
It is the way history has always gone. The ignorant masses are persuaded to commit the crimes of the rich and as the unwitting
perpetrators, we ultimately suffer the same fate as the victims, while the rich snicker in their palaces and plot their next swindle.
How can the US "lead democracies" not being one of them?
didn't Vicky Nuland lead the Ukrainian democracy?
it isn't ridiculous, all it takes is shekels, as always, and an understanding of semantics. Words like 'democracy' are like
'liberated', or 'terrorists'.
The ZUS "liberated" Iraq from the "terrorists" who were ruling it, and imposed "democracy". Just like we "liberated" Germany,
and "liberated" Libya, and so many other places, where the ZUS leads 'democracies'.
You see how easy it is, once you understand how to interpret the words they use?
America is helping to liberate Palestine from terrorists, so that the Palestinians can enjoy democracy.
Today the Crimea is suffering under a regime that seized her by aggression and force, and so America would like to liberate
the people of Crimea, and lead them to democracy.
@AnonFromTN "Grabbing the Breadbasket
of Europe The East-West competition over Ukraine involves the control of natural resources, including uranium and other minerals,
as well as geopolitical issues such as Ukraine's membership in NATO. The stakes around Ukraine's vast agricultural sector, the
world's third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of wheat,constitute a critical factor that has been often overlooked."
Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture,Article 404 of the EU agreement,
which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both
parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the
agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, "Ukraine and, to a
wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the "most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers
Monsanto and DuPont.""
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf
@Mr. Hack Only a complete and
utter incompetent (or a rabid Ukrainian nationalist) can call Ukraine an independent state. It is de-facto a colony of the West.
A debt slave.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer, more Western-oriented country and that it continues
to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those of Russia's.
This was not about supporting Ukrainian aspirations for a freer, more Western-oriented country. It is about kicking out Russia
from Ukrainian markets and plundering Ukraine all by themselves. Mainly by Germany and the USA -- to major players of Euromaydan
color revolution. For Germans this is return to "Drang nach Osten" on a new level, on the level of neoliberal neocolonialism.
They used Western nationalists as their fifth column, but Western Ukrainian suffered from the results no less then people in
Eastern Ukraine. Many now try to move to Kiev, Kiev region and further East in order to escape poverty and unemployment. Seasonal
labor to Russia (mainly builders) diminished rapidly. Train communication now is blocked, and for Western Ukraine only Poland
now represents a chance to earn money for the family to survive the winter.
For the USA this is first of all about selling Ukraine expensive weaponry, wasting precious Ukrainian resources on permanent
hostility with Russia (with Donbas conflict as a real win to further the USA geopolitical ambitions -- in line with the "Full
spectrum dominance" doctrine) , cornering Ukrainian energy market (uranium supplies for power stations, etc.), destruction, or
buy-out of a few competing industries other than extracting industries and maquiladoras, getting better conditions for the EU
exports and multinationals operating in Ukraine (and initially with plans for re-export products to Russia tax free) and increasing
the country debt to "debt slave" level.
In other words this is a powerful kick in a chin by Obama to Putin. Not a knockdown, but very close.
For Ukraine first of all that means rapid accumulation of a huge external debt -- conditions of economic slavery, out of which
there is no escape. Ukrainian people paid a very dear price for their Euromaydan illusions. They became mass slave labor in Poland.
Prostitutes in Germany. Seasonal picker of fruits in some other EU countries (GB, France). A new European blacks, so to speak.
The level of fleecing Ukraine by the USA after Euromaidan can be compared only with fleecing of Libya. The currency dropped
300%, and 80% Ukrainians now live in abysmal poverty, while neoliberal oligarchs allied with the West continue to plunder the
country. Gold reserves were moved to the USA.
If I had to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are still colonizers, but they are less ruthless
and brutal colonizers.
The war against Russia has been going on for centuries. Nothing upsets these nutters more
than the Russians insulating themselves from the mental virus that has proliferated in the
West.
Just read the sour grapes of the usual suspects in this derogatory article. Similar in
tone to the nonsense at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. Nothing amuses me more than to
watch them vomiting on themselves in frustration.
Nuland's views are, as stated in the article, dangerous fantasy-one could almost accuse her
of having psychopathic voices in her head with respect to russia and putin.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that this woman was close to the top level in
state under obama but we can surely see her handiwork in the devastation of the Ukraine
nation.
You forgot to mention that virtually all of the neocon/liberal interventionist
"intellectuals"on your list identify as Jewish, which means they see themselves as having
Hebrew backgrounds, which not only gives them an Israel First/Zionist orientation, but which
means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Russia is pathological and ancestral, which means their
hatred of "anti-Semitic" Europeans is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of
"anti-Semitic" white people is pathological and ancestral, which means their desire for
nuclear war between whites is pathological and ancestral, which means they believe they can
win a nuclear war (perhaps by sheltering in bunker state Israel) and emerge as the anointed
"chosen" intellectual priest class of the world
So there is a kind of internal logic or rationalism to their insanity, in the same way
that any insular, imperious elite suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur can
develop internal, echo chamber "logic" that is (objectively) insane. The difference is, their
insane "logic" is additionally sanctioned by their particular God or their particular History
or their version of God/History.
Hence, with this cult, we not only get insular, echo-chamber imperialism, but we
additionally get quasi-religious, messianic fanaticism that will view any nuclear war as
pre-ordained fate in service of delivering the Chosen Ones to the world.
And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's
so desperate to consign its fate to.
Another critique of US foreign policy regarding Russia, all referenced under the famous
"cookies and milk" response of Ms. Nuland in Kyiv. Lucky for Russia that she wasn't doling
out scoops of ice cream instead?
For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to
protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western
oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those
of Russia's. It's time for the Giraldis and Cohens of the world to shed their Russian fig
leaf covering and be exposed as the gutless appeasers that they really are.
Victoria Nuland (her family name formerly Nudelman) and her blood-thirsty, thieving zionist
neocon buddies would love nothing more than to tear Russia apart and finish the rape and
plunder of that country first begun under Russia's 'reformer' president, the idiot Yeltsin,
wherein mostly jewish Russian and American oligarchs systematically stole what amounts to
about $330 billion dollars of Russia's wealth.
That these zionist neocon murderers and thieves would put the world at risk to achieve
their goals is no surprise, as one need only look at the 3,000+ innocent American lives,
including many Jews, that were snuffed out on 9/11, all to set the stage for the US and
allies' "War of Terror" against mainly the enemies of Israel, and to line the pockets of the
ever-growing Military-Information-Security Complex. Innocent lives mean absolutely nothing to
these monsters.
The campaign against Russia is simply another necessary link in the chain that binds the
world to the PNAC vision of using the US and the West to establish and maintain what is
essentially a Jewish supremacist movement that barely conceals itself and its nefarious
agenda from the useful idiot goyim so necessary to carry forward the PNAC's plan for world
domination. And the chubby little Ms Nudelman is just another tireless zionist mouthpiece for
this ugly, obnoxious and risky agenda
Venezuela? A threat to US national security?? Sounds completely absurd.
But if you consider your 'national security' being threatened whenever any scarce natural
resources in the world are not in your or in your client states' posession, then anthing
which interferes with that is a "threat!" Iran (before 2003), Iraq, and Russia certainly fit
the bill of being enemies.
This explanation, for me, is much more realistic than to think the neocons are solely
driven by cold war mentalities.
The neocons are particularly peeved at Russia because through their oligarchs, they had
the crown jewels in their hand before Putin wrested it out. It was always clear from the
beginning that the overthrow of the Ukraine government was always just a stepping stone to
the overthrow of Putin in Russia.
Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control
China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially.
Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive
people of the world Germany and China then work for you.
Nuland and her ilk will be spewing their dangerous nonsense and banging the drums of war like
homicidal energizer bunnies until hell freezes over. Meanwhile, "from Atlantic to Pacific,
the insanity is terrific," as the nation devolves in an engineered mass hysteria. As things
go down the tubes, the Empire will get ever more desperate, rather than easing back a bit on
the throttle. With Donald Boy and Sec. of State "Plump-piehole" egging on Israeli
expansionist dreams and drone-executing whomever they please–what could possibly go
wrong? I'm waiting for one, just one, European power to call bullshit on the U.S. and put a
stop to this madness. Fat chance of that.
I think we are in the Empire's desperation phase. The Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) report that called for and got another Pearl Harbor also spoke affectionately of
creating bioweapons to target any upstart nation encroaching on U.S. hegemony. If the
bastards could get away with 9/11, a most obvious inside job, what's not to like about the
disruption and confusion of bioweapons? The ruthless evil we are up against is truly
staggering.
It would be super funny, if Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Sudanese, Afghani, and Iranian
diplomats now went out en mass to give out cookies to the US rioters.
Taking PR pictures with the poor oppressed black looters and antifa trannies, lecturing
Washington on human rights, and pledging support to the "moderate terrorists" i.e. the
democrat mayors and governors who decide to not interfere with the looting and autonomous
zones.
I think this would be the most epic troll ever. Especially if Venezuela then paraded some
nervous spook and declared him the "legitimate president of the United States".
Or maybe, kek, just appoint Bernie the real president. "For two elections the corrupt
system has denied this true hero his rightful position. Enough! We support the people's
choice!" etc. Bernie would be all: "I don't know who these people are, honest," and they'd
be: "stay strong, comrade, we shall help you in your fight to become a true people's
president!"
Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that
leaves both sides poorer and less free.
Well said.
It's also really strange to portray Russia in this demonic fashion. When you see it up
close, there are things you don't like or question, things that are bizarre, absurdly
inefficient, and outright abhorrent, but it's far from the big threatening geopolitical beast
they make it out to be. It's more of a joke which even Russians understand.
There's a phrase from the USSR that someone taught me –
аналогов нет, "no
analogues" or nothing comparable, referring to the quality of their military armaments,
specifically rockets. Obvious nonsense pushed by the USSR to bolster faith in the populace,
it lives on today in Kremlin propaganda, but is widely regarded as the bullshit it is, which
is why videos containing the phrase itself are banned on YouTube Russia.
In short Russia, as a meme, is a "paper tiger" propped up largely by Washingtonian
psychodrama and will-to-power. Washington doesn't want Russia out of Crimea because they love
the Ukrainians; they want them out because Ukraine is a major destination for American
corporate venality. Absent interference from Washington, the Kremlin might undertake some
foreign adventures in neighboring countries, but for the most part would continue on its
obvious path of "peacefully" melding with the Chinese economy, like everyone else.
There is no white nation free of the forces of decline set in motion by white success and
the overall technological arc of history. "Russia" is nothing more than a scarecrow for the
Washington establishment – which it could just as well drop, as they no longer need
justifications or approval from the people – and signifies only a livid hunger for the
last major market they've yet to absorb directly.
"... Russia heavily subsidised Ukrainian energy imports for decades – gas and oil. In a similar fashion, Russia is doing this with Belarus until the present time. Russia is the only possible consumer of what Ukraine used to manufacture – a market that has disappeared. Gas turbines used to be made in Ukraine. Now, this has moved to Russia. Of course, the skilled Ukrainians went to Russia with their know-how. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge the USSR was the only empire that actually subsidized its colonies – Poland, East Germany, Ukraine etc. Russia is far better off without them. ..."
"... Ukrainian supermarkets are overflowing with French/German/Italian products. European supermarkets are devoid of Ukrainian products. ..."
Only a complete and utter incompetent (or a rabid Ukrainian nationalist) can call Ukraine
an independent state. It is de-facto a colony of the West. A debt slave.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer, more
Western-oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests
over those of Russia's.
This was not about supporting Ukrainian aspirations for a freer, more Western-oriented
country. It is about kicking out Russia from Ukrainian markets and plundering Ukraine all by
themselves. Mainly by Germany and the USA -- to major players of Euromaydan color revolution.
For Germans this is return to "Drang nach Osten" on a new level, on the level of neoliberal
neocolonialism.
They used Western nationalists as their fifth column, but Western Ukrainian suffered from
the results no less then people in Eastern Ukraine. Many now try to move to Kiev, Kiev region
and further East in order to escape poverty and unemployment. Seasonal labor to Russia
(mainly builders) diminished rapidly. Train communication now is blocked, and for Western
Ukraine only Poland now represents a chance to earn money for the family to survive the
winter.
For the USA this is first of all about selling Ukraine expensive weaponry, wasting
precious Ukrainian resources on permanent hostility with Russia (with Donbas conflict as a
real win to further the USA geopolitical ambitions -- in line with the "Full spectrum
dominance" doctrine) , cornering Ukrainian energy market (uranium supplies for power
stations, etc.), destruction, or buy-out of a few competing industries other than extracting
industries and maquiladoras, getting better conditions for the EU exports and multinationals
operating in Ukraine (and initially with plans for re-export products to Russia tax free) and
increasing the country debt to "debt slave" level.
In other words this is a powerful kick in a chin by Obama to Putin. Not a knockdown, but
very close.
For Ukraine first of all that means rapid accumulation of a huge external debt --
conditions of economic slavery, out of which there is no escape. Ukrainian people paid a very
dear price for their Euromaydan illusions. They became mass slave labor in Poland.
Prostitutes in Germany. Seasonal picker of fruits in some other EU countries (GB, France). A
new European blacks, so to speak.
The level of fleecing Ukraine by the USA after Euromaidan can be compared only with
fleecing of Libya. The currency dropped 300%, and 80% Ukrainians now live in abysmal poverty,
while neoliberal oligarchs allied with the West continue to plunder the country. Gold
reserves were moved to the USA.
If I had to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are
still colonizers, but they are less ruthless and brutal colonizers.
@likbezIf I had
to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are still
colonizers, but they are less ruthless and brutal colonizers.
I agree with 90% of what you wrote, but I would like to correct the above.
Russia heavily subsidised Ukrainian energy imports for decades – gas and oil. In
a similar fashion, Russia is doing this with Belarus until the present time. Russia is the
only possible consumer of what Ukraine used to manufacture – a market that has
disappeared. Gas turbines used to be made in Ukraine. Now, this has moved to Russia. Of
course, the skilled Ukrainians went to Russia with their know-how.
To the best of my knowledge the USSR was the only empire that actually subsidized its
colonies – Poland, East Germany, Ukraine etc. Russia is far better off without
them.
Ukrainian supermarkets are overflowing with French/German/Italian products. European
supermarkets are devoid of Ukrainian products.
@anonymous1963 I
think they are still working together. We know that the Global Zionist bankers and Wall St.
established the Bolshevik (Zionist) takeover. International Banker Jacob Schiff and one of
Pres Wilson's Zionist handlers invested 20 million in the enterprise as confirmed by his
great grandson, husband of Al Gore's daughter. The Zionists were setting everything up for
the plunder while the whole Soviet system was a house of cards only propped up by constant
massive agricultural, industrial and financial aid while the Amer. people were constantly
told by the Zionist MSM about how powerful and dangerous they were.
That particular Hegelian Dialectic ruse has been phased out (Lenin said the USSR was a
transition) as we moved on to "The War on Terror." Signing the Crimea over to the Ukraine by
Breshnev in 1954 that had been under Russian control since before the U.S. was founded was
part of the plan to set up future conflict. The Zionists always manufacture strife and
conflict both at home and abroad. For the Zionists to stick their nose in the Ukraine that
they already control by using their American shabbos goy satellite is to be expected.
Most people look at these staged events from a short term perspective. The Zionists are
working years ahead to manage these crises. They will have to have a big one probably
involving both Russia and China once they build up more militarily. That will most likely
transition into the "global governance" that the Zioinist puppet politicians are always
talking about.
The Zionist in Nuland comes out when she mentions Russia cooperating with Iran in Syria. Like
almost all Zionists in America, she views the world through Israeli eyes. Iran is Israel's
arch-enemy. However, Iran is n threat to the American people. Any country or group that does
not oppose Iran is hated by Zionists. Of course, the Zionist-owned media in America is not
going to criticize Zionists for their Zionism. The Zionist-owned Trump and Congress make a
bad situation worse Result? Wars for Israel.
I'd like to see someone try and refute this basic truth "White politicians represent Israel."
Normal White people have no power or representation in the US. Black politicians
represent Blacks. Hispanic politicians represent Hispanics. White politicians represent
Israel.
@Mr. Hack I ran
across this info when I was reading and researching. It all dawned on me when in Crimea ,
where I was/am living. I had about a half dozen Ukie military friends, just around Caki, Krym
– this was before – when it was Ukrainian and they spoke some english and me,
some russian – so we could talk without difficulty. I was in the US Military 69 -71 so
I was accepted and even today I am accepted , but by Russian military guys here- though not
as much – lol. Anyways, when the base here was " trading hands " I asked to buy any
left over kalishnakovs, that the Ukie guys may want to sell. These guys were so underpaid {
75 t0 130 bucks a month} I thought they would jump at the chance for a couple hundred buck
trade. They didn't have enough weapons to even go around the base – Zip – they
always depended on Sevastopol { Ru Navy/Marines }to defend Crimea. I asked if all the bases
in Crimea had the same problem – they said everywhere in Ukraine ! Now, I know Ukies
enough to know that when they de-armed – they didn't/ would never destroy any working
weapons but they would sell them to anyone in the mid east , east Europe – etc. Why
didn't President Yanuk. surround Kyiv with the military and stop the bus loads of paid
rioters from west Ukraine { Azov battalion ] from comin in ? His military was corrupt, full
of thieves like himself and pretty – non existant – just like the CIA likes. Game
over for Ukraine. Spacibo Mr. H
"... First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich. ..."
"... And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom. ..."
"... Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. ..."
"... The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?) ..."
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
=>
List of Bookmarks ◄► ◄ ► ▲▼ Add
to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next
New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text
Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela
and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something
to bolster his "strong president" credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus
and black lives matter.
Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three
predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out
neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald
Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot
Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice
President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who
believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance
its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where
the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed
Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with
Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the
first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American
citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the
exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who
personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules
when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been
attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, " Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show
the world we mean business. "
One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans,
Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute
and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria
Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and
a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns
primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is
regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions
was "worth it." Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member
of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian
government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt
autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department,
provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to
include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to
interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget , but
Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the
replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating
conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in
Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and
directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration
was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Her use of the word
"frontline" is suggestive.
Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military
capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the
Taliban's Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and
sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable
relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving
in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no
compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to
join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign
Affairs magazine on the proper way for the United States manage
what she sees as the Russian "threat." It is entitled "How a Confident America Should Deal
With Russia." Foreign Affairs , it should be observed, is an establishment house organ
produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both
neocons and liberal interventionists.
Nuland's view is that the United States lost confidence in its own "ability to change the
game" against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play "a weak hand well because the United
States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties,
international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the
United States and Europe Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the
Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent
U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a
shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included
incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about
the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as
Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as
a rogue state threatening the "liberal world." She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a
threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that
Putin might seek " reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from
vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal
democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO
enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO
was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin's
agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms."
Nuland's view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy.
Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat,
particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take
place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin's great fear over the NATO expansion
derives from his having " always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous
states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk
re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations."
Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be
confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a
comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as "Russian troops regularly
test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country's oil fields and
smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from
financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons."
Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired
to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered
too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the
heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of
Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as
expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a
thousand.
Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House's threats against countries that do not
toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of
perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic
activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from
Washington, not from "undemocratic" leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead
the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia -- one that builds
on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a
foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is
precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.
Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current
state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind
of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It
is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while
the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and
armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world's
self-appointed policeman.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email isinform@cnionline.org .
This is a great overview, but Americans cannot understand these truths after hours of
constant propaganda in our media. For example, Hillary Clinton and President Obama destroyed
and looted Africa's most prosperous nation in 2011 that resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths of innocents. This is not in dispute, it is just ignored despite daily stories about
the chaos in Libya. Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and
looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt
by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed
by a $5 billion budget, "
As you yourself have pointed out, more than once, in fact, there actually is a foreign
country which, more than, interferes in U.S. domestic policy, some would estimate,
effectively controls it, and foreign policy, as well.
While it would a bit of an effort to monetize the full amount spent on this effort, I
personally would not be a bit surprised if it were significantly larger than $5 billion, and
despite that, one could imagine, quite a bargain in terms of their ROI; it could in fact be
considerably less than the overt transfer of sovereign U.S. wealth to that foreign government
every year.
The past administrations, either every one, or almost every one, going back as far
as Truman, certainly , but the trend was already well established during the puppet
presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
I'd love to read your rejoinder.
onetribe
being blocked incorrectly from using my usual handle
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
An admirable sentiment, except that the BLM movement appears to be little more than a
vehicle for staged chaos nurtured behind the scenes by more war criminals with a hidden
agenda.
And more's the pity, because there are hordes of high-ranking war criminals in the
Exceptional Nation that richly deserve burning at the stake. In the Libyan context, Muammar
Gaddafi was not only a great leader but also a good man, who was doing great things not only
for his own people but also for the community of African nations.
If you're going to have a dictator, make sure you get a good one. Gaddafi was a good
one.
Trump not so much, but Clinton was and is horrifically evil.
The war against Russia has been going on for centuries. Nothing upsets these nutters more
than the Russians insulating themselves from the mental virus that has proliferated in the
West.
Just read the sour grapes of the usual suspects in this derogatory article. Similar in
tone to the nonsense at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. Nothing amuses me more than to
watch them vomiting on themselves in frustration.
Nuland's views are, as stated in the article, dangerous fantasy-one could almost accuse her
of having psychopathic voices in her head with respect to russia and putin.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that this woman was close to the top level in
state under obama but we can surely see her handiwork in the devastation of the ukraine
nation.
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
My imagination:
An agitator is planted inside BLM, and is armed and equipped to carry out a terrorist attack
on the American people as false flag event – blows up a weight-watchers convention,
next to a Wal-mart, and puts a half-a-dozen fat bodies into orbit circling the
globe(celestial bodies). After said attack BLM is defunded, and disbanded(but the race war
continues).
You forgot to mention that virtually all of the neocon/liberal interventionist
"intellectuals"on your list identify as Jewish, which means they see themselves as having
Hebrew backgrounds, which not only gives them an Israel First/Zionist orientation, but which
means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Russia is pathological and ancestral, which means their
hatred of "anti-Semitic" Europeans is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of
"anti-Semitic" white people is pathological and ancestral, which means their desire for
nuclear war between whites is pathological and ancestral, which means they believe they can
win a nuclear war (perhaps by sheltering in bunker state Israel) and emerge as the anointed
"chosen" intellectual priest class of the world
So there is a kind of internal logic or rationalism to their insanity, in the same way
that any insular, imperious elite suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur can
develop internal, echo chamber "logic" that is (objectively) insane. The difference is, their
insane "logic" is additionally sanctioned by their particular God or their particular History
or their version of God/History.
Hence, with this cult, we not only get insular, echo-chamber imperialism, but we
additionally get quasi-religious, messianic fanaticism that will view any nuclear war as
pre-ordained fate in service of delivering the Chosen Ones to the world.
And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's
so desperate to consign its fate to.
Posturing. What else can this be, coming from the lips of a Jewish woman? It all just sounds
so ridiculous. What authority does she have? Only the threat of force, reckless force
dispensed with abandon. That's not authority. It's insanity.
Another critique of US foreign policy regarding Russia, all referenced under the famous
"cookies and milk" response of Ms. Nuland in Kyiv. Lucky for Russia that she wasn't doling
out scoops of ice cream instead?
For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to
protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western
oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those
of Russia's. It's time for the Giraldis and Cohens of the world to shed their Russian fig
leaf covering and be exposed as the gutless appeasers that they really are.
Victoria Nuland (her family name formerly Nudelman) and her blood-thirsty, thieving zionist
neocon buddies would love nothing more than to tear Russia apart and finish the rape and
plunder of that country first begun under Russia's 'reformer' president, the idiot Yeltsin,
wherein mostly jewish Russian and American oligarchs systematically stole what amounts to
about $330 billion dollars of Russia's wealth.
That these zionist neocon murderers and thieves would put the world at risk to achieve
their goals is no surprise, as one need only look at the 3,000+ innocent American lives,
including many Jews, that were snuffed out on 9/11, all to set the stage for the US and
allies' "War of Terror" against mainly the enemies of Israel, and to line the pockets of the
ever-growing Military-Information-Security Complex. Innocent lives mean absolutely nothing to
these monsters.
The campaign against Russia is simply another necessary link in the chain that binds the
world to the PNAC vision of using the US and the West to establish and maintain what is
essentially a Jewish supremacist movement that barely conceals itself and its nefarious
agenda from the useful idiot goyim so necessary to carry forward the PNAC's plan for world
domination. And the chubby little Ms Nudelman is just another tireless zionist mouthpiece for
this ugly, obnoxious and risky agenda
Giraldi would have us believe that it was all a US sponsored provocation, not the natural
outcry of the Ukrainiain people seeking change from a thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian
regime. Ms.Nuland's cookies must have tasted really good to get the massive outpouring of
support in Kiev that demanded systemic change.
Venezuela? A threat to US national security?? Sounds completely absurd.
But if you consider your 'national security' being threatened whenever any scarce natural
resources in the world are not in your or in your client states' posession, then anthing
which interferes with that is a "threat!" Iran (before 2003), Iraq, and Russia certainly fit
the bill of being enemies.
This explanation, for me, is much more realistic than to think the neocons are solely
driven by cold war mentalities.
The neocons are particularly peeved at Russia because through their oligarchs, they had
the crown jewels in their hand before Putin wrested it out. It was always clear from the
beginning that the overthrow of the Ukraine government was always just a stepping stone to
the overthrow of Putin in Russia.
Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control
China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially.
Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive
people of the world Germany and China then work for you.
Nuland and her ilk will be spewing their dangerous nonsense and banging the drums of war like
homicidal energizer bunnies until hell freezes over. Meanwhile, "from Atlantic to Pacific,
the insanity is terrific," as the nation devolves in an engineered mass hysteria. As things
go down the tubes, the Empire will get ever more desperate, rather than easing back a bit on
the throttle. With Donald Boy and Sec. of State "Plump-piehole" egging on Israeli
expansionist dreams and drone-executing whomever they please–what could possibly go
wrong? I'm waiting for one, just one, European power to call bullshit on the U.S. and put a
stop to this madness. Fat chance of that.
I think we are in the Empire's desperation phase. The Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) report that called for and got another Pearl Harbor also spoke affectionately of
creating bioweapons to target any upstart nation encroaching on U.S. hegemony. If the
bastards could get away with 9/11, a most obvious inside job, what's not to like about the
disruption and confusion of bioweapons? The ruthless evil we are up against is truly
staggering.
It would be super funny, if Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Sudanese, Afghani, and Iranian
diplomats now went out en mass to give out cookies to the US rioters.
Taking PR pictures with the poor oppressed black looters and antifa trannies, lecturing
Washington on human rights, and pledging support to the "moderate terrorists" i.e. the
democrat mayors and governors who decide to not interfere with the looting and autonomous
zones.
I think this would be the most epic troll ever. Especially if Venezuela then paraded some
nervous spook and declared him the "legitimate president of the United States".
Or maybe, kek, just appoint Bernie the real president. "For two elections the corrupt
system has denied this true hero his rightful position. Enough! We support the people's
choice!" etc. Bernie would be all: "I don't know who these people are, honest," and they'd
be: "stay strong, comrade, we shall help you in your fight to become a true people's
president!"
America's most pro-Israel President, the one who moved the embassy to Jerusalem and appointed
a West Bank settler dude as ambassador, has both refrained from starting wars and is
gradually bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, etc.
So much for the Jihadi/leftist smear that Israel's friends promote wars.
Trump: peace through strength and loyalty to America's true friends.
Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that
leaves both sides poorer and less free.
Well said.
It's also really strange to portray Russia in this demonic fashion. When you see it up
close, there are things you don't like or question, things that are bizarre, absurdly
inefficient, and outright abhorrent, but it's far from the big threatening geopolitical beast
they make it out to be. It's more of a joke which even Russians understand.
There's a phrase from the USSR that someone taught me –
аналогов нет, "no
analogues" or nothing comparable, referring to the quality of their military armaments,
specifically rockets. Obvious nonsense pushed by the USSR to bolster faith in the populace,
it lives on today in Kremlin propaganda, but is widely regarded as the bullshit it is, which
is why videos containing the phrase itself are banned on YouTube Russia.
In short Russia, as a meme, is a "paper tiger" propped up largely by Washingtonian
psychodrama and will-to-power. Washington doesn't want Russia out of Crimea because they love
the Ukrainians; they want them out because Ukraine is a major destination for American
corporate venality. Absent interference from Washington, the Kremlin might undertake some
foreign adventures in neighboring countries, but for the most part would continue on its
obvious path of "peacefully" melding with the Chinese economy, like everyone else.
There is no white nation free of the forces of decline set in motion by white success and
the overall technological arc of history. "Russia" is nothing more than a scarecrow for the
Washington establishment – which it could just as well drop, as they no longer need
justifications or approval from the people – and signifies only a livid hunger for the
last major market they've yet to absorb directly.
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that
he has not started any new wars, though
It is difficult to read past an opening sentence such as this one.
I have seen it constantly. I call it the "Back-handed Trump hating fool" approach. The
many writers who employ this method in their articles appear to believe that they literally
have to make it clear to their readers that of course they (the writers) think Trump is a
moron/cad/crook/criminal/mentally ill, BUT!!!
Then they proceed with the rest of their article.
But don't you (the reader) dare think that they think anything good about Trump!
This is childish bullshit and am I the only one who is completely sick of it?
Hey, Phil, how about you leave out the stupid back-handed Trump hating nonsense? You don't
need to write it, but if you do? Have your editors cut it from your writing. It just makes
you look stupid, and many won't even continue reading your article. As they should. No one
deserves to be read who would write such facile, petty nonsense.
ANY country, real or satelite which allows ""diplomats from 5-headed beast or anglo-terrorist
and marauding alliance deserve extinction.
God Bless DPRK!
If we "follow the money", Hillary's campaign was financed by the Israelis. An honest post
mortem on her loss would have focused attention on the huge influence of Israeli money on
American elections. The faked focus on Russian "meddling" could have been to divert any talk
of election "meddling" away from Israel's truly vast "meddling". (The Israelis routinely
distract by accusing others of their own crimes.) The Israelis control both the DNC and the
corporate media, so "Russiagate" could roll on virtually evidence-free. Fox was allowed to
criticize the "Russiagate" attack on Trump, but only to keep the kabuki conflict boiling.
Neither side ever mentioned Israel's "meddling", or in any way criticized Israel. To the
contrary, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity even agreed that Netanyahu would be a great American
president. So why did Israeli asset John Bolton just attack Trump, after Trump has given
Israel so much, including assassinating Soleimani? Maybe it's Trump's refusal to launch
Israel's next war? Maybe they don't really trust Trump? Maybe because on 9/11 Trump said he
didn't believe planes could have brought down the twin towers, and that explosives must have
been involved? Could Trump be in a deadly dance with the Israelis, riding a tiger?
Nuland wrote that Russia did "violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States " But
wait a minute, doesn't she really mean Israel, not Russia?
And in retrospect, America's penchant for throwing little countries against the wall has
never worked all that well. I'm thinking Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the
Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly
corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland might hate Russia, but Obama gave back Crimea to Russia the rightful owner on a
Silver Platter. Russia has now easy access to Mediterranean Sea. Obama then invited Russia
back to Syria, as the USSR was kicked out of Middle East by the Evil Kissinger after the Yom
Kippur War ..
@Mr. Hack Exactly,
it was a US financed provocation with a whole lot of extremely dumb stooges. Six years that
have passed since prove it again and again, every day.
Whatever; "Ukraine" is not a state, "ukrainians" are not a people, "ukraininan" is just
bastardized Russian/Polish mix, so to hell with this joke of a cuntry. Let Russia, Poland and
Hungary partition it.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by
a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by
a $5 billion budget, "
We could chalk this up to a lack of imagination on the part of our intrepid former CIA
scribbler, but anyone paying even cursory attention couldn't help but conclude that the Obama
administration didn't just tolerate, it choreographed, a plot against Trump in league with
foreign intelligence services.
I'm confident that neither a lack of imagination or garden-variety ignorance explains
Giraldi's narrative weaving. However open or obscured, staying on the remove Trump by any
means necessary team remains the smart, if treasonous, play.
You'll note that Russia is included in this no doubt incomplete list. It really is a
fool's errand to try to surmise for any of these foreign participants what of their actions
were opportunism as opposed to resigned self-protectiveness,
But, make no mistake, every single one, foreign powers, whether allies or adversaries, and
individuals and purportedly non-state entities, was promised goodies at the expense of the
American national interest.
That's anyone's guess at this point. We know surveillance state bottom-feeder Glenn
Simpson got at least $6M, and Stefan "Guttman" Halper about $1M. What do you think was
promised to foreign powers for playing ball? In the case of Russia, unless I miss my mark,
Nord Stream II was merely the down payment.
Maybe some day Giraldi will ask Brennan the contours of the deal he made Russia assistance
in throwing the election to Hillary in March, 2016:
" Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you
control China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe
financially. Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level,
the productive people of the world Germany and China then work for you."
Given all that has happened this year, I can unequivocally say that any white person who
joins the US military needs to have their head examined. And a US military bereft of white
people would be pretty much useless.
Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led,
Ok but the main reason 'Dubbya' went into Eye-Raq is because he wanted to 'get' Saddam for
having gone after 'Big Daddy' Bush I. The Neochoens provided the cover.
Bill Jones said:
I too find it appalling that these people move among us.
Yes but Nudelman is also a laughable character now who's shelf life has expired, I
hope.
Ignoring all arguments about who is on the side of the angels here.
There are a lot of countries that could hurt us badly in a shooting war, but we would
survive, and at the end of the day, they would not. However, there is one country, and only
one, that could completely erase us in a few hours, and that is Russia.
Seems insanely suicidal to run around poking the bear with a stick at every possible
opportunity.
For the gullible fans of Mr. Trump, who want so fervently to believe that he's trying to
change anything but the rhetoric:
When I searched to confirm the name of that "diplomat" standing next to Ms. Nuland, I
learned from an official website that he remains employed as such, now the face of Uncle Sam
in Greece.
Geoffrey R. Pyatt, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, was
sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to the Hellenic Republic in September 2016.
He served as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 2013-2016, receiving the State Department's
Robert Frasure Memorial Award in recognition of his commitment to peace and alleviation of
human suffering in eastern Ukraine.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into a
gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
If you can't handle the truth, just hit the Troll or Disagree button.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security , to include invading other
countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed
nearly twenty years later.
Great article, Phil. May I recommend one minor edit:
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance the Jewish State's security, to include invading
other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces
stationed nearly twenty years later.
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
@BL By the way, I
will give you the commanding heights Sad Story in absurdly abridged form.
China won the post-Cold War period hands down. From Tiananmen Square to Ising power on the
cusp of global hegemony in a quarter century. With the US paying the bill.
While there were clear indications to any honest observer years before, Snowden's coming
out signaled the public next phase of a years long operation in which the USG built a global
surveillance apparatus, including not the least of Americans, and then lost the whole shebang
to Russia, China and God Knows Who Else.
My view then -- and I have seen nothing to even suggest my informed speculation was wrong
-- was that the sky was the limit in terms of what the powers that be would gift in terms of
the national interest to protect themselves from exposure and a reckoning.
I would like anyone who disagrees to otherwise explain how USG policy became one of
driving China and Russia into a strategic alliance. To say nothing of putting obviously
compromised individuals, foreign assets, like Brennan at the apex of power.
Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review
a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
Uh huh. Read the NYT article -- Obama is no angel, but Giraldi should explain why
President Obama would set up, much less publicly reveal, weekly sessions in which both he and
the office of the president are grossly debased by the Director of the CIA?
In this article, this is the most important sentence in terms of showing how doomed America
is: Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to
review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
The DOOM is that no Liberal can ever acknowledge that as something a liberal, a sacred
black liberal at that, would do without being forced to do so by white conservatives.
That insanity lies at the heart of America and has since at least the Emancipation
Proclamation. It means that it is totally impossible to have a halfway meaningful 'liberal'
opposition to imperialism, because imperialism is always easily cast as doing good for the
downtrodden blacks and/or browns and/or yellows and/or Jews and/or Moslems.
Too late, too fat, & too ugly! Nuland already lost the beauty contest for Biden's
ventriloquist to Avril Haines, She-wolf of the DO. The rectal feedings will continue till
morale improves!
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair- blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria . . .
More like the Castro District or Seattle, in fact.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration.
Trump fired John Bolton. Pompeo is at most a shadow of Bolton. That is rather the opposite
of resurgence. If the author could let go of his #NeverTrump bias he would be able to see
that Trump has run the NeoCons out of the GOP.
Trump tried to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan and ran into Deep State
obstructionism.
The Globalists tried to trick Trump into a Syria expansion by creating a Turkey/Syria
battle through areas controlled by U.S. Troops. Trump refused to be manipulated and pulled
U.S. Troops out of the kill sack. Does anyone still believe that myth about 'protecting
Syrian oil'? Only the mentally dim accepted that ludicrous cover story. It was flimsy excuse
to relocate out of the Deep State trap.
Prior U.S. administrations created huge problems in the ME by toppling Saddam and
emboldening Iran's theocracy. "Cut and Run" would guarantee a nuclear arms race in the
region. Trump's containment of Iranian colonial expansionism is working, albeit slowly. The
Rial continues to slide (now at ~200,000 to the USD). At some point, the Iranian people will
choose to get rid of their failed leaders and rejoin civilized society. Until then Trump's
containment is better than a Biden invasion.
_____
Trump has fundamentally reshaped the alignment of U.S. Politics. There is only one foreign
interventionist party. The SJW Globalist DNC now owns both the NeoConDemocrats and the R2P
crowd. The choice this November is clear:
-- Trump -- No New Foreign Wars
-- Biden -- Invasion of Ukraine, Iran, Libya, etc.
Nuland is just the tip of the iceberg in the ZUS government, which is infested with zionists
and has been in every administation since Wilson, they are the cause of every war since WWI
right down to the middle east and in the case of the middle east wars, the zionists and
Israel used their attack on the WTC to push America into the slaughter house for the greater
Israel project.
Read The Protocols of Zion and the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, there is
laid out the zionist one world zionist government.
@Larchmonter420 It
is little noticed that those Countries consumed by the evil Soviet Union have fared much
better in conserving their culture and sense of self, after they were upchucked in the early
'90s, than the Champions of Democracy of the West have done under the freedom and tutelage
bestowed by the US.
Funny dat.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a
very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even
immediate consequences of their moves. There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014
in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name
in WWII). There was another joke, that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion
without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand
that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck
with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it.
Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly
as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even
this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Meaning, if you have governments in the first place, sooner or later, you will have
war, either on the people inside a country [eg the war on drugs], or on citizens of another
country, or both at the same time [i.e. what we have now].
Outside of complete dissolution of all states [ preferable in my opinion, but unlikely
given the general mindset of the brainwashed masses worldwide], and given the systemic need
of all states everywhere for evermore wars on their own, and on others populations, the only
[ imperfect, and perhaps temporary], solution I see is to 95% downsize the federal government
and restore the constitution and bill of rights and to thereby restrict the federal
government to its original limits, and to even design new, more effective ways to prevent the
federal governments further expansion beyond those original limits/chains.
"..the very idea of the State itself is poisonous, evil, and intrinsically destructive.
But, like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume it's part of the cosmic firmament,
when it's really just a monstrous scam.
It's a fraud, like your belief that you have a right to free speech because of the First
Amendment, or a right to be armed because of the Second Amendment. No, you don't. The U.S.
Constitution is just an arbitrary piece of paper entirely apart from the fact the whole thing
is now just a dead letter. You have a right to free speech and to be armed because they're
necessary parts of being a free person, not because of what a political document
says.
Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and
respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book.
They think it has something to do with "We the People" electing a Jimmy Stewart character to
represent them.
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so.
February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
@Bill Jones There
is even funnier thing now with covid: the countries that do not toe the imperial line,
Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, are doing a lot better than imperial sidekicks like Brazil,
Colombia, or Peru. Rephrasing old Russian saying, "tell me who is your friend, and I tell you
how stupid you are".
@Rahan To make the
troll work even better, Venezuela could then send 20 guys in zodiacs to motor into DC and NY
harbor to try to take over Dulles and LaGuardia airports, and when they got captured, they
could just trade them for those 2 knuckleheads we sent down there. They could also claim that
they're here to capture Trump; that might just get him handed over.
Rahan, you have to send your brilliant joke to CJ Hopkins and to Caitline Johnstone to get
if more exposure.
@anonymous You
appear to be saying that a career diplomat who served in Ukraine when the US did or supported
bad things there should not have been appointed as Ambassador to Greece. Is that a correct
understanding of what you mean to convey? If so, how does this reflect on Trump when the
appointment was made two months before he was elected?
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance.
That's pretty much it, they just use different rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies.
Might makes right; there is no other law beside bandit law. The Russians have been a barrier
to the US being able to spread itself over the entire globe and rob everyone weaker than
itself. The US was behind all these atrocious jihadi mercenaries even as it's pretended to be
against them. The Russians stopped the US project of terror and overthrow in Syria and that's
outraged the Americans who thought they could act as they pleased. Libya was destroyed by the
wonderful, hip Obama who many stupid Americans still think was a nice person. But with
Russia, they can huff and puff but can't blow their walls down. They have a military that can
deter the Americans unlike all the other smaller victim states.
@AnonFromTN The
second joke should be withdrawn from active service. It is that of the naughty schoolboy who
will say anything for a cheap laugh – in this case "balls. A well bred gelding will win
races, be just as well fed and housed as the entire stallion and much more contentedly
placid.
Right after those two Israeli puppets were dancing and talking on their open lined cell
phones outside on Shitskyia St. in Kyiv, Ukraine, in front of the US Embassy, Ambassador Py
Rat ended up going to the US Embassy in Greece, in order screw the Greek people some more,
and Cookies Nuland ended up -- F n what's left of the island of Cyprus. US Embassies are
nothin more than CIA offices and only idiots would leave them in their country.
"She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of
the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war
crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only
one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand."
I think this is a mistake. I think Miss Nuland knows exactly how large and intense the US
ft print is and belies it should be larger and more intense. There are sincere people who
believe that the US must as duty make the work safe for democracy even the means of getting
there is any and everything bt democratic because in the long run -- the benefits will
outweigh.
and as proof of er sincerity -- it's not just Russia (Though I understand why Dr. Giraldi
would like to tackle one territorial issue at a time makes sense)
@Biff I've heard
another version of this.
Ukrainians are asked:
– If you believe that Crimea belongs to you, why don't you fight for it?
– We are not stupid, Russian troops are there.
– But you say that there are Russian troops in Donbass, yet you fight.
– That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
@chris
Thank you for the kind words, Chris,
You're very welcome to share the gist of the joke anywhere you like, and add to it whatever
you think works:)
I agree that "backing Moscow into a corner with no way out" is a dangerous strategy. This is
not the Cold War: in the Cold War the United States and USSR were able to keep peace, a
balance of power, an equilibrium where neither side's vital interests were threatened. Russia
had a buffer zone: not today. America was at the height of its global economic power: today
it is being overtaken by China. In the Cold War the big powers avoided nuclear Armageddon
– though at times appeared to come close – because they were able to. The
misguided thinking today is: "we got through the Cold War we can get this". This is not a
re-run of 1945-1991: it is the lead-in to the holocaust that period skillfully avoided. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Mr. Hack I was in
Ukraine and was a resident in 2008 even. Yanuk was a thief, but this was SOP in Kyiv –
how do you think they all get rich ? Sure the people were protesting about corruption, but
anyone who was really there know how easy it was to spread the riot when the western neo
nazis are bussed in, the " cookies" end up being money paid to certain groups and out of work
peasants. Yanuk was trying to short sell Ukraine's farmland etc. to many corporations and
countries. He was taking money from Monsanto, Carghill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa Univ. and
even China started to build a deep water port in Crimea , in order to grow on the 200,000
hectares they wanted to lease. Russia always gave the Ukies a decent loan or gaz price { esp.
for Princess Jewish Tymoshenko who up the price for her takings }, not to mention the million
or so that worked in Ru. A Perfect storm , for as far back as when , in 2005, Senator B Obama
, brought 40 million in cash to Donetsk, in order to de- arm the Ukrainian military. This
Maidan and Ukrainian plan was well planned – decade or two earlier – Pravda !
Mr. Giraldi ; do you think Vicky is angling for the Secretary of State position in the
upcoming Biden administration?
Have you given any thought to who Biden will be told to select for the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor slots where they will be leading the
charge for war?
I think it is possible that Bolton may have been angling for one of those spots with his
current book tour, but that has obviously blown up in his face.
@Wizard of Oz OK,
as you give off more than a whiff of effete hack yourself, I'll bite.*
Yes, that's what I mean to convey. It reflects on President Trump -- and, more
particularly, his sham campaign rhetoric -- that the likes of Mr. Pyatt remain in place with
another Exceptional! plaque on his lavish office.
Do you mean to convey that the President can't replace ambassadors at will, or that they
have tenure?
-- --
*Before interacting with this "Wizard of Oz" character, be aware that he/she/they often
draw other commenters in with questions and requests that are seldom resolved to
his/her/their satisfaction, or with cryptic insinuations that distract discussion.
The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter, the
technique known as "sock puppetry." See under Mr. Derbyshire's February 15, 2019, article
comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting as
"Anon[436]."
Among this website's oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
@GMC Let's give
credit where credit is due. Yes, the Empire wanted to buy Ukraine, preferably on the cheap
(considering that the goods were not of the first quality). But for the sale to proceed you
need two sides. You need a fraudster and a sucker. You cannot consider morons who sold their
would-be country for beads blameless. Not to mention that many local thugs got a cut. Smarter
thieves took their loot and ran away, like Yats. Dumber and/or greedier ones, like Porky and
Kolomoisky, remained and kept trying to steal more. The suckers (the rest of the population)
are left holding the bag. Stupidity is always punished in the end, but not always so
severely.
@GMC Although one
has to be careful in dealing with the large multinationals, the only way to obtain large
contracts is through cooperation with them. Opening things up and building ports would have
resulted in large employment opportunities for the masses, adding some stability to the
Ukrainian economy.
I'm not aware of Senator Obama's dealings in Donetsk to "de-arm the Ukrainian military".
Please do tell me more.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and
they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The
Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. Second, our
Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of Trotskyites, but of all
Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For them, Russia always is
the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
So basically, they're Jewish parasites with delusions of grandeur who attached themselves
to the British Empire and American Empire (destroying the US Constitution along the way), and
are using its decaying WASP blood and treasure to set up an Anglo-Zionist Empire, which will
then morph into a Zionist Empire, which will then move its headquarters to Israel, which will
then fulfill "chosen" Zionist Jewish supremacist prophecy and theology of ruling the
world.
In other words, they're not only parasites, but they're insane parasites. Really, could
there be any other kind? The insanity is baked into the parasite.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into
a gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
I am confident that, in my lifetime, the truth about how that unfolded will never be
known. The intel for the hit came from the Israelis through the same people that have been
undermining him from Day 1. Did Trump actually know Soleimani was there on a peace mission?
Did Trump know that an Iraqi leader would be with Solmeimani? Why would de-escalation of
tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia be bad for Trump who has been avoiding staring wars?
Was Mattis in on that game?
Once the hit was done, the rest is creating a narrative for diversion. It was a shit show,
to be sure, but I suspect there is a lot more to this than what we are being fed.
' Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small
crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean
business." '
Now, if that 'small, crappy little country' could be Israel, me 'n Mike could have a real
meeting of minds.
' Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good
policy '
That might well be, but maybe there is a way out.
Think maybe if Russia abandoned its support for a state in Syria and let Israel have her
little way with the place that she might suddenly be left in peace?
Nahhh couldn't possibly be a connection. How could that influence our policy?
' Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War '
This always happens with winners -- be they World War One generals or Cold Warriors.
If, due to other factors entirely, they happen to finally triumph, it all becomes
attributed to their incredible genius.
The oddity is that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. It was a massively
unattractive system with no natural constituency beyond its own bureaucrats. Yes, it had to
be kept at bay, and we did do that -- but we basically merely watched while it collapsed
under the weight of its own internal flaws.
the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years
or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Giraldi's first paragraph is spot on. But after corona dealing the economy a heavy blow, I
don't think Trump will start a war before the election. I don't think he would have done that
otherwise either, though there was some risk. Trump has caved numerous times, he is an idioht
when it comes to hiring his enemies hoping to appease them, but there is no question that he
opposes mass immigration and invasions.
I suppose most people here know this, but let's look at how many of the pro-war names
mentioned belong to the 2.5 % "Chosen":
George Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary Clinton
Michael Ledeen (White, but studied history under *George Mosse, immigrated from Germany)
Reuel Gerecht
Dan Senor
*Richard Perle
*Paul Wolfowitz (The architect of the Afghan-Iraq invasions, who gathered support for them in
Congress and organized the pro-war communication)
*Douglas Feith (would have been the Sec. of Defense if people hadn't objected too much, as he
was infamous after the Iran-Contra affair)
*Eliot Abrams
*Lewish "Scooter" Libby of the dead eyes
*Robert Kagan
*Frederick Kagan
*Victoria Nuland
*Madeleine Albright (Half a million dead Iraqi children from starvation sanctions and bombing
the infrastructure for twelve years was "worth it")
That's six Whites and nine Tribe.
If those nine hadn't existed millions would have been alive today, there would have been
no flood of Somalis, Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians to Europe, and the U.S. and the Middle East
would have been far better off.
@Mr. HackI
applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western oriented
country
You are joking surely? The country is run by Jews from top to bottom – although Jews
are 1% of the population. Since the Maidan putsch, there has only been a string of Jewish
presidents and prime minsters. The guy responsible for investigating corruption was recently
sacked and replaced by a Jew.
Post Maidan, 3 TV stations were shut in Kharkov alone. Everything is controlled and is
lies. Journalists and politicians who don't do as they are told are shot. No one is arrested.
The latest victim was an opposition politician who was executed by a shot in the head in his
parliamentary office a few weeks ago. No Jew ever suffers such a fate.
He was not "found dead". He was killed by a bullet to the head.
It was not in "central Kyiv". It was in the parliament building.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security,
I see Geo has already pointed out the obvious absurdity that any of these criminal were in
the least bit worried bout US security. If anything, they were overtly sacrificing US
security on behalf of an enemy state. Not sure why you write stuff like that Mr. G, unless
you just expect people to ignore it as perfunctory tripe, but there are some, no doubt, who
read those words and assume you are actually saying they care about the US. When you and I
both know they don't.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria.
Nope.
They were and are both amoral, opportunistic zio-whores, whose only ideology is what's
good for Clinton and Obama, respectively. Clinton didn't bomb Serbia out of some humanitarian
love of freedom and democracy, and Obama didn't destroy Libya and Syria except to serve his
zio-masters. Duh.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good,
I was telling my gal the other day, that Trump could be The One to End the Fed, by
allowing Goldman Sachs and the rest of them to feast at the Treasury to their heart's
content.
I reminded her of Jackson's quote about hurting ten thousand families, in order to save
fifty thousand. And in a similar vein, Trump could be setting up the collapse of the ZUS
economy, which will hurt hundreds of millions, but if he could collapse the dollar, he very
well might save billions of people's lives.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have
used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won,
you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You
tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten
thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go
on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of
vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you
out."
– Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European
role
I beg to differ, Mr. G.
I would posit that her most famous utterings were when she imperiously demanded that "Yats
is our guy". IOW, the way she was promoting "democracy" in Ukraine, was by corrupting the
system with 5 billions of tax payer lucre- to the point where she, *personally* could decide
who- (Jewish banker) would be president in a nation thousands of miles away. That's
how the ZUS promotes "democracy" in foreign lands. (and, I suspect that it was the way that
call was leaked, that is the fount of all the rage at Russia, for "Russian hacking', breaking
long-standing diplomatic protocols against exposing other nation's treachery and corruption
to the 'little people').
Nuland's view . Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and
Europe
for Nuland to talk about 'International law and the 'integrity of European elections'.. is
like Jerry Sandusky lecturing people on child welfare.
That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level,
OK, so not only Nuland but also John Bolton is screeching that Trump is the disaster of
our times.
Not since John McCain has a mad dog Zionist insider been so full of hate for Trump.
Hmm..
as Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
the more she talks, the more I like Putin.
And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
.
they think chutzpah, (arr0gent contempt for decency and in-your-face hypocrisy), is a
virtue.
All Americans and Europeans and everyone else, should see that Putin is the world's
remaining statesman. We should all do everything we can to support Putin's earnest efforts to
rein in the murderous, zio-glob menacing the planet today.
Thank you Mr. G. for exposing Nuland's treachery, hypocrisy and J-supremacist agenda.
@Chris Moore
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell made alliance with Jewish bankers, then congregated in the
Netherlands. The deal, which financially was necessary to him securing Puritan rule and to
then wage more war against non-WASP natives of the British Isles, included Jews being allowed
legally live in and own property in England, including to build a synagogue, with Jews
exempted from all requirements that the Puritan government made on al natives of the British
Isles.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. WASP culture is born of a Judaizing heresy, and
Jews therefore have always been partners in WASP culture.
You need to spend a large amount of time learning the rise of Jews with the growth of the
British Empire. Then put that with the rise of Jews as part of the American empire.
And then unless you are brain dead, you will see that WASP culture and Jews go together.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. Jews and WASPs are symbiotic, at the expense of
90-95% of non-WASP whites.
Jun 23, 2020 Online Event: U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East
While prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East
are dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in
a recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.
@Curmudgeon Did you
not hear the recording of President Trump's disgusting speech weeks later at a fundraiser,
recounting the hit to his rapt backers? I'm pretty sure that it was posted in a comment to
one of Dr. Giraldi's columns.
You might also want to review Linh Dinh's June 12, 2016 "Orlando Shooting Means Trump For
President."
Voting for any of these Red/Blue characters merely moves the boot around on your face.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to
lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia --
one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable,
including among his own citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to
interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made
against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
We live in the dark, convinced by our public media and our insincere leaders that we
are heroes and freedom fighters. In reality the opposite is true: we are the plunderers, the
ravagers, deceiving ourselves to do the dirty work of the manipulators who have twisted our
minds with trinkets and false accounts of the people we kill and the countries we ruin in
order to steal their treasures.
And the saddest part -- the punchline that proves how stupid we are -- is that we never
profit from the invasions we are cynically ordered to conduct. The bounty always goes to the
swindlers pulling the strings, and we, as the agents of banditry, time and again, are always
left to suffer the same fate of the people we have robbed when we are robbed ourselves, of
not only our treasures, but of our dignity, shortly before we are robbed of our lives.
It is the way history has always gone. The ignorant masses are persuaded to commit the
crimes of the rich and as the unwitting perpetrators, we ultimately suffer the same fate as
the victims, while the rich snicker in their palaces and plot their next swindle.
@Agent76'While
prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East are
dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in a
recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.'
I'm confused. Iraq is more stable for our intervention?
If we 'did less' in the Middle East, it could only promote regional stability.
Most of our actions there are pretty clearly calculated to promote instability, not
stability. Promoting anarchy in Syria, baiting Iran into a war, acquiescing in a coup in
Egypt, sanctioning Israel's continual bombing raids
The late Michael Collins Piper hosts a call in program and his guest is Jim Condit Jr. The
topic of conversation is Father Mordechi Martin, a Zionist spy who infiltrated and subverted
the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, it indeed seems that Jewish Supremacists have achieved full spectrum
dominance.
@Mr. Hack US
control of the Ukraine will mean that Jews will own almost all of it and the land will be
flooded with blacks and Mohammedans, with gays made another sacred group.
Anglo-Zionist Empire does what Anglo-Zionist Empire does.
I passed your comment on to CJ Hopkins with link to the source. Maybe he can use it in his
column. It needs a much greater audience than in the comment section here.
@Chris Moore The
public does not understand that the system is actually "two party tyranny". This system is
designed to divide and conquer, and it works. Compound this with the fact that many people
get their information from simply "googling" terms and phrases as opposed to actually digging
deep and reading books and other sources for information. Combine this with the sad state of
affairs in our public education system – where students are not taught to think or ask
questions but to behave, conform, and memorize information. With regard to the methods being
used in our foreign policy and now, subsequently, being used here to foment chaos, check out
the following resource. You will see that what is going on is simply UCW –
Unconventional Warfare, and we have perfected the technique abroad.
NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia
Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey
Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les
Wexner.
@Hegar That's three
goyim and twelve "chosen". Ledeen (founder and former member of board of advisors of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs – doesn't look goy to me), Gerecht
(Israelis say he's one of them) and Senor are Jewish.
How can the US "lead democracies" not being one of them?
didn't Vicky Nuland lead the Ukrainian democracy?
it isn't ridiculous, all it takes is shekels, as always, and an understanding of
semantics. Words like 'democracy' are like 'liberated', or 'terrorists'.
The ZUS "liberated" Iraq from the "terrorists" who were ruling it, and imposed
"democracy". Just like we "liberated" Germany, and "liberated" Libya, and so many other
places, where the ZUS leads 'democracies'.
You see how easy it is, once you understand how to interpret the words they use?
America is helping to liberate Palestine from terrorists, so that the Palestinians can
enjoy democracy.
Today the Crimea is suffering under a regime that seized her by aggression and force, and
so America would like to liberate the people of Crimea, and lead them to democracy.
Jewmerica is controlled by Zionists and their operatives like Jew Nuland. Add Trump and Pence
to the list too. The Presidency has been controlled by the Zionist Jews since Woodrow Wilson.
Almost all of Congress is in the pocket of aIPAC and other Jew organizations. The Zionist
Jews drive all the wars and conflicts, foment the false flags like the fake Floyd, Sandy
Hook, Los Vegas etc. The Global Jew Bankers made immune from prosecution by our shabbos goy
Congress have stolen trillions of the the country's wealth. First after 911 (also a false
flag for Greater Israel) then with the bailouts for the super rich in 08 and now the
monumental 6 trillion theft for their Wall St. buddies under cover of the fake Corona virus.
The goyim must be propagandized and the target demonized before the Israeli Foreign Legian
(U.S. military) is sent in to force another extortion for the Jews. this is what they did
twice to Germany and to Japan. Same thing in Iraq and Libya. The Zionists have so far failed
in Syria and Iran. Even after getting Israel's best friend ever in the White House who
abrogated our treaty with the Iranians and has lied constantly about both countries, launched
rockets against the Syrians and accused Assad of gassing his own people.
The Zionsits cannot make progress without war, conflict and hatred. Once the goyim are
whipped up with enough war sentiment against the Russians and Chinese and the two countries
have built up sufficient military capability they will most likely join forces with a nuclear
attack against Jewmerica. this will probably result in a stalemate that can then be used as a
precursor to the global totalitarian NWO.
Serbia deserved it. They were conducting ethic cleansing with concentration camps, rape
camps, etc
idiocy
they were fighting some of the worst scum on the planet; KLA human and narco-traffickers
attempting to murder enough Serbs so they could steal the ancient Serbian land of Kosovo.
Zio-style – by terrorizing the legitimate inhabitants into fleeing for their lives- to
they could simply steal the land for themselves.
The trial against Milosevic was a sham and a fraud. And Milosevic was humiliating the ICC
in open court, so they poisoned/assassinated him in his cell.
But, I suppose the case could be made that if the Serbs deserved it, it was because
they allowed the Albanians to immigrate into Kosovo in transformative numbers in the first
place, and just as the Zi0s know, demographics = destiny.
The whites of South Africa made the same mistake. The whites of Europe are very busy also
making the exact same mistake, just as they are in North America and Oceana.
One day they'll wake up, and discover that now they and they're children are now on
the block, with their school girls being gang-raped wholesale and their lands taken from
them, and like the Serbs, they'll say, 'golly, who'd have ever thunk that inviting in stone
age invaders is of questionable prudence.
@Druid55 That is
the western MSM sugared up version of what happened in Yugoslavia. Western MSM learned their
lesson about being truthful about war when US and friends were in Vietnam.
Lies and lies only come from western MSM these days so wars and regime change games can go
on with anyone noticing or caring.
Western MSM notifies their puppet readers that all the US and friends does is
"humanitarian" stuff these days. Most puppet readers lap up this junk.
March 24, 1999 will go down in history as a day of infamy. US-led NATO raped Yugoslavia.
Doing so was its second major combat operation.
It was lawless aggression. No Security Council resolution authorized it. NATO's
Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.
Washington called it Operation Noble Anvil. Evil best describes it. On June 10,
operations ended.
From March 1991 through mid-June 1999, Balkan wars raged. Yugoslavia "balkanized" into
seven countries. They include Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia.
Enormous human suffering was inflicted. Washington bears most responsibility.
@Druid55 More MSM
Jew propaganda. The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized) so
that the unified Yugoslavia could not oppose their plans. The Zionists intend to control
pipelines running from Middle East into Europe. This would compete against Russia that now
supplies most of the gas. All wars are about money, power and territory, this war was no
exception. The Zionists need to control all energy sources and transportation routes in order
to achieve hegemony.
"It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars"
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The reasons israel's trump colonials
have not started new militsry invasions are mainly two. The trump reime is in the middle of a
military modernization. The american zionazi colony fell behind militarily as they ran proxy
terrorists and drug mafia support/colonial policing ops. Fighting wars againat those who can
actually hurt them back became obsolete, or so the "end of history" neocons figured. Now they
are outclassed and they can't pick on someone capable of shooting back effectively.
As for the second part, the likud colonial trump regime is doing its best to attack
zionazia"s rivals any way they can mimus actually sending in troops. Times have changed, the
oligarchs do war by other means than troop invasion now. The economic, biological and psywar
aspects are being used full tilt by israeloamerica. What they lack the means to do on the
field of battle, israel's war criminals and quislings are more than making up for it by other
means.
The trump quislings have vastly increased international strife across the board and are
decidedly more war mongering than israel's previous american colonial governors.
The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized)
I agree with all your posts.
I'd just add to this one, that by bombing Serbia, (on behalf of Muslim invaders), they
were accomplishing several things.. They were ending the post WWII International Laws against
unilateral military might by strong nations against weaker ones in Europe. With that act,
they declared with bombs that the ZUS is now The Unilateral Power, and that the International
Laws against Aggressive War was now moot.
By bombing a White Christian nation on behalf of Islam, they were also tossing a bone to
Islam, as a trade off for the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Who in our times is going to
complain about bombing white people? And Muslims would cheer it.
Also, as ((Gen. Wesley Clark)) explained about his bombing campaign on Serbia:
"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century
idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with
multi-ethnic states."
– NATO's Supreme Commander, Gen. Wesley Clark
so there were myriad reasons for why ((they)) bombed Serbia into handing over its ancient
and sacred lands.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance."
It's neocons and neolibs, the "liberal interventionists" are as liberal as the neocons are
conservative. Agree about the style and substance, though, think of the disgusting things as
different/somewhat rivals management teams working for the same employer. Like the likud and
labor political blocks in israel. Goals are the same, some differences in how to achieve
them.
One sees this same phony duo-political scam across the capitalist "west" where right wing
political parties dominate wholesale.
Orwell called this "newspeak". That's now the language of libtards.
thanks
and not just shitlibs, but across the entire length and breadth of our culture and society
this Ministry of Truth-imposed doublethink masquerades as language intended to inform and
explain, when it does the opposite.
George Will and Sean Hannity use newspeak with the same alacrity as Lawrence O'Donnell or
Rachel Maddow. Israel has to defend itself. Putin's aggression and Russian
meddling in our democracy.
'Quantitative easing' as a doubleplusgood expression for human history's most colossal
case of mass-swindling the world has ever known.
it's everywhere, and the more it isn't noticed, the more sinister and diabolical it
is.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode of the aliens that only wanted to 'serve man'.
'We're here to serve you'.
The writers of that episode certainly must have been thinking of a certain tribe of
'philanthropists' and owners of 'human rights' organizations.
@anonymous Thank
you for clarifying that though you do not give any evidence beyond reason for suspicion about
his role in Ukraine as to why this career diplomat should be sacked from his Ambassadorship
to Greece.
As for israel's nuland neanderthal*, this is a critter about as zionazi low as one can get.
What she posits come directly from israel and its international domination freakshow. The
critter is about as far right/neocon psychopathy as that subhuman element gets.
The use of these freaks by both american dem and rep colonial governorships shows how
these are simply psywar front outfits pursuing the same goals for the zionazi master.
@Wizard of Oz My
comment (#35) that you're typically and oh-so-diplomatically trying to obscure concerned the
naïveté of those who think that Mr. Trump ever intended to (or could) effect any
change in Uncle Sam's treatment of other countries.
But as to your concern for this "career diplomat," do you think he's too good to "be
sacked" and have to work at an honest job?
@Colin Wright If a
politicians lips are moving they are lying. This comes from the war parties think tank and
everything they say is the total opposite every time. This group gives me great insight into
thier plans and why I even bothered to share this here today. Thanks Wright!
@AnonFromTN
Democracy is a subversive term used by the Zionists, MSM and many politicians as well as lots
of other people that should know better. Democracy results in mob rule that will always lead
to tyranny.
The word democracy does not occur in either the Declaration of Independence or it's
companion document the Constitution. That is because the founders believed it to be the worst
form of government. James Madison stated that democracies "have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."
It is no mistake that the word democracy is widely used. Democracies work in the Elites
favor because they can steer the chaos then put their system in place when the democracy
falls apart.
The founders established a system of sovereign states in a limited Republic of laws. That
was the foundation of our success, not democracy.
@anonymous For an
apprentice pedant you are not doing well. You seem to have overlooked Trump's very big
changes in the treatment of one major foreign country, namely China.
And I am disappointed that you don't realise how much the US needs the institutional
memory and the skills of career diplomats when so many ambassadorships are given to
completely unqualified and unsuitable donors to the president's election campaign.
@Druid55 Hardly
anyone died. No planes used and all accounted for. Social Security Death Register about the
same as usual for that day in N.Y. Bodies "jumping" out were dummies. Another false flag for
the Zionist agenda of wars for Israel.
Jew supremacists like Nuland & her fellow (((treasonous war criminals))) care ultimately
about expanding the domain of "Greater Israel."
Fomenting hostility (if not outright war) between the world's largest primarily White
countries has always been what (((they))) do.
On the home front, Black Lives Matter terrorism would go nowhere without Jew supremacist
organizing, funding, censoring, & intimidating. Not that the (((shysters))) actually give
a damn about Blacks!
@Anon Nuland is a
Jew. Nothing to see here. She is a nutbag who wants eternal war. Whatever Israel wants
.Israel gets. Whether it's Obama destroying Libya or constant friction with Russia it's the
Jewish control of everything.
@Jake Do you think
the Catholics were any less likely to sell out? The Catholic Church was infiltrated by the
cripto Jew Medicis with the placement of Leo X in 1513. The Founders of the Jesuit order were
also cripto Jews.
The Jews have infiltrated all the governments of any consequence. Jewmerica has been so
well infiltrated it would be more accurate to just term the situation an out in the open
takeover. The Jews could have never made much headway without the shabbos goys helping them.
The government of Jewmerica is full of traitors serving the Zionist Jew agenda.
@Ryan2 She is a
hard core Zionist Jew. She is in the clique with the most powerful criminal syndicate in
existence. And they are winning. Some of them may actually believe that they are still the
Chosen. Trump's Chabad Lubavich son-in-law and the Shiksa Princess are said to be disciples
of Rabbi Schneerson who taught that we Gentiles were just here to "hew wood and fetch water"
for the Jews. Judging from the words and deeds of the shabbos goy puppet actors like Trump,
Pence, Pelosi and almost the entire congress along with most governors, an observer would
think this is definitely true.
Jew supremacists won; Germany (& everyone else) lost.
If that wasn't the case, the world would know the Holocau$t mythology is an extortion
racket, and we wouldn't be fighting the Jews' criminal wars for them to this day.
@AnonFromTN
"Grabbing the Breadbasket of Europe The East-West competition over Ukraine involves the
control of natural resources, including uranium and other minerals, as well as geopolitical
issues such as Ukraine's membership in NATO. The stakes around Ukraine's vast agricultural
sector, the world's third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of
wheat,constitute a critical factor that has been often overlooked." Whereas Ukraine does not
allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture,Article 404 of the EU
agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed:
it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of
biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the
agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank
Piper Jaffray, "Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the "most promising
growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and
DuPont."" https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf
@Anon "Russia" is,
for US intelligence ALSO code for "French". The propaganda against Russia during the cold war
and beyond, also applies to "the French" [IMO].They both had a revolution , with world wide
consequences , both have the same color flag[ the US propaganda says that Russia modeled
their flag from the Netherland flag, but I suspect it is modeled from the French flag. The
Americans cant be too blatant about it , but that is what is going on; anti Russia animus and
propaganda is also anti French animus and propaganda. [ during the cold war, my French
relative who had been a communist , went to Russia to see what it was like. She was
disappointed .When she subsequently tried to visit my family here in the US, she was stopped
art the airport and told she could not enter the US because she had been to Russia. This was
the 1960's.Apparently this two countries and people were not polarized as the US and the
soviets were. A kind of mutual respect or even admiration existed perhaps. Maybe I'm barking
up the wrong tree, but that has been my sense for decades. Nuland's anti European/ anti
russian animus is not surprising; its rather ubiquitous in the US and when they say EU they
have primarily in mind the French!
State Department was recently implicated is the attempt to run a false flag operation in
Douma. If we add that the State Department is the key organization behind for color revolution
against Trump that picture becomes even more disturbing. This is really a neocon vipers
nest.
(1) after all Geroge Herbert Walker Bush was a corrupt crook who stole the money from the
AMERICAN people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant,
who will not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
(2) after all William Jefferson Clinton is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the
AMERICAN people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant,
who will not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
(3) after all George W Bush is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN
people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will
not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
(4) after all **** Cheney is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN people,
just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will not
allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political opposition.
(5) after all Barak Hussein Obama is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN
people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will
not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
(6) after all Joe Biden is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN people,
just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will not
allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political opposition.
(7) after all Hillary Clinton is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN
people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will
not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
(8) after all Victoria Nuland is a corrupt crook who stole the money from the AMERICAN
people, just to enrich his family and lackeys, and is nothing but a blatant tyrant, who will
not allow any real democratic election, nor any sort of real democratic political
opposition.
Neocons like the historian Robert Kagan may be
connecting with Hillary Clinton to try to regain influence in foreign policy.
Credit...
Left,
Stephanie Sinclair/VII via Corbis; right, Colin McPherson/Corbis
WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the
neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama,
not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that
bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen
feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to
return to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons --
Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle -- are permanently buried in the
sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The
Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further American
decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction -- one that might allow
them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning
away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan,
the author of a recent,
roundly praised article
in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only
avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an
influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon
think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under
President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism
into the liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on
maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among
other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line
from him straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan
whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for
Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
noted in The New Republic
this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a
principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the
intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the
Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf
Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her
administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan
on board.
Of course, the neocons' latest change in tack is not just about intellectual
affinity. Their longtime home, the Republican Party, where presidents and candidates from Reagan to Senator
John McCain of Arizona supported large militaries and aggressive foreign policies, may well nominate for
president Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been beating an ever louder drum against American
involvement abroad.
In response, Mark Salter, a former chief of staff to Senator McCain and a
neocon fellow traveler, said that in the event of a Paul nomination, "Republican voters seriously concerned
with national security would have no responsible recourse" but to support Mrs. Clinton for the presidency.
Still, Democratic liberal hawks, let alone the left, would have to swallow
hard to accept any neocon conversion. Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy
views -- the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as "like a neocon, practically." And
humanitarian interventionists like Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations, who opposed the
second Iraq war, recoil at the militaristic unilateralism of the neocons and their inveterate hostility to
international institutions like the World Court.
But others in Mrs. Clinton's orbit, like Michael A. McFaul, the former
ambassador to Russia and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a neocon haven at Stanford, are much
more in line with thinkers like Mr. Kagan and Mr. Boot, especially when it comes to issues like promoting
democracy and opposing Iran.
Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972,
Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early
neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing "something of a swing group between the
two major parties." Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has
changed.
On MH17, the Dutch court is now in a bit of a bind. The State Prosecutor has to submit
evidence beyond reasonable doubt and he has had to admit this week in court that he does not
have that as primarily there are no US satellite photos, not even behind multiple levels of
security, that they or the Dutch military have been able to get hold of. He has no real
evidence just, as you say Patrick, the fair and honest not obtained under duress evidence
from Kiev and the definitely undoctored photo analysis of Bellingcat. Logically the case
should now collapse.
Given that that satellite image, as boasted about by Kerry at the time, would have had the
Russians bang to rights in a proper court in a major PR coup for the US, I suspect that its
non production means that it doesn't exist.
"... Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service. Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine. ..."
"... Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly, is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants' without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001 , and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences, obviously. ..."
"... The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least 4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system, because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think? ..."
"... I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability, and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which it was assigned has locked on to the target. ..."
"... The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot. ..."
"... There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army continued to shell the site for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down. ..."
"... Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because both the CVR and the FDR are in the tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC. ..."
"... According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to 'secure the crash site', which was forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating. ..."
"... The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch and the JIT. ..."
>Uncle Volodya says, "We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else,
whether it is a business, an economic theory, a political party, the White House, Newsworld or CNN."
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.
In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans
until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan."
– Adolf Hitler
We're going to do something just a bit different today; the event I want to talk about is current – in the future, actually –
but the reference which is the subject of the discussion is almost a year old. and the event it discusses is coming up to its sixth
anniversary. The past event was the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine, the future event is the trial in
absentia of persons accused by the west of having perpetrated that disaster, and the reference is this piece, by Mark Galeotti,
for the Moscow Times:
"Russia's Roadmap
Out of the MH17 Crisis" .
You all know Mr. Galeotti, I'm sure. Here's his bio, for Amazon:
"Professor Mark Galeotti is a senior researcher at UMV, the Institute of International Relations Prague, and coordinator of
its Centre for European Security. Formerly, he was Professor of Global Affairs at New York University and head of History at Keele
University. Educated at Cambridge University and the LSE, he is a specialist in modern Russian politics and security and transnational
organized crime. And he writes other things for fun, too "
Yes, yes, he certainly does, as you will see. But this bio is extremely modest, albeit he most likely wrote it himself. Mr. Galeotti
also authored an excellent blog, In Moscow's Shadows , which was once a go-to reference for crime and legal issues in Russia,
a subject in which he seems very well-informed. The blog is still active, although he seems mostly to use it now to advertise podcasts
and sell books. That's understandable – it's evident from the blur of titles appended to his name that he's a very busy man. Always
has been, really; either as a student or an educator. He also speaks with confidence on the details of military affairs and equipment
despite never having been in the military or studied engineering; his education has pretty much all been in history, law or political
science.
I know what you will say – many of the greatest reference works on pivotal battles, overall military campaigns and affairs were
written by those who had no personal military experience themselves. Mr. Galeotti studied under Dominic Lieven, whose
"Russia Against Napoleon"
was perhaps the greatest work of military history, rich with detail and insight, that I have ever read. It won him the Wolfson
prize for History for 2010, a well-deserved honour. Yet so far as I could make out, Mr. Lieven never served a day in uniform, and
if you handed him an AK-47 and said "Here; field-strip this", your likely response would be a blank look. He most certainly was not
a witness to the subject military campaign. No; his epic work on Napoleon's invasion of Russia was informed by research, reading
the accounts of others who were there at the time, poring over reams of old documents and matching references to get the best picture
we have been afforded to date of Napoleon's ignominious defeat through a combination of imperial overreach, a poor grasp of logistics
and, most of all, resistance by an adversary who refused to be drawn into playing to Napoleon's strength – the decisive, crushing
battle in which the enemy could not retreat, and in which Napoleon would commit all the reserves and crush his enemy to dust.
So it is perfectly possible for an inquisitive mind with no military experience to put together an excellent reference on military
happenings which already took place, even if the owner of that mind was not present for the actual event. Given human nature and
the capabilities afforded by modern military equipment, it is even possible to forecast future military events with a fair degree
of accuracy, going merely by political ambitions and enabling factors, without any personal military experience. After all, the decision-makers
who give the orders that send their military forces into battle are often not military men themselves.
Returning for a moment to Mr. Galeotti, it is quite believable that an author with no military background could compose such works
as "Armies of the Russian-Ukrainian War" , although there is no serious evidence that Russia is a part of such a conflict
in any real military strength. You could write such a book entirely from media references and documentation, which in this case would
come almost entirely from the side which claims it is under constant attack by the other – Ukraine. Likewise "Kulikovo 1380;
the Battle that Made Russia" . None of us were around in 1380, so we all have to go by historical references, and whoever collects
them all into a book first is likely to be regarded as an expert.
No, it's more when we get into how stuff works that I have an issue with it. Like " Spetsnaz: Russia's Special Forces
". Or " The Modern Russian Army ". I'm kind of skeptical about how someone could claim to know the actual internal workings
of either organization simply from reading about them in popular references, considering that more than half the material on Russia
written in English in western references is rubbish heavily influenced by politics and policy. We would not have to look very far
to find examples in which ridiculous overconfidence by one side that it had the other side's number resulted in a horrible surprise.
In fact, we would not have to look very far to find an example of this particular author confidently averring to know something inside-out,
only to find that version
of reality could not be sustained . And I would no more turn to a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Institute of International
Relations Prague for expert analysis of the "Combat Vehicles of Russia's Special Forces" than I would ask a house painter
to cut my hair. Unless I see some recollections of a college-age Galeotti tinkering with drivetrains and differentials until the
sun went down from a pure love of mechanics, I am going to go ahead and assume that he knows what the vast majority of us knows about
military vehicles – he could pick one out of a lineup which included a melon, a goat and an Armored Personnel Carrier, and if it
had a flat tire he could probably fix it given time and the essential equipment.
Just before we move on, the future event: the MH-17 'trial' has been
postponed
until June 8th , to give defense attorneys more time to prepare after the amazingly fortuitous capture of a 'key witness' in
Eastern Ukraine. I'm not going to elaborate here on what a kicking-the-can-down-the-road crock this is; we'll pick that up later.
The whole MH-17 'investigation' has been such a ridiculous exercise in funneling the pursuit to a single inescapable conclusion –
that Russia shot it down – irrespective of how many points have to be bent to fit the curve that no matter how it comes out, it will
stand as perhaps the greatest example of absurd western self-justification ever recorded.
There are a couple of ways of solving a mystery crime. One is to collect evidence, and follow where it takes you. Another is to
decide who you want to have been responsible, and then construct a sequence of events in which they might have done it. To do that,
especially in this case, we will have to throw out a few assumptions, such as all that stuff about means, motive and opportunity.
In the absence of a believable scenario, that is. Let's look at what we have, and what we need, and see how we get from there to
here.
First, we need for Ukraine not to have been responsible. That's going to be awkward, because it looks as if the aircraft was shot
down by a missile, but the missile had to have come from inside Ukraine, because the aircraft was too far from the nearest point
in Russia at the moment it was stricken for the missile to have come from there. But we need Russia to have been responsible, and
not Ukraine. Therefore we need a sequence of events in which a Russian missile launcher capable of shooting down an airliner at cruising
altitude was inside Ukraine, in a position from which it could have taken the shot.
You know what? We are going to have to look at means, motive and opportunity, just for a second. My purpose in doing
so is to illustrate just how improbable the western narrative is, starting from square one. The coup in Ukraine – and anyone who
believes it was a 'grass-roots revolution' might as well stop reading right here, because we are going to just get further apart
in our impressions of events – followed by the triumphant promise from the revolutionaries to repeal Yanukovych's language laws and
make Ukrainian the law of the land touched off the return of Crimea to its ancestral home in the Russian Federation. Crimea was about
65% ethnic Russian by population at the time, and only about 15% Ukrainian, and Crimea had made several attempts to break free of
Ukraine before that yet for some reason the west refused steadfastly to accept the results of a referendum which voted in favour
of Crimea becoming a part of the Russian Federation, as if it were more believable that a huge ethnic-Russian majority preferred
to learn Ukrainian and be governed by Kiev.
Be that as it may, Washington reacted very angrily; much more so than Europe, considering the distance between the United States
and Ukraine versus its proximity to Europe. Perhaps that is owed simply to Washington's assumption that every corner of the world
looks to it for leadership, and that it must have a position ready on any given situation, regardless how distant. So Washington
insisted there must be sanctions against Russia, for stealing Crimea from its rightful owner, Ukraine. We're not really going to
get into struggles for freedom and the right to self-determination right now, except to state that the USA considers nothing more
important in some cases, while in others it is completely irrelevant. Washington demanded sanctions but
much of Europe was reluctant .
"It is notoriously difficult to secure EU agreement on sanctions anywhere because they require unanimity from the 28 member
states. There were wide differences over the numbers of Russians and Crimeans to be punished, with countries such as Greece, Cyprus,
Bulgaria and Spain reluctant to penalise Moscow for fear of closing down channels of dialogue. The 21 named were on an original list
that ran to about 120 people Expanding the numbers on the sanctions list is almost certain to be discussed at the EU summit on Thursday
and Friday. Some EU states are torn about taking punitive measures against Russia for fear of undoing years of patient attempts to
establish closer ties with Moscow as well as increase trade. The EU has already suspended talks with Russia on an economic pact and
a visa agreement The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said any measure must leave "ways and possibilities open to
prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe" .
The original list of those to be sanctioned was 120 people. The haggling reduced that to 21. Only 7 of those were Russians. Putin
was not included. That was pretty plainly not the United Front That Speaks With One Voice that Washington had envisioned, and the
notion that Europe would buy into sanctions that might really do some damage to Russia, albeit there would be economic costs to Europe
as well, was a dim prospect.
Gosh – you know what we need? An atrocity which can be quickly tied to Russia, and which will so appall the EU member states that
resistance to far-reaching sanctions will collapse. That's called 'motive'. It's just not a motive for Russia. Having just gone far
out on a limb and taken back Crimea, to the obvious and vocal fury of the United States, it is a bit of a stretch that Russia was
looking for what else it could do that would stir up the world against it.
Means, now. That presents its own dilemma. Because Russia could have shot down an airliner from its own territory. Just not with
the weapon chosen. The S-400 could have done it; it has the range, easily. But if you were setting up a scenario in which something
happened that you wanted to blame on Russia, but they didn't really do it, you must have the weapon to do it yourself, or access
to it. By any reasonable construct, Ukraine must be a suspect as well – there was a hot war going on in Ukraine, Ukraine controlled
both the airspace and the aircraft that was lost, and the aircraft was lost over Ukrainian territory. But Ukraine doesn't have the
S-400. You could use a variety of western systems, but it would quickly be established that the plane was shot down with a weapon
that Russia does not have. In order for the narrative to be believable, Russia must have the weapon – but if it wasn't Russia, then
whoever did it must have the weapon, too.
Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service.
Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine.
Which brings us back to Mr. Galeotti, an expert in Russian combat systems; enough of an expert to write books on them, anyway.
And he plainly believes it was an SA-11 missile fired from a single Buk TELAR (Transporter/Erector/Launcher and Radar) which brought
down the Boeing; he says that's what the evidence demonstrates, although by this time (2019) most of the world has backed away from
saying Putin showed up with no shirt on to close the firing switch personally (cue the instant British-press screaming headlines
before the dust had even settled, "PUTIN'S MISSILE!!!" "PUTIN KILLED MY SON!!!"). Now the story is that the disgraceful deed was
done by 'Ukrainian anti-government militants', using a weapon supplied by Russia.
"In this context, a full reversal of policy seems near-enough impossible. The evidence suggests that while the fateful missile
was fired by Ukrainian anti-government militants, it was supplied by the Russian 53rd Air Defense Brigade under orders from Moscow
and in a process managed by Russian military intelligence.
To admit this would not only be to acknowledge a share in the unlawful killing of 298 innocents, but also an unpicking of
the whole Kremlin narrative over the Donbass. It would mean admitting to having been an active participant in this bloody compound
of civil war and foreign intervention, to having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences, and to having lied
to the world and the Russian people for half a decade."
We don't really have the scope in this piece to broaden the discussion to Russia's probable actual involvement. Suffice it to
say that despite non-stop allegations by Poroshenko throughout his presidency of entire battalions of active-service Russian Army
soldiers inside Ukraine, zero evidence has ever been provided of any such presence, although there have been
some clumsy attempts to fabricate
it . To argue that the Russian Army has been trying to overrun Ukraine for six years now, but has been unable to do so because
of the combat prowess of the Ukrainian Army is to imply a belief in leprechauns. This is only my own inexpert opinion, but it seems
likely to me the complete extent of Russia's involvement, militarily, is the minimum which prevents Eastern Ukraine from being overrun
by the Ukrainian military, and including the rebel areas' own far-from-inconsequential military forces. I'm always ready to entertain
competing theories, though; be sure to bring your evidence. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits using the country's military
forces against its own citizens. The logic of 'Have cake, and eat it" cannot apply here – either the Ukrainian state is in direct
and obvious violation of its own constitution or the people of the breakaway regions are not Ukrainian citizens.
Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that
sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly,
is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants'
without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army
shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001
, and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises
on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station
claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the
Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences,
obviously.
The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least
4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature
as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a
minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an
air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without
the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign
targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some
reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system,
because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think?
What about the acquisition radar? Because acquiring targets is all about scanning capability and situational awareness. We're
going to assume for a moment that you don't use an air defense system exclusively to hunt for airliners, but that you want to defend
yourself against ground-attack aircraft like the Sukhoi SU-25. Because, when you think about it, who is more likely to be trying
to kill you ? A Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, or an SU-25? The latter is not quite as fast as an airliner at its cruising
height of 30,000 ft+, but it is very agile and will be nearly down in the treetops if it is attacking you. You need to be able to
search all around, all the time.
That's where the acquisition radar comes in. A centimetric waveband search radar, the
Snow Drift (called the 9S18M1 by
its designer) has 360-degree coverage and from 0 to 40 degrees of height in a 6-second sweep in anti-aircraft mode, with a 160 km
detection range, obviously dependent on target altitude. An airliner, being a large target not attempting to evade detection, and
at a high altitude, would quite possibly be detected at the maximum range of which the system is capable. But then the operators
would certainly know it was an airliner. And the narrative says whoever shot it down probably did so by accident.
Maybe if it was his first day on the job. Let's talk for a minute about air-defense deconfliction. It would be nice if your Command
parked you somewhere that there was nothing around you but enemies. Well, not as nice as parking you across the street from a pulled-pork
barbecue joint with strippers and cold beer, but from a defense standpoint, it'd be nice to know that anything you detected, you
could shoot. Know something? It's never like that. Your own aircraft are flying around as if they didn't even know you are dangerous,
and as everyone now knows, civilian airliners continue their transport enterprises irrespective of war except in rare instances in
which high-flying aircraft have been shot down by long-range missiles. That rarely happens. Why? Because an aircraft flying a steady
course, at 30,000 ft+ and not descending, is no threat to you on the ground. From that altitude it can't even see you in the ground
clutter, and it'd be quite a bombardier that could hit a target the size of a two-car garage with a bomb dropped from 30,000 ft while
flying at 400 knots.
And unless you are an idiot, you know it is an airliner. When you are deployed into the field in an air-defense role, you know
where the commercial airlanes are that are going to be active. You know what a commercial-aviation profile looks like – aircraft
at 30,000 ft+ altitude, flying at ≥400 knots on a steady course, squawking Mode 3 and Charlie = airliner. Might as well take a moment
here to talk about
IFF ; Identification
Friend or Foe. This is a coded pulse signal transmitted by all commercial aircraft whenever they are in flight unless their equipment
is non-functional, and you are not allowed to take off with it in that state. Mode C provides the aircraft's altitude, taken automatically
from its barometric altimeter. All modern air search radars have IFF capability, and a dashed line just below the raw video of the
air track can be interrogated with a light-pen to provide the readout. You already know how high the plane is if you have a solid
radar track, but Mode C provides a confirmation.
Military aircraft have IFF transponders, too; in fact, most of the modes are reserved for military use. But military aircraft
often turn off their IFF equipment, because it provides a giveaway who and where they are. In Ukraine, which uses mostly Soviet military
aircraft, both sides are capable of reading each other's IFF, so all the more reason not to transmit. Foreign nations typically cannot
read each other's IFF except for the modes which are for both military and civilian use, other than those nations who are allies.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the Snow Drift acquisition radar has IFF, and if it detected an airliner-like target at
160 km., the operator would have that much more time to interrogate it and determine it was an airliner. Just to reiterate, the western
narrative holds that the destruction of the airliner was a mistake.
I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it
provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability,
and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is
to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing
of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which
it was assigned has locked on to the target.
That autonomous capability is probably what made it attractive to those building the scenario; consider. A complete Buk system
of 6, maybe 7 vehicles could hardly get all the way inside Ukraine to the firing position without being noticed and perhaps recorded.
But perhaps a single TELAR could do it. The aircraft could be shot down by an SA-11 missile and blamed on Russia – Ukraine has access
to plenty of SA-11's. But it is a weapon in the Russian active-service inventory. Further, Galeotti's commitment to the allegation
that the single TELAR was provided by Russia's 53rd Air Defense Brigade tells us he supports the crackpot narrative offered by Bellingcat,
the loopy citizen-journalist website headed by failed financial clerk Eliot Higgins. Bellingcat claims the Buk TELAR was trucked
into Ukraine on the back of a flatbed, took the shot that slew MH-17, and was immediately withdrawn back to Russia.
Ummm .how was that an accident? The Russians gave the Ukrainian militants a single launcher with no crane or reload missiles,
so it was limited to a maximum of four shots. Its ability to defend itself from ground attack was almost nil, since the design purpose
of mounting a Fire Dome radar
on each TELAR is not to make the launcher units autonomous; it is to permit concurrent engagements by several launchers, all
coordinated by the acquisition radar and command post. Without a radar of its own on the launcher, the firing unit would have to
wait until each engagement was completed before it could switch to a new target, but with a fire-control guidance radar on each TELAR,
multiple targets can be assigned to multiple launchers, while the search radar limits itself to acquisition and target assignment.
The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search
function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential
air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system
which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching
for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot.
A single TELAR with no reloads and no acquisition radar would have to be looking directly at the target when it was activated
in order to even see it; it takes 15 seconds for the launcher to swing into line and elevation even when that information is transmitted
to it from the acquisition radar. It takes 4 seconds for a scan to be completed when there is a whole two-thirds of a circle that
it is not even looking at, and you have to manually force it to search above 7 degrees because it is not designed to shoot down airliners.
All this time, the target is crossing the acquisition scope at 400 knots+. Fire Dome has integrated IFF, so if it did by some miracle
pick up an airliner in its search, the operator would know from transmitted IFF that he was looking at an airliner. A single TELAR
with no reload capability sent on an air-defense mission would have its ass ripped in half by ground-attack aircraft that it never
saw – if the autonomous capability is so good, why don't the Ukrainians use them as a single unit? Think of how much air-defense
coverage they could provide! Do you see the Ukrainian air-defense units employing the Buk that way? Never. Not once. Four TELARS,
acquisition radar vehicle, command vehicle, just the way the system was designed to operate.
Just because it has a limited capability to function in a given capacity should not suggest you would employ it that way. You
can use a hockey stick to turn off the bedroom light, and you won't even have to get out of bed. Would you do that? I hope not.
A one-third effective capacity in the air defense role together with the covert delivery and immediate withdrawal suggests that
the Russians provided the 'militants' with a single TELAR for the express purpose of shooting down a defenseless airliner. Except
nobody is saying that. It was a mistake. Well, except for Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who claimed
"Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was
flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine." He further claimed that this was motivated by a desire to 'justify an invasion'.
I'm pretty sure if any western authority could prove anything even close to that, we would not have had to wait 6 years for a trial.
Which brings us to the covert delivery and extraction. As part of his personal investigation, Max van der Werff drove the route
Bellingcat claimed was the extraction route by which the single TELAR, on its flatbed, was returned to Russia. He verified that there
is a highway overpass on the route which is too low for a load that tall to pass underneath. When he pointed this out to Higgins,
he was told there is a bypass spur which goes around it, which would allow the flatbed to regain the road beyond without having gone
through the overpass. Max drew his attention to the concrete barriers which blocked that road at the top of the hill, and which locals
claimed had been in place long before the destruction of MH-17. And that was the end of that conversation. I cannot say enough about
the quality of Max's work and his diligent, patient dissection
of the evidence . His diagrams of the entry and egress routes as provided by Bellingcat illustrate how little sense they make.
It was imperative the guilty Russians get the fuck out of Dodge with the greatest possible dispatch so they drove 100 kilometers
out of their way? Don't even terrorist murderers have GPS now?
Similarly, the simpleminded flailing of the Ukrainian investigators suggests they do not even have much of a grasp of how Surface-To-Air
missiles work. In excited posts like this one , the
BBC discloses that an exhaust vent from the tail section of a 'Buk missile' (the missile is actually the SA-11, while Buk is the
entire system) was found in the wreckage of the crashed plane, while
this one
even shows terminally-stunned head prosecutor Fred Westerbeke standing next to what is allegedly part of the rocket body of an
SA-11, including legible inventory markings, also 'found at the crash scene'.
Do tell.
Let me review for you how an SA-11 missile shoots down an aircraft. Does it pierce it like a harpoon, blow up in a thunderous
explosion, and ride the doomed aircraft down to the crash site? It certainly does not. The missile blasts out of the launcher and
flies to the target via semiactive homing, which means it has an onboard seeker that updates the missile trajectory, while the radar
on the launcher also communicates with it and the missile and the target are brought together in intercept. When the proximity fuse
of the missile – this is the important part – senses that the missile's warhead is close to the target, the internal explosive detonates,
and a shower of prefragmented shrapnel pierces the area of the plane near where the missile detonated, usually the front, because
the missile is constantly adjusting to make sure it stays with the target until intercept.
MH-17 traveled on, mostly intact, for miles before it crashed into the ground; the crash site was some 13 miles from where the
plane was hit. The missile self-destructed miles away from the crash site, and the only parts of it which accompanied the plane to
its impact point were the shrapnel bits of the exploded warhead. The body of the missile, together with the exhaust vent, fell back
to the ground somewhere quite close to where the plane was hit, not where it fell. Once the missile's fuel is exhausted, either because
it ran out or because it was consumed in the explosion triggered by the proximity fuse, the missile parts do not fly around in formation,
seeking out the wreckage and coming gently to rest in it where they can later be found by investigators. I don't know how many times
I have to say this, because this is certainly not the first, but there would not be any missile parts in the wreckage of MH-17
because the missile would have blown up in front of the plane without ever touching it. The missile does not hit the plane.
The pieces of the warhead do. But reality has to take a back seat to making out an airtight case.
There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army
continued to shell the site
for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite
a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down.
Several witnesses claimed to have seen an SU-25 near the plane before it exploded. They quite possibly did – the Ukrainian Air
Force was observed to be using civilian airliners as cover to allow them to get close to Eastern-Ukrainian villages which might be
protected by hand-held launchers known as MANPADS (for Man-Portable Air Defense System), reasoning the defenders would not shoot
if they were afraid they might hit a civil aircraft. Once they were close enough to the village or other target to make an attack
run, they would then return to the vicinity of the airliner for protection while withdrawing; the rebel side complained about this
illegal and immoral practice a month before the destruction of MH-17. But there is no evidence I am aware of linking the destruction
of MH-17 to an attack by aircraft.
It may no longer be possible to look at the shooting-down of the Malaysian Boeing objectively; the event has become a partisan
rush to judgment which was rendered immediately, after which an investigation began which plainly had as its goal proving the accusations
already made. Means and motive clearly favour the accusers rather than the accused, and opportunity is mostly irrelevant as a consideration.
Ukraine obviously had to be a suspect – the destruction of the aircraft occurred over Ukraine while Ukraine was in control of it
and the airspace in which it traveled. Yet Ukraine was allowed to lead the investigation, and to gather and safeguard evidence, while
the owner of the aircraft – Malaysia – was excluded until the investigation had been in progress for four months. Russia was not
allowed any part in it save to yield whatever evidence the investigators demanded, while all its theories were widely mocked. Demonstrations
set up by Almaz-Antey, the designers and builders of the SA-11, were unattended by any investigating nation – small wonder they do
not have Clue One how the missile works, and believe they are going to find big chunks of it in the wreckage, perhaps with Putin's
passport stuck to one of them. If any of these conditions prevailed in an investigation which favoured Russia, NATO would scream
as if it were being run over with spiked wheels – if the Boeing had been shot down over Russia, who thinks Russia would have been
heading the investigation, and custodian of the evidence?
Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report
implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).
Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely
is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that
happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing
does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because
both the CVR and the FDR are in the
tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone
and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded
was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC.
According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to
'secure the crash site', which was
forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given
the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international
investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western
powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating.
The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a
Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which
concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch
and the JIT.
The conduct of the investigation has been all the way across town from transparent, and in fact seems to represent a clique of
cronies getting their heads together to attempt nailing down a consistent narrative, which is in the judgment of forensic professionals
based upon clumsy fabrications. The investigators plainly have no understanding of how the weapons systems involved perform, or they
would not claim confidently to have discovered pieces of the very missile that destroyed the plane in the wreckage of it. But rather
than take an objective look at how this flailing is perceived, they continue to rely on momentum and the appearance of getting things
done while being scrupulously impartial, all the while that more mountains of evidence are collected, which they cannot disclose
to the public, although it is all right to let the prime suspect keep it safe under wraps.
Make of that what you will.
" Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the
production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge
of the facts that are relevant to that topic. "
"... This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery, before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence" for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that narrative. ..."
" The point is that we often tend to believe satellite photography shows what its
presenters say it shows because we do not have the skill to interpret it ourselves "
This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them
say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that
mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery,
before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence"
for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that
narrative.
It's my understanding that there is a company in Colorado, called Digital something or
other, that supplies a huge amount of satellite imagery to the US government and other big
clients.
Incidentally not long after China slapped anti-dumping tariffs on Australian barley (and
switched to buying barley from the US) and suspended beef imports from four Australian
abattoirs, Australia's foreign minister Maryse Payne phoned her Russian counterpart
apparently to request that Russia send more tourists to Australia and buy more Australian
products. Imagine Sergei Lavrov's initial reaction before he went straight into his
diplomatic persona. As John Helmer
bluntly puts it :
" Lavrov replied that Australia should stop fabricating evidence of Russian involvement
in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and withdraw from the Dutch show trial
which is scheduled to resume hearings in Amsterdam next month "
" Russian Foreign Minister [Lavrov] informed [Payne] that Russia will disseminate in the
UN a comprehensive document with the facts revealing the serious problems in the operation
of the Netherlands-established Joint Investigative Team (JIT).
Mr Sergey Lavrov criticised the JIT and said their activities fail to conform to the
high standards set by UN Security Council Resolution 2166.
"Russian experts are ready to hold consultations with their Australian and Netherlands
colleagues to clear up answers to the numerous questions put during their cooperation with
the JIT", he maintained "
Looks like Australia is now between a rock and a hard place. Payne must be really thick to
think that she could play Russia off China.
Nobody seems to catch on that it's always Washington, manipulating and meddling and getting
its poodles to yap for it, and it is the poodles who bear the consequences, while nothing
much accrues to the manipulator. It will be the same with the Huawei affair, mentioned
elsewhere here; it is looking more like Washington will get its way and all its allies will
cave and reject all Huawei gear, whereupon they will all end up with a less-capable and
more-expensive 5G network which meets with American approval, and the allies will pay the
cost in trade reprisals by China.
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
"... Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is. ..."
"... "McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere." ..."
"... The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern. ..."
"... And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country. ..."
"... Note how unprepared the country was to COVID-19 epidemic. Zero strategic thinking as if the next epidemic was not in the cards at least since swine fly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States ). ..."
"... Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425 ..."
"... Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext, conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch. ..."
Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil
Russian lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold
War, she cannot let go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The
Russians Are Coming!" In screeching screed after screeching screech, Applebaum is, like
most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money to counter
the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran,
Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.
Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the
Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently
made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more.
The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she
herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in
defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every
intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is.
"McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said
about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump
administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His
aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China,
but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere."
And as a China scholar McMaster is not the best choice either:
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable
aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk.
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before
he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He
apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple,
deceptive narrative is more seductive.
-- Michael
likbez, May 7, 2020 6:22 pm
The main thrust here is the US abandoning the world to China and a much weaker Russia. I am calling for
the US to play a much broader role in the world as it has economic and strategic value
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is definitely above my pay grade, but the problem that I see here is that it is very unclear where "a
much broader role in the world" ends and where "imperial overstretch" starts.
The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its
foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern.
And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol
Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue
as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country.
Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what
does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international
law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of
Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning.
https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425
Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the
global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. That's how he got anti-war independents to vote for him.
And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext,
conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch.
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
Mmmm .right. His first name is Vladimir, but everyone calls him Andrei on the phone. The
middle name "Ivanovich" is so unusual in Russia as to have led the investigators straight to
him. Like if I was doing an investigation in America, and the people on the phone kept
referring to a 'William Donald", and my team and I decided to accuse Roscoe Donald Peterson
because he also has the middle name "Donald". Brilliant investigative work. Remind me to make
a donation.
Maybe The Atlantic Council's algorithm that runs through the Moscow telephone-book database
needs replacing. I'm sure it would be pretty worn out after identifying Ruslan Boshirov as
Anatoly Chepiga and Alexander Petrov as Alexander Mishkin and is now prone to making mistakes
such as confusing a name like "Vladimir" with "Andrei". Next thing you know, Bellingcrap will
be telling us that Andrei Kozyrev is the current Russian
President because his middle name is Vladimirovich too.
Further details on the case were shared by the Deputy Interior Minister Anton Gerashenko on
his Facebook page. The ring involved the head of the clinic, her son, as well as two other
Ukrainian and three Chinese nationals. They were charged with human trafficking that may
lead to 12 years in prison with property confiscation.
The majority of the clinic's clients were single Chinese males of "certain orientation," as
Gerashenko put it. While the exact number of trafficked babies remains unknown, at least
140 more Chinese nationals are under investigation, the official added.
Anton Gerashenko is the person that put early (in the first few hours) MH17 propaganda on
social media. The so called intercepted radio calls between rebels and also photograph
supposedly of BUK launch.
Looks like Gerashenko is doing his bit for the China decoupling.
MH17 was the tool to separate EU and the US west from Russia. Covid-19 is the tool to
separate the US west from China.
Majority of people in the west will believe the anti China - China dunnit crap that is
being pumped out by the US and all MSN.
Reuters running an article on Iran speed boats harassing US coast guard vessels When they
were innocently conducting helicopter integration exercises. I guess Iran moved its country
to close to the US.
Trump regime says it wants to have discussions with Iraq in June about moving out. I guess
that means Trump will be making his move on Persian gulf oil before June.
Whatever is coming this covid bullshit is just the beginning - a planned move setting the
stage for what is to come.
The judge in the MH17 trial has issued an order for the US satelite data showing images of
the Buk missile being launched to be made available. If the prosecution is unable (or
refuses) to produce these images then this would strongly indicate that:
1. There was no Buk and MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet (which the very first, on
the ground, eyewitnesses indicated).
I tend to think US does have sat recording of the missile. It will show launch flare and
rocket burn. It was quite clear by what Kerry said that this is what their sats pick up.
Launch flare will show launch position to within a few meters.
Robert Parry did a piece on it a few weeks after the shootdown. His contact in the US
intel thought sat pics of the position were showing Ukraine military.
This is what Kerry said within a few days of the MH17 downing:
"We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane
disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and
where these weapons have come from."
But still, nearly 6 years later, no evidence has been provided? Surely you can see how
inauthentic Kerry's statement is? Perhaps, Kerry could clear the matter up by being a witness
at the MH17 trial?
Robert Parry's CIA source feels like an authorised leak and psyop exercise that reinforces
the idea of a Buk and expresses concern about the possibility of Ukrainian military
involvement (the true purpose of which is to create distance and absolve the US) whilst at
the same time being meaningless and of no real value.
You "tend" to believe Kerry and a CIA leak and discount what ordinary Ukrainians witnessed
on the day of the shootdown? Why????
Apparently the Dutch are actually going ahead with a trial over the MH-17 plane shootdown,
seeking to convict in absentia three Russians and a Ukrainian. It is my understanding that a
Dutch military report effectively ruled out exactly the scenario proposed for this trial, and
did so several years ago.
Malaysia has provided the dissent to the MH-17 investigation to date, although a newly
elected government may seek to pull back from overt criticism in the future. A Malaysian
diplomat who has been involved has rather pointed things to say about the politicization of
the investigation and the questionable motivations of the Ukrainians, and claims the court
case is based on hearsay and a voice recording with no provenance. https://asiatimes.com/2020/03/is-malaysias-position-on-mh-17-tragedy-shifting/
"... The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again." ..."
"... Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new article for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this: ..."
"... As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future, and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain. ..."
"... basically, a Biden foreign policy would be "Obama but worse" https://t.co/wIZwch5Bmk ..."
"... Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S. engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization. ..."
"... Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse. ..."
"... Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the world we live in. ..."
"... Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. ..."
"... Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start and legitimize the Iraq war? ..."
"... Bottom line is Biden is fraud and everything he and his handlers say or write must be viewed as such. ..."
oe Biden's candidacy is defined by the idea that he will "restore" things to the way they were four years ago and that he will
preside over a "return to normalcy" after the Trump years. The
phrase "return
to normalcy" has been
linked to the
Biden campaign
for the better part of the last year. TAC 's Curt Mills
commented on this
after Biden's recent primary wins:
Biden then, not Trump, would be the candidate of the centennial. Like Warren Harding, he promises a return to normalcy.
The Harding comparison is quite useful because it shows how Biden's "return to normalcy" will be quite different from the one
Harding proposed a century ago. Harding contrasted
normalcy with "nostrums." This was a shot at the ideological fantasies of the Wilson era and the upheaval that had come with U.S.
entry into WWI. This is the
full quote :
America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation,
but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence
in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.
The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration
would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent
discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again."
Where Harding's "normalcy" represented the repudiation of Wilsonian fantasies, Biden's would be an attempt to revive them at least
in part. Harding contrasted "normalcy" with Wilson's "nostrums," but Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric
about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new
article
for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this:
As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future,
and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that
took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain.
The Cold War ended thirty years ago, and it is telling that Biden does not point to any victories for the U.S. in the decades
that have followed. Proponents of U.S. global "leadership" have to keep reaching farther and farther back in time to recall a time
when U.S. "leadership" was successful, and they have remarkably little to say about the thirty years when they have been running
things. That is what they want to "restore," but it's not clear why Americans should want to go back to a status quo ante that produced
such staggering and costly failures as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Like the early 19th century Bourbon restoration, it would be
a return to power for those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
John Carl Baker comments on an op-ed co-authored last year by Robert Kagan and Anthony Blinken. Blinken is now Biden's main foreign
policy adviser, and that leads Baker to draw this conclusion:
Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but
more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S.
engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization.
Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare
is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails
U.S. foreign policy.
I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the
wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including
unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold
War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse.
I'm one of those poor saps who was taken in by Trump in 2016, and I want a Democrat I can vote for. I can't see voting for
someone with Biden's appalling foreign policy record. If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose
to Trump.
"If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose to Trump."
I don't know about that. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really
outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the
world we live in.
Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to
hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. The only recantation I would find somewhat persuasive (I don't think anything would "convince"
me) is if he were to state that he will appoint somebody like Sanders or Rand Paul as secretary of State and someone like Tulsi
Gabbard as secretary of Defense, and staff his national security council by recruiting from the Quincy Institute. (To actually
capture my vote would require additional personnel commitments, such as Elizabeth Warren for secretary of the Treasury--but that's
off topic for this thread.)
Right now, I would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination and doesn't do something between now and November to alienate
me. If Biden is the nominee, barring something really drastic, I'll do my usual and find a third party candidate to vote for.
Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start
and legitimize the Iraq war? Just accusing Biden of voting for the Iraq war is nothing. About 70 other senators have voted for
it. Biden was the legislative Architect that paved the way for the Iraq War, and in my books (keeping the UN Charter as the legal
standard), he is a War Criminal.
I realize that almost everything Biden has to say about foreign policy is abysmal, and both Sanders and Warren were much better,
but neither were electable (and both were abysmal on domestic policy and trade policy). Biden may be banal, but he is not vicious,
as Trump so clearly is.
Furthermore, I think the otherwise estimable Mr. Larison fails to realize that the general public does
set some vague parameters for what is and what is not acceptable foreign policy, though often without knowing it. I think it quite
likely that Donald Trump will "abandon" Afghanistan, just as Max Boot et al. fear, and no one who can't name the Acela stops between
New York and DC will care. Trump, when he isn't assassinating people, is much less aggressive than the Obama/Clinton administration.
Although he talks about regime change, he doesn't follow through. He can be talked out of withdrawing troops, but so far hasn't
tried sending them in. Early in his administration he was widely praised for firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Why hasn't he
done it again? There is nothing Trump likes so much as praise. Why abandon what seemed like a sure-fire applause line?
The "electability" concept is something mostly constructed by the media. Only a very small percentage of voters come in direct
contact and hear and observe the candidates. The very brief TV debates, much choreographed and controlled are no good. As such,
media starts and keeps repeating this notion of electability.
As a person, presence, message, I think the most charismatic individual to show up for this presidential cycle is Tulsi Gabbard.
Her showing is off the charts compared with everyone else. Beside her anti regime change message (she is not necessarily anti-war),
her charisma is such a threat that she had to be excluded from the consciousness and awareness of people. And what was implanted
in people's mind is that she is an Assad apologist and that she met with the blood thirsty Assad.
How about restoration of the "normalcy" of bipartisan consensus on "comprehensive immigration reform" AKA a general amnesty which
will likely benefit some 25 to 35 million illegal aliens plus their descendants, in practice?
It doesn't seem to make much sense harping about restoring sanity to American foreign policy when America might not even exist
in 20 years.
"These records show that at their meeting on February 12, 2016, the JIT officials agreed
that the "requested information" identified in the December 4, 2015, meeting and including
the US satellite data, was "yet to be completed."
Instead, the only civilian satellite evidence which the JIT later said it has used, comes
from the European Space Agency. In the JIT report of September 28, 2016, the Dutch said "the
European Space Agency (ESA) has aided the investigation team extensively in the search for
relevant images from satellites. This has shown to be of great value: Not only did ESA obtain
images of all relevant civilian satellites, but they also have experts who have assessed
these images. The conclusions drawn by ESA confirm the conclusions of the investigation team
with regard to the launch site."
Note that the JIT refers here to civilian satellites.
The leak last month from the JIT files of two reports from MIVD, the Dutch military
intelligence agency, both dated September 21, 2016, has identified US and NATO military
satellite intelligence ("partner informatie") as the source for MIVD's conclusions that no
Russian BUK missile radar and launch units had crossed the border into Ukraine before or on
July 17, 2014; no BUK missile radar targeting or firing on MH17 had been detected; and no
identified Russian units on the Russian side of the border had launched missiles."
If the US and military satellite images contradict the ESA images, then one set of images
is a fabrication. We
can deduce that the ESA images are almost certainly fabrications because if no Russian buk
crossed the border then
all those photos and videos the jit lynch mob have been trumpeting are fake, essentially
reducing the jit's credibility to zero.
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
Another strong nail in the
coffin cover of the official version of the "investigation" of the MH-17 crash in Ukraine in
2014.
However, liars will bring this six-year farce to the end. Soon the so-called "court" will
take place, and we will see another funny performance of the clowns (aka
"investigators").
"... Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. ..."
"... Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews history
Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our "Greater United States."
This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is fine to just listen to as
you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom. ..."
"... The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood. ..."
"... Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the
earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court,
U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts,
and to sue and be sued just like individuals. ..."
"... But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment ..."
"... The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all over
the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys
and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and the Environmental
Protection Agency, combined. ..."
"... http://news.nidokidos.org/military-spending-20-companies-profiting-the-m... For a list of the 20 companies profiting most off
war... https://themindunleashed.com/2019/03/20-companies-profiting-war.html ..."
"... Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined ..."
"... Corporations are Religions Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The
Invisible Hand". They believe themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's
corporate dress codes, right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and
read. If you say something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas.
OF course they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god. ..."
Chris Hedges often says "The corporate coup is complete". Sadly I think he is correct. So this week I thought it might be interesting
to explore the techniques which are used here at home and abroad. The oligarchs' corporate control is global, but different strategies
are employed in various scenarios. Just thinking about the recent regime changes promoted by the US in this hemisphere...
The current attempts at the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Iranian coups are primarily conducted
using economic sanctions
.
The US doesn't even lie about past coups. They recently
released a report about the 1953
CIA led coup against Iran detailing the strategies. Here at home it is a compliant media and a new array of corporate laws designed
to protect and further enrich that spell the corporate capture of our culture and society. So let's begin by looking at the nature
of corporations...
The following 2.5 hour documentary from 2004 features commentary from Chris, Noam, Naomi, and many others you know. It has some
great old footage. It is best watched on a television so you have a bigger screen. (This clip is on the encore+ youtube channel and
does have commercials which you can skip after 5 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg
Based on Joel Bakan's bestseller The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power , this 26-award-winning
documentary explores a corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.
One hundred
and fifty years ago, a corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic, and pervasive presence
in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, a corporation is today's dominant
institution.
Charting the rise of such an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals, the documentary also recounts
victories against this apparently invincible force.
Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. Some of the CEO's in the film discuss how all the people in the corporations are against
pollution and so on, but by law stockholder profit must be the objective. Now these entities are global operations with no loyalty
to their country of origin.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews
history Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our
"Greater United States." This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is
fine to just listen to as you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom.
So much of this conversation touches on today's topic of our corporate capture. Amy interviewed Ed Snowden this week... (video or text)
This is a system, the first system in history, that bore witness to everything. Every border you crossed, every purchase you
make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friends you keep, article you write, site you visit and subject line
you type was now in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards were not. And I felt, despite what the
law said, that this was something that the public ought to know.
The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood.
Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back
to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme
Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property,
enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.
But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment
More recently in 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the
conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their
funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing
that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy
the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The
Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-co...
Do they really believe this is how we think?
More than just using the courts, corporations are knee deep in creating favorable laws, not just by lobbying, but by actually
writing legislation to feed the politicians that they own and control, especially at the state level.
Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue. Through the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state
laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit
huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.
DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key
issues...
There is very little effort to hide the blatant corruption. People seem to accept this behavior as business as usual, after all
it is.
Part of the current ALEC legislative agenda involves stifling protests.
I think it started in Texas...
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted
murder.
H.B. 3557, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for
interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill on September 5 designed to chill protests around oil and gas pipelines and other energy
infrastructure in the state by imposing harsh criminal penalties for trespassing on or damaging the property of a broad range
of "energy providers."
Senate Bill 386 echoes similar "critical infrastructure protection" model bills pushed out by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments over the last two years to prevent future protests like the one against the
Dakota Access Pipeline.
And Chris was on the evening RT news this week discussing how the US empire is striking back against leaders who help their own
people rather than our global corporations.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense: more than $6 trillion dollars. The cost of these wars is just one element of
the $1.2 trillion the US government spends annually on wars and war making. Half of each dollar paid in federal income tax
goes towards some form or consequence of war . While the results of such spending are not hard to foresee or understand:
a cyclical and dependent relationship between the Pentagon, weapons industry and Congress, the creation of a whole new class of
worker and wealth distribution is not so understood or noticed, but exists and is especially malignant.
This is a ghastly redistribution of wealth, perhaps unlike any known in modern human history, certainly not in American history.
As taxpayers send trillions to Washington. DC, that money flows to the men and women that remotely oversee, manage and staff the
wars that kill and destroy millions of lives overseas and at home. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees and civilian contractors
servicing the wars take home six figure annual salaries allowing them second homes, luxury cars and plastic surgery, while veterans
put guns in their mouths, refugees die in capsized boats and as many as four million nameless souls scream silently in death.
These AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the wars have provided tens of thousands of recruits to international
terror groups; mass profits to the weapons industry and those that service it; promotions to generals and admirals, with
corporate board seats upon retirement ; and a perpetual and endless supply of bloody shirts for politicians to wave via
an unquestioning and obsequious corporate media to stoke compliant anger and malleable fear. What is hard to imagine, impossible
even, is anyone else who has benefited from these wars.
The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all
over the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing
40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and
the Environmental Protection Agency, combined.
The obvious industry which was not included nor considered is the fossil fuel industry. Here's another example of mutual corporate
interests.
"Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy .A globalized economy
predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural
resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis for tackling climate change .Little wonder
then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes."
The US military is one of the largest consumers and emitters of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in history, according to an
independent analysis of global fuel-buying practices of a "virtually unresearched" government agency.
If the US military were its own country, it would rank 47th between Peru and Portugal in terms of annual fuel purchases, totaling
almost 270,000 barrels of oil bought every day in 2017. In particular, the Air Force is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions and bought $4.9 billion of fuel in 2017 – nearly double that of the Navy ($2.8 billion).
The fossil fuel giants even try to control the climate talks...
Oil and gas groups were accused Saturday of seeking to influence climate talks in Madrid by paying millions in sponsorship
and sending dozens of lobbyists to delay what scientists say is a necessary and rapid cut in fossil fuel use.
The corporations are so entwined that it is difficult to tell where they begin and end. There's the unity of private prisons and
the war machine. And it's a global scheme...this example from the UK.
One thing is clear: the prison industrial complex and the global war machine are intimately connected. This summer's prison
strike that began in the United States and spread to other countries was the largest in history. It shows more than ever that
prisoners are resisting this penal regime, often at great risk to themselves. The battle to end prison slavery continues.
The 2017 tax bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations
. It slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and its treatment of "pass-through" entities -- companies organized
as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations -- will translate to an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for
millionaires this year. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks, thanks in part to their tax
savings.
Even Robert Jackson Jr., commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appointed to the SEC in 2017 by President Donald
Trump. Confirmed in January 2018 sees the corporate cuts as absurd.
"We have been to the movie of tax cuts and buybacks before, in the Republican administration during the George W. Bush era.
We enacted a quite substantial tax cut during that period. And studies after that showed very clearly that most corporations use
the funds from that tax cut for buybacks. And here's the kicker. That particular tax cut actually required that companies deploy
the capital for capital expenditures, wage increases and investments in their people. Yet studies showed that, in fact, the companies
use them for buybacks. So we've been to this movie before. And what you're describing to me, that corporations turned around and
took the Trump tax cut and didn't use it in investing in their people or in infrastructure, but instead for other purposes, shouldn't
surprise anybody at all."
So the corporations grow larger, wealthier, more powerful, buying evermore legislative influence along the way. They have crept
into almost every aspect of our lives. Some doctors are beginning to see the influence of big pharma and other corporate interests
are effecting the current practice of medicine.
Gary Fettke is a doctor from Tasmania who has been targeted for promoting a high fat low carb diet...threatened with losing
his medical qualifications. He doesn't pull punches in this presentation discussing the corporate control of big ag/food and big
pharma on medical practice and education. (27 min)
Corporations are Religions
Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The Invisible Hand". They believe
themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's corporate dress codes,
right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and read. If you say
something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas. OF course
they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god.
At least the crazy made up gods that I listen to don't usually
fuck over other human beings for a goddamn percentage. ON the other hand, if a corporation can make a profit, it's REQUIRED to
fuck you over. To do otherwise would be against it's morals. Which it does have, trust us... OH, and corporations get to make
fun of your beliefs, but you CANNOT make fun of theirs. Because that would be heresy against logic and reason.
In a local newspaper showed a couple coming out of a Wal-Mart with their carts piled high with big boxed foreign junk, then
shown cramming their SUV full of said junk. The headline read "Crazy Busy". It pretty much summed up what is wrong with the American
consumer culture. The next day's big headline spotlighted our senator's picture affixed to a LARGE headline boasting "$22 Billion
Submarine Contract Awarded". A good example of of what is wrong with the american war economy.
Thank you for your compilation Lookout! If we can get beyond the headlines, working at grass root and local solutions, maybe
even underground revolution, there may be hope for us. Barter for a better future.
My buddies always say about their mayor..."There's no way we will trade down after this election...but then we do." Perhaps
it is true for more than just their town.
The line running in my head is..."What if they gave a war and nobody came". I want to expand it to..."What if they made cheap
junk no one really wanted and nobody bought it". Or substitute junk food for cheap junk, or...
My point in today's conclusion is much as I try to walk away from corporate culture/control, I really can't totally escape...but
at least I spend most of my time in the open, breathing clean air, surrounded by forest. We do what we can.
Consumerism in our society is a plague, a disease perpetrated upon us by our corporate lords. It has taken over everything
about being an American.
I think the youth are catching on, as they are thrifting more, but they don't understand about food, and that's the rub. Our
youth will be more unhealthy until they understand what corporations are doing to us through food addictions.
We're expecting rain today for most of the day and actually it's just started. The person who will drill our well came by yesterday
and figured out some details. We are behind two other wells, so it will probably be the holiday week when it happens - we'll see.
I can wait til January and hope we do.
Ideas is that new deal of FDR's day had corporate opponents far different than those of today. Sanders does not seem to understand
that the corporations of yesterday, and what worked against them, will not work against the corporations of today. In the early part of the 20th century, corporations were still primarily domestic and local often with charters from the state
where they conducted their primary business, many times all of their business.
Regulation and unions were reasonable anti-dotes to the abuses of these local and domestic corporations. The state still had
some semblance of control over them.
But today corporations are global. They have no allegiance to, or concern for the domestic economy or local people. They do not fear of any anti-dotes that worked for years against domestic or local corporations. Global corporations just leave
and go elsewhere if they don't like the domestic or local situation if they have not managed to completely take over the government.
There is only one reason to incorporate in the first place. That is for the owner(s) of the business to avoid personal liability
or responsibility. The majority of people never understand this idea. Corporate owners are the people who are the genuine personal
responsibility avoiders. Not the poor. The only antidote to corporations these days is the total demise of the corporation and
its similar business entities that dodge personal responsibility. And the state must refuse to allow any such entities to do business.
It is the only way forward. Otherwise nation states will give way to corporate states. Corporate governance is the new feudalism
from which the old feudalism morphed.
Sanders isn't going to advocate doing away with corporate entities or other similar business entities. Nor will any of the
Democratic contenders. They all require corporations to rail against as the basis for their political policy.
...and I've always wondered just how Bernie would dismantle them. However like the impotence of the impeachment, is the impotence
of the primary process.
When the DNC was sued after 2016, they were
exonerated based on the ruling they were a private entity entitled to make rules as the wanted. The primary is so obviously
rigged I can almost guarantee Bernie will not be allowed the nomination, so the question to how he would change corporate control
is really moot.
@Lookout I probably
could get on board with a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as
a Democrat. If he loses the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent
run last time, I and many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College.
I thought last time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that would
be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a big enough
margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President and VP from different
parties.
if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then there
the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes, IMO.
#4.1 I probably could get on board with
a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as a Democrat. If he loses
the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent run last time, I and
many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College. I thought last
time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that
would be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a
big enough margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President
and VP from different parties.
@Lookout The only
way the Democrats might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far
better way to beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on
how Sanders did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
#4.1.1 if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then
there the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes,
IMO.
If it was Hillary "Dewey Cheatem & Howe" Clinton, all bets are off.
#4.1.1.1 The only way the Democrats
might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far better way to
beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on how Sanders
did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
Good lord.that she did that is unbelievable. Great point. Boycott Fox News, but go on Stern's show. It's going to be fun to
watch how much lower she falls.
MSNBC invited on two former Hillary Clinton aides to criticize Bernie Sanders for taking a "long time to get out of the
race" and that he didn't do "enough" campaigning for her in 2016. pic.twitter.com/6Vsqo0DKZI
@TheOtherMaven They
have to choose from actual EC vote getters. So if she is not the candidate she could not win.
Having Sanders run as an Independent and Warren or Biden run as a Democrat would be a much better strategy to ensure a Trump
loss in the House. Of course it might take some coordination as in asking the voters to vote for the candidate who has the best
chance of beating Trump in certain states. But voters could probably figure that out.
Or a candidate could just withdraw from a state in which the other candidate had a better chance of beating Trump.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an article
about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
I like to travel on the old roads
I like the way it makes me feel
No destination just the old roads
Somehow it helps the heart to heal.
I hope your road trip is a good one. The less busy tracks are almost meditative....soaking in scenery as the world passes by.
Have fun and be careful.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an
article about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little
hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
Here are a couple of links to how free markets
help in the corporate takeover. Amazon a corp that has only made a profit by
never paying taxes and accounting fraud. It
became a trillion dollar corp through the use
of monopoly money(stock) it's nothing but the
perfect example of todays "unicorn" corp, i.e.
worth what it is w/out ever making a penny
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice. Unfortunately,
unions are just as likely to be on the corporations side to get jobs and wages, and bust heads if anything interferes with that.
If we protest we've seen the police ready to use deadly force at the drop of a hat, and get away with it. We get to vote on
candidates that some political club chose for us, and have little incentive to work for the 99%. The gov. has amassed so much
information on us we can't even fathom its depth. We have nowhere left, no unexplored lands out of reach of the government. We
think we own things, but if you think you own a home, see how long it is before the gov. confiscates it if you don't pay your
property taxes.
If I were younger, or a young person asked what to do, I would say.... learn some skill that would make you attractive for
emigrating to another country, because the US looks like it's over. It's people are only here to be exploited. And if Bernie were
to become president I hope he gets a food taster.
run to. No where to hide. As in the U.K., corporations are seeking to to dismantle the NHS and turn it into a for-profit system
like ours. Even as the gilllet-jaune protesters risk life and limb, Macron seeks to install true neoliberalism in France. And
the beat goes on.
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice.
Look at what chevron did to people in Borapol. I'm sure I spelled this wrong but hopefully people will know what I'm talking
about. They killed lots of people and poisoned their land for decades and the fight over it is still going on. How many decades
more will chevron get to skirt justice? Banks continue to commit fraud and they only get little fines that don't do jack to keep
them from doing it again. Even cities are screwing people. Owe a few dollars on your property taxes and they will take your home
and sell it for pennies on the dollar. How in hell can it be legal to charge people over 600% interest? What happened to usury
rules if that's the correct term.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled last week that a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined Chevron
$9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld, according to teleSUR, a Latin American news agency. Texaco, which is currently a part of
Chevron, is responsible for what is considered one of the world's largest environmental disasters while it drilled for oil in
the Ecuadorian rainforest from 1964 to 1990.
https://www.ecowatch.com/will-chevron-and-exxon-ever-be-held-responsible...
The legal battle has been tied up in the courts for years. Ecuador's highest court finally upheld the ruling in January
2014, but Chevron refused to pay.
This is another thing that corporations get away with. Contaminating land and then just walking away from it. How many superfund
sites have we had to pay for instead of the ones who created the mess. Just declared bankruptcy and walked away. Corporations
are people? Fine then they should be held as accountable as the people in the lower classes. Fat chance though right?
Weren't people killed by a gas cloud released from the plant? I read something recently that said the case is still going
through the courts. How much money have they spent trying not to spend more?
Byedone just needs to pack it in and drop out already. Today he was defending the republican party after someone said something
about them needing to go away. Joe said that we need another party so one does not get more power than the other. Yeah right,
Joe. It's not like the Pubs are already weilding power they don't have and them dems cowering and supporting them.
Newsweek reporter quit after being censored on the OPCW story.
I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient
to US govt was removed, though it was factually correct.
First frustrate us with gridlock. Then pass bills benefiting the corporate overlords. Then leading up
to elections pass bills like the one against animal cruelty (who doesn't love kitties and puppies?), or propose a bill to consider
regulating cosmetics. This second bipartisan effort is glaringly cynical since no one apparently knows what is in beauty products.
Sanders must have politicians worried for them to attempt something which has managed to go unregulated for so long.
All this bipartisanship is not even up to the level of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like wiping at
them with a dirty rag while the ship of state continues to sink. While animal cruelty and cosmetic safety are important issues,
they pale in comparison to the systemic ills America suffers. Our fearless leaders will continue to scratch the surface while
corruption and business as usual continue to fester. These bipartisan laws may look good on a politician's resume, but they won't
really help the 99%.
@snoopydawg
the propaganda to give NATO a raison d'être for a pivot to China. This will be doomed to complete failure just as the Russian
pivot has.
But Putin and Xi Jinping are both much too skilled and intelligent to defeat. American WWE trash talkers are completely outclassed
by an 8th dan in judo paired with a Sun Tzu scholar.
Tomoe nage - use your opponent's weight and aggression against him.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent
is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he
is unprepared, appear where you are not expected ."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
@Lookout
What they want is
a controlled collapse. If they can get the US to continue to overspend on war mongering rather than programs of social uplift
the country will rot from the inside.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So much more to say really. Had to stop somewhere but as you know the corruption runs deep and is intermixed with the CIA/FBI/MIC
corporate government under which we live.
On we go as best we can!
There is great dignity in the objective truth. Perhaps because it never flows through the contaminated minds of the unworthy.
Corporate charters were initially meant to be for the public good if i'm not mistaken in recall, it was a trade-off for their
privilege to exist. Maybe a movement political leader could highlight this and move the pendulum back to accountability.
Had a conversation with good friend today, a 3M rep, and he was griping about his competitor's shady marketing product practices
apparently lying to manufacturers about the grades and contents of their competing products.
Poroshenko has asked the US for help with criminal cases in the Ukraine, writes
media
05:31
MOSCOW, 1 Jul – RIA Novosti.The former President of the Ukraine Petro
Poroshenko is in Istanbul, where he has turned to American companies to lobby for protection
from criminal cases, reports "
Ukraine News " with reference to sources.
It has been noted that in the Ukraine changes have been made as regards the criminal
cases against Poroshenko. In particular, in May 2019, the former-president's lawyer Igor
Golovan stated that these criminal cases would not entail any legal consequences, but now
Poroshenko's entourage realizes that the criminal prosecution of the former president has
noticeably intensified and may have consequences.
Therefore, according to the newspaper, in Turkey Poroshenko has started to lobbying
U.S. companies, in particular, the BGR group, for assistance in resolving these
cases.
"He is well aware that everything that happens in the RRG (State Bureau of
investigation – trans. ed.) is taken very seriously, and he intends to defend himself
against attacks. He can, for example, be expecting public support in Washington if there is
an attempt made to arrest him", said the source.
In addition, the publication cites the words of Ukrainian political scientist Alexei
Yakubin, who has noted that Poroshenko could repeat the "Saakashvili scenario".
"For example, he'll leave for treatment in London, where part of his entourage has
entrenched itself. But this model complicates the public protection of his business assets
within the country, which assets might be seized", he said.
The case against Poroshenko
Poroshenko has previously been involved in eleven criminal cases, in particular, as regards
his abuse of power and his official position in the distribution of posts in "Tsentrenergo",
his treason in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait, his usurpation of judicial
power and his misappropriation of the TV channel "Direct", his falsification of documents in
the formation of Deputy factions in 2016, and his illegal appointment of a government, and
the seizure of power.
In addition, as a witness, he was questioned about civilian deaths during the
Euromaidan protests in 2014.
Poroshenko himself, speaking at the party congress of "European Business", said that he
is responsible only before the Ukrainian people and is not afraid of persecution.
Quite right, old man; keep your chin up. I daresay they're staying in quite prestigious digs
in Istanbul, as befits visiting royalty. He seems to be labouring under a misapprehension
that he is valuable somehow to Washington, whereas that would only be true if Washington were
unwilling to work with Zelenskiy, and wanted him out of the way. So far as I can see,
Washington is quite satisfied with Zelenskiy so far, while the people would not countenance a
Poroshenko return. So he's not really much use, is he? Especially if the USA wishes to
publicly support Zelenskiy's supposed battle with official corruption.
I could see them having a quiet word with Zelenskiy, maybe leave the old man out of it,
what do you say? But Washington is already accused – with substantial justification, I
would say – of running the show in Ukraine, and there are limits to how much obvious
interfering it can do; especially after Biden's bragging about getting the state prosecutor
fired.
Yes, I was sort of getting at the probability that Clan Poroshenko is just installed in a
very nice hotel. I doubt he will want to be plunking down money for an actual property so
long as the status of his assets still in Ukraine is still up in the air. I should imagine
the Ukrainian government will take steps, if it has not already, to prevent his simply
withdrawing their cash value.
The thing about the pindosi, though, is that they always hedge their bets .
I vangize that they will pressure Zel to pardon Porky. So that they have a spare.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
I doubt it, simply because it would kick the timbers right out from under Zelenskiy's
anti-corruption platform, which is the issue on which he was voted in, and there would be no
way to do it under the radar. The Ukrainian people must be following Porky's flight with
great interest, and inferring that it means he has something to hide. Therefore an abrupt
discontinuing of the pursuit, and a refocusing elsewhere, would tell them accountability is
not attributed to the powerful and wealthy. Which is uhhh exactly the opposite of Zelenskiy's
message.
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
The present Dutch PM Rutte is more of a CIA poodle than Tony Blair was. MH17 a case in point.
The Dutch judicial set up is populated with similar drones: the assassin of prominent Dutch
politician Pim Fortuyn is walking free after less jail time than other criminals. Holland is
gone to the dogs.
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019,
Victoria Nuland is shown greeting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015. © Reuters / Mikhail Palinchak 9 Follow RT on
President-elect Joe Biden is getting the old interventionist-foreign-policy team back together, including Ukraine coup engineer Victoria Nuland, signaling a hardline Russia stance as he fills out top posts in the State Department.
US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence - ex-US agent Scott Rickard
FILE PHOTO. Victoria Nuland during her visit in Kiev, Ukraine. ©Serg Glovny / Global Look Press 81 Follow RT on
Joe Biden has reportedly tapped Victoria Nuland, a devoted Russia hawk with a disdain for EU members and a suspected Russiagate peddler, to take the third-highest job in his State Department.
citizens. We support the ongoing trial in the Netherlands to deliver justice for those who died & for their loved ones, and call on Russia to cooperate fully
Ben Norton
SUPPORT MENU SHARE EVENT Diaspora Communities: Influencing U.S. Foreign Policy
AFRICA PROGRAM
ASIA PROGRAM
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
DIASPORA COMMUNITIES: INFLUENCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICYVIDEO ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Benjamin Gedan Interviews Argentina's Minister of Productive Development Matías Kulfas (Part 1)
BLOG POST CORONAVIRUS Ukraine's Dilemma Amid the Pandemic: Depopulation and its Effects on the Ukrainian Economy By Mark Temnycky on June 23, 2020
ARTICLE ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION The Future of the North American Workforce in a COVID-19 Scenario By Earl Anthony Wayne on June 22, 2020
BLOG POST ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Default, the Day After By Aníbal Nicolás Saldías on June 19, 2020
ARTICLE ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Mexico, North America, and Workforce Development - Remarks by Earl Anthony Wayne to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico By Earl Anthony Wayne on June 18, 2020
PUBLICATION U.S. FOREIGN POLICY Beyond the COVID-19 Horizon
PUBLICATION GLOBAL HEALTH Think 7 USA 2020: Report of the Think 7 Summit
BLOG POST CORONAVIRUS Event Recap: Economic Implications of COVID-19 for South Asia By Lesley Lu on June 10, 2020
AUDIO CORONAVIRUS Pandemic Politics in the Americas
BLOG POST ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Brazil's Post-Pandemic Economy By The Brazilian Report on June 5, 2020
Serbian Patriot @PatriotSerbian · Mar 9 Replying to @BBCSteveR Fundamental flaws remain in the JIT's final verdict. Feel free to debate these critical points Steve: ( https:// 21stcenturywire.com/2019/06/23/des pite-its-official-verdict-fundamental-flaws-remain-in-dutch-jit-mh17-investigation/ )
Despite its 'Official' Verdict, Fundamental Flaws Remain in Dutch JIT MH17 Investigation 21WIRE | After an elaborate five year, NATO member state-led process, not everyone is convinced by the JIT's politicized conclusion. 21stcenturywire.com taseenb @taseenb · 19h Replying to @BBCSteveR She's amazing and she's right. I would have called you a mercenary though, which is more accurate orbi @kwo_vadis · Mar 9 Replying to @BBCSteveR Have you talked to the Skripals? Deborah Wylde @flamingyam · Mar 9 Replying to @BBCSteveR Why did you ignore her questions? Instead, avoiding them by throwing more accusations at her. Mark Curtis @markcurtis30 · Mar 9 I've written a lot on the media over the years but the current state of UK press reporting on UK foreign policy is shocking. There is no news system, the public is being misinformed, the press (from Tory to "liberal") acts largely as an appendage of the state. Please see thread. https:// twitter.com/declassifiedUK Arthur Tewungwa @ATewungwa · Mar 9 Replying to @BBCSteveR Love the way Mahathir Mohammed the PM of the country's whose plane has been shot down is relegated to a spectator. The BBC shamelessly tie his rejection of the allegation thrown at Russia with the sale of Palm oil, further portraying Malaysia as an economic basket case. Really
